Silence, responsibility and democracy
I covered a League of Women Voters luncheon yesterday at Holy Trinity Episcopal at which the now-disbanded Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report on the Nov. 3, 1979, killings in Greensboro was discussed.
In that incident, Klansmen and Nazis were led by an undercover police informant to the spot at which union organizers, including communists, were preparing a "Death to the Klan!" march and rally. The Klansmen opened fire, killing five. The shooters were acquitted of all charges after long trials in state and federal courts. They and the city were found liable in a civil trial.
Flyers for the event titled it, "The Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Does It Matter?" But all three speakers and, so far as I could tell, the entire audience appeared to take that question as settled. As I've said before, I see that as a significant flaw in the T&R process and one I hope is addressed for the next Town Hall meeting on the report, being held in March at the main library.
One subject on which the group at large did have a little to say was what kind of apology the city of Greensboro owes the victims and the larger community hurt by the events of Nov. 3. Even if I knew the answer, and I'm not sure there is one correct answer, it's not the kind of thing I could say much about in my current professional role -- with one exception: When you're found civilly liable for wrongful death, and the consensus of folks examining your conduct is that it's not clear whether you were conspiring with a bunch of killers or just grossly inept, then a silent shrug is not, at least from a public-relations standpoint, a particularly good idea.
Yesterday's question about apologies ties into some issues we Americans have been struggling with for the entire history of this country -- in particular, how we see our government and what we tell ourselves about our government versus how it actually works.
We're quite fond of Abraham Lincoln's description of American government as being of the people, by the people and for the people. But that's a vulnerable frame, for reasons you've heard discussed many times.
And what we wrestle with goes beyond those well-known issues of basic rights, extending into issues of who does and who does not have the power to get things done at any level of government, irrespective of the number of citizens for or against it. It extends into questions of how much and what kind of government involvement in the economy is appropriate.
Complicating these questions is the fact that many of us tend to think of the government not as some faceless institution up the road or up the coast, but as "us," in a theoretical sense but also in the sense that my neighbor Joe's a state trooper and my co-worker Donna is married to a public-school teacher and my nephew Kevin is a Marine and so on.
In real life, this notion probably is most nearly true at the level of New England town meetings, but many of us like to think of it as true at all levels of government. The Gettysburg Address suggests that Lincoln did.
If that's the case, then, what does it say about government-as-us when a government entity refuses to apologize for judicially ascertained wrongdoing committed against some of its own people?
Does it mean that one part of "us" is wronging another part of "us"? If so, is that OK? If it's not OK, what should happen?
Or does it mean that government is not really "us" after all? If so, is that OK? If it's not OK, what should happen?
I'm skeptical that the report will ever be instrumental in helping Greensboro achieve true reconciliation over the events of Nov. 3, 1979. I'm not certain it won't, but I'm skeptical.
But maybe that was never in the cards. Maybe that report is destined to serve a different, if related, purpose.
What if the report were to help this community arrive at some consensus on the answers to some of the questions I just raised -- questions also raised by Nov. 3, 1979, but not defined strictly in terms of the personalities and organizations involved in the events of that day? That might be a good start.
Supporters of the truth-and-reconciliation process have said that the issues raised by that day have a larger meaning and tie into other related issues, some of more recent vintage. If so, then maybe the way forward toward any reconciliation we might ever achieve over Nov. 3 is hashing out those issues, rather than the issues tied so specifically to Nov. 3.
I don't know that. I don't necessarily even think that. But the possibility occurred to me, and I throw it out for whatever comments you might have.
