The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am
It’s incredibly unfair that people are laughing at Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (AH’-boo MOO’-sahb ahl-zahr-OWW’-ouchy-ouchy-ouchy-IT’-burns) and his weapon-handling blunders. The New York Times sets the record straight:
The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi’s hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.
So, like, don’t make fun of the guy.
(Via LGF)
- Exactly. There’s no reason anyone shouldn’t follow a leader who hasn’t made room on his calendar for the “many days of training” necessary to handle a weapon. To quote Jackie Harvey: “Got that, you bigoted jerks?”Posted by cridland on 2006 05 06 at 12:23 PM • permalink
- Oh, pul-LEEEEEEZE!!!!
Yeah, true, Zarqawi is likely used to Soviet style weapons, which in fact are simpler. So what? If, say, the CENTCOM commander (GEN John Abizaid) was operating this weapon on the video, and he couldn’t clear the jam, he would look like a buffoon as well. And rightly so.
The valid concerns listed in that article are down near the end. First, Zarqawi’s value is not as a fighter, it’s as a strategist and leader. Second, he is using an American weapon….where did that come from?
As to the first point….Zarqawi set up this video to demonstrate that he is “in touch” with the jihadists. Which is clearly not the case, if he can’t perform the same tasks as they must. Zarqawi comes across as a buffoon. Further, his value as a strategist and leader is problematical, given the recent news that he may have been replaced. Zarqawi remains a dangerous man, and must be respected as such. But the release of the captured video points out that he is not the paragon of virtue and strength some might think. In this context, ridicule is perfectly valid, if the troops on the ground aren’t mislead by it. Which I rather doubt.
As to the second point….OK, the terrorists are using captured or stolen US equipment. Or bought off the black market. This is a problem, but it is hardly a new one, and I doubt that it’s systematic. And it’s a problem for the terrorists as well….where do they get the ammo for it? Guess what, US weapons follow NATO standards, not Warsaw Pact. All that ammo stockpiled by Hussein is Warsaw Pact, and won’t work.
And Zarqawi thumbs his nose at the US forces by using a US weapon on video…..gee, isn’t that ridicule as well? Goose, gander, sauce, etc.
Nope, no media bias here.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 06 at 12:41 PM • permalink
- This reminds me of back in 1992, when the NYT pointed out that the grocery scanner GHW Bush was mocked for being unfamiliar with wasn’t a standard grocery scanner, and that most people would be unfamiliar with it.
Oh wait, the NYT never wrote that. I guess it’s just a matter of priorities.
Posted by Buzz Crutcher on 2006 05 06 at 12:47 PM • permalink
- I just remembered about a well known leader looking like a doofus around military weapons. Is this why the NYT is so supportive of Zarqawi?
Or is this what the NYT is worried about?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 06 at 12:53 PM • permalink
- Re #4, Patricia, I imagine that their phone bill took a sudden spike. Might affect their quaterly profits.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 06 at 12:54 PM • permalink
As to the second point….OK, the terrorists are using captured or stolen US equipment. Or bought off the black market. This is a problem, but it is hardly a new one, and I doubt that it’s systematic. And it’s a problem for the terrorists as well….where do they get the ammo for it? Guess what, US weapons follow NATO standards, not Warsaw Pact. All that ammo stockpiled by Hussein is Warsaw Pact, and won’t work.
I seem to recall that caches of US uniforms were found in Iraq during the invasion, apparently to use in “false-flag” attacks. I wouldn’t be surprised if Saddam hadn’t also stockpiled American weapons for a similar purpose.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 05 06 at 01:18 PM • permalink
- Oh, and I thought the left’s line was that Zarqawi was a nobody who only achieved notoriety due to the US. Why are they trying to explain away his incompetence?Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 05 06 at 01:19 PM • permalink
- I don’t understand why this consternation with the Duranty Times.
It’s simply their attempt to provide “balance”.
After all, they’re “evocative”.
They “surround a story like no one else.”
“There is the Times and everyone else.”I’m sure they would reject the charge that they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In that I would certainly agree since I have never seen a pro-Bush piece in their rag.
Why are they trying to explain away his incompetence?
Embarrassment that their hero dorked up on camera.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 06 at 01:24 PM • permalink
- Many, many days?
As I recall, it didn’t take too long to teach us:
a) Not to drop it
and
b) Never to grab it by the skinny end….
