News-Record.com

You're surprised at the results of "study?" You should know by now that all the problems in the world are caused by WASPs.

Not wanting to swallow somebody else's shakey poltical agenda? Welcome home, Doug. Spoken like a true Scotsman!

[Huuuuuggge sigh.] At last. Sanity. Reason. An emperor with clothes on. Let's hug.

Great job Doug. Last week I suggested that the only monument we should have for this travesty was 2 trash cans. Not because I think that justice was served-or that CWP members deserved to die-but because the ideology of both groups belongs in the ash can of history.
Such things as diversity and anti-racism classes-though voluntary-are akin to the re-education camps of the communist past.

I must have missed it as I am sure that it is in the report somewhere that George Bush and Big Oil was behind the law enforcement conspiracy that was at the root of the event. Indeed, it was 1979, one year after Bush lost his first West Texas congressional effort to Kent Hance, Bush entered the oil business beginning his new oil company, Arbusto. And, we know his father George H. was a covert operative in the CIA, so George W. had connections to federal law enforcement in 1979. Obviously, with George H.'s history fighting worldwide communism, defeating it in Greensboro was a priority, thus, the conspiracy in Greensboro. It was necessary to defeat communism as it was a threat to Big Oil.

See, anyone can weave a conspiracy out of whole cloth and some basic truths. Still, that doesn't make it true.

The long-awaited TRC report is just about exactly as predicted by those watching this debacle from the outside: The police are damned and the Communists praised.
The "conspiracy theory" is often at the heart of Communist rhetoric. It's sad that it's still alive and well in Greensboro despite the overwhelming facts to the contrary.
I only hope that conscionable citizens will see this swill for the propaganda it is.

What do you mean, Stormy? What you said is the truth.

No chance the truth they found in two years of research and talking to people of varied perspectives and viewpoints is the actual truth... there must be another explanation, 'cause that's not the truth we wanted.

Brilliant!

Let's hug.

"In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with different points of view and even disagreements that give rise to multiple truths" -- Robert Peters.

Which version of "the actual truth" is yours, Chewie? And why do you think the possibility of "multiple truths" is wrong?

That's an interesting comeback, Doug, because your original article in no way advanced the possibility of multiple truths. What an odd defense.

If you read the GTRC's report, I think you'll find the possibility of multiple truths is not only acknowledged, it's affirmed.

Your article invited us to accept a single truth: a sensationalized dismissal of the work of the GTRC, based on your "impressions" formed by reading the Summary only.

When you ask "Wasn't the point of this exercise to support conclusions with facts?", you deliberately obfuscate the fact that there is a 400-page report that is heavily footnoted and specific -- chock full of facts.

But you can't be bothered to read it, and seem to
want us to take your word for what the truth is here, based on dearly held preconceived ideas.

Seven people, in possession of a large amount of data and their own multiple truths, came to some findings and recommendations, which they encourage others to use as a starting point for open debate and discussion.

Instead, your article encourages people not to bother. You write as if the Commission is trying to shut the door on this issue, when in fact, they had to pry the door open. Is it your position that these seven people set out with an agenda to search for specific facts that support an indictment of Greensboro?

You pretend to be truth's best friend, but you encourage people to put this report away unexamined. Your "impressions" are precariously lacking, not only in citations from the report, but also in faith in the community.

I offered my impressions and in no way sought to discourage anyone else from drawing his or her own conclusions based on what they read.

As I said in the very first sentence, these impressions were based on a reading of the executive summary, which I assume is an accurate representation of the report's findings and recommendations. It will be a great challenge for anyone to condense impressions of the entire report into a 600-word column.

Chewie: For the record, I agree with the GTRC findings that the CWP, the Klan/Nazis and the police all share some level of responsibility for what happened on Nov. 3rd. But I don't agree with everything in the report, which I haven't finished reading, so I'll stop there.

I will say this, though. From reading what you've written on your blog and others, it's clear that you're a big GTRC supporter. I don't know that you've read anything I've written, but if you have, you should know I'm a big GPD supporter. We can still hug, though, anytime. I don't have to agree with people about everything to love them. :)

doug, these two paragraphs are making my head spin:

"Let me say I agree police were unconscionably negligent for not getting between the antagonists on that terrible day. But their absence was not "the single most important element that contributed to the violent outcome." The critical elements were the men with guns -- Klansmen and Nazis -- who opened fire with murderous intent, and the anti-Klan demonstrators who invited them, in so many words, to bring it on.

