Skip to main content

Senators insult African Americans

June 28, 2005

BY JESSE JACKSON

The United States Senate recently passed a resolution apologizing for its historic refusal to enact legislation that would outlaw lynching. The first agenda item of the NAACP when it was founded at the beginning of the last century was federal legislation to outlaw that heinous practice. Seven U.S. presidents over 60 years tried but failed to persuade the Senate to ban lynching. Two hundred bills were introduced and three passed the House; all were voted down by the Senate.

As Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana summarized, ''The Senate failed these Americans. If we truly want to move forward, we must admit that failure and learn from it.'' Not everyone agreed. Eight Republicans refused to support the apology -- Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott of Mississippi, Craig Thomas and Michael Enzi of Wyoming, Judd Gregg and John Sununu of New Hampshire, and John Cronyn of Texas. Senate Majority leader Bill Frist ran cover for them, refusing a roll-call vote so no one would have to go on record. Frist's refusal to put the Senate on record makes this apology a sorry one indeed.

Lynching is often portrayed as a fringe activity, terrorist action carried out by zealous racists acting in isolation. That portrait whitewashes the horrible reality: Lynching was generally state-sponsored or tolerated, an instrument of re-establishing political control for whites.

The two major parties cut a deal in 1877 -- the Tilden-Hayes compromise -- to pull troops out of the South and end the post-slavery Reconstruction. Immediately, Southern whites acted ruthlessly to reclaim power and to suppress the newly freed slaves. Violence and state-sanctioned terror ruled the South; lynching was the favored terrorist act. From 1890 to 1960, 4,742 lynchings were documented, but the actual number is far higher. Mississippi -- with two of the senators who refused to apologize -- was at the top of the list.

Lynching was not simply a nighttime practice of men garbed under the hoods of the Ku Klux Klan. Many were foul civic rituals. Many were draped in the garb of religion, taking place on Sunday afternoons after church with entire church congregations as witnesses.

Congress apologized and offered reparations to Japanese Americans for the national shame of clapping a large number into concentration camps during World War II. But Republicans found it hard even to apologize for lynching, much less offer African Americans reparations for the 200 years of slavery and the 100 years of legal apartheid that robbed them of their liberty and of decent pay for their labor.

After the Civil War, freed slaves were promised a mule and 40 acres; the end of Reconstruction broke that promise. Dr. King marched on Washington to redeem the promissory note that had been returned marked insufficient funds. Instead, Nixon offered a conservative alternative -- affirmative action and better education. Investment in schools remains starkly separate and unequal.

Cochran suggested that he needn't apologize because he wasn't involved in lynching. But his family fortunes rest upon the brutal repression of African Americans through slavery and segregation. Now Cochran joins his Senate colleagues in trying to stack the courts with right-wing judges who oppose affirmative action, in cutting programs for the poor while ladling tax breaks and subsidies on the wealthy, and in seeking to undermine the Voting Rights Act that expires in 2007 unless reauthorized by Congress.

Republican strategists keep fretting about how to appeal to African-American voters, as if that were a mystery. It isn't hard. Champion equal investment in education. Lift the minimum wage and provide decent health care for all. Create a full-employment economy so African Americans, too often the last hired, can find work for a change. Make college affordable. Reauthorize the Voting Rights Act to ensure that the right to vote isn't taken away. Support our civil-rights laws, including affirmative action, and enforce them against those who discriminate.

But not only do they oppose that agenda, GOP senators even choke on apologizing for the lynching that terrorized a people and shamed this nation. No wonder African Americans retain a healthy suspicion of these Guardians of Privilege.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I agree. The U. S. Senate wore a hood even in its apology.

It is shameful.

I disagree with Jesse Jackson's count of 8 Senators refusing to co-sponsor the resolution.

I documented 13 in my recent posts by name and State.

I also think his (Jesse Jackson's) indignation with the result of the Compromise of 1977 has a hollow ring to it when STILL urges African America to except temporary protection in the Voting Rights Act.

I am particularly disappointed with the reasoning of offers us characterizing fear as wisdom when he says that to demand permanancy of that protection would invite challenge.

It is far less than I need in a person who says he wants to act in my name.

I am disappointed in Jesse Jackson.

And Junior, as well.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Let me quickly, and completely, separate myself from 'Michael's' words.

His post wasn't there when I began my post, and I didn't look back.

As to what I said:

You apparently did not focus on what I said. When you do you will find that I said: 'I agree.

The U. S. Senate wore a hood even in its apology.

It is shameful.

I disagree with Jesse Jackson's count of 8 Senators refusing to co-sponsor the resolution.

