Lynching has finally been made a federal hate crime for the first time in U.S. history. The Emmett Till Antilynching Act was approved on February 26, 2020. Only four voted against it making the vote 410-4. Emmett Till was a fourteen year old that was lynched in the 1950s because a white woman claimed that he offended her. This act was said to start the civil rights movement. Although there are no lynching's happening currently, there are still hate crimes going on like nooses being found and attacks on African Americans. Lynching remained after slavery and truly shows the expression of racism and violence in America. That's why this act is so historically important because it serves as a reminder to not let history repeat itself. There have been over 200 attempts over the last 100 years to get this passed and this current legislation was in the works for over two years. Kamala Harris, Bobby Rush, and Cory Booker introduced the legislation and the President is predicted to sign. https://www.npr.org/2020/02/26/809705702/it-s-about-time-house-approves-historic-bill-making-lynching-a-federal-crime 1. Do you think that this should have been passed earlier? Why do you think it wasn't? 2. Do you think hate crimes are accurately portrayed by the media?
I think that lynching has not been accurately portrayed by the media and that it was a major issue that was sheltered. People didnt bring enough attention to it because of all the racists.
ReplyDeleteI think that this should have absolutely been passed earlier than it did. I think that should should have actually been a law a long time ago. I think that it wasn't passed until now because people aren't racist anymore and I think it took this long because it wasn't a top issue that needed attention at that moment. I think that the media under reports that extent of hate crimes and there would be more information available.
ReplyDeleteI think that the law should have been passed earlier, it probably not passed because after the civil rights movement people though there was equality so there was no need for the law to be passed. It could have also been caused because people were not fully aware of the effects it had on people. The media censored what the effect was.
ReplyDeleteI think that this should have been passed much earlier. I think it took so long to be passed is because many people held onto the idea that they were superior because of their race. We are finally in a time where the majority of people realize that that way of thinking is wrong and completely false. The media does not view hate crimes as a top priority when they want to inform citizens, which should be changed.
ReplyDeleteI think it definitely should have been passed earlier but it wasn't because there is still some racism in this world and especially in our government. I also think that many hate crimes go undetected and are not covered which is bad because they need to be published so people can fight against them
ReplyDeleteI think hate crimes used to not be portrayed by the media at all. Because of the racial prejudice, the media would receive hate if they were to raise awareness of that type of event. But, recently the media has been more realistically portraying hate crimes, although they are not completely transparent. Now, events are televised but the real details of the event may not be shown to the public. Overall, media coverage has improved but is still not what it should be.
ReplyDeleteI believe that now is a very different time than what it was when this happened. These kinds of hate crimes were not covered by the newspapers because racism was more accepted. Now, people are aware on all of these issues and racism is less common. The media sometimes can make to issue more widespread but may just anger some people.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea why the act was not passed earlier because lynching itself is a crime, it has nothing to do with Emmet Till. Obviously what happened to him was horrifying, but I think it is important to realize that lynching itself is a horrible crime. As for your second question I believe that since the 1950's media has improved in accurately covering hate crimes. The media can only state the facts
ReplyDeleteYes the act should have been passed sooner. Unfortunately either the politicians in charge or the time after and before either didn't feel pressured to enact it or genuinely believed against it. Most likely politicians would have thought their peoples support of them were more important than passing a good act.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think the act should have been passed earlier considering that lynchings are almost always due to hatred towards race. This was very surprising to read as I would have thought that they would always be considered hate crimes. I think this wasn't passed earlier despite many attempts to get the legislation passed because of the racist people in congress remaining. I do not think hate crimes are accurately portrayed by the media because the media hardly ever portrays things accurately. One example of media misrepresentation would be the rejection of climate change up until recent years. As racism was widely accepted in our society for a number of years and still is in many areas, especially the South, the legislation has failed to pass until now. Although Emmett Till's death definitely wasn't a rare occurrence, I think it is important that the law was passed under his name in order to honor him and use him as an example if anyone ever asks why this law was necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is an act that should have been put in place as soon as possible and it's amazing that it got rejected so many times before this. I think the reason it took so long to get passed was people's desire to avoid the topic of the horrible racial hate crimes that were committed in the past. People often choose to avoid the topic of or flat out deny horrible things that happened in the past, which is something that happens often with the holocaust. I think that it's important that this vote happened, in memory of Emmett Till and all those who were lynched, as well as properly categorizing the crime as a hate crime.
