Jackson Free Press

Thought you all would find this interesting: Spike Lee visited University of MS today (something I had heard nothing about here locally) and made national news.

Director Spike Lee, known for his stylish and controversial films, said Mississippi should get rid of the state flag during a speech at the University of Mississippi's Black History Month celebration. Lee said Mississippians cling too tightly to what he considers symbols of oppression. "You've gotta do something about that flag," he said. "I know people say its representative of history. Well, so's the swastika."

This has been discussed before, but what do you all think about the significance of it being brought up again after the death of Coretta Scott King?

Previous Commentsshow

As a Mississippian living far away up north, it'd be nice if there were a flag I could display to remind me of home that didn't royally offend people.

Mark Michalovic

Feb 10 2006

Yeah, the flag is a royal embarrassment. But, I always say that we have to do the hard work first so that more people understand what is wrong with the flag before we launch a new campaign to bring it down again. However, that time may not be so far off. We're getting closer every day.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

More than an embarrassment, though, the flag is a sign of the work left to be done. Every time I see it flapping on a flagpole, I am inspired. Really. I urge you all to view it as a beacon, of sorts, to keep you motivated to be "deliberate" about teaching our history and reversing problems of the past. You will meet inevitable defensiveness, like guywithanidea just posted on another thread -- but that's OK. That's part of it. And, remember, action doesn't have to be about protesting and marching on the Capitol and writing angry columns or such, although it can be that, too. It can also mean just making the effort to invite people of a different race over or out to dinner and then really talking and listening. Or show up at an event that celebrates a culture different from yours. And it certainly means challenging racism everytime you witness it, no matter how uncomfortable.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

Maybe this is how we should start: In southern Asia, a swastika-like symbol has long been used as a sign of good luck, and as a religious symbol by some Buddhists. They were doing so long before a similar symbol was adopted by the Nazis. This symbol has lots of good meanings for Asian Buddhists. However, I have never seen this symbol used by Buddhists in the West. My assumption, and this is just an assumption, is that they realize the symbol carries very different meanings to Westerners than it does to south Asians. So they sensitively refrain from using the symbol in the West. Likewise, for a lot of white Southerners, the rebel flag has come to hold lots of good meanings. But because the symbol has VERY different meanings not only to African-Americans in Mississippi but also to people of other races outside the South (and a state's flag is a symbol used to represent the state in other parts of the nation and around the world) I would think a different symbol would be more appropriate. The flag should speak in a language that will be understood. It shouldn't deliberately make use of symbols that we know will be interpretted differently than they are meant.

Mark Michalovic

Feb 10 2006

*Bump o' the Day* I'm bumping this to Noise on the front page. Y'all go to town.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

Donna, I'm probably going to raise eyebrows again with this, but the flag doesn't personally bother me. I look it like alot of things in life that have evolved in their meaning, such as the "n" word. The reason I thought the visit of Spike Lee was relevant and needed to be mentioned is that in scanning all three network's websites I found nothing about it. Is it because he is such a polarizing figure? If it had been someone else visiting this school, would it have gotten more airtime. I guess it is a given that when Lee (who I respect alot for his craft) shows up something is going to be said that gets attention. The swastika comment definitely got my attention.

c a webb

Feb 10 2006

I do, however, understand that some thing the flag should be changed because of businesses and even entertainers won't come here. I just think the evolution factor should be considered. In my opinion the flag may be the same but the state it represents isn't.

c a webb

Feb 10 2006

I think it's great that it doesn't bother you, C.A. But the point, of course, is what it symbolizes and the people it does bother. As you know, for instance, the Constitution (or the idea of freedom) is not, and cannot, be about the rights of the majority (a reality that too many people do not understand, or ignore). That is, if one person is offended by a school prayer (in a public school), or could be, then the government cannot provide a school prayer. It's not about taking away rights from the many; it's about protecting the rights of one individual person to live "free" from government intrusion in America. The same principle applies to the flag issue -- and is a big reason it should not have been put to a vote. The Legislature should have had the balls, and the knowledge, to understand why it should just be changed by law. That is, the government -- that is, the people -- should not require that a symbol of hate and oppression for so many be used by the government as a symbol for the state. That has nothing to do with whether an individual should be able to own or fly a rebel flag -- sure they should in a "free" country. It also belongs in a museum where people can go and study and comtemplate its complex history, or honor it if they wish. But it does not belong as part of a government-sponsored flag. It is very, very important to remember that freedom is about one guy and what the government cannot take away from him (or her) -- freedom of or from religion, freedom of speech, freedom to privacy and to make one's own decisions and, I would argue strongly, freedom from government symbols of hate and oppression. Until our state is ready to face this head-on, we are going to continue to labor under a very heavy weight on our shoulders. But, how is the state going to be ready to face it head-on if we do not talk about these issues every chance we get? It's really not about what outsiders think of us -- as was argued too strongly during the last flag campaign -- it is about what we think of ourselves, our history and each other. In my opinion the flag may be the same but the state it represents isn't. I agree, for the most part, but that begs the question: If the state isn't still the same on some level, why won't people change this government-sponsored symbol of terrorism?

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

Donna, that is the best argument that I have heard... protecting the rights of the few. Honestly, I had not seen it that way. You made a clear, understandable argument. I am guilty of saying "I don't feel this" or "that doesn't do this or that for me", but it should be considered those who are affected. Something for me to ponder over the weekend. :-)

c a webb

Feb 10 2006

Thanks, friend. ;-) I do think what is so often missing in today's society, despite our advances, is simple empathy. "How would I feel if ...?" If people will honestly engage empathy more often, many will reach very different conclusions. Try this one: How would I feel if the government that would not allow my grandparents to vote–and set up a secret commission that fed their license plate numbers to the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize and hurt them, using the rebel flag as a symbol for their actions–forced my children to walk into school every day with that symbol flying overhead? That is just one variation, of course.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

I was disappointed the new flag lost the election. I hope it comes up again. A variation on your theme is to ask how important the battle flag really is in terms of heritage versus what it means to victims of 300 years of oppression. I think the result of that weighing is obvious. With that said though, do we really need discourse like Mr. Lee's? I always felt that the last minute radicalizing of the issue is what defeated the flag referendum to begin with. Just my two cents. Of course, we did lose the vote, so we can settle for inspiration. RNH.

Niles Hooper

Feb 10 2006

do we really need discourse like Mr. Lee's? I always felt that the last minute radicalizing of the issue is what defeated the flag referendum to begin with. Just my two cents. What do you mean by "discourse like Mr. Lee's"? He didn't say anything offensive. Of course, we need this kind of discourse. I think it's super. He also said this, for the record: Lee said that rap culture has perpetuated a cult of violence, drug use, disrespect to women and ignorance among a staggering portion of young blacks. "This 'gangsta' obsession is madness," Lee said. "Thinking like that is genocide." Frankly, based on that article, Spike Lee is talking a whole lot like Bill Cosby–the black man white folks love to lift out of context. But, in context, they both seem to be making excellent points. More power to them. And I don't know what you mean by "last-minute radicalizing." I didn't see anything in the media during the flag debate that seemed "radical" by any stretch -- except on the part of its blatantly racist supporters. If anything, the supporters of the new flag seemed afraid of their shadows and munching on milquetoast, so to speak–too timidd to talk about the real, hardcore reasons that the government needed to change its symbol. I wish the JFP had been in existence then. The flag might still be flying, but I promise that the dialogue would have been more straightforward.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

About the flag issue, and Confederate nostalgia in general, Walker Percy, It think, writing in 1957 articulated the moderate view better than anyone since. These are some quotes on the issue from an essay called "Red, White, and Blue-Gray." Nor is the Confederate flag a racist symbol. But it is apt to be now. The symbol is the same, but the referent has changed. Now when the Stars and Bars flies over a convertible or speedboat, what it signifies is not a theory of government but a certain attitute toward the Negro... A pecuilarity of civil war is the destruction not only of armies and nations but of ideologies. The words and slogans may remain the same, but they no longer mean the same thing. There is a great deal to be said for the traditional Southern position on states' rights...Certainly, states' rights once signified a healthy sense of local responsibility. Nowadays in the South, however, the expressions signifies a lack of responsibilty, plus a certain attitude towards the Negro. When a politician mentions states' rights, it's a better than even bet that in the next sentence it will become clear what kind of states' rights he is talking about. It usually comes down to the right to keep the Negro in his place. There is another phrase: the Southern Way of Life. Now, there was and is such a thing and it had and has nothing to do either with Negroes or with a planter aristocracy. The Northerner can sneer all he wants to, but he didn't have it and never will and doesn't even know what it is. But I don't like to hear the phrase now...because I know what is coming next. It usually means segregation and very little else... When Lee and the Army of Norhern Virginia laid down the Confederate flag in 1865, no flag had ever been defended by better men. But when the same flag is picked up by men like Ross Barnett and Jimmy Davis, nothing remains but to make panties and pillowcases with it.

Justin

Feb 10 2006

Oooh, nice, Justin. I hadn't seen this. I love the "I know what's coming next" theme. Don't we, though? As I've always liked to say, I can be down with state's rights with the next guy ... but not "state's rights" to outlaw slavery (or force it on other states), "state's rights" to keep certain people from voting or marrying whomever they please, "state's rights" to violate individuals' constitutional rights, etc. Those are absurb interpretations and patently immoral, not to mention antithetical to freedom. As for the whole "the civil war wasn't about slavery; it was about economics" apologism, my favoriate retort is to point folks to Mississippi's secession statement. Uh, folks, the Civil War was over the "economics" of owning free human beings who could do free work. And of the "right" to tell other states they had to do the same thing. I'm so sick of revisionism I could scream. A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. hat we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory. The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico. It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain. It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice. It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. [...] Nope, nothing to do with slavery.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

The American Civil War was almost all about slavery for the people who started it and almost nothing about slavery for the people who fought in it. Rich slaveowners ran the legislatures that seceded and then drew up armies from families that would never own plantations, much less slaves to work them. In the North, Lincoln went as far as to discipline John Fremont--the Republican candidate for president four years before him--for trying to end slavery in territory reclaimed for the United States, before finally agreeing to the Emancipation Proclamation about a year too late for it to really sanctify the Union cause. So what I tell folks is that the Civil War started because the rich Southern legislators couldn't conceive of a South without slavery, but that there's plenty of revisionism in the way we portray the North, too. Lincoln was all too happy to allow slavery to remain in the South for the bulk of the war, and many of his top generals were slaveowners. Maryland was the last state to formally abolish slavery, months after the war ended. It was only towards the end of the war that there was even talk on the Union side about making the war about slavery; before that it was all about keeping the Confederate states in the federal government against their will, which was a specious argument at best. It would be cynical but probably accurate to say that Lincoln made the war about slavery only when it became clear that his old PR wasn't working. And when McClellan ran against Lincoln in '64, he was five points from winning--Union votes only, remember--on an outrageously racist anti-"miscenegation" platform that was in effect a tirade against the idea of Union soldiers dying for the freedom of black folk. And the draft riots in New York City were nothing like Gangs of New York; they were in effect race riots directed against the African-American community. So it was a very ugly war on both sides. I don't see why anyone would want to go around waving the Confederate battle flag under any circumstances. It was a complete and utter waste of more than 600,000 lives, committed to the dirt because a few Southern legislators hoodwinked their people into believing they were being invaded and the North so badly screwed up its response to the secession that they managed to contribute to this impression. There were great men on both sides, I'm sure, but they were all idiots when it mattered. The Civil War was a national embarrassment, a monument to human incompetence. Why anyone would want to romanticize it is beyond me. I do absolutely love the Walker Percy quote, though. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 10 2006

Well said, Tom. It's that whole holding-two-thoughts-at-once thing. You can accept that the South was not in the war for some admirable reason -- and realize that the North wasn't exactly a pillar of morality. However, I must say–having lived in the North as well as the South–the North doesn't still fight and romaniticize the Civil War like so many southerners do our "lost cause." Lost cause of what!?! Having rich planters build their wealth on the backs of black folks because they could take the hot sun better!? Definitely gives one pause when you stop to consider where much of that wealth that gets passed down through generations came from in the first place. But, no, this is a thought that a white southerner is not supposed to have. If we do, we're a traitor to our race or some such bullsh!t. I especially like this statement: The Civil War was a national embarrassment, a monument to human incompetence. Why anyone would want to romanticize it is beyond me. Ah, I remember Wyatt Emmerich's odd little column recently with the little boy sleeping with his little rebel flag. The part I don't get, as you're getting at, is how you can romanticize the Confederate battle flag in the FIRST PLACE, long before it became the symbol of the Ku Klux Klan and lynchings. That is, if you understand what the Confederacy was fighting over (see secession statement above), then how in God's green acre could you think that was such a great symbol even back then!?! What level of denial does that take to feel that way? Now, people can feel that way if they won't and salivate over the emblem all they want in their living rooms and museums and their boys' beds, but IT DOESN'T BELONG IN A GOVERNMENT FLAG. Period. It's an insult to all of us, including white Mississippians who don't buy the revisionist crap and aren't averse to unwhitewashed history lessons.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

