The memory lives on: Charlottesville re-visited

Tom Camfield
Posted 8/14/19

Two years now have passed as I revisit this day that so dramatically illustrated the pandering to the violent nature of white supremacy by Donald Trump—while still among us are many individuals …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

The memory lives on: Charlottesville re-visited


Two years now have passed as I revisit this day that so dramatically illustrated the pandering to the violent nature of white supremacy by Donald Trump—while still among us are many individuals who rise to defend his sociopathic character. Fortunately for the soul of our society there also are a greater multitude of us who will ever ally with Heather Heyer on the virtuous side of history. Many tears have been and will continue to be shed for her. No tears ever will be shed for Donald Trump. That to me helps to illustrate the battle between good and evil.

While savagery lives on, the world lost at Charlottesville a symbol of hope whose Facebook pages were filled with messages of equality and love. Heather worked as a para-legal. In an interview following her murder, her employer told how he had found her at her computer crying many times, having seen something on Facebook or read something in the news and realized someone had been mistreated.

On Friday, Aug. 11, 2017, white supremacist protesters — made up of white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and members of the Ku Klux Klan — brandished torches and marched onto the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville. They surrounded and eventually attacked the counter-protesters whom they met, triggering brawls.

The following day, these white supremacists and their “Unite the Right” militance descended on Charlottesville to protest the city’s plan to take down Confederate monuments, particularly a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee. The demonstrations quickly got violent, as the white supremacists again intimidated and attacked counter-protesters—and then a car, driven by a man with the white supremacists, rammed into counter-protesters, killing Heather Heyer.

After the Charlottesville rioting on Saturday, Donald Trump held a previously scheduled bill-signing photo op. He deigned to utilize that moment also to comment on the chaos in Charlottesville. He said, “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides.” I haven’t been able to determine how long it might have been before he went off to a golf course to ruminate over is personal greatness.

There is much more detail, the nazi-flag-bearing individuals chanting against Jews, the near-fatal beating of a young black man, etc. But it was Donald Trump’s reaction — or lack thereof — that became (and remains) a major story in its own right after he refused to condemn the white supremacists who initiated the riot, initially blaming “many sides” for the hatred, bigotry, and violence.

Several days later, Trump spoke the words that remain etched in history: “You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said.

On April 25, 2019, former Vice President Joe Biden declared his 2020 candidacy for the Democratic nomination and the presidency by recalling the events in Charlottesville and Trump’s comments. "With those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it," Biden said.

I have drawn freely here upon various branches of a free press in putting together my brief remarks—The New York Times, CNN, the Atlantic, etc. As usual, there is no “fake news” (the blithe dismissal of reality Donald loves to proclaim broadly without pursuing detail).

I hope to encounter no further troll-speak on the matter of Charlottesville, but I remain prepared to carry into the future a torch for the late Heather Heyer—for whom I just shed a few more silent tears.


8 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Justin Hale

Tom, here's a link to another free press site that say's your take on the story is, as it is with all the Trump haters and biased MSM, BS.


Thursday, August 15, 2019
Tom Camfield

Sorry, your guy with a web site called "Real clear politics" is no match for the nation's long-standing accepted and reliable media and the Free Press in general.

Thursday, August 15, 2019
Justin Hale

So your biased opinion is supposed to be enough to refute what he says? Oh, I forgot, everything you write is from the Trump-hating partisan Democrat POV.

Thursday, August 15, 2019
Tom Camfield

Who said anything about my opinion? I'm just saying that experienced writers on long-revered media, who know what they're talking about, are more free of bias than some johnny-come-lately who establishes a web site with a supposedly clever title. I document my own comments and opinions from the truly unbiased—who remain such despite the vague "fake news" Donald tosses about in a dismissive manner because he can't stand the truth, even when reporters quote his exact words in their reports. Unable to refute reality, he just bulls ahead—lost in his own vanity.

My own experience in reporting and commenting on major political news goes back to 1958 as a California newspaper publisher, 61 years ago. My knowledge of U.S. presidents goes back to my childhood in the 1930s.

It's true I don't care much for your opinions, and I certainly won't be tailoring my writing to accommodate them. The slow death of our society is crawling over the horizon under Trump—but blinded to it are the complacent who somehow are deluded into believing that Donald is going to maintain their way of life for them.

Thursday, August 15, 2019
Justin Hale

So instead of refuting the Prager report you default to denigrating the source, not surprising. Like the true zealot you walk the righteous path of the true believer and the truth be damned.

"The slow death of our society is crawling over the horizon under Trump—but blinded to it are the complacent who somehow are deluded into believing that Donald is going to maintain their way of life for them. "..... After 3 years of the Trump administration my personal life hasn't changed that much, and I tend to agree with most of his policies, I believe they are good for U.S. If by "complacency" you mean I take issue to the BS the Trump haters spew, then guilty as charged.

For almost three years I have read your btiching and moaning about all things Trump, it would be nice to read about who you do support and why they are a better alternative to Trump.

Thursday, August 15, 2019
Tom Camfield

RIGHTEOUS: "good · virtuous · upright · upstanding · decent · worthy · ethical · principled . . ." You have something against following a righteous path?

Whom do I think would serve better than Trump? Most anyone with a social conscience. You want me to name a few so you can snipe at them? I wouldn't mind a Biden-Warren ticket at the moment. I also wouldn't mind Kamala Harris for president— if she can drum up a little more nationwide name recognition. But we're still 15 months short of election day. So it's largely still just a matter of sitting back and watching Donald make a disgrace out of the presidency.

In any case I'd like to see less militant bullying and more women in our government at the top. Meanwhile, I'd also like to see our Governor Jay Inslee appointed U. S. Energy Secretary or perhaps Secretary of the Interior.

When I say militant, I'm talking about Donald and not our military per se. Although I do think it's way overfunded for starters, while more existential threats to our county are such things as hunger and health. And I'm not opposed to veterans with an understanding of military realities serving in office. I like retired Lt. Col. Amy McGrath. She's a former combat fighter pilot running for the Senate against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. I can't vote for her, but I can financially support her campaign.

Friday, August 16, 2019
Justin Hale



adjective: delusional, characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

That pretty much describes the pathological Trump haters.

I will consider the history of every candidate who runs against Trump, I will not use the Trump-hater tactics, which are half-truths, distortions, and insinuations, name-calling, etc. I am eager to see if the MSM applies the same tactics to the Democrat nominee for POTUS 2020 that they use on Trump.

Anyone who supports sanctuary cities lost my vote. Biden, like a true politician, is waffling on the issue, in 2007 he said he would not allow cities to ignore federal law, earlier this year he said he was against Trump enforcing those laws. I believe Warren and Harris support sanctuary cities, and any candidate who supports giving Medicare to Illegals loses my vote, all three that you mention are in favor of it.

Inslee knows he hasn't a chance of being elected POTUS, he is ignoring his office here in WA. hoping to get a job in the other WA. I'd like to see Jay Inslee voted out of office.

Saturday, August 17, 2019
Tom Camfield

You sort of beat me to it with that definition of Delusional Donald, Justin. I am not, in any case, a scapegoat for the sins of Donald Trump.

In any case, I was talking about your use of "righteous" with which you seemingly complimented me by accident.

In any case, I see some Evangelical Lutherans just came out in favor of sanctuary. Donald probably will try to excommunicate them somehow.

So we're looking at Biden l2 years ago. But if we start looking at Donald's past we're distorting reality? What was he up to in 2007? I'll have to look up just when the South Park 5 scandal occurred, where Donald was taking out newspaper ads urging the death penalty for some innocent teenage boys of color who were accused of rape. The oldest, I believe, was 16. True, it was further back—1989, I believe—but it was illustrative of Donald's ingrained character.

Saturday, August 17, 2019