Lynchings
maff
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=81609&ran=13325
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 4, 2005 | Last updated 9:14 PM Feb. 3
WASHINGTON - Three days into Black History Month, U.S. Sen. George F.
Allen of Virginia renewed efforts Thursday to have the Senate formally
apologize for its failure to move against a wave of lynchings that
swept the South and much of the rest of the country from the 1880s
until the 1960s.
Without fanfare, Allen, a Republican, and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.,
introduced a resolution that would express the Senate's regret for
the failure of its predecessors to act.
(lynching OR lynchings)
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=(lynching%20OR%20lynchings)&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=(lynching+OR+lynchings)&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=(lynching+OR+lynchings)&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
George Allen
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=George%20Allen&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=George+Allen&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=George+Allen&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=George+Allen&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
Mary Landrieu
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=Mary%20Landrieu&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=Mary+Landrieu&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Mary+Landrieu&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=Mary+Landrieu&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
firel...@hotmail.com
> Allen pushes Senate peers for apology over lynchings
> http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=81609&ran=13325
>
> The Virginian-Pilot
> © February 4, 2005 | Last updated 9:14 PM Feb. 3
>
> WASHINGTON - Three days into Black History Month, U.S. Sen. George F.
> Allen of Virginia renewed efforts Thursday to have the Senate
formally
> apologize for its failure to move against a wave of lynchings that
> swept the South and much of the rest of the country from the 1880s
> until the 1960s.
I think every member of the senate who was serving during that time
period and did nothing should apologize. I think that having people
apologize for - and more importantly, assume guilt for - things
that happened before they were born is patent nonsense.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> I think that having people
> apologize for - and more importantly, assume guilt for - things
> that happened before they were born is patent nonsense.
Agreed.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
maff
But we aren't talking about individuals per se. Those Confederate,
Christian fundamentalist and Klan organizations will still be liable.
According to your logic, holocaust victims and or their estates should
never approach the court.
firel...@hotmail.com
> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > maff wrote:
> > > Allen pushes Senate peers for apology over lynchings
> > >
> http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=81609&ran=13325
> > >
> > > The Virginian-Pilot
> > > © February 4, 2005 | Last updated 9:14 PM Feb. 3
> > >
> > > WASHINGTON - Three days into Black History Month, U.S. Sen.
George
> F.
> > > Allen of Virginia renewed efforts Thursday to have the Senate
> > formally
> > > apologize for its failure to move against a wave of lynchings
that
> > > swept the South and much of the rest of the country from the
1880s
> > > until the 1960s.
> >
> > I think every member of the senate who was serving during that time
> > period and did nothing should apologize. I think that having
people
> > apologize for - and more importantly, assume guilt for - things
> > that happened before they were born is patent nonsense.
>
> But we aren't talking about individuals per se. Those Confederate,
> Christian fundamentalist and Klan organizations will still be liable.
I thought you were talking about the US Senate, rather than
the confederate, xtian and Klan groups. Those who performed
these heinous acts should be punished, and those who stood
by should apologize. Of the current members of the US
Senate, very few fit either category.
> According to your logic, holocaust victims and or their estates
should
> never approach the court.
Holocaust victims seeking punishment for
newly-discovered war criminals or looking to get
their family's money out of the bank is a far
cry from what you're looking for here.
According to your logic, you need to spend your every
waking moment looking for things to take the blame for.
Keep at it, I'm sure you'll find something to feel
guilty for, even though it happened before you were
born. Masochist.
If the Senate *did* "formally apologize", then what?
Would that be the end of it, are you advocating an
empty political gesture? Or do you envision it as
the Senate taking responsibility for those lynchings,
so the survivors can use the Senate's admission of
guilt as a basis for legal action?
maff
But many Senators (even though they were not Senators then) were
cheerleaders in the era of lynchings.
>
> > According to your logic, holocaust victims and or their estates
> should
> > never approach the court.
>
> Holocaust victims seeking punishment for
> newly-discovered war criminals or looking to get
> their family's money out of the bank is a far
> cry from what you're looking for here.
>
> According to your logic, you need to spend your every
> waking moment looking for things to take the blame for.
> Keep at it, I'm sure you'll find something to feel
> guilty for, even though it happened before you were
> born. Masochist.
But isn't it upto the victims and or their estates to decide what
action, if any, to take?
>
> If the Senate *did* "formally apologize", then what?
> Would that be the end of it, are you advocating an
> empty political gesture? Or do you envision it as
> the Senate taking responsibility for those lynchings,
> so the survivors can use the Senate's admission of
> guilt as a basis for legal action?
I think it's an empty guesture. It would be more appropriate for the
Senate or the courts to investigate George Allen's (and others) role in
the lynchings.
maff
But the German government made monetary restituion since the War to
Israel and Jewish groups. U.S. hasn't made any similar gesture.
wcb
> maff wrote:
>> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > maff wrote:
>> > > Allen pushes Senate peers for apology over lynchings
>> > >
>> http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=81609&ran=13325
>> > >
>> > > The Virginian-Pilot
>> > > Š February 4, 2005 | Last updated 9:14 PM Feb. 3
Empty political gesture? After WWII a wave of lynchings
began in the South and soon became an epidemic. The law
in the South usually did nothing. Leading black intellectuals
repeatedly met with and wrote Senate and House leaders and members
and even President Truman and members of his cabinet.
But no efforts was put forth by out government in any way to
halt these lynchings or punish the guilty.
Thisb ecause of fear of a political backlash from Southern voters and
indifference to the plight of blacks on part of many politicians.
The apology is due and just, because the fact is, our government failed.
It saw the lynchings and knew of them, and turned a blind eye to it, and
despite numerous pleas, did nothing at all. Nothing at all.
If a body that is committed by solemn vows, often on a bible, to
uphold the laws of our land and our Constitution, fails in a
systematic manner to uphold justice, they deserve to be turned
out of office and declared anthema by all good, thinking americans.
But often that does not happen.
An apology, even belated would be a step towards admitting this
was a problem and is not tolerable, and a move towards future
recognition of such problems before they too become something the need
apologizing for.
To sneer there is nothing to apologize for is ignorance and right
winged cussedness, that which gave us the lynchings to begin with.
Our government is disgraced until it does apolgize, not just for
apology's sake, but as a sign of vows to never let that happen again.
Never again should this government tolerate murder for fear of
losing votes and turn a deaf ear to victims of chronic and repeated murder.
The problem is not that these lynchings, these murders took place,
the problem is out governemnt failed to act over two decades of these
murders despite repeated pleas for justice.
> --
Cheerful Charlie
FreeThink
wcb wrote:
> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > maff wrote:
> >> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > maff wrote:
> >> > > Allen pushes Senate peers for apology over lynchings
> >> > >
> >>
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=81609&ran=13325
> >> > >
> >> > > The Virginian-Pilot
Why does all accountability fall on the government? If enough citizens
wanted to stop the lynchings the government would have stopped them.
The government represents the people. We are all responsible.
maff
Of course, we're all responsible. But we have to make sure that those
individuals, organizations and businesses who committed and or abetted
in those crimes pay more than others.
Therion Ware
On 6 Feb 2005 01:40:32 -0800 in alt.atheism, maff ("maff"
<maf...@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
>
>FreeThink wrote:
[snip]
>> Why does all accountability fall on the government? If enough citizens
>> wanted to stop the lynchings the government would have stopped them.
>> The government represents the people. We are all responsible.
>
>Of course, we're all responsible. But we have to make sure that those
>individuals, organizations and businesses who committed and or abetted
>in those crimes pay more than others.
How does it go? "If everyone is responsible, no one is actually to
blame". Popularised by Mrs Thatcher's cabinet, IIRC.
maff
Nope. As tax payers, we're all responsible for acts of the agents of
the government.
stoney
Of course its nonsence, but then this is Congress.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Al Klein
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> said in alt.atheism:
>How does it go? "If everyone is responsible, no one is actually to
>blame".
Otherwise known as "mob mentality".
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Therion Ware
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:12:00 GMT in alt.atheism, Al Klein (Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:22:07 +0000, Therion Ware
><autod...@city-of-dis.com> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>How does it go? "If everyone is responsible, no one is actually to
>>blame".
>
>Otherwise known as "mob mentality".
Indeed!
Therion Ware
On 6 Feb 2005 03:47:21 -0800 in alt.atheism, maff ("maff"
Interesting position! Presumably then there can be no such thing as a
terrorist, except with respect to non tax payers?
ath...@home.com
The Democrat Robert Byrd the "conscience of the Senate," was a member
of the Klan and continued to support them after he publically claimed
he had left the organization.
Byrd once stormed that he would never fight:
"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and
see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see
this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a
throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
In a letter written to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK in 1947, three
years after he claimed he had left the group he said,
"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its
rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the Union."
Recently:
"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time.
I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our
country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it
so much."
He filibustered the 1964 civil rights act referring to Republicans
fighting to pass it as "mean-spirited" Republicans."
He also opposed the nominations of the two black justices Thurgood
Marshall, a liberal, and Clarence Thomas a conservative.
I don't know if he has ever openly apoligized but frankly I don't
think it would mean much.
atheist@home#1554
maff
The problem for you is your apologetics isn't beieved by African
Americans. It's that simple.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>The Democrat Robert Byrd
Dixiecrat.
--
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-20
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> maff wrote:
>>> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> > maff wrote:
>>> > > Allen pushes Senate peers for apology over lynchings
>>> > >
>>> http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=81609&ran=13325
>>> > >
>>> > > The Virginian-Pilot
>>> > > © February 4, 2005 | Last updated 9:14 PM Feb. 3
I couldn't snip any of the above.
Along with the apology I would like to see as many cases as possible
re-opend by the federal government with unlimited funds for the
investigations and agents assigned to those cases and nothing else.
atheist@home#1554
>
>
>> --
>
>
>Cheerful Charlie
ath...@home.com
Which apologetics?
I don't see that I offered any.
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:30:29 GMT, ath...@home.com said in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>The Democrat Robert Byrd
>
>Dixiecrat.
Yeah...and there were a lot of them.
They stood in the way of civil rights for a long time.
Kennedy wasn't a Dixiecrat however and pretty much had to be forced
into the fight for civil rights.
He claimed that what was going on in the south was a "states" issue
and that he as president shouldn't get involved.
It was a different time and he may well have believed it but he was
also afraid of losing the southern vote.
I don't know which took precedence with him.
The latter I suspect.
atheist@home#1554
firel...@hotmail.com
> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > If the Senate *did* "formally apologize", then what?
> > Would that be the end of it, are you advocating an
> > empty political gesture? Or do you envision it as
> > the Senate taking responsibility for those lynchings,
> > so the survivors can use the Senate's admission of
> > guilt as a basis for legal action?
> >
>
> Empty political gesture?
Yes, unless you have some action in mind to go with
the guilt-fest. Words without actions is pretty
much the definition of "empty political gesture".
I know political creatures enjoy a good photo-op,
but I'd rather our political creatures spent their
time working on something to do with today and
tomorrow, rather than decades ago. If that disgraces
them in your eyes, I'm not planning on losing any
sleep over it.
maff
Your reply was the apologetics. African Americans don't accept your
apologetics.
maff
Therion Ware wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2005 03:47:21 -0800 in alt.atheism, maff ("maff"
> <maf...@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
>
>
>
> >
> >Therion Ware wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2005 01:40:32 -0800 in alt.atheism, maff ("maff"
> >> <maf...@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >FreeThink wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >> Why does all accountability fall on the government? If enough
citizens
> >> >> wanted to stop the lynchings the government would have stopped
them.
> >> >> The government represents the people. We are all responsible.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, we're all responsible. But we have to make sure that
those
> >> >individuals, organizations and businesses who committed and or
abetted
> >> >in those crimes pay more than others.
> >>
> >> How does it go? "If everyone is responsible, no one is actually to
> >> blame". Popularised by Mrs Thatcher's cabinet, IIRC.
> >
> >Nope. As tax payers, we're all responsible for acts of the agents of
> >the government.
>
> Interesting position! Presumably then there can be no such thing as a
> terrorist, except with respect to non tax payers?
Everyone pays taxes. You must be thinking only of income taxes.
ath...@home.com
Do you understand the definition of apologetics?
If so please explain how you think my response qualifies.
maff
You're still evading , aren't you? Why do you think more than 90%
African Americans won't ever vote for Confederates, Christian
fundamentalists and Klan?
The problem isn't Byrd. The problem is African Americans don't trust
Confederates, Christian fundamentalists and the Klan.
Therion Ware
On 7 Feb 2005 01:09:01 -0800 in alt.atheism, maff ("maff"
True. Hadn't thought more widely on that.... So anyone is a
legitimate target?
maff
Why would anyone be legitimate targets? Isn't it usually minorities who
are at the receiving end?
"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Therion Ware
On 7 Feb 2005 02:26:38 -0800 in alt.atheism, maff ("maff"
Yes. I'm not unfamiliar with that poem, nor yet the point it makes.
But, what you appear to be saying is that something like 9/11 was a
legitimate act *because* every American is in some way personally
responsible for the actions - and the consequences of the actions - of
their government.
Let me make this plain:
What it appears to me you're saying, for example, is because US policy
in Iran in the 70s resulted in the "death by interrogation" of a
particular woman's husband, she's can legitimately kill any US
citizen.
While it's an arguable position, (and one I've taken myself,
occasionally as an exercise in argument) are you quite sure it's the
one you want to take, as an actual position, not least because the
implications of adopting that view are, erm, wide ranging?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
maff
Isn't it upto the national and or International Criminal court to
decide?
firel...@hotmail.com
> I couldn't snip any of the above.
> Along with the apology I would like to see as many cases as possible
> re-opend by the federal government with unlimited funds for the
> investigations and agents assigned to those cases and nothing else.
There are numerous private organizations that pursue such
matters, and every one of them accepts donations. If you
want the crimes of a generation ago investigated with
"unlimited funds", open your own damn pocketbook.
ath...@home.com
You accuse me of evading something or other and yet when I asked you a
direct question you offered the above.
You didn't answer the question but went off on some sort of tangent
leaving me completely baffled.
What exactly are you accusing me of evading?
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet said:
"I think every member of the senate who was serving during that time
period and did nothing should apologize.
I think that having people apologize for - and more importantly,
assume guilt for - things that happened before they were born is
patent nonsense."
You replied:
"But we aren't talking about individuals per se. Those Confederate,
Christian fundamentalist and Klan organizations will still be liable."
In response to what Firelock said and you replied, I posted the
information about Robert Byrd to show that there is at least one
member of the Senate who not only stood by while the acts being
discussed were ocurring, but actually encouraged them by participating
in one group responsible for them.
The people in an organization *are* the organization and without their
support the organization cannot survive.
Byrd was an active member of the Klan whose function was to recruit
new members, and who knows how much suffering and death he helped to
cause by his activities.
I'm sorry if the truth of that offends you, but your being offended by
it won't change the facts.
I am not sure at this point, because your response is a bit confusing,
but it appears that maybe you are the one prepared to offer up
apologetics for what Byrd is guilty of.
Now which part of anything I posted can be reasonably considered,
based on the generally accepted definition of the term, to be
apologetics?
>The problem isn't Byrd. The problem is African Americans don't trust
>Confederates, Christian fundamentalists and the Klan.
The problem *was* Byrd and his racist brothers beneath the sheets who
terrorized American citizens, men, women and children because of the
color of their skins.
The problem *is* people who excuse his hatred and the manifestations
of that hatred because it is politically convenient.
Imo there is no atonement for the things he did no matter what he has
done since to attract the block vote in order to maintain his seat in
the senate.
I think any apology by him would ring hollow and seriously doubt it
would be sincere.
atheist@home#1554
<snip>
ath...@home.com
The money the federal government spends does come out of my "own damn
pocketbook" and I have as much right to suggest how it is spent as any
other citizen.
