My newspaper column is about public apologies for the Klan-Nazi killings.

It may seem at first blush counterintuitive, or even cruel, to ask the remnants of the Communist Workers Party for a public apology. After all, these are the people who saw their friends and loved ones gunned down in the street by killers who went unpunished by the law. But I offer the suggestion with respect and a sincere interest in the success of the project.

An apology from the survivors would speak volumes about the real nature of reconciliation -- and would also meet one of the primary recommendations made by the Truth and Reconciliation commission.

Survivors of shooting could be first to apologize

by Edward Cone
News & Record
6-18-06

Here's an idea for jump-starting the reconciliation phase of the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation process: Survivors of the massacre could come before the Greensboro City Council and, as individuals or a group, apologize for their roles in the terrible events of Nov. 3, 1979.

It may seem at first blush counterintuitive, or even cruel, to ask the remnants of the Communist Workers Party for a public apology. After all, these are the people who saw their friends and loved ones gunned down in the street by killers who went unpunished by the law. But I offer the suggestion with respect and a sincere interest in the success of the project.

An apology from the survivors would speak volumes about the real nature of reconciliation -- and would also meet one of the primary recommendations made by the Truth and Reconciliation commission.

The TRC report suggests that "Individuals who were responsible for any part of the tragedy of Nov. 3, 1979, should reflect on their role and apologize -- publicly and/or privately -- to those harmed." The report is clear that the organizers of the Death to the Klan rally bear some measure of responsibility for the tragedy, especially for challenging the Klan with violent rhetoric and staging the event in a residential neighborhood.

An apology from the survivors could address the damage done to this city by the episode, the terror inflicted on the people of Morningside Homes, and the lingering distrust in some quarters for law enforcement and the justice system that resulted from the march and its aftermath.

There have been some apologies already, including remarks by former Nazi and Klansman Roland Wayne Wood and former CWP member Nelson Johnson. But a public statement made in front of the very council being asked for an apology of its own would be powerful indeed. Such an apology would be made as a heartfelt gesture, with no expectation of return. That alone would have great value, and it would honor the TRC report and the whole idea of reconciliation.

And perhaps this apology by the survivors would lead to similar statements from other key players and help bring about reconciliation on a much broader level. So far, much of the public discussion about the TRC report has focused on the apology it asks of the City of Greensboro for the role of local officials and the police in failing to prevent the Klan-Nazi killings. This issue of a civic apology has become something of a sticking point; certain council members plan to avoid next month's roundtable discussion of the report, and questions persist about the possible legal and financial ramifications of any such statements by the city.

An apology by the survivors could move the conversation past the perception that this project is all about retribution and help free council members to join the reconciliation process without feeling they are being coerced or browbeaten. Any additional pledge by the survivors to disavow lawsuits or other financial interests possibly stemming from an apology might be helpful as well in allowing the council to formulate a statement of regret.

Certainly our elected officials could find a constructive way of acknowledging on behalf of the city they represent that this tragedy happened here and that it left a mark on this place and a stain on our honor. The residents of Greensboro deserved better than they got that day, and they deserve reassurances now that even unpopular speech will be protected by law in every neighborhood. Anything that helps council members drop their transparent arguments against considering the report (it happened so long ago and didn't involve us, they say, as they plan the bicentennial of a place named after a guy who never lived here) would be a mercy in itself.

Is it reasonable to ask the survivors to make the first move, to turn the other cheek after suffering such grievous blows? It is if one accepts the value of an apology offered freely, without any demand for a quid pro quo, in accordance with the TRC recommendation. The survivors were essential to getting this process started. If they truly believe it has merit, they could honor it by meeting one of its core suggestions. Perhaps they will reap some closure in return; in any case, they will have done their part, and more, for reconciliation, which is after all the ultimate aim of this project.

Copyright © 2006 - The News & Record

Edward Cone (www.edcone.com, [email protected]) writes a column for the News & Record most Sundays.

Survivors of shooting could be first to apologize

by Edward Cone
News & Record
6-18-06

Here's an idea for jump-starting the reconciliation phase of the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation process: Survivors of the massacre could come before the Greensboro City Council and, as individuals or a group, apologize for their roles in the terrible events of Nov. 3, 1979.

It may seem at first blush counterintuitive, or even cruel, to ask the remnants of the Communist Workers Party for a public apology. After all, these are the people who saw their friends and loved ones gunned down in the street by killers who went unpunished by the law. But I offer the suggestion with respect and a sincere interest in the success of the project.

