2002-12-11 - 7:49 a.m.
NOBILITY
One of the few things scarier than the thought that Trent Lott knew exactly what he was saying at Strom Thurmond�s 100th birthday party is the thought that he didn�t. He knew his history well enough to know both that Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948 and that Mississippi voted for him. The only way he could not know why or what Thurmond stood for then is if the myth of the noble south was overpowering.
I have my own southern roots although they are a bit far back in the tree. My grandfather was raised in the south, specifically in Atlanta. He came north after he returned from World War I and he was very clear about what he left behind. My aunts could play southern belles if they wished. He wanted as little of the south to cling to him as possible. Once, when I was in college, I asked him why he came north. �It was poisonous down there,� he told me. As he came north around the time of the lynching of Leo Frank, I have no doubt about his perceptions.
It�s not that the south itself or its people were evil but the times certainly were. Times change; people don�t. Nevertheless, the change in times can moderate the people. When poisonous hatred is not preached on every street corner and propriety draws some rules, people tend to behave better. One of my great-aunts who stayed behind in Georgia was one of my favorite great-aunts. She was decent, she was kind, and she had a twinkle to her. I inherited one of her straw hats and I wore it until I wore it out.
Even Strom Thurmond knows that times change. While I can imagine him thinking that the old days were better, I cannot imagine him losing the political pulse long enough to believe that he should publically fete his stands in 1948. Yet the only explanations for Trent Lott�s behavior are that he hasn�t noticed that times have changed, he thinks he can preach to those who haven�t changed and get away with it with those who have, or he doesn�t know what happened in the times he lived through.
Even if, as Lott�s office spokesman said, �Senator Lott�s remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life,� there still is a problem. There is a difference between remarkable, and Strom Thurmond certainly is worthy of remark, and what you choose to remark about. You can remark on Thurmond�s feistiness and on his dedication to what he saw as the public interest. You can remark on Thurmond�s willingness to fight for his people, even as you lament, either publically or privately, how he defined who his people were. You don�t have to embrace the worst aspects of that career to pay some tribute.
Now Senator Lott believes he used �a poor choice of words.� I�ve looked at his words. He said, �And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn�t have had all these problems over all these years, either.� Each of those words individually is harmless. He didn�t swear. He wasn�t vulgar. The problem isn�t the words he chose. It�s the content of the thought, which he now disavows.
Now, in hindsight, after all the commotion, Senator Lott is insisting that, with those words, he did not �embrace[] the discarded policies of the past.� Paradoxically, however, to embrace the Strom Thurmond of the past (and Senator Thurmond did change even if marginally) without embracing the policies is to diminish rather than to elevate Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond has always struck me as someone who wishes to be judged by the strength of his fights and the strength of his beliefs.
But Senator Lott has to have meant something. While he�s said what he didn�t mean, he has not said what he meant. I suspect he never will. I suspect that his remarks were as noble as the subject of them and as the mythical south. I just hope nobility is not on the rise again.
LAST YEAR: In My Dreams
LAST FIVE ENTRIES:
Full Out
Spoiled Wives
Tradition Continues(although if you check my guestbook you may find it almost didn�t)
Wearing Suits Proudly
Priorities
previous - next
|
Copyright 2006 by Ellen |
