Politicize a Dead Woman

slkshock7 wrote:

blatham wrote:
"In the case of WOMD held by Iraq, I consider that what the Bush administration was guilty of, and still is on a continuing basis, as lying. I consider that that same term also applies to Clinton's statement you reference. Libby appears to have lied as well, but I'll leave that to Fitzgerald and the courts.

Well I don't think he is lying...so in that case, I guess my point still stands.

blatham wrote:

"Slander" entails, by definition, some falsehood. "Libel" as well. Per what I wrote above, neither term would apply.

And by what I wrote above, it would....so please address the general question. Is it OK to slander someone at a funeral?

Suppose a well-known and respected black civil rights leader had gotten up at Coretta's funeral and said he appreciated and admired Coretta's civil rights stance, but as for her husband, he was a clown...ineffective in his non-violent tactics, and basically a tool of the white man. Would you be equally outspoken at defending his right to speak?

Congratulations! This is the most outlandish straw argument that I ever saw posted here.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Wasn't her funeral supposed to be about HER? Not about politics? Not about the war? Not about wire taps? I don't think Mrs. King's funeral was the appropriate venue for these issues.

That's a false dichtonomy, because Mrs Scott-King was about politics. That's what brought all those politicians to her funeral in the first place. You cannot commemorate an intensely political figure and leave politics out of the picture. That would be dishonest.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Congratulations! This is the most outlandish straw argument that I ever saw posted here.

How so? The discussion is on slander against a political figure at a funeral...my argument hypothesizes a very-similar situation.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Politicise a dead woman who breathed the political process? Baloney. Also, bologna.

Indeed.

I haven't looked at this thread before, because I could not stop laughing at the notion of a person at the centre of one of the most crucial political processes in American history, and well known to have suffered with her husband from the worst excesses of Hoover's spying, being evilly "politicised" was so laughable.

I think she would be turning in her grave at such a patronising and nonsensical attemt to rewrite history, while excluding the eimportant things about her, if a woman so experienced in the worst of political tactics could be bothered turning in her grave about such things.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

blatham wrote:
"In the case of WOMD held by Iraq, I consider that what the Bush administration was guilty of, and still is on a continuing basis, as lying. I consider that that same term also applies to Clinton's statement you reference. Libby appears to have lied as well, but I'll leave that to Fitzgerald and the courts.

Well I don't think he is lying...so in that case, I guess my point still stands.

blatham wrote:

"Slander" entails, by definition, some falsehood. "Libel" as well. Per what I wrote above, neither term would apply.

And by what I wrote above, it would....so please address the general question. Is it OK to slander someone at a funeral?

Suppose a well-known and respected black civil rights leader had gotten up at Coretta's funeral and said he appreciated and admired Coretta's civil rights stance, but as for her husband, he was a clown...ineffective in his non-violent tactics, and basically a tool of the white man. Would you be equally outspoken at defending his right to speak?

Silly question. If one values truth, then "slander" will work in opposition to that value regardless of where or when that slander is voiced, funeral or op ed column or on a flyer placed on windshields by Rove's agents to suggest that John McCain had fathered children with a non-white woman out of wedlock.

You believe Bush has been an honest fellow. You apparently subscribe to the policies his administration advances. You find the criticism of him at the King funeral inappropriate or slanderous. You'd prefer it if more people held the views you hold.

Neither I, nor the great majority of people at that funeral (who gave the speaker you criticize a sustained standing ovation) nor the majority of American citizens (by numerous polls on the question at issue...deceits leading to war) agree with your views. Tough luck.

There is no "rule of appropriateness" at funerals (or anywhere else) which has any grounding other than your personal preferences. You didn't get what you would wish. Of course the funeral wasn't about you and it wasn't about your social or cultural community. Tough luck.

0 Replies

Bravo

0 Replies

Actually, Snood, this whole thread reminded me of the one, was it yours?, talking about how MLK's actual beliefs and utterances are being snipped and curtailed in media representations of him, with some noteable exceptions, ignoring his more general and trenchant and intense social and political criticisms.

The process applied to the Kings seems to me a bit like that used by bees when an intruder enters the hive....sting 'em to death, then gradually cover them with wax until they are unrecognizeable lumps, and become part of the hive furniture.

Only here, the wax is covering the unpalatable and awkward sharp edges, and creating rather sterile and smooth statues to be worshipped dutifully, with no real challenge or disturbance to the hive's life...

0 Replies

What I want to know is just who asked these Republians to come to this funeral (or that of Paul Wellstone) if they knew they were going to be so offended?

