This almost caused me to have a brain aneurysm.   The bold statement is highly illogical.  Just because someone may be minority does not excluded them from being racist.  Like wise, just because someone is in the majority does not make them racist. 

The bold part is how a fair amount of minorities think.  An individual who is in the minority can be racist to another minority individual.  While an individual in the majority can say the same thing and it is seen as racist.  This is a double standard and isn't fair nor is it logical.  Its racism no matter how you cut it.

Political Correctness should be called Political Non-sense.  I remember reading the black woman (many people agree that this is where the term started taking the spin that it has now) and it said something like one can't be political correct and a chauvionist.  This is junk.

Most feminist think when men holding the door for a lady or pulling out her chair for her that they are doing this because the woman can't do it.  This isn't true by any means and that's where it has gone though.  Now, there are men who feel that there are certain positions that women can't hold.  This isn't chauvinism this is sexism.  

There are certain positions that will be harder for a women to do than it is for men.  Please note that I am not using an all inclusive statement.  Whether people realize it or not, men and women are different.   While at the same time, we do have many similarities.

What political correctness has done is eroded society into essentially a pool of ninnery of political non-sense.

And, as is often the case, the Professor has a good take.

Asked being the key word.  No one asked in this case, they just accused - "You are not a tea Drinker!  I saw one of your friends drinking Hot Chocolate, so you are a liar!".  That is their logic.

Conservatives?  Or republicans?  There is a big difference.

Thank you for that catch!  You are absolutely correct. ANYONE can be racist and thus the accusation is merely a statement of fact.  I missed that in his comment before.

They can also be racist towards a majority person.  Racism is an irrational prejudice based upon a superficial quality of an individual.

It will never happen.  I saw the John Kjng Interview with Breitbart and he made the excellent point that I did (and the professor touched on).  it was not about Sherrod, it was always about the NAACP.  And Jealous' calisthenics is just the proof of the pudding.

The NAACP is racist.  Unlike Sherrod who was and then realized her error, they were not and then realized there was more profit in being racist.

Political Corectness is also an infringement of the right of free expression and as a libertarian I do not endorse the contrived PC.

That may be true, I'll give her that benefit of a doubt on the intention of her story, however she used poor choices for wording in her address (I have now seen the whole tape). How does the multiple use of their "own kind" convey a sense of racial harmony? Who is their own kind? Other Americans? What reaction would a white person get if he said "Obama received many votes from his own kind" in public. Sounds a lot like the "you people" issue a while back.

Another sticking point was when she railed against Republicans. She state (not verbatim) that republicans are trying to keep blacks looking downward, and not looking into the eyes of whites. Isn't that racism to paint all republicans with that broad brush? Does she have information the rest of us don't have? What about black republicans? Of course she justified it with the "because there is a black president" excuse. Perhaps she hasn't healed her heart as much as she would like us to believe. White democrats seem to be tolerable, I guess that is good. Not sure I like government employees, paid to serve all the people, make such political statements. Not very ethical IMO.

I thought by using those terms she was referring to how people thought back then and how she tried to overcome that kind of thinking.

As for Republicans and blacks, I find it amazing how many people have forgotten (or simply ignore) history.

Actually, her story is very powerful - on itself.  It is a story of a journey from racism to at least a semi enlightenment.  What is very disturbing is that when she is telling her story, the audience, the NAACP, finds her early racism to be amusing, not frightening.

That she did, and she did trot out the tired and stale "8 years of Bush" (without going into any specifics) as well as branding all dissent against Obama as racist.  But that is just the tired party line of the democrats (given she is an official - or was - in a democrat administration, one would assume she is in lock step with the party).  That is why I said while I respect the woman, I will never agree with her politics.

The entire speech is about 45 minutes, and you are correct.  Those terms were used to describe her early racism, not her present day thinking.  Her present day thinking is pure democrat as she hates the Bush administration (but does not know why), thinks dissent against Obama is racist (but cannot explain it), thinks opponents of Obama are spewing more invective than those against Bush did, and of course thinks the solution to all ills is the government.  That is a democrat.  But not a racist.

If the NAACP would consist of only people like her, we wouldn't have this discussion.

I also disagree with her politics. But she did her job and she did it well. She is no racist and, even better, realised that she was a minor part of the problem and not an automatic solution. She didn't attack white racists, she attacked racist thought in white and black.

I can't understand why the administration would fire her immediately. I don't think Breitbart even thought that the racism he accused her of wrongly was ver severe compared to the people he wanted to criticise.

USDA is small potatoes and a way to divert attention from the New Black Panther case.  That was all politics - trying to show people that "see?  We treat whites and blacks the same".

The crime is the NAACP.   After first laughing at her early racism (and hearing the WHOLE story first hand) Jealous then condemns her out of hand!  And he was there!  Jealous and the NAACP are a bunch of racist nimrods.

