?

Log in

BACK DOOR BOY IN A FRONT DOOR WORLD
OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY - THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE
* ATTENTION ALL PEOPLES - ESPECIALLY BROWN PEOPLES * 
15th-Jun-2005 03:48 pm
From the desk of rzrxtion:

Did you know there was a bill that just passed in the senate (finally) formally apologizing to the victims of lynching in this country?
Did you know that it didn't pass unanimously?
Are you surprised at the names and party affiliations of the senators who didn't sign the bill?

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - (202) 224-4944
Robert Bennett (R-UT) - (202) 224-5444
Thad Cochran (R-MS) - (202) 224-5054
John Cornyn (R-TX) - (202) 224-2934
Michael Crapo (R-ID) - (202) 224-6142
Michael Enzi (R-WY) - (202) 224-3424
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - (202) 224-3744
Judd Gregg (R-NH) - (202) 224-3324
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - (202) 224-5251
Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - (202) 224-5922
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - (202) 224-4521
Trent Lott (R-MS) - (202) 224-6253
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - (202) 224-5744
John Sununu (R-NH) - (202) 224-2841
Craig Thomas (R-WY) - (202) 224-6441


lynch:
To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob.

In other words, lynching = murder.

Congratulations, senators.

Oh, and by the way, any brown folks that live in Tennessee, Utah, Mississippi (what a shocker), Texas, Idaho, Wyoming, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona and Alabama?
YOU JUST GOT FUCKIN' PUNK'D BITCHES!!!
Now what ya gonna do in 2006? Probably nothing, and that's pathetic!
Comments 
15th-Jun-2005 07:54 pm (UTC)
I can understand an inbred hick like Lott being on that list. Poor cornpone bumpkin don't know no better. But Lamar Alexander? Kay Bailey Hutchison? WTF? They're moderates, and reasonably intelligent people, party affiliation aside.
15th-Jun-2005 08:00 pm (UTC)
I'm surprised Sununu didn't vote for it. I wonder what their justificaiton was. Could they have been worried that such an admission by the senate would expose past members to civil reparations suits? That'd be a very weak argument. No doubt most liberal and moderate voters will continue to be apathetic and declare their fashionable indifference to politics, staying home from the polls.
15th-Jun-2005 09:30 pm (UTC)
Really, none of them are moderates any longer. They all pull the party and Bush line. Even John McCain, who was victimized during the 2000 primary, gushes in public about Bush.
15th-Jun-2005 10:06 pm (UTC)
yeah!

that still freaks my sh*t out!!!!

someone is gonna basically talk about your child, your wife - in effect bush may as well have just gutted the man - and mccain's gonna be all "oh that george, he's the best!"

man, mccain needs to grow a set! (just my opinion - i can't stress that enough)
15th-Jun-2005 10:25 pm (UTC)
Personally, at times I wonder if he's been seriously brainwashed.
15th-Jun-2005 07:58 pm (UTC)
how apropos that one of the people who supported it has a last name of CRAP-o
15th-Jun-2005 08:01 pm (UTC)
I'm willing to bet his name helped get him elected.
15th-Jun-2005 08:01 pm (UTC)
*Liz parts hair and makes two nice cute adorable braids, and then uses them to strangle herself to get away from the stupidity* To my everlasting shame, it seems that somewhere vastly separated on the family tree, I might be related to Hatch. *shudder*

On another topic, can I please steal this icon?
15th-Jun-2005 08:05 pm (UTC)
that seriously turns my stomach. wtf is wrong with people?
15th-Jun-2005 08:38 pm (UTC)
Hey, man, not entirely the "brown people"'s fault.
They don't get a fair playing field as far as voting goes --> assholes like that try to keep them down from such, and unfortunately, have been fairly successful.
15th-Jun-2005 08:48 pm (UTC)
Hey, man, not entirely the "brown people"'s fault

we weren't trying to say it's their fault (i think i can speak on jude's behalf on this point)

when i originally (re)posted this, it was because it seems that brown folks (and i'm a brown folk, so i'm speaking about my people) don't seem to care unless it directly affects them. so this was just pointing out that this does in fact directly affect them.
so maybe they can forget about the supposedly evil gay people for a minute and focus on the fact that (one could say) the above senators would find nothing wrong with having a lynching party.
maybe that will rile up some people to do whatever they can in 2006 to help do a little housecleaning.

