cdtm
Listen to the right, and this is a story of reverse discrimination.
Take it from the left, and this is a natural response to systemic racism, and a villification of blacks.
I see something different .Shirley Sherrod's words make an interesting narrative, that is being glossed over by "both sides".
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find an unedited version of her speech in text form, but there's videos out there for anyone willing to google it. But in summory:
Shirley Sherrod's father was murdered by racists. A poor white farmer came to her, and she was "deciding how much help to give him." So, she took him to "his people", e.g. a white lawyer.
His "own people" couldn't have been much help, because Sherrod claimed it was an eye opener for her. She realized that it's not really about race at all. At least, not like she thought it was. It was more about class.
Now, why did she think any differently? Why was this an eye opening thing for her?
Any white person can tell you, other white people are not their friends. Whites absolutely do NOT have a sense of kinship with other whites. In fact, they're in competition with each other, and actively try to undermine each other.
Ergo, Trump is white. Mccain is white. Look at the kinship there!
But the social justice narrative has been one of race conflict. If you're a minority, all you hear about is the privileges imparted on whiteness, and the discrimination against "the others", e.g. you.
Which will naturally make you angry against any whites. Even poor whites.
Meanwhile, on Fox and such, whites are kept good and angry at the "unfair" finger pointing. You live in a trailor home and can't even provide for your kids, yet you're privileged?
So poor whites are kept angry at poor minorities.
And poor minorities are kept angry at poor whites.
Poor victims are kept in a perpetual state of conflict with each other. By the left, and the right.
A divided people is easily exploited.
So Shirley Sherrod told a story where her eyes were opened, and no one's paying any attention to that part of it. The focus is all on race, and which race is wronging the other.
Take it from the left, and this is a natural response to systemic racism, and a villification of blacks.
I see something different .Shirley Sherrod's words make an interesting narrative, that is being glossed over by "both sides".
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find an unedited version of her speech in text form, but there's videos out there for anyone willing to google it. But in summory:
Shirley Sherrod's father was murdered by racists. A poor white farmer came to her, and she was "deciding how much help to give him." So, she took him to "his people", e.g. a white lawyer.
His "own people" couldn't have been much help, because Sherrod claimed it was an eye opener for her. She realized that it's not really about race at all. At least, not like she thought it was. It was more about class.
Now, why did she think any differently? Why was this an eye opening thing for her?
Any white person can tell you, other white people are not their friends. Whites absolutely do NOT have a sense of kinship with other whites. In fact, they're in competition with each other, and actively try to undermine each other.
Ergo, Trump is white. Mccain is white. Look at the kinship there!
But the social justice narrative has been one of race conflict. If you're a minority, all you hear about is the privileges imparted on whiteness, and the discrimination against "the others", e.g. you.
Which will naturally make you angry against any whites. Even poor whites.
Meanwhile, on Fox and such, whites are kept good and angry at the "unfair" finger pointing. You live in a trailor home and can't even provide for your kids, yet you're privileged?
So poor whites are kept angry at poor minorities.
And poor minorities are kept angry at poor whites.
Poor victims are kept in a perpetual state of conflict with each other. By the left, and the right.
A divided people is easily exploited.
So Shirley Sherrod told a story where her eyes were opened, and no one's paying any attention to that part of it. The focus is all on race, and which race is wronging the other.