Speaking of that hoodwinking, Tom, don't you think it's time that we southerners stop allowing ourselves to be hoodwinked by yucks more itnerested in the pocketbooks of a few? That hoodwink has gone on way too long in this state -- and they have always used race as a divisive weapon. I believe to my tippy toes that the way to defeat the yucks is to embrace our history and practice empathy in a huge way. I can think of a spiritual leader or two who would be pleased by such a strategy as well. Oh, and on the Civil War point. I've never understood why people think that knowing and admitting that the North wasn't so virtuous during those times thereby translates into believing that the South was being valiant by fighting to keep enslaving human beings for economic gain. Human beings are wired to be smarter than that.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2006

Amen. I wish I were noble enough to say that I oppose hanging the Confederate battle flag from the state capitol because it offends other people, but truth is that I oppose it because it offends me. It's a relic of the worst unnecessary war America has ever fought. I say unnecessary, even from the standpoint of emancipation, because there were graduated emancipation programs under discussion that would have left Southern slaveowners well compensated for their slaves. For far less money than was spent on the war and less time than was spent getting rid of slavery and the subsequent "employment"-focused Black Codes, the North could have simply bought off the South and potentially created a viable post-slavery economy in the process. Then there would have been less white Southern anger, ergo probably no powerful White League or organized Jim Crow movement, ergo a better deal all around. When South Carolina seceded, Lincoln had two options: Sit down with the bastards and buy them off, or play hardball. He chose to play hardball. I don't know if the other option would have worked--but because it was never tried, neither does anybody else. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 11 2006

Amen, Donna, but you see the same dualistic thinking right now in the war-on-terror conversations, where acknowledging that the United States has treated the Mideast poorly somehow suggests that we're flirting with terrorist apologetics. Binary thinking is so simple and so seductive. But it almost never ends up leading us anywhere we really need to go. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 11 2006

I dunno. It doesn't seem likely that they could have been bought off. Slavery, after all, was their birthright, or some such B.S., in addition to their money tree. It was about more than economics, after all -- it was about pride and, I fear, the ability to be violent and horrible to a whole race of people in order to feel bigger and better somehow. So, it seems unlikely to me that they could have been bought off easily. That, however, is not meant to paint Lincoln as an infallible hero. Lord, no. It does remind me of the whole debate during the Civil Rights Movement of whether "gradualism" was better (waiting for bigots to become unbigoted or to to die), or whether to force the end of segregation, which was the road taken. Of course, "moderates" like Hodding Carter believed, at first at least, that a gradual approach was better and would lead to less bloodshed. Of course, there is no way to know for sure ... but considering how entrenched some still are in their own bigotry, it's a bit hard to believe that Jim Crow would have just wandered off into the sunset for at least another several generations without a mighty kick in the ass. I mean, after all, when you're raised to support oppression, you are wounded and are going to continue passing that down. In that circumstance of continual denial, enlightenment in near impossible.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

Agreed, Tom: Binary thinking is the root of so much evil, it seems. I'm not sure I can think of a single time it's led us something we needed to go. I guess it's why people are so partisan. I mean, I just lovvvveeee the folks who think that I love the Democrats because I'm critical of Republicans. Huh? What friggin' logic leads to that outcome? Or, that I can't possible criticize Bush and Clinton. Huh? Or, as you said, we can't hate the terrorists and want them rounded up, even as we try to figure out what caused them in the first place so we can make that stop happening, too. Either-or thinking is certainly the friend of your friendly neighborhood demagogue. "If you're not with us, you're with the terroists!" Argh.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

BTW, it was hard to choose, but I think this is my, er, favoriate line from the secession ditty above: a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. A blow at slavery is a blow at civilization, sez Mississippi. Folks, we should be very proud of how far we've come, because this state was down deep in the pond scum in those days. I'm serious--major pride. And let's allow that pride to really catapult so much further ahead. You can't know how far you've come if you don't know how far you had to come. You can't appreciate your accomplishments. Breathe in those words of reality above, but don't be ashamed. Be proud that we're not that kind of place anymore. Then, forge ahead toward the light. 'Night, John Boy.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

I by no means want to re-ignite a debate over the civil war; I think that whatever the cause the issue was settled rather firmly at the Appomatox courthouse. But I do think it's interesting to point out that the Confederate constitution outlawed slave trade. For better or worse, the South has been completely integrated into the modern industrial/technological economy. So, it's safe to say that slavery was a dying institution, even at the onset of the civil war. The larger context of Walker Percy's quote, however, is that slavery and subsequent treatment of black folk after the civil war was and is sinful, and the South, given it's moral and gracious "way of life," could no longer tolerate it.

Justin

Feb 11 2006

I encourage y'all to read to read Walker Percy's essays on life in the South, particularly "Mississippi: A Fallen Paradise." It's interesting to see what a Mississippi-raised writer wrote about civil rights issues during the troubled times of the 50's and 60's in MS. They can be found in book of Percy's nonfiction, Signpost in a Strange Land (in addition to the essays on the South, the whole book is amazing).

Justin

Feb 11 2006

The Confederate Constitution outlawed only international slave trade (which had already been outlawed in the U.S. Constitution since 1808); it did not outlaw domestic slave trade, which was explicitly protected by Section 9-4: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. Outlawing international slave trade was not so much as much a moral concern as a financial one. Think NAFTA: Cheaper international competition would have ruined domestic slave traders. Had the Confederate Constitution broken with precedent and actually allowed international importation of slaves, the slaveowners (and, by definition, slave-"breeders" and slave-sellers) in Southern legislatures would have been up in arms. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 11 2006

Mr. Lee is probably symptomatic of why the VOTE in mississippi was lost for flag-change - a wide perception that the many of the change proponents were a bunch of yankees and what-nots who didn't live here and wanted to tell locals what was good for them. I guess pundits and talking heads are so caught up in their own world that they don't realize they often create the opposite reaction to what they intend. The Wellstone and King funerals are 2 good examples of this that come to mind - don't the democrats get that americans don't think trash-talking at a funeral is good behavior? I suspect Lee would have been happy to join in if he had been invited.

Scott Thomas

Feb 11 2006

"Mr. Lee is probably symptomatic of why the VOTE in mississippi was lost" Should read 'of one reason why the VOTE in MS was lost.' I was not living in jackson at the time but did follow this closely and there were a number of media accounts quoting people as saying they felt it was the national liberal establishment pushing this down their throat. If this had been a national issue I would suspect it was more divide-and-conquer politics, but I doubt anyone would go through that much trouble for a small (population) state - particularly given the national effort to eradicate the battle flag from all public displays, including state flags. Were the blacks who voted to keep the current flag racists? Do forum members support Reparations for today's blacks based on historical inequity? Is there any serious effort to have another referendum on the flag issue? I know the european model is to keep sending the voters the issue again and again until they make the 'correct' choice. (e.g. the Nice treaty), but somehow I cannot see mississippians being so easily browbeaten or told how to think.

Scott Thomas

Feb 11 2006

I was at that talk that Spike Lee made, and I was dismayed to see that headline and short AP article in all the national media. This was maybe 60 seconds out of an hour and a half and was not the theme he spent his time on. In all the national media hype over this one statement (they know is a hot button item for so many people), they barely mentioned the things that he spent most of his time speaking to. A much better article is in the Daily Mississippian . Here is one of the more important things he spent a lot of time on: Lee was passionate about the mind-set of black youth in today's society. In particular, Lee talked about what he called an "infatuation with gangster bulls--t" and how intelligent young blacks are falling to peer pressure to be something deemed "black." "Intelligent minds feel they have to dumb themselves down so not to be called a sellout," Lee said. "If you think that way, then you are committing genocide. Young black people need to understand that their ancestors died for the right to read and learn." His biggest theme was education and hard word, and rejection of the gangsta lifestyle glorified by some rappers, who make pimps and drug dealers into role models and make violence and disrespect for women a way of life. He noted that Spellman, where the women in his family went, turned Nelly away, and that while he liked Snoop, (he thinks he's funny), he disapproves of him as a bad influence on our youth. He said that he is planning a "School Daze II", which will be the same school, years later, and the film will address these issues. Since he was talking to a standing room only crowd (in the Ford Center, which is a big place) that was majority black youth (high school thru college age), that was a more radical theme and the one he stressed over and over. One of the high school teachers who had brought a busload of students from Tunica begged him to keep stressing education to these kids, because he said they will not listen to him or to their parents - but they will listen to Spike Lee. He also talked at some length about the new documentary he is working on about New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina, and I think this is going to be an important film. Quoting from the Daily Mississippian again: The documentary, titled "When the Levees Broke," was described by Lee as being more difficult to make than "4 Little Girls," one of his most critically acclaimed documentaries. "This documentary is difficult because of the anger you see in the people's faces and the rage you hear in their voice(s). It's a very emotional piece," Lee said. "The lower ninth ward, where we were shooting, looked as though a nuclear bomb went off in it." Back to the flag thing - for those of us who dream of someday changing the flag to a more inclusive, more representative flag, I will say that his statements about the state flag brought the house down - there was long, thunderous applause, with yells and cheers of appreciation. I can't say that his other remarks were as uproarously received. Some of the old-flag bumper stickers said something to the effect that we didn't need to change the flag, we needed to change hearts. I have to agree with that last part. We do need to change hearts, and we need to put a lot of effort and work into it, because it doesn't happen all by itself. If we change hearts, the flag won't be an issue and we will do the right thing.

C.W.

Feb 11 2006

C. W., I have been waiting for a more "fair and balanced" view of what was said by Lee. I brought up the article because it came up as an alert on my aol browser and I thought it was interesting. Context is so important to alot of what has been said, I agree. As someone who was there, you bring that to us. It is an issue that is not going away any time soon, that is for sure. But it is good to know that a person of influence like Spike Lee is using his celebrity to keep issues fresh that we all need to do whether we have soundbites like this one. Thanks for sharing the link.

c a webb

Feb 11 2006

Thank you so much, C.W., for that recap. It so shows what a great job the "objective" media do at cherrypicking the most sensationalist parts. It brings to mind Ayana Taylor's award-winning JFP article about John Kerry's visit to Tougaloo -- and the fact that the media, including The Clarion-Ledger, ignored everything he said about education and other issues and zoomed in on a question someone asked about gay rights after his extensive remarks. Also, Scott, your comments aren't making a lot of sense to me so far. Like this: "wide perception that the many of the change proponents were a bunch of yankees and what-nots who didn't live here and wanted to tell locals what was good for them." Who exactly spread that perception? Not the new flag opponents, right? I personally know many of the people who fought to bring the old flag down, and I can tell you they weren't "a bunch of yankees and what-nots." And the sad truth is that, due to our terrible education about our own history, "yankees and what-nots" often know our own history better than we do. I hate that, but it's true. I'm tempted to ask for a show of hands of how many people reading this had read the Mississippi secession ditty I excerpted from above. I sure didn't read that until many years after my Mississippi education had ended. It should be required reading here in high school. Maybe it is now ... but I'm doubtin' it. The Wellstone and King funerals are 2 good examples of this that come to mind - don't the democrats get that americans don't think trash-talking at a funeral is good behavior? I suspect Lee would have been happy to join in if he had been invited. OK, Scott, this sounds like some mighty hyperbole. Why don't you paste us in some examples of the "trash-talking" that you found so offensive at the funerals of two people who had dedicated their lives to social change? Do you really not understand yet that it's not other people's responsibility to water down everything they say in order to make *you*, and people who think like you, more comfortable? This is simply not a priority. I sure know that I would want people talking about my more daring moments at my funeral, should anyone be so inspired, and I expect that both Ms. Scott King and Mr. Wellstone would agree with that desire. It is an attitude of privilege -- or 21st century political correctness -- that thinks that nothing should be said in public that offends the status quo in this country. And that's stankin' thankin'.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

To go back above to Justin's comments ... Tom, thanks for clarifying that the Confederacy was not trying to outlaw domestic slavery. This is a rather vital fact, and one that people oddly try to revise. It's one of many, unfortunately. Justin, you can say that "slavery" was a "dying" institution, but clearly the subjugation of black Americans was not dying by any stretch of the imagination. And the very folks who had pushed for the institution were not willing to give it up, regardless of its strength or weakness as an institution. Witness what those people did after the slaves were freed -- they did everything in their power to continue to disempower and harm black people, including codifying the horrifying Black Codes and instituting Jim Crow (de jure) segregation that would last until the late 1960s. This doesn't exactly argue in favor of a romantic vision of the slave-owners in the South and their supporters, now does it? You can easily say that owning slaves only benefitted a minority (and their families through today); however, in order to justify the slave trade, the most horrible dehumanization and rewriting of history of an entire race of people was deemed necessary–and that legacy is still holding us back today. The powerful worked very hard, and still work very hard through the Southern Strategy, to ensure that poor people of different races (the proles?) hate each other and pay more attention to each other than to what the powerful are doing to them all. That fact simply cannot be sugarcoated or romanticized away. It must be understood, taught and then overcome. We are on an admirable road toward that goal, but we haven't arrived, yet. And we won't if we do not take an unflinching look at our history: Slavery–Civil War–Black Codes/Reconstruction–Jim Crow–Southern Strategy. Mississippi's not going to get off the bottom of the barrel until we face our difficult past and figure out what remnants are still holding us back. And with due respect to those who argue that "black history" doesn't belong to white people, too, this must be done together if it's going to work. So, by all means, go ahead and re-ignite a debate on the Civil War. That's what the study of history is for -- for study, conversation, thought, advice, inspiration, warnings, you name it. If you feel like you cannot talk about a part of history, there is a serious red flag there about whether or not it's been taught very well -- or of whether a few ashamed revisionists have too much control over the remote control. Unfortunately, too much of Mississippi and Southern (not to mention American) history has been passed down by people who want to revise it to make their ancestors look better, or to keep other people from knowing how certain things -- including inherited wealth -- really came about. Fortunately, the more you talk about it, the easier it gets. Again, discomfort of a few doesn't matter a flip. They'll get over it if the rest of us keep talking enough.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

Is there any serious effort to have another referendum on the flag issue? I know the european model is to keep sending the voters the issue again and again until they make the 'correct' choice. (e.g. the Nice treaty), but somehow I cannot see mississippians being so easily browbeaten or told how to think. I don't think we're ready for another referendum yet. The last one showed how much work, and teaching of history, and discussion, and telling of human stories there is to be done first. It's not a question of being "browbeaten or told how to think." It's a question of education. And empathy. We're well on our way. The flag is a symbol. It's what it symbolizes about the state that we must be the most worried about.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

The Confederate Constitution outlawed only international slave trade Thanks for the correction Tom. It's been a while since I've studied history and my memory isn't that great.

