News-Record.com

Lex, I am curious- are you a news writer or editorialist? There doesn't seem to be much distinction in your writing. Maybe I should ask John.

On the subject at hand, did you really think that all these people from various other T&R commissions would actually criticize the process? C'mon Lex, what did you think they would say? And do you really think the Klan is made up of those "that have" as opposed to those who "have not"? It would seem to me that they are made up of people with little education, and therefore likely have very little.

I don't think the T&R is necessarily being demonized, there are simply a lot of people who said when this began that the end result would be to blame the city and a demand for more social programs and money. Funny thing, that is pretty much exactly what happened at the end.

The communist instigators have been trying to force their "victim" status on our community for years. A community, I might add, that had little to do with the events of November 1979 except to serve as an unwitting battleground for forces from outside our community.
They began with a conclusion and worked to find evidence to support it. They've claimed for years that a "police conspiracy" existed. The TRC final report concludes that they still believe that, but they could find no evidence to support it because no one confessed to it!
They figured that if a long, involved, community-supported and much-reported "committee" reached the same conclusion they'd claimed for years, then it must be true! Sort of like getting 10 people to tell the same lie over and over and over until everyone thinks it's the truth.
The whole TRC was a sham to try and legitimize their position.

"They began with a conclusion and worked to find evidence to support it. They've claimed for years that a "police conspiracy" existed. The TRC final report concludes that they still believe that, but they could find no evidence to support it because no one confessed to it!"

That's been obvious from the beginning, and is the reason most of our elected officials do not give it credence. Apparently, not too many citizens do disagree.

It seems like communities looking into the possibility of a T&R Commission in their cities would want to try and get a very broad and balanced view of the process in Greensboro, not primarily the views of folks with the International Center for Transitional Justice and the Greensboro Truth & Community Reconciliation Project.

I think we in Greensboro have been experiencing the problems of a process that is not broadly supported by the community. The more people at the table on the front end of these early T&R discussions (long before a declaration, mandate and selection process are finalized) the greater the chance for a more balanced, democratic and supported process. (The Declaration for the Greensboro process actually does clearly state the intention is "to work with all sectors of Greensboro" and not primarily to work with the "grass root" supporters of the Beloved Community Center.)

For example, I wonder if the discussion on Thursday or Friday ever struggled with the obvious tension between the "Truth" part and the "Reconciliation" part. The GTRC said in their Final Report on page 19 of the Introduction: "In general many people in the white community who support this work report that they do so because of a belief in the importance of reconciliation. We have also noticed, in general, that African-American supporters of this process tend to be more passionate about its truth-telling and truth-seeking goals." This opinion by the GTRC seems to have been made based on the very small group of Greensboro folks who actually participated in the process. But if a U.S. Truth & Reconciliation process is actually only a "Truth" Commission with just a pipe dream of community reconciliation on the back end then this needs to be shared honestly with other communities on the very front end of their decision process. Greensboro is an example that shows that if the reconciliation part and the healing part are not sufficiently nurtured at every stage of the process and if the broader community cannot be significantly engaged then what we have is not sufficiently aimed at both Truth and Reconciliation.

If this Greensboro Commission had placed more emphasis on community reconciliation their public hearings and their report would be different. The Final Report has a great deal of valuable information but by ranking a hierarchy of who was most responsible it will likely have the effect of not allowing the WVO/CWP survivors, along with the police and the Klan/Nazis, properly and finally to accept their proper level of responsibility for their violent and militant actions on Nov. 3rd. A hierarchical ranking of responsibility can easily lead to an inaccurate analysis of the report because it sufficiently emphasizes the responsibility of only one of the parties. A good example of this is on the ICTJ web site at http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/947.html which states: "The Commission--a grassroots, democratic initiative and the first of its kind in the United States--found that the Greensboro Police Department had been negligent, had recklessly disregarded public safety, and had contributed to official attempts to deceive the public about the tragic events of November 3, 1979."

Sam: Lex, I am curious- are you a news writer or editorialist? There doesn't seem to be much distinction in your writing. Maybe I should ask John.

What my assignment is depends on when you ask the question, Sam. Officially, I was a news writer from '87 to '98, then an editor thereafter. I'm filling in as a reporter right now while we fill a number of reporting openings we incurred within a short time earlier this spring. Unofficially, I've spent months at a time serving as an editor while nominally a reporter and vice versa, and then I've had some assignments, such as leading our first Web-site team and being citizen-journalism coordinator, that don't obviously fall within either category.

I opine on this blog about a lot of things, as most bloggers do, but I try not to opine directly on what I might be reporting on at any given time.

We see reporters' blogs, also, as places to put stuff that readers might find interesting but that we didn't have room for in the print edition. I may also raise questions about that stuff -- to try to spark online conversation, to seek comments that might suggest new directions for my reporting, whatever. I'm not going to sit here and write, "The Greensboro truth-and-reconciliation process is a good thing," or, " ... is a bad thing," not only because it would be professionally inappropriate but also because, as the TRC report itself noted, so much of people's feelings about this depends on their perspective and background.

Hope that answers your question.

... did you really think that all these people from various other T&R commissions would actually criticize the process? C'mon Lex, what did you think they would say?

I wasn't surprised by anything I heard, but keep in mind that the group included some people who are just starting truth-and-rec processes in their own communities. On a very practical level, they might well have found what Greensboro did inapplicable to their situations. That's not what they said, however.

And do you really think the Klan is made up of those "that have" as opposed to those who "have not"? It would seem to me that they are made up of people with little education, and therefore likely have very little.

As I noted, money isn't the only demarcator. There's also power. For most of the past 150 years, even poor whites have had a lot more control over their own destiny than poor blacks. That said, in many communities, particularly pre-World War II and certainly up until the civil-rights movement, many middle-class and even wealthy whites belonged to the Klan.

I don't think the T&R is necessarily being demonized, there are simply a lot of people who said when this began that the end result would be to blame the city and a demand for more social programs and money. Funny thing, that is pretty much exactly what happened at the end.

Does that make it completely wrong?

Would you not agree, for example, that regardless of your feelings about Klansmen and Communists, the people of Morningside Homes deserved more protection on Nov. 3 than they got?

Would you not agree that the long line of questionable decisions and missed opportunities by Greensboro police in the weeks leading up to Nov. 3 constituted a problem? And that the effort to conceal from the public part of what the department's own investigation found constituted at least circumstantial evidence that the department knew it had a problem?

And although I don't think it's necessarily the case in this instance, couldn't the fact that the report found what people expected it to find simply mean that people know there's a problem but don't want to do anything about it?

At any rate, it would be professionally convenient for me to say that there's no news here and move on. But my assignment is to try to look at this thing from as many different angles as possible. That's gonna take a while.

jaycee: The communist instigators have been trying to force their "victim" status on our community for years.

Whether or not I agree with it, I would observe that the fact that the protesters agreed to a "no firearms" condition on their parade permit because they expected police protection might well constitute a reasonable basis for them to consider themselves victims, their own behavior (harshly criticized by the report, remember) notwithstanding.

A community, I might add, that had little to do with the events of November 1979 except to serve as an unwitting battleground for forces from outside our community.

I've heard that argument, and although it makes sense on the surface, I'm not sure I buy it anymore. As a near-lifelong N.C. resident, I wonder whether this incident, or something like it, couldn't have happened pretty much anywhere in North Carolina. Does that let Greensboro off the hook? I don't know. Might the court outcomes have been different, or the police response, in a different community? Who can say?

The fact is, it did happen here, and like it or not, the truth commission (almost all longtime Greensboro residents) found that the city and its police department are, to a certain extent, responsible for what happened and offered some documentation for such a conclusion.

Regardless of whether this particular report represents the authoritative account of 11/3/79, I think we need to understand what happened for the same reason we study history in general: The past teaches us lessons, if we'll be patient enough to learn them. Besides, as William Faulkner famously observed, in the South, the past not only isn't dead, it isn't even past. Aspects of things that happened long ago frequently determine how things happen today. We ignore them -- or, worse, lie to ourselves about them -- at our peril.

jaycee: They began with a conclusion and worked to find evidence to support it.

