No tears for Kavanaugh

On Friday Oct. 12, Mark Figly wrote a long dissertation on the death of Emmitt Till and in doing so, made a misguided and misinformed comparison between that death and the Kavanaugh hearings. Only an individual sitting in a seat of privilege could make such a ridiculous assertion.

Mr. Kavanaugh, despite the unpleasantness of his conformation, didn’t have his eyes gouged out, he didn’t have is face disfigured beyond recognition and at the end of the day, he got to go home and see his mother. Furthermore, in Mr. Figly’s comparison, he failed to mention all the others times, during the Jim Crow era, that blacks were lynched, assaulted or degraded sometimes just for the sport of the event or even worse, simply for entertainment.

For that gentleman to expect me to weep in the same way that this country wept for Emmitt Till 60 years ago is insulting on one hand and laughable on the other. He could have mentioned the lunch counter sit-ins, ‘the Freedom Riders,” or the walk for freedom across the Edmund Pettus bridge. He could have chosen to mention the thousands of undocumented lynchings, but chose to only mention Emmitt Till in his false comparison.

No, Mr. Figly, I have no tears for Brett Kavanaugh but I do have tears for you because of your simplistic way of thinking. Rosa Parks often stated that the reason she refused to give up her bus seat was because of what happened to Emmitt Till. Some people become spiritual when they see the light, others become spiritual when they feel the heat. For Brett Kavanaugh, I would think things are growing a little warmer with all that suffering he has had to endure. The next time you write about suffering, why not write about 5-year-old kids in cages instead of a privileged individual with tears running down his cheeks.

Charles Thomas, Lima

Post navigation