In Honor of Virginia Confederate Memorial Day...

[Coyote]

Littljoe said:

Hmmm, very thought-provoking. Being totally innocent of this controversy, I had no idea I was stirring up such strong feelings when I just praised General Lee. Now that I see the issues involved, I can understand the responses. But still...

A. Let me see if I can get this quote thing right. I didn't see a lot of strong feelings exhibited. The author of the article was quite passionate, but he is not a poster here as far as I know. I don't think that you "just praised ... Lee" I think you criticized someone for posting an article which expressed an opinon with which you disagreed. At least that was what brought me back into the thread. Also, you said that you failed to understand why Wildfire thought you had called him a racist. I understood why that was his perception of what you said.

In the interest of provoking further thought, there are a few questions I would like to ask, first emphasizing as strongly as I can that I am NOT trying to maneuver anyone into a corner, or supporting an agenda, or waiting to pounce with some odious label. I really do simply want to know, and think this might make an interesting discussion. I'm interested in answers from anyone here who has an opinion.

A. I never mind answering questions when they are sincere, though I'm sure this thread will be extremely dull to most. If you have further questions of me, pm me.

1) Do you think the resentment about the pre-emption of Lee's day would have been as strong if MLK had been a moral examplar beyond criticism? If people had been able to say, "Yes, Dr. King was a great man, but that's still Lee's day, darn it!" Or is it mainly MLK's lack of moral rectitude that causes the resentment?

A. The only one I know who has expressed any opinion on this subject was the author of the article. So, the best answer to that question would come from rereading the article - probably more than once more.

2) When MLK Day was established, how strong were the protests based on the fact that this was already Lee's day? Was there a lot of public outcry in the South? Did people try to get the date changed?

A. I was not aware of any mention of its already being Lee's holiday. I think the hold out state was Arizona, actually, and not a southern state. I don't know about any discussions about the date.

3) And since others (not me!) brought up the race issue, let's not shy away from the big one: would the resentment today be as strong if a popular white evangelist, who had made a name for himself supporting social reform, had been killed and had Lee's birthday proclaimed "his"? Billy Graham Day, for example (long life to him, of course--just an example!)--would that have been hard to accept? Once again, I would never accuse someone of being racist because of their answer to this question. I really am curious.

A. I don't think that is a fair or relevant inquirey. Again, the article is the only source of this position on this issue of which I am aware. It speaks for itself. You seem to assume widespread resentment which I do not believe exists. Such assumptions really do put people's objectivity at risk.
Would you have been so upset that someone posted an article that criticized another had the person criticized been someone other than King, someone like the Billy Graham example you used?

I can see how someone *thought* that you brought up race?

4) Is there an implication that the Federal government intentionally chose this day, or took advantage of it, because it gave them a chance to devalue a popular Confederate figure? Or is it just an unfortunate coincidence that the Feds should have had enough sense to avoid?

A. Oh, I have no doubt that it was intentional and malicious. That, however, doesn't mean that I am obsessed or upset or emotional about it. It's just a fact.

5) Is it important to place a person's accomplishments in the context of some group or other, like race? If we praise someone, or give them a particular honor, are we implying that they represent the best of that particular group (like saying, "Robert E. Lee was the greatest [Southerner/general/white man/Christian/whatever] who ever lived"), or are we--ideally, at least--honoring them for human qualities that rise above categorization (like simply saying, "Robert E. Lee was a great human being")? (I realize, of course, that "human being" is still a group, but I think the intent of the question is clear. )

A. Actually, I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking if a person shouldn't be categorized as a "great white man" or a "great black woman" but should simply be categorized as a great person? Like, saying somone is special for being the first black woman between the ages of 15 and 35 to be elected mayor of a town with a population in excess of 65,000 since 1950 might be a little silly? Mostly, those qualifiers come from the press trying to make a story.

Posted with some trepidation, and a lot of hope for mutual understanding...

A. I'm not sure why the trepidation. I don't mind discussing anything really, but it's probably better in pm. I don't know the author of the article that was posted or where the article appeared. I found the article interesting as it expressed an opinion that I had not read previously.

--LJ

[wildfire]

1) Do you think the resentment about the pre-emption of Lee's day would have been as strong if MLK had been a moral examplar beyond criticism? If people had been able to say, "Yes, Dr. King was a great man, but that's still Lee's day, darn it!" Or is it mainly MLK's lack of moral rectitude that causes the resentment?

Let me ask you: If I owed you $100 how upset would you be if I gave you 2 fifties to pay the debt in full? How about if I gave you 2 tens to pay the debt in full? To replace a much greater with a MUCH lesser is always an insult.
Had Michael King been as good/honest/honorable/and upright a man as Lee, speaking for myself, I would have had much less heartburn about it. (That’s why you won’t find a booking for Martian Luther King Jr. in Birmingham, Alabama . . . he was booked by his legal name found on his driver’s license: Michael King. No middle name.)

2) When MLK Day was established, how strong were the protests based on the fact that this was already Lee's day? Was there a lot of public outcry in the South? Did people try to get the date changed?

There was a great outcry, that I heard at the time, but the date was chosen by the Democrats to help relieve the burden and expense of yet another paid holiday.

3) And since others (not me!) brought up the race issue, let's not shy away from the big one: would the resentment today be as strong if a popular white evangelist, who had made a name for himself supporting social reform, had been killed and had Lee's birthday proclaimed "his"? Billy Graham Day, for example (long life to him, of course--just an example!)--would that have been hard to accept? Once again, I would never accuse someone of being racist because of their answer to this question. I really am curious.

If were Jimmy Baker or Jimmy Swaggart it would have been totally unacceptable!

4) Is there an implication that the Federal government intentionally chose this day, or took advantage of it, because it gave them a chance to devalue a popular Confederate figure? Or is it just an unfortunate coincidence that the Feds should have had enough sense to avoid?

It was a “Two birds with one stone” deal! It gave the blacks a token holiday to “Keep ‘em votin’ Democrat!” and at the same time denigrate another pillar of the much maligned South.

5) Is it important to place a person's accomplishments in the context of some group or other, like race? If we praise someone, or give them a particular honor, are we implying that they represent the best of that particular group (like saying, "Robert E. Lee was the greatest [Southerner/general/white man/Christian/whatever] who ever lived"), or are we--ideally, at least--honoring them for human qualities that rise above categorization (like simply saying, "Robert E. Lee was a great human being")? (I realize, of course, that "human being" is still a group, but I think the intent of the question is clear. )

“If we praise someone, or give them a particular honor, are we implying that they represent the best of that particular group” Why would you HONOR a scumbag?
When you HONOR someone, it’s to show them an EXAMPLE a beacon for others to follow. Not just a run of the mill person of that group/race or sex.
Robert E. Lee graduated second in his class, with NO DEMERITS in 133 years there has not been a smirch on his honor; Michael King plagiarized and cheated his way through college, his wife had to have the court seal his FBI record because the content would “ruin his image” and yet what is known is bad enough.

Here’s an interesting question for you:
Who was freed by Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation”? Was it all the slaves or the Irishmen?

[Coyote]

Littljoe, you talked about people's becoming emotional. I have to say that my blood pressure is usually raised a number or two when King is likened to Ghandi, which is commonly done. Certainly, I think Lee was a great man, but nobody ever says that "King is just like Lee." as they say about Ghandi. It also bugs me that Booker T. Washington has been treated with such disdain and disrespect while King/Jackson were put forth as the revered leaders.

[Littljoe]

Wildfire, Coyote, thank you both for your honest answers. They really help me understand.

One thing you say, Coyote, I want to respond to:

"I don't think that you "just praised ... Lee" I think you criticized someone for posting an article which expressed an opinon with which you disagreed. At least that was what brought me back into the thread. Also, you said that you failed to understand why Wildfire thought you had called him a racist. I understood why that was his perception of what you said."

Actually, if you look at my original post, I did just praise Lee. Nothing more, except to indicate that Lee was such a remarkably good man he was given high praise even in Northern schools, which I meant only to indicate how high I thought his reputation to be. I didn't refer to anyone else, in any way, and I didn't mean to say or imply anything else. At all. When Wildfire responded with the article about MLK Day, I was extremely surprised because I was completely unaware of that controversy (not having ever celebrated Lee's birthday--a regional thing, no disrespect implied). MLK day was long gone, and it was the last thing on my mind. But obviously I inadvertendly touched a very deep nerve with WF, which caused him to post that article, and that's what I wanted to ask about, so I could understand. I actually never agreed or disagreed with the article itself; I was just very surprised and a little distressed that my innocent praise of Lee (and it WAS innocent) would evoke such a strong criticism of someone else.

Because of your replies, now I understand.

And I did misunderstand WF's reply to the extent that I thought I had insulted him. He clarified that *other people* had called him a racist when he expressed those views; I hope he knows now that was never my intent.

--LJ

[Coyote]

Littljoe,

"Actually, if you look at my original post, I did just praise Lee. Nothing more, except to indicate that Lee was such a remarkably good man he was given high praise even in Northern schools, which I meant only to indicate how high I thought his reputation to be. . . I was just very surprised and a little distressed that my innocent praise of Lee (and it WAS innocent) would evoke such a strong criticism of someone else."

I don't see a causl relationship between your post praising Lee and Wildfire's post of the article. He was just as likely responding to me, or just talking (posting). I suppose Wildfire would be the one to say if your post prompted his, but it is certainly not evident to me and it was not my assumption in reading the tread, as it was yours, that he was responding to your post. He didn't indicate that, either.

"And I did misunderstand WF's reply to the extent that I thought I had insulted him. He clarified that *other people* had called him a racist when he expressed those views; I hope he knows now that was never my intent."

I didn't know that Wildfire was such a diplomat:).

As for your initial post, I had thought that I was remiss in not responding to it, but I just pop in and out frequently and sometimes don't respond when I intend to. Here, and not just my school district, history is taught very anti-South, whether it's present ("All Southerners are prejudiced"), recent past ("King freed the slaves") or the Civil War itself, unless you are very lucky and get a very rare teacher. And if you disagree, your grade will suffer significantly. And then there are the other parents LOL - one of my daughter's friend's father said that I should be exiled from America, and he was serious LOL.

--LJ

[Littljoe]

Coyote said:

Here, and not just my school district, history is taught very anti-South, whether it's present ("All Southerners are prejudiced"), recent past ("King freed the slaves") or the Civil War itself, unless you are very lucky and get a very rare teacher. And if you disagree, your grade will suffer significantly. And then there are the other parents LOL - one of my daughter's friend's father said that I should be exiled from America, and he was serious LOL.

That just brings new meaning to the term "wrong." Or maybe "Horrendous," or "Disgusting." What greater damage can we do to young minds, than to teach them that there's only one point of view? Blecch. I'm really sorry you have to deal with that.

--LJ

[Newfygirl]

I'm not much of a political person (although I do despise Bush) but I like this quote

"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."

This thread has been interesting reading.

[Littljoe]

Newfygirl said:

I'm not much of a political person (although I do despise Bush) but I like this quote

"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."

This thread has been interesting reading.

What a beautiful Memorial Day quote! It should be up at the top of the page.

Sometimes I imagine, for a moment, a world in which we will no longer need Memorial Day....

--LJ