TALLAHASSEE — A group of 30 military veterans critical of the war in Iraq hoped to use Tuesday’s Veterans Day parade to call attention to the increasingly deadly conflict but instead found themselves fighting for something much more fundamental.
Members of Veterans For Peace and Vietnam Veterans Against the War were yanked off a downtown Tallahassee street, directly in front of the Old Capitol, while marching in the holiday parade they had legitimately registered in.
As organizers allowed the parade to roll on — including veterans from various wars, several high school marching bands and even a group of young women from the local Hooters restaurant — the anti-war veterans were ordered onto sidewalks…
i’m still trying to figure out why people still use “right-wing” and “left-wing”, when neither group really exists anymore as it used to.
F’r instance -if i am pro-war, pro-gun (and have been on both sides of a barrel), pro-abortion, not christian/jewish/muslim/a-theist, a proponent of personal responsibility, a working stiff, self-employed, lower-middle class, and despise ANSWER, am a registered libertarian, am anti-drugwar, love pre-1987 punk rock… please tell me if i am right or left wing?
There are a lot of us out there who are neither right nor left, just fed up with the reactionary labels from both ends of the spectrum. It’s so very Cold War. It’s time to be really progressive and find some new labels, folks.
Proponent of personal responsibility? As opposed to what?
When the ultra-right wing ideologues dominate all the echelons of our federal government, I have no problem with classifying certain political leanings as being right or left wing. Just because not every person fits into that mold doesn’t mean that the words are meaningless.
True, but they wanted to send a message, and they likely reached a larger audience this way. Though they also wanted to march, and that right was denied them in favor of women from Hooters.
Yeah, there’ve never been any female veterans and even if there were, they’d be old and stuff now. Thank God for Hooters. Gotta’ get that womanly jiggly eye-candy in your veterans parade…
personal responsibility- taking responsibility for one’s actions and emotions, or inactions and lack of emotions, being aware of how ones actions affect other people, digging yourself out of any holes you created for yourself, not placing blame on “them”, “god”, “the State” or anyone else for things that happen to you, not expecting “them”, “god”, or “the State” to offer a hand up or a hand to hold. Not marching lock-step with someone else’s ideology, not thinking the way one’s peers do just because they think that way, making decisions based on facts at hand, and not just your own feelings.
You know, personal responsibility. You need that described?
Aparently someone also needs “social responsibility” described. Too bad I have to work.
The words are meaningless because they help create division and foster the low-grade paranoia that already exists among people who feel marginalized by the government. Derisively calling people who don’t agree with you “Right-wingers” is no different than plastic heads like Rush Limbaugh using “liberals” derisively. It’s name-calling either way, and somewhere, it has to stop. If you think yourself better than the “ultra-right-wing” ideologues, you shouldn’t stoop to their tactics of derisiveness. Rise above and all that.
Pril,
From your comments I would judge you to be in the camp of the right wing. The words that put you there are:
“digging yourself out of any holes you created for yourself, not placing blame on “them”, “god”, “the State” or anyone else for things that happen to you, not expecting “them”, “god”, or “the State” to offer a hand up or a hand to hold”
These are the views of someone who doesn’t believe that society is responsible for the well-being of its members. That only the individual is responsible for oneself. I take it that you don’t believe that there should be a single payer healthcare system. Or Social Security. Or unemployment or disability benefits. Because in all these programs it is the “STATE” offering “a hand up”.
I’m sorry, but anybody who believes these things is firmly embedded in the right wing. You may differ w/ many right wingers on, say, abortion or gay marriage or prayer in school, but if you believe that the goverment (a representative of your society) isn’t responsible for helping it’s citizens. Well, that’s just crazy & I’m glad that I don’t live in your ideal world.
I hope that when you get older & ill that you will not be accepting Medicare/aid. That you will not be accepting SS. That if you become disabled that you will not accept disability benefits. After all, all those programs would be a “hand up” or, dare I say it, a “hand out” from the state.
