Not me, I hasten to add. But the thread about the death of Strom Thurmond contained a number of gleeful reactions to his death. Some were predicated on positions he arguably held until he died; I’m not here to debate those. But some were predicated on the idea that it was fine to rejoice in Mr. Thurmond’s death because he was a segregationist in 1948.
Other posters noted, correctly, that Mr. Thurmond had repudiated those views and gone on to be, if not a model of a civil rights warrior, arguably a proponent thereof, and certainly not a racial bigot.
My question is not about Mr. Thurmond specifically, but about anyone who once held, and acted on, deeply bigoted racial views. If such a person subsequently repudiates those views, is there any hope of his being viewed as a decent sort? Or will he forever be tarred with his earlier views? Is it even possible to sincerely believe in the inferiority of blacks as an adult and then equally sincerely have a change of heart? Or is the earlier view always there beneath the surface?
Can his reputation be able to be rehabilitated? Or should his reputation be able to be rehabilitated?
I know people who insist that George Wallace’s actions in the early 1960s makes him unforgiveable, but I would submit that he successfully changed his actions to justfy a kinder view of his later career. (Arguments about whether he “only” did this in the face of increasing black voter registration are (even if true) irrelevant. As governor, he took specific actions to promote the welfare of all citizens, regardless of race.)
I have rather more animus against Thurmond regarding his Senate votes on a number of other national issues, so I am unlikely to view him very favorably, but if, indeed, he avoided direct opposition to Civil Rights over the last couple of decades (leaving aside the differences of opinions regarding issues such as Affirmative Action), then I don’t think he should be despised, now, for actions dating back 50 years.
In all fairness, one needs to see the situation through the lens of the time period we’re talking about. The idea of segregationism today is nauseating to any person with half a brain, but in '48, America was struggling with exactly what to “do” with African-Americans. For Thurmond to grow with the times and understand human nature as time went on does not absolve him of his earlier actions, but it also shouldn’t be discounted entirely. Often, the best proponents of a cause have defected from the opposite side of the argument.
I think it depends on the type of “penance” involved. If Strom simply said, “Hey, I was wrong about the blacks, they aren’t inferior, my bad,” it wouldn’t carry as much weight as if he donated vast amounts of money to the NAACP and did charity work with impoverished black kids. As the old saw goes, “actions speak louder than words.”
As long as one is a human being, capable of making decisions of one’s own free will, and willing to learn and adapt to the changing world, anything is possible. To say otherwise would be to admit that one is nothing but a creature, driven by base instincts beyond his control.
Since it is impossible to crawl around in someone’s soul, it is impossible to know if someone has truly changed. I think you have a better shot at figuring how a family member, best friend, or spouse truly feels than a public figure…let alone a politician.
A good friend of mine grew up in small town Pacific Northwest. Had never even see a black person, let alone developed any kind of prejudice. He got a job in Washington DC and upon exposure to the blacks there and the attitudes of some of his co-workers and friends sort of became prejudice. He had a couple of unfortunate incidents early that tainted his opinion. As time went by, he gained more exposure and experience and flip flopped back and is now very much the opposite of prejudice. I am convinced he completely changed.
Can it happen? Yes. Can we (the public) ever really know if Strom Thurman truly changed? No.
It all depends. If he remained a Democrat, like Lester Maddox and Robert Byrd, then he can be forgiven for his earlier racist views. If he switched to Republican, then he’s tarred forever.
I was thinking about this very question the other day, while reading comments made by Robert Byrd about the Bush administration’s handling of the whole Iraq problem. I strongly support Byrd’s position on this issue, and on many others. He has been one of the few Democrats willing to stand up to the Bush administration, and many of his speeches over the past year or so have been laudable, in my opinion.
I know he has renounced his KKK membership on many occasions, but the way in which he did this sometimes seemed to portray the whole experience as a youthful indiscretion and a political liability, rather than as something morally reprehensible. And his use of the term “white nigger” a few years back shows, at the very least, a certain insensitivity to certain aspects of racial epithets in the United States. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on the issue, but i concede that this may be partly because i’m so supportive of many of his current positions.
By the same token, i think that Thurmond probably improved over the years, but that his constant refusal to admit that the Dixiecrats were wrong or that he had been mistaken must certainly count against him. And i’m not quite as charitable as tom is, in that i don’t think simply avoiding “direct opposition to civil rights” is enough to balance his earlier actions and cancel out people’s dislike for him. But, again like tom, my dislike of Thurmond’s more recent political history may be clouding my view.
One thing is for certain–we can only judge these people based on our own iinterpretations of their words and actions. As some people have noted, we can never get inside their heads to find out if they truly have changed.
[personal story]
When i was growing up in Australia, i went to a predominantly anglo school in a part of Sydney that has many immigrants from Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean. My friends and i used to constantly refer to these immigrant groups as “wogs” (Mediterraneans and Middle-Easterners) and “slope-heads” (Asians). We also used to refer to Australian Aborigines as “coons” and “boongs.” I began to realize after i left school how wrong that was, and i changed my ways. I’m not proud of my earlier behaviour, but there’s nothing i can do to take it back. And, while i know that i’ve changed inside, other people can’t see inside my brain to confirm this; they can only judge me based on my words and actions.
