Repairing Senate's Record on Lynching
This comes, or course, after the reopening of the Emmett Till case

So then

Is issuing this apology the right thing to do?

Are more apologies in order?

Why the effort to reach out to African-Americans at this time?

Is issuing this apology the right thing to do?
It is the decent thing to do. It certainly does no harm, and does some good.

Are more apologies in order?
Depends on what apology is proposed. Perhaps we should simply draw up a long list of bad things that the government did since the ratification of the Constitution and apologize en masse. Get it over with, quick and clean.

Why the effort to reach out to African-Americans at this time?
Earlier is better, later is worse, now is what we have on our plate.

Is issuing this apology the right thing to do?

I suppose so. Its making the statement that such action would not be tolerated today.


Are more apologies in order?

Ahhhhh... There is always something that needs saying sorry for... The question I'd like to hear answer is what do 'we' have to apologize for?

I am not responsible for the crimes of my grand ancestors and neither is anyone else. Surely it would be more of a meaningful response to teach to the children that such things once happened and these crimes are a part of who were once were which made us who we are today?

Else, I might suddenly be called upon to answer for all the actions of my parents, grand parents and all the way back to days when we used to pillage the Britons every summer


Why the effort to reach out to African-Americans at this time?

Because society has progressed? Is this a trick question or is there something more to this than I can readily perceive?

Perhaps there is an element of guilt that must be dealt with or perhaps there is a demand for such apologies? I certainly get the impression that racial crimes of the past still bear a sting for many ethnic minorities... long after the rest of society has forgotten they ever happened.


edited because I forgot to use the spell check... again

Im a litlle confused on this and I hope someone can clarify things for me.

Isn't lynching currently illegal under Federal law? I assumed it was and I'd wager that most people did to. If it is not, it seems to me that passing legislation making it (lynching) illegal would be a more substantive measure than apologizing for not having done so already.

If lynching is already illegal under Federal law (as I assumed it was), could someone tell me when that occured? I believe this is important.

I would say that only Senators who held office prior to the passage of a Federal anti-lynching law, and more specifically, only those Senators who were aware of the non-existance of such a law who either failed to introduce such a law or who opposed such a law, have anything to apologize for. But then, why would these Senators apologize for consciously opposing a Federal anti-lynching law? Would you believe in their sincerity?

Why should Senators who proposed or supported a Federal anti-lynching law apologize?

Why should Senators who took office after the passage of a Federal anti-lynching law apologize for not passing a law that is already law?

Just so my position is clear I'll say again...If lynching is not currently a violation of Federal law, then a Senator should propose a law and the rest of the Senators should support it. Any apology should accompany said legislation in the form of a preamble.

Sure. It's as nice a gesture as it is an enormous waste of time [wates for abuse from everyone else]. I mean, sure, the Senate should appologize, but not when they should be debating the PATRIOT ACT, or the illegality of oh, I dunno, 80% of government affairs, or maybe we could be debating about our cheese grater of a boarder...Nah, let's appologize NOW. It can't wait. Funny, the Republicans didn't want to waste anytime when they walked out of a comittee hearing about the PATRIOT ACT when the Dems started straying a little, but they are less time conscious when they're doing that doesn't pertain as much to modern America.

Each Senator and Representative should send a letter [that they would pay for] to every taxpayer appologizing for wasting their money doing something so trivial, albeit nice.

Senator Landrieu [original sponsor of the bill] noticed that her steak was a bit bland a few weeks ago, so she added a pinch of salt, " A pinch of salt," she said to herself, "pinch rhymes with lynch, we need to appologize for not passing anti-lynching laws."

Seriously though, I know this might offend some, but while lynching was horrible, as was our government's stance toward it, but we've got bigger fish to fry right now.

CP

It is never a waste of time to do the right thing.

There will always be issues that are more pertinent and relevant than issuing an apology for lynching. Your dismissal of the resolution ConservPat as "an enormous waste of time" strikes me as needlessly harsh and surprisingly insensitive.

Perhaps if you had bothered to actually read Resolution 39 instead of criticizing it your appraisal of it's "trivial" nature might change.

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 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;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109...p/~c109dLJ9Du::

As the Resolution states, the United States cannot be a champion of human rights abroad while failing to acknowledge its history of denying this principal to its own citizens.