anyways, that's my $0.02
15th-Jun-2005 09:08 pm (UTC)
Yes it is. It's all the brown people's fault. I'm sure if the 3% of "you people" up in Idaho would get off your ass and vote, it would change everything overnight.
(Deleted comment)
15th-Jun-2005 10:40 pm (UTC)
Racism is bad in any amount, but it is no more virulent in Idaho than anywhere else. In fact I see a lot more of it in liberal Los Angeles than I ever saw at home. It would be difficult for minorities there to make a difference even if they turned out en masse because there just aren't that many of them. But that being said, I don't believe they have that much to worry about.

Idaho is not Mississippi. The very, very few white supremacists that are there get way more publicity than their numbers warrant, and they are only there by dint of the fact that the people in Idaho are generally tolerant, even of radical whack-jobs, as long as they are minding their own business. Nobody is burning crosses on lawns, or lynching, or even denying people jobs and housing.

There is definately a novelty factor, and if you are going to move to Rigby and be the only black family I don't think you can expect people not to be very curious about you. I think you would have more problems being Catholic or Jewish among Mormons than brown or black among whites. It is probably far more accurate to say that their is religious intolerance there, and it's far more of a problem than racism.
(Deleted comment)
15th-Jun-2005 09:34 pm (UTC)
I know.

It's just that sometimes.. weirdo people don't understand and misread stuff. :P As being the 'brown people's fault,' or whatnot.
But, yeah, it's really not.
And I think I realized that jude wasn't trying to say that, just.. putting that perspective into it?
15th-Jun-2005 10:44 pm (UTC)
I took Jude's comments to be a call to action. My point was that in a place like Idaho, where there are so few minorities, you can't put the burden of action solely on brown people. It has to be everyone's responsibility. I'll try and be more identifiably sarcastic for anyone who is slow on the uptake next time.
15th-Jun-2005 08:57 pm (UTC)
I think it's a little unfair, if indeed some have chosen to do so, to read into a "nay" vote by any senator on this resolution, racist attitudes, leanings, or anything else of the sort.

Although I can see a need for an improvement in race relations in this country, I doubt any kind of apologetic resolution by the "yea" voting senators would do much. Like as not, it would fall on deaf ears in most cases, and be seen as somehow "too little, too late" at best, or "not enough" in the most extreme cases. It's happened before; it will happen again. Net effect of resulution: nil.

In the interest of fairness, what *could* the "nay" senators have been thinking? It was said that lynching equals murder. Maybe the fact that federal, state, and local laws in 100% of the jurisdictions in the country, either at the time or now, have laws against and penalties for murder is enough. Any legislation by the senate against lynchings in the 1800s or in 2005 would simply be redundant.

The problem then, as inferred by the resolution itself, was that state and local law enforcement was often negligent in pursuing cases against the perpetrators of lynching. And again, to be fair, although the victims were predominantly black and, Jewish according to the resolution, all races had a share.

Back then, Lincoln's solidification of Federal power over that of the states wasn't yet complete; the US Senate didn't see itself fully as some sort of paternal body over the state legislatures in any full sense yet. No doubt they figured it was up to the states to handle their own business...the Senators were appointed by state legislatures back then, after all. I'm sure that had some bearing on their decisions at the time.

Given the above, perhaps the dissenting senators felt it was more appropriate for state legislatures to handle similar resolutions, rather than spew more unread paper from Washington.

Just a few thoughts.
15th-Jun-2005 09:14 pm (UTC)
i will admit to oversimplifying (but most politicians democrat or republican are guilty of that)

the way i see it is this

it's the PRINCIPLE of the whole thing

the bill was just a way to say "look, what happened then, that was f*cked up. and we're sorry for that."
and i think any human, democrat or republican, should be able to agree and sigh onto that and say "look, what happened then, that was f*cked up. and we're sorry for that"
no one is getting any money or anything like that. it is a symbolic gesture. and in my opinion, symbolic gestures can speak volumes.
now since our president (shudder) has this mindset that people don't seem to mind of "either you're with us or against us" (remember that oversimplifying i referred to earlier?) then i think we should hold our own selves up to that light.
and if we follow our own president's "logic", a nay vote means that those senators don't think it was f*cked up and that they're not sorry.

and yes, i can see the point in not spewing "more unread paper from Washington", but like i said, it's the PRINCIPLE of this gesture, and though it may be unread paper, plenty of my co-workers are talking about it. it's getting out there.
15th-Jun-2005 09:27 pm (UTC)
Whoops, let me try this again:

Actually, for about 80 years, the President and House tried to pass a bill that would abolish lynchings and make anything like it a crime, and the Southern state conservatives always held it up by using filibusters. Thus, no bill passed during that time period.

I would ask the opposite: why WOULDN'T these Senators vote for it? If you say that a Nay vote is negligible, what would the harm of a YEA vote mean? Saying NAY is pretty much giving the OK for lynchings, no?

Also, although the backers asked for a voice vote on this, Senator Frist refused. REFUSED.
15th-Jun-2005 09:44 pm (UTC)
The point of my post was to divine why some senators may have voted "nay." I gave a few suggestions, but who knows?

A "nay" vote in NO way implies being in favor of lynchings. It simply implies they weren't in favor of the resoltion, for whatever reason. That's the eisegesis that my post sought, in part, to answer.

And as for the Southern senators for 80 years, it's possible, at least early on, that those senators opposed the legislation, either for the reasons I gave, or for the simple fact that they were more in favor of states' rights than federal power. They were democrats, after all, and that was a big thing for them. But again, we can no more read their minds than we can the dissenters' today.

I'm not siding in any way with either the backers or the dissenters over this resolution. Like I said, I think it's largely ineffective, one way or another. Like Michael Jackson, it might get big news for a day...but probably not. Then it'll be forgotten, lost in the Congressional Record forever.
15th-Jun-2005 09:05 pm (UTC)
Just fired off a letter to the senator in my native state of Idaho. It won't count for much as I am not his constituent, but I reminded him that if there is going to be any progress made in convincing people that Idaho isn't a racist backwater (it's not! really!) he will need to use more common sense. I also reminded him that even if he thought this bill was so much poliitical grandstanding, it never hurts to apologise.
15th-Jun-2005 09:21 pm (UTC)
I hope you don't mind. I changed your post slightly and emailed the information to about 10 friends.
(Deleted comment)
15th-Jun-2005 10:03 pm (UTC)
The US Senate has had 18 members listed as minorities: 5 each of Black, Asian, and Hispanic, and 3 American Indians.

Of those 18 minority members, 9 were/are Republicans, 9 Democrat.

Now, this is since the ***beginning of the nation.***

Currently there are only three minority members of the senate: 2 Pacific Islanders (both D-Hawai'i) and one American Indian (R-Colorado).

The US House has 38 Blacks, 1 American Indian, 21 Hispanics, and 6 Asians. That's about 15% representation.

Hardly great stats for any party.
(Deleted comment)
15th-Jun-2005 10:56 pm (UTC)
I think you're right. I did some hasty research. lol
15th-Jun-2005 11:04 pm (UTC)
Hasty or not, I was impressed you made the effort. Thanks.
15th-Jun-2005 10:29 pm (UTC)
At least it was passed, but there's always bastards everywhere... I don't know much about American politics, but this is quoting my dad:
"I stayed out longer than expected-and thus missed your call- because we waited for the Michael Jackson verdict. We had a bet on it and I was the only one who successfully predicted the result. When anyone talks to me about American justice, I just answer Guantanamo."
He may be generalising, but there is no actual lie... And that's the worst thing, and the fact that you may find cases like that anywhere, some more [in]famously than others, but anyway...