I documented 13 in my recent posts by name and State.

I also think his (Jesse Jackson's) indignation with the result of the Compromise of 1977 has a hollow ring to it when STILL urges African America to except temporary protection in the Voting Rights Act.

I am particularly disappointed with the reasoning of offers us characterizing fear as wisdom when he says that to demand permanancy of that protection would invite challenge.'


In the absence of 'Michael's' post, it will be clear that I was specifically addressing Jesse Jackson's words.

I stand by what I said.

Certainly, I meant it.

PEACE

Jim Chester
It occurs to me that we make an awful lot of allowances for not only Jesse Jackson, but many of leaders, or spokesperson if one prefers, to give us less than we deserve.

It also 'pisses me off' that when they are challenged THEY become indignant that 'one should be so bold.'

THEY become indignant!!!

Speaking of apologies when do you think Jesse Jackson will apologize to us for such shabby stewardship on the Voting Rights Act.

Just to speak of that since it is the subject of his piece.

As the saying goes, 'Don't hold your breath.'

The inclination seems to be that expressing dissatisfaction with an African American 'leader' is to defame that person.

They asked for the job.

They have the responsibility to be held accountable.

Simply being African American does NOT exempt them from the scrutiny of us in whose name they frequently act and speak,

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
It occurs to me that we make an awful lot of allowances for not only Jesse Jackson, but many of leaders, or spokesperson if one prefers, to give us less than we deserve.

It also 'pisses me off' that when they are challenged THEY become indignant that 'one should be so bold.'

THEY become indignant!!!

Speaking of apologies when do you think Jesse Jackson will apologize to us for such shabby stewardship on the Voting Rights Act.

Just to speak of that since it is the subject of his piece.

As the saying goes, 'Don't hold your breath.'

The inclination seems to be that expressing dissatisfaction with an African American 'leader' is to defame that person.

They asked for the job.

They have the responsibility to be held accountable.

Simply being African American does NOT exempt them from the scrutiny of us in whose name they frequently act and speak,

PEACE

Jim Chester


What does any of that have to do with his article?
quote:


yeah....just like people who make up lies about their family as the vistim and make statements that they cannot substantiate and refuse to rebut themselves.....their credibility is out the window and they cannot PAY someone to believe them or take them serious......they would like to be an authority on a topic but lack the academic development or work ethic to be one.........
Revisiting the 'Worst Lynching in American History'
Compiled by the DiversityInc staff
© 2005 DiversityInc.com®
June 28, 2005


Analysis of today's diversity news from The Washington Post, the Village Voice, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, AlterNet.org and more:



Empowered by the Senate's recent apology for failing to pass anti-lynching laws and the conviction of Edgar Ray Killen for his role in the killings of three civil-rights workers, black lawmakers in Georgia are calling for the state to prosecute the killers of two black farm couples in the small town of Monroe in 1946.

Author and political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson calls it "the worst lynching atrocity in American history." It began with violence. Roger Malcolm was jailed for stabbing a white farmer (either because of a money dispute or marital discord, depending on who is telling the story). After being bailed out of jail, Malcolm drove toward his home with his wife, Dorothy, and another couple, George and Mae Murray Dorsey. But they never made it. At least 20 men dragged the two couples from their car, lined them up behind some bushes and fired more than sixty bullets into them.

State officials probably would have ignored the vicious killings, but there was something different about this case. Just a few months earlier, George Dorsey had been discharged from the Army after winning the Bronze Star for heroism in combat. Emboldened by the fight against the Nazis, returning black veterans worked with civil-rights groups to press the government to crack down on racial violence. The NAACP organized a national campaign that pressured President Truman to order a Justice Department investigation. After hearing testimony from 100 witnesses, a jury concluded it could not establish the identities of the killers and closed the case.

More than 50 years later, people believe some of those responsible for the heinous crime are alive. If the Killen case taught us anything, it's that justice delayed is better than justice denied.
I think is is a good article, brief but sincere. I especially liked the paragraph...

"Republican strategists keep fretting about how to appeal to African-American voters, as if that were a mystery. It isn't hard. Champion equal investment in education. Lift the minimum wage and provide decent health care for all. Create a full-employment economy so African Americans, too often the last hired, can find work for a change. Make college affordable. Reauthorize the Voting Rights Act to ensure that the right to vote isn't taken away. Support our civil-rights laws, including affirmative action, and enforce them against those who discriminate."

I've had to rethink my ideas about the apology. I originally thought it was too little, too late. But after reading a post by Jim Chester on another topic, I have to agree that it's better than doing nothing.

