Once I’d settled down enough to regain my composure, I’d planned to write a long and scathing piece on the ugly political partisanship that erupted at Coretta Scott King’s memorial service—from Jimmy Carter, a former US President, shamefully straining to connect the Hoover-era wiretapping of Martin Luther King (approved, ironically, by Bobby Kennedy, whose brother Ted received a warm reception, his being a Demcrat and all) to the current and completely unrelated NSA “domestic spy” scandal, as well as trying to connect the wrath of Hurricane Katrina to the subjugation and dismissal of blacks by Republicans (in a state dominated by a Democratic political machine; and despite the fact that more whites were affected than blacks), but the Anchoress, who has no illusions about Carter’s character, has already taken care of it for me:
[…] Jimmeh Cartah never has a good word for anyone but himself, or a third world dictator, and he has never managed to behave in a classy manner—not when he can do the easier, trashier thing and get his accolades from the usual suspects, and lots of coverage. He’s a miserable human being, a man threatened by killer bunnies—the very FIRST of the media whores to completely buy into the hype surrounding him (â€Âa brilliant naval engineer…â€Â) and lose, utterly lose, his mind and his moral compass when the headlines and magazine covers went away. In this, he joins Al Gore, John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan and (sadly) John McCain. I’ve come to the conclusion that people who buy their own hype, who believe the press when the press over-does the gushing in order to push their own ideas, are weak-minded, or perhaps simply not very smart.
He can build all the houses he wants – any former president who will accept a “peace prize†given to him explicitly to (as the Nobel board admitted) “kick the current president in the legs†is unworthy of his office, or the esteem a former president is normally due. […]
My best friend, who was watching the funeral, called me up and said, “exactly when did the Democrats utterly revise history and co-opt the civil rights movement? Why does the world forget that it was Democrat Bull Connor putting the hoses and the dogs on the marchers, and the Republicans standing up for civil rights? Why doesn’t anyone mention that Bobby Kennedy was wiretapping King?â€Â
History got revised because of the US press, and two men—Lyndon Johnson (the Great Society) and Bobby Kennedy, who did indeed wiretap Dr. King in an attempt to ruin him. But Bobby Kennedy went to the poor in Appalachia, and he went to the poor in the South, and he ended every speech with “now, let’s sing the song,†and joined hands and sang “We Shall Overcome,†and it moved people to see a man born into unimaginable privilege find common cause with the under-represented. It made it easy to forget that he’d tried to get dirt on Dr. King. I remember it like it was yesterday. Kennedy then single-handedly and forever put the “Democrats=Civil Rights†equation together when he, upon hearing of the assassination of Martin Luther King, extemporaneously and movingly called for calm and gave tribute to King. You can read or listen to the speech here.
In the issue of Civil Rights, I think it’s pointless to carry on about revised history. It’s done. The warp of history and the woof of of hype will never be untangled. Let it be. People believe what they want to believe, anyway, as we see daily.
[…]
I also noticed, in the brief few seconds that I watched Chris Matthews before shutting off the set, that Jonathan Alter was already spinning the Wellstone Memorialiness of the event and trying to turn it into a “speaking truth to power†meme. Whatever.
No, none of it was surprising. It was not surprising that President Bush went, knowing—as he had to know—that a few opportunists and insecure old men would try to take their shots in an attempt to ingratiate the rabble and make the news shows. It was not surprising that both President Bushes spoke with class and humility. It was not surprising that Bill Clinton got the room rocking, and got just a little dramatic, as ever, appealing to the emotions—and he does it very well. It was not surprising that Hillary stood there nodding before plodding. It wasn’t even surprising to me that Hillary got to speak last—in essence giving her the “keynote†spot. In a crowd for whom everything is political and everything is calculated, that was completely predictable. I wasn’t surprised to see that she didn’t seem to be wearing her new, three-carat rock for the occasion, either. There’s a time for that, but not today.
It is not surprising that this will be spun into something. And it will largely be forgotten in about three days. So, the left has three days, now to solidify the impressions it wants America to take away from this, which is—of course – “Democrats good. Care for the little guy. Bush bad. Hates blacks.†The Right has three days to remind people that Democrats can’t ever behave like grown-ups or stop throwing rhetorical molotov cocktails. They still think it’s 1969.
The only difference being, all their naked ambition was still perky back in ‘69. Now it just gathers and sags like the casing on an old pumpkin.
Having watched the thing myself, I, too, was impressed by Bush’s graciousness, and appalled by the cynically calculated anti-GOP pageantry of the whole thing.
But most disappointing was the spin afterward, in which most (but not all) Democratic spinmeisters stared Americans in the face and justified the rhetoric—their explanations, stripped of all the obfuscatory rhetoric, to a few simple assertions: a) of course George W Bush was excoriated. He’s an evil lying scumbag who hates blacks; and b) see (a).
One point of disagreement with Anchoress, in what I otherwise consider to be a brilliant piece. She writes:
In the issue of Civil Rights, I think it’s pointless to carry on about revised history. It’s done. The warp of history and the woof of of hype will never be untangled. Let it be. People believe what they want to believe, anyway, as we see daily.