That's not how commission members have described their work. Have you evidence to support that claim?

They've claimed for years that a "police conspiracy" existed. The TRC final report concludes that they still believe that, but they could find no evidence to support it because no one confessed to it!

I'm not that surprised. For one thing, I figure a lot of different police officers and city officials could have independently decided that they didn't much care what happened to the Communists, and that condition alone might well have led to what happened without any of the overt communication requird to meet the legal definition of the crime of conspiracy. Put another way, "no conspiracy" is not the same thing as "did absolutely nothing wrong."

They figured that if a long, involved, community-supported and much-reported "committee" reached the same conclusion they'd claimed for years, then it must be true! Sort of like getting 10 people to tell the same lie over and over and over until everyone thinks it's the truth.
The whole TRC was a sham to try and legitimize their position.

Well, that didn't work out too well for them, did it? The report found no conspiracy and found reckless disregard for the safety of themselves, the protesters they were organizing and the residents of the neighborhood in which they were staging their march. Not exactly what I'd call legitimizing their position.

John D. Young: It seems like communities looking into the possibility of a T&R Commission in their cities would want to try and get a very broad and balanced view of the process in Greensboro, not primarily the views of folks with the International Center for Transitional Justice and the Greensboro Truth & Community Reconciliation Project.

One would think. I do not know to what extent, if any, these other groups might have been doing so.

For example, I wonder if the discussion on Thursday or Friday ever struggled with the obvious tension between the "Truth" part and the "Reconciliation" part.

That's a good question. Because the sessions were closed to the media, I can't tell you for sure.

But if a U.S. Truth & Reconciliation process is actually only a "Truth" Commission with just a pipe dream of community reconciliation on the back end then this needs to be shared honestly with other communities on the very front end of their decision process. Greensboro is an example that shows that if the reconciliation part and the healing part are not sufficiently nurtured at every stage of the process and if the broader community cannot be significantly engaged then what we have is not sufficiently aimed at both Truth and Reconciliation.

That's a good point. I don't wish to speak for the organizers, but based on some of their comments Thursday and Friday, I imagine they would say that finding the truth has to come first, before reconciliation can begin. I don't know that I agree with that -- perhaps it could begin even as the truth is still emerging. I don't know.

The Final Report has a great deal of valuable information but by ranking a hierarchy of who was most responsible it will likely have the effect of not allowing the WVO/CWP survivors, along with the police and the Klan/Nazis, properly and finally to accept their proper level of responsibility for their violent and militant actions on Nov. 3rd.

I'm not sure I agree. Nelson Johnson, for one, already has offered a public apology for his behavior, as has at least one Klansman, while the city and PD remain silent.

A good example of this is on the ICTJ web site at http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/947.html which states: ...

I can't get the ICTJ site to load right now, so I am waiting to read the full article to which you link before commenting on it.

OK, now it's loading.

John, I assume you object to the fact that the item to which you link mentions police responsibility without addressing anyone else's. I do, too, but then the item to which you link is only two paragraphs long. (That's not an excuse, but it makes the fact a bit more understandable.)

The item does link to a longer ICTJ news release, which adds, "Despite emphasizing that CWP members did not deserve to be killed or wounded, the GTRC did find that this group shared some responsibility for the violence." And it also links to the executive summary and the full report, chapter by chapter, so I don't think there's any intent on ICTJ's part to underplay the report's criticism of the CWP.

But that's just my impression. I could see how someone who took the item to which you link in isolation could come to a different conclusion.

The "no firearms" clause was as meaningless as anything else the Communists agreed to. The Communists DID carry guns, evidence that could be construed as meaning they were not relying on police protection. They were lawbreakers, plain and simple, and the rules/regulations/laws meant nothing to them, as evidenced by their criminal behavior in attacking the KKK cars as they came near.
My reference to the "community" was Morningside Homes, not GSO in general. Neither the Communists nor the KKK resided in MOrningside, and the protest had nothing to do with that community.
My "evidence" that these folks started with a conclusion and finished believing that same conclusion is found in the reporting of the N&R over the years. The Communists/agitators have ALWAYS claimed police conspiracy, and now their final report makes the same claim. I suggest you go back and research your own newspaper's articles covering this.
They "legitimized" their position by starting with a conclusion, expending time, money and effort on an "investigation" and ending up with the same conclusion, as evidenced by your own reports. Do you read what you write?

Your article on this sounds more like a liberal, apologist editorial than news reporting.
This is glaring "evidence" that you are a liberally biased reporter who can't be fair and impartial when writing about a liberal issue.
You need to stick to opinion pieces; you're very good at that.

The "no firearms" clause was as meaningless as anything else the Communists agreed to. The Communists DID carry guns, evidence that could be construed as meaning they were not relying on police protection.

Many of them did not. On pp. 158-9 of the report, Nelson Johnson, who organized the parade and sough the permit, describes his thinking -- basically, that although Klan violence was possible, he was more afraid of the possibility that a "provocateur" taking part in the march would "inadvertently" flash a hidden firearm where a police officer could see it, thus precipitating a disruption. I can't vouch for the truth or falsity of Johnson's claim, of course, but it is consistent with a pattern on the part of the CWP folks, clearly visible in hindsight, of overstating danger from the police while understating danger from the Klan.

Page 171 of the report identifies at least five protesters with firearms, although it is not clear whether all of them had these weapons on their persons or close at hand when the shooting began. (Armed Klansmen, correspondingly, are listed on p. 173.)

My reference to the "community" was Morningside Homes, not GSO in general. Neither the Communists nor the KKK resided in MOrningside, and the protest had nothing to do with that community.

Then I'm not real clear on what you mean, jaycee. You described Morningside Homes as "our" community -- did you live there then?

My "evidence" that these folks started with a conclusion and finished believing that same conclusion is found in the reporting of the N&R over the years.

To be clear, I was speaking specifically of the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission. I know of no evidence that that group started with a particular conclusion, and there's nothing in our reporting that suggests they did.

The Communists/agitators have ALWAYS claimed police conspiracy, and now their final report makes the same claim.

No, the report -- which is not "their" final report, but the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's -- specifically says there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy.

[jaycee]"The "no firearms" clause was as meaningless as anything else the Communists agreed to. The Communists DID carry guns, evidence that could be construed as meaning they were not relying on police protection.
[Lex] Many of them did not."

But many of them DID. Hence, the resulting problem.

Lex, from your own article about the Report:

"The majority of commissioners believe there was intentionality among some in the department to fail to provide adequate information or to take steps to adequately protect the marchers," the report says.
"The only way we could prove that would be if they told us, and the likelihood of admitting to conspiracy was slim to none," Angela Lawrence, another member of the commission, said in a separate interview."

The above statements, taken from your own article on the report, indicates that they felt there was a conspiracy, they just couldn't prove it because no one confessed.

Lex, you're sounding more and more like a stooge for the Communists who seek to transfer blame and suck money from the taxpayers in this boondoggle.

jaycee, you completely misread what I said and then used it to accuse me of saying something I never said.

My point is that if I understood you correctly -- and I asked above for clarification -- you were claiming that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission specifically, not other groups, BEGAN ITS WORK with a conclusion of conspiracy. I did not report any such thing (nor did the N&R, that I can find). I reported that most members, having reviewed the evidence, NOW SUSPECT there was but cannot prove it, which is quite a different thing.

Please don't put words in my mouth, mmkay?

Perhaps you didn't read my post. Maybe putting it in capital letters will make it stand out.

Lex wrote:
"you were claiming that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission specifically, not other groups, BEGAN ITS WORK with a conclusion of conspiracy."

