NAACP and Lee Birthday

What do you get when you mix the head of the Richmond NAACP with a bunch of Sons of the Confederate?  Apparently you get a short-lived photo-op and fodder for the national press.

Click for larger image.
IMG_1418
Click for larger image.
IMG_1419
Click for larger image.
IMG_1420
Click for larger image.
IMG_1421
Click for larger image.
IMG_1422
Click for larger image.
IMG_1423
Click for larger image.
IMG_1424
So here is what happened.  Each year the Sons of the Confederate do some re-enactment thing in honor of Lee's Birthday.  Guys dressed up in costumes and sometimes whacking a drum.  These guys have been a little tough to figure out:  are they racists, sore losers from the civil war, or just normal people who happen to have an interest in the Civil War?  Some of them had fought the Arthur Ashe statue on Monument Avenue and a statue of Abraham Lincoln at a local Civil War museum so it certainly raised some questions.

Apparently this year an out-of-town wing (cell, regiment?) of the Confederate guys decided to some proclamation or something at the statue and this time the NAACP decided to protest.  City police were out in force and ready in case a confrontation broke out.  This was something new.  The local head of the NAACP, King Salim Khalfani, came out with a group of people to protest.  From the various signs it wasn't exactly clear they were protesting, but a weird interview on the local news helped clarify some of it.

Basically the King-guy was protesting the use of state funds to maintain the monuments.  His argument was that taxpayer money shouldn't be used to fund something that promoted slavery and that the-south-had-lost-and-really-we-don't-need-these-monuments-anyway.  In the interview, the guy sounded like he was on drugs with rambling inaccuracies and slurred speech.  That was unfortunate because the style of his interviews took away from his message - which was one that many people could identify with and legitimate questions.  The NAACP quickly gave his interviews and did the photo-ops and was probably gone in 15 minutes while the rest of protesters remained.

And that was the really weird part.  I would have expected the protesters to be African-American leaders in the community and maybe a local celebrity or two.  Imagine my surprise when it turned out to a mix of what appeared to be white college freshmen and 60's-era hippies - and just a single (I am tempted to use the word 'token' here) African-American. Huh?  Was this a subject that reasonable people wanted to discuss or was it just a convenient way to get some TV face time?  Since both sides left in less than an hour, it certainly seemed like both sides were pandering for attention and that the anti-Confederate people, in particular, were creating a conflict where none was intended.

Milling around in all of this were some supporters for both sides and I used the opportunity to talk to some of them, especially the anti-Confederate people, who also happened to be white.  The story was pretty much the same for them:  "I hate racism and if you don't agree with me on all points you must be a racist too."  Oh.  Could some of these in their uniforms just like dressing up in costume or take pride in the service of their ancestors and still be opposed to racism and slavery?  Not judging from the reactions of the anti-Confederates who came across as militant and an air of superiority one typically associates with a liberal arts college professor.  Indeed, I later wondered if the kids holding the signs were part of some professor's class and looking for extra credit.

The next day brought the 'usual' Civil War locals out and this time I was determine to talk to some of them and see if I could get a sense as to whether these guys are a bunch of racist rednecks or if it was something else.  I also talked with some of the family members who hung around and took pictures.  I was pretty direct and asked them if they could see how African-Americans could see their actions as promoting slavery and having racist overtones.  Somewhat to my surprise, some did acknowledge that the Confederate flag and other symbols could certainly be interpreted by others as support for hate and racism.  But they also were quick to point out that they weren't supporting racism, but rather 'heritage' to them.  Some were actually pretty knowledgeable about some of the history things.  Others were less-intelligent and just there as something to do.  "Redneck" certainly springs to mind for some, but I came away with the general impression that the Confederate supporters weren't racist or at least were smart enough to replace it with the ambiguous term of "heritage" - which none of them really explained.

Overall it was another strange twist to living on a street with shrines to Confederate heros.  The Civil War people come across as weird, a little insensitive, but mostly harmless.  The NAACP supporters, to my surprise, came across as more militant and intolerant, but even a lot of that seemed like it was for show and the cameras.  Wonder what next year will bring.