Only One Political Party In the Nation This Bad

What kind of horrorshow political party is so patently, provenly, repeatedly bad and unpopular for its citizens it has to actually disenfranchise those fellow citizens in order to get into and/or stay in office so they all stay in power? There's only one in the USA.

Yes sir and ma'am, it is the Republican Party. Republicans. The GOP. Greedy Old Poops. #VoteThemOut

Quote of the Day -- Timely, Sunday, "Good Book" Edition

"I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink." Matthew 25:35

*While supplies last, not valid in Georgia, other restrictions may apply. --Antione Jackson @JacksonAntione, Replying to @atrupar Thanks, Republicans! You racist, power hungry, un-American stooges.

What Happened This Week In Georgia

Seven very white men get in a room---under a picture of a slaveholding plantation, no less---to sign a very racist government bill that actually disenfranchises fellow Americans all the while also literally locking out a Black female legislator so she can't watch the bill be signed.

Only in America. Only with Republcians. #EndVoterSuppression #EndRacism

The New Jim Crow Republican Party

What's going on right now, folks. They're trying to, anyway.

(Click on the picture for bigger, easier viewing and reading).

Quote of the Day -- On Un-American Vote Suppression

"43 states are debating 200 different voter suppression bills right now. Today alone, Iowa shortened early voting by a week, and the Georgia Senate passed a bill ending no-excuse absentee voting. We must end the filibuster and pass HR1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act." --Julián Castro @JulianCastro

Republicans, Jim Crow much? Again? Some more? Now? In 2021? Really?

So Proud of Our Kansas City Star

Wow.

What can you say but "Wow"?

Our own local paper, the Kansas City Star stunned me and I feel, probably lots of us this week. Their report, their reporting, their confession was just that, stunning. You likely know of what I'm writing. It's this.

The truth in Black and white: An apology from The Kansas City Star

Today we are telling the story of a powerful local business that has done wrong.

In it, rather famously now, the paper confessed and admitted to racism, horrible racism from them over the years when reporting on minorities in the area--specifically, Black Americans.

I'll only post the beginning of the editorial.

Today we are telling the story of a powerful local business that has done wrong.

For 140 years, it has been one of the most influential forces in shaping Kansas City and the region. And yet for much of its early history — through sins of both commission and omission — it disenfranchised, ignored and scorned generations of Black Kansas Citians. It reinforced Jim Crow laws and redlining. Decade after early decade it robbed an entire community of opportunity, dignity, justice and recognition.

That business is The Kansas City Star.

To repeat, there's no word that describes this any better than stunning.

This took guts. This took courage. Just freaking wow.

They could have recognized their past faults internally and vowed to never repeat such things, sure. But this? Confessing to the supporting of Jim Crow laws and redlining and segregation and other obscenities, however legal?

Stunning. Nothing short of stunning.

It went national, too, it was that big a story. This was from the New York Times.

Kansas City Star Apologizes for Racism

NBC News.

Kansas City Star apologizes for decades of racist coverage

Daily Kos.

'We don’t need stories about these people': Kansas City newspaper confesses to tradition of racism

You get the idea. It was covered nationally from virtually every media outlet.

I think there are two huge things to take from this, too, besides the fact that, as I said above, they didn't have to do this cleansing so publicly like this. 

The first is that this was an important move for them, the Star, the newspaper, to own up to but it's much more than that. We all need to own up to what and how we've gotten to where we are. We all, as a people and as a nation, need to know how we got here, where we are today. We need to know our nation's history, our full national history. We need to really know all the details about slavery and our Civil War, sure. But that's for starters.

We all need to also know about our Reconstruction and the failure of it, our failure and how that impacted African-Americans then.

We all need to know, really know about Jim Crow laws, what they were, what they did, the fact that they were legal and the deep, deep damage that they did to those same Americans, African-Americans. That's a great deal to know there alone.

Then there's the "redlining" the Star's story mentions and its corresponding segregation, legalized, thank you very much.

If, as a people, you are kept away, legally, from the best housing and jobs, good education and so, consequently and understandably, also kept away from better paying jobs and careers?  Is it any wonder the wealth of Black Americans today is, still, to this moment, a fraction of white America?

And that's how we got now, here to where we are. It's why still, to this day, so many Black Americans do not and even, for a lot of them, cannot still live wherever they wish. It only makes sense. It's a natural outgrowth of all that then-legalized racism and hate and ugliness. It's why do many cities in the United States--including, of course, our own Kansas City on both sides of the state line--are still so very, very segregated even though that legal segregation was made illegal decades ago now.

So, again, wow. Kudos to the Star.

In their article, they made a great and important point of saying that their paper, over the years, highlighted white people's accomplishments but virtually never Black people's.

In the pages of The Star, when Black people were written about, they were cast primarily as the perpetrators or victims of crime, advancing a toxic narrative. Other violence, meantime, was tuned out. The Star and The Times wrote about military action in Europe but not about Black families whose homes were being bombed just down the street.

Even the Black cultural icons that Kansas City would one day claim with pride were largely overlooked. Native son Charlie “Bird” Parker didn’t get a significant headline in The Star until he died, and even then, his name was misspelled and his age was wrong.