Jake, :).
If I didn’t know better, I’d be thinking that right-wingers may be feeling increasingly concerned about the ramifications of their name and the face their beliefs present to the public, much as liberals have been feeling about their own for the last twenty-odd years… Hmmm…
So if the State doesn’t exist to serve the needs of people, what is it there for?
They were right to kick these people out of the parade. The parade wasn’t for that purpose. Whoever organized the parade, wanted to do so for a particular reason. What gives this group of Veterans the right to usurp (or hijack) this parade?
These protestors have no right to be there. They have no right to join the parade; the organizers have the right to decide who is in and who is out. There is absoultely no first amendment issue here; there is no censorship issue (note: there is no state action involved, this a private affair).
So what is the problem?
Or is this just another chance for disaffected liberals to point finger and call non-liberals names?
Amy S., my aunt’s a 20-year vet and she is quite old, actually, she’s 80. She never saw combat, but her first job, at 20, was reviewing the dossiers on WW II dead and deciding which bits not to tell the families (head missing, etc.). She never worked for Hooters.
brent i agree completely.
i think it’s a shame they weren’t welcomed in the parade but it’s not unjust that they were kicked out. perhaps it worked out better this way- they got themselves in the paper didn’t they?
They were right to kick these people out of the parade. The parade wasn’t for that purpose.
Tell me Brent, Maggie, what purpose was the parade for, then?
From everything I’ve read, the purpose was to honor America’s vetrans, right? Well, these guys were legitimately vetrans, unlike, say, the local High School marching band or the contingent of Hooters girls.
Certainly the parade organizers had the legal right to bar these folks from participating, but doing so was without a doubt unjust and immoral. In the end, it wasn’t a parade for vetrans, it was a bullshit parade for “people who agree with us politically, whether they served in the military, or just happened to wear a tight shirt while delivering platters of potato skins to leering customers.”
—JRC
Sure, they have the right to throw them out, brent, but let’s understand why they shouldn’t have.
Veteran’s Day isn’t about supporting war, it’s about supporting vets. These were people who served their country honorably and well, and who had registered formally and properly to participate in a parade dedicated to them. The organizers decided that only some vets deserved to be seen and heard, and decided during the parade to remove this group.
You say “Whoever organized the parade, wanted to do so for a particular reason.” The people who organize Veteran’s Day parades do so to honor veteran’s. When you decide to stop doing that, it stops being a Veteran’s Day parade, and just becomes a pro-war parade that happens to be held on Veteran’s Day.
I’m not arguing that this group had a “right” to participate: it was, after all, a private parade. I do, however, think that men and women who have served their country deserve, at the very least, to have their voices heard on the day dedicated to them. They’ve earned that much, if not more.
John I., I hope you know that I was not trying to denigrate female Veterans, living or dead. Only mocking the notion that a waittress in a jiggle-hut has more right to march in a Veteran’s Day parade than a bona-fide Veteran does.
Sorry. :o
Simply reminds of how the VFW fought tooth and nail against Vietnam vets gettings proper benefits (esp. medical) or being allowed to start VFW posts. The VFW has a hard time with the American concept of freedom of speech and with accepting people they see as different, as they saw the Vietnam vets. It’s a shame to see they’re still warring against veterans.
I will condense my response to Adina and JRC into one response since it is essentially the same argument.
The argument is this: the parade was about Veteran’s so all Veteran’s should be allowed to participate.
Surely that isn’t your logic. A veteran who decides to march around naked ought to be allowed in the parade? What about a Vetrean who wants to carry a big sign say, “Don’t support Veterans, We’re all murders”? [Would you allow a misogynist group of women to march in the million mom march? Would you allow white-supremicist black people to prostest in the Million Man March?]
I imagine you don’t mean to imply what your argument does, that is that there ought not be guidelines about which Veteran’s should participate.
Both of you further my argument unwittingly: the parade was TO HONOR VETERANS. That was the purpose. The parade was not for making statements about Iraq.
