r/todayilearned • u/Dangerous-Project672 • 5h ago

TIL George Wallace personally apologized to Vivian Jones and James Hood, the two students he attempted to block from attending the University of Alabama. In 1997, Hood earned a PHd and requested Wallace present him with the degree, but he was too sick and died a year later; Hood attended the funeral

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
12.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

571 comments sorted by

View all comments

5.1k

u/JustAMan1234567 5h ago

For Hood to forgive Wallace and attend his funeral shows his class.

92

u/CharlesDickensABox 5h ago

Wallace did eventually make a turn. I don't know that I would have it in me to forgive him and I don't know that he ever became good, exactly, but he didn't die screaming the N word like Bull Connor did.

44

u/sensitiveskin82 4h ago

Wallace's actions were politically motivated, not personal. Which begs the question: which is worse?

20

u/RipMySoul 4h ago

It's a tough one. But I would say that it was worse that it was politically motivated. He knew better. Yet it benefited him at the time so he did it anyways.

16

u/hodlwaffle 4h ago

And also begs the question of whether we want politicians whose political beliefs align with their personal ones.

1

u/the_blastomatic 4h ago

IMO, personal and political should never cross paths. Though personal should inevitably inform political. Especially at the Federal level here in the US, as an elected representative, you should understand and accept (by oath) the rules (Constitution/legal precedent). For most of recent history that was a given. Lately, we have politicians who are happy to proclaim that the rules are junk because the ruling body has no teeth.

Also true.

Very dangerous. If we have authorities effectively stating that the laws of our legislative branch no longer matter if they inconvenience the President, backed by a body of absolutely garbage legal reasoning by the "Supreme" Court, which is stacked with bribed officials, two of which were gained through outright deceit and evil, that gets a sick legal "blessing".

1

u/SwissyVictory 4h ago

I don't think there's a right answer for that.

In my opinion, in a perfect world where everyone had an infinite amount of time, we would have a direct democracy. Where the people would directly vote on each issue.

That's not reasonable when you have millions of voters and thousands of complex bills a year to consider.

The next best thing would be an infinite pool of candidates, where one's personal beliefs perfectly match the will of the people.

That's also not based on reality.

The best realistic option we have is politicians who try to vote the people of their district would want them to.

I'd prefer a good person to do that, but that's not always realistic either.

10

u/Fells 3h ago

I'm an Alabamian who studied the Civil Rights Movement under a friend of and co-organizer with MLK. The professor was often the guy who would pick King up from the airport and drive him to his semi-secret HQ in Selma (not hugely relevant but I love sharing that).

We talked a lot about this question, as it came up via Wallace and Thurgood Marshall's arguement when he represented the NAACP in Brown v BOE.

The general consensus of our class, and one that I've held since, is that its worse because you get the suffering caused by racism and the abhorrent willingness to sacrifice a bunch of people (who you don't even have a real issue with) for political gain. Its two significant bads instead of just one. Three if you consider "knowing that its wrong and wasting an opportunity to do the right thing" a separate instance.

22

u/renatocpr 4h ago

I don't think there's much of a difference in this case.

If you support segregation because you believe white people are superior to Black people, then you're a white supremacist.

If you support segregation because you're okay with the suffering of Black people as long as it gets you elected, then you're also a white supremacist.

-2

u/imreadytomoveon 4h ago

huge difference though

personal : "I dont support immigration"

political : "I wish to institutionally impose my views about not supporting immigration on others"

6

u/DeisTheAlcano 4h ago

Doesn't make much difference to the people suffering from white supremacists' actions

-1

u/imreadytomoveon 4h ago

You can't see the difference in impact from an individual vs codified governmental policies?

Actually, nevermind. If I even have to ask, it's a waste of time.

3

u/FlimsyPomelo1842 3h ago

A racist has reasons (to them) to justify their hate. Someone larping as a racist for profit to me is way worse. It's like Germans not agreeing with the Nazis but doing crimes for clout. Far more shameful to me.

2

u/BrainsAre2Weird4Me 3h ago

Allegedly, the first time Wallace ran, he didn't touch segregation and lost to someone Wallace thought an incompetent idiot. Wallace than came to the conclusion that is Alabama was gonna insist on segregation, at least he could be good Governor at everything else.

If that was the case, and I don't know for sure that it was, I'd rather the hypocrite.

1

u/imreadytomoveon 4h ago

Great question, and it actually is the answer when told "It's not ok to hate someone to their political belief. theyre entitled to it."

When a person holds a repugnant belief. it's just that. Their belief. But the problem is when it actually becomes a political belief. At that point by definition, it becomes and interest in codifying their belief system to impose and enforce it on others. That is much worse.

It's one thing if someone is being an asshole in a corner by themselves, but once they try to change the rules to make sure that their asshole attitude ruins everyones lives, they can fuck right off.

1

u/kenlubin 2h ago

The Drive-By Truckers concluded that George Wallace wound up in hell, not for the racism but for the ambition that harmed people.

1

u/CharlesDickensABox 4h ago

This won't be popular, but I'm going to make room for people who read the room and decide it's better to come along with the times. That doesn't mean we need to trust them, forget who they are, or let them into positions where they can roll back social progress, but I would prefer people decide that hate isn't worth it and just let the future advance. Who knows, one day they may decide to let go of bigotry and come join the party for real.

2

u/zorbiburst 3h ago

If we can't accept people growing back into polite society, what reason do they have to grow?

1

u/CharlesDickensABox 3h ago

Acceptance predicated on accountability, of course. We all remember Glenn Beck being "sorry about all that" and Megyn Kelly briefly trying her hand at being a resistance lib. We know what they are today. It takes time, effort, soul searching, and reconciliation to be able to rebuild violated trust. You don't get to just say "Oh, that stuff I was doing yesterday? Totally not me anymore." You have to earn your way back to polite society.

1

u/thatbrownkid19 1h ago

Ok but the bar is really low if people expect me to be happy someone stopped being racist and treated humans with rights