I don’t think this is a battle worth surrendering. The official narrative of the Civil Rights movement has been written by the self-satisfied and self-righteous “protesters” of the time, who forget that the drift of their politics has pulled them away from the mooring of classical liberalism that undermined the movement at its core—many of whom went on to become the “official” academic historians and guardians of the narrative.
But their version of events will be betrayed, ultimately, by the increasingly glaring disconnect between their stewardship of the movement (which has taken King’s vision for a color blind America in precisely the wrong direction)—and the real and authentic idea of racial equality shared by the vast majority of American citizens.
If anything, I suspect that we’re near reaching the breaking point for the exploitation of race in this country, and that the next generation will see the Democratic stranglehold on the Black vote—which is largely owing to the legacy of Kennedy beatification, Woodstock, Hippies vs. Hardhats, and the perniciousness of identity politics expertly manipulated by a black “leadership” whose movement away from King and his message, even as they claim to hold him in their hearts like some personal Jesus, is becoming increasingly difficult to explain away.
No, I think classical liberalism will make it’s comeback—and the “libertarian” streak we see in the blogosphere is an early indicator of where I think the politics of many Americans, should they stop and try to clearly pigeonhole them, would come to rest. The greatest victory for the Democrats has been to win the mantle of “liberal”—which continues to imply, years after it surrendered its soul to collectivism and soft socialism – that it carries with it the kind of force for individual liberty.
It does not, at least not as it is currently used by the Democrats. Which is why I prefer to refer to them as “progressives.” Today’s classical liberalism leans back right; and as more and more people recognize this, the civil rights narrative can and will change.
To set the ground for this narrative shift, however, it will be necessary for “conservatives” to be equally critical of those who cleave to the “conservative” mantle but whose actions and policy initiatives are no more, oftentimes, than blue-nosed progressivism and rightwing collectivism.
A return to the primacy of the individual—to classical liberal and the legal conservatism that ensure it—are the remedy for the failures of bad (if initially well-intentioned) social policies that for the last 40 or so years have weakened America’s central strength: it’s suggestiong that individual liberty, with the attendant equality of opportunity, is the centerpiece for a successful and healthy democratic republic.
George Bush continues to deliver this message to the rest of the world in an effort to defeat global tyranny. It’s time we make that argument more forcefully here, at home, where the drift from such truisms, once adopted and celebrated, is becoming most pronounced.
****
update: Newslinker collects some particularly striking examples of dubious “memorializing”. See also: Michelle Malkin, Sensible Mom, Indy Conservative (who liveblogged it), Gina Cobb, Newton, The Cafeterial is Closed, Sister Toldjah, My rhaf, Bizzy Blog, SoCalPundit
More: Captain Ed, Bob the Watchman, DC Thornton, Hazzmat , GatewayPundit, Captain Ed, again,Noonz, Adam’s Web, Future MD,
Bullmoose, Ankle Biting Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Ed Driscoll, Lorie Byrd, Stop the ACLU, Brainster’s Blog, Iowa Voice, The Locker Room, Cold Fury, and Junkyard Blog.
For their part, AMERICABlog and Kos see GOP perfidy. Which is about as surprising as Ted Kennedy seeing pink elephants whenever he stumbles into a stall at Hooters.
I, too, refuse to give up on the battle to set right the history. Wayne Perryman wrote a book about it (“Unfounded Loyalty”, I believe is the name of the book), and locally (in Detroit) there is a radio program hosted by a black preacher (1400 on the am dial) whose sole aim is to set right the truth regarding who did what in regards to civil rights. It’s about more than just history, since lies are still used to win elections (especially here in Detroit.)
Often leaves out the pacifism and social justice aspects of the movement. The official narrative is that it was just about ending laws about segregation. It was much more. As Dr. King said:
The only argument I would have with this, Jeff, is calling those idiots “progressive.” I understand that they’ve perverted the classical meaning of “liberal,” but what the heck is progressive about them? If anything, they’re reactionary dinosaurs.
Careful, Actus – you have to be careful quoting too much King. You know his words are copyrighted … you might own the King boys a franchise fee.
own-owe. Sorry, my panties are in a bunch this afternoon about this.
It’s worth every penny.
I’m with Craig. Progressive is as progressive does, and under the left, progress only proceeds back to tribalism. To call the left “progressive” is to tacitly acknowledge their premises of the efficacy of articulated human power, precisely where their wrongness is rooted. <object. I’m sorry, but I want the term “liberal” and “progressive” <i>BACK.</i> Those terms are rightfully ours, the liberal capitalists of the 21st century.
yours in liberty/
peter.
History is written by the victors. So I agree with the Anchoress, that battle is not worth fighting. We should be fighting the battle that decides who writes this history. Despite what the people think about the past, the present and the future are what matters and here I agree with Jeff that the classical liberal philosophy will eventually win out over identity politics. When we can convince people that their best interests are served by individual freedoms and individual responsibilities, the battle will swing very quickly back to classical liberal thinking.
I submit that wrangling over short term history and credit does not help us win the future.
actus:
Not sure of your point. If you’re pointing out that King, for all his many virtues and talents and his tremendous personal courage, was not an egalitarian, OK, I’ll go along with that. If, on the other hand, you’re making the case that redistributive “social justice” ought to be part of the package of equality of opportunity in this country, well, we’ve seen how well that works. (A third possibility – that you’re saying that because King believed in it, and he’s in essence a secular saint on both sides of the partisan divide, we all ought to fall in line – nope. I yield to no one in my respect for Dr. and Mrs. King’s work in bringing about the dream they envisioned, but nowhere is it written that every utterance by either of them is God’s Own Truth.)
While I do believe King’s words are of an enormous worth, I think it is beyond wrong to charge for them. It’s something Jesse Jackson would do.
actus, do you have a point here, or are you just trying to divert the thread away from discussing what a bunch of cynical, manipulating, history revising, and just plain disrespectful posing clowns the left (AKA “progressives”, AKA “Democrats”, etc) has become?
“If anything, I suspect that we’re near reaching the breaking point for the exploitation of race in this country…”
Would that it were so, Jeff. Have a look in the comments section to my own short post on the funeral/pep rally for some depressing evidence to the contrary.
I want to know why the d’Emocrats don’t just bury themselves in soapboxes.
Jeff,
Thanks.
The classic definition of liberty, freedom, and responsibility aren’t shared by the angry Left.
The part of my comment that got deleted due to my wife’s sucky trackpad, other than some tags, was a plea that we refer to the left as “the left.” And “leftists.” That is precisely what and who they are, and they won’t object to be referred to with those terms.
To actus’ point, the only compelling argument for affirmative action that I’ve ever heard was from Larry Elder. He says that some type of opposite reaction had to occur to convince African Americans that yes, the doors of previously all-white institutions really were open to them now. Yes, they really could vote. And yes, they really could join unions, and eat in the dining rooms of restaurants, and get rooms in motels.
But like Elder, I believe that this time of convincing is now past, and perpetuating the situation where some pigs are more equal than other pigs will bring us right back to the corrosiveness that King was so famous for sticking in the nation’s face.
yours/
peter
I didn’t start the race 300 years ago, I started it 39 years ago so I want some of that affirmative action stuff too to protect me against the geezers with a 261-year head start.
…from Jimmy Carter, a former US President, shamefully straining to connect the Hoover-era wiretapping of Martin Luther King (approved, ironically, by Bobby Kennedy, whose brother Ted received a warm reception, his being a Demcrat and all) to the current and completely unrelated NSA “domestic spy†scandal,…
Folks on the political right are getting all bent out of shape because Jimmuh made a comparison between LBJ’s wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the NSA signals intelligence program—or “domestic spying”, as wiretapping international calls is known on the political left. Yet, the Left is stone silent about Jimmuh’s comparison of Martin Luther King, Jr. to Al Qaeda terrorists. Now tell me again just who the racists are supposed to be?
I want to bounce off of something Sinner said: History is written by the victors. This cynical cliche is a cornerstone of leftist-pacifist belief (and closely related to the ideas of “controlling the narrative that Jeff has been so assiduously exploring in this space.)
First of all, I question whether it’s necessarily true – even in the halls of the american Academy, I think you would find healthy scepticism applied to, say, a history of the Vietnam War published by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
But beyond that, I think the cliche is being turned on its head – it has become, “Those who write the history have won.”
which has taken King’s vision for a color blind America in precisely the wrong direction
This was already happening before King’s death. He was quickly becoming marginalized in the civil rights movement the year before he was killed.
actus
find me a 300 year old man, and let’s give him all the catching up he needs.
Thank you eakawie! That one’s right up there with the “history repeats itself” meme in my book of personal annoyances. (Along with the notion in Hollywood and popular culture, recently reinforced by Michael Crichton’s Timeline, that there’s no difference between what a practicing historian does and the work of an archaeologist.)
Obviously rather than learning their lesson from the Wellstone
funeralpolitical rally they just had to use C.S. King’s corpse to score points off GW (who was a class act throughout).Anyone still harboring that Leftists are not all about the personal is the political? Even a friggin’ funeral can’t be about coming together and remembering the deceased!
And as far as I’m concerned, Jhimmi Carter has overdrawn his moral bank account.
I became slightly politically aware during during Peanut’s pathetic reign. You can bet we stirred up everyone we knew at the University of Texas to vote for the Gipper. Jimmuh’s been good for plenty belly laughs since…
If anything, I suspect that we’re near reaching the breaking point for the exploitation of race in this country, and that the next generation…
I’m beginning to share your optimism. With increasing frequency I encounter “black” coeds on campus who talk just like friggin’ Valley Girls. It always makes me smile. I want to hug them and say “You’re so damn CUTE!” I’ve always thought that language and culture separated Americans more than race.
Well said Jeff. The whole democrats are for civil right and republicans against them meme is one of the biggest of many lies perpatrated on the American public in this generation. I would recommend that those who say that look at the civil rights act of 1957. Sponsered by republicans and in many ways almost identical to the 1964 bill. Unfortunately, it never pased. One of the stalwarts in the senate who did his utmost to insure it was never passed was none other than Lyndon Johnson. You remember, the president who lied to get us into a war where approximately 52,000 Americans died.
The other point all politics aside, is that when you attend someone’s funeral, regardless whether you liked or agreed with the person or not, you do not try to score cheap political points. Period.
This is a matter of simply behaving liked a civilized adult in public. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can’t contain yourself then don’t go.
I disagree with the Anchoress’s assumption that this will be forgotten in three days.
The incident will subside, but it will continue to resonate with many people long afterwards. Just like the waves from a rock tossed into a pool continue outward long after the rock has sunk below the surface. And those waves reflect badly on the humanity of those who cynically manipulated a funeral for cheap political theater.
I’m making the case that the ‘official history’ of the civil rights movement talks only of ending legal segregation and discrimination. But its much much more.
The point being that its quite normal and expected to bring up pacifism and social justice at her funeral, as opposed to err…. whitewashing the civil rights struggle. Its official history is into simply implementing laws against racial discrimination and segregation. But that’s not what it was, and people are shocked to hear that.
Well, look at the bright side: A neologism has been spawned.
Wellstone/ v.tr. to crassly attempt to score political points at funeral/memorial; cf. pathetic Democrats Wellstoned Coretta Scott Kings funeral today.
OK, actus, I get it: you’re being an apologist for those who perverted what is, in Judeo-Christian societies, uniformly expected to be a brief period of public grief, celebration of a life, and recognition of our common mortality, into a rah-rah denouncement of one of the attendees, simply because they knew they had a delicious opportunity to do what they do every day in the target’s presence without the least fear of retaliation. They knew Bush would only show the courtesy that is his trademark with his opponents; they counted on it; they used his gentility against him.
You appear to believe that because Dr. & Mrs. King, respectively, might have and would have shared the opinions of the uncouth reverend and ex-president, that the Kings would’ve not just condoned but encouraged the display. Do you have an example from either of their lives to point to, wherein either of them used someone else’s funeral – not just the occasion of someone’s death but their actual funeral – as a platform to insult and accuse an attendee? Or some statement of intent from Mrs. King that she wanted her funeral used in this way? I’m not saying it’s impossible – and if this really was her intent, then triple kudos to President Bush for showing up anyway to do honor to a woman who intended to dishonor him – but without such an example or statement, it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that the Kings would’ve done something so crass.
Some civil rights advocates may include in their platform pacifism, “social justice” as you describe it, membership in whatever political organization, pretty much anything… but getting back to original principles, all they’re entitled to, all any of us is entitled to, is equal treatment under the law.
TW: That’s the way the system is supposed to work, anyway.
<blockquote>The point being that its quite normal and expected to bring up pacifism and social justice at her funeral, as opposed to err…. whitewashing the civil rights struggle.</blockquote>
Oh, the irony compressed into those five words. The density approaches that of neutronium, actus.
And, yep, you were trying to divert the thread. Tk, tsk, tsk.
Otherwise, what Jamie said.
The official narrative of the Civil Rights movement ….
Often leaves out the pacifism and social justice aspects of the movement. The official narrative is that it was just about ending laws about segregation. It was much more.
I often wonder why the “progressives” insist on pushing this aspect of the civil rights movement in general and MLK in particular. It seems likely that they are trying to get a little of the King magic to rub off on them, but it seems far more likely that they end up tarring MLK with the communist brush.
Hardly–history is constantly being thoroughly rewritten, from top to bottom, from the prehistory of man to the modern age, with every fresh philosophy or wave of new archaeological discoveries that are made. You speak as though there’s some kind of time limit on the ‘rewriting’ of history–which there unquestionably is not. Essentially every work by every historian I’ve ever read, begins with something along the lines of ‘this is a common misconception in my field, but here’s why I think it’s wrong’–whether you’re talking about a historian specializing in the Peloponnesian wars or in the Nixon administration. The ideological gloss on different parts of history changes with every passing year–reputations are soiled and redeemed, icons are broken and then glued back together again–there is no ‘final verdict’ of history, not by a long shot.
You tell that sistah what her funeral is supposed to be like!
And what is this fascination about retaliation? The guy can get on TV anytime he wants. Please, quit whining. You look like a sore winner.
I don’t know who went to Dr. king’s funeral, but you can sure bet the Vietnam war was mentioned. Mentioned that it was a bad idea.
And who cares about attendees? Its not for them. Its for her. Her life and struggle are about poverty and pacifism. People in this country might not like that, but its not their moment, but hers.
As we can see, there’s still work to be done on that civil rights movement. And just because some bigshot is present the funeral will not bend to that bigshot, rather he will bend to her view, because its her day.
There’s no denying what he was doing when he was shot: organizing a union for economic justice. What there is denying is that this is a stain upon the man.
I too will never tire of pointing out that the Jim Crow south was run by Democrats and that southern Democrats (including Al Gore’s dad) voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that were it not for the efforts of Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and his Senate Republicans, that Act never would have seen the light of day.
Every day the Dems demonstrate their lack of character, meaness of spirit, ill manners and seeming inability to conduct themselves properly in a civil society. How anyone would want their representation is quite beyond me. I despair that black Americans will ever wise up.
Huh? Could you expand on this, actus?
You gotta reach back 40 years to find the republicans doing the right thing on civil rights. That tune changed as soon as the great white south opened up before them. It was all “states rights” speeches in philadelphia mississippi from then on.
Some people think what MLK was doing was bad. They’re wrong.
Thank you. I agree. They are wrong. What MLK did was right and good.
But I also think that the partisanship crap displayed during Mrs. King funeral was wrong as well. This is completely unrelated to your point, of course. But that’s all right, your point is completely unrelated to this post. Especially since I can’t find one single comment here saying MLK was wrong in what he did.
But, hey, why let facts get in the way of your thoughts, eh?
Agreed. Mentioning that war is bad at a pacifist’s funeral? How low can you go? I mean, there was a very important white man there! He could have been offended!
How low can you go?
I dunno, actus. You reach new levels everyday.
Not yet in Jhimmi’ league, but keep diggin!
And that, actus, is why reasonable people will stop paying attention to you. I don’t give a rat’s ass what color anybody is. Attempting to toss some racist motivation onto this story is crass political manipulation.
The point that you are missing JeffS, is that much of the sentiments that Republicans are so outraged by are those that MLK believed in. Anybody who has read more of his writing than “I have a dream”, knows that MLK was almost radically non-violent. He would be appalled by the Iraq War, and would have been labeled soft on terror, or treasonous, or not a real American by the Republican party. So for Republicans to act as if he would have any problem seizing the opportunity to present his views to the President is baseless speculation. This funeral was not for Republicans, it was not for President Bush, it was not for conservatives, it wasn’t even for Democrats. It was for Coretta Scott King, and she and her family have the right to have any type of funeral that they want. And they don’t have to seek your approval.
Tossing race into the funeral of a civil rights activist is a no-no. Got nothing to do with people being uppity and not knowing their place: to defer to the war president when you bury a pacifist.
OK, why aren’t any Democrats complaining about the pacifist stuff, seeing as how they’re generally not pacifists either?
Because its republicans that politicize funerals. Democrats let the dead have their important day.
JAYsus, actus, I didn’t think it possible.
But you are acting with a hell of a lot LESS class then Uncle Teddy did at the FUNERAL.
BTW…don’t you find it just a tad crass that Jhimmi equated MLK with al Qaeda?
Democrats let the dead have their important day.
Yes, by wrapping the corpse around themselves and proclaiming themselves sacrosanct.
Kinda like Mommy Sheehan doing a photo-shoot laying on her son’s grave (which she hasn’t even put a headstone on).
Somebody doesn’t get it.
Hmmmm… GW is to Bobby Kennedy as al Qaeda is to MLK.
go figure, actus.
Are you saying that jimmi carter thinks its right to surveil Dr. King? because its not. Are you saying that makes him like al-qaeda because we have reports of illegal surveillance on non-alqaeda people today?
Derrick!
But what did King state in I Have a Dream? Was his dream to see lunch counter sit-ins and anti-war candlelight vigils?
You’re confusing ends (equality before the law and the end of segregation) with means (“direct action”).
yours/
peter
Indeed, but if collectivism can be right-wing, what does right-wing mean—if not individualism? Why not, instead, call them Christian authoritarian? Or social left-wing since they tend to agree with Marxist abuses of language; that conservatism is against progress is highly to their tastes, that liberalism is left-wing (in a bad sense) is too, e.g. this “conservative” calls John Stewart Mill a socialist, and having read “On Liberty”, which these “conservatives” put on a list with Marx, it gave a strange disorienting feeling to then read…
We’ve already lost “progressive” and “liberal”, I’ll be damned if we lose “conservative” and “right-wing” too. Wherein lies our country, and how would we begin?
King had other ends than what was in “I have a dream.” Non-violence and peace was a goal. Economic justice was a goal. He was killed organizing a union.
How about bipartisanship and the spirit of co-operation actus? Were those goals of Dr. King? How about loving thy neighbor? How exactly are we to achieve those goals when the left can’t even turn off the bullshit and venom for a friggin funeral?
Do you really presume to speak for Dr. Martin Luther King when you obviously have no concept of even basic civility and common decency?
Pacifism, nonviolence and social justice aren’t bullshit and venom.
They’re strong words. But not bullshit. Venomous to many in our society. But not the Kings. And the last day they get turned off is the day that that we celebrate the life of the person who fought for them. And the last reason we turn them off is becuase it might offend an important person there. That would be the path of disrespect for Coretta.
I think you’re worried because it was extreme. Well, the Kings were extremists. From a Letter to a Birmingham Jail:
They’re extremists and it is no surprise that their philosophy makes us uncomfortable. But it was their philosophy, and to ignore it when we bury her is to disrespect it.
