What’s in a Eulogy? RIP Mrs. King …
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The NewsAll’s fair in war and funerals, at least based upon the political eulogizing that occurred during Mrs. King’s funeral.
What’s in a eulogy?
Apparently for Coretta Scott King, some came not to eulogize her, but took the opportunity to push a particular viewpoint and political agenda.
At times, the remarks turned toward the political, and seemed many times directed at President Bush and the war in Iraq as well as at some of his domestic policies.
Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta said that Mrs. King had spoken out, not just against racism but also about “the senselessness of war and the solutions for poverty.”
Former President Jimmy Carter talked about the nonviolent struggle for justice that the Kings tried to promote, a veiled reference to the war in Iraq. “They overcame one of the greatest challenges of life, which is to be able to wage a fierce struggle for freedom and justice and to do it peacefully,” he said.
He also noted that Dr. King had been the subject of wiretapping by the F.B.I., a reference that recalls the Bush administration’s controversial decision not to seek warrants for eavesdropping on some electronic communications related to the efforts against Al Qaeda.
“It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance,” Mr. Carter, a Democrat, said of the Kings.
The former president also said that if anyone believed that the civil rights struggle was over, “we only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi who are most devastated by Katrina to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans.”
My understanding of the purpose of a eulogy is to speak in high praise of the deceased.
The focus in these politically charged speeches shifted away though from celebrating the life of this woman.
The Rev. Joseph Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Dr. King, was even more pointed in remarks he had put in verse form.
“She extended Martin’s message against poverty, racism and war,” he said. “She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar.
“We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there,” he said. “But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.
“Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor,” he said.
Sorry, Rev. Lowery, but this problem of poverty is a lot more complex than what your words would suggest and spans the watch of both political parties.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 8th, 2006 and is filed under In The News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Perhaps, if you were to consider the life of both Coretta Scott and Martin Luther King Jr., you might better understand the political nature of the eulogies. I believe that Mrs. King would have been happy that this opportunity to reach a large audience had not been wasted. The speakers spoke only the truth of what she fought both for and against during her life. What better way to honor a person’s lifelong mission than to speak of those things which were most important to them at their memorial services?
February 8th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
I look forward to my funeral being used as a platform for self-assured demagods to grandstand and self-righteously browbeat their preceived political nemisis. Nothing says “respect” like being used posthumously like a cheap hooker.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
The legacy of the King family is of using the pulpit as a catalyst for societal change by preaching and railing against the social problems of the day. The church was the clearinghouse for poltical excitation. Why wouldn’t that be an appropriate activity at King’s funeral?
February 8th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
“The focus in these politically charged speeches shifted away though from celebrating the life of this woman.”
This woman’s life was political. Corretta Scott King spoke out against the current war and poverty during her life. I saw a tremendous interview with Mrs. King that was taped about a year ago, and she spoke eloquently against war and against our nation’s ongoing failure to combat poverty. Mrs. King continued to advocate MLK’s dream in today’s political context.
To not mention Mrs. King’s opposition to war, her efforts to draw attention to poverty, her support of non-violent solutions would be to ignore and discredit her life’s works. A proper eulogy could not have been made without mention of the stances that she advocated for decades past MLK’s death, and up to the present.
What did you expect the speakers to talk about? Her favorite television shows and her love for sewing? I’m sorry if Mrs. King’s unwaivering advocacy of non-violence, civil liberties and greater equality makes you uncomfortable, Denise, but failing to mention her 40 year pursuit of these of ideals simply because they may contravene the Bush adminstration’s policies would have been an affront to her.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Ah, more right-wing hackery by the ‘moderate’ Denise.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I’ve never seen Denise profess to be a moderate. I don’t think
I’ve ever seen Justin say he’s a moderate either. I’d say the are both about equal distances from “moderate”.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Most of the statements made no explicit political references. They did not put the blame or solution an a particular political party. Praising someone for their commitment to non-violence and absolving poverty is hardly political in itself. It is the pundits who are making inferences about which party and which administration should be associated with war and poverty.
But if a political person would have wanted the issues she fought for her entire life addressed at her funeral, who are a bunch of pundits and bloggers to say what should and shouldn’t be included in a eulogy?
February 8th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Justin is FAR more towards the center the Denise.
He is willing to call the dem’s out when he disagrees. Denise has never met a right wing talking point she isn’t willing to defend.
Jimmy Carter and Rev. Lowery were personal friends of CSK. I think they know a little better than Denise what she would have wanted.
In fact, I have no idea what the problem is here. I’m pretty confident that CSK got the funeral she wanted, so are you mad the MSM covered it? What’s the problem?
BTW DosPeros: if sounding like an idiot was what you wanted, mission accomplished.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Well, in a way I suppose it’s a sign that moderates have arrived on the political scene, now that we can throw around the moniker “moderate in name only.”
While I have to agree that Denise tends to parrot the GOP line (see footnote) more than I’d expect from a site named “Donklephant,” I also don’t think that resorting to the same techniques that the left and right use to bring their folks into line is going to accomplish anything.
