News-Record.com

I agree Allen. I find the dismisals because it "in the past," to be extremely narrow-minded. I doubt it would take the individuals who proffer that excuse to find some historical event they like to see remembered and studied, D-Day, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Holocost -- nobody suggests we ignore these from now on because they happened in the past.

The TRC obviously has not been relegated to the Johnsonian "dead horse" status, therefore it WILL remain relevant.

So there.

Only in the sense that we discuss the lessons, consider their applications to today and the future, then move on.
And there are recommendations in the report that apply to the here and now.

Lesson #1

If one group of crazy bast#$@s decides to stage a demonstration in your town which is is billed as a "Death To the Other Group of Crazy Bast#$@s", as a town, just say "no".

Lesson #2

If the dictums of free speech dictate that the event proceed, it must be held on the outskirts of town away from human habitation or in a sports stadium, and weapons must be checked at the door unless specifically allowed by the referees.

Lesson #3 Applications for the future;

We start a new sport, POLI-RUMBLEBALL. a league if you will, where each individual interest group fields a team and they slug it out under controlled conditions. Each team will be comprised of two components-a preliminary propaganda squad and the actual combatant squad.

We then use Poli-Rumbleball to help market the town and support our sports venues.

Everybody wins.

Yeah, Allen. I agree with Savage's admittedly humorous take - what exactly are the lessons we can learn from this? Don't let two groups on the lunatic fringe have a shootout in the Greensboro city limits?

The fallacy of the whole T&R process has been that the 1979 Klan-Nazi-Communist shootout was somehow relevant to the community at large. It wasn't. Two small groups of violent extremists picked our city to have a deadly rumble. Unlike Roe v. Wade, D-Day, the Holocaust, etc., there's nothing of greater significance in that and the fact it happened here is in no way a reflection of the people who live here, past or present.

Just Saying:
But the groups used a local neighborhood as their battleground. Those innocent people deserved better protection than they got.
And, yes, the communists were dangerously naive and irresponsible in choosing that setting and calling it "A Death to the Klan" rally.

And those irresponsible actions on the part of the Klan/Nazis and Communists reflects on the rest of us how, exactly? This isn't a community problem, Allen.

If you are saying that the police fell asleep at the wheel, fine (I don't agree, but I'll concede that point for the sake of moving the discussion forward). That was nearly 30 years ago - none of the decision-makers in the Greensboro PD at the time are still in charge now. You can't blame the current GPD. Well, maybe you can if you are the T&R Commission.

Face it, Allen: Most people (if they give this report any thought at all) see it for what it really is - an attempt by the aging Communists and their left-wing supporters to shift blame and justify their foolish, violent actions.

I think it said a lot about the city in how it reacted, positively and negatively.

What were the recommendations again? To eliminate poverty and racism, and to build a humongous statue in honor of the partially culpable comrades? I vote yes on 1 and 2, no on 3. And no on mandatory reeducation for nonconforming counterrevolutionaries. Wasn't that one of them, too?

Out of curiosity, what do you remember about the shootings at the time they occurred? If you think back on the reaction then it might help explain the reaction now.

"But the groups used a local neighborhood as their battleground."

Which group chose the site on which the encounterer was to take place?

"Most people (if they give this report any thought at all) see it for what it really is - an attempt by the aging Communists and their left-wing supporters to shift blame and justify their foolish, violent actions."

Which explains (in part) the antipathy, and perhaps explains some of the outright hostility previously mentioned.

Allen,
Maybe I have some facts wrong but wasn't the commission sponsored by one of the perpetrators? And they had no legal authority and no subpoena power?
And everyone in Greensboro knew the outcome before Nelson Johnson's attempt to rewrite history ever began?
And the N&R chose to racially slant the story and report "no news" as news AGAIN?
Do you really wonder why the public has responded the way it has?
I believe Phillip's description as "crock" was way too nice but then again, I may have the facts wrong.

Tony:
As I mentioned earlier, the public showed considerable interest in the meetings and hearings, judging from the attendance.
And, yes, you're right, the seeds for TRC were planted by Nelson Johnson and his wife, Joyce.
And that presented a credibility problem from Day 1.
But the commissioners were supposed to be an independent body chosen by an independent panel. So far as I could tell, they were.
As for the blame game, I read the whole report (not just the executive summary), and found it much more thoughtful and substantive than a mere attempt to blame the city for all that happened on Nov. 3.

Bubba:
The CWP chose Morningside Homes as the site for the rally -- a bad, reckless, naive, presumptuous choice for which Nelson Johnson has apologized.
The CWP and the Klansmen and Nazis chose to fire their weapons there, placing innocent men, women and children at risk.

Allen, I know you kind of always do this when you're painted into a corner, but you never answered Bubba's question above about which group chose which neighborhood to stage the event.

Of course, the facts seem to show that the site of the march was carefully selected by CWP for their own maximum political support-that is it was staged in a lower-middle factory-working class black neighborhood. (it would have made little sense for the rally to be staged in Irving Park or the middle of a field in a rural area since the latter may have in fact caused the opposition to get a greater attendance at the rally). Therefore any civilian endangerment that took place would certainly be laid more at the feet of the CWP who sponsered the TRC than the other group.

Allen, sorry you did in fact answer while I was typing.

I think your comment and my response to Bubba passed one another in cyberspace.

Bubba:
The CWP chose Morningside Homes as the site for the rally -- a bad, reckless, naive, presumptuous choice for which Nelson Johnson has apologized.
The CWP and the Klansmen and Nazis chose to fire their weapons there, placing innocent men, women and children at risk.
______________________

Agreed - and your statement points out how meaningless this TRC report really was.

This was two small groups of violent extremists having a lethal shootout. Nothing more. The only people who want to make it bigger than that are those who have a vested interest in rewriting history - i.e. the Communists and their supporters, who want to present their side as the "good guys".

Just Saying:
Have you read the report?

I read the executive summary, plus I followed the coverage in the N&R and the Rhino, so I've got a pretty good idea of what it said. Life is too short to waste by reading the Nelson Johnson propaganda.

It seems to me that the N&R has bought into the TRC's line from the start, both on the editorial page and in its news coverage. Jerry Bledsoe's article in this week's Rhino was quite insightful as to the close link between the N&R and the former Communists/Communist sympathizers who spearheaded the TRC.

I hate to say this, Allen, but after reading Mr. Bledsoe's compelling, well-documented piece, I think the N&R can't be considered a credible source on this issue.

Of course, that's your choice. I'm surpried you've asked me any questions given that you don't believe what I say anyway.

It's not you, Allen - it's the N&R. I'm thinking more of the news department than editorial, although I think the editorial department has drunk the TRC kool-aid, too.

As I said, that's your opinion, and I respect it. But I don't agree with it. We've allowed all sides of that issue to speak on our pages and have covered TRC thoroughly, but with a healthy dose of skepticism from day one.
I myself have attended more than 90 percent of the TRC activities.
But I'm not exactly objective in my assessment.

An by that I mean my assessment of our coverage.

The N&R chose Lex Alexander to do the recent coverage. His piece a week or so ago was the biggest non-report I've seen in years. Lots of words that said nothing.
Lex is perhaps the most liberally biased reporter at the N&R, and he's a poor choice to put in front of the public as fair and objective. Part of the public's skepticism over the N&R coverage comes from the poor selection of reporters covering the issue.