Nor do I think an official conspiracy brought this about. While the report states "no evidence" of such a plot has been found, "the majority of commissioners believe there was intentionality" anyway. Wasn't the point of this exercise to support conclusions with facts?

1) the police didn't fail to "get between the antagonists." the police, by hook or crook, didn't show up *at all*. it's akin to leaving a couple of pit bulls, fresh from a scrap, alone in a room.

2) the police department had the detailed march route -- over fifteen block corners and the starting point to the mnarch -- and no one showed up to provide *citizen* protection. their responsibility was to protect and serve *all* greensboro citizens that day, including a few neighbors of the town with negative intent. they failed miserably, and if the evidense that was brought up in the civil case ever saw the light of day in the state and federal trials, we would've had *in the very least* cops behind bars.

if the police provided protection, as with the china grove incident (when there were only 3 cops), there's a good chance that no violence would've occured. but they didn't. and who's to say that the greensboro police didn't strike a deal with the KKK, as harold covington (klan/nazi organizer) boasted of the china grove cops in a letter to the RCP following the china grove incident:

elizabeth wheaton, codename: greenkil, pg 96

...but so far we've never actually had a chance to kill the home grown product (communists), although we've put a few in the hospital and we nearly killed some of your people at China Grove last July -- we had it all worked out with the cops that if you were dumb enough to try to attack the community center we'd waste a couple of you and none of them would see anything...

covington mistook the RCP for the WVO, and we'll never know if his words were true about the cops looking the other way, but 11/3 resembled that picture far more than the GPD doing their jobs to protect and serve.

i'd say the commission showed proper restraint by using the term "intentionality."

the next time you write an op-ed, try to bring some knowledge to the table and not just an apologist's view of well-documented events.

Sean, thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy post. I appreciate your comments.

Before I can begin to consider a conspiracy theory, I have to have some reason to think it might make sense. That's my trouble with this one. Why would would any authority want to allow a massacre of this kind to occur under the noses of the police and other agencies, with all the negative national attention that would bring? For what purpose? To rid the community of a small extremist group that was really no threat of any kind to the official establishment? And then you have to believe that this conspiracy was so airtight that no one has been able to pry it open in the ensuing 26 years. Either the conspirators were really brilliant, or the cops were really dumb. I'll stick with the latter option.

the term "conspiracy" itself is a fallacy. when people make decisions, whether in concert or not, and something terrible or unlawful occurs, there's no need to label anything "conspiracy." their choices speak loud enough.

the facts remain: not one cop was stationed at the march. whether that order came down from up on high, or individuals decided on their own to head to the local donut shop instead, the police -- in the very least -- were culpable in this crime.

how does "really dumb" differ from "intentionality?"

A lot. Intentionality implies there was a plan.

so you'd rather have us believe that there were multiple instances of simultaneous stupidity on the part of officers that day?

no one intended to be elsewhere, they just dumbed themselves into another neighborhood?

Yes, you can choose to believe one or the other incredible possibility.

Though both groups, the commies as well as the klan are repugnant organizations, I've always wondered if instead of there being 5 dead CWP members there were 5 dead klan members, would there be this attempt to "reconcile" the community and seek "truth" to this unfortunate incident.

well, either of those explanations would warrant an apology from the police to this community, wouldn't you agree?

or is that too "political" of a request?

The only multiple stupidity I see in the whole thing is that the CWP was 1. armed, 2. chose to have a Death to the Klan march in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Now just how stupid can they get.
I'll ask the question that was asked over on Allen's blog. If the Commies wanted a rally and a showdown why didn't they choose to have it in the middle of a big parking lot or in a big field somewhere? The answer is they wanted to create a big splash and stir up crap. Their story has never changed for that has always been the intent and purpose of the CWP.
The results of the TRC were as expected. A way to reconcile those who turned stupid. Now lets see how much money they want to blackmail the city out of in form of reparations and over priced seminars lead by more of the same brand of idiots who started the thing in the first place , all in the name of anti-racism training and cross-culture trust. What a crock!