And the fact that a man was lynched a generation ago doesn't make the
crime any less horrible, or illegal and if there are people who can be
proven to have been involved, no matter how old they are or what they
have done with their lives since, they should be prosecuted, convicted
and imprisoned.
There is no statute of limitations for murder no matter the race of
the victim.
I will discuss this with you in a civilized and mature manner if you
like.
Otherwise I am not interested.
atheist@home#1554
FreeThink
Of course it was the latter, most likely. Why? He didn't have enough of
a consensus with the people to do it.
It was the same with Abraham Lincoln. It is thought that he was an
abolitionist. His wife is believed to have been involved in the
Underground Railroad. If you look at the Emancipation Proclamation it
is only one paragraph. Lincoln could really write if he wanted to as
well. It was issued with very little ceremony. It was released with the
political justification of hurting the Confederate war effort by
causing turmoil behind the lines. The reality was there were lots of
bigots in the north and this was the first opportunity he had to make a
pro-abolitionist move.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>It was the same with Abraham Lincoln. It is thought that he was an
>abolitionist. His wife is believed to have been involved in the
>Underground Railroad. If you look at the Emancipation Proclamation it
>is only one paragraph. Lincoln could really write if he wanted to as
>well. It was issued with very little ceremony. It was released with the
>political justification of hurting the Confederate war effort by
>causing turmoil behind the lines. The reality was there were lots of
>bigots in the north and this was the first opportunity he had to make a
>pro-abolitionist move.
So what do you make of his statement that if he could keep the country
united without freeing a single slave he would do it?
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise
as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
FreeThink
Al Klein wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2005 20:04:51 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7...@yahoo.com>
said
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >It was the same with Abraham Lincoln. It is thought that he was an
> >abolitionist. His wife is believed to have been involved in the
> >Underground Railroad. If you look at the Emancipation Proclamation
it
> >is only one paragraph. Lincoln could really write if he wanted to as
> >well. It was issued with very little ceremony. It was released with
the
> >political justification of hurting the Confederate war effort by
> >causing turmoil behind the lines. The reality was there were lots of
> >bigots in the north and this was the first opportunity he had to
make a
> >pro-abolitionist move.
>
> So what do you make of his statement that if he could keep the
country
> united without freeing a single slave he would do it?
I see a couple of possibilities.
1) He was lying. Politicians have to lie, we make them.
2) He thought avoiding a civil war was of greater concern than
abolishing slavery. That's a hard one. I'm not sure if I disagree with
it. It does illustrate what is generally accepted in that slavery was
not the main cause of the civil war.
ath...@home.com
>
>ath...@home.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:27:22 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:30:29 GMT, ath...@home.com said in
>> >alt.atheism:
>> >
>> >>The Democrat Robert Byrd
>> >
>> >Dixiecrat.
>>
>> Yeah...and there were a lot of them.
>> They stood in the way of civil rights for a long time.
>> Kennedy wasn't a Dixiecrat however and pretty much had to be forced
>> into the fight for civil rights.
>> He claimed that what was going on in the south was a "states" issue
>> and that he as president shouldn't get involved.
>> It was a different time and he may well have believed it but he was
>> also afraid of losing the southern vote.
>> I don't know which took precedence with him.
>> The latter I suspect.
>>
>> atheist@home#1554
>
>Of course it was the latter, most likely. Why? He didn't have enough of
>a consensus with the people to do it.
I don't have enough information to make a firm personal judgement on
it at this point.
I do know that when he was being pushed on it he replied that it was a
states issue.
He said something to the effect that the federal government couldn't
get involved in something that was going on in Birmingham Alabama.
A lot of young Americans aren't aware of the fact that prior to the
sixties the federal government wasn't as much a part of our lives as
it is today.
He may have actually believed the federal government had no role in
the situation though it pained him to do so.
At any rate televised images of the dogs and water hoses caused such
an uproar in the nation that it left him with no choice.
<I'm ashamed to admit that I'm much weaker on this subject than I
should be>
>It was the same with Abraham Lincoln. It is thought that he was an
>abolitionist. His wife is believed to have been involved in the
>Underground Railroad. If you look at the Emancipation Proclamation it
>is only one paragraph. Lincoln could really write if he wanted to as
>well. It was issued with very little ceremony. It was released with the
>political justification of hurting the Confederate war effort by
>causing turmoil behind the lines. The reality was there were lots of
>bigots in the north and this was the first opportunity he had to make a
>pro-abolitionist move.
Lincoln undoubtedly detested slavery but believed the federal
government had no legal standing to force an end to it where ever it
was "legal."
He would have welcomed the south back into the union slaves and all
and stated as much.
He also would not have gone to war over slavery.
As for the Proclamation Lincoln was concerned that France and England
might at some point side with the south and assist them in their
cause.
The proclamation placed the focus on slavery which neither France nor
England was about to support.
At any rate the document was written so as to assure that no slaves,
other than those in federally held terrority were included, with
exceptions for slave holding states such as Maryland and Kentucky and
I believe east Tennessee which were loyal to the union.
Actually Lincoln advised his generals that they were not to free
slaves from their masters in terroritory they had won indicating that
he wasn't all that serious about it.
Or maybe he felt the south was more likely to surrender if the slaves
were left untouched.
One enterprising officer decided that since it was accepted practice
to take whatever property from southerners that the army felt would
hamper their war effort he could skirt the order by designating slaves
as "contraband" and the process of actually freeing the slaves began.
I have often wondered what Lincoln would have done regarding slavery
had the south conceded in the first few months and he had served two
full terms.
Pointless question really as there is no way to come close to an
answer because like all politicians he talked out of both sides of his
mouth and would say whatever was politically useful at any given
moment.
<He once even said that any states that wanted to secede had a legal
right to do so>
I do however believe that things would have gone better for the nation
after the war had he lived to serve out his second term.
There might not have been a Jim Crow era.
What a thought.
atheist@home#1554
maff
But whose truth asre you talking about? Confederate truth? Christian
fundamentalist truth? Klan truth?
> I am not sure at this point, because your response is a bit
confusing,
> but it appears that maybe you are the one prepared to offer up
> apologetics for what Byrd is guilty of.
Isn't up to the victims to say whether Byrd is guilty or not?
> Now which part of anything I posted can be reasonably considered,
> based on the generally accepted definition of the term, to be
> apologetics?
But African Americans don't seem to accept Confederate, Christian
funfamentalist and Klan apologetics. Are you now saying you're African
American?
>
> >The problem isn't Byrd. The problem is African Americans don't trust
> >Confederates, Christian fundamentalists and the Klan.
>
> The problem *was* Byrd and his racist brothers beneath the sheets who
> terrorized American citizens, men, women and children because of the
> color of their skins.
But again, I ask you. Are you an African American?
> The problem *is* people who excuse his hatred and the manifestations
> of that hatred because it is politically convenient.
You're still not answering the question. Are you African American?
> Imo there is no atonement for the things he did no matter what he has
> done since to attract the block vote in order to maintain his seat in
> the senate.
You're still not answering the qusetion. Are you an African American?
> I think any apology by him would ring hollow and seriously doubt it
> would be sincere.
You're a Confederate scum and you're going to speak for African
Americans? Why do you think under Eisenhower, African American votes
were evenly divided between the parties but now under Republican
Presidents since Southern Strategy, more than 90% of the African
American vote goes to Democrats?
>
> atheist@home#1554
>
> <snip>
maff
The Confederates were the biggest enforcers of federal power with the
'Fugitive Slave Act'.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/6e717821c4c6a37a
Fugitive Slave Act
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/b06efae448c279d1
>
> >It was the same with Abraham Lincoln. It is thought that he was an
> >abolitionist. His wife is believed to have been involved in the
> >Underground Railroad. If you look at the Emancipation Proclamation
it
> >is only one paragraph. Lincoln could really write if he wanted to as
> >well. It was issued with very little ceremony. It was released with
the
> >political justification of hurting the Confederate war effort by
> >causing turmoil behind the lines. The reality was there were lots of
> >bigots in the north and this was the first opportunity he had to
make a
> >pro-abolitionist move.