Now, we know that his group made it explicit prior to the parade that they intend to demonstrate against the current war. Such behavior does not in any way fit into a parade to recognize the sacrafices of vets. In fact, such behavior would DETRACT from veteran’s recognition and try to have the focus put on to the war in Iraq.
If the anti-war veterans wanted to march in the parade without making any statements, I am sure they would have been allowed to.
For the life of me, I cannot see why you would support the inclusion of someone who is there to usurp the parade?
The answer is, I fear, because you agree with them, and would therefore suspend all rational argument in order to support the advancement of your position.
I would bet big money that you would not take any issue if the group that was excluded was a group that wanted to march in support of Bush.
Some people are becoming so intensely (and irrationally) partisan, that they are engaging in acts of intellectual dishonesty.
Does anyone know why my comments are double posting?
Is there any way to delete them user-side if they double post?
[Brent – there’s no way for you to delete comments user-side, sorry. When I notice, however, I’ll delete the extra comments from my side. –Amp
For the life of me, I cannot see why you would support the inclusion of someone who is there to usurp the parade?
The answer is, I fear, because you agree with them, and would therefore suspend all rational argument in order to support the advancement of your position.
Uhhhh I guess you were able to sort your way through that little quandary. Good show.
I would bet big money that you would not take any issue if the group that was excluded was a group that wanted to march in support of Bush.
Funny, you don’t see that much do you?
Thanks, Amy S., we feel the same about women vets and about this parade story.
I love my aunt, she’s my favorite GOP person. She doesn’t like Bush much, though. :)
John I., I’m not suprised. Bush seems to have fewer friends wherever he goes these days. ;)
I’m frankly not suprised that some people come back from war-torn nations with the idea that the best way to support veterans is to not create any more veterans. I guess I don’t see how this can be compared to misogyny or racism or homophobia or the million other strawfolk brent coulda’ pulled from his John Wayne hat.
I guess I’m a bad American. :p
alsis, I did not ever mention that anyone who disagreed with me was anti-American. Because I never mentioned for a second that either side was qualitatively “American,” I do not see why you resort to an ad misericordiam argument. This kind of P.L.O.M. disease (“Poor Little Ol’ Me”) is becoming tired when used by those who are dissenters from our action in Iraq.
Your comment about this particular veteran’s groups justification is well-taken. But THEIR AGENDA is not at issue here. What IS at issue here is whether there is any problem with Group A, who is trying to have a parade for Purpose X, preventing a Group B from being a part of the parade when Group B does not want to be there for Purpose X, but to turn attention to Purpose Y. I haven’t received any cogent response as to why any sane group would allow such a distraction.
And FYI, not analogies are Straw Men.
I asked a simple question by analogy in order to extricate this question from the hyper-sensistive question of Iraq.
I asked, in the abstract, would you allow someone in a parade if their only goal was to disrupt the parade?
I imagine that facially, no one would allow a group to join a parade if they are intending to hijack it. So I imagine, in any other context, you would agree that the parade has the option to exclude groups who are there to cause disruption and detract from the purpose.
Which brings me back to my question which was lampooned earlier… why do people still fight for THIS group’s right to be in it? Because they would sacrafice what they know to be a correct judgement call merely to advance their partisan point.
In response to the “you’re just pissed because you agree with the kicked out vets” thing… No, I’m pissed because I think this is censorship (and it’s censorship whether it’s a “private” issue or a “public” issue; something can be censorship and not have anything to do with the first amendement). Specifically, it’s a censorship of opinion, which I think is morally unjustifiable in any situation.
My girlfriend likes to tell about a Take Back the Night march she attended where a skinhead stood in the middle of the march holding a sign that read “Some Women Need To Be Beat.” Now, do I think that that comment makes him a shit? Yep. Is it offensive? Yep. Is it off-topic from the march? Yep. Would I have been upset if they’d kicked him out of the march? Yes. And I’d also have been upset if a group of misogynists had been kicked out of the Million Mom march or a Klan group kicked out of the Million Man march. If they aren’t being violent, if they aren’t shouting out over the speakers, then let them march.
And yes, I’d be upset if this had been a Veteran’s Day parade in Portland and a group of pro-war vets had been ejected. Because it would be wrong, and its wrongness has nothing to do with politics or political opinion.
Incidentally… Saying that the march was to honour veterans and that these anti-war veterans were trying to take the focus away from honouring vets and putting it on Iraq… That’s a pretty crap argument, to be blunt. Simply put, the anti-war veterans probably believed that they were honouring veterans by protesting the Iraq War. What better way to honour them than to try to get them out of an unjust war? So splitting this into a semantic debate about whether the parade was about veterans or about honouring veterans is ridiculous. The anti-war vets most-likely believed (and their comments support this) they were honouring the veterans (or, rather, future veterans) of the Iraq War.
They weren’t “disrupting” the parade. They were marching along, in line with everyone else, having registered for the parade and paid their dues, not being violent. They were no more “disrupting” the parade than the Hooters girls were by holding up signs or wearing shirts that supported Hooters.
If these vets had been hitting people, marching without registering, marching in the opposite direction, trying to stop the march, shouting down the band, etc., I would see your point. But they weren’t, so I don’t.
Also, while I’m here… Saying that this is a “partisan” thing is a misuse of the word partisan. If someone is opposing something for partisan reasons, that means–or at least carried a heavy implication of meaning that–they don’t care about the issue one way or another except that the issue is supported by their political opponents. Not all political statements, therefore, are partisan because one can oppose a political action for non-political (i.e., moral, philosophical, et al.) reasons.
So no one can definitively say that this march by the veterans was partisan or not, at least not based on the information we have available. The vets could have been marching because they morally opposed the war in Iraq specifically, because they oppose all war, or because they don’t care what the issue is but they’ll hate it because Bush supports it. Whatever. For all we know, half of that group was Republican until March, so don’t dismiss it as a “partisan” thing when it may not be anything of the sort.
Rock on, PDP. Well said.
Furthermore, the removal of this group, I believe, was a deliberate attempt to define “veterans” as “pro-war”. These guys weren’t trying to “hijack” the parade any more than the Hooters girls were trying to force the parade to be pro-boob, or the marching bands were trying to advance their insidious pro-clarinet agenda.
They were veterans, like any of the other veterans marching in the parade, and unless you have some kind of evidence that their presence was more inherently disruptive than the other participants, I have to assume that it was the content of their speech that got them excluded from a parade supposedly designed to honor their commitment to our country.
To me, that’s goddamn nauseating.
—JRC
Bravo PDP. That’s one thing I love about this site, when someone splurts a craptacular argument, I can be more or less assured that someone will tear it down if I can’t at the time.
JRC, I dunno, I for one am pissed off at those damn pro-clarinetists trying to hijack the parade.
PinkDreamPoppies.
If you take a principled position that everything even approaching censorship is wrong, then I at least respect that viewpoint because it is principled. I find it to be silly and radical, but I respect your principled application of it.
Nevertheless, while that may be YOUR view on the matter, I submit that YOUR position is not the position of the vast majority of comments on this matter. Clearly the objection to this is not censorship per se. Obviously the problem with this is the belief, as the title intimates, that there is a “right-wing” attack on Iraq dissenters. So this isn’t about censorship, this is being turned into a right-wing vs. left-wing argument.
That is part of the reason I find this to be such a ridiculous point and was trying to extricate it from the Iraq issue. By changing the nature of the parade and the excluded party, we get to the general issue: should private parades be able to exclude people? I think yes. You think no. That is a fair discussion.
Unfortunately, that is not a discussion we are having.
We are having a “aren’t right-wingers trying to squelch the dissent of lefties?” discussion.
And whilst I agree with your definition of partisan, I think it applies PERFECTLY to this issue. Because unlike yourself, I imagine that most of the people upset over this are NOT mad at censorship per se, but that their dissenting voice is not being given another forum. The big brou-haha is PERCISELY a partisan issue. There is not a moral or philosophical problem. There is a problem because the Left feels like they are being steam-rolled yet again.
And one last point, as to your assertion that the people were “not distracting people and marching in line,” that is CLEARLY WRONG. They were carrying banners promoting their agenda, i.e, DISTRACTING. The article only said half of the group was actually marching along, and others were handing out flyers, IE, DISTRACTING.
JRC:
There is evidence that they were distracting. They were carrying large banners and handing out pamphlets against the war in Iraq. They were there for percisely the reason to persuade people that the war in Iraq is a lie like the Vietnam war. The article makes that clear. That was their intent. If they were being inconspicuous, then how could they achieve their goal to “call attention” to the war in Iraq????
OF COURSE THEY WERE TRYING TO BE NOTICED! That is there stated goal!!!
It is exteremely disingenuous of you to suggest that these people were being peaceful and innocuous. There intent was to be otherwise, and their actions (and the reaction) proved that was not the case.
Look, I am not Pollyanna, and I doubt you are. You and I both know that Vietnam Vets, who enter a parade for the purpose of protesting a war, are not going to be some peaceful member of a parade. So let’s stop kidding ourselves here.
Brent,
I disagree w/ you vehemently over whether this is a complaint about censorship or a complaint about “righties squashing lefties”. It’s both. Was there no one in the parade w/ a pro-war sign? I dunno & neither do you.
Alzo:
If you’re marching in a parade, of course you are trying to attract attention. The question is whether these people were disrupting the other marchers or not. Gee whiz! Holding signs & handing out pamphlets. Did that cause the Hooters gals to stumble and head in the wrong direction? Did the high school band need to stop playing? Handing out pamphlets is no more disruptive than clowns handing balloon animals to kids or tossing beads to the crowd.
Disruptive would be shouting down the band or blocking the path of other marchers. Marching in the correct place, pace & direction while holding signs promoting your position in no way disrupts a parade.
Do we kick people (who paid to be there & are staying in their seats) out of stadiums (private venues) for booing the home team? Now that’s a lot more negative than voicing anti-war sentiments in a parade.
Hell, Hooters brought their agenda into it. They were advertising Hooters. Unless, of course, these were veterans who now work for Hooters and are damned proud of it.
Your argument – and I’m being generous with that term – just doesn’t hold water.
Well, Jake, the water retention capabilites of my argument are a matter of perspective.
To further the argument: if we assume that a particular group IS being disruptive, would you agree that the organizers of a parade have the moral, ethical and legal right to remove them from their parade?
If you would agree to that sentiment, then the argument just becomes a semantic dispute over the qualitative nature of the word “disruptive.” We won’t get very far arguing this because it is a question of judgement. Since I wasn’t there and I am not omniscent (a feature claimed by several here), I will have to rely on the judgement of the parade organizers (since, after all, it would be the organizers call about whether something is disruptive).
However, if you wouldn’t agree they had the right under any circumstances to limit a disruption, we enter a new discussion. I can’t comprehend why someone would not grant the right of private groups to arrange to gather publicly for a specific purpose. It is a constitutional guarentee. I don’t see why you would argue against it.
Alright, I am off.
G’night.
If a group of veterans, marching on veterans day, and carrying a banner reading “Veterans for Bush” while passing out flyers explaining their endorsement, was pulled from our local Veteran’s Day Parade, I would be furious, and so would nearly every single one of my liberal friends.
Would I support the rights of “Veterans for Bush” to march in our local “Children’s Halloween Parade”? Nope. How about “Veterans For Peace”? Nope. Neither of those organizations are made up of children, are in costume, or are relevant to the parade theme. This was not the case here.
Veteran’s Day exists to honor the men and women who have served in the US military, and to exclude certain of them from that honor because you disagree with their political views is beyond low.
As for your obfuscation regarding their “banners” and “flyers”. . .you know, I don’t think I’ve ever been to a parade that didn’t involve banners and flyers. The local high school marching band carries a banner at the front with their name and emblem, the Red Cross passes out flyers with donation information, the VFW carries banners with their Local No.,the SPCA hands out flyers, the Shriners carry banners, etc.
It seems to me that what we’re seeing from you, Brent, is a bit of projection. I’m willing to bet that the only reason you care about this. . .the only reason you’re willing to make up bizarre scenarios and explanations to excuse this behavior, is because you disagree with the marchers politically.
I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I supported the rights of the Nazi Party (a group of people I could hardly disagree with more) to march though downtown Skokie, Illinois, and I would do it again.
Please, tell me some more about how I don’t support free speech for my political enemies.
—JRC
One last thing:
The title does say “right-wingers kick…”
How do we know the parade organizer are right-wingers?
Are we merely assuming that? I don’t see it in the article?
Why can’t they be pro-war lefties?
Why can’t they be anti-protest Marxists?
Why can’t they be anti-Iraq Trostkyites who feel that the point has already been made and doesn’t need to be beaten in the ground?
(Yes, we do exist).
If a group of veterans, marching on veterans day, and carrying a banner reading “Veterans for Bush” while passing out flyers explaining their endorsement, was pulled from our local Veteran’s Day Parade, I would be furious, and so would nearly every single one of my liberal friends.
Well, that would be good if you were that principled.
But I feel fairly confident that the objection would NOT be as vitriolic, and I am fairly certain there wouldn’t be as much objection from so many people.
But you’re free to claim that. I’ll believe when I see it.
Till then,
Nope. Don’t buy it for a second.
“Parade chairman Ken Conroy, a Korean War veteran, said he ejected the anti-war veterans because they were offensive…”
he didn’t say “because they were disruptive” or “because they were a distraction”, he said “because they were offensive.”
therefore it doesn’t seem to me that the issue is whether or not “group A was trying to have a parade for purpose X while group B was there to turn attention to purpose Y”, but that “group A” didn’t like what “group B” had to say so they kicked them out.
whether you agree with the parade organizers or not, lets at least be honest about the events. they were not kicked out of the parade for being “disruptive” but for being “offensive” so the whole “if we assume that a particular group IS being disruptive, would you agree that the organizers of a parade have the moral, ethical and legal right to remove them from their parade?” argument doesn’t have anything to do with what actually happened. sure it’s “an argument”, but if it doesn’t apply why bother arguing it?
xoxo, jared
So, Brent let me make this clear… Because we’re upset that this happened, we’re therefore unprincipled and you don’t believe that we’re genuinely upset on a moral and ethical level instead of on a partisan level? So the degree of upset determines the sincerity of the upset in a way that’s inversely proportional? Huh?
Now, Amp can use whatever topic for this post he damn well pleases, and for Amp this may be a partisan thing, but saying that JRC and Jake and Raznor and others are all upset only because it was anti-war protestors kicked out of the parade and Amp mentioned right-wingers doesn’t exactly make sense.
Oh no, PDP, I’m sure that Brent understands my own motivations and workings of my brain more than I can ever hope to. I’m so thankful he chooses to enlighten me, because simple introspection is just too much for me to handle.
Sorry, but Brent’s arrogant posturing on assuming he knows exactly the motivations behind the argument are so disgusting, I couldn’t let this slide without comment.
If anyone needs me, I’ll be in the angry dome!
10 points to Raznor!
(For slipping in a Futurama reference, of course!)
Quick history lesson, compliments of the US Department of Veterans Affairs:
The holiday currently called “Veterans Day” was originally “Armistice Day”, which commemorated the end of World War I. The act that made Armistice Day a legal holiday in 1938 declared it a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace. The holiday was based on an earlier (1926) congressional resolution recognizing the 11th of November as a commemoration of the end of the Great War, which stated that “it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations”.
So how exactly is it inappropriate for veterans to protest a war in a Veterans Day march?
Ka-ching! Avram gets the prize.
These groups registered with the parade organizers and posted a $10 fee to participate.
The groups are Veterans for PEACE and Vietnam Veterans AGAINST THE WAR.
Exactly how stupid does one have to be not to have understood what these two groups represented prior to the parade.
The Tallahassee Police reported no problems during the parade and the only disturbance was when the groups were removed by the organizers.
You people cannot imagine how embarrassing it is to admit I live in Florida. It gets worse, I was represented in Congress by Joe Scarborough.
When the Democrats were in power people might have suspected that we were backwards and quaint, but our politicians were polite. Now people know for sure and being elected depends on how rude you can be. Compare Bob Graham with Joe and you will understand what I mean.
“P.L.O.M.” diseases ???
Tsk. Typical. Right-wingers have no sense of humor. :p
PDP, you’re in rare form today. :) And thanks to Avram, I now have Paul Simon’s “Armistice Day” stuck in my head.
“…Oh, I’m weary from waiting
Down in Washington, D.C.
I’m comin’ to see my Congressman,
But he’s avoiding me.
Oh, I’m weary from waiting down in Washington, D.C.
Oh, Congresswoman, won’t you tell that Congressman,
How I’ve waited such a long time !
I’ve about waited all I can !
Congresswoman, won’t you tell that Congressman !”
well i’ve certainly missed a lot of the discussion!
a lot of great points are being made(which is why i love visting this site), and yet i must admit, (as someone opposed to the bush administration and the war) i do believe that private parades should be able to exclude people, even when the history of Veteran’s Day justifies their agenda. I agree whole-heartedly with the anti-war veteran’s message, and again- their message would not have been heard by as many people if they weren’t kicked out. If they had been allowed to stay none of us would be having this debate. and yet, i think brent has a good point in that it all comes down to whether or not private parades have the right to exclude people. it seems we (he and i) are the only people who think they do.
MAggie, I agree with you and Brent that private parades have a legal right to exclude people – and so have a few others here.
I disagree, however, that the legal right to exclude people is what “it all comes down to.” Just because someone has the legal right to do something doesn’t establish that they are morally right to do that thing.
I think it’s scummy to hold an event honoring American veterans and then kick out a bunch of veterans who were peacefully marching because you don’t agree with their political opinions. It suggests that the parade was organized in bad faith; it’s not about honoring veterans, as it claims to be. It’s about honoring veterans with “patriotically correct” opinions.
I agree that what the parade organizers did was legal, and should be legal; that doesn’t change my opinion that what they did was scummy, and disrespectful of the veterans they pretended to be there to honor.
while marching in the holiday parade they had legitimately registered in
That says it all. These veterans had registered in the parade. They were not being offensive in any sense covered by law (they were not exposing their bodies, they were not using obscene language).
The comparison with having KKK members at the Million Man March doesn’t work, because the MMM was about the empowerment of the African American community, which is something the KKK opposes.
Anti-war veterans are not opposed to the purpose of Veterans’ Day. Veterans’ Day is about honoring those who fought in our country’s wars. It is not about honoring the wars themselves. I honor those who fight in Iraq; I do not honor the war. There is a difference, and it’s disrespecting soldiers not to discern that.
We are rightly disgusted by the anti-war protesters in the Vietnam era who would spit on the soldiers. We are also rightly disgusted by the continued prosecution of the war by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.
Why is it impossible for these veterans to be honoring their service, and those of their brothers and sisters in arms, while also protesting a war in which we are currently engaged? Why must we support the war in order to support the soldiers who are dying in it?
It is not honoring veterans to tell them that they cease to be “true” veterans once they start opposing a war. It is not honoring veterans to tell them that their opposition to war is offensive and renders them ineligible to march in a parade.