It reminded me of a KCPT PBS broadcast on Kansas City's own Charlie "Bird" Parker. Lonnie McFadden made the very fair and important point that Winston Churchill, of all people, is on our Country Club Plaza.

But not Bird.

How else can we heal? How else can we repair centuries long wrongs and racism if we don't examine ourselves, see where we are, see what we did, see what those ramifications are and then apologize for them and look to rectify them? We must do this as a society. We're long, long overdue.

Anyone, any American who thinks we don't owe Black Americans reparations should, again, study our national history.

And read this article, too.

The--Very--Racist History of Banking In Our United States

What so, so many Americans don't know. Or ignore. And/or disavow.



Also ignoring the segregation that got us here and the poorer schools and far less opportunities for jobs and so, better pay.

Sure.

Let's ignore or deny all that.

An Important, If Also Brief, History Lesson All Americans Need

I do wish all adult Americans and, yes, all our schoolchildren, too, would read the brief article from today's New York Times from their editorial board.

When Southern Newspapers 

Justified Lynching

It is stunning.

So with that thought and hope, here it is in its entirety:

The white Southern press played a role in the racial terrorism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which saw thousands of African-Americans hanged, burned, drowned or beaten to death by white mobs.

The Arkansas lynch mob that burned a black tenant farmer at the stake in 1921 observed common practice when it advertised the killing in advance so spectators could mark the grisly event on their calendars. The organizers notified newspapers early in the day that they planned to kill Henry Lowery as painfully as possible, giving editors time to produce special editions that provided the time, place and gruesome particulars of the death to come.

Historians have paid scant attention to the role that the white Southern press played in the racial terrorism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which saw thousands of African-Americans hanged, burned, drowned or beaten to death by white mobs. This issue surfaced in dramatic fashion recently when the nearly two-centuries-old Montgomery Advertiser printed a front-page editorial apologizing for lynching coverage that dehumanized black victims. The apology coincided with the recent opening in Montgomery, Ala., of a memorial to lynching victims, and it sets the stage for a timely discussion of a deeply dishonorable period in Southern press history.

The bloody celebration at which 500 jeering spectators saw Henry Lowery burned to ashes was held at Nodena, Ark., on Jan. 26, 1921. Among those in attendance was a reporter for The Memphis Press whose story — under the headline “Kill Negro by Inches” — validated the barbaric proceedings and cataloged the victim’s suffering in lurid detail, noting that Lowery remained stoically silent “even after the flesh had dropped away from his legs and the flames were leaping toward his face.”

Lowery had been charged with a wanton act of murder for killing his white landlord and the landlord’s adult daughter. The renowned lynching investigator Walter White later reported that Lowery had drawn a pistol only after being shot by the landlord’s son and physically attacked by the landlord himself in a dispute over wages. In the eyes of the lynching state — where an African-American could be put to death on a white person’s whim — the impulse toward self-defense was often viewed as a crime when it came with a black face.

Newspapers even bragged about the roles they had played in arranging particularly spectacular lynchings. But the real damage was done in terse, workaday stories that justified lynching by casting its victims as “fiends,” “brutes,” “born criminals” or, that catchall favorite, “troublesome Negroes.” The narrative that tied blackness inextricably to criminality — and to the death penalty — survived the lynching era and lives on to this day.

The Montgomery Advertiser was historically opposed to lynching. Nevertheless, when its current staff scrutinized the paper’s lynching-era coverage, they concluded that it had conveniently opposed lynching in the abstract while responding with indifference to its bloody, real-world consequences. The editors found that the paper too often presumed without proof that lynching victims were guilty and that, in doing so, it advanced the aims of white supremacist rule.

That description applies broadly to the Jim Crow-era South, where even newspapers that were viewed as liberal replicated the apartheid state within their pages — by separating news and birth announcements by race, by rendering law-abiding black people invisible and especially by denying African-Americans the courtesy titles Mr. and Mrs. This humiliating practice was meant to illustrate the impossibility of racial equality. It also let white readers know when a black person was being quoted so that the person’s statement could be ignored.

The newspaper editor Ira Harkey, who was white, incurred outrage in 1949 when he abandoned the Southern journalistic practice of automatically labeling black people by race in stories and began cautiously extending the courtesy title Mrs. in the pages of The Pascagoula Chronicle-Star “to certain carefully selected Negro women such as teachers and nurses.” Harkey was reviled — and shot at — by racists in Mississippi for championing civil rights. He wrote bitterly of his earlier years at The New Orleans Times-Picayune, where there was “a flat rule that Negroes were not to appear in photographs”; it was required that they be airbrushed out of crowd scenes.

The Montgomery Advertiser — known in the 19th century as the leading paper of the Confederacy — put itself on the wrong side of history in countless ways, not least by ridiculing the civil rights movement that was launched by the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 and reached its zenith a decade later with the march from Selma to Montgomery and the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

Bro Krift, now the paper’s 41-year-old executive editor, was well aware of this history when he greeted the opening of the lynching memorial by devoting the Advertiser’s front page to the names of victims alongside its bluntly worded editorial acknowledging the paper’s complicity. Speaking of the memorial in a recent telephone interview, Mr. Krift said: “I realized, holy Moses, this could change the narrative for the rest of time in America. This could be the physical representation of the conversation we need to have in America.”

Link:

Newspaper Apologizes for 'Shameful' Coverage of Lynchings