Still, I wonder what it says about our culture that we need a law to stop such a barbaric practice. And what about all the other historic forms of tortore and murder used against African Americans? Are they still okay?

I think of something I read once about America being the only culture in history that went from barbarism to decadence without the intermediate period of civilization.


Respectfully,

ChileWillow
yeah Lofton..just try to get over that "Dymally is an illegal" hurdle...try not to be the type of person that tries to be so proud that they actually end up stupid.....when pride no longer has your best interest in mind, it becomes stupidity....in your case the stubborness you have tried to show on issues has rendered you to village idiot status......now don't believe me....but when one says things they cannot substantiate and stick with it in the face of contradicting facts......they have allowed stupidity to win the battle.....and then to hurl a blanket accusation at someone else without stating specifically what they are talking about (in this case it is me being a liar) then they are just plain looney....ask anyone since you think everything I say is a lie......
yeah Lofton..just try to get over that "Dymally is an illegal" hurdle...try not to be the type of person that tries to be so proud that they actually end up stupid.....when pride no longer has your best interest in mind, it becomes stupidity....in your case the stubborness you have tried to show on issues has rendered you to village idiot status......now don't believe me....but when one says things they cannot substantiate and stick with it in the face of contradicting facts......they have allowed stupidity to win the battle.....and then to hurl a blanket accusation at someone else without stating specifically what they are talking about (in this case it is me being a liar) then they are just plain looney....ask anyone since you think everything I say is a lie......" by Kevin41

no good Merv Dymally is just one of many sleazy individuals. The link covers much more than Merv Dymally. Heck, virtually the entire Congressional Black Caucus is just as disgraceful!


******************************

Merv Dymally being Typical, the Typical Black Elected Representatives, are Elected Officials in Name Only!

All elected representatives are sworn under oath to uphold the respective State and U.S. Constitutions. This is most important in any issue of truly warranted redress between a law abiding citizen, and blatant violation(s) of law, by the respective State, and/or U.S. Constitutional protections.

The General:

It is not a new revelation as to the failure of former Congressman, now California State Assemblyman Merv Dymally, 2nd District Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, A.K.A. "Brentwood Burke", the "Baffoon" in former 10th District Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden, carpet-bagging 10th District Los Angeles City Councilman Martin Ludlow, former 10th District Councilman Dave Cunningham, former carpet-bagging living in Oakland but holding political office in Los Angeles no good Assemblywoman Theresa Hughes, Congresswoman Diane Watson, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, etc.,etc., have failed to serve the communities that each of these individuals are sworn under oath and mandated by law to serve.

General and specific published information from multiple sources do exist to show that neither the Black elected leaders, Black lawyers, Black journalists, nor the so-called civil rights groups serve the inner-city:

The General:

The Urban League's campaign to keep blacks down, Black help groups don't really help poor blacks, The Squatter in L.A.s Own Back Yard: Rising Black Poverty, Cartoon and Caption: "We thought you might more easily identify with these names than names like Venice, Watts, Willowbrook, Pacoima, etc....".

The Specific:

Every Black elected official, be it within the State of California and beyond, has been petitioned for redress regarding:

A. The long standing civil suit, Los Angeles Superior Court Case #C895188, filed by Mr. and Mrs. Leon E. Lofton, Jr., against an institution of government, specifically as applied to the Los Angeles Unified School District. The defendants being the LAUSD have already admitted guilt to each and every allegation.

B. The subsequent destruction of law abiding Black families through the illegal break up of the Black family structure for profit, specifically the Mr. and Mrs. Leon E. Lofton, Jr., family unit. Black Social workers, probation officers, and foster care providers, and so-called religious individuals aided and abetted in the destruction of the Mr. and Mrs. Leon E. Lofton, Jr., family unit for profit, and illicit gain.

C. "Theft by Court", a publication that documents the unlawful arrest, unlawful penal incarceration, and unlawful restitution charged to truly innocent young adult Black males.

D. Lack of competent journalism, as strongly evidenced by the erroneous article, "Squatters Arrested at Courthouse", as published by the Los Angeles Sentinel, the so-called largest Black Owned newspaper on the West Coast, which publishes false information about Black people, specifically as it relates to the Mr. and Mrs. Leon E. Lofton, Jr., family unit, which amounts to "Yellow Journalism".

E. Other atrocities that are also of court record.

The General:

Whenever any law abiding U.S. citizen is denied competent representation, the U.S. and respective State Constitutions, give the citizen the right to run for public office, appeal to the general public via petitions, or other forms of communication.

