The Politics Of Indignation
I said my piece last night on the King funeral 'controversy', but some last words...
Firedoglake has a great take on this story, stating "How gauche, how distasteful, how horrible that mourners would use the occasion of Mrs. King's funeral to speak truth to power, we hear from folks who would tell those who marched with Dr. and Mrs. King that they don't know how to behave in public." And that is a key point- who are any of us to tell King's friends and family that they do not know how to conduct themselves properly? Before the outrage was manufactured, watching the clips of the funeral I saw nothing but respect for Ms. King. What concern is it if the genteel sensibilities of the Republican party were offended by some fiery rhetoric, especially given that such a public funeral would never have happened if people like her didn't keep fighting people like them?
The Wellstone funeral has been thrown around as a comparison, since the right feels they 'won' that 'battle', but that is another example of faux-indignation from conservatives who loathed everything the Senator stood for in life and used their anger to take his seat in the Senate away in death. When I die, I wouldn't want outsiders telling my friends that they honored me in the 'wrong' way.
At the end of her blog post, she also explores how quickly the Drudge-Hannity-Rove machine scripted the 'outrage' and got the talking points out to the media (and in time for "Hardball" too!). If they were as good at fighting against inequality and poverty as they are at playing politics, we would need less people like Ms. King or Rev. Lowery.
This outrage and shock is the inevitable result of how the Republican party and White House have kept the President sheltered from any and all criticism all these years; the GOP forgets just how much is out there. Heck, the President refuses to attend the funerals of fallen soldiers (not one attended to date) from his precious war, out of fear of coming face-to-face with the price of his policies or the possibility of hearing it from an angry mother or widow. On the rare ocassions the President is forced to attend an unscripted event, in front of an audience his handlers didn't hand-select, his inability to cope with reality is physically apparent. Check out the picture (link) of the President slouched in his chair, visibly bored, as his predecessor and his wife spoke of Ms. King's legacy. How shocking it must have been for the President to see people so unafraid, so proud to speak truth to power... and outside his designated free-speech zones no less. Perhaps the President should've sat up straight and listened to Bill Clinton as he said, "Her children, we know they have to bear the burden of their mother and father's legacy. We clap for that, but they have to go home and live it... You want to treat our friend Coretta like a role model? Then model her behavior."
Words to live by.
A commenter (African-American, for the record) said on a post at The Left Coaster something that reitered a point I made in my earlier entry about a cultural misunderstanding about how blacks and whites approach mass services-
We consider funerals celebrations. Our loved one is going home, no more suffering, crying, or living among earthly troubles. We celebrate the life of the person and what they stood for. We do this at EVERY funeral. So, White America got a true taste of a black funeral, and they can't handle it. They can't handle that in celebrating Coretta Scott King's life, [Bush] got ripped. Mrs. King stood for peace and equality for all. Her funeral celebrated it. Too bad everyone understood that but [Bush] and the right wing folks who usurped the title of Christian. A true Christian was laid to rest the other day. Think on that.
A commenter on this post by Marty Kaplan on HuffPo says the same-
Clearly, some people have never attended an African-American funeral. We often refer to them as "homegoings," and funerals in our community are celebrations of life. We do not mourn a person's death, we celebrate their life and what they stood for. We celebrate their legacy and, in some cases, vow to carry on their work. The people who are complaining the loudest probably haven't bothered to attend a funeral of an African-American, especially one as loved and admired as Coretta Scott King.
Something for angry white Republicans to keep in mind.
As much as they would've liked to sanitize her funeral and ignore her politics, to do so would've been the real disrespect. Speaking truth to power- That's what Coretta Scott King stood for and that's how many of her friends honored her yesterday.
The Boston Globe has a great editorial on her legacy:
The King who led on world peace
Let's remember her that way.
[PS- See video of Rev. Lowery defending his remarks to Bowtie Tucker]
posted by BlueDuck @ 1:32 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Two things to consider:
The commenter on the Left Coaster blog talks about how the funeral was a "celebrat[ion]" of Coretta King's life and that Bush got "ripped." I didn't know that it was proper African-American funeral etiquette to tear someone a new one while he's sitting 5 feet away from you. Mrs. King may have been a true Christian, but certainly Carter and Lowery weren't acting so.
Secondly, while 10% of the 12% of Americans who are of African decent may have seen this as a "homegoing celebration" of Coretta Scott King, the other 88% of this nation just witnessed an embarrassingly vulgar display of burning partisanship. The comparison to the Wellstone Memorial is apt; the Democrats rage cost them a segment of voters in the 2002 election. I would not be surprised if this does in the '06.
Look at the tone of Bill Clinton's words vs. those of Jimmah (said like Timmy from South Park). Clinton celebrated her life, here legacy. He didn't take pot-shots at his predecessors. Carter was trying to rebuild his failed presidency with false comparisons about the NSA program and the wiretaps placed on Mr. and Mrs. King (by Democrats Bobby Kennedy and LBJ no less).
Until the Democrats can remember what presidential is, they going to keep wearing in the ass grooves on the back bench of Congress.
First off, I don't think this will cost any Democrat a single vote. Anyone bothered by the comments probably wasn't likely to swing their vote to the left anyway.
Regarding-
I didn't know that it was proper African-American funeral etiquette to tear someone a new one while he's sitting 5 feet away from you.