Obviously, the parade organizers had the legal right to remove anyone from the parade. They could have refused to let any Gulf War I vets march, if they wanted to. That doesn’t make it right.
Would the people who are defending the decision to exclude anti-war vets also defend the decision to exclude vets from the Gulf War?
you’re right, Ampersand. i agree that it was scummy.
I think the parade organizers should have kicked out all the veterans and left in the Hooter girls. You know, for consistency.
Bryan, I feel your pain. I used to be represented by JD Hayworth.
Pikers. I was represented by Marion Barry.
A side note:
PG said: We are rightly disgusted by the anti-war protesters in the Vietnam era who would spit on the soldiers. We are also rightly disgusted by the continued prosecution of the war by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.
During Gulf War I, I heard an interview with Barabara Ehrenreich on NPR. She mentioned that she was intrigued by the trope of Vietnam vets getting spit on and had her research staff comb national news papers of the time to document incidences of this happening.
The *only* one they found, Ehrenreich said, is when Ron Kovac (of Vietnam Vets Against the War) was spit upon in Dallas by a woman at the Republican National Convention.
So the spitting thing might well be an urban legend. FWIW.
I’d call it more of a myth. An urban legend is just kinda interesting, and/or a warning. (be careful who you hit on in a bar, if you like having your kidneys) A myth is something that, whether true or not, affects how we think about a situation. It’s true there were many incidents of Vietnam war protestors who were overly disrespectful of veterans (calling them murderers etc. which is notably exceptional since in no other political movement in the history of time had anyone taken it to such an extreme) Spit on veterans is merely an exaggeration of this.
Second time I’m come to this blog, via links at crescatsententia.org, where the curmugeonly clerk posted about this, and i see another fine discussion in the comments section, a real community here, that’s good. I have this plan to set up a .php forum for discussion of memes from those blogs that don’t have comments sections, if any .php-skilled person would like to help. In my newest blog, http://vark.blogspot.com, I’ve suggested the remedy here is breach of contract.
The parade organizers, under Hurley, had a right not to accept the registrations of the peace groups, but having accepted the registrations, they are out of line in not honoring that commitment. Hard to guess which way a jury would see it, so it should settle cheap.
Re “right-wing”, there’s been a lot of discussion of the political compass’s two-variable matrix instead of a one dimentional left-right line,
but i think the compass does a much worse job with that than http://www.lp.org/quiz the world’s smallest political quiz (where i score 100/100, dogmaticly libertarian). If the comments are usually this good, I may be back more often.
– arbitrary aardvark
Slate had a bit on veteran-spitting, which they reposted this week; their take is also “probably myth”; but Ehrenreich’s report is sure interesting.
Donboy, I haven’t read the slate article, but by “myth” in this context, I don’t mean something that didn’t happen, so much as something presumed to have happened that guides social thought on an issue.
For example, one Vietnam myth would be that of veteran with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Although there were many veterans with PTS, there were many without. The reason PTS has taken such s hold in our national conscious is it reinforces the idea that this was an unjust war, and would thus emotionally devastate the soldiers involved in it.
ampersand – i’m with you – pretty dispicable.
“insidious pro-clarinet agenda.”
I KNEW IT! I knew it all along! It’s those insidious clarineters who are trying to subvert our proud, pro-brass tradition! If they are allowed to continue, the sacred institution of Marching Band shall become taken over by reed-playing pansies! If we bend to their demands, what’s next? Flutes? Piccolos?! We shall not be swayed by so-called arguments of “Ensemble playing”. We shall continue to uphold the purity of the Marching Band by ensuring that it remains brass-only!
Ha! I’m such a band geek. Me? I’m a woodwind (Sax) player myself. :P
Pingback: Dru Blood - I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings.
Pingback: En Banc
Pingback: Crescat Sententia
Pingback: En Banc
Pingback: Crescat Sententia
Pingback: Unlearned Hand