Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Context! For We, But Not For Thee

    Context! For We, But Not For Thee

    Such is now demanded by the NAACP in the Shirley Sherrod matter.

    You remember her. She’s the Department of Agriculture person who, at an NAACP meeting in March, told a story about how 20 plus years ago she had discriminated against a white farmer because he was white, but over the years realized she was wrong to discriminate on the basis of race.

    In context, Sherrod at worst was a former racist who had realized the error of her ways.

    But the NAACP did not waste time in demanding that action be taken against Sherrod because the NAACP had not seen the full clip, only the part where Sherrod related her racist past. (It appears that Ben Jealous, the President of the NAACP, was at that meeting, so he really should have known the context.) [added: @0.45 of the video Sherrod states that the President of NAACP was present – h/t J.S.]

    Now the NAACP is backtracking because of context.

    Media Matters and Think Progress, the ultimate out-of-context word and phrase manipulators, are hot on the case because Shirley Sherrod was taken out of context.

    So how about some context for the handful (out of many millions) of people who have attended Tea Party rallies carrying racist signs?

    How about considering that some of the people were not really Tea Party supporters but plants by the opposition designed to create controversy? Or that some of the photos were not even at Tea Party rallies? Or that some of the people were kicked out of the Tea Party movement? Or that some of the accusations of racist words being shouted are denied and the videos show otherwise? Or that numerous blacks who are active in the Tea Party movement deny that there is widespread racism? Or that the Tea Party philosophy of limited government and free enterprise is completely race neutral?

    “Context for we, but not for thee,” seems to be the philosophy.

    ————————————————-
    Related Posts:
    Let’s Help Think Progress Make Its Next Video
    Shocked – Think Progress Misleading Anti-Tea Party Video
    Saturday Night Card Game (Is This The Week The Dream Died?)

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    The good news is "conservative" David Frum has weighted in. Not surprisingly, he excoriates the conservative media. As far as I know, he hasn't weighed in on how Think Progress edited clips out of context to falsely depict Tea Partiers as racists. I'm sure it's just an honest oversight on his part.

    But the even better news it is only Wednesday. That means fellow "conservatives" David Brooks and Kathleen Parker still have time to write columns for the Sunday paper condemning Breitbart/Tea Partiers/conservative blogs that will at least rival whatever Count Frankula has in mind.

    Seriously, one more time. The right should stop playing the left's game. Ms. Sherrod may have been taken out of context, but the audience was not. This tape was about the audience.

    The liberal talking point is to make it about Sherrod. And it is nauseating to see how many conservatives are falling in line for the liberal spin.

    Is an apology owed to Ms. Sherrod? Arguably (though not definitively). But Breitbart's point is that the audience was fine with her story of racism and discrimination. And Breitbart is right. The rest is misdirection.

    Have he complete tapes of the Couric-Palin interview ever been released? Would the context of the complete interview change the perceptions that CBS conveyed in their editing? Or does context an issue on the Left only when they are on the receiving end?

    If you go back and read what Breitbart WROTE, he said that he didn't have the complete tape. He also said that it sounded like the woman had perhaps come to an epiphany after that incident. He said that the takeaway should not be about what she was saying specifically – although he wasn't happy with it – but rather with the audience's reaction to it; their seemingly tacit agreement with her decision to stick it to a white farmer because he wasn't "her kind".

    Remember, this was released because the NAACP was accusing conservatives of being racist. Breitbart was showing people that liberals are racist, too – in most cases, more so than most conservatives. We need to remember that – AB's intent was NEVER to cause personal problems for Ms. Sherrod. It is the White House and the NAACP who pressured Ms. Sherrod to resign.

    THAT is the most interesting part of all of this – the speed with which Obama moved to cover his rear end. So we know that he can make decisions quickly WHEN HE WANTS TO. If it personally affects him or his cronies or his narrative, he is Johnny-on-the-spot. When it's our soldiers needing reinforcements half a world away, an oil spill that needs to be taken care of, an economy that needs tending too, or something minor like that, he can't be bothered.

    It's also interesting that the White House and the NAACP are so scared of FOX News and the Tea Party. That needs to be our focus from now on – applying pressure whenever possible to keep them constantly looking over their shoulder.

    In "context" she is someone who is a racist and who is perfectly willing to play the race card with no justification whatsoever–who claims to be slightly less racist than she used to be.

    Not really much of an improvement, if you ask me . . .


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend