
Heather Murphy-Raines/Scout's HonorShe was told the White House pressured the USDA to ask for her resignation from the Obama administration. The Obama administration now denies it, but what's done is done.
African American USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod admitted on video in a speech given to a NAACP chapter that she did not do as much as she could twenty-four years ago to help a white farmer save his farm from foreclosure at first because of the color of his skin.
In her words, she figured his own people could help him.
Yet it seems that was not the whole story.
There was more to it than the manipulated and out of context bits reported in the media. More to it than the NAACP's snap judgment of her as racist.
Her full speech was one of self-discovery.
One of learning, it was less about race and more about giving help to all those less fortunate. The have-nots.
Quite the opposite of racism.
A woman whose own father was lynched by white men when she was 17 years old eventually took it upon herself to help the white farmer. The white farmer? He fully backs up her story.
Still that leaves her? Judged. Labeled racist. End of Story.
It seems though in this world of political correctness, we are quick to take words out of context rather than listen to the message. Her message was one of giving a hand up to all the poor, white or black.
This comes out at the same time as a study finds discrimination against white students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged at universities, which is just the opposite of Shirley's message.
Seattle Times reports:
"Last year, two Princeton sociologists, Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, published a book-length study of admissions and affirmative action at eight highly selective colleges and universities. Unsurprisingly, they found that the admissions process seemed to favor black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in. But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out on the conservative website Minding the Campus, was which whites were most disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.
This was particularly pronounced among the private colleges in the study. For minority applicants, the lower a family's socioeconomic position, the more likely the student was to be admitted. For whites, though, it was the reverse. An upper-middle-class white applicant was three times more likely to be admitted than a lower-class white with similar qualifications.
This provides statistical confirmation for what alumni of highly selective universities already know. The most underrepresented groups on elite campuses often aren't racial minorities; they're working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions. Inevitably, the same underrepresentation persists in the elite professional ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts."
And we wonder why those Tea-partiers, so many poor and white, are so damn angry? Why they grasp at stories like these of supposed reverse discrimination? Why they are angry to be labeled racist by the media and liberals using small parts of their organization edited and taken out of context?
I am not one, so I don't feel right speaking for them. However, little bits of information like this make me sympathize.
Could it be they feel minimized? They feel forgotten? They feel pushed to the side? They feel disenfranchised? Judged racist?
I am sure Shirley Sherrod can share their sentiments. Angry. Disenfranchised. Labeled racist.
In the end, I wonder if we concentrated a little less on the politically correct, the surface words, and judging, and a little more on the message, we could find some common ground.
Shirley Sherrod and that white farmer seemed able to do so over twenty years ago. It seems to me some angry Tea-partiers, the NAACP, and the White House could do the same.
Judge less. Label less. Listen more.

Can We Come Together?
Image via by a.prakharevich /Flickr
Do People Who Have Kids Deserve Special Treatment?
Controversy: Gwen Stefani Bleaches Her Son's Hair
A '50 Shades of Grey' Shortcut for Busy Moms
Latest on Baby in Washing Machine Case (VIDEO)
Are People Who Eat Organic Judgy & Mean?
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
Emma Lives with Severe Food Allergies
How to Pack a No-Waste Lunch
Memorial Day Survival Guide
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis

Comments (17)
I'm kinda glad this happened - though I feel sorry for the woman to whom this was done. So much can be learned from this, if people are willing to learn at all.
1) Yes, there is bias, prejudice and racism on all sides. Nobody's group is immune. Nobody can claim "holier than thou" just by virtue of the organization they attach themselves to. And just because your organization claims to be against racism, that doesn't mean you don't need to examine it to make sure it really upholds those values.
2) By the same token, too many people are accused of being racist without any real basis. You have a light skin tone? You're racist. You're in a mostly-white school, church, or industry? You're racist. You have money? You're racist. You disagree with a person who happens to be black/Hispanic? You're racist.
3) Powerful organizations make decisions based first and foremost on how they can maintain their power. Nobody cared what the real story was. Even while this woman was telling everyone it was "taken out of context," nobody cared enough to sit and listen to the whole speech. They just did what they thought would appease the most people - their donors, their voters, etc.
4) The woman's own story is a great one. I hope many school kids (of all skin tones) are taught about this.
"...those teabaggers..." ?
"It seems to me....those angry teabaggers...." ?
Yes, well, thank you very much for your non-discriminatory views on this issue.
"Judge less. Label less. Listen more."
