|
Important
twitter updates
Hosted by
the mindful mission Recent Comments
Most Commented Posts
Categories
Archives
Syndication
Credits
|
Lynching Apology
The Senate passed a bill last night that issued an apology for their refusal to pass an anti-lynching bill:
The really sad thing is that 20 senators refused to sign on to the bill. Here is the latest list of Senators who refused to sign the bill:
Yea...one Democrat...and 16 Republicans. Why is there a great uproar when Howard Dean calls the Republican Party the party of white Christians, yet nothing when 27% of the Republican Senators refuse to sign this bill? Maybe Howard Dean was right... *****UPDATE***** Better late than never. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has added his name as a sponsor, making it all Republicans that refuse to sign on. I ahve removed both Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Gordon Smith (R-OR), who have since signed on. Comments, Pingbacks:
i find it especially disturbing that both senators from missisippi and one from alabama refused to sign. if the people representing the states where the lynchings actually happened refuse to sign, what is the point really?
Just to play Devil's Advocate...
Isn't this all just a meaningless gesture, anyway? After all, lynching is outlawed now--does the Congress really need to spend the time to pass a bill that apologizes for not passing the law sooner? So it seems a little bit suspect that once the thing is up for a vote, there are people who refused to go with it, but if I were in the Senate, I may have taken the attitude of, "Couldn't we spend our time working on correcting today's problems, rather than digging up the mistakes of the past?"
i'll bite.
the senate is not only offering a symbolic gesture but apologizing for somthing that it was actually responsible for: shooting down the requests of 7 presidents, countless other lawmakers, and 5000 families whose loved ones were killed by an act that the senate continually refused to acknowledge as a crime. i wouldnt consider this a waste of time (how much time could it have taken anyway?) and i dont see why it is so hard for the 20 to muster up a signature when 80 others found time to sqeeze it in. do you think it is a coincedence that the majority of the abstaining senators are white male republicans from states that have pretty dodgy histories with civil rights?
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/14/05 @ 17:48
 Permalink
I can't speak for all those senators but I know that my Republican senator, John Kyle refused to sponsor it simply because it wasn't a vote, it was some kind of procedure and as a rule, he doesn't participate in those procedures no matter what it is.
The Democratic party doesn't have the best civil rights track record back then (Al Gore Sr) or even now (Robert Byrd).
Come on...Al Gore Sr? We are talking about now...and the Republicans are not stepping up. Yea...we know about Robert Byrd - he has a past that no one should be proud of. But at least he was willing to sponsor this apology...that is something that 16 Republicans refused to do.
That is unacceptable.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/14/05 @ 18:58
Permalink
I'm very curious to see what becomes of this, by the way. It's one thing to think it's a waste of time, but it's quite another thing altogether when EVERYONE else voted for it except for 16 members of the same party.
This story will have legs and it'll be itneresting to see where it goes.
Comment from: commentator [Visitor] 06/14/05 @ 21:52
Permalink
Ummm...the vote was unanimous. It's been passed; the Senate has apologized for the actions of southern Democrats. It's time to move on.
Did you read the articles linked to? They address the "unanimous" claims. The 16 are not accused of voting against the measure, or even of not voting; they are criticized for not co-sponsoring the bill, which, in this case, was the only gesture of support available for the Senators to make.
Seriosly...the unanimousvote was only four senators or something like that.
We are not criticizing the vote, but I am criticizing anyone who was unwilling to sign on as a sponsor. Their true colors have been shown.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/14/05 @ 22:53
Permalink
Oh ok so you know there's a difference between voting against and not sponsoring, but you still complain. I already pointed out one example of a reason my senator gave. He doesn't vote on ANY of these "points of...something, I forget what they're called" as a matter of principle. Doesn't matter what the issue is.
Yes...I do complain, because there is no valid reason to not sign on as a sponsor.
Roland...I can maybe buy your Senator's "philosophy" of not supporting this type of legislation. But do you really believe this is why the other 15 Republican Senators refused to sign on? I don't buy it. Not one Democrat is on that list. 15 Republicans are on it. Explain...please.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/14/05 @ 23:40
Permalink
I can't explain it and I even pointed that out in a couple of posts above this one. I just don't think it's that big of a deal....yet. and it reeks of hypocricy when compared to the Democrats' dismal civil rights record and how they take minorities for granted to this very day (even Dean admits this!).
"I can't speak for all those senators but I know that my Republican senator, John Kyle refused to sponsor it simply because it wasn't a vote"
but now its coming out that the reason there wasnt a vote was because frist nixed the thing: "Frist vetoed roll call Senators were not required to go on record on issue By SCOTT SHEPARD The Atlanta Journal-Constitution The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 06/15/05 WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) refused repeated requests for a roll call vote that would have put senators on the record on a resolution apologizing for past failures to pass anti-lynching laws, officials involved in the negotiations said Tuesday." so what would his motivation be? did Frist fear/know that far too many of his own party - 15 in fact - refused to endorse the resolution and may have voted against it if forced to actually vote on the record?
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/15/05 @ 17:45
Permalink
And the Democrats FILIBUSTERED when these laws were first proposed. SO what? This is a waste of time.
Comment from: Monica Roberts [Visitor] 06/17/05 @ 12:54
Permalink
As an African-American I'm tired of GOP apologists for their abysmal civil rights record of the last three decades bringing up Robert Byrd, when they have sitting members of congress, Southern governors and a former Attorney General (Trent Lott, Haley barbour, and John Ashcroft) who think its fine to hang out with the neo-Confederate racists of the Council of Conservative Citizens. (the old Southern White Citzens Councils that enforced the Deep South segregation laws)
Sen. Byrd's NAACP civil rights score since they insituted it hasn't been less thana 95 and it was 100% for the last session of Congress.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/17/05 @ 17:17
Permalink
As an African American, you should be more concerned that the Democratic party ADMITTEDLY (Dean) takes your votes for granted. They ignore you until three weeks before the election and then go back to either ignoring you or enslaving you to government programs.
As a Hispanic-American, I know that the Democratic party hasn't done squat for minorities and indeed, perpetuate their plight. Under Bush, minority home ownership is at an ALL TIME high. As for Byrd, he STILL calls people "niggers" so don't let his ruse fool you. Also don't forget that the Democrats filibusterd these anti-lynching laws, filibustered the Voting Rights Act, and upstanding Democrats like Al Gore Sr led the fight for segregation. Condilezza Rice grew up in segregated Alabama and was friends with the girls who were killed in the church bombing. If she runs for president, she will wholeheartedly get my vote.
As an African-American my lone comment regarding the lynching apology is "Too Liitle Too Late."
Moreover, while it is against the law to lynch someone, America's racist ideology lives on, especially in the South where the use of the N word is as common as black eyed peas.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/17/05 @ 23:24
Permalink
I haven't heard a white person say it in years (except from excerpts from Byrd speeches). I hear it on hip hop radio every day. Reverse racism is far more prevalent in my experience.
Leave a comment:
|
Friends of
the mindful mission Visit the mindful mission's Amazon store  Im online casino Playunited wird Ihnen eine grosse Auswahl von online spielautomaten und Internet roulette spielen und zur Verfügung gestellt. friends Trying to make a difference? Get your Master's Degree in Social Work recommended blogs criminal justice/death penalty Progressive Christian Blog Network
|
