Strom Thurmond - DEAD

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-27 02:41am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I think agreed with the concept, but disagreed with where it led. His actions as a politician can't possibly compare with what he did as a soldier. My reasoning there is along these lines: Soldiers risk their lives, and do so not merely for a political ideology, but for a whole society. The combination of these two factors makes their deeds of a vastly more important nature than any deed done by a mere politician.

He used his political power to stifle civil rights for blacks, in other words, oppress blacks. Being a soldier has no bearing on someone's personality, reasonability or even character. He was a racist dinosaur, and while his actions as a soldier were commendable, they do not earn my respect for him as a person. So yes, I am glad he's dead. The world gets a little bit better every time a racist asshole like him dies.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-06-27 02:43am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I think agreed with the concept, but disagreed with where it led. His actions as a politician can't possibly compare with what he did as a soldier. My reasoning there is along these lines: Soldiers risk their lives, and do so not merely for a political ideology, but for a whole society. The combination of these two factors makes their deeds of a vastly more important nature than any deed done by a mere politician.

A politician SHAPES the political and social culture of a nation by writing and supporting the laws of that nation. A soldier merely executes the policy shaped by the politicians. While the soldier becomes more important than the politician during wartime, during times of peace, the opposite is true.

Thurmond's political record is more important than his military record because it comprises the bulk of his adult life, and it's a far better indicator of who he was as a person than his service during the Second World War.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-27 02:44am

Marina, the fucker risked his life but didnt do it for the good of the fucking nation. What the fuck dont you GET? He was an oppressive ASSHOLE who didn't WANT COMMON GOOD AT ALL.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 02:50am

Durandal wrote: He used his political power to stifle civil rights for blacks, in other words, oppress blacks. Being a soldier has no bearing on someone's personality, reasonability or even character. He was a racist dinosaur, and while his actions as a soldier were commendable, they do not earn my respect for him as a person. So yes, I am glad he's dead. The world gets a little bit better every time a racist asshole like him dies.

I think your sentence on "Being a soldier has no bearing on someone's personality, reasonability or even character." could be disputed most admirably by the soldiers now posting on this thread, and will be.

...Why do you think the world got better when he died? What was so special about him? If he hadn't been there, someone else would have championed the cause that he championed. It was inevitable that such a movement occur in response to the civil-rights effort; Thurmond was just there at the right place and the right time to end up at its top, briefly (and even then had given way to the state governors by the 60s).

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-06-27 02:53am

"Friends ,Romans, Countrymen, LEND ME YOUR EARS.For I have come to bury Ceasar not to praise him.The good that men do go with them to the grave but the evil long enudres . Like Marina is asking let us let the evil he did go with him to the grve and forget it.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 02:53am

[quote="Iceberg"]
A politician SHAPES the political and social culture of a nation by writing and supporting the laws of that nation.quote]

A politician shapes nothing. They just enact the results of societal trends on grand issues. On small ones? Important to a country but they have nothing to do with the socio-political state of the nation. People are not that important at all when it comes to the issues of the day--so personal, individual actions of heroism matter much more than anything done in regard to the State, wherein they have just become a reflection of the whole discourse of the State.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-06-27 02:54am

Iceberg wrote: In the reserves, yes. Thurmond was only an active-duty soldier for a few years during World War II, and a 38-year career, even in the Reserves, is long enough to get a star or two through sheer longevity if nothing else (not to mention the fact that he sat on the Senate Armed Forces Committee for quite a number of years). I'm not willing to give him a free pass for his three decades of politics in the service of racial separatism before he was dragged kicking and screaming into the 1960s (twenty years too late), just because he was activated from the Reserves for a few years during World War II.

People remember Strom Thurmond for his 48 years in the Senate, not for his service in World War II.

I don't give him a free pass, but I do factor in his service not only for WWII but for all of his time in. 38 years in anything is a long time and only 10 years short of his Senate career. Obviously, his military career is a high point for the score card of his life. The low point is being a racist fucker. How many more pluses and minuses between the two should be the debate, but instead we are dead locked because of the two most obvious ones.