Yeah, right. Teabaggers. Just STFU and listen more. Just don't label anyone. Don't be calling anyone names and such. Go along to get along. Yah hear that TEABAGGERS???
First, I'm following this story closely and today am reading about the White House profusely apologizing to Sherrod. Second, I actually had this on my computer to read last night before there were comments and now that I see them I'm sorry there aren't more. I'm also sorry that "jw" seemed to miss some of the other qualities that you wrote about. Ok, so you don't want to be called a "teabagger". I get that. It's an ugly term. And while I hate to try to use words against people, I will make an exception in this case.
"those tea party-goers" and "those angry tea party-goers" - Ok, now, jw. Read it again and see if you have a more thoughtful comment than STFU and "go along and get going" because your point was thoroughly missed.
Heather? I read the rest of this story and I hear you on the part about reconciliation and mistakes that were made. I heard what you said about disenfranchisement and you said it well. Thank you for this piece.
Mocha,
No, YOU entirely missed the point of my comment, and I further elaborated at Heather's place.
What was done to Ms. Sherrod was absolutely uncalled for. ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED FOR! SHE SHOULD BE REINSTATED, imo.
What I was pointing out , in the above comment, was the hypocricy of calling Tea Party Patriots "teabaggers" and then saying, " Judge less, LABLEL LESS, Listen more."
Too bad that you missed my point.
Do ppl honestly act like racisim is gone? Some. How do you make it go away? Start teaching your CHILDREN to treat ppl like they want to be treated!!! Stop the sterotyping. Stop judging based on the color of someone's skin!!
Did some more research and found this at The National Review:
"Some on the right are using “teabagger,” but mainly the word is a putdown from the left. Conservatives realize that nothing friendly is meant by it. You can tell by tone and context, for one thing. (Or is that two things?) Of course, some people use “teabagger” in innocence — unaware of any vulgar connotation. One such person is, or was, Gwen Ifill. Some of her NewsHour viewers wrote to complain. And Ifill later said, “Turns out I am the only person with access to email who never knew this was a term with a sexual meaning. I used it in an offhand manner as a shorthand referring to the ‘tea party’ movement. It was a slip I was unaware of, and I regret it."...It could well be that liberals at large are recognizing this too. In a discussion at Slate, the online magazine, Sam Tanenhaus wrote, “Even today the right insists it is driven by ideas, even if the leading thinkers are now Limbaugh and Beck, and the shock troops are tea-baggers and anti-tax demonstrators.” As he told me, he subsequently learned that “teabagger” had this vulgar meaning, and was used as a pejorative. So he changed his text to “tea-partiers”: “tea-partiers and anti-tax demonstrators.”
JW: Maybe a quick pointing out that some people find the word inapproriate would have been better than accusations, eh?
As for me, going to change the post to Tea-partiers. Sound good?
~Scout
For some reason, my original comment disappeared on this post. Weird. Flagged? Anyway, I wrote:
SKL: Absolutely 100%agree with all your points. Thanks for such in-depth commenting.I love when people take the time to respond like you do. Keeps me thinking.
JW: Okay, so having friends active in the Tea Party movement, I've heard themselves use the word teabagger to refer to the movement and themselves. I honestly had absolutely no idea it was considered an insult and just recently learned the more crude interpretation from my 13 year old. Call me naive! Furthermore, I was by no means trying to label, but rather commiserate with their conservative movement. As a moderately conservative woman, I agree with alot of what they say. I think again if you read the meaning behind my words, JW, rather than screaming STFU & hypocrisy you would realize that. Too bad you missed my point. Perhaps this might be why tea party patriots (or however you want to be labeled) are portrayed as so angry and aggressive in the media? As for your comment on my personal blog, I repeat I did watch all 42 odd minutes of the speech. Not sure what you are talking about. Your interpretation of what went on in that speech and mine are very, very different. I did not and do not see at all what you are saying. Are you sure you watched it?
~Scout
And this was in the original comment also:
Mocha: No, thank you. You rock! :) I love to see a voice of reason here.
Momavanessa: No, sadly racism is not gone, but I am ever hopeful. I agree it starts with the children.
Thank for participating in the discussion.
~Heather A.K.A. Scout
okay, okay, enough with the claiming that everyone is NAIVE. Would any of the "popular" minorities show mercy to one that claimed "naivete" after making a disparaging comment against their race, gender, sexual orientation?? NO! Then why do you expect such mercy? You need to fulfill complete research before you make your "personal blog", to be politcally correct, because if you had made any such comment against the socially accepted minorities than your issue would be catastrophic! Talk about flagged!!!!