“That sort of statement is what I expect from a non black.”

Nancy**, black female, on social media thread

I am used to research. I had done my homework. I was not wrong in what I learned about a particular situation, but could not believe it. On my FB page I posted, “Did you know that…,” and waited for someone to tell me they too had heard the same thing.

I’ve lived through much of the American civil rights movement from a front row seat — Atlanta, Georgia. I’ve never chosen friends based on the color of their skin but on the quality of their character — a thing MLK said was the goal.

So, the above was said by a Facebook friend of mine (black; **I shall call her Nancy but that is not her name) as she fired back at a statement made by another Facebook friend (white male). Nancy’s statement invited another comment about how her comment was a blanket statement. Nancy fired back that she had not made a blanket statement because she had used the word “a” in the singular, and had not said “all non blacks.”

I started a reply to Nancy on the FB thread, but decided against it, deciding instead to write something on my blog.

You see, Nancy had accused several people of making blanket statements against all blacks when we were very specifically talking about one white man’s funding of a certain black activist group and, seeing how it is turning out, realized this white man’s agenda was not to help but to harm the black movement.

Not only that, she read my original statement incorrectly, and proceeded to tell me how I was wrong and that I should have done better research instead of spreading a false narrative.

Nancy went on the attack when what she should have been doing was more research herself. She (and a few whites also on the thread) thought my comment was all about being against blacks, and accused me of maliciously sharing social media claptrap, and not caring about the poor black folk while wishing to set up my own plantation staffed with slaves.

When asked for proof I was wrong, they provided articles posted on websites whose clear intent was to bash anyone with any questions against their clearly socialist — and reading between the lines — pro slavery agendas.

But I’m getting off track. Let’s get back to whether or not the original statement above is changed from blanket to non-blanket simply by invoking the title Singular.

No, the intent is not changed. 

If Nancy had said, “That sort of statement is what I would expect from you, a non black,” then the statement’s singularity would have worked as Nancy would have been attributing his statement’s intent to that one person only. But Nancy didn’t do that.

In fact, Nancy had been saying all sorts of things that showed her limited scope of thought process. Nancy, in her haste to write about how much she cares so very deeply about social injustice, showed that the only social injustice she thinks exists is against blacks.

Oh, if only it was that simple. Thinking people, people who know history, and anyone who watches what goes on around the world, knows it isn’t that simple. 

I have to give Nancy credit and tell you she apologized for reading my original statement incorrectly. The rest of her comments to me and others, though, showed how very narrowly focused she is on her own people’s plight.

Nancy even said that all my white friends were piling up on her — see how mean we all are, when the truth was Nancy ignored that another black woman came to my defense and said my post was factually correct and that several white friends came to her defense.

When asked if she knew about all the many whites who actively marched and worked alongside the blacks in the early days, she did not comment. Maybe she doesn’t know. But that is no excuse, especially for someone like Nancy who says she is a journalist and who cares about the truth.

What is clear is that Nancy — like millions of others — has shown herself willing to invoke the very social media claptrap and exclusive agenda to support her cause while condemning others for doing the same.

Too many people too quick on the draw without knowing the history of a cause. And thus that is how singular is used as a defense when accused of making a blanket statement.