Justin

Feb 11 2006

I think it's Paul Greenberg (at the arkansas gazette, I believe that's the paper) who had an excellent editorial on the whole romantising in the South of the Civil War. I think he said he'd come to understand that it was in part a sadness over the loss of so many lives to this cause. I've wanted to find another copy of that editorial for years now, at any rate. Anyway, the flag. I'm not in favor of a symbol of a war we lostbeing on our flag. I'd rather celebrate successes, and the "Civil" war wasn't one. Moral and Ethical considerations aside for a moment, it was a stunning example of failure and bad leadership and rotten judgement and lack of historical consideration. The South was never going to win the war, and it's cause wasn't one that anyone else in the Western world would support. Racism is a historical evil that mankind has always indulged in from age to age. It's sad to see that the leaders of the time chose to defend it rather than read the writing on the wall and face the future free of it. The rest I'll leave for another debate.

Ironghost

Feb 11 2006

Donna mentioned something there about another referendum on the flag. That would be great, and one I support (for what that's worth, which is zero). I suspect the big problem is Mississippian's fear of doing what others want them to do. "Browbeaten" is a good word for it. It needs changing, and people would change it if it didn't seem like we were caving into peer pressure. In the end, it's a piece of cloth. I don't worship cloth.

Ironghost

Feb 11 2006

Scott writes: I was not living in jackson at the time but did follow this closely and there were a number of media accounts quoting people as saying they felt it was the national liberal establishment pushing this down their throat. Which was exactly what most media accounts quoted segregationists as saying during the civil rights movement, too. People who weren't there, and aren't familiar with the history, may not realize this but for many people the civil rights movement was a classic example of "activist courts" and "big government." A single Supreme Court ruling--Brown v. Board of Education--changed everything, and then there were armed federal troops and armed local law enforcement staring each other down, and Ross Barnett standing in front of Ole Miss preaching "state's rights," and James Meredith getting in under extremely dangerous circumtances, and in fact getting shot before the 60s was up. It'd probably be a mistake that what got the white Southerners all riled up was just the possibility of integration itself. It was also a "don't tread on me" feeling that goes all the way back to before the Missouri Compromise--they were losing power, and they knew it, and that made them very, very angry. This attitude was manifested in the flag referendum. I don't think educating people will be enough on its own. What it'll take is more new voters coming in and more old voters dropping out. The old guard will not cave on this issue. They didn't in the sixties--they had to be pushed aside by force--and they sure won't now. If it was 55-45, I'd say, sure, it's been a few years, let's try again. But it was 66-34, split almost precisely down racial lines. The mistake was that a referendum was held. All of the other Southern states that abandoned the stars and bars did so through the state legislature, avoiding a referendum vote on a new flag that they knew they'd lose. Mississippi's white Democrats in the legislature preferred a referendum approach because then they could get the best of both worlds--keep the old flag and thereby keep the rural white old guard happy, but have a vote on a new flag and thereby keep black voters happy. And Ronnie Musgrove was pleased with the outcome, and used it as an excuse to tell us all to be good moderates and shut up: "Our people have spoken." said Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. "It is important that we accept the majority vote and move forward with the business of bringing new jobs and better opportunities to all Mississippians." ...which would be easier to do if we didn't have the damn Confederate battle flag hanging on the state capitol. Yeah, this was one of the reasons why I didn't cry myself to sleep or anything when Barbour won in 2003. Musgrove didn't really deserve another term. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 11 2006

I suspect the big problem is Mississippian's fear of doing what others want them to do. I think this is true -- however, Mississippians really need to examine the source of this stubbornness. The truth is, it comes from going too long doing what certain people wanted us to do -- that is, we have been played like a fiddle as a populace to benefit a minority of people from both Mississippi and outside of here who have exploited poor education and xenophobia for their own gain. This is why I push people so hard to see how they're being taken advantage of -- those are the people we should be the angriest at. People who treat us like bigoted idiots have the most contempt for us. And politicians who play dumbass little games with state flag lapels and posing for photos with white supremacists in order to get the racist vote are the bigger browbeaters of them all. There comes a time, or a season you could say, when our people have to stand together and stop worrying about whether doing to the right thing would make someone in New York City happy. It's what happens right here in Mississippi, how we treat each other and learn from and honor our history, that matters. Whatever we do will make "outsiders" happy. How many outside agitators attended the Killen trial, hoping we're all divided and conquered? How many powerful national Republicans want the state to stay divided over race so they can keep getting the electoral votes from here? Let's truly think about what browbeaten means. And let's think about what "right" means. We really do have a choice as a state. Either we can keep bowing before the race demagogues who expect us to be hateful fools, on Election Day and otherwise, or we can cast off the chains, stand up and do the right thing for our own state, and our own people ... regardless of race. We ought to be more worried about what our spiritual mentors would think than what some goobs in another state think anyway. I agree with you. The flag is a piece of cloth, and I don't worship cloth either. But it is also a mighty symbol of the work that is yet to be done. I challenge everyone of you to be inspired every time you look at the flag. As yourself, "What am I going to do today to help my state mend and grow, not stay mired in the ugliness of the past?" It might simply mean asking someone out to lunch. It might mean clicking on the link above and reading the secession ditty and thinking about it. It might mean reading Myrlie Ever's recent book about Medgar (especially if you're white) or the biography of Hodding Carter or Willie Morris' essays (especially if you're black). It might mean dialing the phone and offering yourself as a mentor. It might mean driving down streets you don't normally visit with an open mind and heart. It might mean going to HeArts Against AIDS tonight and buying a piece of art or just hanging out with people who make different choices than you do. Sid Salter points out on his blog that Mississippi is the *sixth* most diverse state in the country, and growing. Our future will be determined by how we handle our diversity and how deliberate we are about overcoming division. One thing I love so much about Mississippi is that making a difference is easy here. It's immediate. Take the action, reach out, attend an event you wouldn't normally. Every single one of these small acts is helping this state shed its old skin (while keeping what's wonderful). To sum up, Iron, another flag campaign will happen. In due time. That issue will never be buried until we do the right thing.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

And have I mentioned how much that phrase pisses me off: "Our people have spoken." Presumably, the majority of black voters who wanted to get rid of the flag just don't count, because "our people" have spoken. He should have at least acknowledged the racial division manifested in the vote. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 11 2006

I don't think educating people will be enough on its own. What it'll take is more new voters coming in and more old voters dropping out. Good point, Tom, but that is happening every day. Also, the community education component -- many more and more public dialogues and "deliberate" efforts -- will, in turn, help bring our people (and "outsiders") back to the state, as well as stem the brain drain. So it all works together. As Todd likes to say (and I don't know if he's quoting someone or not): "Just do the right thing ... and wait." As for Musgrove ... pshaw! Another really good example of what's wrong with the Mississippi Democratic Party. I believe The Clarion-Ledger made similar remarks as well. Of course, this issue isn't over and done with. Just another example of the Ledge sticking its finger in the wind. I will always believe that its (and other new-flag proponents') decision to play it safe and emphasize the good-for-business component of the new flag was a large part of what defeated it. They just don't understand the power of telling good stories. And they don't understand that part of Mississippians' "Lost Cause" psyche is an admiration of courage in the face of overwhelming odds. Yeah, the referendum was a very stupid thing. Hey, Amy Tuck is on a certain bent. Maybe she'll lead the next flag campaign. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

Yeah, I hear you on the "our people" thing. It's like those columns of Lott's when he talks about "our values" -- meaning the values of white conservative Mississippians who vote for him. It's some of the most contempuous rhetoric I've ever seen -- and assumes that the voters are stupid. Of course, not only white guys do it. Mr. Melton played the same y'all-are-stupid card during the mayoral campaign, and it worked then, too, because he was so great at saying what different groups wanted to hear and counting on no one to point out the inconsistencies. But I digress.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

That would rock! She's one of the few people who might be able to pull in enough bipartisan support to override Barbour's inevitable veto. And I may as well be the one to say this: The new flag referendum might have gone better if the new flag design was a little more interesting. From a pure aesthetic perspective, the stars n' bars is a hell of a lot prettier. I don't know what that cluster of stars in the upper left hand corner with the great big star in the middle was supposed to mean to folks, but it wasn't much of an improvement. Now there's an idea for a JFP contest: Make a new state flag. With all the local artists hanging around here, it'd be an interesting thing. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 11 2006

"it wasn't much of an improvement" --> "it wasn't very inspiring." Feh. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 11 2006

Agreed. The new flag was ugly as sin. No, sin wouldn't be so bland. Hmmm, the art contest is a good idea. Maybe we should schedule a benefit of some sort and invite artists to not only design a new flag, but do artwork based on what the rebel flag means to them. That would be very interesting. Then we could do a silent auction. I'll get that percolating. Thanks, Tom! I actually have a collage I started on this. Maybe I would finally finish it!

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

I would definately support a referendum or bill to change the state flag back to this: [IMG]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c388/jstarling/us-ms-61.gif[/IMG] From flagspot.net: The official flag of Mississippi during the War for Southern Independence (1861-1865) was a white flag with a magnolia tree in natural colors. The canton was blue and had a single white star (reminiscent of the Bonnie Blue flag). The fly was a thin red bar extending vertically the length of the flag; sometimes it included red fringe as well. The flag was so popular, it is the reason Mississippi became known as the "Magnolia State." This remained as the state flag until 1894 when the present flag was adopted. This seems to be the best of both side: it preserves MS history while removing what has indubitably become an offensive symbol.

Justin

Feb 11 2006

Well, it's kinda ugly. "The War for Southern Independence" cracks me up -- being that it was a war over whether large numbers of southerners could be owned, beaten and killed by other southerners -- in order to help the economy and preserve "state's rights," of course. That there's some independence. I'm going to have to vote for a flag that was not flying during the War of Northern Aggression Against Southerners Trying to Preserve Slavery, I think.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

This one looks a little better. [IMG]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c388/jstarling/flag9.jpg[/IMG]

Justin

Feb 11 2006

Donna, always glad to be of help. :P And agreed on getting past the Civil War imagery. Besides, while the magnolia flag would be a huge improvement over stars-n-bars in terms of recognizable symbolism, the tree is too hard to draw. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 11 2006

Which was exactly what most media accounts quoted segregationists as saying during the civil rights movement, too. Tom, this is where the education component comes in. If you do not spend some time studying our race past, you don't even know that you are repeating the very same language of past bigots, the Citizens Council or even the Klan. And too many people don't even know what the Citizens Council was -- they either think it was harmless or they just assume that it was another form of the Klan, going around blowing up churches and hanging people (and no one they know would be involved in such a thing). The Citizens Council -- aka the White Citizens Council -- was its own ugly animal. Right here in Jackson, many of the "upstanding" (white) citizens joined this group to try to lie about, disparage, intimidate and boycott out of business any group, individual or newspapers deemed to be "unfriendly" on the race issue. They weren't in the business of violence ... directly ... they were in the business of economic and social terrorism. And they ruined many, many lives in the process. I was having a conversation about some people who use the same tactics today in Jackson -- and the very same language, down to the order of the words -- recently with someone is very educated, but who just did not understand what the Citizens Council was. We have a hole in our education in this state, and it allows people to step up and play the same roles as in the past. And some of them don't even know what they're making themselves sound like because they're repeating phrases they've been handed down, without ever realizing that they came straight from white-supremacist playbooks. Literally. I suggest a trip to the archives to read Bill Simmon's old Citizens Council newspapers and other publications if they want a cold splash in the face. And while there, it's very telling to figure out how the Klan, the Citizens Council, the Sovereignty Commission, the governor's office, the Legislature and local law enforcement joined forces to terrorize blacks and "liberals." In Mississippi, it was a strong government and tax-supported operation to protect Jim Crow and the status quo. That is a vital historical fact. People, we've come a long way. Please let that encourage you all to keep pushing forward, armed with the knowledge of what we cannot allow ourselves to become again. Mississippians, all of us, deserve better.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

Well, since you brought him up... Has the JFP ever done, or would they ever consider doing, an interview with Mr Simmons? It might be very interesting to read how much he has or hasn't changed. Years ago, I used to make deliveries to him on a bi-weekly basis, and can honestly say that I've never met a nicer gentleman. When I read about his past (in the Soverignity archives), its hard for me to believe it's the same person!