That being said, she’s once again stretching to discredit the left. Wanna guess when George W. Bush said this about Ronald Reagan? “When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its name. There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread the news, tapping to each other in code what the American President had dared to say.” That’s right, it was at his funeral.
What’s the difference between what happened in Atlanta this week and the speeches given at Reagan’s funeral, other than this time it wasn’t the architect of the modern conservative movement? I wasn’t outraged then; I’m not going to be outraged now.
Footnote: I actually don’t read the bylines until I’m finished with a post, mainly because the names are so small. When I’m done, I can say “wow, that was a huge stretch and leap of faith in order to make the left look bad.” Then, I go to the top and say, “yup. Denise wrote that.”
February 8th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Andropov was at Reagan’s funeral? Somehow I missed that.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Oh Rob – its okay. I did think that President Clinton’s remarks were gracious, meaningful and funny.
Denise – everytime a liberal whines & cries & calls names, an angel gets its wings.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Ah, where to begin?
In the debate as to whether Mrs. King would have approved of the insertion of political rhetoric in her eulogies …
Actually, I believe that Mrs. King was striving for the day when behavior transcended politics and the associated pettiness that cloud the real issues and potential solutions.
Instead of sounding the party line, there should have been talk of how to develop true concensus building and take the high road in identifying ways to work in harmony.
Couldn’t the words that were bandied about regarding politics and policy be considered fuel for the continuing war between the political sides?
Quite the paradox, when you consider that to reach a more utopian society there has to be an emphasis upon what we have in common and to build upon that theme.
A more worthy testament to Mrs. King (in my opinion) would have been to speak about what has been achieved for the black community through her efforts and propose how to address the gaps. Proposing to throw $$ alone at the situation, as a fix-all remedy, will not provide the long-term solution that is needed.
When dealing with issues and topics as complex as the ones that were inserted as sound bytes into the respective eulogies, one has to realize the absurdity of such an exercise – it doesn’t achieve a thing.
Rather the more powerful act is to speak simply of the life that was lived and how those who knew her, as public or private figure, was better off by her time on the planet.
Now, as to the question of assigning a label to my political views …
I suppose, just like most things in life, it’s relative :)
Compared to some I could be viewed as being too far to the right, while others would say I’m not far enough to the right. Ultimately the way you assign my political leaning will be based upon your own.
I’d say, no matter the respective leaning, what’s essential is to listen to both sides and acknowledge that there will always be another take on the topic or situation.
The key is in the reaction … first will the objective be to see similarities or difference, second will it be attack or an understanding mode that is engaged?
Ok, before anyone says “diatribe,” I’ll close this particular reply up.
Just wanted to provide some food for hungry minds :)
February 8th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Some may find it enlightening to read MLK’s eulogy for the girls killed in the Birmingham church bombing. He very explicitly talks about Southern Dixiecrats and racist conservative Republicans. I think it’s fair to say that if this was considered acceptable for MLK, neither he nor his wife would be offended by the statements at her funeral.
It’s worth reading just as an example of powerful oratory:
http://www.progressiveaustin.org/mlkulogy.htm
It’s also interesting how pundits are making inferences about what was said, and those inferences become conventional wisdom. To the best of my knowledge, Jimmy Carter simply mentioned that King was wiretapped. This wasn’t a minor thing. It’s a well-known fact that has been referenced many times, and an example of the powerful enemies King had to battle. But the pundits decide it’s all about Carter giving Bush a facial, and suddenly Carter is insulting Bush.
Look at the Washington Post article. Phrases like “in an apparent allusion to the current President Bush’s eavesdropping program” and “his unspoken words seeming to suggest that he wanted to say future president, too” make it clear that the reporters were taking the lazy way out, and fitting everything into their storyline.
I do, however, think that everyone, Democrat and Republican, can join hands and ask, “What the fuck was Michale Bolton doing there?”
February 8th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
And of course, the attorney general who ordered the wiretap on Martin Luther King Jr. was that dyed-in-the-wool Republican Bobby Kennedy.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:48 am
Right, the point about Kennedy has been repeated all over the right wing blogosphere. It just goes to reinforce my point. Jimmy Carter didn’t say anything about Republicans, and he didn’t say anything about the curent NSA scandal. He criticized wiretaps that were ordered by Bobby Kennedy. How does that make him a partisan?
February 9th, 2006 at 2:44 am
What steaming gall!
February 9th, 2006 at 2:46 am
The manners ladies that the Republican National Committee is employing to hissify abou the politicization of Coretta S King’s funeral are a HOOT.
No one on this earth is less in need of lessons on how to throw a funeral than a black southern Baptist minister but Katie O’Bernie (on Hardball with Chris Mathews) insists that manners lessons will help those black people holding a funeral for their mom better themselves.
The Proper Place For Politics in The Funeral: This for the politician who, along with her partner, broke the back of Jim Crow in the southern United States. She needs no lessons. Lord, if I can’t have my say at my own funeral; just tip me over and cover me up.