Good question, Sean. It wouldn't bother me if the GPD issued an apology, but I'm not sure of the value because it would not be coming from anyone with personal involvement in or responsibility for the events of that time. I believe in personal reconciliation and think any individuals who feel they have anything to apologize for should do so -- as, in fact, some already have done.

while an apology would be to the community, i'm guessing you and i aren't the ones living with daily mistrust of the GPD.

it's not about us.

for the department to step up and take responsibility for their non-actions of the past, as proven in the civil case (you know, the one that jim melvin and company used taxpayers money to pay off the KKK's $350,000 tab), i don't know... it wouldn't hurt.

the town ordered curfews in "troubled" neighborhoods following the events of 11/3 -- with residents of those communities never knowing the extent to which decisions on high were made regarding the non-protection of 11/3, they were left only to question the integrity of the police force and city management.

that perception lingers to this day. the apology wouldn't be to me (a recent transplant to greensboro) or you (a professional), it's to the people that have to deal with the police more often than they'd like.

it damn sure wouldn't hurt.

So in other words, the TRC turned out to be exactly what many of us prophesized it would be, and probably the reason the city council and the mayor wanted nothing to do with it.

Is anyone truly suprised that the police would be blamed, the city would be blamed, the CWP would be absolved of almost any responsibility, and there would be a demand for more money and government waste from someone? Nothing new was learned from this except that maybe in the future such projects should be viewed with skepticism. Everyone has an agenda, and just because you use the word "truth" in your slogan, doesn't mean you are really interested in finding it- or telling all of it.

Of course the GTRC has created it's own versions of {Truth}. Note that on page 14 the report indicates that both sides used violent rhetoric. But to the GTRC {Truth} is as fluid as mercury. You see, the violent rhetoric of the WVO does not carry the same historical weight as the violent words of the KKK-thus-wallah- the WVO really didn't mean what they said. This idea of Truth (by history) isn't new, the lynchings of black Americans was based on that concept. And Hitler's Germany is its best example on a national scale.
If only the Klan and the WVO had attended cultural diversity in rhetoric classes none of this might have happened.

samuel, can i ask you how you became knowledgeable of the events of 11/3? did you passively take in information over the years from the media, have you made the effort to digest documentaries on the event, or are you just pushing a perspective here?

what i'm wondering is how do you know everything there is to know, yet this commission that spent the last *two years* speaking to everyone who would volunteer themselves to the process, knows nothing?

Sean, were there any facts that were uncovered that we did not already know about? No. The only thing new here is the predictable conclusion.

so you knew that the police had the permit with the exact march route of 11/3, but for one reason or another, decided against performing their civic duties?

and what is the predictable conclusion?

That the CWP bares little responsibility, it was all racism (even though only one victim was black), it only happened because Greensboro is such a racist place, but most importantly- the conclusion that more programs and money is the solution was completely predictable. Always follow the money. This wasn't about truth- it was about a shakedown and advancing a left leaning agenda just as Doug mentioned.

And yes, the information on the parade route came out during the trial years ago. Nothing new here except an "official" organization to place "official" blame and then try extort money.

The people to blame for Nov. 3 are the Klan and the CWP. The attempt to make this a governmental issue or blame the rest of the citizenry is nothing more than a tactic to fleece the public. A lot of us said this going in to the whole process- follow the money.

Sean, I know you're really passionate about this issue and I've read your (often eloquent) arguments in many places on the web. But cops and donut shops? For real? If somebody aimed a stereotype in the other direction, you'd be the first one to call them out. Uncool.

sorry, cara michele, art league was actually quoted as going to "get a biscuit" during the time of the march... my northern reference book took over. my apologies...

Accepted. Hugs. ;)

Doug, if you read the first few chapters of the report, you'll learn that "a small extremist group that was really no threat of any kind to the official establishment" does not at all match the description the GPD, FBI and Cone Mills management would have used for the CWP in '79. They were, in fact, exceedingly worried about them.

There's evidence; there are police documents; there is testimony. Read it, or some other primary sources, and you'll find out. Otherwise, you're going to keep making misstatements.

This is not an argument for or against a conspiracy, simply a factual correction.

