| |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 9:10:32 AM | | Just want to get a bit of historical fact on the record. For decades, presidents of both parties advocated anti-lynching laws; congress passed numerous anti-lynching and other civil rights bills; majorities in the Senate supported those bills. The Southern Democrats using states rights arguments always got just enough support from western Republicans to block the 2/3's majority needed to counter their filibusters. If any of those bills had been allowed to come to a vote the Civil Rights movement of the 60's wouldn't have been necessary. That's why the Senate needs to apologize and not the congress. Aso why anti-lynching legislation isn't needed now. In the 40's and 50's prominent newspapers would run notices of lynchings and school children would be let out to watch it. Murder is taken seriously and federal protection is no longer needed. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 1:03:28 PM |
Still, there should be an anti-lynching law. This post isn't even asking about all the other stuff; just a law against lynching. That doesn't cost anyone any money; unless someone gets lynched... so put away your "We pulled ourself up by our bootstraps" talk and just do the right thing!!!
Laws against murder are unambiguous. We don't need, and never did need, anti-lynching laws. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 6:47:30 PM | | Are we to believe that if "anti-lynching" laws were in effect from 1865 onward, that people would have been prosecuted for them more than a regular murder? I mean, it doesn't make sense to say that if a white southerner committed murder, and it was overlooked because of the white southern law officers and prosecuters, that things would have suddenly been any different. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 6:59:40 PM | | A federal law would have allowed US attorneys to prosecute. The jury loading that went on wouldn't have happened and it would have been tried before federal judges, not state judges. Not every case would have resulted in conviction, but more would have gone to trial and there would have been more convictions than under the egess of state judicial system - which was none. Lynching would have been much rarer if there was a chance of conviction. | |
|
| |
| |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 7:04:48 PM |
They have already been given more free passes and extra help than any other group in the history of our country and I am tired of trying to swallow the crap being forced down by throat for things I had nothing to do with and most certainly didn,t condone.
Well, I'm pretty sure that no one is asking anything of you, so don't worry. And generally I don't consider laws prohibiting violence of one sort or another as something that is "forced down my throat." I certainly never had anything to do with lynching either, yet I'm oddly opposed to it and would be quite happy if it was specifically outlawed. I'm obviously in the minority here, which is alarming... | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 7:06:48 PM | | Halftime, I'm thinking that most cases never even reached trial, because they good 'ol boys would hush it up, or even just turn the other way when it happened. I think that it might have actually had an adverse effect, in that cases that might have been tried, would never see the light of day, because of the threat of federal prosecuters charging into these southern towns and taking over. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 7:08:20 PM | Laws against murder are unambiguous. We don't need, and never did need, anti-lynching laws.
I think there's a bigger picture here that is being avoided with statements like this.
Yeah, well several hundred thousand women were hung or burned alive for being witches, and nobody is apologizing for that. It is true that far more whites have been lynched, just as it is true that far more whites have been, and continue to be, slaves.
It's ok to recognize a problem that doesn't directly have to do with you... it in no way minimizes your own... I don't think it does ANYONE any good to say "well, my problem's bigger than yours, so yours doesn't matter." I just don't get it. It's selfish, unproductive, and, well, I'll leave it at that. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 7:14:33 PM | | GenJackRipper... when I first saw this thread, I thought, "Great topic. This should be interesting." Turns out the tone of it all is just turning my stomach. With the exception of you and picpip (and possibly one or two more, stopped reading after a bit; hard to tolerate) the opinions in this thread make me sad. Very sad. My point: Nice try. Perhaps this is what you were hoping for, but not me. Enjoy. | |
|
Suther
|
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 40 | |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/18/2005 7:18:02 PM |
Lynching would have been much rarer if there was a chance of conviction.
There are psychological theories that would disagree with this. The Contagion Theory and the Convergence Theory and also Collective Hysteria are a few that I can think of. Whether they’re proven or not I’m unsure.
The basic idea behind the theories are that individuals are fueled by each other's emotions and abandon rational thought. (at least that's my understanding)
Whether a law passed then or now, fear of conviction wouldn't have made a difference. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/19/2005 2:17:49 AM | I agree with NittanyLion on this one. I thought this would be a interesting topic, but to see the post that I'm seeing is a a little shocking.
I'm a Young Black male and proud to be one. I don't really care one way or the ther if this law is passed or not. It dosen't really matter if the senate or the US gov. apologizes. Most of us didn't have anything to do with that time anyhows. I mean come on, who the hell today is gonna break in a well secured(most of the time) prison and kidnap a criminal and beat him to death in the middle of a busy road and everyone and the police watching? Its not gonna happen. The focus is that they wanna pass the law now because it should have been done long ago in the first place. It not only would have protected blacks, but whites,Indians, and whoever from unjustified murder. It should be passed because its right!
I don't see how any of the other BS (Civil War,reparations,the southern flag,etc.) has anything to do with the question.
Congress should really just appoint an Apology Committee to listen to people's complaints, and apologize on behalf of the US govt.-Bulldogmedic
I agree with you on that one because the U.S. govt. has done a lot of BS to everyone, but thats another story and another thread.
Peace! | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/19/2005 2:27:22 AM | Have to admit that I skipped a lot of posts in this thread.. Something about racism and intolerance kinda makes me stop reading.
But it seems very simple to me. Considering that the US is pretending to spread Freedom and Democracy(TM) around the world, it looks very hypocritical for there to be no US laws against lynching.
Regardless of whether they're needed or not, can laws preventing the unjustified slaughter of a person be anything but good? | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/20/2005 7:28:14 PM | More laws? More rules? Why does the governemnt need to appologize to everyone for everything? I mean I guess if the majority of the people want it that way, it'll happen. But can't we just learn from history, rather than making them excuses as to why we're so troubled, and now we want reparations, or new laws?
I'm American Indian. "My" land was stolen from me by the "white" man, and my people oppressed. But I don't require an appology. Nor do I want my land back. (and I think it's aboslutely ludacris that the Shinnecocks want the Hamptons).
But if we're in line for appologies here, I'd like one for the message boards on BET.com making me out to be kin to the devil for being white. I'd also like an appology for being made to believe that my skull is less valueable than a black person's.
Well, that IS awfully counter-productive. Maybe I'll just live my life and accept responsibily for my actions, rather than blaming my problems on someting else, and recreating laws because things are too vague. Like Murder isn't clear enough. Define murder, and then make up lynching laws. Or assault. And when was the last time someone broke into a jail or prison and did what to whom?
This is just one more distraction to the bigger picture, in my opinion. I don't want to be made to feel like I'm doing something, or might do something wrong, so there needs to be another law to protect me from myself. And if someone ever lynches me then they'll be convicted of a number of things. From assault, kidnapping, murder, and whatever else "they" can think of. I don't feel any safer with an anti-lynching law. I feel as if I'm giving all my power to this government to tell me exactly what I CAN'T do. Just one more thing. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/20/2005 7:34:11 PM |
I feel as if I'm giving all my power to this government to tell me exactly what I CAN'T do. Just one more thing.
Wow. You can't lynch someone. That's an incredible abuse of government power - sheer tyranny.
Whether you're native american or jewish, racism is still racism. Complaining that the government is taking away your rights by telling you that you can't lynch somebody is just plain disgusting. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/20/2005 8:46:09 PM | Transcript
Senate Issues Apology Over Lynchings
Laura Wexler
Author, "Fire in a Canebrake: The Last Mass Lynching in America,"
Monday, June 20, 2005; 11:00 AM
Between 1882 and 1968, at least 4,700 people were killed by lynching in the United States, according to records kept by the Tuskegee Institute. Last Monday, the U.S. Senate offered a formal apology to the nation's lynching victims and their descendants for having failed to enact anti-lynching legislation. In Sunday's Outlook, Laura Wexler , author of "Fire in a Canebrake: The Last Mass Lynching in America," argues that, while welcome, the Senate's apology was inadequate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/17/DI2005061700990.html?nav=rss_nation/special | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/21/2005 2:43:53 AM |
But if we're in line for appologies here, I'd like one for the message boards on BET.com making me out to be kin to the devil for being white.
BET is not a government agency.
I'd also like an appology for being made to believe that my skull is less valueable than a black person's.
I'm quite sure that no one has made you believe that. Someone else may have said it, but you believe it? C'mon. | |
|
| |
| |
daisie
|
Joined: 9/22/2004
Msg: 49 | |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/22/2005 7:02:07 AM | I have not looked at this thread for about 10 days, but I just noticed that my previous posting has been deleted by someone. Let's try it again, differently, and see what happens:
I find it IMPOSSIBLE to read this thread without laughing considering that it was started (and actively maintained) by a person who selected the screen name that honors a "rapist and mass-murderer".
This person has no problem telling us what "should" be done, and that he hopes other people don't get "dragged down to our levels". Well, the originator of this thread might want to see the hilarity of someone with a rapist/murderer screen name expressing these opinions to everyone on this subject.
The originator of this thread was able to tell me previously that he hopes other people don't get "down to my level". Well, as I said in the deleted posting, I think everyone should take care of their own corner of the world. If we all do what's right in our corner, then that will improve every part of the world. That way we will not need so many REDUNDANT laws, that DO cost money to debate, agree on, and pass. We all make many little, yet important, decisions every day that affect our corner of the world. Simple decisions like...... "Do I think this rapist/murderer should be honored and treated with humor in my screen name?" What if someone's screen name honored the KKK? I am curious what reaction they would get on POF.
Simple behaviors and decisions tell the world a lot, they are powerful, and they can help to clean up your corner of the world...without a single LAW being passed. We do not need more laws...we need to enforce the laws we already have (murder is currently illegal) and we need people to have more respect for all of the diverse groups of the world. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/22/2005 9:26:49 AM | There is no need for a federal lynching law -- first of all, there are laws against homicide and laws protecting civil rights based on the 4th and 14th ademendment to due process. However, if the Senate feels that it is appropriate to address lynching -- a terrible practice that is now thankfully dead -- I'm sure all the politicians will jump on the bandwagon because we live in a world where if you're not for a law to stop something, you're automatically for the practice.
Well, I can tell you that I'm against lynching and I'm also less than luke-warm about the Senate wasting it's time writing laws that make good PR but are in reality redudant and do not solve a contemporary problem.
On a side note -- if you ever want to know if a politician is making an retorical argument -- reverse his or her statement. For instance, if I say I'm for a strong defense, then reverse the statement to I'm for a weak defense. If nobody would ever say the opposite statement, then it's just empty retoric and should be discounted.
So I'm for good schools, economic growth, and I'm against lynchings! Elect me you mindless dolt! | |
|
Home
login 
