The Truth and Reconciliation Review Committee is recommending that the Greensboro City Council issue the following “statement of regret” in response to the 1979 Klan-Nazi killings:
The city council of Greensboro, North Carolina is strongly committed to human rights and deeply regrets the events of November 3, 1979 that resulted in the loss of five lives and divided a community. We appreciate the work done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Citizens Review Committee and the Human Relations Commission, as well as the great effort of many individuals and organizations to promote healing among the residents of our community by replacing divisiveness with harmonious relationship. We, the city council of Greensboro, North Carolina value the rich diversity of our neighborhoods, celebrate both our similarities and differences as human beings, and pledge its support to the extent of its ability and authority to ensure that nothing like the events of November 3, 1979 ever happen again.
The Truth and Reconciliation Review Committee is a subcommittee of the Greensboro Human Relations Committee. City council will hear a presentation on the recommended resolution tomorrow.
An attachment for council members states that “during the spring of 2008, the Greensboro City Council raised a question about whether the human relations commission was assigned to the 2006 Truth and Reconciliation Report. It is apparent that there are concerned citizens who feel that a response by city government is long overdue.”
As reported here, the Truth and Reconciliation Report was assigned to the human relations commission, but the effort was temporarily shelved in late 2007 when the human relations commission launched a collaboration with the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro and the UNCG Center for Youth, Family and Community Partnerships called Impact Greensboro.
The Truth and Reconciliation Review Committee also recommends “assist[ing] in the city’s healing process” by
• “Instituting a practice of transparency” through community-wide forums that “include residents from all income levels;
• Posing documents about 1979 killings and the truth process and on the city’s website;
• Ensuring equal police protection across all geographic areas of the city;
• Providing accurate information on controversial subjects such as immigration, race and sexual orientation; and
• Assisting residents “who are under-privileged, under-served and under-represented” with housing, employment and job training, and providing them with a means to be heard by council.
9 comments:
Why in the world are they doing this, the CWP went there with larceny in thier hearts and fired the first shots!
Anonymous, what exactly do you mean by "larceny in their hearts"?
"Ensuring equal police protection across all geographic areas of the city;"
What does that mean?
In short, it means that those who live in Ole Asheboro deserve the same police protection as those who live in Irving Park.
The full recommendation reads: "All city residents should feel safe and will have police protection regardless of the area of the city in which they reside. Fair services need to be provided whether one lives in north, south, east or west Greensboro. The residents' feelings of distrust, unfair treatment and poor services were documented in the [State of Human Relations] Report [one of three documents studied by the committee] and require that demonstrated steps be taken to improve relations. Ideas to foster trust can include public forums between city residents and government officials, or city residents and law enforcement personnel. These forums could occur in public facilities as well as private community centers throughout the city."
That still doesn't tell me what it means. I've spent a lot of time downtown, in Glenwood, and in the High Point Road/Lee Street area (and some in Ole Asheboro/MLK area) doing street outreach. I see cops everywhere. But in my neighborhood, on the other side of town, I rarely see a police car. It seems to me that there's more police presence where there's more crime. So, again, what does "police protection" mean? Not the same as "police presence," apparently, so there must be something else they're trying to get at?
Michele, I could ask members of the committee what they mean by "police protection regardless of the area of the city in which they reside" (and maybe one of them will comment here), but I think I already know what they mean. You probably know, too, that the Truth and Reconciliation Report expressed the view that an armed caravan would never have been allowed to drive into a neighborhood in northwest Greensboro and terrorize residents without police interference. I take your point to be that police resources are more heavily allocated to the very areas of the city where some feel there is not equal protection. So where do we take this discussion from here?
I just think it needs to be worded in a meaningful way if they're going to ask the City to support it. The way it's worded now, one could argue that affluent areas of town are actually receiving less police protection, and I know that's not what the TRC folks mean. I just think it needs to be clarified. What does "police protection" mean, and what would that look like, practically speaking, for GPD? If you're asking a police agency to do something, you need to tell them specifically what it is that you're asking them to do, or not do. Make sense?
Point taken. Maybe council members will ask Maxine Bakeman to address your question tonight. Maybe some members of the Truth and Reconciliation Review Committee can clarify the purpose of the recommendation here. I'm not here to argue their case.
No, sorry, didn't mean to put you in that position, either. I just found it to be ambiguously worded, and thought that maybe you'd had further discussions that might give clarity. I hope that Council will ask for clarification.
Post a Comment