Rico

Feb 11 2006

Yes, Mr. Simmons and I have talked about it already. We just need to make it happen. Meantime, you can read an intriguing oral history with him here. The dates throughout are important to note -- including how long his involvement with the Citizens Council lasted. Also, pay close attention to how the Citizens Council work shifted from fighting integration over all to focusing on ensuring that white kids did not have to go to school with black kids -- leading directly to the re-segregation problems of today. If you do further research on him (and I highly recommend it, being that he was such a pivotal player here in our race problems), be sure to use his full name, "William J. Simmons." As the proprietor of the Fairview Inn, he's known as "Bill," but that name doesn't turnh up as much history. (And don't be confused by the references from early 20th century about a prominent Klansmen of the same name.) It is vital to remember that most of our white supremacists were "perfect gentlemen": they were our uncles, father, grandfathers, bosses, and so on. They were taught, and taught themselves, that white supremacy was just fact, and that God wanted it that way. Unfortunately, perfect gentlemen can also be vicious racists. To really blow your mind, read this book; several chapters are online. And this is a simply amazing book that may well teach more understanding about our recent history than any other book I can think of. I'm sure it's available at Lemuria, so I encourage getting it there, of course. And Choctaw likely has used copies. And it's in the Jackson libraries. Warning, though: You may see some names that disturb you, being that Mr. Simmons and the national Citizens Council offices were in Jackson. But, if you've already gone into the Sovereignty Commission files, you should be used to it by now. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

It is also important to realize that the work of the Klan would not have been possible without their "uptown" supporters -- feeding them license plate numbers, spying on "traitors," funding the Sovereignty Commission, protecting murderers from arrest, boycotting newspapers and potential civil rights supporters, intimidating jurors and influencing public opinion about "outside agitators," teaching that "those boys just came down here and got themselves killed." (Said many times about Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner.) I personally have no more respect for a member of the Citizens Council than I do for a Klansman. They all had the same goal. And the community's complacency, and ignorance, allowed them all to flourish and do things that are still hurting this state today.

DonnaLadd

Feb 11 2006

Heck - I know some folks who voted down the flag change thing just because they didn't want the flag they had picked to represent them. It's about how that sort of thing is presented. and of course how much advertising that registering to vote by X deadline date is before one can be eligible. If on the next try there are pics of 5 flags, one being the current one, and offer 4 other options where the people actually decide what flag they want. Not just the "old one or THIS one" option.

herman

Feb 12 2006

Donna, you're speaking the truth. It is vital to remember that most of our white supremacists were "perfect gentlemen": they were our uncles, father, grandfathers, bosses, and so on. They were taught, and taught themselves, that white supremacy was just fact, and that God wanted it that way. Unfortunately, perfect gentlemen can also be vicious racists. The Citizens Council is still with us - they just call themselves the Council of Conservative Citizens, or CCC. Many of them are perfect gentlemen/women. Some of them represent us in the legislature. The governor's smiling face has been featured on their webpage. Smiling faces sometimes pretend to be your friend Smiling faces show no traces of the evil that lurks within Smiling faces, smiling faces sometimes They don't tell the truth uh Smiling faces, smiling faces Tell lies and I got proof The truth is in the eyes Cause the eyes don't lie, amen Remember a smile is just A frown turned upside down My friend let me tell you Smiling faces, smiling faces sometimes They don't tell the truth, uh Smiling faces, smiling faces Tell lies and I got proof Beware, beware of the handshake That hides the snake I'm telling you beware Beware of the pat on the back It just might hold you back CCC, KKK, what a coincidence in resemblance of the acronyms. Might make a person wonder if it was deliberate.

C.W.

Feb 12 2006

Yes, the gentlemenly act has fooled a lot of people over the years. I thought of this thread when I read Eric Stringfellow's column today about Charles Pickering. I've heard many of the same things about Mr. Pickering, and I admire that he has evolved over the years and tries to bridge racial gaps, at least one on one. However, the issue should always have been: As a judge, what policies would he support that help reverse the results of decades and decades of racial discrimination and which policies would he try to reverse in a circuit that represents more African Americans than any other? You gotta be careful about getting too caught up in a gentleman's glow. What's funny about that column is that it does not answer the question raised by its own headline. Stringfellow is simply talking about his interpersonal relationship with Mr. Pickering–presumably to show that Mr. Pickering isn't a racist due to his being so respectful to a black man. But, aren't we yet past the point where we understand that someone's personal intereactions with people of another race have little to do with their understandings and intentions about policies that affect another race??? Plenty of plantation owners had "good" relationships with their slaves and even did nice things for them. That does not mean that they did not support white supremacy and policies that would keep it in place. We need to collectively think this through, and steel ourselves for tons of simplistic and superficial Pickering adoration as his new book comes out. I've always said that he sounds quite jolly as a person and was a terrible choice as a judge -- based on his own record. (See "one man, one vote.") But I don't think I have yet seen a good piece published in the state of Mississippi that analyzes his record on vital issues. The Ledge, for instance, is too busy cooing over him and whining about all them outsiders attacking our way of life or some such B.S. OK, I hyperbolize there, but it's not far off from Sid Salter's columns on Mr. Pickering. And have I missed the part where Mr. Pickering has publicly apologized for questionable parts of his record on race? Apologists like to point to Robert Byrd, who was a former member of the KKK. Yes, and Mr. Byrd has apologized and recanted his past. That's rather necessary if you want to be forgiven. I don't quite get the whole forgive-and-forget mantra in Mississippi -- that does not actually require someone to apologize for past misdeeds. To my thinking, if you're not willing to apologize, or to simply acknowledge publicly what you did wrong, you don't deserve forgiveness, or certainly public office.

DonnaLadd

Feb 12 2006

C.W., Gordon Baum emphasized the "of" to me strongly one time in a conversation. As in CofCC. See, it sounds nothing like KKK. While we're sharing a history lesson, it is important to know that the CofCC, or CCC, was formed using the old Citizens Council mailing list, and had many of the same players involved. And, yes, anyone who has spoken to that group should apologize for doing it, or at least explaint themselves publicly. I can actually buy that someone didn't know the history of the group, thinking they were just conservatives or such, but after the Lott flap, it's hard to argue that you don't know unless your head is buried in the sand. And if you don't think the group is about white supremacy, be sure to keep an eye on their Web site. I'm still reeling from the fact that Barbour wouldn't ask them to take his picture off their site -- even if they wouldn't do it, he could have asked. What message did it send that he didn't? I guess exactly the one he wanted to send. And that's tragic.

DonnaLadd

Feb 12 2006

The Flag issue I agree with Justin in principle. The magnolia tree on the 19th century state flag could be cured with "sharper" outlines that display the tree in a more true-to-life manner. This would seem to solve the problem of "ugly". On the other hand, as Tom said, the tree would be hard to draw. Maybe a Magnoilia flower could substitute. A flower would also make the flag a lot more attractive, IMO. Even though a lot of uber-manly types would complain about how "sissified" the flag would look, there is a precedent that could give hope. South Carolina's license plate (I don't know if its still the current design) has/had a really "feminine" aesthetic quality to it. So if another Southern state can do it, then there is hope. If the flag I proposed came up for a vote, I think it would get more support (not to stereotype, but I think you'd see a lot of white women vote for it). Donna: "I don't quite get the whole forgive-and-forget mantra in Mississippi -- that does not actually require someone to apologize for past misdeeds. To my thinking, if you're not willing to apologize, or to simply acknowledge publicly what you did wrong, you don't deserve forgiveness, or certainly public office." Philip: If you ask me, its simple P-R-I-D-E (in the cocky, don't back down one inch sense) - easily confused with mere bellegerent stubbornness -- something to do with a certain Bete Noir of mine, unless I miss my guess. I fear that until Southerners get a more touchy-feely attitude (not to mention more intensive education in critical thinking skills), stubborn fanacism about traditional this-and-that will always be with us. That's not to say those on our side of the issue addressed Mississippians and/or White Southerners or even "Red Staters" in general in rude judgmental tones. However, their tones don't in any way render the opposite side's tones any more appropriate (kind of puts a new meaning on "turn the other cheek")[1] [1]Contrary to widespread opinion, "turn the other cheek" does not mean being truly milquetoast. In the context of 1st Century Israel, slaps were more of an insult rather than a physical attack. IMO, a more accurate rendition of the verse in "more literal" modern English would be "Do not return insult for insult". (But check with a widely respected divinty school about this one!) What do you think of this one, Tom?

Philip

Feb 12 2006

Philip, you may be on to something here. The word "to smite"/"to strike" is rhapizo, which Thayer's Lexicon translates as "to smite in the face with the palm of the hand" (or with an open hand in any context, really; the translation is based on the fact that it isn't the same as a fisted punch). Open handed strikes can certainly hurt, but in the first century in that region it was really more of something you did to a disobedient child or servant. Consider also that the verse refers to being smitten on your right cheek. In order to get smitten on the right cheek with an open hand in first-century Palestine, where nobody was left-handed (seriously: naturally left-handed people were raised to use their right hands), that probably meant getting backhanded. So there's the additional meaning there of being insulted by a backhanded slap, something that has historically only been done to underlings. In which case turning the other cheek doubles as an example of nonviolent resistance--"Okay, now hit me as you would hit an equal." Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 12 2006

Donna, other things to bear in mind about the CCC: - Their newspaper is called The Citizen Informer. Citizen. Nice choice of words, isn't it? - They advertise friggin T-shirts that say "WHITE PRIDE" on them. - An article on their web site cites a statistic that "33% of all black children (and their mothers) are now supported almost entirely by the resources of genetically unrelated whites in the form of public assistance, rather than by their biological parents." This is a patently false statistic; I checked up on the actual percentage of blacks and Latinos who receive DHS assistance a year or two back, and as I recall the figure was somewhere around 10%. And most people who receive DHS assistance are not supported "almost entirely" by it; it helps, but it isn't enough on its own. Not to mention the fact that this ignores the contributions of blacks to the tax base; non-whites have to pay taxes, too. - They prominently advertise a book dissing Abraham Lincoln. - They have a web page specifically written to argue that black folks didn't invent anything of importance. - For that matter, read their manifesto. Choice tidbits (bolds mine): (a) "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." (b) "We believe in the traditional family as the basic unit of human society and morality, and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of sexual licentiousness, homosexuality and other perversions, mixture of the races, pornography in all forms, and subversion of the authority of parents." So I guess my question is: If they're so adamant about not being the WCC, what is it exactly about the WCC that they disagree with? Let's lay it out there. I can't even tell the difference between their stated agendas. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 12 2006

Donna: "And the community's complacency, and ignorance, allowed [the KKK, White Citizen's Council and we can probably add the modern CCC]all to flourish and do things that are still hurting this state today." Philip: I would add to that a subtle fear of opposition - not in the terrorising/intimidation/heated anger sense but in the sense of "loss of community membership". "Group membership" and "tight-knit communities" are, by characteristic, not very prone to change (Richard Florida spoke of this in ROTCC). One passage in particular was an eye-opener for me - that "tight-knit" communities actually hurt society more than they help it. This doesn't speak directly of the flag issue, but it does speak of the importance of free expression in society. Paraphrasing Florida: The people in my focus groups rarely wish for the communities described above. If anything they were trying to get away from thsoe kinds of communities. Sure, they waned communities, but not ones where they felt like their lives were under a microscope. They want communities where people don't get finger-pointy about how out of synch with society you are. These people want weak ties, not strong ones. Social structure and tight ties that once helped a community now hurt it. Traditional notions of what it means to be a close, cohesive community and society tend to inhibit economic growth and innovation. Where old social structures were once nurturing, now they are restricting. Communities that once attracted people now repel them. People want diversity, low entry barriers to their authentic personalities and beliefs, and the ability to be themselves. The lifestyle of tight communities and clubby environments, "in" crowds and "out" crowds can reinforce belonging and community, this can just as easily shut out newcomers, raise barriers to entry into the community, and retard economic and technological innovation I admit that was a huge tangent. But I think this is relevant to the Flag Issue because (a) Many, if not most, Mississippians have grown up in a tight-knit environment, with a lot of them seeing the warmth and fun and feeling of closeness and say "Hey! I want that too", not seeing there are other alternatives to "tight-knittedness" (I'm sure you can see how this motivates 'being quiet' about the flag issue) (b) To a large degree, people get their notions of what are "correct ideas" from the group they associate with. This limits your options of what you can believe, especially if you aren't exposed to anything better. (hence, people keep believing the conventional explanations for this and that about everything, not just on the Flag issue). Put more bluntly, people truly believe in bullshit, and it takes on a life of its own. I could make a whole essay out of such things, but I'll stop here since you all get the point. Changing the flag (and zillions of other things) will require not just educating people about any one issue, but will require educating them into the notion that "group membership" and "membership" in"tight knit communities" (I wish I could NEVER hear that phrase again!) isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's the free and unencumberered exchange of ideas that make a community strong, not "tight-knittedness". The sooner the state is unlocked from this ball-and-chain (pun intended) the less inhibited they will be from seeing the truth, and hence the happier they will be in the long run.