Now someone should tell the Ugly Eight Republicans who refused to co-sponsor the resolution (Lamar Alexander of Tennessee; Thad Cochran of Mississippi; John Cornyn of Texas; Mike Enzi of Wyoming; Judd Gregg of New Hampshire; Trent Lott of Mississippi; John Sununu of New Hampshire; and Craig Thomas of Wyoming) that they are out-of-step with the majority sentiment of the American people.

Just like the new investigation into the murder of Emmitt Till and the trial of a Klansman involved in the murder of civil rights workers, it is never too late and always important to do the right thing.

Wow, I looked at quotes of what I said, and said to myself, wow, this CP guy sure is a cold uncaring jerk. Then I read those quotes in context and felt better about that CP guy. Let me put these puzzle pieces together.

Quote as shown:

Quote in context: My point wasn't that appologizing isn't the right thing to do...It is. I think that the appology is very late, but with that being said, if we're going to appologize, perhaps it could be done at the end of the Congressional session, that is if our esteemed representatives don't mind putting in one more day at the office during their vacation.

Quote as shown:

Quote in context: I was answering the question "should more appologies be made." I answered mostly in jest. Perhaps trivial wasn't the best word, but honestly, raise your hand if this apology really helped heal old wounds. Every black person that I know [including my father] have concurred that this isn't an earthshattering experience. If I were 25% "blacker" I doubt that I would feel any different after being "given" a legal apology by people who don't know me, don't care about me and want my vote. I may sound "insensitive" but I'm not, I may be brutally realistic if not a little cynical, but I don't see this apology as much of anything. It's nice, but nice isn't enough to stop all Senatorial activity to pursue something.

Yes, there are investigations going on...Investigations. The sherif of [the name of the town Till was killed in, which currently escapes me] isn't coming out and apologizing for his predecessor not investigating the crime thoroughly enough. He's DOING something. If the Senate wants to heal old wounds, fine. But A: There's a time and a place for that, worry about the present before the past and B: Do something, don't say something.

CP

It's been a while since we've had a serious disagreement ConservPat, but if you have to re-read your own quotes to determine whether or not you are a "cold, uncaring jerk" (your words, not mine) that is your business. Personally, I understood just fine the first time what you were saying if not necessarily how you meant to say it.



I'm tempted to ask just how many Black people you know and asked to reach a consensus that the Senate apology wasn't worth beans but I won't. I still had to get up and go to work the next day too. I couldn't call in and say, "Hey the U.S. Senate apologized for lynching and I feel so gut-bustin' good about it I can't come to work today."

Maybe the apology means little or nothing to you, but it meant quite a lot to James Cameron and I don't mean the one who directed the two good "Terminator" flicks.

The vote culminated a day of events for about 200 descendants and family friends of lynching victims who were invited to Washington to witness the historic vote. They were treated to a luncheon with senators, given a tour of the Capitol and introduced at a news conference, where they were asked about the resolution's significance.

The descendants included Winona Puckett Padget, 78, of Detroit, whose uncle, Richard Puckett, was lynched in Laurens, S.C., in 1913, after he was accused of accosting a white woman. Also on hand was James Cameron, 91, of Milwaukee, who is believed to be the only living person to have survived a lynching. He was hanged by a rope from a maple tree in Marion, Ind., in 1930 but was cut down when someone in the crowd asked that he be spared.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5061301720.html

The 200 descendants and friends and James Cameron didn't get reparations. They got a lunch, a tour of the Capitol and a lunch with a handful of senators. That's it. I'd say the horrible sacrifice of those who were lynched were worth one lousy afternoon of the Senate's time.

If you want to see how the Senate really wastes time CP, tune in C-SPAN2 sometime. Even as half-hearted as this apology was, it COUNTS for Mr. Cameron and he waited 75 years for this "trivial" moment.

I think he'd disagree with you. He's probably glad he was above ground when the moment of regret came.

I was simply clearing up what I meant, and I put my words into context. My joke about me being a cold uncaring jerk was that if one were to look just at what you quoted, that's the impression they'd have. I didn't think it was entirely fair to show those specific quotes by themselves, that's all.

Nighttimer, half of my family is black, a good portion of them worked with the AFL-CIO in the Civil Rights Department. A few marched with MLK Jr. and one has talked civil rights with Presidents. I wouldn't bring up personal examples if they weren't applicable.

Yeah, it is. I never said that the Senate shouldn't apologize, never. I'm saying that the timing of the overdue apology is bad.

CP