@sam

what more responsibility do you want the CWP to bare? they applied for a permit and the police granted it. eddie dawson had already made the rounds in the department, warning the cops that the klan was going to move on the march, and the cops didn't even mention that to johnson when he was finalizing the permit two weeks before the 3rd.

why was the permit granted under those conditions? if it was an apparent mistake to start it at mourningside, why wasn't it halted? in the very least, why didn't the police make a fuss to johnson?

what's racist is that you and i both know that if the march had started in a "nice" neighborhood in greensboro, the cops would've been on it like white on rice.

the klan and cwp are responsible for their own actions (well, two juries thought otherwise about the klan), but if you think that the cops were innocent on that day, just doing their job and happened to miss what went down, well, you obviously know nothing about the police as a government organization charged with the responsibility of maintaining law and order, and to protect the general public from harm..

they absolutely failed to protect the permit holders and they were 100% indifferent to the safety of the general public, specifically the mourningside residents.

Chewie, I understand the WVO-CWP people were seen as troublemakers and annoyances, but I think these sentences from the report (page 115) are important:

"(Sylvester) Daughtry likewise explained the police concern about the WVO this way, 'They were a vocal group and wanted to overthrow the government.' However, when pressed, he concedes that there was no real substantial fear of that."

Of course there wasn't because the group never had any substantial following.

Doug, I'm not trying to make a case for what I think the CWP were -- I'm telling you what's in the report, the documents, and the testimony.

You can sit and stare at yourself in the mirror all day long repeating "no significant following" all day long. I'm going to stick with what the police, the FBI, and Cone Mills security people said and did in 1979 for my interpretation.

I don't think it's an overthrow of the government they were worried about. There were mills to run.

It's in the report. Try the pre-1979 Labor chapter. Or, stay ignorant, and I'll keep correcting you on the facts.

It's in the report that the CWP's aggressive tactics limited its ability to attract followers and reach its goals of organizing the mills. I don't read anything that supports a conclusion that the CWP posed such a threat that, in response, a plan was hatched by the Greensboro power structure, or whoever, to wipe them out.

I didn't read anything that supports that conclusion, either.

Your description -- "a small extremist group that was really no threat of any kind to the official establishment" -- was still inaccurate.

The police certainly could have done a better job, but in the end, it comes down to the people committing the violent act. That is where we part ways. Suppose the police were there- maybe we would have simply had a few more victims in blue uniforms. Then again, maybe not. But we do know that if neither the Klan or the CWP were there shooting, none of this would have happened.

We also know that this happened nearly 27 years ago, and there was/is no legitimate reason to rehash it now. The police force that existed then is not the same police force we have now, the city council is different, the general populations is different, etc.

The only reason this was brought up was to use racial politics as a tool to get more money and more government programs and to stick race in everyone's face so instead of moving forward and improving race relations, we end up looking back.

Doug,

I agree with you that the WVO weren't a threat.

But as Chewie points out, that's not what the authorities believed.

"(Sylvester) Daughtry likewise explained the police concern about the WVO this way, 'They were a vocal group and wanted to overthrow the government.' "

The GTRC report indicates how inaccurate this estimation was.

Indeed, when pushed Daughtry of the GPD is unable to back up their claim.

As you rightly point out:
"However, when pressed, he concedes that there was no real substantial fear of that."

I think that one of the major findings of the GTRC is that the GPD so badly overestimated the threat posed by one group (the WVO) and fatally underestimated the threat posed by the other.

It is interesting to consider how this happened. Especially when we all know the terrorist history of the Klan.

Given this, I can't see that it was just dumb policing.

Thanks, Art, Sam and all for discussion.

No problem Doug,

In the interest of discussion, can you explain why you brought up the recommendation:

"jurors selected from welfare rolls if they're not on the registered voter lists"

Is there a problem with this?

I think so. In my view, the most basic obligation of citizenship is voting. A higher level of service is sitting on a jury. Someone who does not fulfill the most basic obligation, who doesn't even register to vote let alone actually vote, should not be called to jury duty. So I would object equally to a proposal that country club membership rolls should be used as a jury pool if it meant calling anyone who was not a registered voter.

