Tag: Lynching

This week on “The Learning Curve,” Cara Candal and guest co-host Derrell Bradford talk with Prof. Paula Giddings, Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor Emerita of Africana Studies at Smith College, and author of A Sword Among Lions: Ida B. Wells and the Campaign Against Lynching. Professor Giddings shares how her experience watching historic events like the Civil Rights Movement and Freedom Rides shaped her career in academia and journalism. She discusses her definitive biography of Ida Wells, a late-19th-century Black female journalist and writer who is an unsung figure in American history. She reviews Wells’ underprivileged background – she was born into slavery in Mississippi during the Civil War – but also how she learned to read, attended a Historically Black College, and developed an appreciation for the liberal arts. She offers thoughts on how educators should use Wells’ many public writings, diaries, and firsthand accounts of the horrific crimes of slavery, segregation, the Klan, Jim Crow, and lynching in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to help students recognize this nation’s history of racial violence. They also explore Wells’ work as a reformer during an era known for overt racism, as well as rapid industrialization, corrupt urban political machines, and suppression of women’s rights. The interview concludes with Professor Giddings reading from her Wells biography.

Story of the Week: Cara and Derrell hold a moment of silence for the victims of the Uvalde school shooting, and discuss what is (and is not) being done to address the hundreds of thousands of disaffected and distant kids across the country who are struggling with mental health issues, especially in the COVID era.

A Brief Observation on Anti-lynching Laws

 

Senator Tim Scott Even after Senator Tim Scott got Mitch McConnell to agree in advance to allow 20 Democrat amendments to his police reform bill, which included an anti-lynching portion, the Democrats killed the bill by filibuster. Now, if you have been paying a bit of attention to history, this might sound familiar. Yes, indeed, there is a long and ugly history, in the Progressive Era, of Democrat senators filibustering anti-lynching laws every time they came to the Senate floor, and of the Republican leaders not changing the rule to stop this facilitation of race-based political terrorism. Meet the new Senate, same as the old Senate.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, states and local governments controlled by white supremacist Democrats blocked blacks from serving on juries and reliability acquitted white men if officials even felt a need to hold a trial over the killing of a black man. The original intent of federal anti-lynching laws was to bypass white supremacist controlled state and local governments, stopping them from providing legal cover, from holding occasional trials of white killers of black men and always acquitting them. It was the norm in segregated states to pervert justice in this way. The point now is some sort of symbolism, as current federal civil rights law already provides ways to prosecute and no jurisdiction has anything like the poisonous conditions of Jim Crow.

Still, this legislation had been revived by Senator Tim Scott and supposed by Democratic Senators Harris and Booker in 2018. Now, they refuse to even allow debate on such a bill. Senator Scott calls them all on their real reason for not letting the bill be debated on the merits: naked electoral politics.

Member Post

 

Question:  Has there ever been a bigger drama queen in modern American politics than U.S. Senator Cory Booker?  This guy is a piece of work.  Under normal circumstances you’d expect to see a guy like him maybe standing on a street corner, spewing gibberish to passersby, or just to the thin air.  Instead, he’s a […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Should the Democratic Party Change Its Name?

 

My answer? It is the party of slavery.

Yes, after their support for slavery and racist laws and regulations for all those decades it’s clear that the well documented and unambiguous racist history of that party should make us all demand that the party distance itself from their history of racism. The party name makes me blanch every time I hear it or read it. How can anyone be associated with such a party that is laced with a sordid history of hatred and bigotry and racism?