The Specific:

The void that exists in finding competent mandated representation regarding A, B, and D above made it possible for:

F. Leon E. Lofton, Jr., an educator-administrator to run for the 28th Congressional District against 37th Congressional Representative Yvonne B. Burke, and Tom Neddy, a CPA from Culver City. Between the three candidates, 37th Congressional Representative Yvonne B. Burke, is the only candidate who did not live in the 28th Congressional District.

Documented evidence filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by Leon E. Lofton, Jr., to prove that Black elected leaders play games, are truly incompetent, and refuse to honor warranted petitions for redress of a government seriously gone awry allowed Leon E. Lofton, Jr. to run for elected office without submitting a filing fee, by order of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The only additional requirement was in gaining the qualifying signatures of registered voters for his name to be placed on the ballot. Leon E. Lofton, with the support of family, and others in the community who are unsatisfied with the present elected representatives, made it possible for Leon E. Lofton to acquire the necessary signatures to run for elected office.

G. Esther M. Lofton, to run for the 10th Los Angeles City Council District on two occasions, on the platform that city institutions are "elitist and self-serving", and the indictment that the present elected officials, all Black, have failed to competently serve the residents of the 10th Los Angeles City Council District.

H. The Mr. and Mrs. Leon E. Lofton, Jr., family unit to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult the common good.

Any elected official who refuses to serve the law abiding when petitioned for redress for circumstances where government violates the law, is unfit for the duty of elected office holder. Elected representatives by definition are public servants. Public servants serve the people, and not special interest groups, or foreigners, at the expense of the rights of law abiding U.S. citizens. Any elected official who fails to perform the duty as mandated by the sworn under oath of office obligation to perform, is truly incompetent, a misfit, treasonous, and un-American.

Any citizen, naturalized citizen, illegal immigrant, or legal immigrant who holds elected office who fails to perform the duty as mandated by the sworn under oath of office obligation to serve the people, is truly incompetent, a misfit, treasonous, un-American, and has not earned the privileges due a U.S. citizen.

Should this individual be a naturalized citizen, legal immigrant, such an individual remains an illegal immigrant or undocumented, solely because of the tendency to serve foreign interests, at the expense of the rights of law abiding U.S. citizens. U.S. citizenship status is earned by deeds and acting like one, and not by misrepresentations of the essence of what it means to be a U.S. citizen. These individuals, as applied to a no good Merv Dymally, are legal immigrants in name only; their true character is that of an illegal immigrant and/or subversive, first and foremost.

Furthermore it has yet to be published anywhere, when Merv Dymally became a U.S. citizen. In every article it is mentioned that Merv Dymally is a native of Trinidad. Furthermore, when questioned or challenged by his constituency about proof as to if, and when he became a U.S. citizen, Merv Dymally chooses not to come clean with his constituency. Elected officials are servants of the people. Should any citizen question an elected official as to proof of U.S. citizenship status, this should be freely given, even published freely without reservation with respect to anyone who seeks to hold, or run for elected office.

References:

1. Butler, S. M. (1988). The Urban League's campaign to keep blacks down. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, January 29, 1988.

2. Baker, J. (1988). Black help groups don't really help poor blacks. Letters to the Editor. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, February 20, 1988.

3. Anderson, S. (1987). The Squatter in L.A.s Own Back Yard: Rising Black Poverty. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, April 5, 1987.

4. Conrad (1969). Cartoon and Caption: "We thought you might more easily identify with these names than names like Venice, Watts, Willowbrook, Pacoima, etc." Los Angeles Times. March 19, 1969.

5. Los Angeles Times (1974). 3 Candidates Vie for 28th District Congressional Seat. Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1974.

6. Prichard, R. (1987). Candidates bid for hot seat in 10th. Westlake Post City News City Press, April 1, 1987.

7. Keller, D. (1991). A rematch in name only: Holden, Lofton face off for 10th District council seat. Los Angeles Times.

8. The Los Angeles Sentinel (1976). Squatters Arrested at Courthouse. Los Angeles Sentinel, February 19, 1976.

9. Lofton, L.E., Lofton, E.M. (1976). Telegram both wired, and delivered by U.S. mail for redress of serious atrocities that occur in former Congressman Merv Dymally's district.

10. Dymally, M. (1987). Letter by Congressman Merv Dymally addressed to Mrs. Esther M. Lofton, which amounts to an excuse to do nothing but condemn a constituent who petitions his or her elected representative for redress of a government seriously gone awry. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives. April 2, 1987.