The Proper Conduct of a Funeral: This to the abovementioned southern black Baptist minister, Bernice King. She needs no lessons. Thanks so much.
“…and if that Stevie Wonder would just improve his diction and do something with his hair he would be welcome in the finest churches in the land.�
Manners Lessons for Jimmy Carter, or was that Southern Lessons for Jimmy Carter?
What steaming gall!
February 9th, 2006 at 10:41 am
There is a time and place for politicizing everything and lambasting the Bush administration with partisan hackery.
A Funeral is not it.
Bush managed to stay on topic, Bill Clinton seemed to get this was a funeral for a woman, but none of the other Democrats did.
You’ve got Jimmy Carter, always the idiot, comparing taps on King to taps on terrorists for international calls.
And then Lowery, who apparently forgot to ask the Kurds about Saddam’s WMD’s. Whoops! The only weapons of mis-direction around here are coming from the Democrats who are more than willing to curb free speech and freedom of expression in order to kowtow to extremists about cartoons.
Oh, and Hillary was there. Apparently they let the race-baiter in, what is it with Hillary and race-baiting from churches recently. Hillary will be president when hell freezes over, as it stands, I’d vote for Rex the German Shepherd/Doberman Pinscher 2008 ticket before I’d vote for Hillary. They’d be lovable, better on defense (Rex is a war veteran), and make more sense.
It was a FUNERAL for RESPECTING THE DEAD, not the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. Save the partisan hackery for later, spineless cowards. If you need to exploit a woman’s death for political gain, you are uncivilized classless morons who should be kept out of power permanently. The Democratic Party: No respect for the living, no respect for the dead, no respect for your rights.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Maybe what went on at CSK’s funeral is none of our damn business. I think that the most disrespectful thing you can do after a funeral is criticize it. What all of you “believe” she would have wanted is hilarious – a bunch of conservatives pontificating about what CSK would have wanted at her funeral.
Also, it seems like lately you guys have really been getting a little out- of- control with the name-calling and nastiness. I’m getting a little tired of it, as I thought this blog was supposed to be a place where we could all engage in a civilzed debate.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Respectfully, the right-wing is trying to turn this into something it is not.
Jimmy Carter does not speak for all Dems. Many Dems respect Carter, but that doesn’t mean that this was a Democratic attempt to gin up contempt for the president. Our Dem leaders had NOTHING to do with this, and anybody who suggests otherwise is being intellectually dishonest and trying to score partisan points.
And by the way, the Wellstone funeral nonsense is a myth and I wish people would stop spreadiing it.
Also, Denise is FAR from a partisan hack. Do note, fellow liberals, that she didn’t accuse the Dem establishment of anything, she simply questioned the forum. I think a lot of Republicans are probably doing the same, even though the noise is coming from the far right-wing.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
I overheard a conversation the other day in my newsroom, which, as you may or may not know, is a passionately Bush-hating place. Those of you on the rightish side of things will say, “media … anti-Bush, well duh!” But some people not on the rightish side of things still don’t accept that such things are so. It’s the kind of place where framed Michael Moore quotes and “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican” stickers hang on the walls and Bush=Hitler screen savers adorn the Dell monitors.
Two editors were describing the scene at Coretta Scott King’s funeral. And all the rhetoric that flowed between the eulogies. And they admitted to having a grudging respect for the way Bush handled himself. When Rev. Lowery went off on his chant, the president sat there and took it. Didn’t bow his head. And afterward he walked right up and shook the man’s hand. (Mind you, I didn’t see the funeral; I’m describing their description of it.)
There’s a manly art to being a power figure and being dressed down in public and reacting with dignity. The political and religious figures engaged in open or thinly disguised bashing at the King funeral gave Bush the opportunity to show whether he had it or not. Call it a case of unintended consequences.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
February 9th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
“Respectfully, the right-wing is trying to turn this into something it is not.”
No, the Dems were trying to turn a funeral into something it is not: a campaign rally. Do the politicizing on your own dime, not at the exspense of a woman’s funeral. You only get ONE funeral, and if someone did that on one of my relative’s funeral, I’d go up and punch the politicizing bastard in the face for disgracing my relative’s one and only funeral with such hack nonsense, regardless of whether I agreed with the point or not. It’s a matter of principle, not content.
“Jimmy Carter does not speak for all Dems. Many Dems respect Carter, but that doesn’t mean that this was a Democratic attempt to gin up contempt for the president. Our Dem leaders had NOTHING to do with this, and anybody who suggests otherwise is being intellectually dishonest and trying to score partisan points.”
Jimbo, “The First Black President”(who to his credit actually remembered this was a funeral for a woman), and Godzillary are no longer considered “Our Dem Leaders”? (Nevermind the fact Bubba walks and the Demos start throwing rice on the ground and kissing the path he walks on)
Thats news to me. The only persons I saw trying to score partisan points were Jimbo, Lowery, and Godzillary.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
February 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Who’s funeral? Coretta Scott King
Who’s rules? Coretta Scott King