connecting*the*dots

What’s History Worth?
The Lex Files

“Every time I publish a story related to the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation report and its aftermath, I hear from people either curious or angry about why the N&R, almost a year after the release of the report, continues to cover it.

[…]

But here’s the problem with ignoring the wrongs and the hurt that litter our past — and I am indebted to the old comic books I read as a kid for the imagery: You can cover up the past all you want, but often it won’t do any good. If you clean and bind the wounds of past harm, and acknowledge the loss and grief of those to whom it happened or their survivors, then you can bury it and perhaps it will rest easy.

But if you don’t, then don’t be surprised if, as you walk through the garden, smelling the magnolias and enjoying the evening air, a rotting hand reaches up from the ground and grabs you and won’t let go. Sometimes the dead don’t stay buried.”

I hear you and couldn’t agree more, Lex. And after living here for going on two years now, I think I’m getting the pulse of this city, but it’s a strange one to put a finger on.

For all of the accountability folks wants from city government and the GPD over issues like a fired police chief and potential misappropriations of $30,000 of taxpayers funds, one might think that the disgust over the Greensboro Police Department’s gross irresponsibility to protect and serve in ‘79 would draw a furor until they satisfactorily explained their inaction on that day.

Actually, that’s not true; the GPD was in action on 11/3:

• A police informant was riding with the Klan in the lead car
• The GPD filmed the Klan loading up their cars with numerous weapons prior to hitting the march route
• A call was sent out to clear the march route of all officers

So yes, the GPD was busy on that day, just not protecting the permit approved march route.

But can you blame them?

Nelson Johnson vociferously barked at the cops to stay away the day before, so they just followed his wishes. I mean, cops are notorious for throwing their responsibilities to the wind when a civilian yells loud enough, right?

From yesterday’s Yes! Weekly article, New inside perspectives on 1979 shootings point to police complicity:

[…] “Based on conversations with Dawson, who is no longer alive, Hennis told YES! Weekly in a recent interview that he believes members of the Greensboro Police Department decided to allow the Klan and Nazis to attack demonstrators after march organizer Nelson Johnson warned police to “stay out of our way.”

“The police, I believe, knew right much about it,” Hennis said. “After Nelson smart-mouthed them, they decided to just stay back and referee…. They didn’t have no plan, but they knew about it and couldn’t care less.” […]

Hell, the people that died in ‘79 were communists. It’s not like they were actually people who subscribed to a different take on labor issues and the systemic issues of socio-economic inequalities within America (which have actually grown since 1979). They were followers of a foreign “ism”… and words have consequences, right?

The thought makes me sick.

I’m not so naive to believe that privileged folk down here care to settle that case of obvious police wrongdoing.

Now, if there’s money involved or the potential for “reverse” racism to be framed, well, that’s a whole other case entirely.

Greensboro 101

Here’s the deal as I see it: Greensboro is a civil, southern town — civility will not allow for such retrospective inquiries of negative events that have occurred in the public sphere.

It’s not how things are done down here; dirty laundry is not to be aired — it’s meant to be buried.

Historically, that’s how things have worked.

It’s always been much easier to bury improprieties and crimes, along with the heads in this town, rather than talk about the issues, bring truth to the table, hold folks accountable to their actions and reconcile our grievances.

More so here than anywhere else I’ve lived.

The problem for past and present town planners and gatekeepers, is that we’re now living in the information age — their circle the wagon rhetorical tactics of old cannot quell the voices of residents who want answers, whether it be about 11/3/79 or the Dudley High School revolt or Willow Oaks or re-zoning a city district to force a successful rehabilitation and homeless program to close their doors.

And more and more folks are wanting answers in this day and age.

Burying an infested bone in a wire-frame view of a backyard these days can’t even fool a dog named Helenkeller.

Someone needs to stick to geek publishing.

The Black Iris of Jordan
Moral Equivalents

[…]

Because it seems to me that morality is always on Israel’s side, the side that is morally superior and therefore has a moral obligation to kill Arabs the same way that morality is on America’s side and therefore it too has a moral right to kill Arabs because you see Arabs are morally bankrupt and their acts are morally reprehensible. It doesn’t matter who is militarily superior, what matters is who is morally superior; morality trumps artillery and whatever you do with it. And it doesn’t matter who is occupying whom or who is forced to live in what kind of morally reprehensible conditions; these arguments are fruitless, perhaps immoral themselves. What matters is that the void of morality or rather the moral bankruptcy of Arabs, most likely inherited from that crazy desert religion they practice, needs to filled. Arabs need to be taught the ways of morality so that they too can embrace the civilized world and go on to bomb and invade other nations and other people deemed less civilized, perhaps people who are darker in skin color, and teach them how to be moral and how to be civil.

[…]

Deborah Howell, the much maligned Ombudsman for The Washington Post, has created a stir; she reported that Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. Whether one wants to believe it or not is not my concern. Her column created an outroar in the blogosphere and incindiary comments began to fill the editor’s blog. Jim Brady, Executive Editor of The Washington Post, tried to deal with the situation:

As of 4:15pm ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we’ve decided not to allow comments for the time being. It’s a shame that it’s come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it’s a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

We’re not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to executive.editor@washingtonpost.com.

Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

So, the ombudsman of an institution can erase comments and lobby to shut down their feedback channel from customers? Can someone please explain to me the purpose of the role again, specifically for an institution that supposedly sheds light on critical matters to the public?

Here’s my email in response:

jim,

people who are online, commenting on your blog, are used to being flamed. they’re participating elsewhere, and have been for years. don’t try to turn this into a case where WaPo is “protecting” anyone.

as backwards as it might sound, lower your commenting standards, remove the worst when they are submitted, and go on about reporting the news.

welcome to the world of free expression. “adding blogs” to your realm comes with the price of bringing one channel of WaPo down to street level. it may not be the salad fork you’re used to, but it’s still a vehicle for consuming necessary roughage.

-sean

I realize that WaPo might be stinging from harsh criticism and frank language, but this shouldn’t motivate Brady to react in such a drastic manner. I mean after all, it’s a WaPo blog, the editor’s blog at that. Not all of us peasants are good and proper; some are mentally malnurished, but we’re taxpaying peasants just the same, and obviously, interested enough in WaPo to spend our time flaming each other and WaPo staff on comment threads.

This is a healthy sign for an institution. It might register as backwards, or uncivil, but so is your average football game on Sunday when you’re not watching it from the comfort of your living room.

“Transparency and reasoned debate” cannot be managed, otherwise you’re just adding back the filters of mass consumption that blogs have removed from the web. Commit to the medium and over-engage in the discourse; it’s the only way to make a connection with the people that care enough to fire back at you.

We are the voices that will be heard, whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

UPDATE: After receiving a form response to my above email from Michael Golden, the Director of Customer Relationships (strange, the email was addressed to Jim Brady at executive.editor@washingtonpost.com), I stubled upon this great post from Jesus’ General.

Wake up WaPo.