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 06 at 01:40 PM • permalink
- And let us not forget:
(c) Clearing a jammed weapon…..
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 06 at 01:59 PM • permalink
- Is it true Che Guevara used a revolver because he kept getting his thumb caught in the slide?Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 06 at 02:05 PM • permalink
- That was a really stupid and naive story, but I don’t see anything in it that defends or enhances Z.
Given the record of the American administration—batting .000 in understanding Islam and Arabs—it was a legitimate story to ask how this approach would play out.
If releasing the outtakes was designed to give a smile to readers of Tim Blair’s blog, what’s the point?
If releasing the outtakes was addressed to—to what, Arab fencesitters? then what was the point?
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 06 at 02:09 PM • permalink
The New Balance sneakers in question are complicated to master, and American childreband undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with the laces. Moreover, the sneakers on Mr. Zarqawi’s feet were an older variant, which makes the lace’s malfunctioning unsurprising. The children said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by crude boots of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle them.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 06 at 02:46 PM • permalink
- Harry, it is a legitimate question. But, just as you note, it’s a stupid and naive story. The NYT did a poor job on researching the counterpoint.
And if the story doesn’t “…defends or enhances Z”, what does this mean?
The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.
You’ll understand if I think that your main point is to merely slap at the “American Administration” (which one, BTW?).
As to the target……it’s not to the Arab fencesitter. It’s to the Western fencesitter, so they can see what the anti-war crowd is supporting. And to the American public in general, pointing out that Zarqawi is dangerous, but not omnipotent.
The smiles here are merely an unexpected consequence.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 06 at 03:17 PM • permalink
batting .000 in understanding Islam and Arabs
So Arabs don’t really long to be free?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 05 06 at 03:28 PM • permalink
- I’m sure, Mr. Eagar, that the Bush administration needs your expertise on Islam and Arabs. (You must have expertise, because how else would you know that they are “batting .000” in understanding them?) I suggest you write to the White House as soon as possible. The fate of the free world is in your hands!Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 05 06 at 03:34 PM • permalink
- Just when you think the NYSlimes can’t get any more lame….Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2006 05 06 at 04:54 PM • permalink
- Rafe, they would if they could. Alas, eBay doesn’t allow the sale of these sort of items.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 06 at 05:15 PM • permalink
- Zarqawi is a serial killer who likes killing. It’s that simple. He can dress it up as fighting for the freedom from oppression of his Muslim brethren, or the “liberation of the Middle East from the infidel” or even establishment of the worldwide caliphate, but the simple fact, he does it because he likes the killing, and he has zero empathy or sympathy for anyone.
Ridicule is the worst thing that can happen to him. I say, let’s have more of it.
- ’Ridicule is the worst thing that can happen to him.’
The worst thing that could happen to him is a Hellfire in the kitchen, actually.
Ridicule, though, is a knife with two edges.
Perhaps most westerners have forgotten how Bush sent the ditz Karen Hughes to the Middle East to ‘explain’ American values, which she began by announcing, brightly, ‘I’m a working mom.’
We haven’t heard any more about that initiative, have we? I guarantee, the Arabs haven’t forgotten it. No wonder they think Americans don’t get it.
Rob, let me ask you a counterquestion? Who are the famous Arab fighters for freedom of their people, the equivalent of Stenka Razin, Robin Hood, Jeanne d’Arc, Garibaldi?
There aren’t any. It’s a different way of thinking. They have a concept ‘freedom,’ but it doesn’t share many characteristics of the concept ‘freedom’ as understood by Bush or you or me; just as, ‘democracy’ on the lips of an Australian has nothing really to do with ‘democracy’ on the lips of a Muslim; and the ‘parliament’ in Tehran doesn’t share anything but a few formal rituals with the parliament in Canberra .
Andrea, I do have a recommedation—it’s called ‘the bonifacian solution’—which I have published in a few places. It would very likely work—it’s not original with me, it has worked several times before in similar situations—but there’s not a chance anybody would adopt it now. Least of all, Bush. Because the first step is to recognize that Islam as a religion, and not just a fraction of fanatics, is the enemy.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 06 at 09:01 PM • permalink
- You don’t have to be a gunnie to see that he looked like a moron handling that weapon.
The new definition of “New York Minute” is how long this clown would last in a firefight with real live troopies. When you make your rep for beheading trussed up hostages while your men hold them down, you might want to try and do a little better with a real weapon.
The NYT hasn’t been worth reading or over a decade, so I missed their take on it…no big loss.
