Friday, June 17, 2005
Strange fruit and deranged coots
History doesn't always repeat itself as farce; sometimes the second time is tragedy, too. But there was definitely an element of farce in the Senate's long-overdue apology for lynching. Why did Bill Frist insist on a voice vote in an evening session, vetoing a roll-call vote and nixing a debate during regular business hours when there would be media coverage? Obviously because many of his repug colleagues, especially those from the South, didn't want to go on record against lynching since it would be political poison in their home states.
But the prize for mealy-mouthed hypocrisy surely goes to Frist's fellow Tennessean, Lamar Alexander. Alexander is one of 16 senators - all repugs - who refuse to express their support of the measure by co-sponsoring it. (Arizona's Kyl is another.) But Alexander tried to cover his ample derriere by hurriedly introducing a competing resolution called "celebrating Black History Month". The Tennessean newspaper reports: '"There is no resolution of apology that we can pass today that will teach one more child to read, prevent one more case of AIDS, or stop one more violent crime," Alexander said in a statement he inserted into the Congressional Record during the apology debate.' Note the word "inserted"; it means that Alexander wasn't present for the debate! He didn't even care enough to deliver his pompous bloviation in person!
Most sickening of all is the way the extreme lunatic right throws the word "lynching" around in a temper tantrum whenever it doesn't get its way. Can you believe anyone would use the word "lynching" to describe the Senate's hesitation to confirm the rabidly insane, out-of-control John Bolton? And of course when Clarence Thomas's despicable treatment of Anita Hill was revealed, Thomas showed what a moral midget he is by complaining about being the victim of a "high-tech lynching."
Let's remind ourselves what lynching really means. Mahablog quotes an 1893 account of a lynching in Texas:
The negro was placed upon a carnival float in mockery of a king upon his throne, and, followed by an immense crowd, was escorted through the city so that all might see the most inhuman monster known in current history. The line of march was up Main street to the square, around the square down Clarksville street to Church street, thence to the open prairies about 300 yards from the Texas & Pacific depot. Here Smith was placed upon a scaffold, six feet square and ten feet high, securely bound, within the view of all beholders. Here the victim was tortured for fifty minutes by red-hot iron brands thrust against his quivering body. Commencing at the feet the brands were placed against him inch by inch until they were thrust against the face. Then, being apparently dead, kerosene was poured upon him, cottonseed hulls placed beneath him and set on fire.Read more about lynching here.
Some right-wing bloggers are being typically dishonest and disingenuous, arguing that the Republicans don't need to apologize for lynching, because it was Democrats in the Senate who blocked anti-lynching and civil rights legislation, often using the filibuster. Needless to say, this is just as mealy-mouthed as Lamar Alexander's evasions. The Dixiecrats who supported lynching have since then decamped en masse (except for Zell Miller) to the GOP and taken it over. The brutal bigots who were in favor of lynching then are the same ones who are now refusing to apologize for it.
The mindset that says lynching is no big deal, just a piece of harmless fun, is clearly the same mindset that is operating in Abu Ghraib and Camp Guano. The lunatic right continues to be "outraged by the outrage", huffing and puffing in synchronized synthetic anger, and imagining they can bully everyone else into silence.
How long will it be before Congress is forced to apologize to the victims of the torture that the US is carrying out today? The incredibly vile and loathsome Bush junta has done incalculable and irreparable damage to the USA's standing in the world. Will they ever be held accountable for their crimes against humanity?
Trackbacks
This article is now closed to trackback pings.Comments
RSS feed for commentsB.C.CHASE wrote 10/10 10:48pm in reply to Original article: I think your connection between the Republican party and a mentality of racism is disturbingly disengenuous. As you pointed out in your own article, it was the Democrats (who have largely been in power since the 1930's), not the Republicans, who are responsible for the failure of anti-lynching legislation. And while I would certainly not accuse anyone of racism without due proof, a connection of racial bias and a patent disregard for the 14th Ammendment can be made by the Democrats' incessant calls for Affirmative Action (which is referred to as Positive Discrimination in Britain and is, coincidentally, outlawed there as bigotry). The Democratic Party only began to turn a meretriciously kind eye to African Americans when it realized the value of their votes. President Bush has presided over the most diverse cabinet in history, so to insidiously associate all Republicans with racial discrimination is as manifestly absurd and defamatory as it is abhorrent. (Reply) | |
 | No More Mr. Nice Guy! wrote 10/11 11:55pm in reply to B.C.CHASE: As you pointed out in your own article, it was the Democrats (who have largely been in power since the 1930's), not the Republicans, who are responsible for the failure of anti-lynching legislation.Yes, and I then went on to state very clearly that the same people who were Democrats back then, and opposed civil rights legislation, have since then moved to the Republican party. Today, they and their heirs are the dominant wing of the GOP. To accuse the Democratic party of racism based on what current Republicans did when they were Democrats is worse than disingenuous - it's flat-out dishonest and hypocritical. a connection of racial bias and a patent disregard for the 14th Ammendment can be made by the Democrats' incessant calls for Affirmative ActionBringing up affirmative action in the context of lynching, as if to imply that there is any comparison between them, strikes me as even more dishonest. The Democratic Party only began to turn a meretriciously kind eye to African Americans when it realized the value of their votes.Oh, that's really rich. It's because of the Democratic party that the votes of African Americans have any value! The Democrats passed and enacted the Voting Rights Act, one of the key events which led to the Dixiecrats absconding en masse to the Republican party. Recently, some Republicans tried to prevent extension of the VRA. And of course we have the likes of Jeb Bush in Florida and Ken Blackwell in Ohio, furiously working to disenfranchise black voters. (Yes, I know Ken Blackwell is African-American himself; that makes his machinations even more egregious in my book.) President Bush has presided over the most diverse cabinet in historyOh, so now affirmative action is suddenly okay again, when it's about installing millionaires and hard-right ideologues in the cabinet! I'm not impressed by George Bush Junior's cynical tokenism. I want to see an administration that serves ordinary working people, instead of just pandering to the wealthiest 1%. to insidiously associate all Republicans with racial discrimination is as manifestly absurd and defamatory as it is abhorrent.I didn't say all Republicans are racist. However, I believe racists are far more likely to gravitate to a party that exploits divisiveness and resentment than one that concerns itself with social and economic justice. Racism is still a huge problem in this country, and there are far too many Republicans who would rather pander to it than fight it. (Reply) |
