Wheaton on Nov. 3
Following is a posting some of you requested of Elizabth Wheaton's April 16 column on the Truth and Reconciliation process.
Wheaton, you may recall, is the author of "Codename GREENKIL," which probably is the definitive book on Nov. 3.
A lot of people have voiced concern about the amount of influence, some would say manipulation, of the Communist Workers Party survivors over the groundwork that established the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission, now preparing its final report on the Nov. 3, 1979 killings. I share those concerns.
I spent three years investigating the issues and people surrounding the tragedy and its aftermath for my 1986 book, "Codename GREENKIL," and I've watched the development of the Truth and Reconciliation process with great interest and no small amount of hope. There's not a whole lot that surprises me about this saga, but when I read John Young's April 2 column, "Second thoughts about Nov. 3," my antennae began to tingle.
Young was involved from the beginning, in 2002, as a member of the local task force formed to investigate whether a truth commission was needed. One would presume that among their most important work would be to assemble a solid core of resource materials from a variety of perspectives to guide their research. Yet Young wrote it was not until late 2004 that he independently "discovered" "GREENKIL."
Two years? Was it really two years before one task force member began to understand that there was more to this story than the self-serving writings of the CWP survivors? I thought about writing a letter to the editor to point this out, but I didn't want to get into what I knew from experience could be a nasty reaction to anyone who dares to challenge the CWP's version of the facts.
Then came the response on April 8 from Carolyn Allen and two other task force members in which they accused Young of "demonizing" the CWP and "undermining" the Truth and Reconciliation process. Were these highly educated, politically astute people really that ignorant of the history of Nov. 3? I decided to ask John Young whether or not the task force developed a list of resource materials upon which to base their recommendations.
Well, yes, Young told me, they had what he calls "the survivors' narratives" and a video produced from their perspective. I asked what the reaction was when he suggested they consider the information documented in "GREENKIL."
The majority, he told me, characterized it as "too academic," that it "did not focus enough on race and class," and thus was not "an important resource." When he persisted, he was effectively sidelined (my word) by the controlling faction.
Granted, "GREENKIL" is not exactly light reading, and it would have been a chore to assemble articles from the Greensboro and Winston-Salem papers covering, for example, testimony from the CWP's 1985 civil suit. But to consciously ignore information from sources other than the CWP survivors is the height of irresponsibility.
If, as Allen alleges, the Truth and Reconciliation process has been undermined, it was done at the outset when the survivors’ faction on the task force declared crucial information off limits. It remains to be seen whether the current commissioners can see beyond the polarizing myth that, as Allen sees it, the survivors hold a corner on integrity and those who want to hold the CWP accountable are demonizers.
The larger question, though, is whether the international Truth and Reconciliation movement, which is looking at Greensboro's experience as a model for organizing future commissions, will see that the foundation for the work here was based in large part on the manipulation of evidence and the exploitation of good-hearted people who were motivated by compassion for those who, we all agree, suffered horribly.
That survivors must be guaranteed full voice in any truth and reconciliation process is unquestioned. But especially in a case like this, where there is a great deal of controversy and multiple layers of responsibility, the independence of those charged with setting the standards for an inquiry is absolutely essential.
Elizabeth Wheaton, author of "Codename GREENKIL: The 1979 Greensboro Killings," lives in Ramseur.
Comments (13)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
What on earth do Liz Wheaton and John Young fear? Is the CWP poised to take over the city of Greensboro? For all of their fearmongering and naysaying Young and Wheaton have never articulated what harm will come from the findings of the Commission.
No one will go to jail and no one will be shot in the street because of a report. It's just a tool for discussion and hopefully community action.
Posted on April 18, 2006 10:01 PM
Could it be that Wheaton's book "did not focus enough on race and class" because the incident was NOT about race and class?
It was two groups of white people who met in a black neighborhood to settle their dispute; race wasn't a factor.
Race is only a factor to those who desire to further their political agendas by playing the race card.
Posted on April 19, 2006 12:48 AM
Allen, what's all this fascination all of a sudden with both sides of an issue? People are going to start talking. You might get some of your readers back from the Rhino. Be careful, you're treading on dangerous ground.
Posted on April 19, 2006 10:26 AM
Allen, just curious, a woman comes pretty much just out of college, works for the Rhino and within a couple months writes an accomplished article on Deena Hayes raising some absolutely legitimate civic questions. Here you are, a veteran columnist, a college instructor, but from you we get cheerleader Grier-Pulp. How do you go home and sleep? I don't expect an answer ,of course. Is it just a Paul Simon thing ( "a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest") or could it be...SATAN?