From your own article:
"THE MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS BELIEVE THERE WAS INTENTIONALITY AMONG SOME IN THE DEPARTMENT TO FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE INFORMATION OR TO TAKE STEPS TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE MARCHERS," THE REPORT SAYS.
"THE ONLY WAY WE COULD PROVE THAT WOULD BE IF THEY TOLD US, AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF ADMITTING TO CONSPIRACY WAS SLIM TO NONE," ANGELA LAWRENCE, ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, SAID IN A SEPARATE INTERVIEW."

Your own article quotes them saying the BEGAN with the "police conspiracy theory" and ended with the same conclusion, though, try as they might, the couldn't get anyone to "confess" to it. Didn't change their minds, though.

Lex, your whole attitude on here is one reason why people have lost faith in the N&R as a news source. You're a liberal reporter on a liberal assignment and your writings on it are liberally biased. You are NOT a journalist, you're a liberal with a license to put your opinions in our face. You really should stick to editorializing, you're best at that.

jaycee, read the passage again.

That passage from my article says NOTHING AT ALL about what impression(s) commissioners BEGAN with, and the portion I quote from the report says NOTHING AT ALL about what impressions(s) they BEGAN with.

Page 2, Executive Summary of the TRC report, section titled "Background:"
"On Nov. 3, 1979, in the absence of a dissuasive police presence,..."
"...Greensboro Police Department jointly liable with Klan and Nazi members for the wrongful death of one victim..."

That, my friend, is how they BEGAN the report.

Page 10:
"However, nearly all commissioners further believe that the totality of evidence reasonably suggests to the layperson that mere negligence alone is not an adequate explanation. No evidence has been found that indicates there was any conspiracy between the police or between the police and the Klan/Nazis to kill the demonstrators. However, the knowledge and subsequent deliberate actions (and failures to act) on the part of key police offi cers directly contributed to the violence that the police knew was reasonably foreseeable.
Even though no legal basis for law enforcement involvement in a conspiracy was found in the trials, the majority of commissioners believe there was intentionality among some in the department to fail to provide adequate information or to take steps to adequately protect the marchers."

I stand by my statement. The Commissioners BEGAN with a conclusion that there was a "police conspiracy" and that belief remains, even though the found no evidence.
The TRC was a solution for a problem that didn't exist.

Lex, I don't mind your comments, but I don't believe it is right for you to write news stories on this subject and editorialize on it at the same time. JR says there is a wall between the news and editorial divisions. I have disputed this before. You are only proving my point. Hope you're reading this, John. I sure would like some explanation.

Lex,

I got involved with the T&R process in the winter of 2003 and at that time I thought (now I question that optimism) this process could provide a very open community discussion around Nov. 3rd but the lines are still sharply drawn along our ideological positions. Most every time a voice in the community criticizes the process in a N&R op-ed the N&R runs a response from the GTCRP. It would be refreshing to hear from the GTCRP, rather than their harsh responses, that they welcome diverse points of view about Nov. 3rd and appreciate folks participating in the community dialogue. What we always hear is that the GTCRP is always right and on the side of truth and justice and the critical voices are always wrong.

I have not seen any deep apology from the survivors of the WVO/CWP about their active role in the violence at China Grove where they militantly confronted a legally permitted Klan/Nazi event and illegally burned their flag. The Commission never mentioned in their report that even the Klan were/are fully entitled to protection by the Bill of Rights. I have not heard nor seen any apology about the CWP's confrontational and armed, violent behavior on Nov. 3rd. I am aware that in some of the public hearing statements some former CWP/WVO folks apologized for "the wrong (unfortunate) choice of words." If you visit the Greensboro Justice Fund web site or the ICTJ web site it is easy to get the impression that according to new startling information by the GTRC that the Greensboro Police Department is the primary culprit in the deaths on Nov. 3rd. (The CWP was making a similar claim on the afternoon on Nov. 3, 1979 and the survivors have refined that claim into a full conspiracy theory over 26 years -- and yes you are correct that they were probably disappointed that the Commission did not accept their full blown conspiracy.) I still question how reconciliation can develop from people who continue to deny their active role in the violence of Nov. 3rd and that includes both the police and the CWP. I think you are right that the Klan/Nazis in their statements did make some significant apologies and have turned out to be the surprise in this process.

The report mentions an anti-Klan event in Decatur, Alabama in May 1979 but it does not go on and fully describe that event. Decatur had demonstrators, Klan, and lots of police and still serious violence occurred. At that event were several key Greensboro CWP members who got a first hand look at the violence from this type of anti-Klan event. Police in this case could not stop the violence. For a quick look see -- "2 Klansmen and a Black Women are Shot in a Street Clash in Alabama", New York Times, May 26, 1979. We simply do not know that a full police presence on Nov. 3rd would have prevented all the deaths and Decatur is a counterexample to some assumptions drawn by the Commission. I certainly think that the Greensboro police low profile approach to Nov. 3rd is properly viewed today as a serious mistake and would have probably prevented some of the violence.

I am also, as you said, well aware that the core within the ICTJ, Beloved Community Center and Greensboro Justice Fund always believed that reconciliation could only arise once the full "truth" was aired and the Commission accepted this view hook, line and sinker. I think other communities before they tackle their difficult issues with a T&R process need to become fully aware that reconciliation seems to be used as a "hook" for the community and may never develop as part of the process. I now think the ICTJ advice was wrong and that any successful T&R process must model and deal with issues of community reconciliation at every level and every stage of the process. Somehow voices like Chuck Forrester, jaycee, Bubba, and Samuel Spagnola must be given a seat at the table on the front end during the initial planning. Maybe this did become primarily a "political theatre" for Greensboro but the potential for a better T&R process in the US is still an important goal and we may still be able to shape the Greensboro process ourselves, without the ICTJ, into something helpful for the full community. I remain unconvinced that what I still see as primarily a violent clash between two extremist groups on Nov. 3rd was ever a proper subject for a T&R process. I do however agree with David Hoggard and others that the important apologies are due the former innocent residents of Morningside Homes. This horror should never have been brought into their community and the city should never have permitted this rally and march in Morningside Homes.

That, my friend, is how they BEGAN the report.

Oh, for cryin' out loud. You're talking about the report. I'm talking about ALL their work -- the 2 years of stuff leading UP TO the report. I thought I had made that clear in my earlier comments and, indeed, in my 4:17 p.m. comment, said that that was what I understood you to be talking about and asked for clarification if it wasn't.

Oh, well.

Sam: Lex, I don't mind your comments, but I don't believe it is right for you to write news stories on this subject and editorialize on it at the same time.

Sam, where, in your opinion, have I "editorialized" on the TRC? I've drawn conclusions based on the facts that it reported, but that's analysis, not editorializing.

John, I appreciate your thoughts. I may have more to say about them later, but time is short at the moment.

I believe the report is an accurate accounting of their work, don't you? They BEGAN the process with that premise, as is illustrated by their comments at the BEGINNING of the report.
Unless you just moved into Greensboro, you've heard and seen written accounts of how some in Greensboro have always believed of a "police conspiracy." This includes community leaders, and many of those closely associated with the TRC. I've heard it, you've heard it, and we've both read it and seen it on TV. They've made the claims for years, they've not hidden the fact that it's what they believe, and they did not hide their pursuit of evidence of this "conspiracy" in the TRC process or the report. Indeed, one of the most significant passages is what I quote above in regards to them failing to find evidence because no one confessed. If the didn't believe there was a conspiracy, why the determined searching for evidence of it?
Your doublespeak on this issue is another example of your liberally biased reporting.

This whole line of comments is an editorial. I can't believe you would dispute that. It is filled with your opinions.

jaycee, I asked for evidence to support what I believed your claim to be -- that the seven members of the commission began their work two years ago with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy. Now, granted, that isn't what you were saying after all. That said, a couple of thoughts:

-- You've still offered no evidence that the seven commission members began their work two years ago with a conclusion (rather than a hypothesis that would be tested).

-- The order of information presented in the report doesn't have anything to do with the order of the research the commissioners undertook.

