News-Record.com

Lex,

Again I agree with you!! This cannot be a community wide event until discussions like the one planned for March 11th represent the diversity of the community around the T&R process and Nov. 3rd. Most people never got involved with any of the T&R process for many different reasons but the number one reason is probably that they do not see this event as important today. In general both the African American and the white community have stayed distant from the T&R process. The process has become too insular and unwelcoming of critical dialogue. The Bush like attitude of "you are either with us or against us" drives people away. The T&R process is of course very important to the survivors, their supporters and some others, but their enthusiasm is not broadly shared.

Not enough effort was exerted on the front end of the process to find pathways for more folks to join in the process. The lack of emphasis on reconciliation and healing has not been helpful in attracting more people. Now the T&R process nurtures and sings to basically the same choir and looks in disgust at critics, even sympathetic critics.

The T&R Report did offer some true fairness and balance. The Report in its guts, not sufficiently in its conclusions nor in its findings, does at times strongly critique the role of the CWP. This part needs to be fully represented in these community discussions and in discussions with other communities. The Report does say on page 190: "However, we find that the WVO/CWP leadership was very naive about the level of danger posed by their rhetoric and the Klan's propensity for violence, and they even dismissed concerns raised by their own members. We find the use of aggressively challenging and hyperbolic rhetoric, threats of physical harm, and the attack on the caravan's cars encouraged a violent environment of cyclic retaliation."

If people just look at the Report's summary, findings, its conclusions and its recommendations a great deal of valuable information within the Report just goes to waste. The complete Report, Bob Peters' concurring opinion, the statements given to the Commission, a better understanding of the three trials and probably a great deal of information in the archives can all help enrich our knowledge about Nov. 3rd. The story of the Death to the Klan March is complex and requires some effort to understand. Also, only a full airing of the complex facts and all the pros and cons of the process will help other communities who may be considering a similar process.

Again, I think YES Weekly, Carolina Peacemaker, Rhino Times and the N&R could sponsor several discussions that could bring more people to the table.

I can only speak for myself, but as one who is seen as a CWP/TRC critic I am reluctant to return to the public forum with my concerns. I have watched time and again over the years as the former CWP leadership and their ilk have misrepresented and made mockery of any balanced critique of the events surrounding Nov. 3, and now the TRC itself.

Don’t take my word for it. Follow this link to Providence Journal coverage (free reg. req.) of a recent event at Brown University where Marty Nathan and several others completely distorted both the CWP’s role in the events of Nov. 3 and the results of the TRC’s investigation. This is exactly the kind of fact-twisting that many of us have challenged for years, and exactly the reason that many doubted the TRC’s ability to find any semblence of truth.

I’ve known Steve Sumerford for more than 30 years, and I know him to be committed to the free and open exchange of ideas. If there is anyone in GSO who could foster a civil discussion of these issues, it is Steve.

But it may be too late. Many of us from outside the CWP fan club who spoke to the commission did so, as I did, in the hope that our participation would contribute to what we were led to believe would be a genuine effort toward reconciliation. Only later did we discover that reconciliation had never been factored into the planning, carry-out or follow-up of what can now only be described as 2 years of policital theater.

I can’t honestly say that I blame anyone who sincerely questions the CWP or the TRC to speak up in any forum orchestrated by those groups, even in a neutral setting like the library. And especially when we’re characterized as “grenade throwers.”

Ooops... "to refuse to speak up..."

First, for those of you who aren't from 'round here, Elizabeth Wheaton is the author of a book about the 1979 killings, "Codename: Greenkil." (That rendition of the title -- one "L" -- is correct; that was how the feds designated the case.) Never having met her, I don't know whether she prefers to be addressed here as Elizabeth, Liz or Ms. Wheaton, so I'm playing that question cautiously for the moment.

Second, speaking only for myself, I wasn't characterizing all critics of the process as grenade throwers, only those critics who, at the end of the day, don't really care whether Greensboro ever reaches any kind of reconciliation, who are saying loudly and vehemently that they just want all this to go away. On further review, as they say in the NFL, I didn't make that distinction as clear as I should have. And on still further review, it was a lame metaphor to begin with. That's one problem with blogging, as well as an advantage: You do it fast.

With respect to any possible good that can come out of a community forum on the subject of the truth-and-rec initiative, I doubt the grenade throwers, more precisely defined, would have anything to offer. But I'd like to see.

That said, I'm more interested in the people who have specific and substantive reasons to be concerned about, or even critical of, the mission and/or process of this whole initiative. John Young, the guy who commented just above Elizabeth Wheaton, has, if memory serves, commented here on the truth-and-rec process, at least, in just such terms. (And if that generalization is misleading, John, by all means jump in and correct me.)

