Why was he rejected membership if he was merely trying to serve his constituents by becoming attuned to their needs through this caucus? Besides mere allegations, is there irrefutable evidence that his motivations can be construed as impure? The only answer this story seems to provide is an all too familiar response,
"Only blacks can become full members - full and equal members," Campfield said. "I think that's the definition of racism." The chairman of the caucus, Johnny Shaw, says at first he dismissed Campfield's request as a joke. Now, however, he thinks Campfield has other motives. "I think the issue is money. He probably wants to know how we spend our money," Shaw said. [emphasis added]
So, it is all about the money according to Mr. Shaw. Given, there is a strong possibility that this scenario is nothing more than a political ploy concocted by Mr. Campfield in order to draw attention to himself for some selfish political advancement. Yet, in this entire charade, I share some of the same sentiments as The Wide Awakes stance taken in 'Only Whites Can Be Racist.' Give America just a little more credit than this, Mr. Shaw, your humble pundit, nor most Americans are not so naive to be spoken to as a child when you stipulate that this was just a joke. There is more to be gleamed from this story, for it represents what racial relations have become in America.
What should be taken away from this episode is that it epitomizes the concerns many Americans share with programs such as 'institutionalized affirmative action' and its progeny. When will these programs see their demise? Most Americans are concerned these programs will continue into perpetuity when black leaders such as Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton continue spreading their seeds of discontent through their race-baiting tactics. All Americans continue to hear is that there are still racial tensions pervasive throughout all fifty states. This rhetoric and thesedisingenuouss ploys grow quite old, it is time for America to begin a new discussion of what tremendous progress has been made in the last half century. Can this be the new topic for discussion? The majority of Americans do not even think of race as they go about their daily lives, yet in the instances such as we have here in Nashville, we are told these are open wounds that are unable to heal. Though, here in Nashville, the proverbial shoe is on someone else's foot entirely. Herein, why is the burden of proof automatically construed against Mr. Campfield? Is it possible for someone besides a black representative to have pure motives in matters pertaining to race relations? It seems as though this heightened awareness on nothing other than the color of one's skin is what America has been trying to eradicate. Why must these shadows of doubt and mistrust be promulgated by the minority now? Was it not the 50s and 60s that saw blacks extending their hands in trust? What has changed since those days? Your humble pundit postulates that the leadership foisted upon blacks is somewhat shallow, for we have entered into an era where America reciprocates a hand of trust, but, seemingly, blacks have followed their leaders in withdrawing any efforts to move forward from the past.
Where will it end? But, more importantly, when will the trust begin to take the place of this shadow of doubt for every action taken? Blacks cannot consistentlychastisee whites in any and all their efforts to ease racial tensions. Mr Shaw has the potential to be a dynamic leader in this situation, if he truly believes that the motives of Mr. Campfield are impure, he should expose him by being a better person. Let his own corrupt actions speak for themselves and expose this person for what he truly is when it becomes apparent. Do not assume that someone is to be mistrusted until they have proven themselves otherwise. Unfortunately, with the likes of Mr. Shaw, the same old mantra is carried further as he does nothing but predictability play the same, familiar most Americans have grown accustomed to.