An apology from the survivors would speak volumes about the real nature of reconciliation -- and would also meet one of the primary recommendations made by the Truth and Reconciliation commission.

The TRC report suggests that "Individuals who were responsible for any part of the tragedy of Nov. 3, 1979, should reflect on their role and apologize -- publicly and/or privately -- to those harmed." The report is clear that the organizers of the Death to the Klan rally bear some measure of responsibility for the tragedy, especially for challenging the Klan with violent rhetoric and staging the event in a residential neighborhood.

An apology from the survivors could address the damage done to this city by the episode, the terror inflicted on the people of Morningside Homes, and the lingering distrust in some quarters for law enforcement and the justice system that resulted from the march and its aftermath.

There have been some apologies already, including remarks by former Nazi and Klansman Roland Wayne Wood and former CWP member Nelson Johnson. But a public statement made in front of the very council being asked for an apology of its own would be powerful indeed. Such an apology would be made as a heartfelt gesture, with no expectation of return. That alone would have great value, and it would honor the TRC report and the whole idea of reconciliation.

And perhaps this apology by the survivors would lead to similar statements from other key players and help bring about reconciliation on a much broader level. So far, much of the public discussion about the TRC report has focused on the apology it asks of the City of Greensboro for the role of local officials and the police in failing to prevent the Klan-Nazi killings. This issue of a civic apology has become something of a sticking point; certain council members plan to avoid next month's roundtable discussion of the report, and questions persist about the possible legal and financial ramifications of any such statements by the city.

An apology by the survivors could move the conversation past the perception that this project is all about retribution and help free council members to join the reconciliation process without feeling they are being coerced or browbeaten. Any additional pledge by the survivors to disavow lawsuits or other financial interests possibly stemming from an apology might be helpful as well in allowing the council to formulate a statement of regret.

Certainly our elected officials could find a constructive way of acknowledging on behalf of the city they represent that this tragedy happened here and that it left a mark on this place and a stain on our honor. The residents of Greensboro deserved better than they got that day, and they deserve reassurances now that even unpopular speech will be protected by law in every neighborhood. Anything that helps council members drop their transparent arguments against considering the report (it happened so long ago and didn't involve us, they say, as they plan the bicentennial of a place named after a guy who never lived here) would be a mercy in itself.

Is it reasonable to ask the survivors to make the first move, to turn the other cheek after suffering such grievous blows? It is if one accepts the value of an apology offered freely, without any demand for a quid pro quo, in accordance with the TRC recommendation. The survivors were essential to getting this process started. If they truly believe it has merit, they could honor it by meeting one of its core suggestions. Perhaps they will reap some closure in return; in any case, they will have done their part, and more, for reconciliation, which is after all the ultimate aim of this project.

Copyright © 2006 - The News & Record

Edward Cone (www.edcone.com, [email protected]) writes a column for the News & Record most Sundays.

Comments

[John D. Young]

Ed, in April 2005, in a message about Reconciliation given at the First Baptist Church, Dr. Peter Storey who was very involved with the T&R process in South Africa, a member of the GTCRP National Advisory Committee, and long time friend of Nelson Mandela said something similar to your column today.

Peter Storey said:

"Let there be a 'prime mover'

Somebody has to initiate, to take the first step toward the other, to make the opening move toward restoring relationship.

In the 1980s there was terrible, bloody war going on in the streets of Johannesburg, between two different tribal and political groups – Zulu followers of one leaders and Xhosa followers of Mandela. With every killing the cycle of violence was ratcheted up, until one man took a radial step: a humble Zulu mineworker walked into the barricaded hostel of his Xhosa enemies, and said, “I know you will kill me, but listen to this one question before you do: how many more must die?” His courage touched his enemies to such an extent that they not only spared him, but one of their leaders offered to join him in seeking out a black church leader together, to begin a peace initiative that ended that terrible slaughter.

There can be no reconciliation without courageous ‘first movers’, but when we find such people, whole new processes toward reconciliation can begin."

[John]

Hmmm... So the *survivors* of that horrendous day should apologize "for their roles"? That makes about as much since as asking survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to apologize for their resistance.

[Ed Cone]

False analogy. People in the Warsaw Ghetto were targeted for their ethnicity. The TRC report identifies things for which the CWP organizers might apologize or acknowledge fault.

If the goal is reconciliation, someone has to swallow hard and go first. All discussed in the column.

[Billy The Blogging Poet]

Ed, This was true when you first posted it in 2006 and time has proven you right.