By Edwin Cooney
As
I’ve asserted from the very beginning, I have three goals each week for these
musings: to inform, stimulate, and to entertain my readers. These three goals reflect my personal lifelong
ambitions as a kinsman, a friend or as a teacher — a professional position I
never achieved.
Thus,
each week I seek topics that reveal some notable aspect of history or
contemporary life, a component of an event that hopefully stimulates thought through
perspective, and I try my best to offer
them, in hopefully an entertaining style regardless of their importance or
triviality.
A
few days ago a former schoolmate of mine sent me a piece that both repelled and
drew me. It was titled “Blacks Versus
Niggers.”
It
repelled me because I despise the characterization of anyone as a
“Nigger.” However, it drew me because it
appeared to have been written by an 83-year-old black resident of Ferguson,
Missouri who, although a disabled veteran, had gone to college, raised a family
and who very much believes in and loves America. A law-abiding citizen, the author of “Blacks
Versus Niggers” appeared to know much more about what it is like to be black
than I do. So, I read William G.
Lillas’s open letter with interest. As
one who strives to always tell the truth as I understand it, I probably too
often believe that everyone else is also truthful. Furthermore, when reading or listening to
someone, I insist on granting to them the benefit of the doubt most of the
time.
First,
Mr. Lillas draws a credible distinction between the decent and the criminal elements
in the black community. Second, he rightfully asserts that violent protests
destroy rather than build solid communities.
This observation was made more powerful by his endorsement rather than
any objection to legitimate protest. Finally, his willingness to scold people
he supposedly loves resonated with me.
Hence, I was ultimately more impressed with the strong points of his
testimony even as I cringed at what seemed to be the political agenda of his
“letter.”
One
aspect of his letter that disturbed me from the outset was the tone of his clear
political opposition to “the liberal
media’s bias.” Apparently this 83-year-old
gentleman really and truly believes that liberals possess a monopoly on
bias. Then, there was Mr. Lillas’s
tendency to misstate and blur the histories of Michael Brown and Trayvon
Martin. (Note: he never mentions Trayvon
Martin’s last name.) He states that
Michael Brown had a long criminal record when he had no criminal record at
all. Next, he implies that both Trayvon
Martin and Michael Brown were defying the police. Insofar as I’m aware, George Zimmerman has
never been, or even claimed to be a policeman!
Finally,
he made a rather amazing observation regarding the public’s reaction to the
Rodney King and the O. J. Simpson trials.
Blacks, he reminds us, rioted after the Rodney King trial, but whites
didn’t riot after the O. J. Simpson verdict.
Whites, he insists, haven’t rioted since maybe the Civil War. Apparently, Twentieth Century anti-German
riots in St. Louis during World War One and the lynching of blacks in the south
isn’t considered “rioting” to Mr. Lillas.
The existence of the Ku Klux Klan doesn’t seem to have been enough of a
legitimate threat to his fellow blacks to suit William G. Lillas.
As
I mulled over this piece, I decided to share it with a couple of friends of
mine for their reactions. One of them
informed me that according to Snopes.com William G. Lillas doesn’t exist. This particular piece was released sometime
last year but it didn’t specifically refer to Mr. Lillas by name. However, it did assert that its author was a
70-year-old Korean War veteran without realizing that someone seventy years old
in 2014 would have been no more than six when the war began and nine at its
truce. Hence, a 70-year-old veteran
living in 2014 would have been too young to peel potatoes and shoot Korean and
Chinese Communists which, according to the author, is all “nigger soldiers”
were qualified to do.
This
revelation makes my interest in the above-mentioned article seem quite silly
doesn’t it? So, you may well ask, why
don’t I keep my intellectual and emotional weaknesses to myself instead of
bothering you with them?
The
answer to that is because I think I’ve finally grasped the keys to look for
when presented with these nuggets of wisdom which you can use to more readily
judge their credibility and practical validity.
First,
be suspicious when liberals or conservative media are said to be at the heart
of any social issue. Second, be skeptical
if the author brings controversial side issues into his argument that don’t
have anything to do with the main point being made. (Note: Mr. Lillas brings
the issue of illegitimacy and marital fidelity into the argument when his
complaint is about criminality.) Third,
check the accuracy of historical events an author describes to back up their
claims. Finally, just because a commentary appeals to your personal
perceptions, even when I present it, its material speaks to its credibility at
least as much as its source or its logic! Therein lies the lesson I’ve had to
learn again and again.
Information
that appeals to your personal comfort may be tempting. However, it’s
practicality and validity most likely will be in its material substance.
As
one who seeks to feed your knowledge, your intellect and your sense of well-being
every week, I thought I should let you in on my latest lesson!
Please
be so kind as to remind me of this lesson when I all too soon forget it!
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED,
EDWIN
COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment