INDICTMENTS AND ARREST!

I'm with y'all in spirit! Monkey has strep so we are holed for three days :(

I have nothing to say. Besides THANK YOU LORD!

Thanks, Babe. It is a beautiful day. Pray for convictions.

OK, we're headed to Lyric Lounge right NOW! Running late, but come on out and join us if you have an hour or two to kill. It's much fun.

I heard about Preacher Killen getting arrested just as I arrived at Lyric Lounge. They probably wondered why I cried during nearly every poem -- and when David Archie recited the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. I just can't express how I feel tonight: I've waited nearly my whole life for this, and I don't give a damn who makes fun of my saying that. It's simply true. The job isn't done, and prosecuting Killen or the other killers won't solve all our problems. But, boy, is it one helluva step.

Cheers to our generation.

The New York Times Friday:

the 1964 abduction and killing of three voter-registration volunteers by nightriders on a lonely rural road in Mississippi - was revived last night with the arrest of a longtime leader of the Ku Klux Klan, the authorities announced.

The suspect, Edgar Ray Killen, a 79-year-old preacher who, investigators say, organized and led two carloads of Klansmen on the night of the killings, was arrested at his home in Philadelphia, Miss., and charged with the murders of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and James Chaney, Sheriff Larry Myers of Neshoba County said.

The sheriff said there would be more arrests in the notorious case, which helped to cement Mississippi's image as a haven of hatred and violence in the 1960's, when black churches, homes and businesses were firebombed and civil rights volunteers were beaten by white mobs. The case was the subject of several books and was dramatized in the 1988 movie "Mississippi Burning."

The murders provoked an outpouring of national support for the civil rights movement, and in the ensuing investigations federal officials gathered enough evidence to prosecute 18 Klansmen in 1967 on charges of violating the civil rights of the three slain men.

Seven Klansmen were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 3 years to 10 years, although none served more than 6 years. Mr. Killen was released after there was a deadlock by an all-white jury.

Here's the JFP archive on Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner for background. Don't miss Dick Molpus' speech from last summer.

It's good to see we can do things today they couldn't fourty years ago. We can indict, arrest and hopefully convict these men. We can face the facts and do what's right.

Sad thing is, now we _have_ to have a conviction. You can imagine what'll happen if this jury deadlocks, God forbid.

I prefer the Happy, Everyone goes to jail, Ending.

Agreed. And I think that fear -- that he would get off -- has stopped them prosecuting Killen before now (at least in recent years). Before that, it was sheer racism. But that fear can't stop us from doing the right thing now, and trying.

It's interesting that Billy Wayne Posey (one of the alleged conspirators, who testimony back then said drove the station wagon to the dozer site, after stuffing the bodies into the back) was outside the grand jury room all day yesterday as an apparent witness. According to the Neshoba Democrat (linked above), his daughter was there with him. He likely would be an amazing witness if he's turning. He was there, apparently, for the whole thing. Some of them weren't. And the shooters themselves are dead. Also, if they're arresting more of them, I'd suspect they'll cut deals with some of them to get Edgar Ray. And it's hard to imagine that they're aren't hard feelings from some of them who served time in federal prison (like Billy Wayne) that Killen didn't serve a day.

The story goes (from '60s testimony) that he was the kleagle (or whatever the Klan goobers called it) in Neshoba County and got instructions from Bowers on what to do. He then coordinated it between the Meridian and the Philadelphia Klansmen, gave all the instructions and then left the scene. He then went to the funeral home where a relative was lying at rest and signed both that register and the one in the next parlor. That became his alibi.

Also, bear in the mind that in recent years that Killen has told reporters that the men came down here looking for trouble. He hasn't actually shown a lot of remorse if he, in fact, was the organizer.

The truth is, those men were heroes. The national shock over their deathsówhich Andy Goodman's rightly said then came because two white men were killedóled directly to civil rights legislation and helped hasten the end of Jim Crow. They helped Mississippi save itself from itself -- and its time that at least some of their murderers are brought to justice. And we Mississippians must stand up and call for it. It's an answered prayer -- but, as you point out, Iron, only one of many.

Will Campbell was asked to comment on opening up old civil rights cases like this, and he asked when they were going to try the people that were really responsible--the people who gave the orders and covered up for them--people like the governor and federal officials.

A move like this has to be looked at in context--and the two most important points of reference in my opinion would be 1) what Rev. Campbell said and 2) what are they doing about racial injustice right now? Given that both criterion come up empty, whatever good might come out of this trial should be seen for what is is: a cynical use of civil rights to distract attention from governmental failing and racial injustice in the state and in the nation. (Of course, I have no proof it's consciously being cynically used--it is possible that due to ignorance or some kind of naive goodwill, someone believes that this one case will make up for and prevent racial injustice--or be a step in that direction.)

When the prisons aren't filled with black people doing what Millsaps frat row and the posh suburbs do at the same time, then maybe we can talk about taking steps toward correcting injustice that are more substance than flair.

from the Mpls. Startrib article:

"Ben Chaney, the younger brother of James Chaney, called the latest investigation a sham that may target one or two unrepentant Klansmen - but spare the wealthy and influential whites he claims had a hand in the slayings."

don't know about this. and being new here, please tell me who Rev. Campbell is.

meanwhile, I hear there was a bomb threat at the courthouse ,
also, very few observers for the arraignment. let's keep our eyes
on this somehow. imho.
it was as defining a time as the Vietnam War, and it has to be done
right now. the 'everyone goes to jail ' happy ending.
so, whoever knows, let us all know, what can we do to help the
process?

thanks sunshine for posting the quote from Chaney.
Will Campbellwill is a 'bootleg baptist' (white) preacher from rural MS who was and is active in the civil rights (and now, gay and lesbian rights) movements. he's also a famous writer, and just all around a good guy with radical politics. he'd completely agree with Ben Chaney and have a few choice words to say about the elation on this board at this trial (he has a small reputation for getting invited to speaking engagements and embarrassing the typically liberal institution he's speaking at by speaking truthfully and bluntly how they're more culpable for the injustice in the world than individual bigots like Killen--and his book Brother to a Dragonfly has a few hardhitting passages in the same vein.)
bio & bibliography from ole miss: http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/english/ms-writers/dir/campbell_will_d/

I want to make clear my position:
I'm not saying that trying Killen and others is necessarily a wrong thing to do, but that in all likelihood it's a diversion from a substantial struggle for racial justice. Convicting Killen in all likelihood is not a step in the right direction at this time--but it could become one with public pressure.
But until the wealthy and influential whites that had a hand in the killing are being hunted down, and until the wealth and influential whites--and blacks--that are right now promoting racial injustice in the form of the fake war on drugs and poverty, a fake war on iraq, and just an all-around injustice social system--are being brought to justice, this trial is a sham and a mockery of justice. Sentencing an old ignorant bigot who was mainly a puppet in the hands of the powerful will do more to tickle the liberal feel-good bone than advance racial justice.