Lots of people have been forgiven for their attitudes durring that time. Shit, Senator Bird is still serving and his racial stances through out his life time are not exactly shinny, but he seems to have shrugged off any ill effect of being ex KKK.

Thurmond was a polerizing figure, those on the fundie right will always love him, those on the fundie left will always despise him, and those of us in the middle will like some of his accomplishments and hate others, or ask "Who the hell is that?".

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 02:56am

Typhonis 1 wrote:"Friends ,Romans, Countrymen, LEND ME YOUR EARS.For I have come to bury Ceasar not to praise him.The good that men do go with them to the grave but the evil long enudres . Like Marina is asking let us let the evil he did go with him to the grve and forget it.

*sighs* No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that people not slander dead veterans, regardless of their public exposure later in life.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-06-27 02:58am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Typhonis 1 wrote:"Friends ,Romans, Countrymen, LEND ME YOUR EARS.For I have come to bury Ceasar not to praise him.The good that men do go with them to the grave but the evil long enudres . Like Marina is asking let us let the evil he did go with him to the grve and forget it.
*sighs* No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that people not slander dead veterans, regardless of their public exposure later in life.

Sorry Duchess, but even as a vet, I can't ask people to do that. I can however ask that they fucking let him get burried before throwing a party over it. If all he was was military service, then I would be with you, but he did have other public services that deserve public scrutiny. Just not 30 minutes after he dies.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-27 02:59am

I guess that GW1 vet who got executed a few weeks ago for rape and murder is no longer fair game...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 03:02am

Knife wrote: Sorry Duchess, but even as a vet, I can't ask people to do that. I can however ask that they fucking let him get burried before throwing a party over it. If all he was was military service, then I would be with you, but he did have other public services that deserve public scrutiny. Just not 30 minutes after he dies.

My main concern is less the scrutiny, than the outright saying of such things upon the dead who have done deeds of merit, in general. Certainly the distress of such an act, however, is the greatest.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-27 03:04am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I think your sentence on "Being a soldier has no bearing on someone's personality, reasonability or even character." could be disputed most admirably by the soldiers now posting on this thread, and will be.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Being a soldier doesn't necessarily make you a person of integrity or anything like that. I've known plenty of people in the armed forces who I'd consider pricks and assholes, and I'm sure that the soldier on this board have, as well. Their conduct while in the uniform does not change who they are outside of it.

...Why do you think the world got better when he died? What was so special about him? If he hadn't been there, someone else would have championed the cause that he championed. It was inevitable that such a movement occur in response to the civil-rights effort; Thurmond was just there at the right place and the right time to end up at its top, briefly (and even then had given way to the state governors by the 60s).

Because there's one less racist in the world with political influence.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-06-27 03:05am

Bear in mind that a politician in American achieves and maintains his/her position and power mostly by reflecting what some people want. In the case of a State Senator, Thurmond reflected what a sizeable number of the people in his home state wanted. This is part of the democratic principle, and he put his ass on the line for that.

He changed with the times, as I mentioned-- slowly but just enough to maintain his popularity and reflect what some of our fellow citizens, agree with them or not, wanted. He kept pace with that principle, just not quickly enough to be counted among the 'enlightened'.

I would rather that the racists and reactionaries in the country get fair representation that slowly changes with the times than be driven underground where they will fester, unseen and unknown.

As for the military changing my life to become a better person, I'd say hell yes. I was fortunate to serve in an intergrated army where I got to meet Blacks and Hispanics for the first time and realize they are regular people. I also learned that no matter how hard something is, I can do it if I want it bad enough and that I just need to be motivated and have some pride in myself. I was full of adolescent self-loathing and my family was not going to be a source of any self-esteem, nor was a burger-flippng job in Boise. Confidence and discipline came out of that-- I shudder to think of the pasty skinned, Kleenex-spine individual I'd've become had I stayed on my original course.