Philip

Feb 12 2006

I didn't mean to give them so much attention as to imply that what they believe matters, by the way, as they're clearly not operating on an overwhelmingly huge amount of funds or popular support. But it does lend credence to the whole idea that maybe Haley Barbour shouldn't be so damn proud to have his picture taken with these idiots. I'd also like to see a certain local right-wing web site criticize and/or disavow the CCC, but I don't know how many of its regulars might be dues-paying members. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 12 2006

Philip, are you a sociologist? Because you write like one, and if you're not, it might be a really good second career for you to consider. Wonderful stuff. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but I'm not sure I disagree either. Lots to chew on. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 12 2006

No Tom, although I do have a copyright on the draft of an 87 paper (including notes and charts) about Scientific American circulation patterns across this nation (I actually contacted the inventor of the "Gay Index", so often addressed in the Creative Class issue - which he did grant. He gave me encouragement and support on this one, after I emailed him requesting permission for me to adapt his index for that paper. I'm actually studying for insurance underwriting exams right now (the next one is coming up no later than next month). This'll be #5 -- though three exams were mere "prelimaries" to the real deal. This is the Second of the "real" Eight

Philip

Feb 12 2006

Donna, on Mr. Baum's distinction about the "of", I'd like to know his definition of "is". :-) As far as Stringfellow on Pickering, I'd look at the way he chose his words (very carefully). Some of the things he didn't say are as important as those he did, and the way he said things was deliberately ambiguous. It looks to me as if he is walking a bit of a tightrope between his job as a reporter and his work in racial healing (I try not to use the word reconciliation). I believe if I were him, I would have skipped writing about Pickering rather than walk that tightrope. I do commend him for working on racial healing, and it's obvious that it's harder work from his side than from Judge Pickering's. In reference to those who say they don't know what the CCC is when they speak to them, you're right, they'd have to have their heads in the sand at this point. The more exposed the CCC is, the harder it is for people to try and claim that sort of questionable ignorance. That's just an attempt to have their cake and eat it, too (which is what Barbour seems to have pulled off). We'll see over time, though.

C.W.

Feb 12 2006

Stringfellow "skipped" on writing about Judge Pickering because (read HIS words again), his mind was made up BEFORE he met and spent time with him, and after he did he knew his pre-conceived notions were flawed. He took the easy way out....rather than having courage and printing what he saw, he would take the easy way out and pass. Pickering didn't fall into his "uh-oh....gotcha" world. Anyone criticizing the "racial action life " of Judge Pickering is either (IMHO) ignorant of his historical life or has a learned or preconceived opinion about him. Another thing....Stringfellow has a lot of damn gall to state that "For many, conservatism is synonymous with racism." Well by that logic, (read the paper), "For many, crime is synonymous with black people". Inflamatory and ridiculous, isn't it. I have found that many if not most of the "black people" (I so tire of that term) I meet on a daily basis are conservative. Democrats, yes, but liberal no. (Transfer out the race issue and look at the issues from there on). This is the (IMHO) Stringfellow's most ridiculous statement to date and I look forward to discussing this on Tuesday at the radio show if he will accept my invitation to debate him on this.

Ben Allen

Feb 12 2006

Ben, I suppose it depends on what kind of conservatism you are talking of. There are the following *What might be called "social services" conservatism *Foreign Policy conservatism *Financial conservatism *Abortion conservatism *Free Speech conservatism And so on and so forth. My experience tells me that on average Blacks tend to be not so conservative on foreign policy, taxation, and economic issues; though they probably are socially conservative on major hot-button issues like gay marriage, and (perhaps) prayer in schools. If any poster disagrees with my assessment, feel free to comment

Philip

Feb 12 2006

So of the above, where does he get the "For many, conservatism is synonymous with racism" fit in? What "liberals" will never see is that when RIDICULOUS statements like this are made (and UNCHALLENGED by those that would toast the ass of who anyone made the crime/black synonymous statement above) ...and don't tell me that the "facts-can't -be-substantiated-this-cuts-both-ways".....credibilty is lost. He made a RIDICULOUS COMMENT ....unsubstantiated/broad-brushed-RACIST- AND UNCHALLENGED BY THOSE THAT SCREAM FOR FACTS behind inflammatory comment. This is inflammatory...I AM pissed by this mindset. Not the comment...he (IMHO) has been a certified dumbass for years' but he is talking about my closest friends/family/business/politics/hell every thing I hold dear....and is unchallenged in this idiocy.

Ben Allen

Feb 12 2006

Ben, I hate to defend such a strange article (which brings up all these negative things about Judge Pickering and then spends three or four sentences at the very bottom saying "Well, I'm a black guy and I think you're wrong"), but let's look at what he's saying here. "For many, conservatism is synonymous with racism" is implicitly "Many people believe that conservatism is the same thing as racism." Many people probably do believe that. That doesn't make it right, but when we have the Council of Conservative Citizens running around getting pictures of Haley Barbour taken with its upper hierarchy, when we have the Confederate flag being defended as a "conservative" issue (when in fact the flag debate should be independent of the liberal-conservative spectrum), when affirmative action is seen as anti-conservative, heck, when reapportionment is seen in some circles as anti-conservative, when "liberal" was the slam against those like Rep. Frank Smith who supported integration and "conservative" the praise heaped upon those like Gov. Ross Barnett who opposed it, when the CCC page prominently lists editorials by "conservative" writers such as Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan condemning black culture and changes in the nation's ethnic makeup, when Mike Lott and his ilk refer to Hispanic infants as "anchor babies" because they keep people he regards as undesirables inside the country, then I think there is a potential problem in many sectors of the African-American community with at least the word "conservative" and I think that it's something that will need to be addressed if conservatives are to increase their foothold in African-American communities. There needs to be condemnation of anti-reapportionment, anti-public schools (which is tantamount to anti-integrated public schools, because that's when the movement started) philosophy, and at least some tacit acknowledgment of the fact that there is a legitimate problem that affirmative action was crafted to solve, even if affirmative action is a poor way of solving it. I know you're no bigot, but when Kanye West says "George Bush doesn't care about black people," when Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were killed for being "northern liberals," then I think Stringfellow's comment, while it could have been articulated differently, is essentially factually correct. For many people, conservatism is the same thing as racism. It shouldn't be seen that way--goodness, who in their right mind would call Charles Evers or James Meredith a racist?--but that's a large part of why y'all don't get more of the black vote. I'm sorry to say this, but it's all Southern Strategy stuff that may not be in your playbook but is certainly put to use by many national and regional conservatives. I really want to see this change. I want to see racism outed for what it is and marginalized from the conservative movement so that it has no place in national politics. But Haley Barbour had a unique opportunity to work in that direction in 2003 by condemning the CCC, and he chose to leave his photo up on their web site as a tacit endorsement of their rants about the supremacy of America's "European heritage" and the dangers of "race-mixing." So if there are many who already won't vote for "conservative" candidates because they believe that's synonymous with racism, Barbour's association with the CCC only galvanizes their suspicions. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

Man, I'll have to go back and read that if it irritates Ben so much. :) (minutes later...) Stringfellow seems so proud he's making friends, for some reason. Why defend him so much?

Ironghost

Feb 13 2006

" For many people, conservatism is the same thing as racism. It shouldn't be seen that way--goodness, who in their right mind would call Charles Evers or James Meredith a racist?--but that's a large part of why y'all don't get more of the black vote. " Is it fair to say that for many people black inner city culture is the same as crime? It shouldn't be that way, I know many (black) jackson residents who do the same thing as anyone else (work and try to live their lives) and have no idea how they could be considered criminals or part of a criminal system, but that is probably a large part of the growth of the suburbs in madison and rankin country, along with the exemplary education receivable at Jackson Public Schools. Would anyone agree that there are places in jackson that a white family would have to be certifiably insane to move to?

Scott Thomas

Feb 13 2006

Scott Thomas writes: Is it fair to say that for many people black inner city culture is the same as crime? This is actually a comparably false statement. Both are prejudicial judgments based on extrapolations and confirmation bias. The conservatism bias is less sinister because it's not rooted in ancient racist evil and because it causes far less damage--Mississippi culture remains predominantly conservative, and there is no institutional anti-conservatism down here that destroys lives in the way that institutional racism has--but I suppose the thought processes described are arguably pretty similar, at least from the perspective of pure syllogism. Would anyone agree that there are places in jackson that a white family would have to be certifiably insane to move to? There are places in Jackson that few families of any race would really want to move to. You think folks in section 8 housing wouldn't rather be living in nice three-story houses in Eastover? You think people like living in high-crime, low-income neighborhoods? The difference is that the families who don't have the option of living anywhere else are statistically more likely to be black. But no, to answer your question, I would not consider a white person who voluntarily lives in a "scary" neighborhood to be insane. I know of at least one white person who voluntarily lives in a very rough neighborhood in west Jackson because she's a long term civil rights activist and that's where her friends are. Al Underwood, a conservative who occasionally posts here, once made a valid (if somewhat overstated) point that folks who are so proud that they live in Jackson but not the 'burbs shouldn't really brag unless they're prepared to live in the hardest-pressed neighborhoods in the area themselves, and spend their money helping to build those neighborhoods up. And the truth is that, for all the crime we see on the roughest neighborhoods in town, the statistical odds of actually getting shot yourself, regardless of where you live (provided that you're not involved in the drug trade or the wife of an alcoholic/drug abusing husband), are pretty slim. If there are 45 murders a year, and 20 are due to drugs and 10 to domestic violence/marital disputes, then that's 15 "other" murders a year spread out over 365 days and an entire city. Compare that to the number of fatalities due to auto accidents or smoking or high cholesterol or whatnot, and it becomes pretty clear that, while it's not senseless to be aware of your surroundings and take the appropriate precautions and perhaps even avoid visiting certain areas of town after dark so you don't get mugged or carjacked or what have you, the odds of actually getting murdered are very very low relative to other hazards. I have said many times before that I would much rather camp out in a sleeping bag on the corner of the roughest neighborhood in Jackson than get drunk off my ass at the safest bar in the suburbs, because the odds of something horrible happening to you when you're drunk in a safe neighborhood are far greater than the odds of something horrible happening to you when you're sober in a rough one. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

And in reality, I suspect it's more like 20 due to the drug trade and 20 due to domestic violence and marital disputes and 5 due to other causes--with the understanding that drugs generally play some role in the latter two categories, too. I maintain, and I think anyone familiar with crime statistics would support me on this, that the illegal drug trade is either a direct source of or a contributing factor to almost all violent crime, including rape. Get rid of that and there wouldn't be any "rough neighborhoods." Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

Hi Tom, Did you by chance catch the intentional parody of the previous statement about conservatism being associated with racism? Parody is a form of humor often used to make a point that otherwise would require pages and no one would ever read it etc. (a type of parody was evident in the recent 'assault cartoons' which killed innocents throughout the muslim world whilst the murders are hiding in denmark). No argument, Crack has killed inner cities all over the US and jackson is absolutely included in that list. Murder is not the primary risk in such places but bad things can happen more frequently when crack is sold on your street corner, it seems. I do suspect I paid less rent than many apartments in much worse areas when I lived on East Fortification (near Cristos/Fenian's), I guess it is in part a matter of just looking. Is 165$ for a 2 bedroom good?

Scott Thomas

Feb 13 2006

Scott Thomas writes: Did you by chance catch the intentional parody of the previous statement about conservatism being associated with racism? Parody is a form of humor often used to make a point that otherwise would require pages and no one would ever read it etc. I didn't find it to be funny, so I just assumed you were being serious. No argument, Crack has killed inner cities all over the US and jackson is absolutely included in that list. That's not exactly what I said. I think institutional racism has killed inner cities all over the United States, and crack, crystal meth, and other drugs have complicated the situation by taking impoverished communities and introducing drug addiction and illegal trade into them. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

I would rather see a flag with a giant magnoia tree with the words "Mississippi" written over the top of it than to look at that racist garment sewn together with the threads of hatred.