I am disturbed, hell I am incensed, by the comments of Jason regarding the momentous and historic events taking place in Philadelphia. I have lived here for 55 years and was 15 yrs old when James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered. Between their murders and the other horrendous events of the 60's, I can assuredly state many of us have been profoundly impacted. Not only was there a unnatural loss of innocence for what we witnessed and experienced, it helped lead many of us to the higher ground of championing social justice.

If you have seen the anguish in face of Ben Chaney in the picture of him as a little boy at his brother's funeral, you can understand how he might have misgivings and mistrust for the people of Neshoba County; however, as one of those people, I take great exception to any unfounded accusations that only unreptant Klansmen are being brought to justice. If Ben Chaney or anyone else has any evidence of others being involved in the murders then they are dishonoring the memories of Goodman, Schwerner & Chaney by withholding it.

I can assure you that Dr. Carolyn Goodman & David Goodman, the mother and brother of Andy, do not share his or Will Campbell's sentiments. In September, Attorney General Jim Hood met with the Coalition regarding the case. Mrs. Goodman and David came down from New York to be with us as we attempted to put a human face to a 40 year old crime. There was not a dry eye in the room when Mrs. Goodman told us about Andy and what compelled him to come to Mississippi. Andy showed much more intelligence and maturity that I see exhibited in some of the posts today.

It still astounds me that neither she nor David had any bitterness or anger at the people of Neshoba Co or Mississippi. For her to exhibit such grace under the circumstances and to express how she had come to know and appreciate what people were doing to commemorate the lives of these 3 young men and to keep seeking justice for them, it confounds me to read Jason's statements. Who is he to say such?

The indictment and trial of Killen is absolutely the right thing to do...while it should have occurred contemporaneously with the crime, perhaps there is more to be accomplished by it occuring now. The Coalition is not resting after today's great accomplishment.

We are actively working on developing a school curriculum to teach our "true" civil rights history in the public schools. This has the endorsement of the local public schools and teachers are working with us to do oral histories, videos, etc. so grade appropriate lesson plans can be developed. This is not for just local use for we want to present to the state education department. Other plans include designation of Hwy 19 as a memorial highway. We want a lasting legacy in memory of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman & Michael Schwerner.

I invite Jason and others to join us in these efforts.

oh dear, I am sorry to see unhappiness surfacing from this ..
I think many of us were about that same age then, well I was. it's so important now. I cannot speak for Jason of course, yikes, this is difficult.
the Coalition , as much as I understand, is what made this happen .
for now, this is the best effort, so let me know what I or anyone can do. during the trial and after. I do think visible presence there will be
important, for one thing. yes, it's historic and momentous and deserves
as much attention as Ladd has been giving it forever now. hurray for her.
let's continue.

Maybe if we had a better idea of what you wanted, Jason. I mean, after reading your comments, should we even bother trying him?

thank you for your genuinely for a better explanation of what I want Ironghost. I'll take this opportunity to apologize for often being unclear in what I'm saying--I get ahead of myself a lot.
What I want is this: racial justice (and just justice in general)--and I want it concrete. You ask whether or not we should bother trying him--I say that trying and convicting him by itself is basically a symbolic gesture (it won't concretely advance the socioeconomic condition or physical protection of black people concretely). Symbolic gestures can be important, but this is the important thing to remember with symbolic gestures: they can be used to replace substance. So keep all that in mind when reading all my comments.
As a concrete example, I want to explain a little more what Ben Chaney and Campbell mean about trying "wealthy and influential whites" rather than ignorant smallfry.
According to Chaney, Campbell, myself, and others, the "true" civil rights story had less to do with the Klan and more to do with...well, there's debate as the best name, but: the white power structure, the man, the system, white supremacist patriarchal capitalism, whatever. Killen and friends may've driven the cars and pulled the triggers, but just as the Iraqi insurgents can only function due to widespread social support, Killen and co. could only function due to local, state and federal support (and support can mean just looking the other way).
Now, this can get confusing. For instance, the FBI helped search for the bodies after this incident--and this lead to one FBI agent at the time to assert at a meeting about the release of the Soveignity Commission files that the FBI was on the side of civil rights. And it'd be easy to say, "well, they helped in this case, so how can you say the federal gov't offered any kind of support to the likes of Killen?"
The thing is, if you really do your history, the federal gov't obstructed the civil rights movement in every way it could (didn't protect civil rights workers, surely knew sometimes of planned attacks, didn't pass civil rights legislation for a long ass time, didn't enforce it, don't enforce!, and uh, COINTELPRO--assassinating activists, etc.). However, it also had to prevent the movement from gaining power and shaking US society up anymore than it had, so sometimes it came into conflict with local and state officials who wanted to take things further in stopping civil rights. So those conflicts can be used as evidence the feds supported civil rights--but if you look at the context and whole history, a different picture emerges.

(cont)

the danger to the civil rights workers came in the person of ignorant Klansmen--but these ignorant Klansmen were largely politically directed by the upperclass Klan (the white citizens council), supported or given free action by the state government, which in turn was supported or given free action by the federal government (this picture is way oversimplified). Freedom Summer--where these 3 men were killed--shouldn't have ever happened, as the federal gov't should've protected the right of blacks to vote, not college students.

And this is the thing, while some things have changed (for a minority at least), at base they've stayed the same or mutated in form. we've often heard that schools are more segregated now than then, but how often have we heard that the racial disparity in what's spent per student is the same or worse now than then?
and then there's the millions of blacks adversely affected by the incarceration system for nonviolent drug offenses that happen every day on frat rows and suburbs. not to mention the police violence--I'd rather see a killer cop tried than a feeble, old klansmen. as talib kweli says in "The Proud" [talking about a true story by the way]:
August 4, 2001
A drunken police officer mows down an entire family in Brooklyn
The judge lets him go with no bail
It reminds us, of just how worthless our lives are to the justice system
I struggle, to explain the situation to my son, it's hard

and then there's the poverty, unemployment and shitty jobs the majority of blacks are thrown into and kept down in by the economic and political structure.
That is not freedom, it is not racial justice, and trying a few 80-year old ignorant pawns is not going to change a thing about it.
If the families and friends of the victims can draw some good from the trial, then I'm not against the trial going forward--but I am against it being touted as proof things are changing, because that's only a distraction from the much deeper social issues we need to be dealing with.

i want to respond to what fbd2 said, so no one is mislead by it:
"If you have seen the anguish in face of Ben Chaney in the picture of him as a little boy at his brother's funeral, you can understand how he might have misgivings and mistrust for the people of Neshoba County; however, as one of those people, I take great exception to any unfounded accusations that only unreptant Klansmen are being brought to justice. If Ben Chaney or anyone else has any evidence of others being involved in the murders then they are dishonoring the memories of Goodman, Schwerner & Chaney by withholding it."
This isn't about "misgiving or mistrust toward the people of Neshoba County", and to reduce what Ben Chaney had to say about the trial to his emotions as a young boy is highly offensive! And it's offensive to suggest Ben Chaney's withholding evidence about others involved in the murders and confuses the issue he's getting at. Ben Chaney--and Will Campbell, myself, and many others--are saying that the wealthy and influential whites running society at the time (such as local and state official, the white citizens' council, etc.) are politically responsible for the deaths of those three civil rights workers and many other deaths. Ben Chaney doesn't have a diarty entry from the governor proving this that he's keeping in his bedroom, he simply has eyes to see what happened and knows that wealthy and influential whites were behind the whole thing in one way or another.
Maybe fbd2 simply misunderstood, or maybe s/he is sophistically obscuring the issue by suggesting Ben Chaney is withholding evidence--but whatever the case, the charge is unfounded and misguided in the extreme. And I repeat, the charge that Chaney's accusations come are simply emotional are slanderous and it is a base ad hominem argument against a serious charge.

this article in today's LATimes says a lot in support of Jason's views

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-families8jan08.story

but it remains that in our legal (note I do not say justice..) system,
the state can only prosecute where there is without reasonable doubt
evidence.

meanwhile, why do they keep calling Killen a 'reputed' Klansman?
to avoid libel? and the fact that he is a Preacher, shouldn't that
hold him to an even higher standard? scapegoat or not, if there's
evidence, it's worth a try-al.

another article
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=395199

when I first saw the headline "Delay might help prosecutors' I thought
no way, Tom DeLay will help? not good.. ha. a different delay.
whew.

a relevant quote from the latimes article sunshine refers to:
"In many ways, those men were pawns," [Rita Bender, Michael Schwerner's remarried widow] said. "They were manipulated by a state apparatus that was determined to preserve a racist society by whatever means. That doesn't mean they are not individually liable for their acts, but there is a lot more liability and a lot more responsibility than just them.
"And so for me," she went on, "the importance of this case is to use it to talk about the result of racism and state-sponsored terror."

sunshine says:
"but it remains that in our legal (note I do not say justice..) system,
the state can only prosecute where there is without reasonable doubt
evidence. "

i should've been clear that there's a lot more to do than use the legal system to criminally prosecute people (and i'm not talking about vigilante justice)--such as mass actions to transform society to increase racial justice. prosecuting the old political figures from them might have some importance, but changing society for the better now is obviously the key, and relying on the limited and racist nature of our legal society is a deathwish for a social movement.

one more article of interest, not to be the google person here,,
including some info re Ben Chaney I had not seen before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/08/nyregion/08mothers.html?8bl

and yes, "the importance of this case is to use it to talk about the result
of racism and state-sponsored terror. " I would say amen, but not
comfortable with that so - let's keep the energy . (same thing )

Hi Group

I was born in 1979 so I really don't know much about the three men who where kill. I've read the history books about Mississippi and watch several videos about the civil rights movent from THE LEARNING CHANNEL (TLC). As a white 25 year old male from Canton, MS I believe in justice. We have murder trials everyday in Mississippi. What I don't understand is why does the media portray us as back wood hicks.

If Killen (odd name for a person) is guilty, then "fry the man," and lets get on with life. We can't rewrite history what has been done is done. We all have some past that we like to be fixed, but we have to look toward the future.

Thanks for letting me post.
Sincerely

Micah
http://www.geocities.com/madisoncountymississippi/welcome.html

Not sure how significant this really is except for media hype. Do you really think it'll change the rest of the country's view of Mississippi? If you do, think again. I've lived outside the state for almost 25 years and I still get asked if I was ever a member of the Klan. It stopped being funny 20 years ago.

Non-Mississippians like their narrow view of the state and this will do little to change it. The more the pot gets stirred, the farther behind the state falls economically. At some point, you have to move on.
Just my opinion.....

I've heard that same anti-Mississippi bias repeatedly as I've been and lived other places, so I understand your point. And I've met plenty of non-Mississippians who aren't prejudiced against us. The point is, there are idiots and bigots everywhere. And that doesn't excuse it anywhere. There are also good people everywhere.

And good people believe that murderers should be brought to justice, whether it's been four days or 40 years. That's what this case is about. Justice. Whether or not it changes the views of some non-Mississippians about the Magnolia state isn't the point, although it probably will help our reputation with some people. Anyone who argues that it's been too long and you need to "move on" without prosecuting known murderers has other motives, I respectfully suggest. But I agree that we need to "move on" -- by bringing some closure to an old murder case in which the murderers have long been known, by using the case to teach our children well, and by showing each other and the world that one life is not more valuable than any other one. Like it or not, we will be mired in the past until we deal with these lingering wounds.

I see your point about Justice, but convicting some old men that may or may not be guilty is not going to change most people's views. The fact that it happened and the fact that it was ignored for 40 years will still be paramount in most people's minds. The phrase "Too little, too late" comes to mind.

And before I get flamed, let me make it clear that I don't think these guys should get a free walk. You do the crime, you do the time, period. My contention is simply it's not that big of a deal for enhancing Mississippi's reputation. The state's problems run deeper than 40 year old crimes...including 40 year old high profile crimes.

ladd, you write so well,
and texbox, whether it enhances Ms's reputation is not the issue now.
yes, problems are deeper but this has to be done. move on is , ok,
After. I see that some may think it's not good to 'stir' things up. whoa.
it is so good to do so. I am , new as I am here, really feeling good about
this happening now. in my lifetime. it's time. let's do it. let's help
the AG and everyone else, closure time.

Texbox, I pray that we don't convict some old men "that may or may not be guilty." I want the guilty ones convicted, once and for all. Their age doesn't have have diddly-squat to do with it.

Second, though, I absolutely agree with your sentiment that solving a 40-year-old case is not going to change much -- if that's all we do. And I'm bothered by a lot of the either-or rhetoric I'm hearing about this case, from "both" sides. There is a long, long list of tasks to be accomplished we reverse the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow -- with education right at the top of the list. I believe we must give everything we've got to doing it all: from prosecuting the old cases to working toward economic justice. And anyone who tries to simplify this into saying that supporting one thing means you don't support the other is way off base, even if they mean well. This isn't a multiple-choice, true-or-false exam where we pick one answer and then everything is nice and wrapped up. There's hard work to be done and prosecuting any or all of the remaining conspirators in this case is one of the jobs. But not the only one.

As for Mississippi's reputation, prosecuting the case won't hurt. But it alone won't be enough. But as both Sunshine and I have said, that isn't the main point. And if you only wanted to do it for that reason, you would be pretty shallow. Just like in the debates over the Confederate flag: You don't take the symbol out of the state flag because it would be "good for business" (although it might be); you should change the flag because of the pain, physical and otherwise, that was inflicted to so many Mississippians with that flag waving overhead. That's the real reason: Justice, and because it's the right thing to do. Pure and simple.

Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about what we Mississippians think of ourselves than what the Yankees say about us. They're just reflecting back to us what we send out (and then some, in too many cases). And I know many, many, many people who would feel better about themselves, their neighbors and their home state if this case were to be prosecuted. Many of them live right there in my hometown, I'm proud to say.

Ladd said, "There is a long, long list of tasks to be accomplished we reverse the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow -- with education right at the top of the list. I believe we must give everything we've got to doing it all: from prosecuting the old cases to working toward economic justice. And anyone who tries to simplify this into saying that supporting one thing means you don't support the other is way off base, even if they mean well. This isn't a multiple-choice, true-or-false exam where we pick one answer and then everything is nice and wrapped up. There's hard work to be done and prosecuting any or all of the remaining conspirators in this case is one of the jobs."

While Ladd didn't name me--or Ben Chaney or sort of Rita Bender or Will Campbell--at least on this board, I don't know who else she'd be referring to, and to reduce their and my position that this is a "muliple choice" problem in which we think we have to pick just one thing to do--if that's what she's saying--is highly offensive. Of course, if she thought that's what I and they were saying, that'd make her pissed--but it should be clear to a fair read that's not it at all.
She makes it sound simple, we just do all of it: "from prosecuting the old cases to working toward economic justice." Well, if it were that simple and that's what was happening, fine.
But is that what is happening?
No.
The more plausible interpretation in my view is that prosecuting this case and this particular person--while maybe good in and of itself--is throwing a bone to people--a symbolic victory to divert attention from the deeper issues.
Who exactly is the Mississippi Attorney General prosecuting right now to increase economic justice? Or who's he prosecuting to stop the racist so-called 'war on drugs' (oops, he's enforcing the war on drugs!)?
Saying that there's a choice between prosecuting Killen and persuing racial and economic justice is overlysimplist, but saying that ipso facto prosecuting Killen is the beginning of working on racial and economic justice is unfounded--and no one has yet offered any evidence to the contrary.
Do people really think that prosecuting Killen is a sign things are changing and a harbinger of what's to come from Mississippi in regard to making up for racism? (I would note at this point the whites interviewed by the C-L that seem to think that if Killen's convicted, blacks should now let the past go, since things have been fixed up, i.e. Killen's the sacrificial lamb from the white community.)

My 2 cents: don't underestimate the power of symbols, Jason. They're powerful and necessary. Karl Jung has a few words to say on the topic.

And, you may be getting upset with the wrong people, here. There's plenty of discussions on these boards about economic and social justice, and articles by and about people working towards that (go read John Sawyer's last 2 pieces, for example).

Last but not least, to misquote Faulkner, "The past isn't forgotten - it isn't even past" or whatever. This is not "a bone to throw" - it's a living, bloody issue for many in the state.

Thanks for your comments Kate.
I don't underestimate the power of symbols--and it is possible that a symbolic victory in this case could spark wider action. It is possible, but I have seen no indications that this is happening (esp. as I just noted, in those whites who seem to think that this victory "symbolizes" that whites have atoned for their past!). But as I said, my main concern is that symbols are important, and that they can be used to distract from substance.

"This is not "a bone to throw" - it's a living, bloody issue for many in the state."
I'm not sure if saying it was a bone was the best things to say--just as Ben Chaney may not completely think this trial's a sham, but I think we both have some truth to what we say. It is a living, bloody issue to some--but it's a part of a larger living, bloody issue of racial justice, and if the part is used against the whole (which it can be) in that solving a small part is used as an excuse and cover for not solving the whole, then in some sense, no matter how real and good it is in itself, it is a "bone" thrown for us to gnaw on rather than real meat.

"And, you may be getting upset with the wrong people, here. There's plenty of discussions on these boards about economic and social justice, and articles by and about people working towards that (go read John Sawyer's last 2 pieces, for example)."
I've read John's columns, know him and am emailing with him, but I never said that no one with the JFP ever talked about these issues. But we have to critically evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of that talk, and I've found it lacking (I've commented on John's first piece). I think John and others at the JFP are passionate about justice and full of good intentions in reaching it, but on the whole, I think they don't have a real strong analysis or good program of action--and this reaction to the case is just a small piece of that.
To be even clearer, the JFP and its fellow-travelers do have analyses and programs of actions, but not only do I think in general that they're incorrect for various reasons, but I think they're partially dangerous in that--esp. in a public forum--they lead people down the wrong path (not that they have bad intentions, after all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, not bad ones).
That's all for now, have to run.

Jason, it sounds to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying that we shouldn't be doing anything, since we're not doing it right, at least according to you. Similarly, it sounds almost as if you think we shouldn't bother prosecuting anyone in this case, since it doesn't solve all racial and economic inequities.

And, can I point out that pretty much everything can be used by some people as "an excuse and cover for not solving the whole." Just like "the poor will always be with us", the racist idiots will always be with us. Just because they are always around, doesn't mean that we're failing. It just means that we're part of the human race.

The Whole cannot be solved at once, so I'm not sure how anything gets changed, other than by a piece at a time. And since this is the piece that's before us right now, let's solve it.

Love to know what's happening here that's dangerous, in your opinion.

While Ladd didn't name me--or Ben Chaney or sort of Rita Bender or Will Campbell--at least on this board, I don't know who else she'd be referring to, and to reduce their and my position that this is a "muliple choice" problem in which we think we have to pick just one thing to do--if that's what she's saying--is highly offensive.

Don't be so sensitive, Jason, or so egocentric. I'm actually referring more to the phone calls I've gotten from people close to both sides in the last few days, who may or may not include the short list of people you're listing as "your" side. Some of the comments here follow those conversations in one way or the other, but that is more conincidental than anything. I'm stating my opinionónot trying to offend any person who doesn't agree with me, as I'm sure you're not trying to do either when you disagree with others on the site.

Regardless of who's offended by it, though, I stand by my comments that this is not an either-or effort. We need to do everything to prosecute everyone we can, WHILE we are focusing fully on repairing the full spectrum of problems resulting from slavery and Jim Crow. It's too simplistic to boil it down otherwise. I will be addressing this in more depth soon in the paper.

As for John Sawyer, it's not fair or astute to lump him with "others at the JFP"; I've never met him and have run two of his columns and plan to continue as they provoke thought and discussion. However, just because you seem to categorize him with folks who don't think just like you doesn't mean that he is part of some non-existent JFP monolith. Why not address people and ideas specifically insteasd of genealizing about entire groups and their motives? That won't really add much to the discussion, and it's a problem on the left and the right.

Stepping back from the issue at hand for a moment, I wonder why surrounding southern states aren't still fighting these demons?
Is it:

1. They didn't have the same issues/events?
2. Their economic situation is better and doesn't dictate trying to find excuses for economic drought?
3. They've decided to move on and put the past behind them without forgetting it?

Maybe it's all three?

Stepping back from the issue at hand for a moment, I wonder why surrounding southern states aren't still fighting these demons?

Tex, they are, and have been. The Confederate flag issue in South Carolina and Georgia, the church-bombing trial recently in Alabama are two quick ones that come to mind. There's a long list. Other states have been quicker to resolve some of these lingering issues than we have been, though.

1. They didn't have the same issues/events?

They did. But it's only fair to admit that Mississippi, in many (if not most) ways, was the *worst.* We had the most egregious Black Codes, we probably had the strongest government-law enforcement-Klan-Citizens Council conspiracy, we had the most lynchings, we had the loudest and most disgusting political demagogues, and we resisted the hardest and longest. That doesn't lessen anything that happened elsewhere; it just shows how entrenched our racism was here, and our racist demagogues. I also believe we then had the highest percentage of African Americans as we do now -- so the ballot box threat here was (and is) very serious to the status quo.

2. Their economic situation is better and doesn't dictate trying to find excuses for economic drought?

Excuses? I don't quite follow that one.

3. They've decided to move on and put the past behind them without forgetting it?

You're right. The states that have taken more bold steps to mothball their symbols of racism and Jim Crow are having fewer problems with the overall issue today, at least symbolically. However, that doesn't mean their problems are solved, or that the true legacy of these problems are solved there, either -- see the posts and discussion about economic justice. I would argue, though, that removing those symbols (and some of them just didn't have as many) helps clear the way for the other work -- if you're deliberate about it. On the other hand, as some here would argue accurately, it also can give the excuse that "it's all over," so "let's move on," leaving the real legacies intact and the playing field very unlevel.

I'll dip out of this conversation now. It's press day, and I have a crazy day ahead. Talk among yourselves. ;-)

I should also add that this isn't a contest to see which state or region can do the most (or the least) to repair racist legacies and inequities. Sometimes, the excuses for not dealing with these issues in Mississippi remind me of a person who would say that they are not going to help their poor parents because their brother isn't doing enough. Our lingering problems aren't about what happened in other states; they are about what happened *right here* -- and it's long past time that Mississippians start acting like adults and taking responsibility for these issues instead of making excuses.

To Ladd:
I feel your post was slanderous, insensitive, unfair and just downright mean.
You start off telling me to not be "so sensitive" or "egocentric." Why? Because I said a post you made on this message board *might* refer to the conversation...on the message board! It turns out you were referring to phone calls you had gotten, which I had no way of knowing as your post was ambigious--so I responded to it just so other readers of this board wouldn't think I was possibly evading your criticism nor that I agreed with the "either-or" position you put forward. I said "if that's what she's saying," and I don't see how it was "sensitive" or "egocentric" to think that a comment on this thread might refer to the thread.

"As for John Sawyer, it's not fair or astute to lump him with "others at the JFP"; .... However, just because you seem to categorize him with folks who don't think just like you doesn't mean that he is part of some non-existent JFP monolith. Why not address people and ideas specifically insteasd of genealizing about entire groups and their motives? That won't really add much to the discussion, and it's a problem on the left and the right."
I didn't mean to "lump" him with the JFP--though kate, not me, raised him as an example of what the JFP is doing about justice. Further, I know John and diligently read the JFP, so I feel plenty "astute" enough to say he's close to the JFP in politics. And I didn't contrust a "monolith" as I used the plural to refer to the "analyses and programs of action" that issue forth from the JFP milieu, but I think it's fair to say that in general and on average that milieu is liberal-left (Dem-Green) or something close to it.
Further, I didn't generalize about anyones' motives--other than to say they had good intentions, so I don't know where you got that from. Also, while it's good to be as particular as possible, sometimes--esp. in short conversations--we generalize. Democrats are different than Republicans--a generalization. The JFP is more like Democrats than Republicans or anarchists--a generalization. Kate asked me what I thought about what the JFP was doing--so I generalized about it. I don't see how I made unfair generalizations though.

And for the real kicker:
"just because you seem to categorize him with folks who don't think just like you"
what? where do you get the basis for the serious charge that I catergorized him as I did just because I have a category of folks "who don't think just like" me? That's nothing but slander and is really petty.

Hey Kate, thanks for responding so fairly (such as asking me what I do mean if you misunderstand me).

"Jason, it sounds to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying that we shouldn't be doing anything, since we're not doing it right, at least according to you."
I'm not quite sure who the "we"--is it the JFP & friends or the state or people of MS? Regardless, I'm not saying anyone should be doing nothing. But I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.

"Similarly, it sounds almost as if you think we shouldn't bother prosecuting anyone in this case, since it doesn't solve all racial and economic inequities."

Well, I might "almost" think that, but I don't :) The main thing I've been responding to is not the fact of prosecution, but the *reaction* to the prosecution. I'm also not that interested in the prosecution, not because it doesn't solve *all* inequities but because it hardly solves *any* (I'm not saying the part it does address is unimportant, but if that's all that happens, it offers very little concrete help to stop racial injustice).

"And, can I point out that pretty much everything can be used by some people as 'an excuse and cover for not solving the whole.'"
Right, it sure can. But I'm not saying it can possibly be used that way by "some," but that it appears it is being used that way by "many" and that use an an excuse seems to be the *predominante* use by most at this time. I'm not making an ideal claim about what could be used but am estimating a material claim about how it is being used (one in which I could be proven wrong by how events unfold, but no one has shown me good reason to think otherwise...at least yet).
(cont)

"The Whole cannot be solved at once, so I'm not sure how anything gets changed, other than by a piece at a time. And since this is the piece that's before us right now, let's solve it."
Again, you're exactly right and this is very good to point out: just because we're working on a part doesn't mean we're ignoring the whole and all that. But itsn't it also true that some people work on one part to the exlusion of the whole? For instance, while the Attorney General or whoever exactly is working on this part, are they working on the whole as well?
So while the whole gets solved piece by piece, we should pick both our pieces and our program of action for fixing those pieces very carefully (esp. with a view toward the Whole--as some pieces lend themselves more toward fixing the whole, and some methods do too).
So, I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve this piece before us, but we should do it with an aim to the whole of racial justice and justice--and not just assume that since it's a piece of the whole, that's enough. One of my specific points in the discussion way above was that Killen was just a piece--a pawn piece--in the game of racist violence controlled by wealth and influential whites, but I've noticed no talk of that on this board or what to do about that--and it seems essential to this issue. Does my take on it make more sense now?

"Love to know what's happening here that's dangerous, in your opinion."

I think it's dangerous to spread illusions in the legal system--which is my view on the whole is part and parcial of the unjust social system which needs to be changed. Of course, Ladd and others have mentioned problems with it and haven't touted it as the sole avenue of change or anything like that, but the uncontextualized praise of this prosecution could easily mislead people as to the nature of the task of confronting racism. Specifically, if this trial is to be a step in the right direction, the path cannot continue down the road to the courts, which have always on the whole been a deathtrap for struggles, but must switch to road of mass struggle that doesn't rely on the courts or state officials.
Another thing that I thought was dangerous (which is a very touchy issue with some) were the illusions I felt the JFP spread about Kerry and the Democratic Party (note that isn't the same as saying they said Kerry was perfect and never critized him).
And just in general, I feel the JFP offers very little in the way of real guidance for a political struggle (and not just because Ladd doesn't "think just like me" as she slanders above).

I feel your post was slanderous, insensitive, unfair and just downright mean.

Jason, please! Your comment *about me* was egocentric and sensitive on its face! You declared to the world, or at least the blog, that what I said last night must apply to you and the three people you believe are agreeing with you because "I don't know who else she'd be referring to." That was a faulty assumption and, yes, self-focused. The truth is, I've talked to a number of people this week saying the same thing you are! You are not alone.