11. California Constitution. Retrieved May 2, 2005. Article 1, Sections 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

***********************************************

...any given time, I can step down from expressing this reality, but guess what the message is so clear, and true, that others are also condemning many of these individuals. The individuals expressing this reality are also Black like I am!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

Attachments

Images (1)
  • The_Real_Uncle_Tom's_
If I were you and I thought about Dymally what you do, I would bring that information about him being an illegal forward. That will definitely get a fire lit under his azz...the same with Ms. Burke.


By the way, your people had flaky azz platforms that were vague without measurable outcomes...kinda like your points made in here....you say allot but do not get off of your azz to prove anything to be factual...........now how is someone supposed to take a post serious that has such a potentially damaging accusation without factual proof. I guess you must have worked for the white house when they gave Colin all that false bullschit to tell the world.....wow
It is funny how people will rail on black preachers but never mention preachers in general with their schemes such as Jim and Tammy Fae, Oral Roberts and others....but white is right and black will always give you flack.

The kicker is....no one will talk about W who lied to start a war....defends the WMD and Osama theories like a Lofton (can't prove shit) and has had over 1700 americans killed and used 200 billion dollars that was once a surplus that could have been used for the medical care, food and education the poor need in order to become contributing members of society and create and fund more empowerment zones for inner cities like Lofton lives in......nope....they would rather talk about blacks and the pennies they stole...not the billion dollar Enron and WorldCom types that stole people's life savings and left them broke...and walked away....a black preacher stealing pennies and buying a few houses and doing time is much more important....and fair.......boy oh boy.......house negroes are a special breed.........
Can somebody tell me what difference an apology makes? What is the relevance? Is there a benefit to it?---EbonyRose

Beyond the issue of responsiblity, to the time of the apology, the official position of the United States was that the lynchings of African American-Americans was of no political or social consequence.

The 'apology' wasn't for the lychings, supposedly the 'apology' was for failing to make lynching a federal offense.

This reverses the previous attitude of the United States which was to spit in the face of African America regarding its refusal.

It was far more than simply 'failure'.

The apology publicly acknowledges wrongdoing.


You will notice the talk show industry was very nearly mute.

It was the realization of African America rising.

PEACE

Jim Chester
I do not understand the value of this apology. So they apologize for not coming up with an anti-lynching law, so what. There were laws on the books against murder, right. The fact that those laws meant nothing indicates to me that even had there been an anti-lynching law there still would have been lynchings. Having a law and enforcing it are two different things.
"If I were you and I thought about Dymally what you do, I would bring that information about him being an illegal forward. That will definitely get a fire lit under his azz...the same with Ms. Burke.

By the way, your people had flaky azz platforms that were vague without measurable outcomes...kinda like your points made in here....you say allot but do not get off of your azz to prove anything to be factual...........now how is someone supposed to take a post serious that has such a potentially damaging accusation without factual proof. I guess you must have worked for the white house when they gave Colin all that false bullschit to tell the world.....wow" by Kevin41

...but you are not me, therefore you cannot speak for me. The only reason that misfits are kept in office in the Black community is that Black people choose to keep them there. Any ethical individual does not stand a prayer of a chance.

....Demographic shifts, and redistricting will take care of this problem. The number of Black elected officials who exist today is on a downward spiral, because they are killing off their own posterity, and/or support base to keep them in elected office.

Black people just choose to reward misfits, and condemn others worthy of praise. This reality makes the Black community a very perverted community. Forced taxation without competent representation keeps the Black community in poverty!


...and the Democratic Party through an incompetent elected Black leadershipship is of no benefit to me, and/or anyone within my circle!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
quote:
Originally posted by Q.U.E.S.T.:
I do not understand the value of this apology. So they apologize for not coming up with an anti-lynching law, so what. There were laws on the books against murder, right. The fact that those laws meant nothing indicates to me that even had there been an anti-lynching law there still would have been lynchings. Having a law and enforcing it are two different things.
---QUOTE

Somethings lose substance if they have to be explained.

Clearly, this seems to be one of those 'somethings.'

It could be 'You had to be there.'

And, by the way, there was, and is no federal law against murder.

Like lynching, murder, was considered a State jurisdiction under the 10th Amendment.

The existence of a law was no the issue of the resolution.

The failure to enact one was the issue.


PEACE

Jim Chester

PEACE

Jim Chester
Now, I just want to clear-up just a tiny misunderstanding on those earlier posts about all these white boys being lynched.

Because, you see... the white man, he doesn't get lynched. He gets hanged.

Now, there's a BIG difference you might not see. Because in most cases, 9 times out of 10, the white man's usually done something really nasty to get himself hung.

