325 years have passed since that horrible event, and time has a way of altering memories. I know that my memory isn't what it used to be, and I don't think I am the only one in my age group with this affliction. How many memories have been forgotten or altered over time?
3With so many accounts of this event being published over the years, how much of the testimony will be of the actual experiences of a particular witness and how much of it will be something that person heard or read and unintentionally incorporated into their own "recollections?"
3CWP members refused to particpate and testify in the criminal trials of the Klan/Nazi members, so there is no official record of their sworn testimony with which to assess the accuracy of their current "memories."
3The testimony of some key participants will not be available, either because of their choice not to testify or because of the deaths of some during the intervening years. Therefore it is likely that testimony will be extremely one-sided. No matter the reason that testimonies are not available, one's "house" (truth) is extremely shaky when essential building blocks are missing from the foundation.
3Statements published by founders of this project over the last year have contained numerous inaccurate and biased inflammatory statements. For example, one recent flyer stated the November 3, 1979 event was a labor meeting and completely omitted the fact that the event was promoted as a "Death to the Klan" rally at the time.
Secondly, I have serious concerns about the obvious bias of some of the project participants. Several of the founders are victims of the shootout who are certainly not impartial. In addition, one of the current project co-chairs has already stated in a National Public Radio interview what the final results of the study are going to be.
Next, I have had no calls for city council action on this issue except for those directly involved in the project. It does not appear that many Greensboro citizens are supporting this effort. Indeed, the WFMY News2 poll indicated 87% of those respondents oppose city council's involvement.
Lastly, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission can move forward with its work, with or without the blessing of the Greensboro City Council. Our action -- or lack thereof -- will neither help nor hinder their efforts.
One additional note: Here is a link to a magazine article sent to me by a constituent that offers a very different interpretation of the "facts" that are being presented about this event. It is a lengthy article, but well worth your time.
16 comments:
The GTRC has already shown its bias as I pointed out here How am I not to believe they'll ever get to the truth?
Without respect to the merits of the TRC's agenda, I have to say that the article linked to is, well, sad garbage. The CWP said bad things about the Klan, so the Klan is justified in killing them? So the CWP "should have known what would happen"? No. This is America. We don't allow people to be killed because of what they *say*. (In contrast, had the Klan shot the CWP members who burst violently into their China Grove gathering, I think it reasonably could have claimed self-defense.) Suggestions that the CWP "should have known" that its rhetoric would prompt a violent attack are akin to those that a rape victim should have known that wearing a short skirt would prompt a sexual assault. No, sorry, grownups are accountable for their actions irrespective of what other people *say*. If you want to kill people because of what they say, I hear the government of Uzbekistan is hiring.
I'll have much more to say on my blog, but for now just wanted to point out that I have trouble taking seriously the arguments of anyone who uses this sentence in a book review:
"He narrowly survived death."
This is a perfect example of why, per the discussion over at Hoggard's Blog, politicians perhaps shouldn't blog. By linking to that article, it is arguable that you support its positions. That is made even more true by you saying it is well worth our time.
This article is pure McCarthyist, red-baiting trash. It admits the Klansmen were rascist, but it declares them patriots, presumably because the extinguished the (harmless) red mennace. The protesters were traitors because they esposed a different economic system (and racial justice). What is wrong with "death to the klan". That is quite different than death to klansmen. All reasonable people espouse the demise of the organization. To suggest that people deserved to be murdered because the held and communicated unpopular (but mostly legal) positions about the economic system is preposterous.
I certainly hope you don't support this article. But by linking to it and telling us it is worth our time, you certainly create that impression. And it is now out there in print forever.