I'm disagreeing with those people (but only in part), and I'm challenging what you are declaring directly *about me" by name. I kind of get to do that. And if you believe that is "slanderous, insensitive, unfair and just downright mean," I'd suggest you're being a little, well, sensitive, especially considering that your comments against other people on the blogs are very aggressive, which we haven't asked you not to out of fear that someone's feelings would be hurt. (And someone's was above.)

My impression, though, is that you'd desperately like to pick a fight with me, and aren't interested in discussing with me, or listening to me. That's fine: I'll bow out of the discussion with you directly and leave that one right here. This site isn't about attacks and defense. It's about discussion.

Still a bit confused here. Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't be celebrating because we're only making a tiny step in the direction you think we should be going. Me, I think we need to celebrate, because otherwise we'd end up bitter.

Also, not clear on what 'illusions' are being spread here. I don't think anyone thinks the legal system is perfect, or does not need changing, etc.

Personally, I don't know HOW to reform the legal system, change the two party political system, end racism, stop poverty, etc. Especially without involving courts and state officials. How else to we change the law of the land? What should we do, specifically, about the "game of racist violence controlled by wealth and influential whites"? Love to know what "real guidance for political struggle" you'd provide.

It almost sounds like you think the folks here aren't radical/liberal/progressive enough. And, given where most people in the state are in the political spectrum - that'd be downright entertaining.

The prosecution hardly solves any inequities, it's true. It's only one case. But, it's hugely symbolic. It changes the Mythos of the state for the better. It's an admission that "we were wrong." Imagine if President Bush, if asked to give examples of mistakes, actually came up with a few things? Admitted error, and apologized. It takes us out of a stance of hubris, and into a place where we can start to change. Until we admit mistakes, there's no way to change things.

To Ladd:
You wrote, "Jason, please! Your comment *about me* was egocentric and sensitive on its face! You declared to the world, or at least the blog, that what I said last night must apply to you and the three people you believe are agreeing with you because "I don't know who else she'd be referring to.""

No, I clearly said "might," not must. I said it in my first and second responses to you. Now, will you admit you were wrong? That you misread may posts just as I made a shaky assumption about yours?
Also, I'm not complaining because you hurt my feelings because you were aggressive, but because your comments were unfair, mean (referring to you directly maligning my character) and most of all you slandered me by saying that I lump everyone together who doesn't think "just like me".

"My impression, though, is that you'd desperately like to pick a fight with me, and aren't interested in discussing with me, or listening to me."
Impressions are often wrong, as yours is here. I hope it's clear to most readers that you don't have a leg to stand on in your claim. Yeah, I'm aggressive, but I try to be above the board in that I don't call names, I assume the best about what my opponents mean, and I try to be logically sound.
This is the second time you've ended a discussion with me by saying that you think I don't listen to you or want to discuss with you but want to "pick a fight" (when your first words to me were to call me names!). Someone reading might almost think you like to weasel your way out of arguments you can't win by calling the other person names and then saying they don't want to have a discussion!

Also, I'm tired of your insinuations about "the three people you believe are agreeing with you" like I'm crazy or whatever as I don't know what you're implying. I "believe" they are agreeing with me? No, I agree (mostly) with them! I agree with Ben Chaney that the wealthy and influential whites aren't going to be prosecuted. I agree with Rita Bender that the people they are prosecuting were pawns of a state appartus, and I agree with Will Campbell as well. And as all of that is my main point, then I would say that they substantially agree with my position as well (and if someone doens't think they do, they probably misread my position). So while as the seemingly snide comments?

Kate, before I forget, I want to thank you for the way you're approaching our disagreements. You admit when you're not sure what I'm saying and you tell me exactly why you disagree with me and tell me your side of things and you ask concrete questions about what I think if you don't know and don't just assume I think something. I very much respect that.
Oh, and you ask good, hard questions too, so I'm going to have to eat lunch before I respond! :)

jason,
have you had lunch yet? ...

this thread is like a book, for pete's sake. can't keep up with it.

one phrase of yours that struck me was 'the JFP and its fellow-travellers
..are incorrect, dangerous, and lead people down the wrong path.' yikes.
sounds like old Marxist talk to me. we don't have to be so correct.


I did see those comments in the C-L, and you're right, (ha) maybe
some folks will think this lays it all to rest. but it doesn't! it opens
it up to more scrutiny, brings it back into consciousness. that's gotta
be a good thing. for now. I'm just telling everyone I know to watch
for this trial this summer. and - there has to be a conviction.
informants need to step forward, etc.


meanwhile, let me put in a url for the day
since I don't know where else to put it, excuse me, sigh.
glad to be here.

http://www.notonedamndime.com/boycott/

Hey Kate,
Your comment basically asked for further clarification about the issues we've been talking about and how we can change things. I'm going to focus on the latter, as it seems more important to me, but if there's something else in your comment you'd particularly like me to address, I'd be happy to.
You wrote: "Personally, I don't know HOW to reform the legal system, change the two party political system, end racism, stop poverty, etc. Especially without involving courts and state officials. How else to we change the law of the land? What should we do, specifically, about the 'game of racist violence controlled by wealth and influential whites'? Love to know what 'real guidance for political struggle' you'd provide."

As I said in John's thread--Jesus came to cast down the mighty from their thrones, lift up the downtrodden, free the oppressed, put the first last, the last first and send the rich away empty. (Richard Horsley's Jesus and the Spiral of Violence is the best book on the historical Jesus I've read, far better than Borg or Crossan.) This is in sum a social revolution.
The simplistic answer to "how" is mass struggle. I've Got the Light of Freedom and other books explore the centrality of the mass struggle--and the epiphemoral importance of courts, congress, etc.--to the black liberation movement, and similar books have been written for every other movement. Courts and state officials have been forced to make change, but typically fight with the status quo to hold it back.
So you ask about racist violence. I propose mass or worker based armed self-defense guards, and as a step to that direction, black armed self-defense guards (which were formed episodically all over the south, including MS, and later nation during the civil rights movement, and the civil rights movement according to some more recent investigations owes a lot more to armed self-defense than the pure nonviolence histories let on.--not to mention the armed multiracial sharecroppers union further back in our state's history).
Symbolic victories can be powerful, but concrete mass action is far more powerful--in fact, symbols are generally only as powerful as the material movements or social forces they inspire or are inspired by.
(cont)

Similarly for poverty: a mass action strategy would focus on stengthening & democratizing & radicalizing the unions and esp. organizing the unorganized--esp. the South. Powerful unions and other mass organizations wouldn't just fight for their members, but would fight for a decent social benefits for all: jobs for all, healthcare for all, public works (better schools, housing, transportation, parks, etc.), standard of living above poverty for all, etc.
Why unions? Quite simply a strike is much more powerful than a march.
Why won't this work? Because of the resistance of the owners, bosses, etc. in general right?
(to go backwards for a bit) At one point, feudalism was the dominant system enslaving Europe. Efforts to reform the system and distribute the land among the peasants--which would raise the productivity of labor and the standard of living--failed because of the united resistance of the lords, church and kings. The rising middle class of quasi-industrial owners also opposed feudalism as it hindered their development. So the burghers and peasants overthrew the rulers of the old society and created democratic governments all over Europe (at different times and not everywhere) that destroyed feudalism.
So again, we come to social revolution. The old bosses standing in the way of progress, throw them out for the rule of the mob, the masses, the workers of the world.

