Shirley Sherrod’s ill-fitting suit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mostly Politics and Business
coyote at the dog show
country store
alphecca
miriam's ideas
patterico
clayton cramer
hell in a handbasket
michelle malkin
photon courier
scott chaffin
milt rosenberg
armavirumque (new criterion)
midwest conservative journal
Durham in Wonderland
view from the core
steve sailer
dispatches from blogblivion
snow flakes in hell
julie neidlinger
Free Agents
GrassrootsPA
ace of spades
Rod Dreher
jerry pournelle
1 comments:
It is a clever title for sure. But I find it hard to make light of a matter like this. I’m not an attorney; I can’t speak of the legal merit of her case. However, if Shirley’s point is that she was deeply wronged by Breitbart, I must fully agree with her. I have watched the video of her speech in its entirety. It seems clear that a major point she is trying make is that her early thinking, black vs. white, is wrong thinking. She first identifies with the audience and yes, many endorse her earlier bad thinking. Then with great emphasis, she underscores that white vs. black is bad thinking, instead she advocates a view that “color exists but color doesn’t matter”. Breitbart is guilty of two crimes. First, he portrayed Shirley in a light that was completely contrary to her central message and in that he did Shirley a great injustice. If he watched her speech, he could have only done this with malice. But his greater crime was to perpetuate the divide between black and white. He fed the hate and mistrust. That is about as ugly as it gets. I have lived in the south many years now. It is very clear to me that bigotry does do discriminate. Color does not affect its ability to pollute a man’s soul.
It is a clever title but we can’t trivialize these event’s and expect anything good to come form it.
Post a Comment