Politicize a Dead Woman

White conservatives often gave lip service to equal rights, but the real work was done by blacks and helped by liberals.

0 Replies

And, Martin would not have approved divisive, partisan remarks at the funeral of his wife.

I haven't read enough of her speeches yet to make that assertion about her.

I did find a fabulous speech, wherein she said gay rights are the same as black rights. That wasn't easy for her to say--and my respect grows.

I think too many people are just foisting off their views on her without any judgment.

0 Replies

Yeah, I agree. They label themselves conservatives.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

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...

Actually, I think that pretty unfair.

The Kings, whether in the whittled away and smoother over form palatable to many, or in the whole and all inclusive view, are great figures in American history, worthy of someone in the position of president turning up at a funeral.

For Bush NOT to turn up would have attracted a terrible outcry.

Whether Bush.... not, I think, widely read... was aware of the depth of the Kings' radicalism or not I have no idea.

It was right that he was there.

If he was offended by the truth about Coretta King and her views, so be it...there was certainly NO reason to pussyfoot around and tell lies of omission because he was there...to do so would have been an insult to all the Kings stood for, but it was right that he was there.

And, as far as I can tell, he behaved himself with dignity.

That the apparatchiks of his regime would now be trying to discredit people who spoke truth at the funeral is sad, but predictable.

0 Replies

Continuing the line of thought dlowan's post triggered...:
----------------------------------------------------

Then again, in spite of the rhetorical invocations of the dignity of the late Ms King, I dont think the (faux?) outrage is addressed to any 'target group' of blacks at all - even less to any black admirers of Ms King. Thats why I dont think the apparently overwhelming lack of resonance in the black community itself to the conservative complaints on this 'issue' will bother their purveyors much at all.

After all, it seems pretty predictable that most blacks will in fact perceive this onslaught on Ms King's supposedly 'inappropriate' and 'undignified' memorial service as exactly that: an attack on even the memorial service to Ms King. The perception will be that even on the occasion of her death the Republican machine busies itself finding a negative angle to highlight.

Nothing much that'll be achieved there; but then there is nothing much to win for the Republicans anyway, considering that, despite the ado about Rice, Powell and new, black Republicans, they've remained quite consistently stuck in single-digit support among blacks the last decade or so.

No, I think that, in as far as there is a strategy underlying this (and tho I won't make any paranoid claim about posters here being conscious executors of a strategy, there has of course been a strategy-drafter thinking up the spin on this issue), it is addressed to a wholly other group.

In the Bush Aftermath thread I metaphorized about the funeral of a passionate jazz musician, where the service was, of course, a celebration of the music he loved. The critics of the King service reminded me, I wrote, of the neighbour leaning over the fence and eyeing the 'jazz funeral' in disapproval: scandalous, how can they, why cant they hold a proper funeral service like normal folks do, with solemn Calvinist hymns.

I think the current wavelet of rhetorical indignation from the conservative echo chamber is adressed to that neighbour, not to any griever of King.

By loudly tut-tut-tutting about the 'inappropriate' service, the conservatives send out the message to the neighbour that .. they're like him; and those liberals, blacks - they're obviously just ... different.

It's a nice touch that needs to be played out only at the most subliminal level. A hint is all that's needed to reinforce the metaphorical (white, working or middle class) neighbour's already existing askanceness vis-a-vis liberals, minorities -- to once more emphasize that meme of culture war politics, that the Democratic Party has been overrun by (loud, improper) liberals and minority activists, and a regular Joe's place is no longer in there anymore, nowadays. But the Republican Party understands his unease, and welcomes him.

I think that if you're to analyse this tempest in a teapot, this is rather the direction you want to be looking at.

0 Replies

Well, this was true.

"real work was done by blacks "

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

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.

God, Lash. You are letting your ignorance show.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

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.

It's an absolutely brilliant analogy in relation to this topic and I understand the "fury" Snood speaks of. Let me profile another example...the legal and PR strategy to eradicate affirmative action programs (Clint Bolick is the person to read up on here) through hijacking the values and equal opportunity language of the civil rights movement in order to protect whites from the consequences of the long-fought-for corrections in social and economic inequality. Affirmative action inverted to now mean racism against whites. Fury is the proper response.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Yeah. One side. All bad. One side. All good. No thinking, reading or listening necessary.

__________________________

Make sure you shut your eyes and put your hands over your ears, if you're a liberal.