Well, Sam, this is what news is evolving toward: news as conversation, not news as lecture. I have this conversation, or try to, because readers have asked for more transparency in our news gathering and for the opportunity to have some input into what we cover and how. I don't know if you read the document that launched us on this endeavor, but if not, perhaps it will help you understand a little more of what we're trying to do.

Sam Spagnola,

You old dog, you. I see you haven't changed your stripes much since high school. :-)

Tell me, Sam, how would you characterize FoxNews? Reporting or editorializing?

Lex, in case you didn't read the report, the admission is there in the Commissioner's own statements. I quoted it twice. What don't you understand?
Or are they now paying you to defend their frivolous actions?

I appreciate the continued conversation around this process. Although I feel that Greensboro has much to be proud of in its work of seeking truth and working for reconciliation around Nov. 3, 1979, we certainly also have a great deal to share about how to improve such a TRC model. Through these conversations, among others, we can clarify those learnings.

I’ve been on the sidelines of these conversations for a while and am only now timidly jumping in to respond to a few of John Young’s comments with information that may not be available to others.

1. John wrote, “The GTRC said in their Final Report on page 19 of the Introduction: "In general many people in the white community who support this work report that they do so because of a belief in the importance of reconciliation. We have also noticed, in general, that African-American supporters of this process tend to be more passionate about its truth-telling and truth-seeking goals." This opinion by the GTRC seems to have been made based on the very small group of Greensboro folks who actually participated in the process.”

This “opinion” or observation was actually based on conversations we had over several months during our door-to-door campaign which took many Commissioners, staff and volunteers into several different neighborhoods throughout Greensboro. Commission representatives knocked on doors and talked with residents about what the GTRC hoped to do, the residents’ opinions about Nov. 3, 1979, and about the GTRC process (if they had ever heard of either). What we found was exactly what John quoted in the paragraph above. This finding was based on several hundred conversations with residents of Greensboro, the vast majority of whom played no other active role in the TRC process.

2. I’m curious to know more about what John meant when he said, “If this Greensboro Commission had placed more emphasis on community reconciliation their public hearings and their report would be different.” I hear him when he shares his opinion that the Commission should not have created a hierarchy of responsibility, but how would the public hearings have been different? In my experience as a mediator, I have found no tool for reconciliation stronger than having parties listen to each others’ “truths” in a safe setting and then try to come to some common understanding of the truth surrounding a disputed situation. Once some common understanding of the truth emerges (or at least one that most can live with), the conversation about steps towards reconciliation can begin. John, you have told me a few times that you thought it would have been helpful to have had people with experience in reconciliation come to speak at the public hearings. Perhaps it would have. But in my experience, reconciliation looks different with every conflict. Reconciliation is a creative process that must grow out of the truth seeking efforts and outcomes.

3. John wrote, “The Commission never mentioned in their report that even the Klan were/are fully entitled to protection by the Bill of Rights.” Please take a look at pages 140-143, which include sections on “Violent language” and “Violent language in retrospect.” The first sentence of the first section reads, “Members of the Klan, Nazis and WVO/CWP used language that demonized and challenged each other, language that was violent and provocative, yet protected by the First Amendment.” If you flip to page 191, you can see one of the Commission’s findings close to the bottom: “[T]he GTRC supports the Constitutional right of the Klan and Nazis to hold and express those views, however repugnant.” (See page 191 for a description of “those views.”)

4. Finally, I agree with John’s comment that “Somehow voices like Chuck Forrester, jaycee, Bubba, and Samuel Spagnola must be given a seat at the table on the front end during the initial planning.” I was not around during this period of the T&R process as John was, but it is my understanding that many different groups were invited to appoint someone to the selection panel for the Commission, including, but not limited to, the Chamber of Commerce, Guilford County Democratic and Republican Parties, Greensboro Police Officers Association, the Mayor of Greensboro and the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Daughters of the Confederacy. I do not know whether or not Forrester, jaycee, Bubba or Samuel Spagnola would fit into any of these organizational affiliations, but it is my understanding that an attempt was made to include diverse perspectives at an early stage. Furthermore, the entire community, as I understand it, was invited to nominate individuals to serve as Commissioners. Clearly, there is no perfect way to be completely inclusive of all who need to be at the table in such a process, but it seems to me that important attempts at inclusivity from early in the process are being downplayed here. What I can agree with John about is that I wish a broader base of individuals had been involved from the beginning of this process and had continued to stay engaged in it throughout. For the benefit of other communities considering TRCs, I think further conversation on this topic would be helpful.

Lex, I'm not faulting you for your opinions. However, the other day the N&R ran a news story written by you (to which you have referred) on the T&R meeting. It just doesn't appear right to have you write a news story on the subject when you have such strong opinions on the subject that you have outlined here and in the past. I think that is crossing the line of objectivity in news.

John, it's been a long time, my old friend. I'm glad to see you are keeping up with local events. As far as Fox goes- a Stanford study last year concluded that Fox was indeed the most fair and balanced news outlet- and they concluded that even Fox was slightly left of center. You have to distinguish between the actual Fox "news" and all the other programs on the Fox News Channel that make no secret that they are opinion shows- not news. If you look at the Fox News Channel lineup, it is indeed fair and balanced- even slightly leftward:

Geraldo Rivera- unabashed self admitted liberal
Greta Van Susteran - married to longtime Democrat party activist and fundraised. Also a Democrat herself.
Morton Kondracke - moderate liberal.
Juan Williams - admitted liberal.
Alan Colmes - Democrat
Mara Liasson - NPR- 'nuff said.
Sean Hannity - Republican, but an idiot.
O'Reilly - admitted libertarian.
Fred Barnes - Neo Con.
Chris Wallace - in the middle.
Brit Hume - Conservative.
Bill Kristol - Neo Con.
Shep Smith - pretty even handed.

Contrast that with MSNBC/NBC

Chris Matthews - Democrat. Worked for Carter & Tip O'Neill
Brian Williams - worked for Carter.
Tim Russert - Worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan
David Broder - liberal
Keith Olberman - clearly can't stand Bush or Republican's. Hates Fox News.
William Safire - every panel needs at least one token conservative.

CNN

Ted Turner - well, not anymore, but he is clearly a liberal.
The Rest - I don't watch CNN, so I can't say.

CBS

Dan Rather - gone, but c'mon...
Katie Couric - tough on the right, easy on the left. Clearly a lefty.
Bob Schieffer - injected his liberal opinions on many occasions on his Sunday show. See Katie Couric, supra.
No conservatives on CBS

ABC

George Stephanopolous - high profile position in Clinton Administration.
Cokie Roberts - Both parents were Democratic Congressman/women. Archetype of inside the beltway establishment Democrat.
Sam Donaldson - admitted he is a Democrat in his book 20 years ago.
George Will - token conservative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but which station has the most balance?

Jill,

Thanks for wading back into the waters. I also have had few comments among the blogs about the process. My first reaction to the Executive Summary was just deep sadness so I had to stay away. After some reflection and good discussions with others I decided to try and again be active in this community discussion and attempt to leave my despair.

When I read the Commission's words on page 19, quoted above, I realized the Commission had chosen the exact same stance as the GTCRP to elevate "TRUTH" over "reconciliation" and now I find that you justified that stance on the basis of 40?, 75?, 100? conversations. How was the question worded that got that response? My heart tells me that a visit to Mt. Zion, Provident Baptist, Persimmon Grove AME would find plenty of folks who think that a process aimed at truth and reconciliation should fully embrace both. Now if you were out asking the question -- Can we have healing and reconciliation without first allowing a full truth telling? -- then I am sure you got support for placing the "Truth" always first.

I still contend, as you mentioned, that Michael Battle, Peter Storey and others knowledgeable in the hard work of reconciliation should have been part of the public hearings. I think it would have been helpful for the Commission and the community since even today it is hard to run into 5 people who know how to envision how community reconciliation can emerge.