Hunh. I vote for voting before I vote for armed guards for private citizens.

Still now seeing how your ideas force you to the conclusions that the response on the boards to Killen's arrest is wrong, or that the positions put forth here and by the JFP paper are "dangerous" and "incorrect." Also still confused by your statement that we can't involve the courts and state officials - who's going to enact all those social benefits?

Personally, I think we could all use a history lesson about the rise of the Unions earlier in the century, the proposed 2nd Bill of Rights (or whatever it was called), the "great compression" (as described by Kevin Phillips - the era during the middle of the 20th century, when the gap between the richest and the poorest was at it's smallest), etc. We need that history lesson for 2 reasons - to see what worked (especially in terms of driving change) and what didn't, and to remind people what the good ole days were really like.

2 more things. You might like "The Powers That Be" by Walter Wink. And, thanks for proving to the readership that the JFP really isn't all that far to the Left.

Unlike most of you all, I grew up in a different state (albeit a sister Deep Southern one). In fact, I wasn't even born yet in 1964, which still doesn't make me any less disgusted by it all. I believe the trials ought to proceed for one simple reason - some things we cannot leave in the past. True, the murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner themselves do not approach the scale of the Holocaust, but nevertheless this is something that cannot be left in the past. Even today the German government continues to hunt down surviving camp guards and others who were directly involved in killing Jews and others. The German government continues to make reparations to Jewish survivors and those who survived the Nazi slavery. If Germany still ought to make amends for its past, then why shouldn't we?

As for practical social justice, this may not be the most direct way to ensure it, but continuous intimate interaction of "others" (whomever they may be) is the most important thing we can do. Certainly this alone is not enough, but it will make our society as a whole more aware and sympathetic to the plight of others. There's nothing like coming face-to-face with an "other" on a daily basis to force us to change.

Reccommended Reading:

Lyrics of The Beatles' "Revolution"

Click here for those lyrics, btw. Thanks, Philip.

Hey Kate,
Thanks for the book recommendation--I like some of Wink's stuff, but if you like him, really check out Richard Horsley (he has several new books out which I'm not famaliar with, but I love Jesus and the Spiral of Violence despite its heftiness).

"Hunh. I vote for voting before I vote for armed guards for private citizens."
I do too! But...voting hasn't stopped racist violence. 40 years later and we've got cities run by a black mayor with a black chief of police and black judges letting cops shoot innocent blacks. Voting didn't stop slavery and voting didn't gain blacks the right to vote. Voting hasn't ended poverty and it hasn't stopped war. But mass action has done all of the above.
Relevantly, Philip and Ladd quote the Beatles' "Revolution" which goes against what I'm saying:
"You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
we all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind *instead*"
Quoting that on this thread about the three martyred civil rights workers! ...who fought to change the constitution and the institution.
Again, I prefer changing my mind, I prefer voting, but I also prefer doing what will work-and so I completely agree with you about us all needing a history lesson. Because I don't know that much about the rise of the unions earlier in the 20th century, and knowing the complex details of that would be immensely helpful in illustrating and expanding what I'm trying to say and in us reaching an understanding of each other.

"Still now seeing how your ideas force you to the conclusions that the response on the boards to Killen's arrest is wrong"

To be brief: Ladd said, "But, boy, is it one helluva step." A step implies more steps are coming--I don't think they are. I think the Attorney General's office and the rest of the MS government and other "institutions" are still systematically racist and aren't going to change anytime soon--esp. not by their own AG!

"Also still confused by your statement that we can't involve the courts and state officials - who's going to enact all those social benefits?"

The courts and state officials will enact what they are forced to enact, but they will not be and have not been forced to enact significant reforms by relying on them (i.e. looking for change largely in the courts or congress).

When did we end poverty and war? I thought both of those things were still around.

It seems to me that the trial of Killen is the outgrowth of exactly what you are talking about - a (smallish) mass movement. The Philadelphia Coalition got together and drove change.

Why do you think nothing's going to change after this? Do you not think that, having had one success, that others might feel bolder about working for change?

If you're pushing for mass unionization and social change, you really might want to read up on the history of the unions, and the social programs and tax policies that were enacted during the 20th century, and figure out the ebb and flow of money and power. None of this is new.

On another note, the CL cracked me up today, with the "MS Leads the Nation" in prosecuting old civil rights cases. Could it perhaps be because we had *more unprosecuted cases* than other states? Not sure of the answer, but that's my guess. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Off hand, Georgia is in the works on prosceuting an old Civil Rights case similiar to ours, and Florida is working on one dating back to 1951. I think I saw the two articles on CNN or something...

They have the same problem we do; everyone's getting old.

"when did we end poverty and war" and
"everyone's getting old"
yes and yes.

this remains a great thread.
taxes my brain! and that's a good thing.
now, will check out those lyrics. thanks y'all.
glad to be here.

"When did we end poverty and war? I thought both of those things were still around."

Sorry for being unclear--I didn't mean they had been ended totally, but specific parts or instances of them have been ended or significantly altered by mass action.

"Why do you think nothing's going to change after this? Do you not think that, having had one success, that others might feel bolder about working for change?"

I predict this trial won't be a catalyst for change because it's mainly a symbolic victory unconnected to a broad mass movement--whose symbolism cuts both ways (it is being used by the CL and others as an excuse to sit on their butts; as well as by others as an inspiration to do more).

"If you're pushing for mass unionization and social change, you really might want to read up on the history of the unions, and the social programs and tax policies that were enacted during the 20th century, and figure out the ebb and flow of money and power. None of this is new."

I have read a good bit about all that--I could just do a whole lot more (esp. in depth history of CIO & IWW). And from what I've read, trials like this--esp. one not connected to a large mass movement--have had virtually no significant impact on political reform. And that is a large reason I'm saying what I'm saying--because of my understanding of the history of change (particularly of the black liberation movement).

Unclear on why the prosecution of Killen is not part of a larger mass movement. It seems to me to be the product of a 40+ year old civil rights movement.

Also not sure what your definition of "mass action" really is. You seem to apply it selectively. And, not sure how we'd get to "mass actions" without there being a whole series of smaller actions.