And as other posters have mentioned, these are automatic weapons – they all freakin’ jam just when you need them most – so you practice, practice, practice clearing them.
Really, from the look of how he handled the weapon, how he flashed the muzzle across his troops, and how he passed it off to another….
He has no idea how to handle a weapon of this type.
And personally I feel the gov’mint has a 100% understanding of how a certain type of Arab should be treated – as Meat!
- lingus4 – Remember that the SPORT acronym for clearing a malfunctioning weapon adds a further step for ME troops, SPORTE:
Squeeze the trigger
Pull the bolt to the rear
Observe the ejected round
Release the bolt forward
Tap the forward-assistand in the ME,
Eyeball the barrel for any blockage.
To be a real jidhadi, you MUST perform these steps in this exact order…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 06 at 09:25 PM • permalink
- Hey, its all clear now. Fisk was right. Zarqawi is not actually real. He was invented. He’s real, but he’s not real, and that’s why he’s having trouble with that imaginary American gun in the video Dreaming. I get it now.Posted by crittenden on 2006 05 06 at 10:37 PM • permalink
OK, the terrorists are using captured or stolen US equipment. Or bought off the black market. This is a problem… And it’s a problem for the terrorists as well… where do they get the ammo for it?
Especially if the captured weapon is two inches long.
- Explain this “bonifacian solution,” Mr. Eagar, which you have “published in a few places.” No really, it sounds absolutely fascinating.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 05 06 at 11:19 PM • permalink
- #33
Andrea, I do have a recommedation—it’s called ‘the bonifacian solution’—which I have published in a few places
Bloody hell. Harry Eager, you are hard core.
And to think I mistook you for a troll…Posted by daddy dave on 2006 05 06 at 11:45 PM • permalink
- his solution is to send a cruise missile into each of the world’s 100 major mosques.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 05 06 at 11:47 PM • permalink
- although I’m not sure what that would achieve, except to piss off a lot of people in a very short space of timePosted by daddy dave on 2006 05 07 at 12:04 AM • permalink
- Re #38, Dave, that one caused a lot snorting and chuckling in theater. Not to mention much scratching of heads, mixed with comments along the general line of “WTF?!?!?!”Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 07 at 12:33 AM • permalink
- I presume Mr. Eagar is referring to Saint Boniface, who brought much of the German people into the Catholic Church.
Mr. Eagar claims to “…have published in a few places…” about this. So I did a Google search for “bonifacian solution” and “Harry Eagar”.
This returned exactly 5 hits. All of them on blogs. This is hardly “publishing”, but maybe the books and/or magazines aren’t on-line*.
On one of them, he said (assuming it’s the same Harry Eagar):
I say you can change religion from without, but it takes drastic measures.
I have long advocated what I call the bonifacian solution to the problem of Islam.
You will recall, I hope, that Boniface chopped down the sacred tree and defied the gods to do anything about it.
If Bush had had any sense, he would have invaded Iraq as the first campaign of a war against Islam as it exists, and some Army general would have said, ‘We’r goin’ in, and if Allah is on the other side, he’d better look to his knittin’.’
This would, one hopes, have led to a terrible struggle, akin to the Thirty Years’ War, among Muslims, but in the long run, they’d have been better for it; and we could stop defending ourselves from these maniacs.
Religion in the American South was vastly changed by federal legislation, first against lynching, later requiring at least lip service to equal treatment.
If you haven’t compared the preaching of the typical Southern Baptist preacher (not the exceptional, the typical) in 1956 and 2006, you could not believe the difference.
I do not believe that the actual belief has changed nearly so much. But behavior has, and that’s all that counts.
You could say the same, with less emphasis, about American Christians (most of them) and their attitudes toward Jews.
So, by “bonifacian solution”, Mr. Eagar’s solution is to convert the Muslims into Christians. Such an original and elegant solution. *Snort*
Leaving aside your desires to start a genuine religious war, how, pray tell, would you go about this, Mr. Eagar?
It’s one thing to quote historical events, and quite another to implement those ideas. I eagerly await your answer.
Assuming, of course, that you aren’t just plain nuts.
====================================
* I wrote this with a straight face. Honest!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 07 at 01:01 AM • permalink
- “bonifacian solution” ?
I am in awe at this level of erudite commentary.
