Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) |
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:32:22 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
An argument could be made that anti-lynching laws were, and are,
redundant because it is generally against the law to kill someone.
I would also take exception to the idea that lynchings took place
with the full support of the White community (as claimed in an
earlier post). They may have had the support of a substantial portion
of the local White community, but to go beyond that is unacceptable.
And given the activities of organizations like the KKK, some/many may
have gone along or at least not objected because they feared for
their own safety. While, as has been pointed out lynchings did take
place in the North, the vast majority took place in the South. And
they were not evenly distributed across the South. To assume that all/
most Whites felt the non-judicial murder of Blacks was appropriate is
racist.
James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|