Doug,
You are wrong that sitting on a jury is 'service'. If summoned you must, by law, appear for jury duty.

The reason that it is the law is that juries are supposed to represent the community. And for good reason; under our system, a representative jury is fundamental to a fair trail.

(The fact that the juries in the Nov 3 trials did not represent the Greensboro community is likely an important factor in the verdicts.)

So given that it is not a service that you volunteer for, but a legal requirement, it only makes sense to ensure that the list of prospective jurors is as exhaustive as possible.

One final point:

Ask yourself why did you choose to highlight welfare rolls and fail to mention the other GTRC's recommendations for augmenting juror lists using utility bills and the U.S. Postal Service's database of address changes?

On the face of it, your writing smacks of classism and racism.

Rather unkind words, art.

Anyway, I have doubts that utility bills and postal records would be reliable sources of information about potential jurors. Utility bills can be in the name of nonresidents. Lots of people move without notifying the post office.

Jury selection rules have changed since the early 1980s, allowing for a more fair process. The voter rolls in Guilford County include more than 87,000 African Americans, which should be enough to ensure representative juries. The biggest problem with jury selection today is the number of people summoned who don't show up. No one can do more than speculate how the outcome of the criminal trial might have been different with a different jury.

The only way to get fair representation is to get a truly random sample. (This isn't meant to represent any bias on my part -- this is simple mathematics.)

The best way to try to get a random sample is to ensure that you cover as many bases as possible in compiling a list of potential jurors.

There are problems with every list, whether utility bills or post office records (as you point out), or voter rolls, country club memberships, etc. This is exactly why it is sensible to build a roll of jurors from as many lists as possible.

I'm sorry that you find it unkind, but singly out welfare rolls for criticism seems unkind.

If you didn't mean to be unkind, I apologize, but then why did you single them out?

A jury is never a "random sample" of the population. As I noted before, many people summoned simply don't show up; those who do come tend to be more socially responsible than average. People over 72 have a right to decline to serve. People with medical conditions or other factors that prevent them from serving can be excused. In addition, actual jury selection eliminates those members of the jury pool who have knowledge of the case to be tried or some other predisposition; people in certain professions; people who have family members who are law-enforcement officers, and so on. So you're trying to achieve a result -- perfect representation -- that just can't be.

I specified welfare rolls because it actually is more practical than the other two sources mentioned. But not advisable, in my opinion. What have you got against voter registration lists? We trust voters to be representative enough of society to select our leaders. Why not to decide matters of law in court?

One argument at a time here... Your points about how juries are selected is irrelevant to the discussion about this GTRC recommendation.

The subject is how to get a representative list of potential jurors.

I have no problem with using the voter list as one of the sources.

The question is: will expanding the number of sources make the jury list more exhaustive (and thus closer to full representation?)

The answer to that question has got to be yes.

So the next question is: what sources should you use?

One of the reasons that people don't show up for jury duty is that their address on the voter list is wrong: hence the sense in using post office lists and utility bills (ie, people are more likely to change these addresses when they move than they are to change their voter registration address because people will procrastinate, thinking I'll get around to changing my voter registration nearer the election...

The sense in using welfare rolls is that--right or wrong--this section of the population is often under-represented on voter rolls. Thus, we know that ignoring this list introduces a source of bias in the list of potential jurors.

It has nothing to do with whether we trust this section of society to elect our leaders...

Jury duty isn't about segments of society we 'trust'.

Given that it you think it is more practical to use welfare lists (although I’m not sure why), it is even more incumbent on us to use this list and thus eliminate an obvious source of bias.

Tell you what, art: While you have the folks from the welfare rolls in the courthouse for jury duty, how about taking them over to the elections office so they can register to vote? Then you and I can both be happy.

Pretty courageous column, Doug; and a great job with it, in spite of the slings and arrows.

Not at all, Joe. Responses were 80-plus percent positive.

"The only reason this was brought up was to use racial politics as a tool to get more money and more government programs and to stick race in everyone's face so instead of moving forward and improving race relations, we end up looking back."(Sam S.)

Exactly Sam. I have said since this whole fiasco started and I beleive you have as well. Folks that don't beleive should just keep their eyes and ears open and follow the money trail.

mr. produce and Sam:

What money trail? Details please?