Search Southern Heritage 411




Back to the main articles page     

Why Doesn't the Southeast Missourian Want you to Know about This Man?

Saturday, February 17th 2007

Readers of the Missouri Bushwhacker Blog and those in the Southern Movement already know about Mr. Edgerton, but this is exactly the reason why I submitted an Opinion-Editorial to the Southeast Missourian newspaper about him recently.

While people in the Southern Movement know about H.K. Edgerton, there are many more people who know nothing about him. I thought it would be a good idea to tell the public in general about Mr. Edgerton, his ancestry and his fight to help save our heritage.

On February 3'rd, 2007 I submitted an Op-Ed to Mr. Sullivan about H.K. Edgerton, with the following introduction:

"Sir,

In honor of Black History Month, I would like to submit the following Op-Ed about Mr. H.K. Edgerton.
Sincerely,

Clint E. Lacy"

I received the following email in response to my request, from Mr. Sullivan:

"Clint: I think you’ve covered this material in your July 5, 2006 op-ed column “Blacks, American Indians, Jews fought for Confederacy” and your Nov. 11, 2006, letter “Students defend their heritage.”

Joe Sullivan
Editor
Southeast Missourian"

Not to be deterred, I submitted a Letter to the Editor to the Southeast Missourian on February 9th,2007, thinking at least a little information about H.K. to the public would be better than none at all. But this time I chose to not only to expose the Southeast Missourians bias in relation to Mr. Edgerton, but also on several other subjects as well...

"I noticed that in the February 9, 2007 edition of the Southeast Missourian that an Editorial entitled: Black History was published stating that:"When Paxton Williams portrayed George Washington Carver during last summer's Chautauqua festival, he made quite an impression. Thanks to Southeast Missouri State University's events to celebrate Black History Month, Williams returned last week as part of the Multicultural Speaker Series. Five other Black History Month events are scheduled, and they are worthy of the attention of anyone who wants to learn more about the African-American experience in this country."

It is interesting that the Southeast Missouri mentions who they think is "worthy of attention" during Black History Month.

When I submitted a submission about Mr. H.K. Edgerton I received an email from your editor, Joe Sullivan stating that I "had already covered this subject" in July and November of 2006, though he clearly wasn't concerned about "over coverage" of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. last month as the paper published 12 stories on this subject alone.

Mr. Sullivan made it clear to me that he does not consider Mr. Edgerton as a "worthy" subject for Black History Month, however; if you would like to learn more about Mr. Edgerton you can visit his website at: www.southernheritage411.com

The Southeast Missourian has shown overwhelming bias in this subject, the Jetton-Lipke debate, and coverage of Chief Paul White Eagle in the past week alone ; it should be more objective in future publications."

Attempt number two was "no dice" as well. So hoping that the third attempt would be a charm, I once again pounded out another Letter to the Editor to the Southeast Missourian, which was submitted on February 13th,2007. It read:

"This is the third time I have tried to get a submission published in the Southeast Missourian as of late. Maybe three times will be a charm

The first time it was an op-ed about Mr. H.K. Edgerton, a Black Southern Heritage Activist. It was quickly rejected by one of your editors. I guess Mr. Edgerton represents "the wrong kind" of history for the Southeast Missourian.

Since last week I have noticed multiple instances of bias perpetrated by the Southeast Missourian.

The coverage of Chief White Eagle was misleading; however, it probably came as no surprise as the American Indian is used to broken promises. I agree with Joy Bell that, "To suggest that any native group has to prove its legitimacy using documentation from within the white culture is no different than relying on the fox for factual verification about what happened to the hens"

It is no different with Yankees either Mrs. Bell. Our history is written in "blue ink", and Yankees would rather rely on the "fox" than on the facts.

I've also noticed there has been no shortage of anti-Jetton rhetoric either. I supported Jetton's opponent in last year's election, but think he did the right thing by stripping a politically-correct South-hater of leadership power.

Lipke is a liberal, which is why the Southeast Missourian loves him.

In each example of bias I have given it is evident that the Southeast Missourian's loyalties are with the national Republican neocon party, not the welfare of Missouri."

To my surprise on Friday February 16th, 2007, my third attempt was successful. Or was it? This is how it read after publication:

"To the editor:Since last week I have noticed multiple instances of bias perpetrated by the Southeast Missourian.

The coverage of Chief White Eagle was misleading. However, it probably came as no surprise, as the American Indian is used to broken promises. I agree with Joy Bell: "To suggest that any native group has to prove its legitimacy using documentation from within the white culture is no different than relying on the fox for factual verification about what happened to the hens."

It is no different with Yankees. Our history is written in blue ink, and Yankees would rather rely on the fox than on the facts.

I've also noticed there has been no shortage of anti-Rod Jetton rhetoric. I supported Jetton's opponent in last year's election, but I think he did the right thing by stripping a politically correct South-hater of leadership power. State Rep. Scott Lipke is a liberal, which is why the Southeast Missourian loves him.

In each example of bias I have given it is evident that the Southeast Missourian's loyalties are with the national Republican neocon party, not the welfare of Missouri.

CLINT E. LACY, Marble Hill, Mo. "

There was only one thing missing. Did you notice the difference between the Letter that I submitted, and the Letter that the Southeast Missourian published?

H.K. Edgerton was missing. His web address was missing, all traces of him that were found in my original Letter submission were edited out.

Now the inevitable question must be asked; why?

Perhaps the paper thinks it was too controversial of subject to publish during Black History Month;why?

After all, H.K. Edgerton is Black. Does he not have the right to be honored during Black History Month? Do I not have the right to admire him, or tell others about him , so that they may learn more. If not , then why?

Perhaps it is the truth that H.K. brings with him whenever he is asked to speak publicly. Is the public not entitled to the truth? If not then why?

Why doesn't the Southeast Missourian want the public to know about Mr. Edgerton?

Questions,comments? Email them to me at: clintlacy2@yahoo.com