When she spoke of the land that a black person was going to lose, she took pains to state the family had a "white" person lined up to buy the property. What exactly did that add to her story? In fairness she said the defending (good) lawyers were white. She said her father's killer (sorry for her loss) was white, no other details than that (was it a car accident, a robbery, ???) Throughout her speech she used the term "white" IMO, like it was a bad thing or something to disdain. I've heard both white and black used in this manner plenty of times to know and have even been called a "white boy' myself. It wasn't a term of endearment, and I surely know who I am, so what other reason? Take a white person, have him or her repeat Ms. Sherrods lecture replacing white with black, video tape it and show it to a diverse group and see if anyone is offended. Her story didn't contain the phases " I was sorry" or "I now regret" (it could be possible I missed them)Like I said, I don't know Ms Sherrod's heart, but she has no business doing lectures on this topic if she can't convey her message properly or would just like to stay above the fray.

As for her remarks about republicans, I don't recall her saying "some" republicans. I would never suggest all liberals, democrats, libertarians, etc. are trying to keep any other specific racial group down. Those accusations could easily be disproved, and simply is just not true. It smacks a bit of racism to me. Had she stated republicans are keeping democrats down, that would just be biased. Anyway, this woman can say whatever she wants now without fear of retaliation. I'm sure she is planning her next lawsuit as we speak. 

Yes I understand the original story was the audience reaction to her speech. This didn't appear to distress the now redeemed Ms. Sherrod.

Just as I predicted Barack Obama has acted though one of my fellow bloggers had said that it would be too late.

All your points are well made and accurate.  And I no more condone them than the reaction of the NAACP.  But I would ask how is her wording different from any other democrat speech?  If I were writing a condemnation of the most racist party in America, I would have made those points.  However, this was about an organization that has basically done a 180 on its original mission.

That democrats couch everything in white vs black terms is not news (dog bites man).  In light of the recent condemnation of the Tea Party by the NAACP, the reaction of the members of the NAACP, Ben Jealous especially, is news.

That makes you both correct.

I understand your point completely DG. Ms. Sherrod is small potatoes and not the real story. I'm just surprised at the carte blanche she has been given over the entire scope of her lecture. There are some supporting her to become kind some anti-racism czar (or ferret). That makes about as much sense as putting a grand kleagle in a senate seat, sure it happens but that doesn't make it right. We have not heard the last of Ms. Sherrod.

The imagery of the anti-racism mascot is priceless!

And yes, I would expect the democrats, who only know masters and slaves, to put both a grand kleagle and a racist in charge of anti-racism.  But on that point, I would have to defend them, as it would be hard to find one in a high enough position that did not at least parrot the racism of their bosses.

The most damaging part of this episode is that the credibility of bloggers is called into question. By deliberately editing the speech the right wing blogger tried to embarass the NAACP. Unfortunately the organisation fell for it and now it turns out that the lady wasd quite innocent. It reminds me of the Lois Gates episode.

It's unclear whether Breitbart edited the video or was originally given only the edited version.

There is little question that the video, even the 'full' version, is somewhat embarrassing to the NAACP.

The alleged 'full' version has at least one edit.

Jealous was present for Sherrod's speech, so presumably aware of the 'full' version, making exactly what the NAACP 'fell for' a bit murky.

Sherrod was fired before any broadcast outlet, Fox or otherwise, ran the video.

The fat lady has yet to begin warming up.

You missed that one Bahu.   First, Brietbart is not a "blog" in the conventional sense, but an alternate news source (the alternate media).  Second, he did not edit the video.  No one edited the video.  Someone did do an outtake on part of the video.  So the part that was displayed was accurate, but the context was lost due to the parts that were not shown.  And finally, from the testimony we have to date, it was not breitbart who did it.  Clearly his video was not the one on the NAACP site.  It is grainier and not as crisp and probably taken from a cell phone.  As such the one who took the video is most likely the one that cut it and then gave the cut part to Breitbart.

And there was no "try" to embarrass the NAACP.  As Yoda said, "do or do not, there is no try".  This was a do.  The NAACP was first embarrassed by their reaction which is clear in both videos (did you even watch them?).  They were reveling in the misfortune of the "white farmer" before Shirley Sherrod came back to make her point (the laughter is evident).  Second, Ben Jealous WAS AT THE SPEECH!  Yet even after hearing it first hand (and probably laughing at the (in)appropriate moment), he still condemned her!

Again, this blog was about the NAACP.  I did write condescendingly of Sherrod and have since apologized and retracted that small part of this blog.  This blog was mainly about the Racism of the NAACP - and that is not retracted, redacted or in any way minimized by the subsequent revelations.  I know English is not your first language, but you do very well in it.  I would suggest you go back and reread the original post as your comment is talking about the price of rice in China.

Very good summation of the major points.  And the subject of this blog.