>
> Lincoln undoubtedly detested slavery but believed the federal
> government had no legal standing to force an end to it where ever it
> was "legal."
> He would have welcomed the south back into the union slaves and all
> and stated as much.
> He also would not have gone to war over slavery.
But he didn't go to war. It was forced on him by Confederate traitors
firing on Fort Sumter.
Sumter Fort OR Ft
http://news.google.com/news?q=Sumter%20Fort%20OR%20Ft&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=Sumter+Fort+OR+Ft&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Sumter+Fort+OR+Ft&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
firel...@hotmail.com
> On 7 Feb 2005 07:03:24 -0800, firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >ath...@home.com wrote:
> >> I couldn't snip any of the above.
> >> Along with the apology I would like to see as many cases as
possible
> >> re-opend by the federal government with unlimited funds for the
> >> investigations and agents assigned to those cases and nothing
else.
> >
> >There are numerous private organizations that pursue such
> >matters, and every one of them accepts donations. If you
> >want the crimes of a generation ago investigated with
> >"unlimited funds", open your own damn pocketbook.
>
> The money the federal government spends does come out of my "own damn
> pocketbook" and I have as much right to suggest how it is spent as
any
> other citizen.
Remember the DC sniper shootings? The Green River
serial killings? They didn't get "unlimited funding".
Get some perspective - those were active cases with
people at risk during the investigations, rather than
cold case files, and they didn't get what you want these
lynchings to have. Just because a case is politically
pleasurable to you doesn't mean it deserves mountains
of police resources that are needed today for crimes
going on today.
> And the fact that a man was lynched a generation ago doesn't make the
> crime any less horrible, or illegal and if there are people who can
be
> proven to have been involved, no matter how old they are or what they
> have done with their lives since, they should be prosecuted,
convicted
> and imprisoned.
> There is no statute of limitations for murder no matter the race of
> the victim.
There is one unshakeable "Statute of Limitations" on
murder: if everyone involved with the case is dead.
Maybe there's a nursing home resident or two that
you could hunt down - people notorious for their
lack of ability to harm new victims - but almost
every investigation you want to pour "unlimited
funds" towards will end, if ever, with the
investigators following a trail to an old tombstone.
> I will discuss this with you in a civilized and mature manner if you
> like.
> Otherwise I am not interested.
Get some perspective and some sense of priorities, then
I might care if you're interested or not.
ath...@home.com
That's just a silly and not at all clever attempt at diversion.
The "truth" is that Byrd was a malevolent, hate filled, active member
of the Klan.
The "truth" is the Klan terrorized and murdered innocent, defenseless
people.
The "truth" is Byrd knew that and encouraged it, expressing his
approval by being an influential, active member.
You can redefine truth in any manner you like if it makes you
comfortable, but you cannot redefine it away.
It will always be there nipping at your heels.
>> I am not sure at this point, because your response is a bit
>confusing,
>> but it appears that maybe you are the one prepared to offer up
>> apologetics for what Byrd is guilty of.
>
>Isn't up to the victims to say whether Byrd is guilty or not?
It's up to the law.
Some of the direct victims may no longer be around to voice a
complaint.
However some of the indirect victims, their children or grand children
may still be alive, longing for justice.
Don't worry about it though.
There will be no investigation of the powerful Byrd, the "conscience
of the Senate," not by the press, and not by the government.
He has too much support from those who never had a cross burned on
their lawn or felt a noose around their necks; who never had to throw
their bodies over their terrified children in order to protect them
from Byrd and his evil brothers in arms.
He has support from people who never suffered the soul searing
indignities of Jim Crow, or who did suffer them but are willing to
trade his victims for political favors.
Capos, Bolsheviks, trustees, snitches.
He certainly has your support doesn't he?
And you aren't the least bit embarrassed about it are you?
>> Now which part of anything I posted can be reasonably considered,
>> based on the generally accepted definition of the term, to be
>> apologetics?
>
>But African Americans don't seem to accept Confederate, Christian
>funfamentalist and Klan apologetics. Are you now saying you're African
>American?
No, I am not African American.
How did you even get to that?
What does it have do do with what we are sort of discussing?
You didn't answer the question.
Where did I post anything that can be considered apologetics?
You on the other hand...
>> >The problem isn't Byrd. The problem is African Americans don't trust
>> >Confederates, Christian fundamentalists and the Klan.
>>
>> The problem *was* Byrd and his racist brothers beneath the sheets who
>> terrorized American citizens, men, women and children because of the
>> color of their skins.
>
>But again, I ask you. Are you an African American?
Again, what does that have to do with anything being discussed?
>> The problem *is* people who excuse his hatred and the manifestations
>> of that hatred because it is politically convenient.
>
>You're still not answering the question. Are you African American?
Now this is a bit strange.
You asked the question in this post and you asked it several times.
You are behaving as though you asked it before this thread and I
refused to answer.
Another weak attempt at diversion perhaps?
I suspect so given the opinion you expressed of me below.
>> Imo there is no atonement for the things he did no matter what he has
>> done since to attract the block vote in order to maintain his seat in
>> the senate.
>
>You're still not answering the qusetion. Are you an African American?
>
>> I think any apology by him would ring hollow and seriously doubt it
>> would be sincere.
>
>You're a Confederate scum and you're going to speak for African
>Americans?
*You* speak for Byrd and by proxy his fellow hate filled racist
brethern.
I'll speak for their victims.
I'm a citizen and have a right and a duty to do so.
Didn't you post this:
"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Does that only apply in your case when it's politically convenient?
Why is it that you think I am "Confederate scum?"
That's another direct question.
Are you African American?
If not do you think that may be one reason you are so willing to
defend Byrd?
>Why do you think under Eisenhower, African American votes
>were evenly divided between the parties but now under Republican
>Presidents since Southern Strategy, more than 90% of the African
>American vote goes to Democrats?
What exactly do you mean by southern strategy?
atheist@home#1554
>>
>> <snip>
ath...@home.com
I was actually thinking of a special commission and officers with the
sole function of investigating cold cases.
Especially where government may have been involved in coverups or
members of government may have been directly involved in the crimes.
I get your point about unlimiting funding however.
>> And the fact that a man was lynched a generation ago doesn't make the
>> crime any less horrible, or illegal and if there are people who can
>be
>> proven to have been involved, no matter how old they are or what they
>> have done with their lives since, they should be prosecuted,
>convicted
>> and imprisoned.
>> There is no statute of limitations for murder no matter the race of
>> the victim.
>
>There is one unshakeable "Statute of Limitations" on
>murder: if everyone involved with the case is dead.
>Maybe there's a nursing home resident or two that
>you could hunt down - people notorious for their
>lack of ability to harm new victims - but almost
>every investigation you want to pour "unlimited
>funds" towards will end, if ever, with the
>investigators following a trail to an old tombstone.
Not always, and cases and investigations would have to be selective.
There have been some recent successes.
There could be more.
I do understand your points but is justice served when a murder case
is allowed to die just because a killer can no longer do damage?
Who is speaking for the victims then?
On the other hand it is opening a can of worms that would send happy
little chills up and down the spines of the nation's lawyers.
>> I will discuss this with you in a civilized and mature manner if you
>> like.
>> Otherwise I am not interested.
>
>Get some perspective and some sense of priorities, then
>I might care if you're interested or not.
You care or you wouldn't have replied.
As far as perspective and sense of priorities what would be the point
of the debate if we were in total agreement?
atheist@home#1554
firel...@hotmail.com
Such groups exist. They have a lot on their plate,
*including* lynchings of forty, fifty, sixty years
ago. How many resources do you want to direct away
from minutes-old cases to investigate fifty-year old
cases?
<snip>
> >> And the fact that a man was lynched a generation ago doesn't make
the
> >> crime any less horrible, or illegal and if there are people who
can
> >be
> >> proven to have been involved, no matter how old they are or what
they
> >> have done with their lives since, they should be prosecuted,
> >convicted
> >> and imprisoned.
