Hypocrisy

[Rooster7]

I will say this - I think there are people on both sides of the aisle who do not live up to their public persona. Some fall prey to temptation, and thus are unable to live up to a standard that they truly believe in. Others never really believed in the standard, and thus get caught in their own mess. I have more patience for the former than the latter. As Adrianvs pointed out unless one is willing to bare his soul and reveal his own hypocrisy, only God truly knows who they are. So, I dont want to label Byrd as a hypocrite But likewise, I dont think its fair to label Thurmond as one either. On balance, they both have made statements, which seem to indicate a hateful heart towards blacks. Some say Byrd has changed because hes renounced his past. But can you trust public statements, which claim repentance when ones political career is in jeopardy? Some say Thurmond has not changed because hes remained relatively silent on the issue. But can you judge a persons heart for what he chooses to keep private? I dont like Senator Byrd because hes made many statements, which have infuriated me. Nevertheless, concerning this matter (race), I really dont know what is in his heart.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

Some say Thurmond has not changed because hes remained relatively silent on the issue.

 

Well, he's definitely been "silent," in an absolute rather than a relative sense, for the past six months or so. (The link I posted earlier was his obituary from June of this year.)

 

That was supposed to be funny, and in fact this entire thread was meant to be a bit light-hearted. I suppose, looking back on it, that the only people who could really appreciate the hypocrisy, or if you don't think that word fits, the irony, the inconsistency, the fathering-a-"negro"-child-and-then-devoting-your-career-to-keeping-"negros"-in-a-subservient-status, or whatever else you wish to call it, would be those who already accept the fact that Strom Thurmond role in history is essentially one of villainy, or if you don't like that word, any negative word you choose. Those who are unable to read a negative comment about a politician who happens to be a Republican, without chiming in about a Democrat who is supposedly worse, wouldn't be able to appreciate it. Nor would someone appreciate it has bought the line that the Southern opposition to the civil rights movement in the 40s, 50s and 60's was really about "States' Rights" rather than about race. ScoutParent, if that is what you want to believe, go ahead. I have in fact studied the history of the period, and have read what you want me to read, and conclude (along with most historians, not to mention people who were actually around at the time, such as my parents, and to a lesser extent, me) that no "State's right" was really involved other than the "right" to discriminate against and exclude people based on race, which is not a right that any state has, or has had at least since the adoption of the 14th Amendment in the 1860s.

 

And, just by coincidence, last night I was watching a "news show" (it's actually a show on Comedy Central called "The Daily Show" but it does have some actual news, though from a humorous angle, and admittedly usually not from a conservative angle) that had a whole segment of about 10 minutes on this Thurmond thing. It was pretty funny. The "irony" (or insert other word or phrase here) was definitely not lost on them. But from an actual "fact" perspective, they played a tape from Thurmond's 1948 speech, the exact quote that I quoted in my first post in this thread. I actually got to hear the word he used, and it was definitely not "negro." I know that many Southern segregationist politicians of that era liked to "split the difference" and pronounce "negro" the way Hunt has it in his post, "nigra," so that their listeners would know what they really meant. I remember hearing George Wallace say it that way, live, not on tape. But when I listened to that clip, it seemed pretty clear he wasn't pronouncing it "nigra" either.

 

But as I said, with this subject (and a number of others), I guess you either "see" it or you "don't."

[Adrianvs]

Irony! That's the word!!

[NJCubScouter]

Well, Adrian, it is indeed ironic, but I don't think irony captures the whole story here. It does not necessarily convey that anyone is responsible for the situation that we find ironic or that anyone should have acted differently from how he did.

 

I have explained at length why I believe this new relevation makes Thurmond's public conduct "worse," more reprehensible, or in the word that I still think fits to at least a degree, hypotcrital. The word "hypocrisy" and its variants is irrelevant, however. The same principles apply regardless of what word is used.

 

I do have one other thing to add, and I am going to use an offensive racial epithet to make a point, because it is an exact quote from Strom Thurmond. So if anyone is going to be offended, you can stop reading. Obviously I do not use this word in my usual speech, and I avoided quoting it earlier. This word is part of the "news" because, before I heard the clip of Thurmond's 1948 speech this week, I didn't really know he used the word in question. Of course, before this week I also didn't know that he had an "affair" (or whatever it was) with a 16-year-old black servant and fathered a child who was identified as "black." But he didn't call the group that included his daughter -- and therefore his daughter as well -- "black," nor did he use the words that would have still been considered socially acceptable in 1948, "negro" or "colored." (Here comes the word.)

 

He called his own daughter a "nigger."

 

Who wants to defend that? And who thinks that whatever any other politician did is really comparable to that?

[acco40]

A politician acted in a way that was politically expedient? I'm shocked!

 

Let's get back to Scouting issues.

[Adrianvs]

Reprehensible! That's the word!!!

 

 

Not as reprehensible as killing his child by acid bath or dismemberment, but reprehensible nonetheless.

 

Oops, I'm off of Scouting topics; let's get back to ninteen forties racial politics.

[9muckraker7]

Could someone please tell me WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS WHOLE "STROM THURMAN HYPOCRISY" HAVE TO DO WITH SCOUTING???

[boleta]

This thread died an ignominious death (that means shameful)on 12/21/2003 until you resurrected it just now. If we have learned anything from the past 2 weeks, some issues and politics threads should be left alone as there will always be disagreement on some of the more controversial issues of American society.

[PatBB]

I disagree with Adrian's definition of hypocrisy. The word comes from the Greek HYPO meaning "under" or "not enough" & CRITIC(AL).

Nothing 2 do with 'actors.' A hypocrite is anyone who uses a double standard which is less critical of himself or his friends/comrades than of his enemies or the general public

 

The only way the Prohibitionistic Alcoholic could avoid hypocrisy is to say, "Don't be so stupid/foolish as I was to drink & get hooked on booze."

[OldGreyEagle]

If this thread is to continue, may I remind all posters they are free to express themselves but are to refrain from personal attacks or unscout behavior (not that a person attack IS scout like behavior)

[boleta]

OldGreyEagle,

 

I would like to make several observations with regard to the question raised by 9muckraker7- what does this thread have to do with Scouting?

 

Scouters are adults.

Scouters represent every aspect of American Society- liberal, conservative, religious and not.

Scouting is a values based organization.

Scouters have different opinions about what these values are.

 

As is clear from this and several other issues and politics discussions, members will vehemently disagree about these subjects. Although interesting to read, no one should have the misconception that they are going to change anyone's mind about their viewpoints.

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

After listening to eight years of Clinton bashing, I came to understand the reason people love to attack a politician's personal life. Remember, people voted for Clinton to make public policy and he did just that. His opponents attacked him for his personal life; sad. What is the reason? His political life was more difficult to attack.

 

I personally do not support Senator Thurmond's segregationist policies. I do not personally like that he had a child out of wedlock and that he ignored her emotional needs and that he made policy that would hurt her. Those are my personal views of a man that appears reprehensible. But, he fairly represented his state and he advocated for their viewpoints. That is what a politician is supposed to do. A politician represents those viewpoints of his/her constituents that have elected him/her to represent. If those people do not believe that his public policies represented their viewpoint, then they elect somebody that does. But, his state continued to elect their best representative that held with their public policies first, even if others disliked them for many years. (*By the way, in a small segregated state, probably everybody knew of his personal conquest and accepted it as an acceptable cultural convention, kind of a badge of honor.)

 

If we ever begin to believe that we have elected a person that represents both our personal beliefs and our public views, then we have most likely made a serious mistake in judgment. There have been several examples of this from both parties. People tend to want more than a politician. They want more than the security of fair representation. They want an idol that they can bed down with and worship personally. It just doesn't happen not in this world anyway.

 

FB

 

[OldGreyEagle]

This is the Politics and Issues Thread, there is a lot of leniency shown as long as it is done in a scout like manner. Nothing said since this threads ressurection is unscout-like.

[packsaddle]

9muckraker7, have you ever been involved with these forums under a different screen name? If so, how many and what were they?

[dsteele]

Hey, everyone, take a deep breath. In fact, take three or more.

 

Jason is gone and so are his other identities.

 

We've all read through a pile of a pile and we're all a bit jumpy. This thread probably should never have resurfaced, but that doesn't mean it's time to jump all over one another. We're supposed to be friends here. At least that's why I participate.

 

Can we all agree that hypocracy in and of itself is wrong? I think so. Can we all agree that Strom Thurmond is dead with or without regard to what he did in his lifetime? I think so. Regardless of what you believe in the form of an afterlife or not, can we not agree that Strom Thurmond will do no more else on this earth to change things one way or another?

 

Then what is the argument about? Our own personal views. Which, in my humble opinion, should remain personal.

 

Unc.