JSU

Feb 13 2006

Another thing....Stringfellow has a lot of damn gall to state that "For many, conservatism is synonymous with racism." Well by that logic, (read the paper), "For many, crime is synonymous with black people". Inflamatory and ridiculous, isn't it. You do make a good point, Councilman. It is a loaded statement (he's not doing a very good job on either side of the aisle with this superficial column). And I agree with you that not all conservatives are racist. Now, were I him, I might ask you back what "conservatives" – including the ones we know the best, like Barbour – are doing to dispel that notion, much less not to promote it? Willie Horton/piano bench/Welfare mother rheotric? Speeches to the CofCC? Turnbacks of MAEP? Thug rhetoric? Even though I disagree with the way he made his blanket statement with little context – and he is technically right by the way that "For many," conservatism is synonymous with racism"– your reaction reminds me a bit of Mississippians getting all bent out of shape when "outsiders" think we're still racist, and then insist on keeping the rebel flag as part of our government flag. What do you expect them to think!?! If conservatives do not want people to think they're "racist," then they need to reject the southern strategy, stop pandering in front of bigots for the racist vote, and call out racism every single damn time they hear it -- and stop denying that the damn rebel flag has become a symbol of hate. Otherwise, your objections ring a little hollow, and your "good deeds" toward folks of another race are going to be overshadowed by cheap rhetoric used to get votes. Y'all can't have it both ways, Ben. If your party doesn't want to be called racist, then it needs to start disavowing it, and rejecting it, in every way possible. After all, we all know that the current Republican Party grew directly out of racism when the Democratic Party dropped its segregationist component, so it's understandable that there is work to be done. I can accept that, but abject denial rings quite hollow here. I've said it before and I'll say it again: There are Republican ideals that make a lot of sense. There are good Republicans fighting to do the right thing, whether or not I agree with every position on every policy. I can say the same thing for Democrats. But the GOP as a party has embraced and used racism to build its current power. It is up to the party to change that and in a deliberate way. And, I promise, having some black friends is not going to do that. That has nothing to do with whether someone is racist. And I agree with Tom, Scott, that is some mighty subtle parody. But Tom's responses are good for discussion regardless, so your "parody" did what parody is supposed to do: promote thought and more discussion. Carry on.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

In fairness to Ben, huge segments of the Mississippi Democratic Party also seem to be trying to play both sides of the fence--witness George Dale's strange comment from a few years back about the necessity of fielding white candidates, which necessarily implies fielding fewer black candidates. Hell of a thing to say when the party has never once fielded a black candidate for governor, in a state where two-thirds to three-quarters of Democratic voters are black. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

Just saw Tom's post in response to Ben. We're saying similar things. My advice to you, Ben, is to lead on this point. Sure, challenge Stringfellow for making a loaded statement in such a superficial way, but encourage your fellow Repubs (the good ones) to do some self-examination right here. Sometimes it's hard to hear what people really think about you -- but if your party is doing the kinds of things to make people think you're "racist," then that's the party's fault. The southern strategy needs to die and fast. I truly believe you care about Jackson and Mississippi, and not just about greed and power (don't prove me wrong!), but if you really care about the future of the South, you need to lead the way to end the southern strategy. A party built on such a foundation cannot be good for our state. Pandering for the racist vote divides. If your policies are as good as you think they are, then you (meaning your party) can win people over without the southern strategy.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

Another thing about the Republicans... They're fielding some damn good black candidates this year in the second district, and they had really good mayoral candidates (especially considering the Democrat we've currently got in office) in Neely and Whitlow. None of this speaks against the point you're making, which is that conservatives have to take seriously the fact that for many people conservatism is the same as racism--but it's something to bear in mind. Again, if Barbour is happy to associate himself with the CCC, if Fordice can casually remark about "calling out the National Guard," if white Samac Richardson (not technically a Republican, I realize, but let's be realistic here) can run against the only black Supreme Court judge in the state with the slogan "He's One of Us," then I think it's safe to say that conservatives in Mississippi at the very least have a serious perception problem to deal with, and the way to deal with that problem is not by blaming the messengers. Stringfellow's statement was technically accurate; I don't think anyone is really disputing that. So let's think on what can be done to make it inaccurate. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

Does that mean the Democrats won't be busing people from Nursing Homes to the polls anymore? :D Anyone?

Ironghost

Feb 13 2006

TH--Another thing about the Republicans... They're fielding some damn good black candidates this year in the second district... ?? And who would that be? So far I only know of ONE black Republican Candidate who has announced in the 2nd District: Yvonne Brown. Better check your facts Tom.

Rex

Feb 13 2006

Iron, a discussion of the Republican Party's "southern strategy" to lure racists to vote for them is not synonymous with a defense of everything the opposite party does. It is a discussion of the Republicans' southern race strategy. Can we truly not hold more than one thought at once? Please put aside the binary thinking for a moment.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

"...he (IMHO) has been a certified dumbass for years' but he is talking about my closest friends/family/business/politics/hell every thing I hold dear....and is unchallenged in this idiocy." Mr. Allen, I'm having a problem taking you seriously when this is the level of your discourse. I don't know either you, Mr. Stringfellow or Judge Pickering personally, and as 'outsider' from the north end of the state, I have to go by what I read. What you've provided in this thread is not altogether impressive. I'd say that the frequent appearance of self-identified 'conservatives' at CofCC meetings causes certain associations in many minds, so Mr. Stringfellow's remarks to that effect are quite accurate. Sad but true. I dislike separating everyone into one of two 'labels' when most of us fit in both in some ways; I believe that's one of your premises, and I do agree with that. I have a hard time squaring a claim of racial non-bias with an appearance at or participation in CofCC functions, no matter the party affiliation or stated political 'label.' Are you (a Jackson city alderman, are you not?) willing to repudiate the CofCC, and if you are not willing, why not? That's something I use as a bit of a yardstick on local politicians. You don't mind if I take your measure, do you?

C.W.

Feb 13 2006

Rex, both Yvonne Brown and Stephanie Summers O'Neal have announced candidacy, and Clinton LeSueur is waiting in the wings. That's a pretty solid crop of candidates when you hear the crickets chirping on the Democratic side of the aisle in districts 1 and 3, and when you consider that all three candidates are African-American--and that the Mississippi Democratic Party has never, as far back as I can remember, made a serious attempt to run a black Democrat for the House outside of district 2. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

I don't think we really need to ask Ben whether he repudiates the CCC--I'm sure he does--but it sure would be nice to hear a Republican say it, in light of Barbour, Lott, et. al. having no apparent qualms about such groups. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

BTW- One suggestion for Mississippi's state flag... Oh, come on. It'd win in a referendum and you all know it! Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

(Oh, bother. Just click here. Cheers, TH)

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

Hey, I think it's fair to ask the councilman what he thinks of the CofCC, especially in light of his angry remarks about Stringfellow's statement. The councilman (not alderman, C.W.) has spoken to the CofCC, after all. It's a fair question.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

BTW. speaking of that 2nd Congressional district race. Democratic candidate Chuck Espy will be speaking to the MAP Coalition on TUESDAY FEB. 21st at 7:30 pm at the MS Arts Center. He should have some interesting things to say... Donna you guys may want to come by.

Kamikaze

Feb 13 2006

Excellent. Thanks for the heads-up, Kamikaze.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

Tom, I've not seen anything about Stephanie Summers-O'Neal announcing for the 2006 election. Nothing on SoS site or GOP site. Google only gives me info about her business and previous campaign. Can you give me a link to an article or her website? As for LeSuer ...well...I don't think anyone in the Republican Party will side with him this time around and I question whether he'll even file.

Rex

Feb 13 2006

I don't think we really need to ask Ben whether he repudiates the CCC--I'm sure he does--but it sure would be nice to hear a Republican say it, in light of Barbour, Lott, et. al. having no apparent qualms about such groups. Why not, Tom? You seem to know him, but I don't, and I want to hear what he has to say about this. Saying "I'm sure he does" doesn't cut it for me, and probably doesn't cut it for some of his constituents either. Also, why do you want to hear a Republican say it? Democrats attend, speak at and belong to the CofCC as well. This is a person by person thing, not a party thing. Mr. Allen did become rather inappropriately and overly indignant (IMO) in this thread, and that show of emotion piques my curiosity. I'm sure there are other people who are reading this who were left with the same curiosity. If Mr. Allen truly does repudiate the CofCC, no doubt he will wish to correct the bad impresison he may have left in many minds. And, duly noted - councilman. More of a big-city term; forgive this country woman her lapse into smalltown terminology. :-)

C.W.

Feb 13 2006

My, how time flies. We need to get the 2006 PoliticsBlog posted to track these campaigns and the issues. We'll get on it. The work never ends. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

Rex, I fact-checked and doggonit if you didn't turn out to be right. But I think the fact that Brown, O'Neal, and LeSueur are all current or recent candidates in the district speaks well of the Republican Party's success in fielding viable black candidates, which (to go back around to the main topic) is my main point. C.W., good points. I was not aware of the fact that Ben had spoken before the CCC in the past; that is a point of concern, and knowing that I think he does have an obligation to distance himself from the group, which condemns "race-mixing" and proclaims the "European" ethnic character of the United States, particularly if he's going to express indignation over Stringfellow's technically accurate claim regarding conservatives. Speaking before the CCC is not a good way to fight the perception that conservatism is a racist movement. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

Thanks, Tom. Thought I had missed something. I'm in the 2nd CD and if Espy doesn't get the nomination (which I don't think is going to happen), I'll be voting Republican. I would like to have a lot of choices for my protest vote.

Rex

Feb 13 2006

Agreed, Tom. It was well and proper that readers pointblank asked Rep. Fleming about his past LeRouche connections, and it is well and proper that readers ask Councilman Allen why he spoke to the Council of Conservative Citizens in the past. Speaking before the CCC is not a good way to fight the perception that conservatism is a racist movement. It rings hollow to do that, and then complain about Mr. Stringfellow's statement. Maybe this is presenting the opportunity to REALLY talk about these issues. I look forward to the councilman's response. Also, this is what Councilman Allen said about the CofCC to the JFP in the past: Kenneth Stokes indicated that you are on David Dukes' (KKK leader) mailing list. Where did he get that idea? In my entire life, I never remember getting anything from David Duke. But let me say this: There are some people in politics and in the bowels of city government, and in the bowels of their mind that like to say things about people that cannot be refuted openly. The old “are you still beating your wife” question. Someone can say that Ben Allen is on David Dukes' mailing list; that is not a libelous offense, but it still plants the seed for those who want to believe that; that must mean he is a bigot racist that ascribes to that. The Council of Conservative Citizens sent me something; I didn't solicit it. These are racially polarizing things. Are you on any white supremacists' mailing lists? No, maam. Have you ever spoken to the Council of Conservative Citizens? Yes. It was my first year in office, 1997, 98. [Editor's note: The June 2000 issue of the Citizens' Informer, the newspaper of the CofCC, indicated that Allen spoke to a "capacity" meeting of Greater Jackson chapter of the group in April 2000 "about the removal of the Miss. State flag from the Jackson City Council Chambers by the majority black members on the Council ...."] Did you know what the Council of Conservative Citizens was when you spoke to them? I knew it was a conservative group. I knew damn near nothing about politics when I got involved. If they ask me back to speak again (hands in air), you know I can tell you this: I don't want to denigrate any organization; they can do what they want to do. I would not now or ever be a member of it; I wouldn't support it. I don't know that much about it. I do know this: Many times there are groups that can be wonderful, and there are groups that can be terrible. Read full interview.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

BTW, the Anti-Defamation League has a pertty good timeline/chronologyof the CofCC dust-up involving Lott and others. Some more poop about Mississippi politicians who have spoken to the group. Lots o' links included.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

The Saturday (or was it Friday) evening after my first election as Ward 1 City Councilman, I was invited by Charles Tisdale and Ali Shamsir Dean to be a guest on their radio show "Views From the Dark Side" or something to that effect. This was the first time I had met Mr. Tisdale or Ali and prior to the show and I knew very little about them. During the show I was asked (live) my views of the then CCI [the predecessor of Downtown Business Partners). I responded that I knew very little about it. I was also asked my view of Jatran and our current public transit system, the makeup of the school and library boards and a myriad of subjects that I had to answer with "I know very little about them". Other than these specific issues I could not give a "knowledgeable" answer to, we had a great show, they told me. The first live , white, conservative, Republican to come onto their show right into the firing line. Point is, you learn ALOT when you serve the public and I am a true "Republican" in that I believe we elect people to represent us and they are charged with getting up to speed on many issues and vote their convictions. Sometimes these votes may run counter to what the majority of your constituents think, but the ELECTED official is there to learn, vote and act in her constituents best interests, as best they can and after studying the issue, and with the knowledge they obtain (which is usually not available to the general public itself) vote for or against an issue. (It is there, but it is just not reported....and most opinions are gleaned from what IS reported) Hopefully they act and vote in ways that please their constituents in the MAJORITY of issues. A few of these that I have supported are The Capitol City Convention Center, The Metro Jackson Parkway Project, the Telecommunications Center, the Farish Street Revitalization Project, the King Edward Project...on and on...put these to a vote in my ward and ....well you get the point. I have been asked to speak and attend meetings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (and did), the leadership of the ACLU (and did...Nasombi Lambright has been by my office, we have visited on many occasions and we consider each other "friends"), 100 Black Men (and did), Mission Mississippi (and did), Jackson 2000 (and did), the Legislative Black Caucus (and did), and yes the Council of Conservative Citizens (and did) among SCORES of others. If a person wishes to join any lawful group/club/association/cult.... whatever, I say do it, if you prescribe to their beliefs. Would I JOIN the C of CC....no... nor will I carry their torch, but I will not apologize for SPEAKING to them (or the ACLU or ANY of the above Organizations) I believe the story of "Daniel in the Lions' Den" tells many stories, if one will just listen to it.....and I wish my speech to the C of CC was recoreded....you may have been surprised.

Ben Allen

Feb 13 2006

The CofCC is not analogous to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the ACLU, 100 Black Men, Jackson 2000, or Mission Mississippi. If you'll stop and think about what you said, it's pretty poorly thought-out and leads somewhere you hopefully don't want to go. If you follow this line of "I'll speak wherever I'm invited" thinking (ignoring the inappropriateness of the examples you cited), I have to wonder what organization you would turn down if they invited you to speak. Where do you draw the line (surely there is a line, isn't there)? In all these words you wrote, I didn't see an answer to my question - what I saw was a lot of waffling and beating around the bush to avoid answering straightforwardly. Let me pose you a different question, possibly not quite as freighted as the repudiation one. Would you be willing to go speak to them again, or campaign at one of their functions? Yes or no will suffice for me.

C.W.

