The things I've been typing, too, have been kind of interesting. But also kind of depressing. It's about this man's efforts to change the name of one of the Senate buildings because the name after whom it's named was a terrible racist. When that effort didn't bring the immediate desired results, after a year, he switched gears to seeking for an apology from the Senate for not passing anti-lynching legislation in spite of several efforts to pass such a bill. I don't have a lot of experience or understanding about the workings of the government, so this has been educational in that regard, too, but it seems, based on my reading, that the Senate was seriously messed up considering the ability of one senator to block bills through filibustering. I think filibustering laws/rules have changed since that time, so hopefully they're better. But seriously, seriously, that was messed up. To think that one man could basically throw a temper tantrum--though a "mature" version of one-- just talking for hours on end--in order to get his way, well, as I'm indicating, it's all rather childish. Considering my lack of knowledge on the subject, this post might seem a little childish, though hopefully more child-"like," but I seriously hope that laws have changed to make it a lot harder for one hard-headed, hair-brained nut to keep a good bill from passing.
The man for whom I've been doing this typing asked me, after the first batch of typing--last week--if I would collaborate with him on bringing this book about, and I agreed. As I've typed this second half, though, I've been wondering if that was the right decision. It's all rather complicated to know, sometimes, what's really good and what's specious. Reading about the terrible things this man did, and about the terrible things themselves--the lynchings--is all rather depressing. These are terrible, terrible things--is there a word strong enough to describe the horribleness of it?--that people in American history did. If I understand correctly, the man's point in writing is to bring these aspects of our history to more people's attention--for history's sake. On one hand, I can see the value of that. It is good to know even the negative things about our history, isn't it? But why? Before I can move forward with the collaboration, I need to understand the why more clearly, more thoroughly. So we don't repeat it, of course, is one of the standard reasons for history, but I think I need a better understanding than that. Something to help me understand how "If there is anything virtuous lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy" applies to this situation. So that I understand how to present it in a non-hypocritical way--with love rather than hate.
