A Senatorial atonement for past blocking of anti-lynching bills

[Dauphin]

Lynch them 12!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
Apparantly 12 Senators voted against this law... Unfortunately, we don't have their names since it was a voice, as opposed to roll call vote. But we do know that there were 60 initial cosponsors, plus another 20 cosponsors afterwards, so that means 20 names.

I've got a dollar that says they're all Republicans.

[DRoseDARs]

Here's a post taken from a site that shall not be named because that is irrelevent...

Note: Final, official tallies will probably come later.

21 Senators refused to cosponsor the bill, introduced in Feb

18 signed on at the very last minute. This fact itself is shameful--most Democrats signed on four months ago!

The apology passed by voice vote Monday evening with very few Senators present. Kerry's speech, rebroadcast at least twice on CSPAN2, mentioned the absence of unanimity and lack of a roll call vote, along with continuing deep racial injustices many states continue to perpetuate in voting rights and in education.

The 21 who did not sign consist of 18 Rs and 3 Ds. Most noteworthy were Lott and Cochran of MS, Shelby of AL, Alexander of TN, Cornyn and Hutchison of TX, Voinovich of OH, Grassley of IA, Smith of OR, and Kyl of AZ. They have millions of African-American constituents to whom their failure to denounce a century of Senate complicity in lynching is a slap in the face.

Hatch of UT has very few African-American constituents, but much should be made of his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with Kyl's, Grassley's, and Cornyn's. If anything is a Rule of Law issue, it is Senate complicity in lynching! Are these Senators still continuing to argue for the supremacy of "States' Rights" over the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Fourteenth Amendment?

The complete shameful list of 21 holdout Senators follows. When talk of the "nuclear option" resumes, this list may come in handy should some of the 18 Rs on it dare to try to argue the filibuster is intrinsically racist. At that time, they should be asked, "Then why did you not denounce racist use of the filibuster when you had the chance?"

R-AK Murkowski, Lisa
R-AL Shelby, Richard
R-AZ Kyl, Jon

R-IA Grassley, Chuck
R-ID Crapo, Michael
R-MS Cochran, Thad

R-MS Lott, Trent
R-NH Gregg, Judd
R-NH Sununu, John

R-OH Voinovich, George
R-OR Smith, Gordon
R-TN Alexander, Lamar

R-TX Cornyn, John
R-TX Hutchison, Kay
R-UT Bennett, Robert

R-UT Hatch, Orrin
R-WY Enzi, Michael
R-WY Thomas, Craig

D-ND Conrad, Kent
D-NM Bingaman, Jeff
D-RI Reed, Jack

This list is the difference between the 79 sponsors/cosponsors of the apology (at http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...09:SE00039:... ) and the list of all 100 Senators (at http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...ation/senat... ).

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Et al.

Erm, the black man who was dragged to death behind a pickup a few years ago in Texas doesn't count as a lynching?

I generally think of lynching as an act literally done by a community and given a sort of sanctioned immunity The murder you're referring to was perpetrated by one or two men and they were convicted.

In Virginia several years ago two white men got a black man drunk, placed a gasoline soaked tire around his head and lit it up. Afterwards, while he may have still been alive, they sawed his head off. Ironically a law passed in the 1930s to prevent a recurrence of the Scottsville case kept either of the two men from getting the death penalty. In the Scottsville case several black men were put to death over the murder of one white woman. The law in Virginia states that only one man can receive the death penalty for the murder of one person. In the case above it wasn't possible to determine who administered the coup de grace so the jury could not assign capital punishment to either one.

[Pax]

I don't understand what is being said about the 21 who did not sign. and 12 voted against.
Are you saying that the 21 senators where present and did not sign or away. Away on purpose or other business. It seems like the 12 that voted against the bill would not sign but what about the other 9. Could they have been away when the vote was called. I can't quite pick out which Senators I should be upset with because are not aways present for votes. It's the 12 bad apples in a barrel of 21. I find it surprising and telling that Trent Lott made this list. If he gets(got) reelected then Mississippi has not grown at all. I also see that the two texas Senators are on the list. I find this disturbing as well. I don't know if the Southern Senators just don't want to talk about the past or they refuse to admit that what happened was wrong.

