Mississippi Burning - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

KirkVining · #31 01-09-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerryvz

I think it's easy to sit around and pontificate and armchair quarterback the situation. The fact is, attitudes and societal norms (not only, but especially, in the deep South) about race were very different back then.

Southerners traditionally (despite also being hospitable people) have retained some suspicion of northerners. I'm not saying that my parents' not letting me bring African-American playmates home from school was the morally correct thing to do, but it was probably a more practical alternative to having your car or your house fire-bombed, or your dad beaten up or threatened.

And I don't put gay-bashing and associated attitudes in the exact same camp as racial attitudes and segregation in the American South. There are fundamental differences in how said prejudices and attitudes were formed, and manifested.

The last time I checked, I didn't recall seeing "Gay" and "Straight" bathrooms or drinking fountains. And I don't remember seeing gays being required to sit at the back of city buses, either.

Let's keep apples and oranges separate, here.

No, they just get beat up and killed.

Prejuduce is prejudice and hate is hate. Calling a duck a chicken ain't gonna make it stop quacking.

KirkVining · #32 01-09-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TX76513

This is the third old case to be looked at again - interesting this one is getting he media attention. I am 100% for justice but .....the process has also dug up some old wounds. Unfortunately, some renewed racial tension has surfaced with this - and that's bad.

Yeah, that racist murdering pig having to go to jail is breaking my heart.

LK1 · #33 01-09-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerryvz

I think it's easy to sit around and pontificate and armchair quarterback the situation. The fact is, attitudes and societal norms (not only, but especially, in the deep South) about race were very different back then.

Southerners traditionally (despite also being hospitable people) have retained some suspicion of northerners. I'm not saying that my parents' not letting me bring African-American playmates home from school was the morally correct thing to do, but it was probably a more practical alternative to having your car or your house fire-bombed, or your dad beaten up or threatened.

And I don't put gay-bashing and associated attitudes in the exact same camp as racial attitudes and segregation in the American South. There are fundamental differences in how said prejudices and attitudes were formed, and manifested.

The last time I checked, I didn't recall seeing "Gay" and "Straight" bathrooms or drinking fountains. And I don't remember seeing gays being required to sit at the back of city buses, either.

Let's keep apples and oranges separate, here.

I fully understand your parents behavior and am not condemning it. What I was pointing out was the similarities between the issue of racism and homophobia that exist today. You are correct that we don't have seperate bathrooms, when it comes to gay marriage we have NO water fountain at all for gay people and a bunch of states that voted to ban even creating a seperate "water fountain".We still DO have seperate laws where 2 people of the same sex that have been in a commited relationship for 50 years have NO rights of survivorship, inheiritance or even a say in the medical care of their partner and can be thrown out of their own home by relatives that disowned their partner while they were alive. It's ridiculous.
I understand and have discussed previously the use of the name "marriage" and agree that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. It is a religious institution. The government should offer civil unions or whatever to 2 people, period. If you're religious and desire the blessing of your particular shaman, guru, imam or priest then by all means have a religious ceremony.
As to the forward thinker's in SF, Massachusetts and New Paltz I would prefer to be on their side when the issue is reviewed 40 years from now, not the side of the George Wallace's and Strom Thurmond's of the anti gay equality movement.

koop · #34 01-09-2005, 01:26 PM

I have a problem trying 40 year old cases against 79 year old men. I don't know what evidence they have but I would have serious doubts about any 40 year old evidence and question the value of throwing an old man in jail and changing his depends for the last few years of his life.

Botnst · #35 01-09-2005, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Yeah, that racist murdering pig having to go to jail is breaking my heart.

I agree. I don't know why we waste time and effort on a bunch of damned lawyers. Send the boy to Parchman to walk the green mile.

Botnst · #36 01-09-2005, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LK1

It's interesting to me to listen to the discussion here of how "wrong" these murdering bigots were back then in a time when there was tacit acceptance if not agreement by a majority of the population (certainly in the South).
I wonder if 40 years from now we'll look back at the same type of bigot that feels it's perfectly acceptable to have a seperate (and unequal) country and laws for gay people and who use hatred and ignorance to manipulate the public to win elections.
Which side of today's "race" debate are YOU on?

Why does the civil rights movement today not embrace homosexual rights?

(Which side am I on? I'm on the side that likes debate.)

gerryvz · #37 01-09-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LK1

As to the forward thinker's in SF, Massachusetts and New Paltz I would prefer to be on their side when the issue is reviewed 40 years from now, not the side of the George Wallace's and Strom Thurmond's of the anti gay equality movement.

I have a HUGE issue here in Portland with the way with which this agenda was pursued, not the agenda itself. There are laws that state that "official" county commision business meetings require a certain number of commissioners to be present. Three commissioners were very careful to meet 1:1, and then 1:1 between the other two, to keep this issue off the official table that would have brought it before the entire county commission. Then, all of a sudden, this was sprung upon the commission and the people as a "slam dunk" deal because 3 influential commissioners (including the chair) supported it, and a decision was made as of the following Monday to begin issuing marriage licenses.