My intention is not to slam the hard work of the Commission but I think I deserve to discuss the back seat given to reconciliation because I have been complaining about that for four years. But of course I also acknowledge that I do not accept the view, and the Commission's view, that reconciliation flows from "truth." I believe that reconciliation, healing and forgiveness requires us to drift from our rigid secular and political framework and enter a spiritual journey void of our self-serving politics. It can be a companion journey along with the truth telling but truth does not create reconciliation. Reconciliation needed to be modeled and nurtured at every stage of the process and if that was impossible it was a good indicator that Greensboro was not ready nor in need of this T&R process. This process cannot be imposed but must be nurtured and struggled with until it gains some significant level of acceptance. (This is now a discussion that needs to be held with others trying to decide if a T&R process is right for their community.)

And yes I believe if healing and reconciliation had been an equal theme to 'truth" then the hearings would have had a different flavor. Maybe Mark Sill's Buddhist bell would have been rung for more than the CWP folks who died at all three public hearings. Maybe the bell would have been rung for the innocent residents of Morningside Homes and maybe for others in our community but somehow the Commission failed to see that this process should not have been mostly about honoring the 5 CWP who died and those wounded. It is no wonder that the report, in my opinion, is adversely affected by undue "reverence" to the CWP. But of course we disagree over most of this because I think the CWP was one of the central perpetrators who directly participated in militant and violent behavior (not just language) at both China Grove and on Nov. 3rd. The full report has some excellent information and will be useful but the Commission failed to give to Greensboro a necessary and needed warning about the "true" nature of "extremist group" politics and has done little to prevent another similar gun battles in our streets by people who dehumanize and hate each other.

Woops! There I go again right back into my despair.

Yes! I had dreamed that this was about everyone accepting the full responsibility of their actions as well as us all learning that the Klan/Nazis, the police and the CWP were all human beings making bad decisions on Nov. 3rd. No one deserved to die on that day but militant, violent behavior often leads to horror.

Sam, you forgot another Fox star--Kimberly Guilfoyle on the justice beat.
She's married to the Mayor of San Francisco; he's hardly a conservative politician in a conservative enclave!

Sam: Lex, I'm not faulting you for your opinions. However, the other day the N&R ran a news story written by you (to which you have referred) on the T&R meeting. It just doesn't appear right to have you write a news story on the subject when you have such strong opinions on the subject that you have outlined here and in the past. I think that is crossing the line of objectivity in news.

Sam, I understand your concern, and I'll try to address it. Which opinions, specifically, do you think undermine my ability to be fair or suggest that I can't be fair? Thanks.

Jill...stay on the sidelines...unless u plan to discuss the lies in the report...the rumors you promoted..u also need to address the fact u ignored the cops and the KKK in the reconcilliation prcess...

John,
I, too, have felt strong emotions ranging from deep despair to hope with regard to this process. I want to respond, again, to a few of the threads in your recent comment.

First, we spoke with over 500 people (a conservative estimate) during our months of door-to-door conversations. The structure of these conversations was open ended. Basically, we started by explaining who we were and what the Commission was doing. We then asked the resident(s) if they had ever heard of Nov. 3, 1979. If so, they generally shared their opinions about what happened or shared where they were when they learned about it. If not, we generally gave a brief overview of what we understood to have happened that day. The conversation flowed from there and, in debriefing these conversations with our staff and volunteers, what emerged was a strong racial difference in where people saw the value in the process. This is not to say that white people dislike the truth or that black people see no value in reconciliation. My personal analysis is that the difference is at least in part attributable to perceived needs. White people tend to assume that they already understand the truth because their truths are reflected, in part, in the media, education, etc. Therefore, we tend to gloss over the truth aspects of this work and want to jump right to reconciliation. Black people, I think, feel like their truths have not been reflected in the same ways and that they have been silent and/or not heard with regard to controversial topics like the events of Nov. 3, 1979. This does not mean that black people are opposed to reconciliation. It simply means that, in my analysis, black people tend to see the first step of reconciliation as speaking and hearing the truth. Of course this is all a generalization of these more than 500 conversations.

Second, you mentioned that the bell that was rung during the public hearings was rung in honor only of the 5 people who died that day, but the script for that part of the hearings actually said: “On November 3, 1979, long standing divisions in our community erupted into 88 seconds of violence. This is the window that we look through to examine the multitude of issues that brought Greensboro to this day and that also are connected to our present and future. We will now observe 88 seconds of silence, which will be measured by two chimes.” What was done specifically to humanize and remember the five who died on Nov. 3 was to have five white roses pinned to seats in the hearing auditorium. The explanation for this was also in the script: “Five seats remain empty in the front row of this hearing today to commemorate the loss of Cesar Cauce, Michael Nathan, William Sampson, Sandra Neely Smith, and James Waller in the violence of November 3, 1979. Today we honor both their humanity and ours by speaking our personal truths and hearing those of others.”

Third, you say, “I think I deserve to discuss the back seat given to reconciliation because I have been complaining about that for four years.” I firmly believe that you and everyone else has a right to discuss anything about the report and the TRC process that you’d like and I’m sorry if I made you feel at any point during this process like you did not deserve to discuss anything. It was my (and others’ involved with the Commission) intention to genuinely listen to yours and others’ concerns and, where possible and appropriate, to incorporate them into the process. Your particular suggestion of including people in the public hearings who could speak about community reconciliation in other communities was discussed by the diverse group of Commissioners and, ultimately, a decision was made to place a higher priority on inviting speakers who could speak more specifically about Greensboro and the issues surrounding Nov. 3, 1979.

Finally, I think there may be some merit to the argument that, though this larger process is one of truth and reconciliation, the commission should have been called, simply, a truth commission rather than a truth and reconciliation commission. Although I think a strong argument could be made for such a title shift, I, like you, think it is important to keep the two values front and center and balanced. Truth seeking and telling does not have to lead to reconciliation, as you rightly pointed out. For that reason, I think we need a constant reminder that the truth aspects of the process are for the sake of reconciliation. At the same time, a reconciliation process, without a firm and initial grounding in truth, at best is window dressing and, at worse, threatens to further disempower those Morningside Homes residents and others who are at the heart of why we are doing this work in the first place.

Ben,
The only concrete allegation I’ve heard from you about a “lie” in the report involves the statement on page 382 that reads, “Information known only to the GTRC, police and city officials was leaked to the media, jeopardizing the public hearing testimony.” As I understand it, you allege that is a lie because you knew that Virgil Griffin had agreed to speak at the hearing. However, you were acting as a volunteer for, and therefore a part of, the GTRC at that time.

In your comment, you also claim that we “ignore[d] the cops and the KKK in the reconciliation process.” As I just wrote to John, I don’t see the reconciliation process of this work as directly having begun yet. What I think you are referring to is the fact that we did not approach the Klan about being a report receiver (we did approach the GPD and they accepted). Because we were stretched so thin in the last weeks of this work, we had to rely primarily on volunteers to seek report receiver groups (groups who agreed to read and discuss the report). We asked these volunteers to target groups in Greensboro and, you are correct, we did not approach the Klan. Luckily for us and for this process, you did and Virgil Griffin agreed for the Griffin Knights of the Ku Klux, Inc. to be a report receiver.

Ben, when the English only law is written you won't be able to post anymore.

In your language, y r u so mad?

Thank Jill for your comments. I appreciate your hard work and the efforts of the Commission in this difficult process. I am still a supporter even though I am now a "very" critical supporter of the process. I think in several months some folks will have a response to the T&R report and I hope you will be around to comment because I can easily predict the type of responses that will come from all the self-congratulating, "mission accomplished" folks at the GTCRP/Beloved Community Center. (Wow! they put a grass roots process together and they basically got the results they wanted.)

