Shirley Sherrod Falsely Sainted by Propagandist Media
As anybody who has watched the firestorm of news surrounding Shirley Sherrod knows, the media have found a new post-racial saint. With each reporter as eager as the last to fawn all over Sherrod, it’s become a circus.
The concocted narrative is as follows: Sherrod was unfairly taken out of context while trying to spread an inspiring story of getting past her own racial bias in order to help a white man keep his farm. According to the propagandists (aka, “reporters”), Sherrod is an over-comer and has been redeemed. According to those same propagandists, Sherrod is the kind of person who should be guiding our national conversation on race.
While Sherrod is the new kid on the block, she isn’t the media’s first post-racial saint. That title was first bestowed upon Barack Obama.
Remember back to 2004? The media was quick to fawn over Obama’s assertion that he believed there was not a “white America” nor a “black America” but only the “United States of America.” They hailed his rise to power as the beginning of a new post-racial age. They told us the racial politics of the past were dead.
They were wrong. Not only has Obama’s regime not heralded a post-racial political environment, but Obama, either personally or through administration officials, has repeatedly and, er, “stupidly” used the race card as a cudgel to divide us. He and his allies, most recently the NAACP, have created one of the most racially divisive atmospheres in decades.
With Sherrod, just as with Barack Obama, the propagandists are wrong. The only way you can argue that Sherrod’s speech to the NAACP was about racial unity and redemption is by picking and choosing the good parts while ignoring the bad—an exercise that is quite ironic given the media’s claim that it is the context that exonerates Sherrod.
Let’s go through the speech, something the left’s allies in the media clearly did not do.
How is Sherrod exonerated as a racial harmonizer after arguing that opposition to ObamaCare was driven by racism, not by small government principles?
Neither is there exculpatory context when Sherrod laments how black people were selling land to white buyers.
Nor was her inference that black lawyers ought to be more ethical than white lawyers anything but racial.
And that’s just from the speech. She’s only gotten worse since then. Sherrod started her media blitz by telling Media Matters that Fox News doesn’t want black people to be able to compete for jobs or be “whole”. She then went on to tell CNN that Andrew Breitbart wants to bring back slavery.
Given the clear and undeniable facts about what Sherrod believes when it comes to race relations, it’s impossible to take her seriously as a uniting force. Given the ease at which she dispenses racially divisive comments, it’s impossible to take her seriously as an arbiter of race in America. And given her blanket accusations of racism against anybody she disagrees with, it’s impossible to take her seriously at all.
The propagandists’ continued canonizing of some of the most racially divisive people in this country as post-racial saints tells us that the media, like liberals generally, don’t care so much about achieving a post-racial society but rather a post-conservative society.