But to ape it, co-opt it, when you don’t believe it yourself is respect?
Who was doing a better job of that at the funeral, actus?
Ape? I like that one.
Its a eulogy. You’re going to speak to it. You’ll Address it. Hope and wish and try to copy it! That’s not co-opting. One doesn’t have to be great to speak to Coretta’s greatness.
Oh there was a lot of love there. Blessing for everyone. Good was done do them. The good that was Coretta.
If you want to call conservatives racist, come out and say it. This pounding dust out of the edges of the carpet routine is getting old.
How much aping did you see Jeff?
So why was President Bush invited? And why did the Democrats use the funeral as a platform for their posturing? You argue against yourself, Derrick.
I think he’s saying it wasn’t about political parties, but about Coretta. It wasn’t for anyone but her—and her vision. Which different people speak to, and of, in different ways. Its not to say others can’t come. Its that its not FOR them.
What do you like about it, Actus?
Ah. So, although the Democrats who spoke are not themselves pacifists, they’re hoping to become pacifists eventually? (After the next election, perhaps?) That’s pretty much all I wanted to know.
actus, the purpose of a funeral is to help the living deal with their loss by honoring and remembering the good that the departed left behind. A “life and times of…”, as you will, in respect of their memories.
We hold funerals to help the survivors get through their grief, a very necessary part of the healing process.
A eulogy at a funeral is praise for the dead. Not a stump for opprotunistic politicians.
At least, this is true for the funerals (and memorials) that I’ve attended. I don’t know what your life experiences have been.
But turning a funeral into a political rally is as tasteless as anything the left has done in the recent past. Including the funeral for Senator Wellstone.
You might see my opinion as a slam against Dr. King, and you would be wrong. While Dr. King was against war (I recall how he well and truly pissed off President Johnson), he was for healing and growing. That was part of his “I have a dream” message.
And what happened at Mrs. King’s funeral simply flies in the face of that.
actus, just a couple of quotes above:
Jeff Goldstein, in his initial post:
Has the sun risen in the west? Does actus (and possibly Derrick) actually agree with Jeff Goldstein?
BE STILL, MY BEATING HEART!!!!
Its a colorful synonym for “copy.” Much more vivid than “copy.” Good choice of words.
Why only the democrats? And which ones did you find out were pacifists for a day? Carter?
I think the King family has different ideas about how to get on. Some believe in mourning. Some believe in ‘don’t mourn, organize.’ Some believe in funerals like they used to do in New Orleans. Some believe in more dour affairs. It’s ok to have a different idea of how to do your own.
But I can see how respectful of the life of an agitator a little agitation can be. I’d hate to see it die with her, I’d hate to see it die with me if it were me.
Well, its not a cynical calculation that during a six hour long funeral of a pacifist someone mentions that this war was a bad idea.
But some people just have victim complexes. Rather colorful ones.
Well, it’s all in the delivery, I guess, actus—but even so, I don’t believe I did mention that.
In fact, I thought I just singled out Carter and, beyond that, some general anti-GOP sentiment built into the pageantry.
But then, I guess that proves your point, doesn’t it? Some people just have victim complexes.
Nor is it cynical to note that, at the funeral of a pacifist, the word “this” is being used cynically. The dear departed– who, after all, is what the occasion is all about– might have looked askance at the implied distinction between this war and other wars which were perhaps not such bad ideas. There’s your co-optation.
I thought you weern’t speaking generally, but rather about the statements.
What was anti-GOP? what made it seem calculated-ly so?
What makes you say she tought that? My understanding of pacifism is that it doesn’t work that way. I suppose its possible she might not have been a pacifist. And thus she was co-opted into being one.
I might have guessed that someone who’s surprised and delighted to learn that the word “copy” has synonyms wouldn’t know the meaning of “pacifism”.
No one is suggesting King was a political monograph. And King exploited all manner of social institutions in his battle against segregation, unions merely being one of them. But I’ve never heard of anyone accuse him of trying to establish theocracy because he utilized religion.
But still, pacifism and “social justice,” however you may define it, are still derivative. They are means to his primary end of liberty and justice for all. As exhibit A, I suggest you carefully read the passage from Letter From a Birmingham Jail you pasted above.
yours/
peter.
Oh I didn’t just learn that. If I didn’t know it I wouldn’t have found it so artful.
But I am shocked to learn that she would have minded someone mentioning a problem with this war, solely because they might not in other cases. Like I said, we can’t all be perfect, but we can try. I think Coretta would still love us. I think that’s the way pacifists would work.
I’m not convinced that agitation at a funeral is a good thing….especially since Dr. King used agitation as a means unto the end, and was not a professional agitator, making noise for fun and profit. He was, as you say, a man of peace, and had definite goals in mind. Go read his ”I Have A Dream” speech.
Perhaps the King family thinks differently about this. Perhaps not. But, as noted by other people in this thread, your cynicism is obvious (as Paul Z. noted above), and I doubt that your agitation is any part of healing.