My experience was overwhelmingly positive; this does not mean that Thurmond had the same experience, especially growing up in the South and serving in a segregated military as he did. From his pov that was normal life and anything that threatened it was a disruption of comfortable predictability.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 03:05am

Howedar wrote:I guess that GW1 vet who got executed a few weeks ago for rape and murder is no longer fair game...

It really depends. I'm sort of hesitant to continue the argument now that Knife himself has only suggested allowing the courtesy of silence until Thurmond is buried. I'll see how he replies to my latest post.

Really it depends on how the community of veterans regards an individual. There are several Marines who have done things, for instance--not many, but three or four--who despite the normal "band of brothers," I am to understand, the rest of the Marine Corps would not care about at all if you said such things regarding them. (Scott Ritter, for instance.)

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 03:08am

Durandal wrote:
Because there's one less racist in the world with political influence.

Yes, but racism isn't caused by individuals, or even political individuals, it's caused by societal trends (on a grand scale, and usually by a variety of factors). When there's no trend towards racism in society it wouldn't matter if you had racists as politicians. Particularly in a capitalist democracy. When there is, the politicians will be racists--as they need to play to the desires of the society.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-27 03:10am

I'm still waiting on that response to my other argument, by the way.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 03:11am

Howedar wrote:I'm still waiting on that response to my other argument, by the way.

It probably got lost in the chaos.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-06-27 03:16am

Duchess wrote:My main concern is less the scrutiny, than the outright saying of such things upon the dead who have done deeds of merit, in general. Certainly the distress of such an act, however, is the greatest.

Mine would be the total disreguard on anything worthy he has done, especialy to advance ideological philosophies. We as bias observers can pick and choose what we wish to remember someone as yet just because he did some less than admirable stuff does not negate the fact that he did some really admirable acts.

The man did not murder, nor rape that we know of. He was guilty of a sickening racist thought process, but one that represented the majority of the people durring that era. It should be notable that he changed through out the years as he continued to serve his country and his state, though obviously not as quick as some would have had. As I said before, he is not exactly alone in that he slowly changed his opinions on certain hot button issues.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-27 03:17am

Yes, which is why I already reposted it once

Top of the current page, I think.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-27 03:18am

Bottom of page 5, rather.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 03:19am

Howedar wrote:
Howedar wrote:I frankly don't see the big deal that he's dead. Okay, say he was a great soldier and that makes him beyond reproach. Well then it is highly inapporpriate to criticize him when he's alive. Or, maybe he was an evil, evil man. Which means its just as okay to criticize him now as when he was alive.

People are criticized behind their backs every day. I criticize GWB, and I criticized Clinton. They have no chance to respond to these criticisms. They might as well be dead in this respect.
*cough*

Well, they can respond to criticism in theory. Thurmond cannot anymore; that's the distinction between life and death. And, again, criticism is an inappropriate word usage, as I'm only arguing against slander.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-06-27 03:21am

BTW Koji, I am sorry that things got heated there for a bit. My apologies for allowing personal snappishness to interfere with the issue.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-27 03:21am

Oh.

Well, slander is wrong in any and all cases. Unsupported defamation of character is not acceptable, particularly when the slandered party truly cannot defend themselves.

I really don't see how the military issue is an issue at all.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 03:26am

Howedar wrote:Oh.

Well, slander is wrong in any and all cases. Unsupported defamation of character is not acceptable, particularly when the slandered party truly cannot defend themselves.

I really don't see how the military issue is an issue at all.

Because my approach to this was so minimalist as to argue that only those who had done things worthy of great honours--albeit irregardless of the other, less noble aspects of their lives--should be respected in that fashion. In principle, that we tend to honour dead soldiers greater than dead civilians, and this should hold regardless of what those dead soldiers did (short of it being something that draws condemnation from their comrades to the point of ostracization, or a separation from the military body, if you will).

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-27 03:29am

I don't really see that it matters. You are just as defenseless if you didn't serve in the military.

You're drawing a line in the sand where none need exist.