Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scout
What a load of crap.
I don't even know where to start. I would probably wind up saying a lot of things I would regret so I am not saying anything other this.
For someone to say "some bad things happened in Georgia 62 years ago so if a judge in another state wants to have a racist moment and toss all the white SoB's out of his courtroom its ok" is one of the biggest loads of shit I've seen dealt out here in a long time.
|
Okay scout, are you indignant because a black judge stepped on a gum drop, and he might have done it on purpose?
Scout...you, Ustwo, Seaver, and pan, don't get to decide when "things that happened in Georgia 62 years ago", don't matter now. I wish you could accept that.
Quote:
http://www.laurawexler.com/html/questions.html
Q & A with Laura Wexler, author of
Fire in a Canebrake: The Last Mass Lynching in Amercia
1. What drew you, a 30-year-old white woman from the North, to write about a quadruple lynching that occurred in 1946?
I was drawn to the story at the outset by the possibility of uncovering information and evidence that would solve the crime. Because there is no statute of limitations on murder, and because I suspected some of the lynchers were still alive, I really believed getting justice was possible....
|
Why do you think your POV is so different from Laura Wexler's and mine? Why do you think Ronald Reagan chose his first 1980 republican convention campaign stop, after he had been officially nominated as republican candidate for president, to be...of all the places he could have chosen to kick off his campaign as republican nominee...the place where three civil rights workers were murdered, 16 years before?
Why do you think Reagan gave a speech there that included, "I believe in states rights".
Why is it that I think his decision to speak there and to say that, was extremely offensive, but you do not? Isn't it about sensitivity?
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/op...13herbert.html
Op-Ed Columnist
Righting Reagan’s Wrongs?
By BOB HERBERT
Published: November 13, 2007
Let’s set the record straight on Ronald Reagan’s campaign kickoff in 1980.
....Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”
Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable. Commentators have been trying of late to put this appearance by Reagan into a racially benign context.
That won’t wash. Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.
Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew.
He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you.
And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.
Congress overrode the veto.
Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too.
Throughout his career, Reagan was wrong, insensitive and mean-spirited on civil rights and other issues important to black people. There is no way for the scribes of today to clean up that dismal record....
|
Scout, I am thinking that you saw nothing wrong with Reagan's choice of places to appear, or in what he chose to say, and that you see nothing amiss in pan's thread here, correct? You say that 62 years is more than enough time, while Reagan must have thought that 16 years was enough time, so what is all the fuss about, right?