Sunday, July 25, 2010
News about a mosque
Apparently, some Muslims want to build a mosque in New York, kinda-sorta-not-too-far from where the World Trade Center stood. And there are some people upset with it.
Because they think a mosque that close to "ground zero" will be painful to New York, a city with a lot more maturity than many members of the GOP?
Of course not.
No, the reason they're kicking up a fuss is simple.
The kinds of people who will be angry about them trying to attack the construction of a mosque are not the kinds of people who are likely to vote Republican. And they get to invoke xenophobia, and point to how "the left has forgotten the lessons of 9/11!"
Which tells you a lot about the mindset of the people who do this kind of thing.
ETA: Sorry, it's *not* a mosque, it's a community center. Making it even more ridiculous to be upset about it.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
This is really screwed up.
Shirley Sherrod helped Mr. Spooner (the farmer she referenced in her talk). She got him to a lawyer who should have been fully qualified to help him keep his farm. She did good, right from the beginning.
What she didn't do, right from the beginning, was love Mr. Spooner. What she didn't do, right from the beginning, was take his plight personally, and do everything she could to make things easy for him. But, she got him help. She got him all the help that should have been necessary to save his farm. That was her job, and it was a good thing to do.
But she learned - she learned that it's not enough to just do what should be necessary. You should love people, and you should take their problems personally. And she did - let's keep that in mind. This is not a tale of redemption, where an irresponsible, or unpleasant Shirley Sherrod learned to be helpful - it's where she learned to be more than just helpful, to do more than just "her job".
It's where she learned to love.
That word, love, I guess it's confusing to some. When I use it in this context, I mean to be willing to take on hardship for another. If you're willing to help when it's no skin off your nose, that's not love - it's just basic human decency. But when you're willing to help, even when it's painful or awkward or just plain hard work, that's love.
That's what she learned.
Let's not forget this. This is a woman whose father was murdered, and to whom the white community said "we don't care about that murder; we're not even going to make the murderer go to court over it." And she still chose to help Mr. Spooner, to find him a lawyer who could have filed the right papers to save the farm. She was still doing the right thing; she was still doing her job. But she also followed up - and learned that she would have been better off to do more than her job, to love Mr. Spooner enough to go to the wall for him.
I can't believe how few people seem to understand this narrative, and keep trying to turn Ms. Sherrod's tale of learning greater love for her fellow human beings into some tale of redemption, as if her crime - "only" getting the correct legal help to prevent foreclosure! - was anywhere near the equivalent of the crimes against her.
Friday, July 23, 2010
You know what's really frustrating?
Andrew Breitbart was furious that the NAACP said that the Tea Party movement should repudiate racism in their ranks (please note the spelling, Ms. Palin; poor spelling is not Shakespearean, it's just sloppy).
Well, when a group representing black people engages in dialogue, you can't just let that pass. No, you have to go on the attack. I mean, "please, we've all seen some ugly crap at the tea parties; please stand up and say that's not what you stand for"? That's practically *uppity*. Gotta go on the attack.
So he posted a video trying to smear Shirley Sherrod. Now, of course, he claims that he was actually attacking the NAACP. But face it; anyone who posts dishonestly edited videos can't be trusted to be speaking the truth in the first place. So, let's skip explaining *why* he posted it - let's just say that he posted it for his own reasons, but he's willing to point to the NAACP asking for a group of people to take a stand against racism as his reason.
And that's frustrating, but that's not what's really frustrating. From Newsweek, this is what's really frustrating:
It turns out the farmer thought Sherrod had been a terrific help, and a full review of Sherrod's speech suggests that, far from being a racist, she had honestly (and successfully) worked through the complex racial preconceptions we all carry around in our heads.
Why is this so frustrating? Didn't Ms. Sherrod work through "the complex racial preconceptions we all carry around in our heads"? No.
See, here's the history - referenced in the video.
One day, her dad was murdered. Why? Well, there was a dispute over some cows. Does it matter? Only insofar as it was a pretty pathetic reason to kill a man.
And what happened? What did she, and every other black person in that area, know was going to happen?
A white grand jury refused to indict. They weren't going to make a white man go to court and maybe to jail for killing a black man.
Now, there's an important part of this, and I'm sure some people have missed it. This isn't something that happened, oh my goodness, what a surprising tragedy. And this wasn't a white *jury* deciding not to convict.
This was the grand jury saying that, in spite of there being two witnesses to the murder, there was not enough evidence to say that the murderer should have to face charges. Just facing charges is pretty awful; that's why we have grand juries. And they decided that facing charges was too much punishment for the murderer.
And young Shirley Sherrod didn't have reason to be surprised. Grief-stricken, yes... but not surprised. That's just how it was. If a white man decided to kill a black person, the law wouldn't care.
Now, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Alter here, but I am suggesting that he didn't quite comprehend what this is like, that he didn't think it though. Maybe he knew the history, but didn't dig deeply into the meaning to get the full comprehension. I don't know if he pondered what it would be like to know his father was gunned down in cold blood for a stupid property dispute, and know that no one was going to care, because, hey, see that skin color? That skin color you've got makes you worthless in the eyes of the law.
This isn't complex. This isn't like me, or Mr. Alter, realizing that we have stupid ideas about race, or unconscious prejudices, in spite of trying to be good people. This isn't anything like that.
This is a black woman who grew up knowing (and having it proven!) that a black person's life wasn't worth anything to the greater society in which she grew up. Not because of a horribly surprising incident, in which a criminal was not prosecuted... as she says in that very talk, no white man was going to be charged for killing any black man. Her father didn't have to be a rabblerouser or especially disliked; he just had to be her father, and his life was forfeit, any time someone decided they'd rather kill him instead of resolving a property dispute.
Ms. Sherrod's story is not a story of someone working through complex racial preconceptions. She didn't have preconceptions; she had actual experience. And there's nothing complex about "your daddy's life wasn't worth putting a white man on trial for, even if there were witnesses to the crime, and even if it was a stupid dispute over a few cows."
And that's what's really frustrating. That it's so easy to forget that so very many people living today have seen, and lived with, this hideous type of injustice.
I'm not singling Mr. Alter out - there's a bunch of people who could, and, clearly, who have, not considered the full situation here. And yet, any time a black person shows any emotional feeling about these injustices, they're going to be called racist.
And that is really frustrating.