> >> There is no statute of limitations for murder no matter the race
of
> >> the victim.
> >
> >There is one unshakeable "Statute of Limitations" on
> >murder: if everyone involved with the case is dead.
> >Maybe there's a nursing home resident or two that
> >you could hunt down - people notorious for their
> >lack of ability to harm new victims - but almost
> >every investigation you want to pour "unlimited
> >funds" towards will end, if ever, with the
> >investigators following a trail to an old tombstone.
>
> Not always, and cases and investigations would have to be selective.
> There have been some recent successes.
> There could be more.
The famous recent "Mississippi Burning" conviction? All
the other suspected co-conspirators are dead...and those
murders were some of the most recent of the murders in
question.
> I do understand your points but is justice served when a murder case
> is allowed to die just because a killer can no longer do damage?
Is justice served when careers of capable law enforcement
officers are spent trying to bring dead people to justice?
> Who is speaking for the victims then?
You are, I suppose...you seem to feel the need.
> On the other hand it is opening a can of worms that would send happy
> little chills up and down the spines of the nation's lawyers.
Sure, they'd love to get 50% of multi-million dollar
wrongful death lawsuits. Your tax dollars at work.
> >> I will discuss this with you in a civilized and mature manner if
you
> >> like.
> >> Otherwise I am not interested.
> >
> >Get some perspective and some sense of priorities, then
> >I might care if you're interested or not.
>
> You care or you wouldn't have replied.
I care about the entertainment value of your posts - that's
about it, at this point.
maff
So why don't you present the evidence to the courts? It's more than one
individual and the fact is most of the racists bolted to the Republican
Party after the 'Southern Strategy'. I don't see you outing Thurmond,
Lott, et al. It's even more than individuals like Thurmond, Lott, Byrd
or anyone else. It's organizations which aided and abetted them. You
can always change the names from Klan to 'Concerned Christians' but
like enacting 'Fugitive Slave Act', Confederate and Christian
fundamentalist agenda will never be Union agenda.
>
> >> I am not sure at this point, because your response is a bit
> >confusing,
> >> but it appears that maybe you are the one prepared to offer up
> >> apologetics for what Byrd is guilty of.
> >
> >Isn't up to the victims to say whether Byrd is guilty or not?
>
> It's up to the law.
> Some of the direct victims may no longer be around to voice a
> complaint.
> However some of the indirect victims, their children or grand
children
> may still be alive, longing for justice.
> Don't worry about it though.
> There will be no investigation of the powerful Byrd, the "conscience
> of the Senate," not by the press, and not by the government.
> He has too much support from those who never had a cross burned on
> their lawn or felt a noose around their necks; who never had to throw
> their bodies over their terrified children in order to protect them
> from Byrd and his evil brothers in arms.
> He has support from people who never suffered the soul searing
> indignities of Jim Crow, or who did suffer them but are willing to
> trade his victims for political favors.
> Capos, Bolsheviks, trustees, snitches.
> He certainly has your support doesn't he?
> And you aren't the least bit embarrassed about it are you?
But Byrd belongs to the minority party. I don't see you bringing
criminal and or civil charges against Thurmond's estate, Lott or other
Republican racists. If Byrd has committed a crime then so be it. Let
all racist criminals be exposed by the courts regardless of whether
they are Democrats, Republicans or anyone else.
>
> >> Now which part of anything I posted can be reasonably considered,
> >> based on the generally accepted definition of the term, to be
> >> apologetics?
> >
> >But African Americans don't seem to accept Confederate, Christian
> >funfamentalist and Klan apologetics. Are you now saying you're
African
> >American?
>
> No, I am not African American.
So Massa is going to speak against Byrd? So how come Massa is not able
convince African Americans to vote for him?
> How did you even get to that?
> What does it have do do with what we are sort of discussing?
> You didn't answer the question.
> Where did I post anything that can be considered apologetics?
Apologetics is when only part of the story is told. You know very well
that almost all racist Dixiecrats and Democrats bolted to the
Republicans after the 'Southern Strategy'
Southern Strategy
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.radio.talk/msg/0e099ef4d46580f6
> You on the other hand...
will expose all racists regardless of whether they are Republicans,
Democrats or anyone else.
>
> >> >The problem isn't Byrd. The problem is African Americans don't
trust
> >> >Confederates, Christian fundamentalists and the Klan.
> >>
> >> The problem *was* Byrd and his racist brothers beneath the sheets
who
> >> terrorized American citizens, men, women and children because of
the
> >> color of their skins.
> >
> >But again, I ask you. Are you an African American?
>
> Again, what does that have to do with anything being discussed?
It's to do with you being the Massa.
>
> >> The problem *is* people who excuse his hatred and the
manifestations
> >> of that hatred because it is politically convenient.
> >
> >You're still not answering the question. Are you African American?
>
> Now this is a bit strange.
> You asked the question in this post and you asked it several times.
> You are behaving as though you asked it before this thread and I
> refused to answer.
> Another weak attempt at diversion perhaps?
> I suspect so given the opinion you expressed of me below.
That's what made the Confederates to fire on Fort Sumter. The people
are still the same regardless of party labels.
>
> >> Imo there is no atonement for the things he did no matter what he
has
> >> done since to attract the block vote in order to maintain his seat
in
> >> the senate.
> >
> >You're still not answering the qusetion. Are you an African
American?
> >
> >> I think any apology by him would ring hollow and seriously doubt
it
> >> would be sincere.
> >
> >You're a Confederate scum and you're going to speak for African
> >Americans?
>
> *You* speak for Byrd and by proxy his fellow hate filled racist
> brethern.
> I'll speak for their victims.
So why aren't African Ameriacns voting for Masas, Thurmond, Lott, et
al?
> I'm a citizen and have a right and a duty to do so.
> Didn't you post this:
> "In Germany they first came for the Communists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Catholics,
> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
> Then they came for me -
> and by that time no one was left to speak up."
> Does that only apply in your case when it's politically convenient?
> Why is it that you think I am "Confederate scum?"
> That's another direct question.
> Are you African American?
> If not do you think that may be one reason you are so willing to
> defend Byrd?
I have said if the courts find Byrd guilty then so be it. If the courts
find Thurmond, Lott, et al guilty then so be it.
>
> >Why do you think under Eisenhower, African American votes
> >were evenly divided between the parties but now under Republican
> >Presidents since Southern Strategy, more than 90% of the African
> >American vote goes to Democrats?
>
> What exactly do you mean by southern strategy?
Southern Strategy
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.radio.talk/msg/0e099ef4d46580f6
Pre-Civil War Free Vs. Slave States
http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg
>
> atheist@home#1554
> >>
> >> <snip>
ath...@home.com
<snip>
Party is totally irrelevant to me.
Did Lott or Thurmond belong to a group that committed illegal
activities, including murder?
If so Lott should be investigated along with Byrd.
A man can change over the years, apoligize and do his best to atone
for certain attitudes or things he may have said or done, but he
cannot atone for systematic terror, torture or murder.
I don't excuse Thurmond for what he did in the past.
Had he been a stupid, uneducated man I could understand his racism but
he was not.
His bid for president in 1948 as a segregationist was inexcusable imo.
America's blacks had just fought and died in a war against oppression
and the survivors returned to what?
The same oppression they had fought against.
Thurmond should have know better and behaved differently.
It's up to America's blacks if they want to forgive him for that.
Byrd on the other hand belonged to an organization that committed
murder, and murder cannot be recalled.
The problem I have with that is none of us knows if he was involved in
any terrorist activities including lynchings.
If he was he should be in prison.
If all lynchings in his area when he was in the Klan were recorded as
such it should be fairly easy to check.
I do not have a lot of faith however that they were.
>>
>> >> Now which part of anything I posted can be reasonably considered,
>> >> based on the generally accepted definition of the term, to be
>> >> apologetics?
>> >
>> >But African Americans don't seem to accept Confederate, Christian
>> >funfamentalist and Klan apologetics. Are you now saying you're
>African
>> >American?
>>
>> No, I am not African American.