I know, I know... it's not a pretty picture, but he's usually murdered a whole bunch of people, or he's robbed a bunch of banks, burned somebody's house down, kidnapped some women or kids, stole some money or something else that didn't belong to him, beatup somebody.. well, you get the idea. He gets himself hanged because he's done something really bad.

And they usually don't just take him to a tree. They take him to some hangin' judge and the trial lasts about 7 minutes, they show the evidence, he's guilty and he gets hung.

Or if they're way out in the boonies, miles from any hangin' judge, well, they just have a little impromptu trail with whoever's around. The man's been caught with the money on him, or the guns that killed all the people, or the women and kids... whatever! He's guilty, he admits it, and again he gets himself hanged.

Now the Black man, this is something totally and way different.

He's never broken any laws, just walking along some country road, minding his own business, not bothering nobody and trying to keep a very low profile. He knows he's way down on the social ladder, so far down that if he ever looks up, he can't even see the first rung.

So he's keeping his eyes downcast, not making any eye contact with any whites, and you know... like I said, just minding his own business.

But the trouble is the part I said about being so far down on the social ladder. This makes him fair game for any mean-spirited white folks, mostly men, that had a bad day or their wife wants them to get a job or his boss yelled at him or they can't pay their bills or again... whatever.

Now, one of them alone might be okay...maybe. But you get two or three or more of these good ol' boys together and any Black man better be able to run.

So, if you get a couple or more of these white boys together, add a little whiskey, and because of that social thing I said about being low on the ladder, the Black man walking along on a country road mindin' his own business best be afraid.

Because there's a good chance that if he's unlucky enough to run into these white boys, in a foul mood and liquored-up, he's going to get beat-up or worse, lynched. No judge, no hearing, no evidence... just lynched.

Now wait, hold on, wait just a minute... I know what you're going to say. This is just a stereotyped scenerio. But where do stereotypes like this come from? It's 'cause they happened a lot.

Or, you have a Black man and this "getting uppity" thing. Again, it's related to that social ladder I was talking about.

Like those two Black brothers in 1928 or 1926, or around there, I forget the date. In Alabama, I think. They didn't do anything. Just walked into the local general store together and asked the owner how come he charged Black families more than white families for the same stuff. Seems like a fair question to me.

But the store owner didn't take too kindly to it. Because sometime in the night some men, probably liquored-up again, came with hoods on their heads and lynched those two brothers... both at the same time with the same rope. Ya gotta give it to them white boys, though; when it comes to violence they can be really creative and efficient.

But the grief and the diminished lives. Both of these men were somebodys children, someones husband, someones father, somebodys son. That's a lot of grief to bring into the world. And it doesn't just stop with that night. It reachs down through generations.

Well, sorry for all the preachin'. I just wanted to clear-up this little misunderstanding about lynching. I hope I didn't bore anyone. Just a musunderstanding on words.

Respectfully,

ChileWillow
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
"If I were you and I thought about Dymally what you do, I would bring that information about him being an illegal forward. That will definitely get a fire lit under his azz...the same with Ms. Burke.

By the way, your people had flaky azz platforms that were vague without measurable outcomes...kinda like your points made in here....you say allot but do not get off of your azz to prove anything to be factual...........now how is someone supposed to take a post serious that has such a potentially damaging accusation without factual proof. I guess you must have worked for the white house when they gave Colin all that false bullschit to tell the world.....wow" by Kevin41

...but you are not me, therefore you cannot speak for me. The only reason that misfits are kept in office in the Black community is that Black people choose to keep them there. Any ethical individual does not stand a prayer of a chance.

....Demographic shifts, and redistricting will take care of this problem. The number of Black elected officials who exist today is on a downward spiral, because they are killing off their own posterity, and/or support base to keep them in elected office.

Black people just choose to reward misfits, and condemn others worthy of praise. This reality makes the Black community a very perverted community. Forced taxation without competent representation keeps the Black community in poverty!


...and the Democratic Party through an incompetent elected Black leadershipship is of no benefit to me, and/or anyone within my circle!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton


So in other words...you just want to bitch and moan and not take action....well that is either because you are lazy and want an excuse for your troubles...or the things you say do not have merit....if I was ever that outspoken and adamant about something, I would act out on it....I would be more than "the little mouth that roared"......