Secondly, who died and made the hate-mongering republicans God? Where did they get the idea that they can dictate to Democrats, Independents or anyone else who opposes them, what kind of funeral they can or can not have?

If ole George didn't want to hear the truth, he should have kept his ugly arse home in his little bubble. He was not invited to this funeral but he did ask to attend. If the King family had been mean, nasty, SOB's like Bush they would have told him to take his request and go straight to hades.

In short.... It's not any of their damn business.

To Republicans: If you don't like our damn funerals, stay away from them.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

blatham wrote:
"In the case of WOMD held by Iraq, I consider that what the Bush administration was guilty of, and still is on a continuing basis, as lying. I consider that that same term also applies to Clinton's statement you reference. Libby appears to have lied as well, but I'll leave that to Fitzgerald and the courts.

Well I don't think he is lying...so in that case, I guess my point still stands.

blatham wrote:

"Slander" entails, by definition, some falsehood. "Libel" as well. Per what I wrote above, neither term would apply.

And by what I wrote above, it would....so please address the general question. Is it OK to slander someone at a funeral?

Suppose a well-known and respected black civil rights leader had gotten up at Coretta's funeral and said he appreciated and admired Coretta's civil rights stance, but as for her husband, he was a clown...ineffective in his non-violent tactics, and basically a tool of the white man. Would you be equally outspoken at defending his right to speak?

Just because you don't think that Bush is/was lying doesn't mean that the king of liars is truthful. That is your opinion and it's definitely way in the minority. Bush is recognized, worldwide as a bald faced liar.

You cannot slander anyone at a funeral or any other place by telling the truth.

0 Replies

magginkat wrote

Quote:

What I want to know is just who asked these Republians to come to this funeral (or that of Paul Wellstone) if they knew they were going to be so offended?

You know, that's a relevant point which I hadn't considered. Bush, of course, really HAD to be there, from a political perspective (I've read that the WH was mixed regarding whether he ought to attend, anxious that the TV coverage many would watch might display precisely what it did display - dissent and discord and unpopularity). The RNC dearly wishes to gain a greater percentage of the black vote and had Bush not been there, the political consequences would have been significant.

How ignoble and classless is it to attend a funeral for political ends?

Actually, I suspect a better side to his attendance however and would imagine that he'd be there outside of that political motive. But his advisors and PR people (the same ones now pushing the "bad to be political at a funeral" talking point smear) would have been entirely cognizant of the politics of Bush's attendance or non-attendance.

0 Replies

I was just thinking about how odd it was for Bush to be at Corretta's funeral anyway-- when what they stand for is so opposite.

After all, Castro stayed away from Reagan's funeral.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I was just thinking about how odd it was for Bush to be at Corretta's funeral anyway-- when what they stand for is so opposite.

After all, Castro stayed away from Reagan's funeral.

tokenism at it's height... odd that...

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Actually, Snood, this whole thread reminded me of the one, was it yours?, talking about how MLK's actual beliefs and utterances are being snipped and curtailed in media representations of him, with some noteable exceptions, ignoring his more general and trenchant and intense social and political criticisms.

The process applied to the Kings seems to me a bit like that used by bees when an intruder enters the hive....sting 'em to death, then gradually cover them with wax until they are unrecognizeable lumps, and become part of the hive furniture.

Only here, the wax is covering the unpalatable and awkward sharp edges, and creating rather sterile and smooth statues to be worshipped dutifully, with no real challenge or disturbance to the hive's life...

I like the bee analogy. Every year around "Black History Month" time, I experience fury when I see the rightwing bastards struggle to twist precious legacies into mishapen icons for their myopic ideologies. They can never do it, but they have to try, because to acknowledge MLK and Coretta Scott King as they really were - not just warriors who shed blood for civil rights, but fierce opposers of the imperialistic, corrupt ends of the government - would short out their little minds and spirits.

0 Replies

"his more general and trenchant and intense social and political criticisms..."

__________________

Educate us. What do you know re King that isn't in the public domain?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

dlowan wrote:
The process applied to the Kings seems to me a bit like that used by bees when an intruder enters the hive....sting 'em to death, then gradually cover them with wax until they are unrecognizeable lumps, and become part of the hive furniture.

Only here, the wax is covering the unpalatable and awkward sharp edges, and creating rather sterile and smooth statues to be worshipped dutifully, with no real challenge or disturbance to the hive's life...

I like the bee analogy. Every year around "Black History Month" time, I experience fury when I see the rightwing bastards struggle to twist precious legacies into mishapen icons for their myopic ideologies. They can never do it, but they have to try, because to acknowledge MLK and Coretta Scott King as they really were - not just warriors who shed blood for civil rights, but fierce opposers of the imperialistic, corrupt ends of the government - would short out their little minds and spirits.

I like the analogy too.

It does seem that what is being proposed or attempted (or has it already succeeded?) is a kind of implicit exchange, a deal.

Its like the subtext of the message the complainers put out is: "hey, we (the establishment) accepted/embraced/made you into an officially endorsed national hero ... but that does mean you now have to behave properly.

But the way the Kings became heroes in the first place of course was by not behaving like what white conservatives considered proper. Why should it have had to be different in death?

0 Replies

I don't know how in the hell you say they didn't behave in an acceptable way. The nation was quite fortunate for King's influence.

He stuck his neck out for non-violence when it could have easily been a much more violent transition.

He was vilified and Uncle Tom-med by many of his own people for being too acceptable to white conservatives.

He was a gentleman in life and in death. Was his wife and partner so different?

0 Replies

Blacks opposed to Martin's non-violence #1.
____________________________________

Clark: I see. Well, Reverend Martin Luther King preaches a doctrine of non-violent insistence upon the rights of the American Negro. What is your attitude toward this philosophy?

Malcolm X: The white man pays Reverend Martin Luther King, subsidizes Reverend Martin Luther King, so that Reverend Martin Luther King can continue to teach the Negroes to be defenseless. That's what you mean by non-violent: be defenseless. Be defenseless in the face of one of the most cruel beasts that has ever taken a people into captivity. That's this American white man. And they have proved it throughout the country by the police dogs and the police clubs.

A hundred years ago they used to put on a white sheet and use a bloodhound against Negroes. Today they've taken off the white sheet and put on police uniforms, they've traded in the bloodhounds for police dogs, and they're still doing the same thing. And just as Uncle Tom, back during slavery, used to keep the Negroes from resisting the bloodhound, or resisting the Ku Klux Klan, by teaching them to love their enemy, or pray for those who use them spitefully, today Martin Luther King is just a 20th century or modern Uncle Tom, or a religious Uncle Tom, who is doing the same thing today, to keep Negroes defenseless in the face of an attack, that Uncle Tom did on the plantation to keep those Negroes defenseless in the face of the attacks of the Klan in that day.
Clark: But the goal of Dr. King is full equality --

Malcolm X: No.

Clark: ... and full rights of citizenship for Negroes.

Malcolm X: The goal of Dr. Martin Luther King is to give Negroes a chance to sit in a segregated restaurant beside the same white man who had brutalized them for 400 years. The goal of Dr. Martin Luther King is to get Negroes to forgive the people who have brutalized them for 400 years by lulling them to sleep, and making them forgetting what those whites have done to them. But the masses of black people in America today don't go for what Martin Luther King is putting down. As you said in one of your articles, it's psychologically insecure, or something of that sort -- I forget how you put it. But you didn't endorse what Martin Luther King was doing yourself.

Clark: I do not reject his goals, of full integration and full equality rights for American citizens.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I don't know how in the hell you say they didn't behave in an acceptable way. The nation was quite fortunate for King's influence.

Please dont twist the meaning of my sentence by leaving out the crucial, other half of the sentence:

"the Kings became heroes [..] by not behaving like what white conservatives considered proper"

I think they behaved in a most acceptable way. I think they were heroes. I know you do too.

But King's actions were definitely not hailed and welcomed by white conservatives at the time (who did he think he was?).

Or are you seriously trying to retroactively rewrite King into a hero of his own age's white conservatives?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Blacks opposed to Martin's non-violence #1.

Yes, we know all that, we're not stupid.

What point do you think you're proving?

There were blacks who were (or became) more radical than King - especially once the first phase of the black civil rights struggle, spearheaded by King, had achieved its successes.

But the fact that there were blacks who were more radical than King doesn't really show anything, whatsoever, about King somehow being the darling of white conservatives.

No, white conservatives didnt like King - and later on they didnt like Malcolm X either; they thought the whole lot of them were acting out of place. Nothing much too controversial in stating that, like I did.

0 Replies

What white conservatives did you interview for your statement?

I refuse to believe you think George Wallace is a poster boy for white conservatives.

You seem to completely negate the white conservatives that worked for civil rights.

0 Replies

Politicize a Dead Woman

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know