March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Angerfest '07 | Main | War and rumors of war »

Apr 18, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sam

I wanted to note that another documentary, The Trials of Darryl Hunt, about the 20 year fight to overturn Mr. Hunt's wrongful murder conviction in Winston-Salem, premieres on HBO next week, April 26 at 8pm.

There was a screening here at NYU Law last night of the film, followed by a panel discussion with Mr. Hunt, his lawyer Mark Rabil, the Queens County DA, and Prof. Bryan Stevenson. Especially interesting was the contrast between how we're treating Nifong vs. how we've treated the prosecutors involved in Mr. Hunt's case. Nifong certainly deserves sanction, but oversight of DAs shouldn't be limited to those prosecuting defendants with money.

John D. Young

I plan to see this movie on Thursday and I have read several reviews from a previous showing. But I sure hope that the plot description below by a reviewer in the NYT is not correct. If so this would carry on the myth (not supported by the GTRC Report) that appears to be far too common outside of Greensboro that "unarmed civil rights activists were gunned down by 70 Klansmen."

Adam Zucker -- Please say it ain't so!!

"PLOT DESCRIPTION
Adam Zucker's documentary Greensboro: Closer to the Truth revisits the ugly, harrowing sequence of events that transpired in Greensboro, North Carolina, on November 3, 1979. As the Communist Workers Party gathered to protest the existence of the KKK (nonviolently), several carloads of Klan members rolled in, brandishing shotguns and automatic weapons, and firing indiscriminately into the crowd. Many were wounded, five murdered. The press dubbed it 'The Greensboro Massacre.' In Closer, Zucker visits survivors of the tragedy on both sides to observe the courses taken by their individual lives between 1979 and 2004. The filmmaker also documents the convergence of the first 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission,' a group formed to unearth the details surrounding this tragedy. Its ultimate goal: to foster reconciliation and harmony between the two sides by bringing the participants face to face with the reality of their pasts. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide"
( see -- http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=391475 )

Roch101

Hey, John, I'm not disagreeing that the idesa that the marchers were "unarmed", but I do not see that claim or the "70 Klansman" in the review you cited. What are you referencing?

Bubba

Pay attention, Roch:

It's not always about WHAT the writer says, it's HOW he/she says it, and what he/she DOESN'T say.

It's a little trick Ed uses to perfection.

sean coon

zucker's film -- from what i've been told -- is much more about the trc process and the people involved than the details of 11/3 itself. zucker's words:

In 2002 a filmmaker colleague mentioned there was going to be a truth commission in Greensboro, NC, which would be the first truth commission, held in the U.S. I was familiar with the stories of truth commissions in South Africa, Chile, Argentina, and I thought a film about truth commissions would be compelling. Upon my first trip to Greensboro I found the people involved in the story fascinating, remarkably committed and challenging. At the same time, the larger city of Greensboro seemed largely uninterested in the story. Those two dynamics became the driving force of the film, and it became more character-driven and focused on one particular city.

why don't we avoid creating more meta-drama about 11/3 based on an out-of-town newspaper review abstract, john, and just see the film for ourselves?

you know how this spot gets.

Bubba

"....why don't we avoid creating more meta-drama about 11/3 based on an out-of-town newspaper review abstract, john, and just see the film for ourselves?

you know how this spot gets."


Yeah, we do.

It glosses over the truth from time to time.

Ed Cone

Bubba, I'm missing the context for your snark in this thread -- is it just generalized hostility, or is it something specific to the post I made?

John D. Young

Sorry!! Roch my 70 was a typo. I meant 30. That follows somewhat the NYT piece -- "several carloads of Klan members rolled in, brandishing shotguns and automatic weapons, and firing indiscriminately into the crowd."

The "30 Klansmen" more directly follows a piece in Feb. in the Providence R.I. newspaper, the Providence Journal. That article begins -- "PROVIDENCE - On Nov. 3, 1979, Marty Nathan watched in horror as her young husband, Mike, was shot and killed by more than 30 Klansmen and Nazis, who opened fire on a group of protestors during an anti-Klan march in Greensboro, N.C." This article appeared after a discussion about the Greensboro T&R process at Brown University.

Sean, you are right. I should wait until I see the actual Zucker documentary. But the errors in the Times piece and the Providence Journal piece do concern me.


sean coon

sure, john, but again, mixing those concerns into this thread does nothing but spread the focus and provide opportunities for hijacks.

see you at the theater.

Roch101

"But the errors in the Times piece ..."