Enlighten the peasants, O Master.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 05 07 at 01:58 AM • permalink
- The weapons handling was just atrocious, and it didn’t depend on the weapons design. He muzzle-swept a couple guys, and the long burst that finished the belt is not the way to use a machinegun of any type, Soviet or American, unless they got a water-cooled Maxim gun out of storage.Posted by Ernst Blofeld on 2006 05 07 at 02:39 AM • permalink
- That would be cool, Ernst, firing a water cooled Maxim! I doubt that there are any around still in firing condition, but it would be a blast.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 07 at 02:41 AM • permalink
- Jeffs – not an original WC Maxim, but I have fired a .303 WC Vickers. Yes, it was a blast.
I ahve ben told (may be an unban myth from WWI) that the British Army wanted to check MTBF (catastrophic failure) of the .303 and .50 Vickers in 1917, so they set up a number of them and just started firing into the butts. Just linking the canvas belts and keeping them cycling.
After FIVE DAYS of this, with all the vickers MG still happily eating ammo, they just said ‘screw it’ and stopped the test.
It might have been Edwardian technology, but by jingo it worked…
MarkL
canberra
Why are they trying to explain away his incompetence?
Embarrassment that their hero dorked up on camera.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 06 at 01:24 PM • permalinkYou think Zarqawi is the hero of an infantry colonel and a special forces colonel, both of whom have served in Iraq?
What sort of drugs in what quantity are required for that to make sense fool.
- Incidentally, the most idiotic part of the article has to be the final graf:
“I see a guy who is getting a lot of groceries and local support,” said Nick Pratt, a Marine Corps veteran and professor of terrorism studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Germany. “You cannot say he is a bad operator.” He added, “People should be careful who they poke fun at.”
I forget which WWII-era journalist suggested it might not be a good idea to make fun of Hitler since he might yet win, but this seems to be roughly in the same vein.
- Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.
Because everyone knows Soviet designed barrels don’t get hot when you fire a sustained burst through them. Where do they find these expert “veterans?”
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 05 07 at 09:30 AM • permalink
- It’s simply not true to say that an M249 is ‘a complicated weapon that is hard to master’. You can teach a schoolboy how to load a belt into most modern LMGs in a matter of minutes. We’re not talking about the level of training required to use, say, a Javelin anti-tank missile. Knowing how to clear a stoppage is part of the most basic training of any infantryman. The reason Zarqwad got a stovepipe stoppage and couldn’t go rock and roll was almost certainly due to fouling of the gas return plug meaning the weapon wasn’t cycling properly (an M249 is either safed or full-auto; there is no burst or semi-auto capability with the standard trigger group). Another basic infantry skill is cleaning your weaponry, and one at which Arab armies have notoriously been very, very bad.Posted by David Gillies on 2006 05 07 at 10:05 AM • permalink
- Tank in #55:
Yeah, those useful idiots serving in Iraq.
Tank, I was referring to the NYT, not the soldiers. The NYT wrote and published the article. They got the quotes.
But it is fair to point out that the quotes were of the useful idiot variety. The article was written to counter the release of the “Zarqawi is hypocrite and not a warrior” video, and the quotes certainly support the thrust of the article.
I know a number of active duty and reserve troops who feel the same way as those quoted in the article. They have varying reasons to think that, but that doesn’t make them bad soldiers. On the contrary, I’m proud to have served with them.
Perhaps the NYT offered the article in the same light. But I rather doubt it, given the paper’s all-but-open support of the terrorists in Iraq up until know.
And a corollary of free speech is the freedom to slap down silly opinions. This is certainly the case.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. And the NYT has plenty of parasites to spare.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 07 at 10:15 AM • permalink
- PW — It was a producer at MGM, trying to talk animator Tex Avery out of making his famous cartoon, “Blitz Wolf.”
Even back then, tyrants and their apologists had a problem with cartoons.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 07 at 11:43 AM • permalink
- Harry Eager seems to be a nut. I don’t know why I get that impression…
Tank, you’re not one of those fellers who cherry-pick what vets say–and only choose the quotes that back up that the Iraq war is a big mistake and scum like Zarqawi are heroic freedom fighters, are you? (Notwithstanding that the Z-Man’s idea of freedom is totally different from Joan of Arc’s, as Mr. Eager would chime in.)
Pat, I’ll take a “U,” please.