Anyway, I was just wondering about a photo a friend posted in her LJ and it's somehow related to you, what's that yellow thing the baldy in the right's holding?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mithzvel/54658.html
Your LJ looks interesting, might friend...
15th-Jun-2005 10:49 pm (UTC)
I wasn't there, but I presume the extension cord is meant to be an object lesson in how males go with females (prongs go in slots). Maybe if he had used dolls, but he's obviously not brilliant at illustrating his point.
15th-Jun-2005 11:53 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I thought of that just after posting my previous comment here and told Mithzvel about it in Spanish...
Thanks anyway =).
16th-Jun-2005 01:39 am (UTC)
As a white white woman I can't, nor would I try to speak for Black Americans and others who were lynched.

My point of view comes from the disgust I feel over what happened to these people in the past and from seeing it sill going on today.

I think this apology is way overdue because it is a way of letting the families of these people who were tortured and lynched know that it was wrong, and that their family members who suffered and died will not be forgotten as they were when they were left hanging on those southern trees.

The fact that there are some who still did not vote for it is astounding and sickening to me.

My sep dad was from Tennessee and I heard stories growing up of the segregation in the South and of things like this happening, but it was a Touched By An Angel episode that really made me feel this tragedy in the deepest corners of my soul.

The episode was called "God Bless The Child" and dealt with a young girl today and her learning about lynching from her Grandmother who lost her brother to a lynch mob.

The story is phenomenal and worth watching if you ever get a chance because it tells a lot about why the young people today may not care about "doing something" as you suggest. They have not as a rule been touched by the horror of the mob lynching and torture of thousands of human beings.

Here is a page that fully describes the Touched By An Angel episode;http://www.touched.com/episodeguide/seasonseven/709.html.

The story line includes scenes of Billie Holiday and the song she made famous "Strange Fruit." A song about the lynchings for those that are not familiar with her work. It is an amazingly poignant song.

The lyrics are;

STRANGE FRUIT
Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant South,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolia sweet and fresh,
And the sudden smell of burning flesh!

Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for a tree to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

"I wrote "Strange Fruit" because I hate lynching, and I hate injustice, and I hate the people who perpetuate it."
-Abel Meeropol (a.k.a. Lewis Allan), 1971.

Biscuit you wonder what the brown folk are going to do about these people who did not vote to pass this public apology. Personally I feel that we all, not just the brown folk, need to do something about these that voted against it because it does affect us all. Why? Because it is not over. It might be happening in a different way, but the hate crimes continue.

I think society and it's citizens tend to get apathetic about doing anything because they feel it is not happening today so it doesn't affect them, because they did not directly go through the horror and fear of the people who lived through the worst of this between 1890 and 1930.

The sad fact is though today we see similar demoralizing horrors in the killing and torture of gays. So it isn't just the brown folk who need to do something, it is the whole of society that needs to wake up to the sad fact that this is not over, they have just changed who they target.

And usually they target those who are the least protected by society and have the least amount of protection of society's laws.

Another reason for making sure Gay Americans be given the same civil rights as all other Americans.

Our society wants to sanitize everything these days. And in doing so they take away the impact of historical events like lynching had not only on the brown folk as you say, but also the ordinary white folk who either participated or stood by and watched and did nothing.

This affects us all, and we *all* need to speak up about hate crimes. We need to hold both the ones who perpetrate the crimes and those politicians and others who stand by and allow it to happen accountable.

Otherwise no one in this society is safe from this vile hatred.

As always this sums it up, "Evil Thrives When Good Men Do Nothing."

Christina


16th-Jun-2005 02:15 am (UTC)
Lots of 'R's there. Not shocked.
19th-Jun-2005 12:14 am (UTC)
That's ridiculous! How can anyone be against this bill? Some things just don't make sense to me.
19th-Jun-2005 06:25 pm (UTC) - lynchings
blimey indeed.why should he apologise for something that didnt happen in his state?.. well. imo because hate affects us all eventually.hate is never good, and if you see bad things happening ...well you should try to do something about it. evil does thrive when ppl do nothing. okay it might stir up a hornets nest , so you have a point,but does an apology do any long term good?..well it send out the message that it was wrong, is wrong and will always be wrong to do that kind of thing, therefore sets a precedent for how ppl think.just my two penn'orth
This page was loaded Jul 21st 2017, 8:59 am GMT.