>
>So Massa is going to speak against Byrd? So how come Massa is not able
>convince African Americans to vote for him?
Grow up.
Do you want to have a civil discussion or sit here and swap adolescent
barbs?
I have neither the time nor the inclination for the latter myself.
It's not productive.
>> How did you even get to that?
>> What does it have do do with what we are sort of discussing?
>> You didn't answer the question.
>> Where did I post anything that can be considered apologetics?
>Apologetics is when only part of the story is told. You know very well
>that almost all racist Dixiecrats and Democrats bolted to the
>Republicans after the 'Southern Strategy'
Yes I do.
And the Republicans have paid for it dearly as they should have.
Where did I offer up any apologetics?
>Southern Strategy
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.radio.talk/msg/0e099ef4d46580f6
>
>> You on the other hand...
>
>will expose all racists regardless of whether they are Republicans,
>Democrats or anyone else.
Well good for you.
I won't tolerate racist garbage from my friends or family much less
anybody else.
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that I am a racist?
>>
>> >> >The problem isn't Byrd. The problem is African Americans don't
>trust
>> >> >Confederates, Christian fundamentalists and the Klan.
>> >>
>> >> The problem *was* Byrd and his racist brothers beneath the sheets
>who
>> >> terrorized American citizens, men, women and children because of
>the
>> >> color of their skins.
>> >
>> >But again, I ask you. Are you an African American?
>>
>> Again, what does that have to do with anything being discussed?
>
>It's to do with you being the Massa.
The insults are meaningless except that again they are counter
productive.
You are behaving like any other childish keyboard warrior who feels
safe in trying to insult people in usenet because you know you don't
have to back up the bark.
What's the point of that?
It doesn't take a lot of backbone.
I won't play that stupid game anymore.
Your opinions do matter to me and if you want to engage in a civil
discussion I would sincerely enjoy it.
Otherwise I don't have time for you.
>>
>> >> The problem *is* people who excuse his hatred and the
>manifestations
>> >> of that hatred because it is politically convenient.
>> >
>> >You're still not answering the question. Are you African American?
>>
>> Now this is a bit strange.
>> You asked the question in this post and you asked it several times.
>> You are behaving as though you asked it before this thread and I
>> refused to answer.
>> Another weak attempt at diversion perhaps?
>> I suspect so given the opinion you expressed of me below.
>
>That's what made the Confederates to fire on Fort Sumter. The people
>are still the same regardless of party labels.
I'm afraid you lost me there.
Except the last part..I agree people can be the same regardless of
party labels.
Unfortunately too many devoted party members refuse to accept that.
>>
<snip>
>> >You're a Confederate scum and you're going to speak for African
>> >Americans?
>>
>> *You* speak for Byrd and by proxy his fellow hate filled racist
>> brethern.
>> I'll speak for their victims.
>
>So why aren't African Ameriacns voting for Masas, Thurmond, Lott, et
>al?
We both know why.
However more blacks *are* voting Republican lately.
And Condoleezza Rice is quite likely to be the first female as well as
the first black vice president.
And when she runs <If she agrees to do so> who do you think most
blacks will vote for?
>> I'm a citizen and have a right and a duty to do so.
>> Didn't you post this:
>> "In Germany they first came for the Communists,
>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
<snip>
>> Why is it that you think I am "Confederate scum?"
>> That's another direct question.
>> Are you African American?
>> If not do you think that may be one reason you are so willing to
>> defend Byrd?
>
>I have said if the courts find Byrd guilty then so be it. If the courts
>find Thurmond, Lott, et al guilty then so be it.
Byrd will not be investigated.
He is protected by monied interests, political power and party
loyalty.
He is a member of that elite class which throughout history has always
been held unaccountable if holding them accountable might threaten the
cause or weaken the party.
If he was ever responsible, directly or indirectly for the torture or
death of any "common man" especially if that man was
"a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds," then we must
simply accept it for the sake of the party.
After all, it was nothing more than "youthful indiscretions."
Practical politics you see.
And the moral considerations regarding decency, honor and justice will
just have to take their seats at the back of the bus as usual and
remember their place in political society.
>> >Why do you think under Eisenhower, African American votes
>> >were evenly divided between the parties but now under Republican
>> >Presidents since Southern Strategy, more than 90% of the African
>> >American vote goes to Democrats?
>>
>> What exactly do you mean by southern strategy?
<snip>
>Pre-Civil War Free Vs. Slave States
>http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg
Lol!
Irrelevant though slightly clever in a satirical fashion.
Why is it that you think I am "Confederate scum?
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<snip>
>> You care or you wouldn't have replied.
>
>I care about the entertainment value of your posts - that's
>about it, at this point.
The conversation between us is over.
I regret that it could not have been more productive.
atheist@home#1554
maff
So why don't you collect the evidence of individuals, organizxations
and businesses who aided and abetted in those crimes to the attention
of the court? Thurmond was no different. He was just the tip of the
iceberg. Others in the iceberg are still lurking under different
guises.
I doubt African Americans cared about much about party labels from
bitter experience.
>
> >>
> >> >> Now which part of anything I posted can be reasonably
considered,
> >> >> based on the generally accepted definition of the term, to be
> >> >> apologetics?
> >> >
> >> >But African Americans don't seem to accept Confederate, Christian
> >> >funfamentalist and Klan apologetics. Are you now saying you're
> >African
> >> >American?
> >>
> >> No, I am not African American.
> >
> >So Massa is going to speak against Byrd? So how come Massa is not
able
> >convince African Americans to vote for him?
>
> Grow up.
> Do you want to have a civil discussion or sit here and swap
adolescent
> barbs?
> I have neither the time nor the inclination for the latter myself.
> It's not productive.
Unless you face the facts, Confederacy is not going to grow up.
>
> >> How did you even get to that?
> >> What does it have do do with what we are sort of discussing?
> >> You didn't answer the question.
> >> Where did I post anything that can be considered apologetics?
>
> >Apologetics is when only part of the story is told. You know very
well
> >that almost all racist Dixiecrats and Democrats bolted to the
> >Republicans after the 'Southern Strategy'
>
> Yes I do.
> And the Republicans have paid for it dearly as they should have.
> Where did I offer up any apologetics?
You were saying it was just Byrd.
>
> >Southern Strategy
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.radio.talk/msg/0e099ef4d46580f6
> >
> >> You on the other hand...
> >
> >will expose all racists regardless of whether they are Republicans,
> >Democrats or anyone else.
>
> Well good for you.
> I won't tolerate racist garbage from my friends or family much less
> anybody else.
> How exactly did you come to the conclusion that I am a racist?
You might not be racist. It's the company you keep. Lee might not have
been slave owner but he led the slavers cause.
>
> >>
> >> >> >The problem isn't Byrd. The problem is African Americans don't
> >trust
> >> >> >Confederates, Christian fundamentalists and the Klan.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem *was* Byrd and his racist brothers beneath the
sheets
> >who
> >> >> terrorized American citizens, men, women and children because
of
> >the
> >> >> color of their skins.
> >> >
> >> >But again, I ask you. Are you an African American?
> >>
> >> Again, what does that have to do with anything being discussed?
> >
> >It's to do with you being the Massa.
>
> The insults are meaningless except that again they are counter
> productive.
> You are behaving like any other childish keyboard warrior who feels
> safe in trying to insult people in usenet because you know you don't
> have to back up the bark.
> What's the point of that?
> It doesn't take a lot of backbone.
> I won't play that stupid game anymore.
> Your opinions do matter to me and if you want to engage in a civil
> discussion I would sincerely enjoy it.
> Otherwise I don't have time for you.
The point I'm making is what Democrats were doing before the Southern
Strategy is being picked up by the Repubicans especially in the South.
>
> >>
> >> >> The problem *is* people who excuse his hatred and the
> >manifestations
> >> >> of that hatred because it is politically convenient.
> >> >
> >> >You're still not answering the question. Are you African
American?
> >>
> >> Now this is a bit strange.
> >> You asked the question in this post and you asked it several
times.
> >> You are behaving as though you asked it before this thread and I
> >> refused to answer.