Feb 13 2006

The CofCC is not analogous to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the ACLU, 100 Black Men, Jackson 2000, or Mission Mississippi. If you'll stop and think about what you said, it's pretty poorly thought-out and leads somewhere you hopefully don't want to go. No, it is most certainly not analogous. Trying to make them the "other side" from those groups is about as offensive as reporters who quote the NAACP as the "other side" from the Klan, as I saw done fairly recently in the Ledge. I can understand you not having a sense of what that group was when you spoke to them. But I can't imagine a world, Ben, in which you would not apologize later for making the mistake of speaking before a group that directly pushes racial hatrid. I'm sorry. Your logic isn't working for me here. I'm with C.W. on this one. Your refusing to strongly repudiate such a group, though, does offer a degree of explanation of why people make the assumption that Stringfellow mentioned in his column that offended you so. Just why it is that Republicans feel they cannot speak out against white supremacist groups? Does it have something to do with the southern race strategy to get votes? Sounds like a deal with the devil to me.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

Ben, I would not criticize you for speaking in front of the Christian Coalition, American Family Association, Independent Women's Forum, Operation Rescue, MFIRE/FAIR, and so forth. But the CCC is a whole other kettle of fish. The CCC, which is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, quite explicitly advocates something like white separatism--i.e., the preservation of "European" ancestry in the United States and the end of "race-mixing." It advertises T-shirts that say "WHITE PRIDE" on them, for God's sakes. So I'd say that I'd be happy to speak with any of the groups you've listed above except the CCC, which I would never want to be associated with under any circumstances. It's bad news. It would be tantamount to speaking in front of the White Citizen's Council. I would never accuse you of being a white supremacist; your personal history makes that claim spurious bordering on comical. But you've got to understand: As long as white conservatives like yourself continue to associate yourselves with groups like the CCC, then yes, Virginia, conservatism will equal racism for many people. And you can get as mad as you like at Eric Stringfellow, but in the final analysis you've got nobody to blame but yourselves. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

It would be tantamount to speaking in front of the White Citizen's Council. It is pretty much exactly that. Same goals, same mailing list. I don't think Ben is a white supremacist, either, by any stretch. I do think, though, that we are getting close to the nerve of a serious problem in the South: wink-wink racism to get votes. The Southern Strategy. The fear of offending bigots. We've *got* to talk about this monster and get his a$$ out of the closet. I should also remind everyone that we didn't set out to jump our esteemed blogger on this one. This discussion came out of *his* outrage over Mr. Stringfellow's remarks that many people today find "conservatism" synonymous with "racism." He opened the door to the closet. I can understand his frustration with Mr. Stringfellow's statment -- but whose fault is it when politicians feel beholden to such groups for votes? Other people aren't going to suddenly change their minds without a bit of action on the part of the conservatives who won't strongly criticism these groups.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

I don't know about anyone else, but while I don't think I am "jumping" Mr. Allen, I am definately trying to hold his feet to the fire. As a politician and elected official holding a public office, he should be used to that (if not, he won't last long at it). If conservatives would distance themselves from the obvious racists, it would do wonders for their reputations, and I doubt it would hurt them much when the votes were counted. They may stand to lose some votes in one sector, but they also stand to gain them in others. I can't presume to tell them just what the bottom line would be, but it's worth their consideration. This is from a pragmatic viewpoint; if you want to look at it in terms of morality, instead, things become much more cleanly delineated.

C.W.

Feb 13 2006

Ben has said himself that his district is likely to become majority black within 10 years, so I have a hard time thinking he's doing this because of any kind of political calculus. What he is thinking, I have no idea. I frankly expected him to say he was younger and inexperienced before, condemn the CCC, and move on, so for me this is one of those conversations where I feel like I'm playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 13 2006

I don't think you're jumping him, C.W., but I figure some others will "jump" to that conclusion. I truly think it's a vital road to go down, if uncomfortable. To reiterate, it is so, so, so important to reject the thinking (binary, as Tom has pointed out) that the CofCC is somehow the "opposite" of the ACLU, and both are thus OK. As Tom points out, this is not the Family Research Council. This is an unabashed white supremacist group. Remember all the folks calling for the head, or at least repudiation of Obadele (even though they were using bad facts)? The RNA would, arguably, be a better example than any one of the groups mentioned by the councilman -- if you're looking for a parallel. And, even there, though are differences. Regardless, though, anyone who would call for outrage and horror over someone inviting Obadele to City Hall should be at least as outraged at an elected official speaking to the CofCC. Personally, I would be very cool with someone like Bill Simmons being invited to speak about the past, and his role in history, at any of our public institutions -- as long as the invitation is open to all sorts of people. That's where the PUBLIC part comes in. But, the point here, at least when Ben posted originally, is why people think conservatives are racists. Well, here is one reason. It's in conservatives' court to reverse that notion.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

so for me this is one of those conversations where I feel like I'm playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Agreed. People do stupid things. Think Robert Byrd, Hugo Black, Hodding Carter, even William Winter, for goodness sake. But the key is what they do or say later when they know better.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

Sounds like it's time for an in-print (i.e, not one hidden in the far corners of the Internet), straight out in plain English expose of the CCC.

Philip

Feb 13 2006

Our 2002 Trent Lott piece didn't do a shabby job if I do say so myself. It's not every detail about them, but it lays it out there in plain language in a way Mississippians' weren't accustomed to ... at the time. Imagine: A lot of people thanked me for my "courage" for doing that story when all I was doing was talking about an important piece of history.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2006

I have always prided myself in being a free thinker. Well, being a free thinker doesn't mean being stupid to your core beliefs. God as my witness, I have been to the Cof CC website twice in my life....once at 2:30 today (hurriedly) and another time at 6:05 p.m. today. Since I have been in office I have had numerous conversations with many politicos and with several JFP staffers surrounding many subjects, and the CofCC is one of many. I do appreciate the depth of passion and comments from you regarding this organization. Perhaps I should have done a little homework before my response (about the mantra of the CofCC), but nothing said can change or argue the fact of what is for sale on their web-site, and no amount of "lipservice" by her members can justify it...and I am FLAT OUT opposed to this type of message. I noticed on my late p.m. visit a litany of stories that I did not read, but sounded by their titles to be debatable stuff. But I also noticed something i had never seen before... a"White Power" T-shirt being advertised for sale. NO I WILL NEVER SPEAK TO THEM AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER AGAIN. I thought that some of this "passion" on them as a group was "liberal speak" and have learned a valuable lesson.....if something is really important to someone...listen and learn. Don't get too busy or lukewarm or assume. I WAS WRONG....PERIOD.

Ben Allen

Feb 13 2006

Oh....for C.W... I am going on 9 years....unopposed last time.....and anyone in my ward will tell you it may be because I speak and VOTE without regard to consequences (ie: Janis Joplin...."Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose"). And please ask one of your "north Mississippi" representatives (I am certain they are surely open-minded and will say "YES") to post their conservative selves on this web-site. I don't need this.....I enjoy it.

Ben Allen

Feb 13 2006

have learned a valuable lesson......if something is really important to someone...listen and learn. Don't get too busy or lukewarm or assume. I WAS WRONG....PERIOD. That is the Quote o' the Week, as far as I'm concerned.

DonnaLadd

2006-02-13T19:54:51-06:00

ID

104743

Comment

Ben, I respect you even more now than I did before I knew you'd spoken to the CCC. Kudos for having the courage to take a second, hard look at this organization. For what it's worth, I know they put on a slick show sometimes. Up until they put their manifesto online and offered to sell white power T-shirts, they were really ambiguous in terms of whether they were just protectionist and anti-affirmative action or downright scary. It's only recently that they've let the facade down and come out more obviously as #2. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it has to do with increase in their number of chapters. So I can certainly understand how you might have come away with the impression that they were just another advocacy group. Until they got sloppy, that's probably exactly what they looked like to most folks. And I've been wrong before, too. I left a lot of liberal groups in the immediate wake of 9/11 when they reacted by stating, in no uncertain terms, that the United States deserved to be attacked, that the Taliban was a sovereign government with rights (which presumably are not extended to its citizens), and so forth. It's amazing how easily hate can hide right under the surface--on the left just as much as on the right. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-13T20:02:42-06:00

ID

104744

Comment

Thank you, Mr. Allen, I admire your courage and forthrightness greatly. I'll keep you in my prayers. This is how we do it - educate one person at a time, and hope that person educates those in his/her path.

Author

C.W.

Date

2006-02-13T21:17:33-06:00

ID

104745

Comment

Each one, teach one, as they say. I give thanks daily for all the folks who helped, and are still helping, this little Neshoba girl's education along the way. That includes Ben Allen. BTW, the councilman called me about this as well, outraged by what he saw on the site. I believe he means what he says, and that he met an epiphany about that group head on today. I too hope he spreads the word. As the daughter of people of little education, I try to make a habit out of not holding what people don't know against them. But I can get ornery with them when they try not to know ... or ignore what's right in front of their faces. Cheers to the councilman for not doing that today when confronted with the truth.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-13T21:29:31-06:00

ID

104746

Comment

Kudos to Ben! Your firm stand does you immense credit. Honest assessments of actions can only do anyone good. Tom: It's amazing how easily hate can hide right under the surface--on the left just as much as on the right. Philip: I had a front-row seat, so to speak, earlier in my life: Louisiana's David Duke campaigns for Senate and Governor. I think you'll find that most hate groups will deny hatred even while they do speak in coded language. Even a lot of people I had respect for voted for Duke in those elections. Duke is a master salesman, I tell you. Fortunately, I found out the truth about Duke before he campaigned. National Geographic article about a year before he won his state representative seat in Metarie. Therefore I opposed him from the start, never mind his claims to have changed. Something Jesus said about false prophets, sheeps, and ravenous wolves. BTW, it seems Duke long stopped making any pretense to have changed. I won't even link to his site. If you want to see what he has to say, find it for yourself.

Author

Philip

Date

2006-02-13T22:20:30-06:00

ID

104747

Comment

I will say, for the record, that when Mr. Barbour's photo was on the CofCC site that the rhetoric was just as hateful then. It's too bad he couldn't acknowledge it and at least publicly ask them to take his picture down, even if they refused. Instead, he wimped around the issue, just as Lott did when he got his butt caught in the bigoted swing. I just cannot respect people who play our people for bigots in this way. I just can't. I believe that, like with the councilman, education will go a long, long way in this state. For too long, we Mississippians, especially us white 'uns, have denied objective truths about other people, groups and our history when it is simply incontrovertible. One way people denied it is by squeezing their eyes closed and refusing to see. I like to hope our distinguished blogger from North Jackson might even sleep a little better tonight having opened his eyes about something he thought was merely rhetoric. And I second the cheers for the willingness to open your eyes, Ben. I hope you will keep this up, and maybe it will start to increasingly make more sense to you why people are so offended by certain language -- that seems lifted right out of the CofCC's, and its predecessor the Citizen's Council's, talking points. We so can do better–including on the public-safety front–than all this "thug" rhetoric.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-13T22:36:13-06:00

ID

104748

Comment

And, the truth is, we've seen many cracks in the southern strategy of late. Even Mr. Barbour showing up and speaking at the commemoration of the deaths (and lives) of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner two years ago was momentous -- from a political standpoint. I'm not sure people completely grasped what they were witnessing. He would not have done that five years before that, or perhaps even two. Change is afoot. Just open the door and then jam your foot in the damn thing so it won't close again. This isn't about liberalism and conservatism; it's about human decency, compassion and building strong communities of people willing to work with people they disagree with on some issues to make the city and state better for all. Then all the votes to memorialize civil rights victims with highways and the like. This isn't the down-in-the-gut change of heart we need to see to level the playing field, but it says something that the political winds are changing in such a way. And when political winds change, you can get better policy in place. Note the changes at the Legislature this session. I simply will never forget Wyatt Emmerich complaining that Hood et al. were *supporting* the prosecution of Killen because it was the "politically correct" thing to do. In many ways, that was the most amazing thing I've ever read -- because of the seachange it indicated. It was a downright delicious editorial for someone like myself waiting so long to hear a white conservative Mississippian complaining about such a thing. To everything there is a season. Y'all, read "The Tipping Point," if you haven't already. You, too, Mr. Allen. Don't worry: It's not filled with liberal tripe. I promise you'll be calling to talk about it afterward. Cheerio, all. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-13T22:36:32-06:00

ID

104749

Comment

Smiling faces, smiling faces sometimes They don't tell the truth uh Hey, C.W.! I haven't heard that song in ages. How've you been? General question to everyone: Is there a law against having an unofficial state flag? I know you probably couldn't fly it at a government building, but just an alternate one that people can use? I love the magnolia idea, and I also thought about the word Mississippi spelled out on the flag in that familiar script we are all familiar with (the intertwined S's).

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-02-13T23:36:54-06:00

ID

104750

Comment

I'm no lawyer, but I see no reason why "unofficial flags" would not be protected free speech. Afro-American flags certainly are protected speech.

