Was the 1979 Klan/Nazi-CWP shootout a massacre?
Sure it was, by some formal and vernacular definitions.
I have used the word "massacre" to describe the event, and although I didn't remember doing so I've been informed by Google that I called it "the Greensboro Massacre" on at least one occasion (before the T&R thing got going, but after I'd changed my own POV on the topic).
But Allen Johnson is right about "the power of words to shape how we view an event," and that has to influence the choice of words on the proposed historical marker.
"Massacre" in this context is more than a vocabulary word. It's a political term that tends to mean "the killing of a lot of good guys by bad guys who suffer far fewer losses." (And, yes, it can be a massacre even if the alleged good guys are armed).
So the problem here is that a lot of people are reluctant to implicitly define the CWP as good guys, even though most agree that the other side was bad.
I'd be OK with "The Greensboro Massacre" if the text that followed was not going to be some Tweet-length summary that couldn't possibly capture the facts about the day and all the players (including the role of law enforcement, which gets left out of the story way too often).
So I'd go with "The Greensboro Shootout."
Elsewhere, Lex makes a good point about Mike Barber "ridiculing and diminishing the tragedies in the lives of others." I doubt that was Barber's intent, but it plays that way, so maybe he can broaden his thinking a bit.
Flashback to Mr. Sun saying much the same thing many years ago:
You look out the window and in front of you a chaotic scene of attack, retreat, gunfire, and death plays out in your neighborhood. You scream for your daughter to get down and take cover. Later, you comfort her but the color of the day, week, and who knows how much more has darkened. She's seen things you never wanted her to see. You feel a sense of failure and guilt over not being able to protect her. Something valuable was lost.
I know a lot of you find this whole slow and sometimes retrograde journey dispiriting. I don't. There has been genuine movement toward wider understanding and even reconciliation over the years. The long arc is bending in the right direction, and the marker -- should it ever go up -- is part of that process.
There is a truth in the work of the Commission that I believe could make a real impact on a much wider audience, if only more attention were paid to telling the story with a more empathetic and less pedantic touch. Here is a quick, yet bad example of what I mean:
Imagine you wake up one sunny November morning and cook breakfast for your young daughter. She's coloring at the kitchen table. You share a few stories and laughs. She gets up to help you with the dishes, and the sun comes through the kitchen window in front of you. As you hand her a plate to dry, there is a loud crackling sound. You look out the window and in front of you a chaotic scene of attack, retreat, gunfire, and death plays out in your neighborhood. You scream for your daughter to get down and take cover. Later, you comfort her but the color of the day, week, and who knows how much more has darkened. She's seen things you never wanted her to see. You feel a sense of failure and guilt over not being able to protect her. Something valuable was lost.
Fast forward to today and we know from the Commission's report that the GPD knew in advance of the very real risk of precisely these violent events in your neighborhood on that sunny November morning.
Put aside for a moment all of the labels: Communists, Nazis, Klan, and the rest -- a debt is owed and unpaid to that mother and child. Call it what you will -- apology, reconciliation ... I don't care. It's due.
It matters how you tell a story, and this one needs a rewrite.