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 2)
      3 Pages1 2 3 
      on Jun 16, 2005
      I seem to be a thread-killer lately.

      Cheers,
      Daiwa
      on Jun 17, 2005
      this is a fascinating thread. i will be printing each and every response to this article, but will make special note of the following:

      And what good does it do, apologizing to the victims,


      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.


      Perhaps they think the victims of lynchings will return from the dead and register?


      Yes, they "have" the black vote, but this election showed they are losing it. So now it's time to pander to minorities.
      (a personal favorite of mine)

      when do people start figuring it out? you fucked up a lot of people's lives, and the consequences are still fucking them up. start apologizing and stop lying to yourselves.

      sure, what a waste of time . . . to sign your name to an apology for something so repugnant as pretending lynching wasnt a problem. sure. okay. im glad to discover that trent lott is still demonstrating his steadfast refusal to pander the black vote. i can surely tell he has the victims' best interests in his heart. bless you, trent, and the rest of you hard working, no-time-having, good-hearted, sweet non-pandering, self-righteous self-fuckers.

      fantastic article, kingbee, love the slant--and once again im stunned by some of the responses.

      tbt
      on Jun 17, 2005
      As a white man, I'd like to say that I'm deeply sorry for my actions durring the late 19th and early 20th century, as well as everything I did to oppress the blacks during their period of enslavement.


      While there's nothing wrong with the bill, if you didn't actually vote against an anti-lynching law, then your signature on it means very little. It means that you think lynching was a bad thing, but, frankly, that's something you should just assume about everybody unless you have reason to believe otherwise. (Note that not signing the bill doesn't necessarily mean that you thought lynching was a fine and noble tradition. It could just mean you thought the bill was a waste of the Senate's time, or that you didn't feel personally responsible for the actions of your parents or their contemporaries.)
      on Jun 17, 2005
      And did those on your list vote "No" or abstain? Either is OK by me, but I'm just curious.


      i misled you (altho inadvertantly and unintentionally) with mental shorthand--if not just a mental shortage--by whining about the time it took to sort out the votes. the resolution's chief sponsors (mary landrieu (d-la) and george allen (r-va)) requested debate during business hours and a roll call vote. their request was refused (several times) by senate majority leader bill frist (r-tenn). because there were a number of relatives of lynching victims and one lynch survivor on hand, the resolution went to voice vote monday night and was adopted by unanimous consent (which means that noone objected).

      at that time there were 78 co-sponsors. because senators can add themselves as co-sponsors after the fact, that number grew...and grew some more...and even more. the list of republicans who didn't sign on as co-sponsors is now smaller than than it was when i posted it 2 days ago. not to worry tho. while crapo, grassley, murkowski & voinovich are now official co-sponsors, the rest are still sticking to their principles.
      on Jun 17, 2005
      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?


      would it be meaningless for turkey to issue an official apology to the families of those armenians who were slaughtered by the ottoman rulers? for japan to issue an official apology to china and korea (not to mention the rest of asia)?

      nothing can undo what's been done. the current senate isn't the senate that repeatedly refused to use its power to help curb 80 years of mob justice (almost always involving collusion with--if not actual participation by--local lawmen). if nothing else, there were a couple hundred related survivors there who were denied justice. why deny them an apology?
      on Jun 17, 2005
      I seem to be a thread-killer lately


      sorry for taking so long to respond. rather than killing anything, you provided me with an opportunity to update co-sponsor info.
      on Jun 17, 2005
      bless you, trent, and the rest of you hard working, no-time-having, good-hearted, sweet non-pandering, self-righteous self-fuckers.


      go head on wichyo bad self!

      im stunned by some of the responses.


      thanks for dropping by as well as the kudos. if you're still stunnable, you're not spending enuff time here? hahahahahh
      on Jun 17, 2005
      As a white man,


      can anyone make that statement with 100% confidence??

      It means that you think lynching was a bad thing, but, frankly, that's something you should just assume about everybody unless you have reason to believe otherwise. (Note that not signing the bill doesn't necessarily mean that you thought lynching was a fine and noble tradition. It could just mean you thought the bill was a waste of the Senate's time, or that you didn't feel personally responsible for the actions of your parents or their contemporaries.)


      please see comment #24. altho i was responding to daiwa, i read your comment and had you in mind as well.
      on Jun 17, 2005
      A very funny article with a good point behind it.

      Daiwa says:

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

      What? There is diversity of opinion among black people? That's a relief. At least now we'll have a way of telling them apart.
      on Jun 17, 2005
      i misled you (altho inadvertantly and unintentionally)


      Thank you for owning up to that. Still, disparaging them for not signing on as sponsors is just as bad.