Certainly we all are used to be somber funerals, but I think it must be acknowledged again that blacks celebrate funerals more positively than we are used to- they are very energetic events. As for the etiquette of tearing a guest like Bush a new one, I say he had to have known it was coming. He stands for everything that the Kings stood against and it would be an insult to her memory not to acknowledge that. Poor etiquette is the President comparing himself to Dr. King in his State of the Union. I'm sorry... I just think it's insane for Republicans like Bush to give these sanitized, apolitical prepared speeches about Corretta's legacy when they have never done anything to benefit the civil rights movement.
And the Republican Party leadership doesn't have the right to lecture on etiquette given how they have perfected smear politics since Bush came into the picture. The best example were the anti-McCain ads in the 2000 primaries mentioning his "black baby". Won Bush a lot of votes from racist southerners, but classy it was not.
Also-
The comparison to the Wellstone Memorial is apt
In 2004, the 'liberal' media gave Ronald Reagan a 2-week funeral. Lots of politics mentioned there; lots of quips that Republicans should win the election "for the Gipper". Little outcry at that; Democrats knew better than to tell Republicans how to honor their hero.
That the majority of Americans were offended by the Wellstone funeral (or offended by the King one) is pointless to me. They get offended at what the media tells them to get offended at; they aren't stupid, but they don't really pay attention and just follow the media's direction. I am waiting for the media to get mad at the politicizing of 9/11 by the White House so the American people will as well.
The bottom line is we are quick to eulogize and throw around praise when people like the Kings die... but mostly only care out of obligation. They never bother to really understand who these people were. Back in the '60s (yes, when the pro-war, pro-wiretap Democrats were in charge), Dr. King and others were labeled as communists and traitors. They had to fight and struggle (and face death) for every victory they earned. Their fight was not popular (though very powerful), despite what the sanitized history now says. They didn't stop fighting, not even for death.
If people really understood who Ms. King was, they'd be a lot more offended by the President than by a Reverend.
PS- When I die, I definitely want my funeral politicized.
"Jeremy: His Life As a Moonbat" can be the title of my eulogy.
It's only through a re-writing of history that Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. It was the southern Democrats that ran the lower half of the country from the end of the Civil War until the mid 80's-90's. It was the Democrat Bull Conner that turned the hoses and dogs on the protesters. It was the Democrats in Congress that filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (former KKK member Robert Byrd) and voted against it (Al Gore Sr., William J. Fullbright, etc.). It was Democrat Governor Bill Clinton that made by law Robert E. Lee day the same as Martin Luther King's Birthday. So Democrats insistence that Republicans are the racists and bigots is only because the Democrats are telling the story.
Secondly, Regan's funeral was a memorial of the former president, with all the pomp and circumstance deserved to our former leaders. It celebrated his life and impact on this country and the world. Never did it turn into an attack on him. Even the Democrats muted their criticisms, not because they didn't want to tell the Republicans how to celebrate their hero...but because the grand majority of America (remember 2 landslide elections) would have creamed them at the ballot box.
Celebrating someone's life does not mean excoriating someone else (or group of people). Your keep telling me that this is how black people eulogize someone? Want to celebrate Coretta King? Try this: Mrs. King fought for equality and civil rights. We've come a long way...but there's still more to go. Let's keep her spirit alive and march forward. Democrats are not winning converts with "George Bush doesn't care about black people" rhetoric.
UPADTE:
It celebrated his life and impact on this country and the world. Never did it turn into an attack on him or on the Democrats who opposed him during his presidency.
Joe, I don't concede the point, but you make a great argument. I'll give you that.
I do want to reiterate the point that, if we come to a conclusion that the comments were 'inappropriate', such a complaint is still ridiculous coming from the Republican Party which has perfected the political smear machine. Particularly the Bush/Rove machine has taken dirty politics to new levels, going after people's families, etc... The anger here seems as political to me as the comments. No doubt Hannity and Limbaugh creamed themselves when they heard the comments and realized they could use the occassion to bash the Dems and pretend they give a shit about Ms. King.
If Carter was in the wrong, then the Hannitys, etc, are just as wrong for their transparently partisan outrage at partisan comments made at a funeral of someone whose values they preach against (why did Coretta Scott King hate America?)
Finally, you are correct about the history of the civil rights movement and Democrats. Who ever denied the history of southern Dixie-crats? But political parties change. While they opposed it at first (of course, the Republicans did too, so no win there), the Democrats did embrace the movement in the 1960s... much to their own peril. Because it was the right thing to do, even if political suicide... just like brave Senators like Wellstone who voted against the Iraq war in an election year.
When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he famously noted that the Dems had just lost the South for a very long time. He was right. They lost the southern racists who are now courted by the Republicans. So neither party has perfectly clean hands, but it was the Democrats gave into the inevitability of civil rights and made it their signature. Don't think you'll find any blacks complaining about that.
I think we see that play out again now with gay rights... neither party will outright approve of it, but Democrats are willing to try. It's a start. And it's also something Ms. King supported.
In conclusion, I will happily apologize on behalf of my fellow liberals if, in the wake of her passing, the President and conservatives pledge to dedicate themselves to civil rights, the poor, and ending war and violence.
I won't hold my breath.
Post a Comment
<< Home