- Low marks for reading comprehension, Jeffs. As the first line says, the idea is not to change Muslims into Christians but to change them into a different sort of Muslim
To assist them to make the belief change that European Christians made, with difficulty, on their own in the 17th century. To evolve the concept of martyrdom away from being a renewable resource into being a wasting asset. (There’s a reason why there is no 21st century equivalent of Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs.’)
That’s a strategy. Cruise missiles were offered just as a tactic. There are many others.
Or you could keep on with the current approach. It’s working great, ain’t it? Southern Iraq is now under the political control of Iran. Now there’s a strategy!
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 07 at 03:53 PM • permalink
- Ah, a different kind of Muslim! I see, I see. That’s not inherent in your model, Harry, since St Boniface converted the pagans into Christians, and not into a different kind of pagans. But I take your point.
You are talking about some sort of a reformation, right? Not unlike when Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, yes?
With cruise missiles as a possible tactic. Right. Aimed at mosques, perhaps?
No, I didn’t have a problem in reading comprehension, Harry. It’s that you have a problem in thinking.
Let’s take the “Iran controls the politics of southern Iraq” meme. Iran clearly has some influence there, they have been supplying weapons and funds to some of the terrorists. But control? Highly unlikely. Remember the Iran-Iraq war? They do if you don’t. Iran and southern Iraq are both Shi’a, but Iran is largely Persian, and southern Iraq is largely Arab, which means a lot in the Middle East, tribal differences and all. Influence, not control. Which seriously muddles up your assertion.
And just how is your “strategy” different from the current strategy? Well, I think yours can be summarized as “reform or die”, and the current strategy as “we’ll help you reform yourselves, but get your head out of your ass first”.
I think my summary of your position is accurate as you advocate using cruise missiles to reform Muslims. Say, what if Muslims tried to use missiles to reform Americans? Oh, wait, they did….on 11 September 2001. How well did that work, Harry me bucko? Did we roll over and die for that? The Muslims being human and all, d’you think they would react any differently?
Yeah, your “bonifacian solution” will work. About as well as stirring molten lead with a plastic spoon.
I withdraw my assumption. You are nuts.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 07 at 05:06 PM • permalink
- Mr Where-da-Farqawi?Posted by pick-your-pun on 2006 05 07 at 07:11 PM • permalink
- Yeah, those useful idiots serving in Iraq.
The active one of these two colonels had to speak to the NYT on the condition of anonymity because he knowshe’s not supposed to make public comments like that. Therefore I’m going to treat him like any civilian who supplies stupid quotes to that New York rag. You don’t think it’s somewhat questionable to make anonymous excuses for your own enemies in theater?
You don’t think it’s somewhat questionable to make anonymous excuses for your own enemies in theater?
I expect that the active duty colonel would be relieved of any command he holds, and would never, ever command again, nor any key staff position. Retirement would be the best option……if he is allowed to. I’m not familiar with the relevant UCMJ articles, but “aiding the enemy” comes to mind. At the very least, he would get a damning letter of reprimand.
That alone makes me question the officer in question, regardless of position. Assuming that the quotes are valid in the first place. “Anonymous” covers a wide range of sins.
Re #65: That Nazi-drone was still part of the media, just the entertainment sector, not news. Not much difference between the two today, though.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 07 at 09:17 PM • permalink
- Harry Eagar wrote:
Religion in the American South was vastly changed by federal legislation, first against lynching, later requiring at least lip service to equal treatment.
If you haven’t compared the preaching of the typical Southern Baptist preacher (not the exceptional, the typical) in 1956 and 2006, you could not believe the difference.
Religion in the American South was vastly changed by federal legislation, first against lynching, later requiring at least lip service to equal treatment.If you haven’t compared the preaching of the typical Southern Baptist preacher (not the exceptional, the typical) in 1956 and 2006, you could not believe the difference.
Really? I live in the American South, and the Baptist church I am most familiar with is First Baptist of Raleigh, North Carolina. It is true that this particular church is no longer a part of the Southern Baptist Convention (the congregation voted to separate from the SBC in 1998). However, it belonged to the Convention during the transitional period that Harry refers to.
Was First Baptist of Raleigh a den of racist bigotry until Washington forced it to reform? I took a look at the church’s official history and found this passage:
Raleigh has two First Baptist churches, each with a legitimate claim to the title. When the Baptist church in Raleigh was organized in 1812 on the second floor of the original state Capitol building, there were 23 charter members—9 white and 14 black. In 1868 there was a peaceful separation of the two groups when the newly emancipated members established their own congregation. Today the collegiality between the two congregations is expressed in regular shared endeavors to provide shelter and food for homeless families and in the vocal ensemble “First in Harmony,” composed of four singers from each congregation.