This process was and is unacceptable and was delibrately pursued against the intent of the commission meeting laws. No disclosure was made to the public nor the other commissioners -- it was all decided through back-channel meetings and on the Q.T.

The reason this was done was because the commissioners pushing the agenda KNEW that it would be a hot topic, hotly debated, and controversial. So they just found a way and a few loopholes to push it through, and make it happen under the noses of the public and their fellow commissioners.

This issue DESERVES the debate and input from the public. The people have a RIGHT to know what is happening with these types of things, rather than having shrewd politicians milking the system to push their personal agendas.

This was wrong, and you can bet that these commissioners will be voted out of office the next election, for doing this. I certainly don't want dishonest politicians running my county.

I have no fundamental issue with the subject of what they did; just the process by which they did it.

I think a lot of voters agreed with me, too. This past election, Measure 36 (defining marriage as between a man and a woman) was soundly passed by the highly Democratic/liberal Oregon voter base.

These county commissioners did far more to ensure passage of that Measure than Rove and Bush and other Republicans ever could have.

Cheers,
Gerry

Plantman · #38 01-10-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

I have a problem trying 40 year old cases against 79 year old men. I don't know what evidence they have but I would have serious doubts about any 40 year old evidence and question the value of throwing an old man in jail and changing his depends for the last few years of his life.

I believe I read something about them having some DNA that will be used against him.

Try asking the victims families that have waited for 30 yearts if they have a problem with his old ass going to jail.

Maybe the brothers that are locked up can give him a little payback over the last few years of his sorry life!

And whatever jews may be in there with him.

boneheaddoctor · #39 01-10-2005, 03:20 PM

I think its wrong too, How is he expected to present any sort of defense on something that happened 40 years ago.....How you going to prove you was even out of town...hell how many of us can say were we were and what we was doing, and who we were doing it with last year much less 40 years ago.

THats like a a cop mailing you a ticket 2 years after your alleged violation....how you supposed to defend yourself.

GermanStar · #40 01-10-2005, 03:42 PM

As I understand it, he was the guy who organized the whole thing, but he didn't actually participate in the killings. Unless I'm mistaken in that belief what DNA evidence could possibly link him to the crime?

BH -- the details of this elaborate conspiracy/murder were well known -- place, vehicles, names, dates, times. The authorities absolutely knew who did what and when. The problem was that murder is a state crime and no judge in MS would convict a white man for killing a black man in those troubled times. He has no defense as far as I'm concerned -- fry the POS.

boneheaddoctor · #41 01-10-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

As I understand it, he was the guy who organized the whole thing, but he didn't actually participate in the killings. Unless I'm mistaken in that belief what DNA evidence could possibly link him to the crime?

BH -- the details of this elaborate conspiracy/murder were well known -- place, vehicles, names, dates, times. The authorities absolutely knew who did what and when. The problem was that murder is a state crime and no judge in MS would convict a white man for killing a black man in those troubled times. He has no defense as far as I'm concerned -- fry the POS.

I know I have heard all about it.......

But fact is he is entitled to a defense...who knows he wasn't made a fall guy bu some crooked cops that didn't get along with him.

That was not unheard of during that period of time.....heck that happens today.

KirkVining · #42 01-10-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

As I understand it, he was the guy who organized the whole thing, but he didn't actually participate in the killings. Unless I'm mistaken in that belief what DNA evidence could possibly link him to the crime?

BH -- the details of this elaborate conspiracy/murder were well known -- place, vehicles, names, dates, times. The authorities absolutely knew who did what and when. The problem was that murder is a state crime and no judge in MS would convict a white man for killing a black man in those troubled times. He has no defense as far as I'm concerned -- fry the POS.

The character is pretty well portrayed in the movie. He was the local Klan kleader.

GermanStar · #43 01-10-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

The character is pretty well portrayed in the movie. He was the local Klan kleader.

Different guy. Actually, the movie ignored this guy ("the preacher") altogether. He was put on trial three times I believe and each ended in a mistrial -- he was never convicted of anything. The local Klan Leader was sentenced to 10 years for violation of civil rights.

Botnst · #44 01-11-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Originally Posted by KirkVining:
Yeah, that racist murdering pig having to go to jail is breaking my heart.
--------
I agree. I don't know why we waste time and effort on a bunch of damned lawyers. Send the boy to Parchman to walk the green mile.

In fact, we could save a lot of time if we made all those racist southerners, you know--white people, swear a loyalty oath. If they don't swear a loyalty oath, we should put them in re-education camps so they can learn to think like the collective.

GermanStar · #45 01-11-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

In fact, we could save a lot of time if we made all those racist southerners, you know--white people, swear a loyalty oath. If they don't swear a loyalty oath, we should put them in re-education camps so they can learn to think like the collective.

We're already working on liberal reeducation camps -- BH is in charge.