Posted on April 19, 2006 11:06 AM
I slept pretty soundly last night, but not the night before. Barking dog next door.
Posted on April 19, 2006 12:03 PM
Allen, these latest revelations in this saga certainly don't bode well for the T&R commission actually producing anything containing Truth or designed to Reconcile. Hopefully, I will be wrong, but it certainly looks like the fears of the T&R naysayers (myself included) will be confirmed. That is to say that it was predetermined who the heroes and villains were, what the theory was going to be, and how the Commission was going to get there. That is why this type of thing is always a bad idea. It opens up old wounds and changes nothing.
I would be suprised if the CWP was not absolved completely of any responsibility for what happened other than perhaps being scolded for verbally challenging the Klan.
The resonable person has always understood after knowing the facts that both the CWP and the Klan-Nazi's were looking for a violent confrontation, and that is what they got. They all need to be condemned, but we know that won't happen when the T&R report is finally issued. Suprise, suprise.
Posted on April 19, 2006 1:35 PM
Allen, that dog, ah...he was a north High point resistance plant. Actually, not a real dog, kind of a robotic mutt we call the Sykes Hound with a programmable voice box. It's not programmed quite right and the kinks aren't quite worked out yet. You should hear it when it says "those kids need diversity". It actually sounds like it's saying "those kids need perversity" . Just thought I'd share that.
You can get back now to composing another cheer. "Siss, boom, bah! For Terry Grier, hurrah! He's back from Charlotte, as if drawn by a Magnet, or did the Charlotte board take him for harlot?"
Posted on April 19, 2006 3:07 PM
I still hope and think that the Commission will produce a fair and balanced report that takes into account all the failures on Nov. 3rd including the failures of the police. The Commission is a good group and they have worked hard. I am a strong supporter of the T&R process and all of the community dialogue around the process.
My column in the N&R was part of my journey during this process and a request to fully scrutinize the role of the CWP. I still think the report can prove helpful for all of Greensboro. This Commission may surprise us all.
Posted on April 19, 2006 5:53 PM
It's probably either barking dogs or a political discussion. That's what alot of them sound like these days.
Posted on April 19, 2006 6:44 PM
Allen, you realize that you and John Robinson are the two specific intended readers of this report. That is because you control what this Commission needs: the means of communicating its conclusions to the community. Without the N&R's mostly positive coverage, no one would have heard of the Commission. If you decide that it's a biased, slanted report and say so, then that's the nail in the coffin.
What this means, I've come to think, is that the Commission will try to write the strongest possible allegory of race and class. But the columns by Young and Wheaton have altered the terrain: the Commission now needs to be more wary of producing an allegory that simply won't sell, that oversimplifies its heroic narrative in ways that simply ignore the complexities of the situation (such as the CWP being a bunch of no-good commies). Those columns, then, serve a useful purpose. But the Commission will, inevitably, try to write the strongest possible allegory so that its significance is magnified to the highest plausible degree.
And in the end, you'll be the primary decider of plausibility.
Posted on April 20, 2006 12:31 AM
Brian:
I think you're bestowing more power on John and me than either or even both of us have. But I agree. Initially, I'd wondered if the op-eds involved a rush to judgment.
Instead, they've added helpful dialogue.
As for the commissioners, I get the impression they'll try hard to be fair. We'll see if I'm right in due time.
Posted on April 20, 2006 5:23 PM
So if I understand you it's your belief that, human nature aside, a group of people would pay to form a commission to examine the most pivotal event of their lives and that their point of view won't dominate the report?
Posted on April 20, 2006 7:35 PM
Allen, no way! You're the man! You're the fuel in the commission gas tank, the oxygen to its fire, the medium through which their message reaches the masses.
This whole thing is an exercise in self-appointed representatives: the Klan says they represent whites, the CWP says they represent the oppressed masses, and the Commission says it represents truth and reconciliation. In order for the Commission to work, it has to begin with a plausibly truthful account so that it keep its reconcilatory bona fides. The pressure the columns and your editorial today--nice editorial, by the way--exert will keep, in my opinion, more honest that it would have been otherwise. But I still doubt its honesty, and I'll never be persuaded that the 79 killings were much more than two gangs shooting it out.
Seriously, has it ever occured to you that this enormous expenditure of effort could have been applied productively to the sit-ins? Now there's an event of mass importance, one that crystallized an entire system of race relations in a period of radical change. Wouldn't that event studied at a grassroots, community-wide level have infinitely more resonance?
Posted on April 21, 2006 12:31 AM