fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
Leave The Rest of Us Hanging.
Published on June 15, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

the united states senate showed its true pitiful self yesterday when it permitted a democratic minority to prevail in a symbolic gesture and pass a resolution that effectively ended senate tolerance of a tradition dating back to precolonial times.  in so doing, they slammed the door shut,  effectively denying  millions of deserving ameicans any chance of achieving parity with a grossly over-represented--and dismaying ungrateful--ethnic minority group.

42 of the 44 democrats in the senate (in other words, all but two of the scurvy bastards) were joined by a motley contingent of 36 republicans (who leave us no choice but to pity them for their willingness to go along to get along--unlike the 18 who remained steadfast in their opposition) in co-sponsoring sr 39: an apology--an apology mind you--for (of all things) having previously stood up for our right to lynch each other.

as i've already mentioned, this resolution virtually eliminates any chance of bringing back the noose or attaining true racial equality on this endeavor. 

without meaning to make this issue any more inflammatory, i can't in good conscience spare you from seeing the numbers yourselves.

consider for a moment this fact:  blacks make up roughly only about 10-12% of our population.   despite that--as this senate resolution points out--3445 of the 4742 americans  elevated to the order of the noose between 1882 and 1968 were black. 

clearly this is one instance where there's no question  blacks received special consideration totally outta proportion to their numbers.  had all americans been treated equally that number would drop drastically to 521.62.  had that been the case,  fully 4220.38 equally suitable non-black candidates would have been selected to fill the open slots.

i could go on and on, but im just too upset.  so here's the text of this despicable resolution.  you can read it for yourself:  

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 39

Apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 7, 2005

Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. FRIST, Mr. REID, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BAYH, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. DODD, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. STEVENS, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. TALENT, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


RESOLUTION

Apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.

Whereas the crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the ultimate expression of racism in the United States following Reconstruction;

Whereas lynching was a widely acknowledged practice in the United States until the middle of the 20th century;

Whereas lynching was a crime that occurred throughout the United States, with documented incidents in all but 4 States;

Whereas at least 4,742 people, predominantly African-Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968;

Whereas 99 percent of all perpetrators of lynching escaped from punishment by State or local officials;

Whereas lynching prompted African-Americans to form the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and prompted members of B'nai B'rith to found the Anti-Defamation League;

Whereas nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century;

Whereas, between 1890 and 1952, 7 Presidents petitioned Congress to end lynching;

Whereas, between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed 3 strong anti-lynching measures;

Whereas protection against lynching was the minimum and most basic of Federal responsibilities, and the Senate considered but failed to enact anti-lynching legislation despite repeated requests by civil rights groups, Presidents, and the House of Representatives to do so;

Whereas the recent publication of `Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America' helped bring greater awareness and proper recognition of the victims of lynching;

Whereas only by coming to terms with history can the United States effectively champion human rights abroad; and

Whereas an apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate--

      (1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;

      (2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and

      (3) remembers the history of lynching, to ensure that these tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.

      and here are the names of the republican senators who refused to support the resolution, thus recommending themselves to history as being proudly willing to prove that if you give a man enuff rope, hell wind up hanging hisself:

      Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)
      Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
      Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi)
      John Cornyn (R-Texas)
      Michael Crapo (R-Idaho)
      Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)
      Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
      Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
      Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
      Kay Hutchison (R-Texas)
      Jon Kyl (R-Arizona)
      Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
      Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
      Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
      Gordon Smith (R-Oregon)
      John Sununu (R-New Hampshire)
      Craigh Thomas (R-Wyoming)
      George Voinovich (R-Ohio)


      Comments (Page 1)
      3 Pages1 2 3 
      on Jun 15, 2005
      a 'here lemme hoist ya up there'  bump for the states of texas, mississippi, new hampshire, utah and wyoming--states where BOTH republican senators opposed this resolution. 
      on Jun 15, 2005

      And who fillibustered it for over 100 years?

      And who were the sponsors?

