Diane Nash was one of the marchers at Selma during the civil rights movement, and she came back to Selma this weekend when the famous crossing of the bridge was commemorated for the 50th anniversary of the event.
She wound up making news in another way, however.
You see, she refused to march, because one man was there that she felt went against the spirit of everything that the original marchers tried to stand up for.
Of course, it was not just any man that she refused to march with, but a former president. Usually, people feel honored to be in the presence of someone who figured so prominently in American history and cultural life. But Nash felt that the presence of this man was closer to an insult to the original spirit of the civil rights movement.
"I think the Selma Movement was about nonviolence and peace and democracy and George Bush stands for just the opposite—for violence and war and stolen elections," said Nash.
Indeed, I think that she has a point. The whole country seems to have collectively (and conveniently) forgotten about how horrible a president this man was, and all of the negative things that this man represented. From the illegal and immoral war in Iraq, to stolen elections, an abysmal response to Hurricane Katrina, sinking the economy, and stubbornly imposing economic policies that promoted more economic inequality in the country by favoring the rich over everyone else.
When you remember all of that, it is actually refreshing to realize that some people were not sleeping through it all, only to wake up as soon as Bush was out of office, see how bad things had gotten, and blame the man in the Oval Office at that point. After all, Obama inherited a bad situation that was long in the making, and particularly strong in the prior eight years.
“George Bush’s administration had people tortured, so I thought that this was not an appropriate event for him.
“Back in the 60s, we did not know if nonviolence would work. Now we know that it does, and I think today should have been a celebration of nonviolence.
“It is definitely one of the most significant social inventions of the 20th Century because it provides a way for people to resolve conflict without killing and maiming each other, and I think George Bush’s presence is an insult to me and to people who really do believe in nonviolence.”
George W. Bush was a disaster as president. It started off on the wrong foot right away, with him stealing an election. Like Nash said, it is no stretch to suggest that he represented the very worst elements that have combined to destroy much of what used to be great about the United States - corporate scandals involving controlling the strings of government, government corruption, a clear sense of entitlement by prominent, wealthy families, the deterioration of environmental standards in allowing shameless exploitation of every possible natural resource, an illegal and immoral war, torture, aggression, incompetence, arrogance, and what sometimes appeared to be boastful, willful stupidity.
Surely, there will be some who take offense to what Nash did in refusing to march with Bush. They will surely argue that Bush came in his capacity as former president, and represented the office, and the American government in general. That perhaps she should have taken the spirit of forgiveness and marched as one with a fellow American this past weekend, and put personal differences of opinion away for one day.
However, we should remember that Nash and other true patriots, under great personal risk and danger half a century ago, stood up against armed authority for what they felt was right. They stood up against bigotry, against state-sanctioned violence and intolerance. They stood and marched with martin Luther King, Jr., who himself was offended by a war at the time that he felt was immoral and could not be justified. It is probably no stretch to suggest that the United States was a violent country back then, and these peaceful marchers employed nonviolent methods to hold a mirror to the country and show it's uglier side, in order to allow it to recognize the need for change.
Half a century later, Nash has done it again, standing up against state-sanctioned violence and intolerance, especially represented now by one man: George W. Bush. Not that Bush alone is responsible. But he was the leader, and this became the face of a turn backwards for the country. This is not a minor point, and not something that should be forgotten. It defined the eight years of the Bush presidency, and as patriots, we should all stand together and refuse to accept such a lowering of standards for what is supposed to be the highest office in the land. We could do worse than to learn from Nash's example simply not to forgive and forget. Nash is right: we need to stand up and remind the country of what is right, and to make a stand, even if it seems sometimes that we stand alone. Even if controversial, we need to do our patriotic duty and stand up against what we know is wrong in order to make a clear statement of not simply turning the other way as standards in our country continue to deteriorate.
It goes beyond mere politics, or difference of opinions. Some things are just wrong. Starting a war under false pretenses - a war that cost over 100,000 people their lives, is nothing short of a war crime. Add to that the attempts by the Bush White House to redefine (thus allowing) torture, and the generally anti-democratic spirit of his presidency, which reflected his own privileged values at the expense of everyday Americans, and the question is not so much how Nash could refuse to march with President Bush across a symbolic bridge in Alabama, but how the American people could still figuratively march with President Bush, even knowing everything that they know about him?
Published on Monday, March 09, 2015 byCommon Dreams Original Selma Organizer Refused to March Alongside Bush
Civil rights leader Diane Nash in Selma: ‘I refused to march because George Bush marched’ TRAVIS GETTYS 09 MAR 2015 AT
No comments:
Post a Comment