I still don't see the errors. Perhaps they don't offer the details you'd like, but I don't see any factual errors. And where did you see the description of "unarmed" activists to which you originally objected as an error in the Times piece?

sean coon

you know what, screw the focus of the thread. now that i've re-read it, roch is spot on: what the hell are you referencing, john?

Tony Ledford

John, is it the use of "...(nonviolently)..." that bothers you?

I'm looking forward to the film.

John D. Young

Yes Tony (Roch and Sean) the NYT piece saying "nonviolently" is the error.

sean coon

"nonviolent" is a much more gray issue than "unarmed", john.

i'm not trying to be snarky when i say this: for the sake of staying on point, try using the actual words from a source when you drop quotation marks.

you know?

Bubba

"Bubba, I'm missing the context for your snark in this thread -- is it just generalized hostility, or is it something specific to the post I made?"

What does the excerpt from the Times' piece say, and what does it NOT say?


"As the Communist Workers Party gathered to protest the existence of the KKK (nonviolently), several carloads of Klan members rolled in, brandishing shotguns and automatic weapons, and firing indiscriminately into the crowd. Many were wounded, five murdered."

If was someone from the Heartland reading this with no prior knowlege of the event, what impression would I get from reading that?

What important bit of information is left out?

Whose point of view does this excerpt express?

Ed Cone

Uh...the point of view of someone who is not fully acquainted with the facts?

Still don't quite get why you are snarking at me for a clipping posted by someone else.

Roch101

John, I have to agree with Sean that posting something in quotation marks when referencing a cited source surely made it seem as if you were, well, quoting that source.

It now appears as if the words in quotation marks existed nowhere but in your comment--written only by you. That's misleading and unhelpful (and kind of lame too, to manufacture a quote that didn't exist so that you can argue against it).

Bubba

"Uh...the point of view of someone who is not fully acquainted with the facts?"

Not even close.

Don't play dumb.

"Still don't quite get why you are snarking at me for a clipping posted by someone else."

Paranoia strikes deep......

Ed Cone

Bubba, serious question: what the hell are you trying to say in these comments? Can you please provide an answer that doesn't sound like it came out of a fortune cookie?

David Hoggard

Bubba is trying to say he is the new standard bearer for knee-jerk, Tourette Syndrome-like challenges to your every word now that Sam has vacated to his own digs.


John... you were way off base.

Ed Cone

But Bubba doesn't seem to be responding to anything specific that I posted or linked in this thread, at least until the final thing about my answer on the NYT citation, which is still pretty obscure. Hence my question about generalized hostility. Which is fine, I guess, just want to make sure I'm keeping up.

mick

"nonviolently" MAY be a gray definition but a "Death to The Klan" rally with guns present in the crowd is not quite so gray. One of the excerpts makes it sound much more like a driveby than a shootout. I am not defending John's use of (mis)quotes but let's at least be realistic about the views expressed and what words are used and not used.

Given all that has happened and some of the coverage (including locally) does anyone believe that John doesnt have cause for concern here? Frankly, I will be surprised if this is piece isnt slanted and would not be surprised if it were a total "hit piece".
But that is me and I am a bit jaded.

Wish I could go see the film. I do believe it would expand my understanding. But Ive got too much life going on tonight to sneak in. Have fun. I do really hope the piece is fair to all involved including our community. As I recall the episode of City Confidential wasnt exactly kind to us.

sean coon

well, that's why i wanted to distinguish the difference between "non-violently" and "unarmed," mick.

there's no questioning the fact that the CWP came armed, but whether or not they came looking for an actual gunfight, nobody can say for sure. personally speaking, i highly doubt they would have brought their kids to an event if they were planning a shootout. now, it was extremely naive to bring them thinking that violence couldn't erupt in the first place -- especially with the vitriol they were dropping left and right -- but planning it with kids in tow is a whole other level of stupidity that i'd have trouble assigning to anyone walking on two feet.

but that's just my perspective.

i hope the film is spot on, no matter where it leads.

John D. Young

Roch, David and Sean, sorry that I was off base. You are right I should not have used any quotation marks I should have just explained my concern of the need to hold everyone fully accountable for their actions on Nov. 3rd. That is better done with just my own language and not my uncorrect use of a quote.

Roch101

After rereading, John, I could see how maybe you were using "Dr. Evil quotes" (as I just did), but I'm glad you acknowledge the confusion it caused. Carry on.

sean coon

no blood, no foul.

The comments to this entry are closed.