Chilewillow,

Thanks for your explanation...it is amazing how some white peoplelike to play dumb and forgetful about their violent, evil azz ancestors...but I betcha if blacks started lynching whites and dragging their azzes behind cars.....their comprehension skills and recollection of the incident would be uncanny.......many of them suffer from cognitive dissonance...where they only see the bad in things when they pertain to blacks......that is the reason why they can fix their mouths to call affirmative action racism while minimizing the reasons why AA had to be developed in the first place....many of them are some silly azz marginally intelligent racists who know they are not schit.....and get their only sense of adequacy by trying to view blacks as less........they represent america at its finest.......
a blurb from JBHE(Journal of Blacks in Higher Education):

EIGHT U.S. SENATORS DECLINE TO COSPONSOR RESOLUTION APOLOGIZING FOR FAILURE TO ENACT ANTI-LYNCHING LEGISLATION

Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing for the fact that the nation's highest legislative body had refused to pass anti-lynching legislation in the early twentieth century. Seven presidents of the United States supported anti-lynching legislation, and on more than 200 occasions anti-lynching legislation came before the Senate. Yet in every case Southern Democrats either bottled up the legislation in committee, filibustered the bills on the floor of the Senate, or used other legislative procedures to prevent the passage of the anti-lynching laws.
Between 1882 and 1968 more than 4,700 Americans were lynched in the United States. A vast majority of the victims were black.

On June 13, 2005, the Senate held a voice vote on the resolution, so there is no official tally on who voted for or against the resolution. But at the time of the vote there were 85 sponsors or cosponsors of the resolution. Only 15 senators "” all Republicans "” declined to affix their names to the resolution as cosponsors. They were: Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), John Cornyn, (R-Texas), Michael Crapo (R-Idaho), Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), John Sununu (R-New Hampshire), Craig Thomas (R-Wyoming).

Senators Bennett, Crapo, Grassley, Hatch, Hutchinson, Kyl, and Shelby later signed as cosponsors on an oversize copy of the resolution, which will go on display.

This turn of events should give pause to any black voters who are considering changing their allegiance to the Republican Party.
quote:



Okaaay.....so the things you want to see changed in life...you do not get off of your azz and facilitate the changes yourself...you just bitch and moan like a child who needs his diaper changed and waits until someone comes along and do it for you....well that is a real progressive and proactive mentality.....well hopefully you will receive the demographic changes that you seek and be left there as the only black (that is another syndrome that is explained in the psychology books) with no black representation..and then you can be happy just like you are on the protest warrior board.......just running off at the mouth about how f-ked up black people are to non-blacks.....I really hope you get what you wished for.....just like the bush supporters....now that they are in a endless war, their jobs are being outsourced, prices and interest rates are headed upward and gasoline prices have skyrocketed...they want to change their opinion of him in the polls....that is what their stupid azzes get.....for trying to be punitive to others.....just like you.......when you laud the praises of your ineffective president.......that is supposed to be a slap in the face to blacks...but it is more to your detrement than it is mine anyday to support him...time will show you what I am talking about....just like it has shown the others.....
Senators Bennett, Crapo, Grassley, Hatch, Hutchinson, Kyl, and Shelby later signed as cosponsors on an oversize copy of the resolution, which will go on display.JBHE (K41)


Thanks for the article. I was not aware of the 12th-hour signatures of the reluctant Senators.

Notably Hatch, Hutchinson, Kyl, and Shelby were on the list or original signers.

The count is still off. It concerns only because I want to know those who refuse.

I'll chase it down.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Senators Bennett, Crapo, Grassley, Hatch, Hutchinson, Kyl, and Shelby later signed as cosponsors on an oversize copy of the resolution, which will go on display.---JBHE

This is just another insult by the way.

This is only a move to deceive.

Signing this COPY of the resolution does not alter the Congressional Record.

Back in the day, 'The O'Jays did a tune called 'Back Stabbers.' The opening line was: 'They're smilin' in your face.'


PEACE

Jim Chester
My earlier point hadd nothing to do with wether there was a federal law against murder or not. The question I was asking was meant to indicate that while there are laws against murder all throughout the country the general inclination not to do anything about these lynchings is indicative of a certain attitude. This attitude suggests that there is no impetus to enforce the laws that are on the books. That being said my question was should we not be upset with this attitude and lack of enforcement instead of being concerned that there was not a law heaped on top of other laws that also would not be enforced
An apology by the U.S. Senate for the terrorist lynchings in this country is 400 years too late. What happened? Is this a delayed reaction or did members of the Senate suddenly get a conscious? It's neither. This dubious apology is disguised as goodwill gesture to initiate the "healing process." However, this is nothing more than a disdainful attempt to stifle and deflect attention off the grand issue of the reparations movement. Nice try, but not good enough.
Exactly, Q.U.E.S.T. and KEYNOTE .... that's exactly what I'm saying! tfro

However, there are some people for which this apology is appreciated. And my question was, Why?

