Perhaps my most anticipated book of the past few months- when I heard this was published I had to read it. Would say that, for the most part, I found the whole monograph mostly generative and enlightening, albeit also frequently an infuriating read, given both the subject matter as well as some of the book’s bizarre scaffolding/framing. However, it must be emphasized how necessary this history is, how it quite literally provides a long-missing, measured account of a tragedy that up until this point just did not exist, especially to this degree of depth. Additionally, the decision to contextualize the narrative of Greensboro with focus on 70s organizing which never features in narratives around american liberation struggles was personally illuminating, emphasizing the long, unfulfilled aspects of resistance, both with regards to race and class, which have lead us to the present moment. So, even with considerable caveats to the work as a complete story, with a disappointing conclusive arc, this is still immeasurably important scholarship to have.
Speaking to the structural issues, I have to say the choice to open on the minute-by-minute of the shooting before giving any background feels to me like a short-sighted one, especially given that we never really return to these specifics from the grounded perspectives Shetterly uses initially. The closest is the minutiae of the trail, but even there Shetterly is oddly distant from sketching a exact timeline of events? It’s there to parse, certainly, but it’s not as clear as I would expect. More troubling is that we get so much more context about each person’s life after we’ve already “experienced” the massacre. I wish it was a bit more interwoven, in light of just how much detail and background Shetterly employs (one of the text’s positives!)
There’s also the quirk of the prose. Mostly inconsequential but the opening again frustrated me because Shetterly tries much too hard to employ gravitas and it ends up crossing a line for me of editorializing for the sake of it. Sentences like: “The fifty-nine-year-old Eddie related to something in the Weary Willie: An echo of the Great Depression’s tough times that shaped him” and so on. Sorry, I would literally prefer dry, overly-academic language to this kind of storytelling– it is much more exact!
I had additional frustrations with Shetterly’s ultimate treatment of the Klan as a narrative subject; he obviously has little sympathy for them, a step up from Elizabeth Wheaton I suppose, but Shetterfly has less interest in the Klan than this history deserves, choosing very specifically to focus on the (just as important) implication of police and FBI involvement in the massacre. To me, Kathleen Belew’s Bring the War Home becomes a required supplement for understanding how white supremacist organizing capitalized on the domestic murdering of communists with little consequence and the way the entire event spurred fundraising for the trial, as well as just in a general sense for the movement. These guys gave speeches! The closest we get to this is Shetterly mentioning one of the Klan members flaunting autopsy photos he managed to get a hold of, but the way this was illustrative of a larger pattern of behavior was offhanded at best.
Just generally, Shetterly is very shy around the larger context of mercenary anti-communist warfare that white supremacists were involved with, as well as the fact this directly aligned them with the goals of the FBI. Shetterly asks, after detailing the involvement of an informant in the violence against the Freedom Riders: “How much of the twentieth century’s shocking political violence had been caused by the FBI’s repressive tactics, the fear it fanned, and its cultivation of domestic terrorism by secret informants and provocateurs?... it seemed to [Philip Hart] that prevention wasn’t the FBI’s objective, ‘I was too dumb to realize,’ an agonized [Philip] Hart continued, ‘that [Rowe’s] presence there did not prevent violence and indeed, maybe contributed to it” but doesn’t really seem keen extrapolate this to a natural conclusion whatsoever about anti-communism. He keeps it squarely in the context of civil rights and the long partnership between violent southern racism and the law, to the detriment of the black organizers who were targeted by the Klan for being communists! This is especially galling considering the actual outcome of the civil suit: “The issue animating the four in favor of acquittal wasn’t that they believed the Klan or Nazis or even law enforcement to be innocent, but that a significant settlement would give fresh life to communist organizing” and the jury “agreed to find eight defendants… jointly liable for the death of Mike Nathan, awarding his widow $351,000… To the families of Sandi Smith, Bill Sampson, Cesar Cauce, and Jim Waller, the jury awarded nothing.” Mike Nathan was not a communist and he was unarmed, the clear reasoning behind the jury’s decision to provide his widow compensation and not the other families. The book does seem to agree with the lawyers, he presents it as a silver-lining that a jury found officers and Klansmen jointly liable for a crime in Greensboro. But to me this is generally emblematic of the uneasy conclusive arm of the last segment of the book around “reconciliation”.
Shetterly focuses the last chapters heavily on Nelson Johnson, the primary target of the Greensboro Massacre and someone Shetterly was introduced to and knew personally. Later in life Johnson had a pretty significant change of faith which informs nearly all of the conclusions Shetterly comes to about Greensboro. Johnson is quoted thusly: “We are in large part responsible for whatever misunderstanding arose from that phrase, because it was our decision to use that phrase ‘Death to the Klan’ as a slogan” and he not only regretted the use of the term communist but also threatening the Klan at all. “That was wrong… I do apologize for my brothers and sisters who were and may still be Klan or Nazi members”. I have no ill will toward Johnson, who probably had very good reasons for his decision to turn toward religion and soften his rhetoric post-massacre after literal decades of surveillance and harassment. But this, coupled with the over-reliance on the possible “healing” which could have come out of 2020-era city acknowledgement of the massacre and Greensboro's attempt at truth and reconciliation, just feels so out of touch by 2025 on the part of the author. This was published in October! The tide was already past turning!
But, regardless, these misgivings are mostly secondary to the meat of the text; as many problems as I have, once this gets into gear as an actual narrative, it is truly incredible. I love histories that feel shaded with the real weight of time and place and Shetterly is dedicated to infusing the text with the vast history of Greensboro itself as emblematic of the wider black freedom struggle- from sit-ins to riots to the communist attempts at unionization. And the depth of information Shetterly manages to impart during the trial portion really shines, some of my qualms, like his over-novelistic tone, completely disappears and the events are given proper detail/weight. And, more generally, this is doing really important work on the whole, it functions at all points like it is very specifically countering the “outside agitators” narrative which appears in nearly every other mention of the massacre.
Anyway. Other Unused Miscellaneous Quotes:
“The agents gathering in Greensboro all knew that more rode on the GreenKill investigation than the indictments of a few ‘dumb Kluckers’... the crime gave them license to freely investigate the Communist Workers Party”
“The Bureau stopped using the politically charged term subversives and adopted terrorists to emphasize violence rather than ideology”
Some stuff about the comparison between protest and performance: “They were like directors of elaborate, provocative street theater, moving people around their communities in an effort, as the German socialist playwright Berolt Brecht coached, to usher in a new historical reality by making ‘the familiar strange’”
and
“In response [to police and National Guardsmen killing three teenagers who’d been protesting a segregated bowling alley at SCSU], Nelson, his new mentor and collaborator Howard Fuller, and others planned demonstrations in cities around North Carolina. Nelson borrowed three coffin boxes from a Black funeral home, filled them with donated flowers, and fashioned a crude effigy of South Carolina’s governor”
and
“The effort culminated in an elaborate community theater performance. Joyce Johnson presided over a people’s court. Appointed citizen-prosecutors presented evidence… The community solemnly and unanimously convicted Joe Judge, law enforcement officials, and others for murder and conspiracy to avoid justice”
“The president placed Donald Rumsfeld ‘a ruthless little bastard,’ as Nixon called his deputy, in charge of the OEO. Rumsfeld brought along another ambitious young conservative, Richard ‘Dick’ Cheney, as an assistant… Multiracial democracy spreading to an organized base of poor and marginalized people threatened conservatives’ political prospects, which depended on the solidarity of the white majority. If Nixon… could hamstring the OEO and secure votes while doing so, all the better” (average Nixon staffer of racism to consequential war criminal pipeline)