I don't believe that the validity of this commission rests with the bias of the victims, nor their memories. The event was captured on film so the actions of the participants are not really in dispute. Their motivations and cause, however remembered now, are no more relevant than the motivations of the Klan members. The greatest unrevealed truths are those of the city, police, FBI, and prosecutor. There should exist, substantial, contemporaneous records to which former officials can offer clarity and motive. What official actions or neglect led to this confrontation? Was it avoidable? Was official bias part of the problem? And why do city officials still not understand how the appearance of bias and arrogance, then and now, still divides our city? If these issues weren’t settled then due to inflamed passions, and can’t be reviewed now due to diminished memories, what recourse is there for ever publicly healing these conflicts? Should we just allow the legends to grow, along with the contempt? If you and other council members don't choose to openly support this commission, which I can understand, the least thing that should be responsibly done is to not openly condemn it, reserving judgment until the outcome this process is offered.
I'm pleased that this article has prompted this discussion. I'll try to respond to the points raised in your comments.
Regarding the linked magazine article - NO, I absolutely do NOT endorse this article or any of the attempts to justify the violence and killings that are made in it. (C'mon Lex, you know me better than that!) I immediately noticed the distinct "political tilt" to the whole website when I tracked down the link supplied by a constituent. I used it as an excellent example to illustrate how different groups add their own "political spin" when talking about events. This was done in hopes that readers would see my point about the "political spin" in the other direction [the bias I referred to] and the "different interpretation of the 'facts'" as I stated that I believe have accumulated over the years. Instinct tells me that "the truth" is probably somewhere in the middle of these two viewpoints from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Regarding the comment about "substantial, contemporaneous records" - I believe all the official written documents were available for review during all the trials and would assume they still are. My concern rests with the rest of that phrase - "to which former officials can offer clarity and motive." From what I have heard, those former officials do not plan to testify or participate in the TRC process; neither the TRC nor the city council can compel them to do so. Thus my point tht the process will be missing key testimony, undermining the accuracy of any findings.
I guess I need some advice from more experienced bloggers. I began this blog to respond to repeated urging from you to get out there as a public official and explain the reasoning behind my official stances and decisions. My post about the TRC was an attempt to do exactly that -articulate reasons why I have taken the position I have on this issue. How can I fulfill that charge and at the same time "reserv[e] judgment until the outcome this process is offered"? You got me into this, so your advice and suggestions are welcome!
I just noted on Tom Phillips' blog that I appreciate you spelling out your position on the issue. That is what elected officials having a blog is all about. You did exactly the right thing with this blog post, and you're responding to our concerns, which is the right thing times one hundred.
The problem with the Council opposing the Truth & Reconciliation Commission's work (before it has even begun) is that it creates the impression that city officials are afraid of it, and therefore must have something to hide. You and Florence Gatten have both made reference to an NPR interview in which one of the Co-Chairs of the Project predicted the outcome of the Commission's work. You are doing THE SAME THING. It simply makes no sense to say that a process is unfair before that process has unfolded, and when your willing participation in it -- or at least, your willingness to reserve judgment and not publicly condemn it, as the poster said -- will make a huge difference in how successful and fair that process can be. With City Council support, do you not think that some former city officials could be strongly encouraged to give statements? I do. And that's what is meant by reconciliation. No more not talking about it, and no more not talking to each other. A possibility to bring this chapter to a close.
Florence has also stated that 1) a majority of Greensboro citizens don't care about this Commission, and 2) it will polarize the community. Those two things can not be simultaneously true. If no one cares, then no one cares. If the city is divided -- which is obviously is, largely but not wholly along racial lines on this issue -- then SOMETHING must be done. If not this Commission that the Mayor has already participated in by appointing Judge McSwain, then why not propose another solution to the problem?
There IS a problem. It is fundamental. Race relations will remain broken until it is addressed. You are our leaders. We need some creative solutions for tackling these issues. Ask your constituents. Remain open-minded to new information and to the possibility that you have other options besides just being "for" or "agin". There are, truly, thousands of people in this city who count on you to hear them, and believe them, when they say that this issue will not go away until it is faced head-on.
And thanks for blogging your views. It is appreciated.
Chewie,
Thanks for the reassurance that I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing with this blog. I'm still trying to figure all this out.