      Kind of lame to jump on the band wagon after a century of neglect and fillibustering.  But that is typical of the KKK errrr..... democrats.

      on Jun 15, 2005
      duplicate
      on Jun 15, 2005
      And all this talk that's been going on about the democrats not doing anything to try and get votes in the next election...
      on Jun 15, 2005
      Perhaps they think the victims of lynchings will return from the dead and register?

      Why not? It's not like it would be the first time dead people voted.
      on Jun 15, 2005
      They already HAVE the black vote...


      Yes, they "have" the black vote, but this election showed they are losing it. So now it's time to pander to minorities.
      on Jun 15, 2005
      And what good does it do, apologizing to the victims, its a bit late for that now, isnt it?


      sounds like vintage manson to me.
      on Jun 15, 2005
      And who were the sponsors?
      Kind of lame to jump on the band wagon


      i'll pass your opinion along to one of the sponsors: senator george allen.
      on Jun 15, 2005
      They already HAVE the black vote...


      didn't howard dean just say something similar?
      on Jun 15, 2005
      Why not? It's not like it would be the first time dead people voted


      in the case of some lynchees, trying to vote is what made em dead.
      on Jun 15, 2005
      Yes, they "have" the black vote, but this election showed they are losing it. So now it's time to pander to minorities.


      it's that pandering thing that inspired my article. how unfair is it that whites were so disproportionately deprived of having a crowd take em to a higher level?
      on Jun 15, 2005
      LMAO! I hear some of them even voted TWICE!


      most of the lynchees never voted at all. hilarious.
      on Jun 15, 2005
      kingbee -

      It appears the opinion of at least some blacks is rather the opposite of yours.

      No resolution is offered without a reason (the idiot Rangel's draft legislation comes to mind) and you have to ask yourself, "Why this resolution and why now?" Given your history of healthy cynicism, I'm surprised you've bought into this. You didn't notice that they didn't enact anti-lynching legislation, just apologized for not doing so? As if that would somehow get them off the hook & absolve them of some perceived sin? They might as well pass a resolution saying, "Sorry, folks, the Senate doesn't have the balls to actually outlaw lynching, but we do feel really bad about it. How's that?" Had one of my ancestors been a lynching victim, I'd consider this so-called apology rather hollow and cheap, not to mention insulting. I don't blame anyone on that "self-hanging" list of yours one bit for not "supporting" such a pathetic sham. Asking for a vote on that resolution is the political equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

      Cheers,
      Daiwa
      on Jun 15, 2005
      You didn't notice that they didn't enact anti-lynching legislation, just apologized for not doing so? As if that would somehow get them off the hook & absolve them of some perceived sin? They might as well pass a resolution saying, "Sorry, folks, the Senate doesn't have the balls to actually outlaw lynching, but we do feel really bad about it. How's that?"


      that's exactly what was done...and the reason i spent nearly two hours locating and then tabulating the votes by party and state, trying to determine what this was all about. it's also the reason i tried to project it thru the wrong end of the lens.

      bottom line: it's never too late to try to do the right thing...even if you don't do it well. it's not as if anyone but the participants view this as anything close to noble. even tho i doubt any of the honored senators has even considered refraining from wife-beating (with the exception of collins, snowe, feinstein, boxer, clinton, etc.), i can't help but think a unanimous vote of support would have said much more than the words to which they assented. the fact that both senators from 5 states--two of which are still mired in racial issues and three others where less than 1% of the citizens are black--chose to oppose certainly seems to say something i'd hope never to have to hear again.
      on Jun 15, 2005
      It "says" absolutely nothing, kingbee - you're just putting words in the mouths of others, a popular tactic, I'll admit. It's still a pathetic sham and you are doing exactly what the guy who asks the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" does: using a "Yes," "No" or the absence of an answer as evidence of guilt. It's not a matter of trying to do the "right thing" poorly - this is trying to pass off a "bogus thing" as something substantive. It's political grandstanding of the worst kind and should be scorned. What are we paying these fools to do? This? To spout meaningless words or actually do something that requires a vote on a real issue of substance? God help us. And did those on your list vote "No" or abstain? Either is OK by me, but I'm just curious.

      Cheers,
      Daiwa
      3 Pages1 2 3