So this Southern Baptist church was racially integrated—and, in fact, almost two-thirds black—half a century before the Civil War. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that fact doesn’t seem to fit into Harry’s version of history.
- The pastor of your church was my philosophy teacher at State, sundog. I recall when I marched with SCLC down Fayetteville Street exactly how many members of your church were with us.
0.
Think I’ll stick with my version of history.
But I’ll grant you that First Baptist of Raleigh was exceptional.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 08 at 01:41 PM • permalink
- #19: Richard, I think “childebrand” is a perfectly fine, serviceable word. We just need to attach a definition to it.Posted by Bill Spencer on 2006 05 08 at 01:53 PM • permalink
- I don’t know if they were all pro-lynching. I never said any such thing.
But bigots. Yes. It would have been difficult to find anyone who wasn’t a bigot in those days. There were gradations of bigotry. The school I went to then (Gibbons) was integrated in the classroom, but not socially, until my sister and I forced the issue. Those lovey-dovey encounters between the two First Baptists that you participate in did not happen before the federales moved in and forced integration.
Without coercion, I do not believe they ever would have happened.
But that’s beside the way. Your post does reinforce my point, that religious beliefs can be drastically altered from outside. So much so that in such a short time—and full credit to you for your ignorance—people cannot remember how they (or their parents) used to behave.
Islam would be a much bigger mountain to move, but in principle, I think history says it might be done.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 08 at 06:29 PM • permalink
- “I don’t know if they were all pro-lynching. I never said any such thing.”
Actually, you did. Here are your words again:
Religion in the American South was vastly changed by federal legislation, first against lynching, later requiring at least lip service to equal treatment.
If you haven’t compared the preaching of the typical Southern Baptist preacher (not the exceptional, the typical) in 1956 and 2006, you could not believe the difference.
So you are on record as saying that religion in the American South, and Southern Baptists specifically, were pro-lynching until the federal government forced them to change.
“Those lovey-dovey encounters between the two First Baptists that you participate in did not happen before the federales moved in and forced integration.”
I don’t think so. Didn’t you read the excerpt from the church history that I posted before? First Baptist was integrated on the day it was established in 1842. No federales were involved. And the amicable separation into two congregations took place in 1868—also without any mention of federales in the church history. Are you claiming that that history is false? When, exactly, are the Feds supposed to have intervened to make these two churches be nice to each other? I’d very much like to know the details, so please cite your sources. My wife is a reference librarian and will find them, no matter how obscure they are.
“So much so that in such a short time—and full credit to you for your ignorance—people cannot remember how they (or their parents) used to behave.”
My ignorance, eh? How interesting to learn that you know more about my parents than I do. In that case, please tell me what year each of them was born, to establish whether they are old enough to have been among the unreconstructed bigots you speak of. Then tell me how they reacted when I came home from grade school in Louisiana, singing a song I had learned from some other kids that included the word “nigger” in its lyrics.
While you’re at it, please tell me about my wife’s father, who is a retired Southern Baptist minister. What racist secrets are buried in his past, and how do you know?
- I must say, this has been a fascinating lesson in the punctuated equilibrium of religious evolution, as well as a better than average example of debate.
I must give my points to sundog, however, for style, consistency and applied critical thinking.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 09 at 04:31 AM • permalink
- Well, the federales were in control in 1868.
I don’t know when the two First Baptists started making nice together, but I can guarantee it was later than the period I am talking about. I picked 1956 as 50 years ago. I moved to Raleigh in 1963 and stayed until 1969. I never, not once, heard a white Protestant minister appeal for race harmony during the period. Never saw one at any civil rights meeting. Never heard one sing gospel songs with Raleigh’s black people.
Interaction among black and white churches then was just about zero.
The amicable split in 1868 was, of course, part of a racial divide. It is absurd for you to depict it as a stage in racial harmony.
And even if one church in Raleigh was in advance of general opinion in the 1960s, the original post referred to Baptist churches in general across the South.
I suggest that, except for the purposes of historical analysis, your embrace of a general oblivion about the place of the churches in the race hatred of the South is a good thing.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 09 at 01:40 PM • permalink
- Fair enough. I didn’t live in the Raleigh area until 1987, so I have no firsthand knowledge of events during the time you describe. That’s why I looked up First Baptist’s official history.
