she ultimately thinks it should not be about black and white, although early on, in her narrow thinking, it was. but it should be about who needs help. in other words, she was moving out of her racism to being more color blind — that’s my interpretation and not her words. so she tells how she grew more tolerant -— but the NAACP members seemed to delight in her earlier incarnation that wanted to resist helping the white farmer. i don’t think she expects us to excuse her earlier thinking - but since she saw the light, it seems unfair to punish her in her reformed state. if this is all there is to the story, sounds like she deserves her job back.
That’s where you and I disagree (as I said unless there is more tape I have not seen that others here have). She says it’s not about black and white, but then in the next breath she says, well yes it IS about black and white. I simply don’t see that as a statement of redemption. Perhaps she’s conflicted, I don’t know, but I do not see, from what I have seen of her speech, that she is someone to model our racial sensitivites on.
And frankly all of this really ticks me off. I had hoped we would be past this by now. I had so much hope in the past, as more and more I saw African Americans move into good jobs and moving into the middle class. I’ve been alive long enough to recall a time that was not the case. I really thought my kid’s generation would see a whole different country when it came to race relations. And yet, things now seem worse than ever.
And I’m not going to bend over backwards to assume what she meant instead of what she said. I wouldn’t do it if the roles were reversed, and I’m not going to discriminate against her and not hold her to the same standard I would a white person.