Author

Philip

Date

2006-02-13T23:48:29-06:00

ID

104751

Comment

Thanks for the link, Philip. I got it to work after changing it to www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-afro.html I display the red/black/green flag during Kwanzaa, which I made myself using foamboard and construction paper. I have also thought of a couple of Afro-American flag designs of my own - just haven't put it on paper yet. To me, we should be able to do the same for Mississippi. And it's definitely free speech - you don't have to fly it if you don't want to.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-02-14T00:06:00-06:00

ID

104752

Comment

I'm waiting for the day when "Conservative" doesn't mean evil. :(

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-02-14T10:25:16-06:00

ID

104753

Comment

Don't wait for it; work toward it. If "conservatives" don't want to be defined this way, or as "racist," then they need to do a bit of soul-searching about the message they're sending out, or allowing to be sent out, on their behalf. Right now, it's not pretty. And it won't get prettier until they cease and desist and denounce use of the southern strategy. There's little to say nice about people willing to pander for votes among racists. To me, it doesn't matter what's in their hearts if they're willing to do that. This state has been through too much already; the people deserve better than having policiticans play to their worst instincts just when we're laboring as a state to put the past behind us and unite for a better tomorrow. *Those* idiots are the ones keeping us down. Now, if like Ben Allen seems to be doing, conservatives are willing to confront those evils in their midst and see them for what they are, then the reputation of "conservatives" and the Republican Party may have a glorious future. Lord, if the Dmeocratic Party can make the switch it made in the 1960s, then anything is possible. But they need to get on to it, and stop apologizing (and in many cases, promoting) bigotry. The ball is squarely in their court on this one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-14T10:40:41-06:00

ID

104754

Comment

And an addendum to that: The Democratic Party in the South is also playing the Southern Strategy in many instances, fighting the Republicans for the bigot vote. Witness the Chip Pickering-Ronnie Shows race, where it was Shows pandering to xenophobia (this time againt Latinos, but the myth of the "unhyphenated American" was very much alive in his attitude), hiding behind his black audiences and black supporters. Then we have Wayne Dowdy praising Trent Lott for his seniority and refusing to do the same for Bennie Thompson, salivating over Mike Moore but actively harming Erik Fleming's campaign, and in the case of the previous party head allowing an underqualified Tate Reeves to beat Gary Anderson based on a campaign strategy that seemed to go something like "Don't let anybody know who Gary Anderson is." Then there's the fact that we have a Democratic Party that is overwhelmingly supported by black voters, but has never fielded a black candidate for governor. And won't in 2007, either, because they haven't built up any statewide black candidates who would be viable challengers. And the last time we did have a Democratic governor...well, remember what Ronnie Shows said about the state flag referendum? Did that wording sound carefully-chosen to you folks? It sure did to me. And I think I have a pretty good idea why. So I wouldn't go so far as to say the Democratic and Republican parties ever exactly switched roles. To some extent the torch is being passed back and forth, even on a national level. I think we all still remember Bill Clinton, "the first black president," and his statement during the middle of the domestic terror threat posed by the racist paramilitary movement declaring sympathy for and a certain amount of solidarity with "angry white men." I think we all remember how he botched Rwanda. None of that is completely removed from the Dixiecrat legacy. Both parties have a lot to confront. The difference is that no visible statewide Republican, to my knowledge, has ever disavowed the CCC. And no visible statewide Democrat could afford not to. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-14T10:59:36-06:00

ID

104755

Comment

L.W. I'm doing fine, just keeping my fingers in too many pies. Have a hard time getting everywhere I want to (but I miss you guys when I don't make it in here for more than reading). I've talked to a lot of people from both sides (and undecided) on the flag issue, and no one I've spoken to has had anything bad to say about the magnolia flag - it seems to be universally liked. Y'all have been harder on it than anyone else I read or talked to. A lot of people would have voted for that one if it had been put on the table. Oh, well; lost opportunity, spilled milk. Justin, meant to say - thanks for the Walker Percy quote - it's fabulous. Donna, Tom - I'm going to say something you may think is ugly and wrong, but I'm going to say it anyway. Even if a politico doesn't mean it in his/her heart, if they will reject racist symbols and organizations publically, I'll take that. In a heartbeat. The value in removing negative stereotypes and negative ways of behaving from role models in front of young minds is there; I've seen that since the 50's and 60's. Just making sure that there is no public respect shown is better than nothing. And Tom, you are right about the Democrats. Neither party has clean hands, either in the past or present and I truly wish we had a viable alternative (as in, a better choice that has some chance of winning).

Author

C.W.

Date

2006-02-14T12:45:56-06:00

ID

104756

Comment

So I wouldn't go so far as to say the Democratic and Republican parties ever exactly switched roles. To some extent the torch is being passed back and forth, even on a national level. So true! I watched American Experience on PBS last night, and the historians' descriptions of Reconstruction reminded me of the historical flip-flopping of these two parties. That's a big reason why I refuse to label myself with either one.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-02-14T12:47:52-06:00

ID

104757

Comment

Neither party has clean hands, either in the past or present and I truly wish we had a viable alternative (as in, a better choice that has some chance of winning). I couldn't agree more. I read about the other political parties on Wikipedia, and at this point, my best choice would be "none of the above".

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-02-14T13:08:11-06:00

ID

104758

Comment

Tom, no argument here that the Dems have figured out race relations, and also play silly race games. I'm no easier on Dems than Repubs; it just happens that there are proportionately more Repubs in power right now to keep a close eye on. But to Dems' credit, since they embraced integration, at least in theory, in the 1960s and the Dixiecrats formed an alliance with the corporates to form the new Republican Party (which is a big historical "switch," regardless of how well each side plays its role), the Democrats have not built their party by directly courting white racists and bigots and then pretending not to. The truth may hurt, but the modern GOP strategy is to do just that. Being willing to equally scrutinize the damn Dems does not change the severity of what the elephants have done, in the most cynical, ugly way I can imagine: play us for racist fools. The same goes for the lobbyist/Delay/Abramoff scandals. This is really severe, serious stuff -- and there is no need to make the two sides even somehow (which I know you're not saying). Truth is, the current Republican Party is playing really, really ugly games, and the current Democratic Party plays piddley games and has no balls. They're too afraid of being called "angry" or some such bullsh!t. If anything, they are the real enablers.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-14T13:17:06-06:00

ID

104759

Comment

I guess a good analogy could be slavery. We can hold several thoughts at once there, too: The South wanted to keep its slaves no matter what, and was willing to fight a really ugly, stupid war to keep them. The North was on the other side; thus, can take the moral high road in history. However, that doesn't mean that every northerner's motives was pure and not about greed. That is, one can criticize both sides and still realize that one side was more severely wrong than the other. I can ride the Dems until the cows come home -- and will -- but they are not the party playing the really ugly southern-strategy games (although some of their members are willing to do it). But on the GOP side at the moment, this crap is codified from the top down, leaving no room for a conservative to handwring about the party being called "racist" without sounding extremely naive or dishonest. Truth is, as a party of late, the GOP has been racist. That doesn't mean every member is, and it's up to the members to do something about their legacy and excise this crap. That brings me to C.W.'s point: I'm going to say something you may think is ugly and wrong, but I'm going to say it anyway. Even if a politico doesn't mean it in his/her heart, if they will reject racist symbols and organizations publically, I'll take that. In a heartbeat. Oh, no, I don't disagree. Ive been controversial when I've said this in the past: I don't actually care what's in a public servant's heart, should it be different than their actions (a reality I personally don't understand, but some claim it's possible). That is, what you do and supportis what matters. That's why I could give two sh!ts that a politician "has black friends" or "hires black people" or whatever if they are supporting policies that are holding back a race of people. They can talk all they want about what's in their hearts, but what matters is what they do. Likewise, I think it is very possible -- and this might rankle some, too -- that people who have done seemingly racist things (such as speaking to the CofCC) do not have that racism in their hearts, but they do not have the courage of conviction to stand up and do something about it. And poor white guys in this state: They've long been taught that you have to be a racist to run for public office here, and win. No friggin' wonder we're on the bottom of the barrel.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-14T13:22:10-06:00

ID

104760

Comment

To take some writings by Lerone Bennett a bit further: These white men (and women) are going to have to find their backbone if this cycle is ever to stop. I'm not saying this to give them too much credit, but I am someone who does not believe we'll get anywhere by simply dividing people into "racists" and "non-racists" and leaving it right there. I believe we call out racism wherever we see, and force the reality in front of the people enabling it who are trying hard not to see it, and then we give people an opportunity for redemption and to change their ways before branding them "hopeless" forever (same as I believe in second chances and rehabilitation for young criminals). I believe this process of redemption andd forgiveness is very important, but it is also important to note that forgiveness needs to follow the apologies and recogniiton of what is happening. This B.S. of blaming the victims in this state because they can't "get over it" when it's really the ones doing the blaming who haven't "gotten it" has to stop. It's a process, and with all of us pushing it, I believe we will reach the tipping point. In some ways, we may have already and not realize it. Haley showing up at the commemoration, Wyatt complaining about the PC state prosecutors, and Republicans voting to rename highways for Till and Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner are some powerful signs of hope of shifting winds, if we will pay attention. Enough? Hell, no. Rays of hope? No doubt. Remember, they themselves do not have to change their ways, but their *reaction* to their voter's and readers' wishes is very important to observe. And the sad part is that I believe that the most entrenched southern-strategy Republicans understand what is happening here more than progressive Repubs and Dems do. The latter group needs to catch on. When they do, I predict the real tipping point. Keep the faith.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-14T13:22:24-06:00

ID

104761

Comment

Well, then (smiling). I'd say you and I are pretty much on the same page, Donna. Because I've been surprised to find that when you change the "outside", it seems to allow a lot of people on the fence to fall off on the moral side, and people who want to act right, but are too weak to resist peer pressure, find it less difficult to 'do the right thing' (thank you, Spike Lee). They can talk all they want about what's in their hearts, but what matters is what they do. Likewise, I think it is very possible -- and this might rankle some, too -- that people who have done seemingly racist things (such as speaking to the CofCC) do not have that racism in their hearts, but they do not have the courage of conviction to stand up and do something about it. I'll agree, and add that standing up and admitting that the CCC is racist and not what they stand for will take a weight off their mental shoulders. Those who are not hardcore can have a change of heart; the hardcore ones, I'm not so sure of, but I'll leave them to people like Rev. Perkins who have more faith and more ability to change the hardcore heart. And poor white guys in this state: They've long been taught that you have to be a racist to run for public office here, and win. No friggin' wonder we're on the bottom of the barrel. Ahhhh, Ttank you for articulating that! L.W., have you read "Yazoo" by Albert Morgan? Talk about enlightenment about Reconstruction!

Author

C.W.

Date

2006-02-14T21:57:37-06:00

ID

104762

Comment

L.W., have you read "Yazoo" by Albert Morgan? Talk about enlightenment about Reconstruction! I sure haven't. I'll add that to my list the next time I shop on Amazon.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-02-14T22:41:34-06:00

ID

104763

Comment

Just found this awesome profile on the CCC, courtesy of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Excerpt: At first, even the politicians in question claimed they didn't know what this Council was all about. Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, who had spoken to the group five times, once telling its members they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy," claimed he had "no firsthand knowledge" of it. Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who touched off the brouhaha by delivering a keynote speech at the CCC's national convention in June 1998, said he had "no idea" what the organization stood for. Those explanations wouldn't suffice for long. An Intelligence Report investigation (see Sharks in the Mainstream, Issue 93), picked up by several network newscasts and major newspapers, made it crystal clear what the CCC was: a hate group that routinely denigrated blacks as "genetically inferior," complained about "Jewish power brokers," called homosexuals "perverted sodomites," accused immigrants of turning America into a "slimy brown mass of glop," and named Lester Maddox, the baseball bat-wielding, arch-segregationist former governor of Georgia, "Patriot of the Century." Denunciations flew fast and furious, with embarrassed conservatives taking the lead. "Lott and Barr gave legitimacy to this racist organization by speaking before them," wrote right-wing columnist Armstrong Williams. Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's former speechwriter, said that anyone associated with a group like the CCC "doesn't belong in a leadership position in America" ... Barr and Lott issued statements attempting to distance themselves from a group that was fast becoming political poison ... But five years later, Southern lawmakers are still meeting with the CCC ý and still pleading ignorance. According to an Intelligence Report review of the Citizens Informer, no fewer than 38 federal, state and local elected officials who are still in office today have attended CCC events since 2000, most of them giving speeches to local chapters of the hate group. Another 38 former elected officials and candidates for office have addressed CCC groups during the past four years. Of the 38 current office-holders who've attended CCC events, 26 are state lawmakers ý most of them, 23, from Lott's home state of Mississippi (see See No Evil). Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-24T03:52:50-06:00

ID

104764

Comment

Incidentally, I'd like to commend Ben's courage in disavowing the CCC--something many politicians, such as our governor, never had the courage to do. I saw where he got slammed for it on another local site (with nobody coming in to suggest that he might have done the right thing), which speaks volumes about the real agenda of these so-called "color-blind" conservatives--and the price politicians still pay in certain circles for refusing to associate with white supremacist groups. Cheer, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-24T03:57:22-06:00

ID

104765

Comment

Incidentally, I'd like to commend Ben's courage in disavowing the CCC--something many politicians, such as our governor, never had the courage to do. I second that, Tom, although it should not be called anything near "courage" to publicly disavow a bunch of white supremacists. And the fact that a bunch of neo-bigots would slam him for condemning rather proves the original point, doesn't it? And makes him look even better. Either you change, and grow, with the times, or you don't.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-24T12:12:36-06:00