My point through all of this has been that when you labeled all religious Southerners, and Southern Baptists particularly, as pro-lynching bigots, you were painting with far too broad a brush. Certainly those attitudes existed and continue to exist. But they were not and are not universal.
Like you, I base my perception on my own personal experiences. I was born in Louisiana in 1959, and have lived my entire life in the South. I was raised Southern Baptist, and have lost count of the number of Baptist churches I have attended. Never in my life have I heard anything even vaguely resembling race hatred preached from any pulpit, or spoken by anyone within the the walls of any church. It just didn’t happen.
My parents were both born in the 1930s, so they certainly had plenty of opportunity to become racists—but they weren’t and aren’t. When I came home from school singing that nasty song (without any idea of what the words meant), my parents reacted with shock. They sat me down and explained how offensive it was, and made it clear to me that I was never to sing that song (or use that word) again under any circumstances. (This would have been in 1966 or ‘67.) So you can imagine how amazed I was when you told me that I couldn’t remember how my parents used to behave. I remember like it was yesterday.
When you say that you don’t remember Raleigh’s white Protestant ministers appealing for race harmony, attending civil rights meetings, or singing gospel songs with black people . . . you make a valid point. I’d like to believe that some of them did, but I wasn’t here back then and you were. But if that’s the way it happened, that suggests indifference and apathy rather than racist bigotry. Failure to call for race harmony is not the same thing as preaching hatred and advocating lynching.
Of course the amicable split in 1868 was part of a racial divide. I never claimed otherwise. But it wasamicable, if the church history can be trusted. The black members weren’t forced out; they chose to leave and form their own church. I can certainly believe it, because I’ve seen congregations—Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, you name it—split many times, amicably and otherwise, for all kinds of reasons.
I’m not embracing any kind of oblivion about the role of churches in the history of race in the South. Would I ask you to provide details and cite sources if I didn’t want to know the truth? And I am interested in your recollections of the things you witnessed firsthand. But I can’t share you view of Southerners and Southern Baptists. You seem ready to assume the worst and damn them all as racist monsters, ready to form a lynch mob at the drop of a hat. I don’t deny that such people have existed, and still exist. But to tar all religious Southerners with that brush is unreasonable. And it’s completely at odds with my four and a half decades of experience with Southerners and Southern Baptists.
- I did not say they were all lynchers. What I said was that the federal anti-lynch law was one example of outside intervention that changed actual behavior in the South.
There were religious Southerners who tried to form interracial groups. Billy Mahon in Virginia in 1890 was one.
But they didn’t get very far. Same as today, moderate Muslims never seem to get anywhere.
I’m abashed that I, a professional writer, didn’t come up to MentalFloss’s standards, but I’ll get over it, probably, eventually.
But he might have recalculated if he had understood the significance of the school I went to, Gibbons. In 1963, the only integrated schools in N.C. were Catholic. And they were few (five high schools) and tiny (Gibbons, the largest, had 135 students).
As far as I know there were then no integrated Baptist schools in any southern state, certainly none in N.C. or Georgia. Not for lack of resources. In my hometown, a single independent church ran (and still runs) a K-college school (called by my irreverent cousins Jesus Tech). It was lily white. I checked their website today, and I cannot be sure, but it looks like it is still.
When the federales forced integration on the South, the response was not to go quietly. Instead, they formed ‘seg academies,’ thousands of which still exist.
In a way, that was even worse than ‘separate but equal,’ which at least in legal theory (though never in practice) did allocate equal public resources to all.
The segs didn’t even pretend. Once they got their lily-white private schools open, they voted their school taxes down to nothing, so that the resources alloted to black schools were, if anything, less than even before.
You don’t have to preach hatred to act hateful. The Southern churches, all denominations, were quiet throughtout that shameful episode, and if it wasn’t preachers in the pulpit who led the way, it was deacons of the church who made up the boards of trustees of the academies.
I’m not here to debate Southern racism. My family goes back a long way, slaveowners all down to my grandfather.
I am out to show that external pressure can quickly change behavior. It’s almost hard for me to believe, but from looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge for advocating civil equality in 1968, by 1973 I was going to social meetings where it was no longer polite to warm up a white audience with coon jokes.
Damfino whether they really changed their opinions, but they changed their public behavior, and that’s enough for me.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 10 at 02:23 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