These are the folks who, I believe, primarily interest Steve Sumerford. If the library and its co-sponsors get them to the table, there's still no guarantee of understanding and reconciliation. But if the library and its co-sponsors do not get them to the table (or they don't get there, voluntarily, some other way), I can pretty much guarantee there will be no increased understanding and no reconciliation.

Perhaps, when all is said and done, that's where we're meant to end up -- it's God's will, or fate, or however you understand the concept. But it appears to me as if Steve Sumerford and the library aren't ready to give up just yet, so as the reporter assigned to cover this (among other things), I'm inclined to keep watching.

It might be a waste of time. Some newspaper assignments are, and over that I have no control. But it might not be. And if God isn't done with us yet, that would be one heck of a story.

John, regarding the media-sponsored forum: I would have no problem with that, but as you know, any such decision would be made, oh, about four or five steps above me on the company food chain. I'd start with JR if you haven't already, or Editorial Page Editor Allen Johnson, and go up from there (and a short trip it would be) if you feel the need.

Hi Lex,

Most of my friends call me Liz, though a handful use the full four syllables. Take your pick.

Maybe you didn't catch the statements that concerned me in the ProJo article which are part of the reason I am so skeptical about further community discussion of this issue.

1. Marty apparently said that she "watched as her husband was shot and killed." The truth is that Marty was in no position to see any of the shootings, as she was at Windsor Center, not Morningside.

2. She also said that the police "arrested protestors rather than perpetrators." Again, untrue. An entire van load of Klan and Nazis were captured and arrested within moments after the shooting stopped.

3. The TRC report was characterized as holding only the Klan/Nazis and police responsible, when in fact there was significant criticism of the CWP's role as provocateur and aggressor.

4. The TRC was characterized as a "group of citizens" who came together after the 20th Anniversary of the killings. There was no acknowledgment that this effort was spearheaded, funded through and sustained by former CWPers, the majority of whom were not then and never have been citizens of GSO.

5. Those founders, it was said, "hoped to help the community heal, based on a full accounting of the day's tragic events." If that is so, then why was reconciliation not made an active part of the TRC effort? Why do the organizers insist in misrepresenting the CWP's role in the killings (and the murder trial acquittals) and the full findings of the TRC?

Those continued misrepresentations are the reason, Lex, that I am reluctant to participate further in the discussions. If the concerns of thoughtful critics are continually swept under the rug, if the facts of Nov. 3 are continually distorted in forums around the country, how in the world can we expect to find any sort of common ground?

Hi, Liz. Welcome to the blog.

Granted, some of the subtleties in the article (e.g., your Item 1) slipped past me. What jumped out at me, because I've read the full report and some related material, were items 2 and 3. I've e-mailed the link to some local folks involved in the t&r process to see what, if anything, they might have to say.

(I guess this is the part where I point out that I did read your book but it was 20 years ago, and that I was assigned to cover this issue only at the release of the TRC report last May, with direction to look forward, not back. That, combined with an absolute lack of time to go back and refresh myself on the subtleties even on my own time, inevitably results in some holes in my coverage. That's an explanation. It is not an excuse.)

The reconciliation issue is a whole 'nother matter, and it's one with which I've been struggling for a while. There's probably a better way to represent all this, like a flow chart or something, but to me the tension goes something like this:

-- Can reconciliation happen without, first, a full discovery of the truth?
-- If so, how?

The presumption of many critics seems to be that it can, but I haven't heard an explanation yet for how that would work.

The presumption of many supporters of the process seems to be that it can't. From there, they split into two groups: one that thinks the report tells us pretty much all we need to know and that now it's time to move on toward reconciliation if only the opponents will come to the table in good will, and one that says we still have some hidden truth to dig out.

-- If not, to what extent does the truth remain hidden in Greensboro and how might we get at it?

-- If reconciliation cannot happen without discovery of the full truth, and if additional, significant, relevant truth remains to be discovered, what are the questions to which we are seeking answers, and where might the answers be found?

-- Leaving aside the question of whether some mechanism for reconciliation should have been built into the process much earlier (and that factual assertion is disputed, as you know), if reconciliation can be attempted at this point in the process, how would that work? Who would seek it, and from whom?

-- Are all those who claim that the process should have placed then, and should place now, more emphasis on reconciliation serious about that? Or are some just saying that as an excuse not to participate in hopes the whole thing will go away?

-- Are those who are serious about reconciliation holding back because of a concern that after coming forward and taking part, the process will end without their having been given any opportunity for redemption ... or even recognition that they sought it?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions even though I've tried to get some. Your thoughts would be welcome.

Fact twisting should be less of an issue now because many important facts do exist in the guts of the Report. The emphasis on the conclusions, findings and recommendations ignores the eternal substance of the Report.

If the Report is to gain increased support then the entire complexity of the Report needs to be utilized. After this Report folks cannot honestly go out, into other communities and again imply that unarmed civil rights activists, seeking economic and racial justice were gunned down by 30 Klan/Nazis and that the results of the State and the Federal trials were completely bogus. That is not what the Report says. Judge Long in his statement before the Commission explained why the jury reached its decision in the State trial. The statements of the three defense attorneys helped explain the trials. The statements of Mike Schlosser and other prosecutors helped explain the trials. Within Bob Peters' differing opinion the trials are better understood. So the continuing claim that the only reason for the acquittal of the murder charges was that "the all white Southern jury was sympathetic to the Klan/Nazis" cannot be used without the other important information noted above. My conclusion from the Report and the statements is that the juries were fairer than I originally thought.

The Report cannot be properly understood without a careful reading of all of the public statements and eventually other statements that will appear in the archives at Bennett and with as much research as possible into the three trials.

But alas I think we will never find full agreement on all the facts surrounding Nov. 3rd. However, I am a strong believer that reconciliation, healing and forgiveness are not dependent on agreement on all of the facts. I hope we as a community can eventually find some ways to honor the true innocents of Nov. 3rd -- the former residents of Morningside Homes. That may be as much as we can accomplish but that would be a big step towards community reconciliation. (I suggested one time that we start this process with a simple community picnic where we can join with former Morningside residents, reach our hand and say I am sorry this happened in your backyard.)

Sadly, I think that most people in our community have no interest in the Report's important facts or in the goal of community reconciliation. The Report's recommendations have found some of us supporters just scratching our head. Most people in the community have simply rejected the entire effort.

To me something good can still be salvaged from a process that has flaws and a report that has flaws because we all as humans are full of flaws. Community reconciliation is really about acknowledging our many flaws and still reaching our hands in friendship. But so far we seem to have retreated to our designated corners. I still hope for some avenues of broader and more "civil" discussion. Yes in spite of the Report and Chafe's book I still see value in "civil" discussion. And please let us not try to sell this process to other communities as "ideal" but maybe as a very humble step in the right direction in need of much improvement.

Great food for thought, gentlemen. But I think there is a fundamental issue that has dogged this story and the people involved since Nov. 3:

TRUST.

There is precious little to be found in all this history, among all these people, and I don't see how any of us can find either truth or reconciliation when the partisans from all sides believe the others are either consciously or unconsciously lying.

Tell me I'm wrong. Help me find a way around this grenade in our midst.

I sort of thought I'd made that same point, Liz. The problem is that I didn't actually use that word, which meant I ran on much longer than I should have. :-)

Please feel free to launch those grenades my way. I was one of the guest speakers and showed a clip of my documentary to give a visual understanding to the students and idea of what kind of project the TRC was dealing with.

Brown University conducted a detailed report about the school's ties to slavery and brought the GTRC to Providence to get a better understanding of how to bring their own report to the community and begin a discussion. Not only a discussion, but a process of recommendations that will help bridge the gap between the community and what the findings truly mean.

Ed and Jill spoke about the process and the obstacles and how the community reacted to them. The reporter failed to mention in her piece that she had one hour to deadline (got that from a very good source) and didn't understand what was taking place. It seems like she stuck in the 79' story from her perspective and own research.

The point is, Andy, where did she do the research that led her to such a skewed perspective? Who told her that Marty was at Morningside? Who told her that the police arrested demonstrators, not the shooters?

This is the kind of misinformation that has been promoted by the former CWP folks for a generation, the kind of misinformation that has, for the most part, been allowed to stand unchallenged. The myth of the idealistic anti-Klan demonstrators being blindsided and blown away by a Klan/Nazi hit squad while the police take a break makes for a nice primetime Sunday tear-jerker (see the blurb on the Zucker film linked at Ed's), but it just ain't true.

I'd also like to pose this question: If the T&R process was such a great healer for GSO, why aren't any spokespersons for the city, the police, the Klan, or even the N&R included in the traveling show? Why aren't former insiders like John Young, who has well-substantiated concerns about the process, included so that audiences like those at Brown have a clue as to potential problems they may encounter?

It all comes back to the issue of trust, I think. "They" don't trust us, "we" don't trust them, so we continue to lob grenades (and yes, I do recognize myself among the lobbers). I don't know how to defuse that. I don't know how to build trust after so many years of attack and counter-attack. Where do you suggest we start, Andy?

Liz, I've hotlinked the Providence Journal to which you refer above. (For would-be readers: Annoying but free registration is required.)

To all: To the extent to which you believe anything in that article is factually inaccurate, or even lacking appropriate context, have you contacted the reporter seeking correction or clarification (preferably with a link to the appropriate section of the TRC report or other documentation)? That article likely is going into some kind of globally accessible database (e.g., Nexis) as well as the Journal's own files; any errors need to be corrected so that they are not spread. Thanks.

Oh, and as regards getting the N&R involved in the process, let me say again: That process needs to happen several levels above me on the food chain. I'll be happy to put anyone who'd like me to in touch with the appropriate people.