If I am understanding Mr. Chester right, the answer would be, essentially, that the government is finally and publicly acknowledging that it, in past Administrations, did something wrong .. very, very wrong, in fact, and would like to have it recognized that it realizes that and that it is sorry that it happened.

I, personally, consider the gesture a lame one. However, I realize that it is commendable when somebody ... anybody stands up and admits to wrong and takes the responsibility for the wrong they have done. In that way, I guess I can kinda, sorta see how someone could see some satisfaction in this "apology" situation.

Just not me, I guess. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Oh and chilewillow ....

I think that little clarification was most timely and well detailed. tfro

The shame was that you had to explain that to somebody that calls himself a Black man! Eek


EbonyRose,

Thank you! It's not a pleasent thing to talk about, and I know there are always a few exceptions. But the vast majority of whites who were hung between post-reconstruction and 1960 were hung for the commission of a crime or the commission of multiple crimes.

There can be no comparrison between these and the lynching of African Americans. In those times, the laws were written to protect white Americans. African Americans, American Indians, etc. had absolutely no sanctuary.

ChileWillow
Last edited {1}
This attitude suggests that there is no impetus to enforce the laws that are on the books. That being said my question was should we not be upset with this attitude and lack of enforcement instead of being concerned that there was not a law heaped on top of other laws that also would not be enforced---Q.U.E.S.T.

Yes, is the direct to your question.

Your points out the trick of the costruction of our government when always found ourselves caught in. And it is not a cosstruction intended for us.

The many requests were for exactly you direct your question to. The federal government was being asked to 'step in' and supercede the practice of the States, and the authority of those States.

Lamenting the refusal of those does nothing for achieving change.

Overriding federal law would have.

The law that gets that done is The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Passed only after 200 requests in the House of Representatives, and three refusals in the Senate.

Failures deserving of an apology.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:



The many requests were for exactly you direct your question to. The federal government was being asked to 'step in' and supercede the practice of the States, and the authority of those States.

Lamenting the refusal of those does nothing for achieving change.

Overriding federal law would have.

The law that gets that done is The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Passed only after 200 requests in the House of Representatives, and three refusals in the Senate.

Failures deserving of an apology.


PEACE

Jim Chester

I am not sure I can agree with you. There have been many federal laws that meant nothing. There is the whole issue of separate but equal. The deal is passing a law and there being no force behind it (i.e. public will, movements, action etc) the law means nothing. What I see is people saying that well, had the federal government dealt with this things might have been different. I do not agree. Those in the federal government didn't originate there. They come from the states and such being true their attitudes come from those places. Even had there been a law then I suggest there would have been no desire to enforce it. In other words, I am saying that all of this jumping up and down over an "empty" apology seems crazy to me.
I am not sure I can agree with you. There have been many federal laws that meant nothing. There is the whole issue of separate but equal. The deal is passing a law and there being no force behind it (i.e. public will, movements, action etc) the law means nothing. What I see is people saying that well, had the federal government dealt with this things might have been different. I do not agree. Those in the federal government didn't originate there. They come from the states and such being true their attitudes come from those places. Even had there been a law then I suggest there would have been no desire to enforce it. In other words, I am saying that all of this jumping up and down over an "empty" apology seems crazy to me.---Q.U.E.S.T.

I see your point.

You're right of course. There is no assurance, and little history to suggest a real difference would have resulted.

I hope we are not seeking a 'change of heart' in either European America, or European Americans individually.

The day for seeking a 'change of heart' has long since passed.

We, as African American-Americans need to be about the business of estalishing ourselves as a distinct ethnicity, African America, with the American construction.

The apology does two things with doubt:

First: It documents the failure of the Senate thereby establishing and documenting responsbility.

Second: It documents the insult of the thirteen Semators who refused to afix their names to the resolution as co-sponsors.


PEACE

Jim Chester
First: It documents the failure of the Senate thereby establishing and documenting responsbility.

Sure, I give you that.

Second: It documents the insult of the thirteen Semators who refused to afix their names to the resolution as co-sponsors.

Well, I do not necessarily believe that everyone needs to cosponsor any bill. That being said I can understand the thoughts you express here. My issue is that this is all being used as a political thing. The democrats and black leaders are out lambasting the republicans for not signing on. But, it was the Democrats who prevented this from ever taking place (yes I understand that the parties have flip flopped.) What this should be about is lynching not using it as a political tool.
Also, by reminding us of how the parties can switch I think the value of this lies in that it reminds "us" that strict fialty to one party is foolhardy

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×