I think we so far have little agreement on our different views on reconciliation. I do agree with your reflection that this process would better be described as a Truth Commission. We also have a big disagreement about the Commission's decision to treat the CWP with "reverence" while not extending that same level of concern and respect to either the police or the Klan/Nazis. The report clearly reflects this unequal treatment. But before you leave this thread can you respond to one of my paragraphs from above (repeated below):

"The report mentions an anti-Klan event in Decatur, Alabama in May 1979 but it does not go on and fully describe that event. Decatur had demonstrators, Klan, and lots of police and still serious violence occurred. At that event were several key Greensboro CWP members who got a first hand look at the violence from this type of anti-Klan event. Police in this case could not stop the violence. For a quick look see -- "2 Klansmen and a Black Women are Shot in a Street Clash in Alabama", New York Times, May 26, 1979. We simply do not know that a full police presence on Nov. 3rd would have prevented all the deaths and Decatur is a counterexample to some assumptions drawn by the Commission."

According to mathematical principles, there is an absolute "truth". I think the T&R did a fine job in getting the facts straight, however, they seemed to ignore many of them when reaching their conclusion and proposed "reconciliation". I sure would like for them to release every document that was prepared during this process. I am still convinced that many of the conclusions were prepared in advance by policy wonks, and the facts were an afterthought. It would also be interesting to see the resumes of ALL of the people cited as contributing to the report, not just the Commission members.

You cannot reconcile if there is a dispute on the facts. If the truth is in the eye of the beholder, there will always be conflict. We know that many of the CWP members had guns. We also know that the Klan is made up of rednecks who probably learned how to shoot from an early age, and were more skilled marksmen. If I challenge Mike Tyson to a fight, and he destroys me, is it all his fault, or is it my fault to for daring to get in the ring with my fists against his? The T&R states that the CWP made a mistake by underestimating the violence of the Klan. Yet, the CWP also have weapons and fired a number of shots. Maybe it should read that their mistake was thinking they could outshoot some good ol' boys from the country. Thus, they are equally to blame for what happened because they came ready to fight, and lost.

I had a case the other day where two kids were charged with affray. Evidence showed they were both willfully engaging in the fight. One party got injured more than the other, and wanted restitution. The court said "no" because the other party assumed the risk by willfully engaging in the fight to begin with. Don't pick a fight you can't win. If you do, the consequences are just as much your fault as the other parties. It's very similar to contributory negligence. If you are partly to blame for your own injury, you get nothing.

In this case, both parties should have been equally assigned blame, but the T&R decided that the CWP was less blameworthy. Is that because they didn't kill anyone even though they tried? Or is it because the T&R commission sympathized more with their cause than the racism of the Klan?

Those that criticize T&R don't do so because they align themselves with the Klan. They do so because they believe both groups share equally in the blame but the T&R is unwilling to recognize this. They also criticize the T&R because many of its' conclusions and recommendations bear no link to the events of Nov. 3, 1979, and because these recommendations for reconciliation are remarkably similar to the agenda of the CWP. That takes it into the political realm where many people oppose such left leaning agenda.

Jill,

First off…I am pretty sure you know I wasn’t talking about today’s police right? U see, nov. 3, 1979 included three groups…Cops, CWP and KKK. Did you know that some think the cops anf the KKK conspired that day to kill the CWP?

What I meant was the GTRC missed 2 out of the three involved parties. You had the survivors covered. Thanks to Mike Toomes and others accepting a report from me now all parties have some kind of place in the process. I meant the cops (You didn’t approach any of them. How could they accept?) of back then.

My claim is you ignored the other two parties. That claim is fact. You did ignore the cops and the KKK involved. The GTRC invited the survivors and if I am not mistaken even had a little discussion before the reports official release. All parties should have had that. Three parties were involved. One was invited.

You claim the reason you did this was because “We were stretched so thin in the last weeks of this work, we had to rely primarily on volunteers to seek report receiver groups (groups who agreed to read and discuss the report). We asked these volunteers to target groups in Greensboro and, you are correct, we did not approach the Klan. (You did not approach cops that were there that day either. Let's be honest here. It is a truth commission for crying out loud.)

Luckily for us and for this process, you did and Virgil Griffin agreed for the Griffin Knights of the Ku Klux, Inc. to be a report receiver. If that is the case was I a volunteer or GTRC when I contacted Virgil? I am confused now.

How can you possible forget the other two groups? Oh, I see. You did not forget. The volunteers did. But, hold on a minute, I contacted him. Now I am totally confused. If I contacted the Klan then who is the “we did not approach the Klan?” I ask this because you said that if one volunteered for the GTRC then one was GTRC. Was getting a part of the Klan directly involved in recieving the report volunteering for the GTRC? If so, why did you write We did not contact the Klan.

Here is a lil side note: I do not need you to tell me I am correct. I know I am.

You report that “We had to rely primarily on volunteers.” “We asked these volunteers.” Please define we? If the we you are writing about is the same as GTRC then why use the word volunteer to distinguish between the two? You took this opportunity to show a difference between We and the volunteers. Did you do this to place blame on the volunteers for the gross over sight of only including the CWP? Are GTRC and volunteers the same all the time or only when you are defending the, “Information known only to the GTRC, police and city officials” statement?

In my humble opinion, the correct statement should have been, “Information known only to GTRC, one volunteer, police and city officials was leaked to the media.“ That would have been much more in step with how it has been reported the huge majority of the time. But that does not sound as good does it? For you not to admit at the very least the wording was wrong speaks volumes about the process.

You also fail to address the rumors the GTRC promoted. The secret meeting at Mount Zion was never fully investigated. It did not need to be. It fit your agenda. You did not address the , “Mysteriously broken file cabinets,” in your report. You knew what I was talking about when I said “Rumors you promoted” but failed to address them. How about surveillance? Got any questions about that? You do realize that during an investigation you were incidentally recorded. You were never any part of any secret recording plan. Go ask Rick Ball. Or are you waiting for the city to tell you what happened? Can you trust Mitch? Think about it. He is the source of the Virgil leak. There are lots of other examples I could use. Maybe I will on my lil blog. They are too much unappetizing for this one.

Lying then, or now, Ben? Why can't you make up your mind? And why are you such a waste of time?

You're being watched -- so watch yourself, punk. Better not trust anybody this week.

Ben:

I can't understand a thing you are saying except that if it wasn't for you the whole process would have failed. If you believe that we need to show some luv to the klan for having their feelings hurt you are barking up the wrong tree. Regardless of whether they were found guilty in this debacle they are to be despised for what they stand for. Yeah they have their freedom of speech but they deserve all the scorn they get.
Unless somebody can tell me different your main point seems to be that you want more credit for being "the man".

to the above ...watch me..come over..please do..

woody...the whole prcess did fail..u cant understand having three parites involoved and only inviting one is a problem?

I dont believ ethat the klan had their feelings hurt...idiot...I am just saying..three groups...one invited...if u cant undersatnd that then maybe get [expletive] out of your mouth so u can see better...

(Edited by site owner)

I didnt lie...GTRC did. I would rather be a waste of time than a blind nelson cult follower. what I said at the hearings was true...too bad the GTRC wasn't listening.

Folks, I appreciate the dialogue, but, please, let's keep the personal attacks out and the language G- or at least PG-rated. Thanks.

Ok, everyone is getting a little excited here...take a deep breath, take a step back and now look at the big picture. I think all ben wants to point out is that there are more sides to point out than one. The "truth" to one is only 1/3 truth for all involved. He had a great interview with Virgil, and while we all think the Klan are idiots, Ben was able to put that aside and say "you should be heard". If Ben was acting as a GTRC volunteer then how did the "volunteers" mess this up by leaving it out? there is a bit of double talk.

Excited? Heck, I'm just sitting here with a bucket of popcorn watching somebody else fight for a change!

Andrea:

It's ben's framing that makes the truth divisable only by three. There were alot of people involved since 1979, should each one of them get a call? And a lot of people didn't say anything publicly.