      Cheers,
      Daiwa
      on Jun 18, 2005
      disparaging them for not signing on as sponsors is just as bad.


      as bad as? (i was hoping you'd offer an opinion as to the turks and japanese.)
      on Jun 19, 2005
      Hmm. Those are rather curious parallels you're trying to draw there, kingbee. The Armenians and Chinese were victims of intentional overt acts of military aggression by Nations. There is no comparison to make here.

      Despicable as it was, lynching was murder like any other kind of murder and I'm reasonably sure murder was pretty much illegal already. Further, murder, for the most part, was and is not a Federal crime - it's up to the states to investigate and prosecute murders except in specific circumstances where Federal jurisdiction applies. If we're going to talk common sense here, if an apology is required or appropriate, it should be coming from the governments of the states in which it was ignored and allowed to happen despite laws against murder being on the books. It makes no sense for the Senate to apologize for not outlawing something which was already illegal.

      I ask again, what is the motive behind this particular resolution and why now? It is an empty gesture, a manufactured political issue which serves no real purpose other than to set people up or, in the worst case, to simply pander.

      Cheers,
      Daiwa
      on Jun 19, 2005
      lynching was murder like any other kind of murder and I'm reasonably sure murder was pretty much illegal already. Further, murder, for the most part, was and is not a Federal crime - it's up to the states to investigate and prosecute murders except in specific circumstances where Federal jurisdiction applies.


      anti-lynching laws like the failed costigan-wagner act (1935)were aimed at more than mere murder. as i indicated previously, the victim was often in custody and it wasn't uncommon for the custodial officers to hand their charge willingly and/or participate in the lynching.

      here's an excerpt from that bill:

      (1) Costigan-Wagner Bill, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session (3rd January, 1935)

      A bill to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws, and punish the crime of lynching


      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, for the purposes of this Act, the phrase “mob or riotous assemblage”, when used in this Act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in concert, without authority of law, [for the purpose of depriving any person of his life, or doing him physical injury] to kill or injure any person in the custody of any peace officer, with the purpose or consequence of depriving such person of due process of law or the equal protection of the laws.

      Sec. 2. If any state or governmental, subdivision thereof fails, neglects, or refuses to provide and maintain protection to the life or person of any individual within its jurisdiction against a mob or riotous assemblage, whether by way of preventing or punishing the acts thereof, such State shall by reason of such failure, neglect, or refusal be deemed to have denied to such person due process of law and the equal protection of the laws of the State, and to the end that the protection guaranteed to persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, may be secured, the provisions of this Act are enacted.

      Sec. 3. (a) Any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof who is charged with the duty or who possesses the power or authority as such officer or employee to protect the life or person of any individual injured or put to death by any mob or riotous assemblage or any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof having any such individual in his [change as a prisoner] custody, who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all diligent efforts to protect such individual from being so injured or being put to death, or any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof charged with the duty of apprehending, keeping in custody, or prosecuting any person participating in such mob or riotous assemblage who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all diligent efforts to perform his duty in apprehending, keeping in custody, or prosecuting to final judgment under the laws of such State all persons so participating, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

      ( Any officer or employee of any state or governmental subdivision thereof, acting as such officer or employee under authority of State law, having in his custody or control a prisoner, who shall conspire, combine, or confederate with any person who is a member of a mob or riotous assemblage to injure or put such prisoner to death without authority of law, or who shall conspire, combine, or confederate with any person to suffer such prisoner to be taken or obtained from his custody or control [for the purpose of being] to be injured or put to death [without authority of law] by a mob or riotous assemblage shall be guilty of a felony, and those who so conspire, combine, or confederate with such officer or employee shall likewise be guilty of a felony. On conviction the parties participating therein shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than five years or [for life] not more than twenty-five years.

      Sec. 4. The District Court of the United States judicial district wherein the person is injured or put to death by a mob or riotous assemblage shall have jurisdiction to try and to punish, in accordance with the laws of the State where the injury is inflicted or the homicide is committed, any and all persons who participate therein: Provided, That it is first made to appear to such court (1) that the officers of the State charged with the duty of apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing such offenders under the laws of the State shall have failed, neglected, or refused to apprehend, prosecute, or punish such offenders; or (2) that the jurors obtainable for service in the State court having jurisdiction of the offense are so strongly opposed to such punishment that there is [no] probability that those guilty of the offense [can be] will not be punished in such State court. A failure for more than thirty days after the commission of such an offense to apprehend or to indict the persons guilty thereof, or a failure diligently to prosecute such persons, shall be sufficient to constitute prima facie evidence of the failure, neglect, or refusal described in the above proviso.
      on Jun 19, 2005
      Move that answer be stricken as non-responsive.

      Cheers,
      Daiwa
      on Jun 19, 2005
      Can't everyone just get along?????
      3 Pages1 2 3