> >> Another weak attempt at diversion perhaps?
> >> I suspect so given the opinion you expressed of me below.
> >
> >That's what made the Confederates to fire on Fort Sumter. The people
> >are still the same regardless of party labels.
>
> I'm afraid you lost me there.
> Except the last part..I agree people can be the same regardless of
> party labels.
> Unfortunately too many devoted party members refuse to accept that.
The read the riot act to them. Such behavior is not acceptable.
>
> >>
> <snip>
>
> >> >You're a Confederate scum and you're going to speak for African
> >> >Americans?
> >>
> >> *You* speak for Byrd and by proxy his fellow hate filled racist
> >> brethern.
> >> I'll speak for their victims.
> >
> >So why aren't African Ameriacns voting for Masas, Thurmond, Lott, et
> >al?
>
> We both know why.
> However more blacks *are* voting Republican lately.
10% of the African American vote is not a lot when you consider under
Eisenhower the African American vote was evenly split.
> And Condoleezza Rice is quite likely to be the first female as well
as
> the first black vice president.
> And when she runs <If she agrees to do so> who do you think most
> blacks will vote for?
Not that many. It's a class thing than a race thing. In the case of
overwhelming of the African Americans, their skin is an additional
burden in addition to class status. It also makes poor whites feel that
they're better them.
So you think THurmond, Lott, et al were not protected by monied
interests, political power and party loyalty. Which planet are you
from? There're still racists in *both* parties.
>
> >> >Why do you think under Eisenhower, African American votes
> >> >were evenly divided between the parties but now under Republican
> >> >Presidents since Southern Strategy, more than 90% of the African
> >> >American vote goes to Democrats?
> >>
> >> What exactly do you mean by southern strategy?
>
> <snip>
>
> >Pre-Civil War Free Vs. Slave States
> >http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg
>
> Lol!
> Irrelevant though slightly clever in a satirical fashion.
But it isn't a satire.
> Why is it that you think I am "Confederate scum?
You're the same as Lee.
>
> atheist@home#1554
firel...@hotmail.com
> The conversation between us is over.
> I regret that it could not have been more productive.
I see that someone is forgetting that they're
posting to Usenet. ;-)
ath...@home.com
>ath...@home.com wrote:
>> The conversation between us is over.
>> I regret that it could not have been more productive.
>
>I see that someone is forgetting that they're
>posting to Usenet. ;-)
Heh.
Actually I just spent a couple of months on google re-reading posts by
some of my favorite posters as well as taking a long hard look at my
own posting style.
I have learned a lot here from people with different perspectives and
have been forced to re-evaluate many of my own beliefs.
But sometimes, especially over the past three years I have been an
unconscionable ass and it took a while to realize why.
I actually burned with indignation at some of the things I have said
to people I had grown to respect over the years.
It's too easy in usenet to vent personal anger and frustration.
At any rate I don't much care for personal flames anymore.
It distracts from a discussion and is not productive.
There are worthy points of view to share and things to learn and flame
wars are useless.
Now I'm just hoping I can curb my own natural smart ass tendencies
<grits teeth> and not respond to flames with flames.
At any rate I'm not pissed.
I just think I'll drop out of any discussion when the flames begin or
at least ignore the flames.
<grits teeth>
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
I don't have the means to do such a thing.
Again, the difference between someone who simply spouts racist views
and one who may have committed or encouraged violent, racist acts is
is the thing the law would be concerned with.
There are racists in both primary parties though the racism may
manifest itself in different ways and the law cannot conceivably
investigate every racist in Washington or the country.
>I doubt African Americans cared about much about party labels from
>bitter experience.
They make deals with the devil when they have to.
But then that's politics eh?.
>> >> >> Now which part of anything I posted can be reasonably
>considered,
>> >> >> based on the generally accepted definition of the term, to be
>> >> >> apologetics?
>> >> >
>> >> >But African Americans don't seem to accept Confederate, Christian
>> >> >funfamentalist and Klan apologetics. Are you now saying you're
>> >African
>> >> >American?
>> >>
>> >> No, I am not African American.
>> >
>> >So Massa is going to speak against Byrd? So how come Massa is not
>able
>> >convince African Americans to vote for him?
>>
>> Grow up.
>> Do you want to have a civil discussion or sit here and swap
>adolescent
>> barbs?
>> I have neither the time nor the inclination for the latter myself.
>> It's not productive.
>
>Unless you face the facts, Confederacy is not going to grow up.
You keep referring to the "Confederacy" which I take to be a personal
jab at me and I'm a bit confused as to why.
Please explain.
>>
>> >> How did you even get to that?
>> >> What does it have do do with what we are sort of discussing?
>> >> You didn't answer the question.
>> >> Where did I post anything that can be considered apologetics?
>>
>> >Apologetics is when only part of the story is told. You know very
>well
>> >that almost all racist Dixiecrats and Democrats bolted to the
>> >Republicans after the 'Southern Strategy'
>>
>> Yes I do.
>> And the Republicans have paid for it dearly as they should have.
>> Where did I offer up any apologetics?
>
>You were saying it was just Byrd.
I think you jumped to conclusions there.
Byrd is the only member of congress that I know of who was a member of
the Klan and spouted such horrible racist hatred.
If I knew of more I would have posted about them as well, regardless
of party.
<Again, I don't fit in either party>
For some of us the Klan isn't just a word or a concept that we read or
hear about.
It goes much, much deeper than that.
I grew up in the south during Jim Crow and have a rather visceral
response to the word.
Sometime during the late sixties <I was a hippie> some friends and I
attended a Klan convention out of curiosity.
We were all longhaired freaks to them and they said some petty bad
things to us, including some that were a bit threatning.
One who was in the seat behind me kept tugging at my hair.
I reached back and brushed his hand away once and he snarled "Scratch
those lice boy."
I jumped up, turned around, pointed my finger at him and told him to
keep his damned hands off me.
<Oh the follies of youth>
Nothing happened except that he didn't touch me anymore but it was a
stupid move on my part given the circumstances.
At any rate prior to entering the auditorium there were people
gathered in the lobby of the building.
<Now bear with me on this. It's a bit long but I would like for you to
have a clear picture of it so that you will understand why it was so
damned spooky>
The people gathered there were not the tobacco chewing, butt
scratching, crotch pulling, toothless rednecks we had expected.
Most of them were well dressed and based on their speech pretty well
educated.
There was a professional photographer in the lobby taking pictures of
kids as well as family portraits.
The kids, including at least one or two infants were dressed in Klan
robes, including the dunce hats and the photographer would tell them
to smile and say "nigger" as he snapped the photo.
Sweet, innocent little children being taught that sort of thing by the
parents they trusted.
It made us sick at our stomachs.
There were also photos for sell including some of lynchings.
<Damn, I'm getting pissed as hell just typing this and just realized
I'm beating the absolute hell out of my keyboard>
When it was time to enter the auditorium we took our seats and sat
through the most horrible hate filled rants and raves by speakers who
were bringing the house down with jokes about little "nigger" girls
who wanted nothing more for Christmas than a "Burn baby burn doll" and
black men "dancing in the trees."
The hate was palpable, it actually felt as though it had physical
substance.
I can still feel it.
And it's difficult for me to believe that anybody with that much
racial hatred could ever get rid of it, including Byrd.
>>
>> >Southern Strategy
>>
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.radio.talk/msg/0e099ef4d46580f6
>> >
>> >> You on the other hand...
>> >
>> >will expose all racists regardless of whether they are Republicans,
>> >Democrats or anyone else.
>>
>> Well good for you.
>> I won't tolerate racist garbage from my friends or family much less
>> anybody else.
>> How exactly did you come to the conclusion that I am a racist?
>
>You might not be racist. It's the company you keep.
Which company?
>Lee might not have been slave owner but he led the slavers cause.
It wasn't the slaver's cause Lee was fighting for.
People in the south then generally considered their state to be their
country.
That's what Lee was fighting for.
I know it's a difficult thing for people to separate the one thing
from the other but in my opinion we can never truly understand why the
war went to the lengths it did if we aren't willing to do that.