I didn't see that ben did a great interview with Virgil. He just gave Virgil a forum. Did he ask him any hard questions, or confront him with facts? That interview sure seemed to be alot about ben. Maybe Virgil thinks he's the man. I don't.

Isn't it the community's job ultimately to provide reconcilitation? Now that the reports out and the commision dissolved, the question is what will we collectively make of it. Not about who ben wants to berate and abuse. Let me say it plainly, ben who cares what you think?

I'm posting the following comment for Jill Williams, former executive director of the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission, who e-mailed to say our blogging software wasn't letting her comment -- Lex

John,
Although I can't speak on behalf of the Commissioners about the report, I personally think your point about Decatur is an interesting one worth exploring. However, the fact that so many of the players were the same in China Grove as in Greensboro, the China Grove example may have been more indicative of what would happen in Greensboro. Again, though, I hope that is something we can discuss on Sunday.

Ben,
Have you ever considered law school? You make a very clever argument about my use of the term volunteer. You got me. But in the end, I don't find it central to the work of the Commission or the report. We could go back and forth about the details of wording on each of the 529 pages of the report, but I'm choosing to step back to the sidelines for now.

Lex, I think both Decatur and as you said especially China Grove provide a clear foundation about the "extremist" and militant actions of the CWP. In the public hearing statement of Michael Curtis we can begin to understand the militant and illegal nature of the CWP tactics. Some China Grove African American clergy leaders wanted to hold a protest rally and vigil far away from the China Grove Community Center but the CWP seized control of the planning and convinced people that what was needed was "direct, militant confrontation." The pastors and others within the China Gove community then withdrew from any support of the CWP's new militant planned confrontation.

The fact that no one was killed in China Grove was amazing if you watch the video from the two TV stations. The Commission put a lot of weight on the two or three policemen who help prevent the violence but a review of the tape does also seem to support the statements of Gorrell Pierce and Roland Wood that Klan/Nazis folks themselves made decisions to withdraw into the Community Center rather than fire their many weapons. Pierce said in his statement it was one of the few good decisions he ever made to get the Klan inside the center and help halt the violence. Wood's statement gives all the credit to Joe Grady for getting the Klan/Nazis to retreat inside and gives us a glimpse into the Klan/Nazis constant infighting.

The Klan/Nazis watched from inside the Community Center, that they had properly arranged to use, the CWP chanting, screaming and the burning their flag.

We can and should abhor what the Klan stands for but they are protected by the Bill of Rights.

The one room school house, poor, rural Klan/Nazis were humiliated by the privileged and highly educated core of the CWP. Jerry Tung was very proud of his "revolutionary vanguard" that day and insisted that this anti-Klan confrontation was the best way to "build membership for the party." Tung actually had his CWP folks believing that real "revolution" was right around the corner. In the cult like environment of the CWP Tung was confident that his folks were gaining the strength to lay down their lives for the sake of the revolution. Some like Mike Nathan and Sally Bermanzhon returned from China Grove very concerned about this new level of violence and they were worried that serious violence and death was increasingly possible.

The Commission's report gives us a detailed look at the history of the labor movement and the civil rights movement as the background "justification" for the actions of the CWP and by doing so they decide that the militant extremism of the CWP is somehow worthy.

I had hoped that the Commission would add the necessary chapter about the detailed militant and violent history of the CWP. Some of this history exist in the report but it deserved much more detail and its own separate chapter.

If the Commission had written this chapter in its proper detail I think they would have been unable to excuse the CWP by placing them into a context of labor and civil rights struggle to justify their actions.

John: The above comment was Jill's; I was just relaying it for her because she was having trouble with our blog software not letting her comment for some reason.

That said, I agree the report does at least touch on the divisions between the CWP (or at least some in its leadership) and others in the labor movement, the concern some members felt even before China Grove (and certainly after) about possible violence and how wrapped up in his own rhetoric Jerry Tung was. Sally Bermanzohn's account on pp. 135-6 is an excellent example.

John, when is yours and Liz Wheaton's and Jerry Bledsoe's book coming out? Have you started selecting your truth commissioners yet? I bet the reconciliation will be flowing like honey through the streets when that happens, yessirree. God, I can't wait.

Lex:

I have followed this thread with some interest. I think you do a good job of reporting here and I have no problem separating the reporting part from the commentary. Many of your critics here are the usual suspects so I doubt that you are too concerned. Much in the comments is the same old stuff, people generalizing around their political point of view. But John Young’s comments stuck with me and eventually touched my heart. So with your indulgence in a long reply I would like to comment.

John Young has been a critic of the GTRC for a while, certainly since before the report was released. Initially he wrote in support of the Commission but then has generally expressed negative feelings in several newspaper articles and blog comments. He has acknowledged many facts presented by the GTRC but is critical overall of the GTRC and its report. He was involved in the Project before the commission was formed, the report lists him as a statement-giver, and he apparently did some volunteer work for the commission.

In his comments here John writes of the international group of visitors here last week who are considering starting various other Commissions on Truth and Justice:

(they, he believes) …would want to try and get a very broad and balanced view of the process in Greensboro, not primarily the views of folks with the International Center for Transitional Justice and the Greensboro Truth & Community Reconciliation Project.

John, just by visiting other communities they are broadening their views. They were exposed to all of the good things Greensboro has to offer and they saw and talked to their peers. They ate in our restaurants, stayed in our hotels, watched our TV shows, and met and talked to people of Greensboro. Did you have a particular group in Greensboro who should give the “true” version of Greensboro and the “balanced” view of the GTRC? Are there other groups in Greensboro that you feel are better qualified to give specific experiences and advice on having formed and participated in a truth and community reconciliation commission?

In your next paragraph you say “I think we in Greensboro have been experiencing the problems of a process that is not broadly supported by the community.”

By your statement you impugn the Commission without providing any specific proof or example. You may have experienced “problems of a process” but you don’t speak for all of Greensboro and you don’t identify your problems. You go on to condemn the outcome of the process: “The more people at the table on the front end of these early T&R discussions (long before a declaration, mandate and selection process are finalized) the greater the chance for a more balanced, democratic and supported process.” But this is unsupported since it is you who is calling for more people and yet you offer no evidence that this will bring a more balanced, democratic and supported process.

What people or group are you suggesting that wasn’t included? From your statement it appears that your conclusion and opposition was formed way back, “long before a declaration, mandate and selection process (were) finalized” though you do acknowledge the commission’s intention to work with all sectors of Greensboro. What are your credentials for submitting your individual opinion and valuation on a 500 word document and subordinating their collective views to yours?

“I wonder if the discussion on Thursday or Friday ever struggled with the obvious tension between the "Truth" part and the "Reconciliation" part.” Obvious tension? You apparently have it but what proof can you offer of obvious tension? I understand that on those days the sessions were closed to the public. Maybe Lex has some insight here since he has written about it, but what makes you think there was “obvious tension”? Did you attend the Saturday event that was a public event? Did you ask any questions? Did you grill the international folks or offer them your insights?

You quote the GTRC Final Report: "In general many people in the white community who support this work report that they do so because of a belief in the importance of reconciliation. We have also noticed, in general, that African-American supporters of this process tend to be more passionate about its truth-telling and truth-seeking goals."

If I extrapolate your use of this quote, white people want reconciliation, black people want truth-telling and truth seeking. Then you say, “Greensboro is an example that shows that if the reconciliation part and the healing part are not sufficiently nurtured at every stage of the process and if the broader community cannot be significantly engaged then what we have is not sufficiently aimed at both Truth and Reconciliation.”

You continue, “if this Greensboro Commission had placed more emphasis on community reconciliation their public hearings and their report would be different.”

So we need more white people and less black people or we don’t get reconciliation?

Can you explain your vision of community reconciliation, specifically? How would one organize it? Who would you choose as participants? How would we measure its success?
You say that the Final Report provides a “hierarchy of who was most responsible” and that somehow will not allow the CWP survivors, Klan/Nazis, or police to accept their responsibility of violent and militant actions. Can you list the proportions of responsibility you would apply to these three parties? Would you include anyone else for blame? Do you agree with the quote on the ICTJ site that finds the police negligent? If not, what similar statement would you make towards responsibility?