Justice wasn’t just the end of segregation and racial discrimination though. It was also a more equal distribution of wealth, an end to militarism. I don’t understand why you imagine that they are just means, and not ends in themselves.
Absolutely. That reverend better have meant it when he said “will words become deeds that meet needs.” It better have been a means to an end.
Its part of struggling. I mean, there’s a guy here who doesn’t get that King did more than just fight segregation and racial discrimination.
Yet more irony.
It works better if you picture Actus delivering his lines here as Edward Arnold, or if you prefer a more modern template, William B. Davis. Unfortunately, it won’t jibe with his mental self-portrait, which seems to be equal parts Alexander Woolcott and Holden Caulfield, but hey, what can ya do?
The quote was about loving your enemies, which I am tired of trying to do, you disingenuous little prick.
Love was given to everyone too. Coretta’s love of non-violence.
It sounds like you love a cause more than you love people.
Figures.
More that love of people isn’t to be mistaken with deference for them. Love can point out what is wrong. Go and sin no more.
More that love of people isn’t to be mistaken with deference for them. Love can point out what is wrong. Go and sin no more.
You’re very verbal today, actus–you usually aren’t very responsive in an argument.
Don’t know about Jeff, but speaking personally, I saw the man who bombed Kosovo getting a hero’s welcome at a pacifist’s funeral. Not to mention his wife (who is essentially another limb of the same unitary political creature), whose uninspired speech was given pride of place at the same funeral. The Democrats are in the enviable position of the guy wearing the cardboard halo, next to the guy who always is stuck with the cardboard horns–namely the Republicans in general and Bush in particular. But maybe Coretta Scott King wanted her funeral to be an uncritical celebration of the Democrats’ unquestioned ownership of MLK’s legacy and the African-American vote, as opposed to–well–a celebration of the actual principles he espoused, which one attendant at the occasion (whether D or R–was Robert Byrd there, by chance?) was as likely to have betrayed as another.
Funny how the best actus can come up with is thinly veiled cries of “CONSERVATIVE=RACIST”
Hey, Phoenician got banned for calling everybody racist; why is this prick still here?
And she also voted for the war in Iraq. But nobody thinks the WMD comment was aimed at her.
Some people just don’t appreciate colorful vocabularies.
Guys, you just don’t understand – Actus CARES! He’s got the cred, he is DOWN with the stuff that really matters. Can’t you see how it tortures him to CARE so much? Couldn’t we all profit from his example? (Sniff) It’s beautiful…beautiful, man. Like, a flower…or something.
That’ll teach me not to check in overnight…
actus, for heaven’s sake. Have I been misled that the Kings were Baptists? A Baptist funeral is many things that, say, a Catholic funeral is not. But a political rally? At which there are standing ovations celebrating not the life of the deceased but speechifying?
Some compare-and-contrast, first from Mayor Shirley Franklin’s remarks at the funeral:
From Dr. Dorothy Height’s remarks:
Even Edward Kennedy:
Rep. Conyers:
And then we get to Lowery:
Gosh, does adding “But Coretta knew and” really add a lot to that second sentence, or to the significance of his remarks?
A little from Pres. Bush:
(Carter, frankly, used the occasion for pure self-promotion, as usual; I find his remarks obtuse and inappropriate, so much so that I can’t pick out just one or two paras to quote. I could’ve gone with the Katrina race-baiting, but why?)
Do you see the difference? This is why I called Lowery and Carter “uncouth.” Many speakers found ways to honor Coretta Scott King’s contributions and beliefs without pointing to the row of Presidents ex- an current; Lowery didn’t. Even Kennedy found a way to celebrate Mrs. King’s life without bloviating endlessly about his own; Carter couldn’t. actus, you still appear to believe that I’m offended on Bush’s behalf. I’m not, though it’s unsettling, to say the least, to watch purported adults virtually high-fiving one another about how they managed to “get” him (US News & World Report actually said “Carter… zinged Bush on several issues”) while he was unable to respond. I’m insulted as a person of Christian faith who has seen a solemn rite profaned by one of its ministers and by another devoted Christian who ought to know better, and I’m shocked that “She would have wanted it this way” is actually the defense being offered. I never knew Mrs. King, of course, but considering the consensus that she was a woman of grace and dignity, I can’t imagine that she would have approved of her funeral’s being put to this ungracious and undignified use.
…why is this prick still here?
Every court needs a jester, I imagine.
Check out Dr. King’s remarks at the funeral of those 4 little girls Killed in that montgomery church bombing.
That’s all that you heard of that speech. At least on some TV channels. I preferred the ‘together at last line.’
King’s eulogy at the Birmingham funeral is worth everyone’s reading. He provided not only comfort to the grieving families but a reason for calm and constructiveness to the community and the nation, and a prophetic challenge to the status quo that, given the setting, carried the weight of four little souls as well as his own formidable oratory. Dr. King didn’t hesitate to use his ministry and his pulpit to speak prophetically, and I completely agree that a person of strong convictions coupled with a muscular Christian faith can legitimately say that his faith may compel him to make people uncomfortable. Of course, he also shouldn’t be surprised when he’s denounced for doing so – and I doubt that King would have pretended surprise if he’d gotten the same reaction to his Birmingham eulogy.
