"John Young's column" : Thinking Out Loud : Blogs : News-Record.com : Greensboro, North Carolina

brian444 said:

It's an interesting column, and seems to be driven by Young's refusal to follow lockstep the Commission's consensus. Why else write the column unless he's worried about the direction the report's taking? If the report comes out as Young suggests it should, I'll be amazed--and the first to say I was wrong.

Still, I can't see any plausible narrative that would transform the shootout to an event of community-wide significance.

Posted on April 6, 2006 12:35 PM

Chewie said:

Young isn't on the Commission, isn't on the Commission's staff, and I think he would agree (chime in if you're there, John) that he is not in a position to know what direction the Commission's final report is taking. The report is going to be issued democratically to the community on May 25th, and only then will anyone know the findings and recommendations of the Commission.

Until then, concerns about the content of the report are by definition hypothetical and preemptive; so your theory about Young's "refusal to follow lockstep the Commission's consensus" doesn't make much sense.

Posted on April 6, 2006 6:37 PM

John D. Young said:

Yes Chewie is right that I have no direct involvement with the Commission. My involvement has been with the Local Task Force for the Greensboro Truth & Community Reconciliation Project that helped set-up the Commission. The similar names have been very confusing. My comments about the extremist ideology and violence of the CWP are my thoughts from my research. I am just participating in this democratic process and I hope the Commission listens to all the voices and critically views the behavior of all parties involved on Nov. 3rd.

Brian may also be right to assume that many of us involved with the process have failed to critically view the role of the CWP.

Posted on April 6, 2006 11:20 PM

brian444

said:

"Until then, concerns about the content of the report are by definition hypothetical and preemptive; so your theory about Young's "refusal to follow lockstep the Commission's consensus" doesn't make much sense."

Concerns are never hypothetical, least of all "by definition." I actually have such concerns right now, and so do many other people. So, I suspect, does Young.

Read the final three paragraphs of the column. If they do not constitute a shot across the bow of a report he fears may go adrift, then what do they constitute?

As for the point about Young's not being on the whatever committee, point taken.

Posted on April 7, 2006 1:51 AM

Allen Johnson said:

As I recall, however, there is very little in John's piece that was not discussed in the public hearings, including the CWP's ideology. Remember Elizabeth Wheaton's opening remarks?

Posted on April 7, 2006 9:11 AM

brian444

said:

I don't doubt that some on the Commission (or whatever) are decent, fairminded people who are willing to look critically at the CWP. I doubt that they are a majority, and I suspect the report will offer only token criticism of the CWP.

Here's why: if they do, it threatens the whole premise of the project, which is that the incident was not a shootout between two fringe groups, but a traumatic incident of massive communal significance requiring truth and reconciliation before we can "move on." The reconciliation is not between the Klan and the CWP, but between white people and black people. If the CWP does not represent the black community, then the whole enabling narrative falls apart. If they're just a bunch of wigged-out white commies getting shot by wigged-out white klansmen, then the entire representational logic of the commission is threatened. Somehow the story has got to be made more collective than that, and while there are other scenarios that might play (the spatial story of a black neighborhood being invaded by the Klan, the conspiracy story of white police collusion and cover-up), the easiest solution is to pose, with a few token caveats, the CWP as specific victim suffering in the name of others.

One sure bet: the report won't come back saying that it was just a shootout between two fringe groups.

Posted on April 8, 2006 2:08 AM

Allen Johnson said:

Brian, I still suspect we might be surprised at the contents and the thrust of the report.
But I could be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see.

Posted on April 8, 2006 9:32 AM

Independent Thinker

said:

"If the CWP does not represent the black community, then the whole enabling narrative falls apart. If they're just a bunch of wigged-out white commies getting shot by wigged-out white klansmen, then the entire representational logic of the commission is threatened."

Well amen, my brother. People need to read that quote again. Blinders come off. People get free. TRUTH.

Posted on April 8, 2006 11:13 PM

brian444

said:

AJ: "Brian, I still suspect we might be surprised at the contents and the thrust of the report."

Yeah, but you're an optimist.

Posted on April 10, 2006 4:57 PM

Allen Johnson said:

Not really. I went to most of the hearings. If the report truly reflects what was said during those sessions, I believe it will be much more unflinching and balanced that you expect.

Posted on April 10, 2006 5:11 PM

bbn said: