A Senatorial atonement for past blocking of anti-lynching bills

[Kidlicious]

I have to agree with DD on this. This is theatre.

edit: shawn, clean out your PMs

[Kuciwalker]

OK, shawn, since I just took AP US History this year, I'll answer.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
1) Lynchings and their widespread support. To be teaching versus a mention this needs to include Rosewood, FL and Tulsa, OK as well as the better known incidents of the civil rights period. It also needs to include the history of lynchings of other ethnic groups, such as Native Americans and Jews (Google Leo Frank) and the history of anti-lynching legislation - see FDR. Please include burning and maiming of the bodies, collectable and postcard sales, etc. that occured at the lychings.

Yes, though not those specific examples.

2) Genocide. Were you taught about King Philip's War? George Washington's ethnic cleansing/genocide in the Ohio Valley (burn out small village and that winter the women and children do this funny thing - die)? The largest mass hanging in the US in Minnesota during the Civil War? (Native Americans and Minnesota - Google it) The Sand River Massacre? The genocide of Native Americans in California, including widespread "Injun hunting" for sport? Statements of prominent Americans including General Sheridan and Teddy Roosevelt, concerning Native Americans? Statements of early colonials about the Native Americans, i.e. see the Puritans in New England? The Indian "schools" and treatment of Native Americans in those schools, beatings, etc. (some leading to deaths - these were not mild beatings) and the placing of these children into domestic slavery with "deserving" good Christian families.

Yes. Very much yes.

3) The Philippines after the Spanish American War, including atrocities that make Mai Lai look mild.

Yes.

4) Internment of Native American, German, Italian, and Japanese ancestry US citizens during the World Wars?

Yes.

5) Broken treaties by the US government, primarily with Native Americans. The Doctrine of Conquest, recently cited by Ginsberg in the most recent majority opinion in SCOTUS dealing with Native Americans.

Yes.

6) The Mexican-American War, called one of the most unjust wars conducted by the USA by many of the politicians and military men of the time (as in were yhou taught ab out that?) The land rights guaranteed to the original inhabitants of the areas conquered during the Mexican-American War, and how they were abrogated and the land stolen? And how badly treated the inhabitants of those areas were?

Yes.

7) Filibustering, i.e. Southern freebooters in Central America. Plus further interventions in Central America, including military interventions (i.e. killing people) at the behest of US Companies over an extended period of time.

Yes to the latter part, but what does filibustering have to do with it?

8) Multiple interventions in the Cold War supporting "our" strong men against Democratic but not necessarily approved governments - i.e. Iran, Chile, et al.

Yes.

9) US interventions in Asia in the late 1800's. Including support of imperialism in China (i.e. Boxer Rebellion), and the forcing of our trading interests on Japan (Google Commodore Perry).

Yes.

10) US support of or initiation of mass bombing of population centers in WW2. Ned and I had an interesting argument over it, or at least its culmination, i.e. the A-bombs (Ned argued against the A-bombs, by the way). Even if you support those campaigns, which I do, it has some very murky reasoning when you look at the record, similarly to the treatment of terror suspects in today's "War on Terror." If you look at the actual things being said, the US military and government were far from unified on these issues, especially once they knew the war was won and they had become aware of the effects on women and children. Those for the bombings argued very eloquently for their viewpoint, but those who wanted to stop the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, i.e. fire -bombings and the A-bomb, had some excellent points, too. Please note this probably belongs in a college history setting, you are not going to teach this in one hour.

Oddly, we barely covered WWII at all.

[Pax]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm sure we could find other gestures bereft of any real meaning he did participate in if it would help you have a less bigoted view of the state.

I take much offense to your statement. I lived in Ol' Miss for a year and a half. I even shook hands with Senator Lott on one occasion. I have no preconceived notions that everybody in Miss or Lott in particular is racist. I was born and raised down south. I think I am and try to be very open minded when it comes to people and their intentions. Senator Lott's positions as reported by the media make him out to be a racist.

P.S. If you want to call me bigoted please offer something to support your claim. As is, it's frivolous and insulting.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I agree. America is all about symbols without substance.

You're as blind and cold as DD is in regards to this act then.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
It helps combat the popular culture of self-congratulatory history.

By honestly confronting the instances of racial injustice done in the past, we come closer to understanding how we are STILL stuck with racial problems today.

It's a meaningless gesture. The Feds didn't have the constitutional authority to usurp state murder laws, and in the atmosphere of state courts not enforcing their existing laws, Federal district courts in those same states at those times wouldn't have done anything either.

Instead of photo-op political masturbation about "why we still have blah blah problems today" why not just do something about those problems? Oh, because any substantive policy change might have a backlash effect on voters, so let's stick with posturing instead of policy."

Good move, glad you were reeled in by it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
You're as blind and cold as DD is in regards to this act then.

Well, at least I'm not as blind and naive as MrFun.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
But that does raise an interesting issue regarding the Natives. The new history seems to ingore the preceding massacres by the Indians that usually provoked the wars against them in the first place. The new history makes it seem almost as if the Euro's were conducting an unprovoked war of agression against the Natives, when in many, if not all cases, it was the other way around. The violence was in response to Indian raids and massacres.

Which were in turn brought on by white settlers simply taking what they wanted, raping native women, hunting natives for sport, and etc. etc. etc.

[Dinner]

There was a sad pattern to most of the indian wars. White settlers and/or unethical merchants would show up try to take indian land, kill indians to clear room, or cheat indians with substandard goods. The indians would then get angry at their mistreatment and go seek revenge upon white folks but unfortunately the people who originally cheated them were long gone so the whites they took their revenge upon were often innocent people. The survivors then demanded state and Federal forces be brought in to defend them against the "savages". Enter the US Army and the indians get royally screwed.

[mrmitchell]

Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


It's a meaningless gesture. The Feds didn't have the constitutional authority to usurp state murder laws, and in the atmosphere of state courts not enforcing their existing laws, Federal district courts in those same states at those times wouldn't have done anything either.

Instead of photo-op political masturbation about "why we still have blah blah problems today" why not just do something about those problems? Oh, because any substantive policy change might have a backlash effect on voters, so let's stick with posturing instead of policy."

Good move, glad you were reeled in by it.

Yes, it's a photo op that benefits politicians who participated in it.

But that does not also mean that no good can come of this symbolic gesture in encouraging people to face the truth of our history.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Oerdin
There was a sad pattern to most of the indian wars. White settlers and/or unethical merchants would show up try to take indian land, kill indians to clear room, or cheat indians with substandard goods. The indians would then get angry at their mistreatment and go seek revenge upon white folks but unfortunately the people who originally cheated them were long gone so the whites they took their revenge upon were often innocent people. The survivors then demanded state and Federal forces be brought in to defend them against the "savages". Enter the US Army and the indians get royally screwed.

Actually the pattern began with the first day that English settlers set foot upon Virginia soil in 1607. Powhattan's men didn't bother trying to communicate with them, they charged out of the woods in full attack. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending upon your point of view, they were armed only with stone tipped clubs to combat guys with pikes, guns, cannons, helmets and armored breastplates. A few salvos from the ships batteries convinced them to keep their distance for weeks, time enough for Christopher Newport's (not John Smith's) men to erect a fort. Peace between the settlers and the natives was always tenuous at best until the power of the natives was finally broken with an act of mass poisoning that killed 500 warriors.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


Yes, it's a photo op that benefits politicians who participated in it.

But that does not also mean that no good can come of this symbolic gesture in encouraging people to face the truth of our history.

**** symbolism. If there's a problem, address it and solve it. The only purpose of symbolism is to be able to ignore any problems.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
Yes, it's a photo op that benefits politicians who participated in it.

But that does not also mean that no good can come of this symbolic gesture in encouraging people to face the truth of our history.

symbolism in place of substance, just like I said

[chequita guevara]

It's just posutring without real substance. Instead of trying to do something real to help, now they can pat themselves on the back and congradualate themselves for taking a stand against something that pretty much ended forty years ago.

[Ramo]

It is a meaningless gesture, but you have to wonder about those 12 Senators (who certainly have made less worthy meaningless gestures in the past)...