I heard a snippet from Lowery today, in which he first professed his non-partisanship and then said that everything that he and anyone else said was all in a good spirit – that Bush shook his hand and hugged him around the shoulder on his way out, so obviously he didn’t take it “the wrong way” or anything. If he had been speaking prophetically, he ought to have the courage to stand up to the criticism now and, instead of saying, “I can’t imagine how anyone could think I was being inappropriate or rude, when even Pres. Bush hasn’t come out and said so,” said, “Yes, I was directing my remarks at the current administration, at Congress generally in fact, in honor of Mrs. King who would have been making those comments herself if she’d been able. If you think I was being rude, well, I think it’s rude to allow millions to go without health care, etc., etc…” If you’re going to be a modern-day prophet, don’t be a mealymouthed one.
Rudeness. If you’re going to cultivate it, expect to be criticized for it.
actus, I’d appreciate a link to Lowery’s full remarks, if you have it; I haven’t heard any of them and can only find THE quote. And let me say that I’ve come to… not exactly appreciate but at least accept Lowery’s point of view – I just find it disingenuous for him to pretend he didn’t mean it the way it sounded. I still believe it was rude and inappropriate, I still harbor grave doubts about whether Mrs. King would have appreciated it, but if he sees himself in the role of Elijah he has to bear the consequences of it.
There was one on crooks and liars. But I think some of the applause had been edited down. It was about 8 minutes long.
Huh. I thought I looked on Crooks & Liars. I wish I could find an actual transcript instead of a recording – recordings are sloooooow and I have to find my earbuds if I want to actually hear everything over the din in here. (And if wishes were horses, people would ride.)
Regardless. Thanks for pointing to it.
I actually lost a much longer response before putting up the one I put up, in which I pointed out the very significant difference between the Birmingham funeral and Mrs. King’s funeral, and why Dr. King’s remarks at the former were absolutely appropriate to the occasion while Lowery’s at the latter were at least less so. I thought about it overnight and decided that the point is worth making, if it’s not obvious: King was speaking directly about the cause of the funeral, a vicious crime motivated by racism and hatred, and its larger implications for society; it’s also noteworthy that the great bulk of his eulogy focused on the girls, their families, their pain and their hope of heaven, and of course his oratory skill, so far beyond Great Orator Clinton’s, made it all into poetry. You read it and emerge from the other side simultaneously saddened, uplifted, and determined.
Lowery, on the other hand, was reciting a list of issues that had nothing to do with how Mrs. King came to be lying in that church, and in fact was ignoring the tremendous strides in securing civil liberties for all Americans that came about through her (and others’
work, strides symbolized by the presence of not just a few VIPs but four Presidents and hundreds of other influential friends at her funeral. Further, because his “gotcha” moment was so unfocused on the event, he had no particular challenge for society, which is part of effective prophetic speech. And he’s not the speaker that King was, which is not a sin but certainly adds to the difficulties in perceiving prophecy in his pedestrian and shallow “poem.”
Gad, are we done yet? actus, it’s inarguable, going by the generally accepted rules of polite society, that what occurred at Mrs. King’s funeral was uncivil. There’s a means/end question to be settled, I suppose, in that people seeking to bring about Mrs. King’s desired ends might have determined that this means of garnering international attention was fair game, but rude it certainly was. The only arguable point is whether the incivility was what Mrs. King herself would have wanted, which – unless she did make her wishes for her funeral known before her death – we’ll never know.
I thought its pretty good: Will words become deeds that meet needs. Lots of words said. And its budget season too.
What I think you don’t understand is that we were burying someone who made gains by doing things that were impolite. That took on the generally accepted rules of polite society because they were a crock. For the Kings, we expect morality from a preacher, we expect that her funeral will have politicians grandstanding, and we like that at least 1 person there will challenge that grandstanding to be more than that.
To the extent that the generally accepted rules of polite society say that on this day we should not continue Coretta’s fight because it might offend a powerful person or interest in our society, they are a crock. At least to anyone who understands anything about social justice activism. A room full of thousands of people was capable of understanding that. But others, not so. Others are content with telling the Kings they made their mothers funeral something that we in “polite society” don’t do.
To the extent that the generally accepted rules of polite society say that
on this day we should not continue Coretta’s fight because it might offend
a powerful person or interest in our society, they are a crock. At least to
anyone who understands anything about social justice activism.
It was very revealing that Reverend (and I use that term very loosely) Lowery’s statement about the Iraq War was couched in terms of its justification (no WMD, no justification), not in terms of the horrors of war itself (innocent casualties, etc). Does this mean that the social justice movement, however defined, should embrace the war effort should evidence of WMD surface?
right. Because it worked well with the weapons of misdirection line.
He gave one critique of the war’s pointlessness, one critique of how we went about getting into it. If he had said that it killed childrem, we wouldn’t imagine that a war that killed no children would be ok. There are still other faults.