Just because this case isn't part of a radical movement doesn't mean that it's not a sign of change, part of a larger shift in the culture. Radical movements are exciting and interesting, but sometimes the real changes happen years or decades later, and are more profound, precisely because they are part of the "mainstream."

jason (Wobblies?!) and kate,
sounds like time for a good old fashioned teach-in.

you both are so smart, I love to read this.

as for it being the 'product of a 40+ year old civil rights movement,'
is that a good or bad thing? cannot quite get the point of that.

whether it's a 'sign of change' is up to
debate for sure, but it's a door opening that hasn't been. so, don't let
the CL use it for their purposes, this case belongs to everyone, not
just major media. there's room for all kind of action around it.
if I were a brave under 40 year old...

sunshine, a couple important points to remember about the three civil rights workers: They were trained in Gandhi-esque principles of non-violence resistance; in fact, Andy Goodman had arrived in Mississippi the day before they were killed, on the first day of Freedom Summer, from Oxford, Ohio, where they were teaching non-violence techniques to the Freedom Summer volunteers. Schwerner and Chaney had originally gone to Neshoba County to help the people of Longdale prepare to register to vote. Freedom Summer was a voter project and the first of its kind -- which everyone knew was bound to turn violent, but they were determined not to return the violence. Previously, the Movement had been focused more on accommodations and access to public transportation and the like.

Anyway, the Klan burned the church, Mt. Zion, and brutally beat community people after a meeting apparently both to scare the parishioners out of their registration efforts, as well as to lure Schwerner ("Goatee") back to Neshoba County to be killed. He and his wife Rita (now Bender) had been in Meridian, 40 miles south, since January 1964 running a Freedom School. A primary purpose was to teach literacy to help local blacks pass the literacy tests to register to vote. Chaney, a black man from Meridian, was working with them there. Goodman had just arrived when they heard, on Father's Day, that the church had been burned, and the three of them drove north to talk to the parishioners; they were afraid that the terrorism would scare them out of their determination to register to vote. The religious and non-violent Civil Rights Movement of the South was a very different movement than what was happening in northern cities, which was much more focused on self-defense and, ultimately, revolution. I, personally, believe that both ends of the spectrum had their strengths, and they both clearly had their weaknesses. And, no, I do not believe the Civil Rights Movement of the South has ended, and I believe that's a good thing.

I should add that I think it's a good thing because if the Movement was over, too much is left undone. As Kate alluded to, this is a long-term struggle.

Clicking around, I ran into the "Glossary of Nonviolence" on The King Center's Web site. I'd never read it; very compelling. I especially like:

AGAPE - Overflowing unconditional love for all, including adversaries, needed for nonviolent conflict-resolution. Dr. King called it ìlove in actionÖlove seeking to preserve and create communityÖlove which is purely spontaneous, unmotivated, groundless and creative.î

and

SIX STEPS OF NONVIOLENT SOCIAL CHANGE - A sequential process of nonviolent conflict-resolution and social change based on Dr. Kingís teachings. The Six Steps of Nonviolence developed by The King Center include: (1.) Information gathering and research to get the facts straight; (2.) Education of adversaries and the public about the facts of the dispute; (3.) Personal Commitment to nonviolent attitudes and action; (4.) Negotiation with adversary in a spirit of goodwill to correct injustice; (5.)Nonviolent direct action, such as marches, boycotts, mass demonstrations, picketing, sit-ins etc., to help persuade or compel adversary to work toward dispute-resolution; (6.) Reconciliation of adversaries in a win-win outcome in establishing a sense of community.

It's a nice read. Going to sleep now. Peace.

"Just because this case isn't part of a radical movement doesn't mean that it's not a sign of change, part of a larger shift in the culture. Radical movements are exciting and interesting, but sometimes the real changes happen years or decades later, and are more profound, precisely because they are part of the 'mainstream.'"

Okay--you're saying this case could be a sign of changes to come--a "larger shift in the culture." I'm not saying I don't think that's possible--I'm just saying I don't think it's likely.
We're talking about a 40-year old case involving a group of white men--aided and abetted by the state--who killed two white men and one black man. Will trying Killen--whose a good sacrificial lamb for the rest of those involved--change things?
Well, yesterday, a Jackson cop shot someone fleeing from her.
Today, the police spokesman says she was "clearly" struggling for her life. Really? It wasn't clear to me from reading the story--nor apparently was it clear to the witnesses.
The Clarion Ledger editorial says Lomax got "the final justice" he deserved.
Maybe it'll come out that the officer's life was in danger--but right now, that appears very, very doubtful, making the most likely conclusion that this is yet another instance of racist police brutality protected by a racist state and racist media.
I say that if the Killen trial is a sign of change--then something will be done about this killer cop. Let's see what happens.
I don't have much credibility with Ladd--but I sincerely hope that the JFP investigates this case fully and publizes about it.

PS I wrote in the forums about the apparent racist murder here:
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/forums/threads.php?id=4932_0_16_0_C
link

Jason, my last comment, since the fundamental difference here seems to be your apparent cynicism about the possibility of change:

I believe that closing the books on these murders is good and necessary.

I believe that the world is changing - if only because change is inevitable. I believe that it is our job to help make those change for the better.

i believe that cynically refusing to celebrate the arrest of a racist old man because it's not enough of a change, or not radical enough, or whatever, is the beginnings of a life of bitterness.

Jason, are you serious about the guy fleeing the cops? First and foremost, anyone that tries to drive off while being cuffed by a cop should know (even with the lowest of low IQs) that they are in reality going to be shot or wounded in some way.

The perp has a record a mile long.

I doubt any of it has to do with "racism" or was motivated by his race. He was fleeing from a police officer plain and simple and accepted and received the consequences for his actions. To group this incident with the "Burning" incident is absurd... Usually, I adore absurdism but this is plain, ol' silly.

The criminal could have killed the cop, could have run over the little ladies I see all the time in that Trustmark and/or that parking lot that aren't mobile or energized enough to jump from a speeding criminal scared to face the authorities for his crimes.

I think it's sad you'd even put them under the same scope or discussion and makes me really question your motives for discussing this topic.

Knol: "First and foremost, anyone that tries to drive off while being cuffed by a cop should know (even with the lowest of low IQs) that they are in reality going to be shot or wounded in some way."
Really--anyone? I didn't know cops had the right to use deadly force if you drove away--cuffing you or not.

1. I am not aware that cops can use deadly force to stop someone from fleeing arrest.
2. If they are--that's wrong! Esp. fleeing arrest for chasing a stolen check.

"The perp has a record a mile long."
You say I shouldn't even post about this on this thread--this thread that Donna just pointed out relates to nonviolence, redemption, forgiveness, reconcialation and overflowing love. And you list the fact that he had a record as what--justification for his murder?
Whether this story belongs here or not--your callous justification of a needless death surely doesn't.
Many pointed out that if the 2 of the 3 civil rights workers murdered hadn't been white, the national outcry wouldn't have happened (many, many more blacks had been killed fighting for their rights before then). And if Jason Lomax had been white--this story would be completely different as well.

Hey guys, please move this discussion to Jason's topic in the forum about police, so we can keep this thread on track:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/forums/threads.php?id=4932_0_16_0_C
link

Let's keep this one on Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner ...

thanks, ladd, for moderating this. sometimes a thread gets offtrack and
it's fine. but , you're right, this one needs to stay focussed.
imho.
and maybe we all need to take a break. or not.

there is a robin I see out my window. up north, we wait till late april to
make a wish. (is this guy lost? he does seem a bit disoriented. )

oops.