It's easy to say it was about slavery and that all those who fought
for the south did so in support of it but it's just not accurate.
Unfortuntely even those who were fighting for an ideal of independence
from government oppression were just fighting to replace one
oppressive government with another.
<snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >But again, I ask you. Are you an African American?
>> >>
>> >> Again, what does that have to do with anything being discussed?
>> >
>> >It's to do with you being the Massa.
>>
>> The insults are meaningless except that again they are counter
>> productive.
>> You are behaving like any other childish keyboard warrior who feels
>> safe in trying to insult people in usenet because you know you don't
>> have to back up the bark.
>> What's the point of that?
>> It doesn't take a lot of backbone.
>> I won't play that stupid game anymore.
>> Your opinions do matter to me and if you want to engage in a civil
>> discussion I would sincerely enjoy it.
>> Otherwise I don't have time for you.
>
>The point I'm making is what Democrats were doing before the Southern
>Strategy is being picked up by the Repubicans especially in the South.
Explain please.
Republicans have a different view of how things should be handled and
are very often painted as racists or cold hearted by Democrats because
they oppose certain programs or aspects of those programs that they
honestly and sometimes rightfully believe would do more harm than
good.
I have a friend who is a psychologist.
He spent a couple of years in a depressed region of the Appalachians
working and doing research.
What he discovered was a people who had at one time been independant,
family oriented and hard working but who due to government aid had
become dependant on government because the only thing they had to do
was lay about and go once a month to pick up their food stamps and
government checks.
As a result, incentive to do better was gradually trained out of them
over generations until for many it no longer existed.
Alcoholism became a problem which of course created more problems;
families and communities fragmented and the thing good hearted people
meant as a help became a curse.
Having worked an inner city ambulance for a few years I would have a
different view of the way Democrats have handled welfare programs than
someone who has not seen the destruction it can cause.
Several years ago Republicans decided to do away with the federal
bureaucracy that ate up so much of the money going to school breakfast
and lunch programs for the needy.
They passed a bill that required the money be sent in blocks to the
states whom they felt knew better how to distribute it than the
federal government.
They then gave more money for the programs than Democrats had asked
for.
School systems as a result had far more money for the programs yet
Democrats screeched that Republicans were taking food from the mouths
of children.
It was partisan politics at it's worst.
The problem is many good hearted, concerned Democrats believed the lie
which of course made them all the more angry with those terribly cruel
Republicans.
Politics is a dirty, dirty business without honor.
Republicans accuse Democrats of destroying the country and Democrats
accuse Republicans of the same.
Personally I suspect the thing that will eventually destroy America
will be the demonizing rhetoric from both sides that infects the
populace with hate and distrust until it's ready for an armed
revolution.
<snip>
>> >
>> >That's what made the Confederates to fire on Fort Sumter. The people
>> >are still the same regardless of party labels.
>>
>> I'm afraid you lost me there.
>> Except the last part..I agree people can be the same regardless of
>> party labels.
>> Unfortunately too many devoted party members refuse to accept that.
>
>The read the riot act to them. Such behavior is not acceptable.
I don't generally have to read the riot act to them.
Some of what people see as active racism or what many see as a racist
remark is actually cultural habit.
The guy who delivered my firewood once told me a story about some
black guys he went squirrel and rabbit hunting with.
They hunted with sticks with rocks or metal they had afixed to the one
end.
They threw the sticks at their prey and were very good at it.
He had a tremendous amount of respect for them and spent a good deal
of time with them yet when he told the story he referred to them as
"niggers."
He didn't mean it the way most people would think he did.
My red neck step father would sometimes storm that he was tired of
"being treated like a damned nigger."
That's the only way I ever heard him use the term.
He had worked beside blacks all his life and didn't consider himself
to be any different or any better than them.
They were all just working men as far as he was concerned.
I was working a painting job with him once in the mid sixties when he
started raving about a contractor who had tried to cheat him out of
his money.
One of the other guys working the job was an older black man my step
father had often worked with and considered a friend.
All of a sudden I heard my step father shout "Goddamnit, I'm tired of
these bastards treating me like a goddamn nigger!!"
I froze up and looked at the black guy.
He smiled at me and winked, then looked at my step father and said
"Yassuh mussa' Hoyt, I knows jes what you mean!"
We all laughed of course and my step father turned beet red.
Still, it' a word I do not like and one that I don't allow to be used
around me.
<snip>
>> >So why aren't African Ameriacns voting for Masas, Thurmond, Lott, et
>> >al?
>>
>> We both know why.
>> However more blacks *are* voting Republican lately.
>
>10% of the African American vote is not a lot when you consider under
>Eisenhower the African American vote was evenly split.
It doesn't make much difference nationally.
>> And Condoleezza Rice is quite likely to be the first female as well
>as
>> the first black vice president.
>> And when she runs <If she agrees to do so> who do you think most
>> blacks will vote for?
>
>Not that many. It's a class thing than a race thing. In the case of
>overwhelming of the African Americans, their skin is an additional
>burden in addition to class status. It also makes poor whites feel that
>they're better them.
I've encountered that.
And understand it to a degree I think.
<snip>
>> >I have said if the courts find Byrd guilty then so be it. If the
>courts
>> >find Thurmond, Lott, et al guilty then so be it.
>>
>> Byrd will not be investigated.
>> He is protected by monied interests, political power and party
>> loyalty.
>> He is a member of that elite class which throughout history has
>always
>> been held unaccountable if holding them accountable might threaten
>the
>> cause or weaken the party.
>> If he was ever responsible, directly or indirectly for the torture or
>> death of any "common man" especially if that man was
>> "a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds," then we must
>> simply accept it for the sake of the party.
>> After all, it was nothing more than "youthful indiscretions."
>> Practical politics you see.
>> And the moral considerations regarding decency, honor and justice
>will
>> just have to take their seats at the back of the bus as usual and
>> remember their place in political society.
>
>So you think THurmond, Lott, et al were not protected by monied
>interests, political power and party loyalty. Which planet are you
>from?
Yes I do know they are all protected.
That's why I said:
"He is a member of that elite class which throughout history has
always been held unaccountable if holding them accountable might
threaten the cause or weaken the party."
Apparently you are under the impression that my not giving Republicans
equal time on this issue indicates a silent defense of them.
I think I understand your accusation of "apologetics" a bit better.
You are mistaken however.
Again, I simply do not know of any serving congressmen who were
members of the Klan and spouted such racial hatred.
>There're still racists in *both* parties.
Sure there are.
And I truly suspect some of the things we see as "good works" are
simply manifestations of subtle, unrecognized or unacknowledged racism
while some of the things that are claimed to be racist are exactly the
opposite.
In fact to be honest, I am convinced of it.
<snip>
>> >http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg
>>
>> Lol!
>> Irrelevant though slightly clever in a satirical fashion.
>
>But it isn't a satire.
Ok, just silly then.
It has no meaning in the real world though it may serve a somewhat
comical purpose as far as propaganda in the twilight zone of politics.
Unfortunately the people who buy into it will see everybody in those
states as racists which does them a disservice.
It's dishonorable to accuse them of such a thing for political
purposes.
It will probably work however.
Pretty sad.
>> Why is it that you think I am "Confederate scum?
>
>You're the same as Lee.
Thanks for the compliment though I suspect you didn't intend it as
such.
Lee wasn't "Confederate scum" no matter what you may believe.
He was admired by a large number of people in the north as well as the
south.
He was an honorable man fighting for the right cause on the wrong
side.
And I am an American 100%
But I am also southern and proud of it.
I do not trust the government in Washington because I believe they
have usurped the power intended by the Constitution to be power held
not by the federal government but by the states without interference.
If my love of the Constitution and limited government makes me
Confederate scum so be it.
I can proudly live with that.
It just doesn't make me a racist longing for the days of slavery or
Jim Crow.
The old south is thankfully dead.
We have managed to keep some of the better parts of it and done away
with most of the evil.
And I would have fought for that.
atheist@home#1554