John, in your next comment to Lex, you say you were involved in the T&R process in 2003. Can you explain this involvement for those who don’t know?

You say “Most every time a voice in the community criticizes the process in an N&R op-ed the N&R runs a response from the GTCRP.”
What specific articles are you speaking of in the N&R? Do you feel that the criticism of the GTRC should run without response or rebuttal? Do you agree that factual errors should be addressed? Should people who make errors of fact have a responsibility to correct the record? I don’t remember writers critical of the GTRC correcting misstatement of facts that they have made. Are you saying that the GTRC has not publicly welcomed diverse points of view? Specifically, what comments are you referring to when you say “…we always hear … that the GTCRP is always right and on the side of truth and justice and the critical voices are always wrong.”

Does the independent and individual behavior or lack of by the police, Klan/Nazis, or CWP survivors reflect upon the intellectual value and validity of the conclusions of Final Report of the GTRC?

“I still question how reconciliation can develop from people who continue to deny their active role in the violence of Nov. 3rd and that includes both the police and the CWP. I think you are right that the Klan/Nazis in their statements did make some significant apologies and have turned out to be the surprise in this process.”

This makes me curious about how your method of focusing on reconciliation would work. How would you get these parties to accept their “roles” if you do not have a standard of truth for what those roles were? What in your opinion are the significant apologies made by the Klan and who specifically made them? What is your surprise in this, that the Klan/Nazis could or do feel remorse or that the process could yield such results? Either way it seems to undermine your previous conclusions.

You obviously feel strongly about the event in Decatur. I’m not sure why this is such an issue with you. The event was alluded to in the report and was contemporaneously reported in 1979 in the NY Times, so it was obviously on the record. Do you feel by not going into greater depth in the final report this somehow invalidates the report’s conclusions? Can you explain? Did you submit information about this to the commission for inclusion? Is this a topic of interest that you have researched or written about?

You say, “We simply do not know that a full police presence on Nov. 3rd would have prevented all the deaths and Decatur is a counterexample to some assumptions drawn by the Commission. I certainly think that the Greensboro police low profile approach to Nov. 3rd is properly viewed today as a serious mistake and would have probably prevented some of the violence.”

I agree that we have no way of knowing what exactly would have happened but as you say most people would agree that having police there would have been a potential deterrent and may have prevented this event from making such history. The key point is that you seem to agree with but also want to fault the commission for coming to a similar conclusion.

With regard to your concluding thoughts in this comment on reconciliation, it’s been nearly 27 years since five people were shot to death. When is the reconciliation going to begin? It hasn’t happened on its own in this time. The city certainly hasn’t worked for it. As you said earlier the lines have long been drawn around our ideological positions. How are you going to get the community to spontaneously reconcile without a common set of shared facts? What does your model of reconciliation look like? Where has something similar to your vision been employed and to what success? Is there any reason you can’t move ahead with your idea without having to denigrate the work of the commission if not the commissioners, staff and others involved?

Your story of the commission proffering the reconciliation part of the process as a “hook” is once again only your personal opinion. You offer no proof of this. How would you even be in a position to know this inside information? I give you credit for being bold enough to offer your opinion so confidently as fact, as if there aren’t scholars, institutions and interested lay people who will confirm the facts and vet the record. Without offering any credentials, scholarly evidence, or supporting materials, you think that the ICTJ advice to the commission was wrong, and that ANY successful T&R MUST model and deal with issues of community reconciliation at Every level and Every stage of the process.

How many T&R Commissions have you been involved with? Certainly you weren’t in this one so how do you know what they did internally? Again, point me to the T&R Commissions you feel are successful and valid and meet your standards. Voices you cite like Bubba, Jaycee, Chuck Forrester, and Sam Spagnola were also against this process from the very beginning. They haven’t changed their thinking or limited their condemnation of it at all since day one. Are these the voices of reconciliation you seek? Do you have any greater constituency for your views and goals that might include any number of open minded citizens who might truly represent Greensboro?

And finally we read your true statement of purpose: “I remain unconvinced that what I still see as primarily a violent clash between two extremist groups on Nov. 3rd was ever a proper subject for a T&R process”. Reconcile that!! All of your nitpicking comments, unsupported opinions, insinuated facts boil down to the fact that you don’t believe a Truth or Reconciliation Commission should exist here. That may be your heartfelt opinion. You are welcome to it and your prolific expression of it, but it reveals that you have been engaged in a hypocritical and insincere effort to fool the people of Greensboro. Shame on you.

John: One more response. This is to your comment to Jill:

Let me just again state that you are an admitted antagonist to the T&R commission. You don’t support the process in theory, nor do you have an open mind to critically judge the report. This is something you professed to have felt for several years despite your involvement with the Project and as a casual volunteer for the commission. You say that you’ve been complaining about this for 4 years. Where? Is this documented anywhere? Apparently you didn’t share your true feelings with either of these groups. But here in your comment to Jill you fall back on your criticism of the commission for “choosing “ to subordinate reconciliation for their method of truth seeking when in reality you oppose the forming of a commission to do either of these things. If a reading of the Executive Summary causes you sadness and despair it can only be self-aggrandizing hyperbole or a need for counseling. Bubba and Jaycee checked their feelings at the door so I know they’re ok.

You speak of reconciliation as the bedrock of your belief system but you don’t exhibit any yourself. Isn’t that supposed to start at home? Peter Storey, Desmond Tutu, and others with knowledge and experience have influenced and encouraged this commission. Have you asked the commissioners about it? Are you suggesting that Peter Storey would validate your approach and reject the GTRC?

Your thesis is that we need to “drift from our rigid secular and political framework and enter a spiritual journey void of our self serving politics.” Still with us Bubba? Jaycee?

So it’s not really about the process of reconciliation but a personal spiritual journey. Can anybody be a member? But you say that the reconciliation process “as you see it” cannot be imposed, but must be “nurtured and struggled with until it gains significant levels of acceptance.” John, will you start with Bubba, Jaycee, Chuck Forrester, and Sam? Get them on board and the community (who are the like-minded majority of Greensboro) will quickly follow.

So in summary John, you are opposed to a T&R commission here, and have been for years, and you are unable to accept or be informed by the Final Report. In your view, any chance at reconciliation was lost at the beginning and in your spiritual journey you are left in despair. If ever there was a need for community reconciliation and truth seeking, I suggest it is you John.

Yes! I did change some of my views during the T&R process. I did on several occasions state that the process needs to try and reach as many Greensboro people as possible. After I first saw the GTCRP's early video "Voices of Greensboro: Reflecting on the Tragedy of Nov. 3, 1979" I thought it did not adequately reach out and include some alternative voices to have representation on the video. I helped show that video to several groups in the city and I realized during the conversations that some people at that early point chose not to be involved with the T&R process. I discussed that concern with two key people but I may have failed to properly make the point heard in that first year. It was only around Oct. and Nov. of 2004 that I started actively reading and researching the material and by December of 2004 I starting down a somewhat different path. Since that time I have tried to be direct and honest with my changing views at Local Task Force meetings and in my op-ed and the blogs.

The original Declaration that I and around 30 other people signed spoke directly of working "with all sectors of Greensboro" so I see no reason to leave out any voices including the voices of those with early, middle or late opposition to the process.

Yes! My opinion is that many supportive folks from all the city want a process that emphasizes both truth and reconciliation.

And I do agree with many strong supporters of the T&R process that community reconciliation is still a possible goal and we all have many more conversations ahead to make that happen. The process and the discussion is just beginning and I think every voice including the critical voices should be welcomed. That also seems to have been the clear message in many statements by the Commission.

Greetings, folks. I'm back from vacation.

bystander: Thanks for your kind words.

bystander and John: Thanks for your civil and enlightening discussion.