I'm certainly not afraid of the TRC's efforts and am not trying to hinder them. I was a politically-ignorant, uninvolved citizen during that time period so had absolutely nothing to do with this tragedy (contrary to what some private hateful emails to council members have stated). I merely continue to ask the question "Will the facts, testimony, and evidence be accurate and reliable enough to reach a valid conclusion 25 years after the event?"
Maybe it would help if I admit to being a math geek and chemistry major in college. So I'm a stickler for accuracy and finite answers. Sorry, but that's my nature, and you're going to find me pressing for "the facts" and accuracy, no matter what the issue I'm dealing with.
The Greensboro Truth & Community Reconciliation Project was the group who initiated, along with guidance from the International Center for Transitional Justice, the "fairly open process" that created the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission. That Commission has been chosen by a "fairly diverse" selection process. The good news is that the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission is now in the midst of doing their hard work with a wonderful and highly talented staff. About one year from now they will report their findings to the Greensboro community. It is after their work has been completed and their report presented that we can begin to honestly judge their work. It is at that time the Human Relations Commissions and possibly the City Council may decide to take an official position on the work of the Commission. Any attempt by the City Council to take a firm position on the current work of the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission is very premature. It will be wonderful when the news media , bloggers, city officials, etc. learn that the Greensboro Truth & Community Reconciliation Project does not and should not speak for the Commission. We can all help this important endeavor by getting many diverse and differing voices before the Commission to tell their story. The magazine article, by Barbara Kay, referred to in Sandy Carmany's Blog is part of that diverse story. All the personal stories and articles needs to be heard and honored by the Commission. Council member Sandy Carmany is helping the process by joining the community discussion and making this and other articles available to the Commission. Others can help by speaking to the Commission about their memories, stories and simply their feelings about Nov. 3d. It is only by such a complete process that the Commission's final work will ever be accepted by many in the Greensboro community and provide a possible path for reconciliation and healing. Is the huge potential for our community not worth a little patience? Please go to http://www.greensborotrc.org/bios.html to view the Commission and its staff.
John,
Your statement - "Any attempt by the City Council to take a firm position on the current work of the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission is very premature. - captures the very point that several of us council members have been trying to make. That is - the City Council should not be asked to endorse the project at this time; the appropriate time is once their findings have been completed.
I appreciate the link to the bios of the TRC site. For me, the "project" vs. "commission" relationship is part of the problem for me. The packet of materials given to us by the speakers at last Tuesday's council meeting included a set of printed bios which highlighted, among others, Rev. Nelson Johnson and his wife, Dr. Martha Nathan, and Signe Waller with each of them identified as "survivor, initiator." That intermingled relationship and TRC material are some of the things fueling my concern about potential bias in this project.
Good call on the TRC Sandy, you raised valid points, made intelligent decisions and came to a logical conclusion. You then engaged in further discussion and in-depth explanation to support your reasoning. No wonder you always look so alienated, it's not just that you're sitting over there on the end.
Thank you Sandy for your position in this matter. I think that is sad that after 25 years, still there are some people trying to divide this city even more. Those who want to know more about that day and thereafter, should look into the Court records of that event, the newspaper daily account of everything that took place, as well that everyday discussions in court, that resulted in a Non-Guilty verdict. Even, when another trial took place, they were also found to be not guilty. I wonder why. Not that they were innocent babies, but neither were the Communists that instigated the whole thing.
"neither were the Communists that instigated the whole thing."
It's comments like these that lead people to believe that this issue deserves further examination.
After almost 150 years, some people have not given up on talking about the Civil War...so no, there will not be a time that this very interesting event will be forgotten and swept under the rug.
In that light, Greensboro is giving itself a black eye by not encouraging this event to be well studied in a gesture of transparency. Why not review it again for a new perspective? By not encouraging further discussion, Greensboro officials are giving themselves the perception of trying to silence discussion on the topic.
By not endorsing the TRC, Greensboro is giving itself a black eye that hundreds of millions of dollars of business tax incentives will not overcome.
Endorse the TRC, and give the city a perception of progress.
Are there no new comments since March, 2005? Barbara
Barbara,
No, not a single comment on this subject since then.
Post a Comment