Did Thurmond ever renounce his segregationist past?

[Theophylact]

Not according to Timothy Noah in Slate.

[osprey4]

Oh, Slate, now there's an impartial source.

Did the former Senate Majority Leader on the other side?

[daveleau]

Being from SC...

I'm not sure if he did show remorse or if he just stopped supporting it and moved on. I had always heard that he changed and stated that he was remorseful, but like the media, I could have been tapping into the myth. I don't know for sure and wish there was some way he could prove his stance. He may have changed his stance around the time he changed from being a Democrat/Dixiecrat to being a Republican, but that is only conjecture on my part. All I know is that in my years in SC, he never mentioned this stance and showed no signs of holding onto his racist past. This article is well written and I would like to see proof on both sides as to what he did or did not do, but it is doubtful that any can be raised since the consensus for the last 50 years outside of this article is that he did make a concerted change.

The only thing I don't understand with this article is that it references that NPR segment where he uses a term that at the time was acceptable to both races (not the full n- word but the lesser n-word that has an "e" in it). I don't see why this is brought up since all of America used one of these 2 n words or the c word at the time. Gladly though, we have moved on from this and other segregational issues and the racist problems of America are slowly slipping into history.

[Dputiger]

I'm not sure if he ever formally renounced his segregationist past, but if he didn't, he sure put on a good show. Thurmond, in his later years, hired black interns, pushed for the confirmation of black federal judges, and became known as a supporter of civil rights.

Looking back fifty years its hard to know exactly WHY Thurmond was a segregationist. Not everyone that supported such policies believed black people were truly inferior. You had a class of people, in fact, who opposed segregation on the grounds that it would be too disruptive, anger too many people, and cause far too much chaos / controversy. The thin line between them and the active black-hating segregationist would be that they themselves did not hold any particular dislike for African-Americans at all.

Its a thin line. And frankly, its a lousy policy. But segregation was an extremely complex issue that divided the country far more deeply than issues like abortion do today--and that meant people lined up on ALL sides of the political spectrum with opinions.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Ah ! remorse....hmmm, now what exactly does that mean ?
I've raed too many Psychological Evaluations that read "s/he never showed remorse during the interview".Gee, never saw the Test for "remorse " though, in the Protocol.

Of course remorse can be quite contextual: Remorse is what people sho when they've been convicted and before sentencing".

But then that raises another question, which is perhaps more pertinent: What in "sincerity"?

Truth be told, when I hear about remorse, I often am reminded of Rhett Butler's famous remark, "Quite frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn !"

And when it come down to the nitty-gritty, I am slightly more influenced by what people do rather tan how they felt about it afterwards.

In fact, I give a whole lot more weight to actions than words. Yes, some words are actions--like, "I love you". But if a person really loves you, would the words be what lets you know?

The thing about actions, though, and it is its great advantage: if somebody jumps into a river to save a drowning persons life, or yells at building window-jumper "jump, jump !"-- the one question you dont't have to ask likeyou would about remorse is "Yes, but was it sincere ?"

Albert Camus once remarked about Existensialism that "It teaches us the futility of remorse". I wouldn't go that far--remorse can lead to a change of actions.

But then we would know that wouldn't we, by the actions that ensued.

And I would be more interested in those actions--like a vote in the Senate regardless of its motive--than the ephermeral, the chameleon, the remorse.

MegalosSkylaki

[OuTpaTienT]

To this day I don't think I've ever read an entire post from Doog. I wonder why that is?

Makes two of us.

PS: DoooG has apparently launched a discourse on Remorse and something about Gone with the Wind, though I'm not sure exactly what.

[MegalosSkylaki]

I don't know exactly what "an entire post" is in this context ot why "remorse" should be viewed to be out of context: Have you read the Slate article ? * * Or Dave's statement, "I'm not sure whether [Strom Thurmond] did show remorse.."

But like anybody else I reduce the problem space down to those issues that I view as paramount in the discourse--and proceed from there. If anybody has another take on the the subject, Hey, daDooG DOOG ain't woofing up a holler about it.

But one thing thing this Post Isn't about is me, but about a Slate article on Strom's apology and and whether he actually did show remorse. Like Rhett Butler said....

DOOOOOG

* *"The Legend of Strom's Remorse" by Timothy Noah , in Slate

[MegalosSkylaki]

Yoouse Guys should show Ree-morse


D G
but I was never much good at addition