In the 1950s, while Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the Supreme Court's school-desegregation ruling, Senator John Sparkman of Alabama (Democrat presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson's former vice-presidential running mate) protested this desegregation decision by signing the congressional "Southern Manifesto" attacking the court's ruling.

I can see what this proves about liberals versus conservatives, but not what it proves about Republicans vs. Democrats. The examples you cite happened 50 years ago -- when many Democrats were conservative, many Republicans were liberal, and Hillary Clinton campaigned to get Goldwater elected president over Johnson. (Okay, that was just 42 years ago.) My point is this: The correlation that Democrats are liberal and Republicans conservative was much weaker then than it is now. (Not that it's perfect today.) Hence, your comparison of Republicans and Democrats of the fifties proves almost nothing about liberals and conservatives.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
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...

Actually, I think that pretty unfair.

The Kings, whether in the whittled away and smoother over form palatable to many, or in the whole and all inclusive view, are great figures in American history, worthy of someone in the position of president turning up at a funeral.

For Bush NOT to turn up would have attracted a terrible outcry.

Whether Bush.... not, I think, widely read... was aware of the depth of the Kings' radicalism or not I have no idea.

It was right that he was there.

If he was offended by the truth about Coretta King and her views, so be it...there was certainly NO reason to pussyfoot around and tell lies of omission because he was there...to do so would have been an insult to all the Kings stood for, but it was right that he was there.

And, as far as I can tell, he behaved himself with dignity.

That the apparatchiks of his regime would now be trying to discredit people who spoke truth at the funeral is sad, but predictable.

all you say is true. I will however stick to my guns. bush, whose ONLY interest lies in his own agenda and protecting the wealthy could, IMO give a rats ass less about Coretta King or anyone like her. His attendance was a required chore. period. Again, tokenism. All style no substance.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I can see what this proves about liberals versus conservatives, but not what it proves about Republicans vs. Democrats.

The other way round of course.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Lash wrote:
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.

God, Lash. You are letting your ignorance show.

Clarify your comment, please.

There weren't 'as many' conservatives as liberals in the trenches, but it can't be said that there weren't any. Are we counting, now?

I think the line of conversation clouds the issue. I am reading some of her speeches to get a better idea of who she was (aside from the generalized view), to see how much of a partisan she may have been. Before, I had the impression she'd been like Caroline Kennedy, who until very recently, didn't speak in partisan terms, but in general, inclusive, idealistic terms.

I am finding she was quite respectable.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

snood wrote:
Lash wrote:
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.

God, Lash. You are letting your ignorance show.

Clarify your comment, please.

There weren't 'as many' conservatives as liberals in the trenches, but it can't be said that there weren't any. Are we counting, now?

I think the line of conversation clouds the issue. I am reading some of her speeches to get a better idea of who she was (aside from the generalized view), to see how much of a partisan she may have been. Before, I had the impression she'd been like Caroline Kennedy, who until very recently, didn't speak in partisan terms, but in general, inclusive, idealistic terms.

I am finding she was quite respectable.

that's mighty white of you....

0 Replies

I'm glad I've never used that phrase.

It's demeaning to blacks.

You and blatham can think up so many racist quips. Must have had lots of practice.

0 Replies

Native americans were given citizenship in 1924, it took until 1948 for the states of Arizona and New Mexico to comply. Interestingly enough quite a few "natives" rejected the idea of citizenship because they considered themselves already having citizenship in their own nation and felt that their newly acquired citizenship denoted that they were now "white men" in the eyes of the government.

0 Replies

lash that was a mighty weak response.... I'll give you an A for effort though....

0 Replies

Quote:

You and blatham can think up so many racist quips. Must have had lots of practice.

You disarm derogative or racist terminology (nigger, fag, liberal) not by stuffing them under Aunty Bess' sofa, but by bringing them front and center.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
You and blatham can think up so many racist quips. Must have had lots of practice.

You disarm derogative or racist terminology (nigger, fag, liberal) not by stuffing them under Aunty Bess' sofa, but by bringing them front and center.

I agree that being called a liberal is as insulting as being called fag or nigger, or kike, or honkey, though I am far less likely to use any of the latter as part of my daily vocabulary.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I am finding she was quite respectable.

Is that kinda like how a white person might remark that black person A or B is actually "quite articulate"?

0 Replies

Politicize a Dead Woman

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know