Did you post just to include this whiny lie? Every single story on Maddox made a point of recounting his segregationist history. Even the ones who talked about his even-handed treatment of people once he actually got into the governor’s mansion still recounted his axe-handle promotions.
The clear difference on how people were treated in the press seems to be based on whether or not they clearly repudiated their earlier stances (Wallace, Byrd, Hollings) or whether they repeated that they were right the first time, Thurmond.
Am I happy that Strom is dead. No. But would I trust him enough as a politician to vote for him? Hell no.
I think they can be viewed as decent if they make it clear that their change in belief is genuine and not simply a political disguise. Don’t know about anyone else, but for me it takes a lot of convincing that someone who was once a staunch segregationist–caught on tape extolling the virtues of white supremacy and all its black lynching glory–has completely chucked that belief system and picked up an all-embracing philosophy.
A man once convicted of child molestion may have truly changed his ways, and I may trust that man to do a lot of things. I may even consider him a decent, beautiful person. But will I want him babysitting my kids? Mmmm, can’t say that I would, no matter how strongly he says he’s changed.
Of course I think it’s possible to grow and change as a person and to come to an epiphany about certain views. I certainly don’t think the same way now that I did when I was twenty. The question isn’t can a person change, but did Thurmond change. I can’t really see compelling evidence that his change of heart was really motivated by anything other than political expediency. Would he have moderated his views if he had won with his Dixiecrat campaign? If he had been successful in maintaining segregation would he still have seen the light in the 70’s? Would he have separated himself from those views if it would have hurt him politically?
I’m not convinced that he would have but I’m not ready to state categorically that he wouldn’t have either. I’ll just say that I’m skeptical about the sincerity of Strom’s conversion but since I can’t know his heart I’ll just refrain from judgement. I suspect that he probably did change the way he thought to some degree but I doubt that he ever really exorcised his ingrained bigotry, at least not completely.
Sorry, Tom, but that won’t wash. I saw the eulogies for J. William Fulbright, some delivered by his protege, Bill Clinton.
There has never been a more vile racist in the Senate than Fulbright (quite a few AS bad, none worse). But you’d never have guessed that from the fawning press he received upon his death. He was a good liberal Democrat on all other issues, so his racism was ignored.
How would donating to the NAACP make you less of a racist? I ask simply because I will never donate money to any chairty that excludes others based on race. I give my money and time to chairties that help everyone no matter their ethnic, social, or economic backgrounds. I hope that doesnt make me a racist!
Thurmond’s transformation was forced by society. If the civil rights movement had died out or stalled for awhile, he would have stayed a Dixiecrat much longer.
I feel /slightly/ better about Byrd as he has indeed condemned his own actions - but racism is one of those things that hangs around you like a cloud even after you’ve shaken it off. I recognize my own bias as I like his speechmaking style and general political viewpoint - but there is still undoubtably a residual stain on his character.
Eh. Some people should be remembered for who they used to be, and others for what they came to be.
The problem is, is you’re comparing politicians with real people. Politicians will do whatever is in their best interest. Real people, do, but rarely, change their views about what they’ve been taught? or subjected too during their formulative years.
I had a friend in high school who was a drug dealer, hated n*****s, but I saw him a few years later, after he’d found “the lord”, and I genuinely believed he’d changed his ways. Deep down in his heart, though, I couldn’t say for sure.
FWIW, the NAACP doesn’t exclude whites. In its early history, the organization recieved a lot of funding from Northern white liberals with lifetime memberships. Not sure if this is true today.
WRT Robert Byrd, black Democrats have usually overlooked his former KKK membership and resistance to civil rights legislation because he consistently votes with black Dems on economic and social service issues. I don’t know if the same is true for Fulbright, but I suspect so.
In answer to the OP, of course, individuals can undergo drastic transformations. The best examples are cult members who break free of the mind control and turn their backs on the cults. Still, these transformations are rare, and quite difficult. They can involve alienating one’s family, friends, and community.
I should also note that Thurmond’s racism, though wrong morally and pragmatically, was perfectly understandable. According to the philosopher Eric Hoeffer, in The True Believer, if you abuse a person, you must of necessity hate him. Otherwise you open the way for self-contempt. Thurman’s state and its people were essentially built on the large scale abuse of black Americans, so it’s not surprising that he and the majority of white voters clung to Jim Crow.
Ending Jim Crow seemed like a perfectly normal, socially beneficial goal when seen from a Northern POV, especially in light of American ideals about the equality of men before the law. Actually, ending Jim Crow was a radical transformation of Southern society. Two groups of people who had traditionally been the bitterest of enemies for hundreds of years were expected to suddenly get along peacefully as equals in the same society. Few nations have ever attempted such a transformation, and fewer still have pulled it off so successfully.
I will concede that Fulbright seems to have gotten a pass. Whether that was because he was “good” Democrat or because most people remember him only for his interest in foreign affairs, I don’t know. However, december’s one-trick-pony response is not supported by the treatment of Maddox (and even Wallace was continually noted for his original stance, despite spending over 20 years working against that earlier position).