twa Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Didn't Sherrod admit that she treated the white farmer differently based on his race? That was afore she saw the light...can I get a hallelujah brother? Now she just targets the upper class Racism is so 80's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Didn't Sherrod admit that she treated the white farmer differently based on his race? One of the very first people who came to her defense was the white farmer who said that Sherrod saved his farm. He was quite grateful and a fan of hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 One of the very first people who came to her defense was the white farmer who said that Sherrod saved his farm. He was quite grateful and a fan of hers. That is not what I asked. I asked if the video showed Ms. Sherrod admitting treating the white farmer differently based on his race. You already know the answer so just quit dogging the question and say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 One of the very first people who came to her defense was the white farmer who said that Sherrod saved his farm. He was quite grateful and a fan of hers. that would be a neat trick considering he is dead:silly: you mean his wife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 That is not what I asked. I asked if the video showed Ms. Sherrod admitting treating the white farmer differently based on his race. You already know the answer so just quit dogging the question and say it.No, you only think you know the answer.What she said was after her father was killed by a white man and the white authorities did not prosecute she felt little responsibility to help this white farmer, so she directed him to a white attorney for assistance. To her surprise, the attorney couldn't have cared less about the farmer despite the fact they were both white. So she stepped back in and helped save the man's farm. The man and his wife were treated courteously at all times, so much that they never knew Sherrod's first inclination was to let - in her words - "their own kind" take care of them. And when "their own kind" didn't help them, she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 No, you only think you know the answer.What she said was after her father was killed by a white man and the white authorities did not prosecute she felt little responsibility to help this white farmer, so she directed him to a white attorney for assistance. To her surprise, the attorney couldn't have cared less about the farmer despite the fact they were both white. So she stepped back in and helped save the man's farm. The man and his wife were treated courteously at all times, so much that they never knew Sherrod's first inclination was to let - in her words - "their own kind" take care of them. And when "their own kind" didn't help them, she did. Maybe he only watched the edited version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 answered better than I did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 No, you only think you know the answer.What she said was after her father was killed by a white man and the white authorities did not prosecute she felt little responsibility to help this white farmer, so she directed him to a white attorney for assistance. To her surprise, the attorney couldn't have cared less about the farmer despite the fact they were both white. So she stepped back in and helped save the man's farm. The man and his wife were treated courteously at all times, so much that they never knew Sherrod's first inclination was to let - in her words - "their own kind" take care of them. And when "their own kind" didn't help them, she did. No, I've watched the full video on the NAACP website. So, I am well aware of what she said and the context of her statements. First, her saying "their own kind" is based on him being white. Second, she admits she did not help him as much as she could because he was white. Now, I'm pretty sure that discriminating through not giving them as much assistance and/or withholding helpful information because of someone's race is illegal. It's all nice and good that she later helped the guy save his farm and now feels the problems she helps people with are based more on rich vs. poor and she learned something from that experience. But the bottom line is she admitted that she discriminated against someone based on their race. Here ya go... http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 that would be a neat trick considering he is dead:silly:you mean his wife? Actually, he's alive and was interviewed on CNN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Actually, he's alive and was interviewed on CNN. I was pretty sure that I saw and read that. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I was pretty sure that I saw and read that. Thanks. Well damn:silly: Sorry :flowers:...he don't even look sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I remember that logic being used in the 1930's in Germany. Ah, if you ignore them eventually they'll go away. Not saying these folks are Nazis or of the same caliber, but I am saying that silence also encourages bullies. They think they have you scared and intimidated they often get more brazen and more violent. Fine, speak out. But in the end it's not illegal to take somebody's words and air them. Even if they are not in context, even if you take only a small portion. That is exactly what Breitbart, Huffington, the Washington Post, NBC News and every other news organization in the world (including NPR) does every single day. And because you trust some of them, you think that's fine. But in the end, one is no different than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 No, we don't. There is a difference. Perhaps a difference of degrees, but an important difference. He wasn't telling the news, he was illuminating an event, or telling her story. He was creating propaganda to intentionally defame and attack. Big difference. Not a daily, normal strategy. You have an incorrect image of the process or of the standards that are present in almost all newsrooms. You are correct that this can and does happen, but everytime it happens... like when these guys conspired to create a Sarah Palin theme and manipulate the tape to create their storyline it is a wrong being committed. Now, we may squabble whether it's an ethical versus a legal wrong, but these things are taken very seriously in newsrooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Fine, speak out. But in the end it's not illegal to take somebody's words and air them. Even if they are not in context, even if you take only a small portion. That is exactly what Breitbart, Huffington, the Washington Post, NBC News and every other news organization in the world (including NPR) does every single day. And because you trust some of them, you think that's fine. But in the end, one is no different than the other. It's not illegal... yet. Is what happened right? Is what happened something you feel should be allowed to continue with zero checks on it? Should honesty and integrity become a thing of the past entirely when it comes to our "news"? Should we or should we not try to get a handle on this sort of thing? This isn't new as you said, but it IS new in that mass media is in the hands of almost every person on earth. The way the "news" is disseminated and reported and like in this case created is unlike any other period in human history. Since technology has changed so that everyone now has this capability literally in the palm of their hands, should we not do something to at least insure that it doesn't become just a steaming cesspool of lies and innuendo that has no newsworthiness other than to manipulate? Are you willing to knowingly be a pawn? Ignoring problems never ever solves them. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.