ReplyDeleteI think this should have been passed earlier than it did because this is such a terrible offense and is such a blatant example of racism that still exists in America. I am not really sure why it wasn't considered a hate crime earlier because lynching was targeted specifically at African Americans in the 1900s. I think hate crimes aren't always accurately portrayed in the media, especially when the event happens. However, later on, hate crimes can end up being more accurately portrayed due to realizations later. I think it's really amazing that we could honor Emmett Till's memory by properly labelling lynching as a hate crime.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think this act should have been passed earlier, as lynching is obviously a hate crime. In fact, I'm don't even understand how this could be a question. I'm honestly not sure why this hadn't been passed yet, but it was probably caused by a mixture of disregard and underlying prejudice in the government. It probably wasn't seen as "urgent" enough.
ReplyDeleteYou would have thought the act of lynching should have been clearly declared a hate crime a while ago, right? When you think of the word "lynching", for me at least, I think of the awful acts committed against black people. I do not understand why Till was the identified subject, though. He was one of way too many people that had their lives stripped away because the white system didn't like his color. So yes, this should have already been a hate crime.
ReplyDelete1. It is evident to me that a bill similar to this should have been passed many years ago. While the US' history with slavery continued more into modern history than other leading nations, it is incredible that so little progress had been made in regard to hate crimes. By taking this step, the government makes clear their stance on lynching and other crimes of the like.
ReplyDeleteThe past ignorance towards the issue must be a representation of the priorities of our nation. Clearly, the impact of hate crimes isn't felt beyond the groups which they target and I believe that selfish thinking has created an environment where minorities are still allowed to be targeted. In order for the United States to atone for its past mistakes, there must be deliberate action in reprimanding those involved with such hideous offenses.
I think it should have been passed way earlier. There would have been way more people who were guilty that would have been held in prison for longer because it was a hate crime. These people deserve to be there for longer for the extremity of the crime they tried to carry out. It is justice that is long overdue. Media varies wherever you go, but in the national media hate crime is generally portrayed in the correct light so that people see it for how bad it really is.
ReplyDeleteYes, this should have been passed way earlier. Many more people would have been hopefully saved and more violent and radical racism would have been prevented. I don't think it was possible at the time to pass this, however, because people were not very open minded. White people had a lot of power and were very negative towards African Americans.
ReplyDeleteThis definitely should have been passed earlier. Having it just passed now shows how an obvious hate crime to a group of people had no big consequences back then. At least now, it is better passed now then never.
ReplyDeleteHate crimes now are much more known and reported by the media than they were during the 50s and this is because back then it was either accepted as okay or just ignored because no one stood up to them. In modern times crimes like these usually get national news coverage which is good because it reminds people that we don't live in a perfect world and that these problems aren't solved yet.
ReplyDeleteI think that hate crimes have only just recently been accurately reported in the media. If something happened today similar to what happened to Emmett Till, the news of this would be much more widespread. At Emmett Till's time, hate crimes were not reported, as newspapers were run by the whites at that time and they did not want to project themselves as racists.
ReplyDeleteI think that this Act should have been passed earlier but most likely wasn't because racism and segregation was widely implemented especially in the US which impacted many laws. It wasn't until the mid 19th century did people of color start to protest and go against those laws to protect their rights and attempt to establish equality
ReplyDeleteThis should have been passed much earlier when lynching was more of a common occurrence. Now lynching happens much less than it used to, but that's because racism has died down quite a bit compared to the past.
ReplyDelete