On July 19, 2010 conservative blogger Andrew Brietbart posted an excerpt of a speech in which then US Dept of Agriculture Director of Rural Development for the State of Georgia, Shirley Sherrod detailed an incident where she admits that she used poor judgment in relation to providing Government services to a struggling white farmer in rural Georgia. The feud that followed has steadily grown into a nationwide debate concerning the social interests of organizations like the NAACP and the national Tea Party movement.
In an effort to minimize criticism regarding the events featured in the video excerpt, the NAACP has categorized the video release as "edited" when in fact the portion of the video Brietbart posted was not edited in any way, rather it was just a segment of a speech that was some 43 minutes in duration.
In the segmented video, viewers will see and hear a Government employee depict an incident where a struggling farmer had requested assistance from his Gov't in order to help his family and farm survive in an increasingly dismal agricultural market. The speech was given to an audience of NAACP members on March 27, 2010. Within this speech, Sherrod did not only describe how she discriminated the man based on the color of his skin, but as well, she accused the man of being racist towards her. These descriptions were met with snickers and laughter from the audience on several occasions. She admits that rather than refer this man to the best possible person to help him, she referred him to someone "of his own kind." She states that at the time, she figured that "one of them" would be the most appropriate to handle his case.
The rudimentary defense to Sherrod's statement was that her entire speech was highlighting her growth as a civil servant and person, that her perception at the time was an error and that the parameters of her job was not to assist people based on race but based on need. "Its not about black or white.." she says, but then she also says "it is about black and white." A very confusing statement from the point-of-view of someone hearing the statement. A statement that members of the audience showed favor to through laughter and praise.
It is true that, the excerpt cast the NAACP in a poor light. Many people who have reviewed the excerpt in conjunction with the entire speech have stated that the video clip was not entirely accurate in regard to the intention of her words. Sherrod was subsequently forced to resign her position with the USDA and also roundly criticized throughout the media and social circles.
Her response to the release of this video was not to apologize, she did not repudiate those in the audience for seemingly validating her previous behavior. She did not take much personal responsibility for her statements or how they were delivered, rather, she has resolved to shift the blame from herself and the NAACP to the man who brought this incident to light, Mr. Brietbart. Sherrod has taken significant effort to deny that what she said was wrong, or at least in poor judgment. She has painstakingly manipulated the entire incident into a civil litigation suit again the blogger, rather than just apologize or convey to those in attendance that her words and their response was wrong.
Brietbart claims that the intention of his post was not to demonize Sherrod or to provoke her superiors to dismiss her from her position. He asserts that he posted this excerpt in response to recent NAACP accusations toward the Tea Party movement, that the Tea Party is an organization that harbors racists and promotes a racist agenda. His goal was to level the field by pointing out the NAACP is just as culpable, if not more, than the Tea Party when it comes to endorsing racism. The video excerpt he posted appears to make that point very clear for everyone. To deny that those in attendance for Sherrod's presentation did not react to her stories in a manner that endorses racism is just foolhardy. To deny that her words were at the very least confusing is also an act of willful ignorance.
Sherrod's commitment to a lawsuit in response to this matter could stand to unravel the fabric of free-speech in this country. Her entire case relies on an opinion of personal injury arising from factual documentation of her statements. If she were to prevail in this case, what could that mean for the rest of us?
Here is a comparison, say you are out walking with a video camera in your hand, recording whatever you see. After a while you see a man approaching a dog in the middle of the street. You focus your lens upon the man in time to capture the man kicking the dog very hard. So hard that the dog is lifted into the air and hurled to the side of the street. You continue to record the incident as you also see a vehicle that had been speeding in the direction of the dog and that it was imminent that vehicle would collide with the canine had the man not intervened. Now, you go home and upload that video to your YouTube account or blog but you only post the portion of the video that shows the man kicking the dog and not that the man only did so to prevent the dog from being run over. Would it be okay for that man to sue you because you did not include the entire video? Is it just, that because your video cast that man in a negative light that he is now able to request judgment against you for not making him look good in your video?
This entire debacle really has spun out of control. Shirley Sherrod has been very stubborn about the incident, she refuses to take responsibility for her words but rather, she expects an observer to take the responsibility for her.
Here is one last question about this situation. Given the fact that Sherrod has admitted to behaving in a racist manner in the past, could it stand to reason that she would not have maintained her current stance had the man who posted the video been an African-American? Discuss.
-Mr. Polsysllabic
No comments:
Post a Comment