[Ramo]

Twenty-one didn't sponsor the bill (typically, a relatively small number of legislators sponsor a bill). Nine of those 21 voted for it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pax
If he gets(got) reelected then Mississippi has not grown at all.

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.

[Mr. Harley]

Just one question - who here in a High School in the USA was taught about :

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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).

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.

I know I'm still missing multiple other instances. If you were taught half of this in High School, send your teacher a VERY nice retirement present, you are a fraction of the upper one per cent. In fact, how many of you had American History in College and were taught this? While I have a dislike of this kind of thing as a gesture (ever noticed that it’s always done on the cheap without any real monetary damages paid to the surviving family) I must agree that it is better than nothing.

As I’ve oft repeated, the US has done many good things in history. It’s also done some pretty terrible things, as noted above. We are not doing a very good job of teaching our children just how easy it is for any person, including Americans, to participate in group atrocities unless you are very careful. Just ask Ms. England and the other guards.

[DinoDoc]

I can't resist polls.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Just one question - who here in a High School in the USA was taught about :

1) Lynchings and their widespread support.

Yes. Complete with a few pictures of the carnival atmosphere that surrounded them.

2) Genocide.

In general terms yes. Probably not in the detail you'd like but it was mentioned.

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

No, I didn't hear about this one until I got to the University.

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

We didn't learn about the internment of Native Americans but we did learn about the internment of the other nationalities you mentioned.

5) Broken treaties by the US government, primarily with Native Americans.

Yes.

6) The Mexican-American War,

We learned that it was provoked by US actions and a few of the battles but not the other things you mentioned.

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.

No

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.

Yes

[Ned]

The Mexican-American war was a continuation of the Texan-Mexican war that was "continuing" because the Mexican government did not agree to the deal struck by their president, Santa Ana, after he was captured by Houston. "We" hardly provoked anything. At best, we intervened on the side of the Texans after the Mexican government refused to negotiate.

[Ned]

It is interesting that your list, Shawn, does not include the carreer of that noted Indian Killer, Andrew Jackson, who left no Indians alive when he could, and marched the Cherokee off their land after they Supremes ruled in their favor.

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.

[DerSchwarzfalke]

There was no mass internment of Germans or Italians during the Second World War, namely because both communities were white and because there were simply too many integrated into America to intern them. The Japanese of the west coast had the distinct and tragic disadvantage of being a visible minority, and a minority that had been oppressed more or less since stepping off the ship (laws that banned Japanese men from attaining land and citizenship). The sadly ironic thing about the Japanese internments is that only twelve men were convicted of helping Japan on mainland America during WWII -- all of them were white Americans.

There were not similar "internments" during WWI, though there were several reported instances of German-Americans being lynched. And of course there was the Sedition Act that saw Eugene Debs and others put behind bars rather unjustly.

To the point, you are correct. A lot of what you mentioned is not taught in high school. Generally, you have to have a history teacher who majored or minored in history at college to hear any of that stuff. The history teachers with no background in history -- and there are far too many of them -- are the ones who will feed you the same old textbook crap.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Et al.

Erm, the black man who was dragged to death behind a pickup a few years ago in Texas doesn't count as a lynching?

AFAIK, the majority of white Southerners were appalled by the brutal murder at the time. There was no widespread, social condonement of this murder and instead, many expressed disgust.


One of the things that determines if a murder is a lynching, is that it receives widespread, social acceptance or condonement.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Here's a post taken from a site that shall not be named because that is irrelevent...

Note: Final, official tallies will probably come later.

I'm not surprised that the majority of the hold-outs are Republicans.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


What America is SUPPOSED to be about.

I agree. America is all about symbols without substance.