History

Opinion: Donald Trump is Not Alone Among Americans in Failing to Understand What a Real Lynching Is

Published

6 years ago

October 31, 2019

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Donald Trump’s use of the term “lynching” to describe the ongoing impeachment inquiry in the House naturally sparked bipartisan outrage.

The president and his shameless apologist, South Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham, defended the use of the word, with Graham calling the investigation a “lynching in every sense.”

Surely Graham, who comes from a state that, the Equal Justice Initiative reports, lynched 187 Black people between 1877 and 1950, should know better. He was a member of the Senate when it voted unanimously in December 2018 to make lynching a federal crime, calling the act “the ultimate expression of racism in the U.S.,” and classifying it as a hate crime.

Trump’s casual use of the word is an indication of the sad reality that America has largely failed to address the role of racial terror and violence in our history, and its legacy in distorting our criminal justice system.

The myths of Black criminality that were used to justify racial terror have never been adequately confronted and are reflected in the unprecedented — and still racially skewed — mass incarceration in America.

To this day, no Congress has passed, and no president has signed into law, a bill to outlaw lynching as a federal hate crime.

Trump defended himself, saying that lynching is a “word that many Democrats have used.” That’s true, but that only reinforces the need to confront the truth of the past. In the former states of the Confederacy, lynching and racial terror were used purposefully after the Civil War to reimpose racial subordination and segregation.

In its compelling report, “Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror,” the Equal Justice Initiative compiled records of 4,075 “racial terror lynchings” of African Americans in 12 states of the South from the post-Civil War Reconstruction era to World War II. The report shows that “terror lynchings in the American South were not isolated hate crimes committed by rogue vigilantes. Lynching was targeted racial violence at the core of a systematic campaign of terror perpetrated in furtherance of an unjust social order.”

Whatever complaints Republicans may have about an impeachment hearing convened in Congress under its constitutional authority, it surely is not a lynching.

Lynching in the South was not done by fringes of the society taking the law in their own hands. It was often organized by the community’s most prominent people and condoned by officials. Lynchings were often gruesome public spectacles, with victims tortured and murdered in front of picnicking spectators. Their intent was not simply to terrorize Blacks, but to reinforce among whites the myth that Blacks were sub-human.

They were not about controlling crime, but about racial control. Their perpetrators were celebrated, not prosecuted. The Equal Justice Initiative reports that only 1 percent of those committing lynchings were convicted of a criminal offense after 1900. Racial terror in the South succeeded in re-establishing white rule and Black subordination after the Civil War. With whites in control of the criminal justice system, lynching became less prevalent, with mass incarceration and capital punishment taking its place.

Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative has led the effort to create a process for remembering and confronting this shameful past and understanding its legacies in our present. He notes that communities across the South have memorials to the leaders of the Confederacy and the Ku Klux Klan, but have failed to memorialize the innocent victims of racial terror. The contrast with countries like Germany and South Africa, that have sought to learn from the horrors of their history, is dramatic.

For 100 years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People campaigned to make lynching a federal crime, initially in the hope that federal intervention would bring the perpetrators to justice, and finally as an expression of truth-telling. The efforts were always blocked by filibusters organized by southern senators.

In 2005, the Senate passed a resolution apologizing to the victims of lynching for their failure to pass anti-lynching legislation. In 2018, the Senate finally unanimously passed anti-lynching legislation for the first time.

In June 2019, the House Judiciary Committee put forth HR 35, the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, for a vote before the House.

Trump’s egregious comment provide the occasion for truth-telling. The House and the Senate should finally act together to put the anti-lynching bill on the president’s desk for his signature, and join in a national teach-in, perhaps a joint session of the Congress — to educate Americans about the reality of lynching and the lies it spread that still need to be dispelled.

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Posts by Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Up Next

George Crum Took French Fries to Another Level

Don't Miss

Opinion: Why Fund Empty Prisons Instead of Full Schools?

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Click to comment

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.

The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.

In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.

Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.

Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.

“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

IN MEMORIAM: Nate Holden, State Senator and Longtime Los Angeles Councilmember, Dies at 95

Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn described Holden as “a lion” in the State Senate and a force to be reckoned with on the Los Angeles City Council.” Hahn added that she learned a lot working with Holden when she was a new councilmember.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Former Los Angeles Councilmember and California State Sen. Nate Holden. File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Former Los Angeles City Councilmember Nathaniel “Nate” Holden, a prominent figure in the city’s politics, passed away at the age of 95, his family confirmed on May 7.

Holden, who represented South Los Angeles for 16 years on the City Council and served one term in the California State Senate, was widely regarded as a forceful advocate for his community.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn described Holden as “a lion” in the State Senate and a force to be reckoned with on the Los Angeles City Council.”

Hahn added that she learned a lot working with Holden when she was a new councilmember.

Holden’s journey to political prominence began in the segregated South, where he was born in Macon, Georgia, in 1929. He often recalled the childhood moment when he first heard the governor of Georgia vowing to continue suppressing Black people.

“Doing the best you can for the people. Law and order. Make sure that people’s communities are safe. I did it all,” said Holden, reflecting on his legacy.

Holden is survived by his sons, including former California Assemblymember Chris Holden, who represented a district in Southern California that includes Pasadena and Altadena in Los Angeles County and cities in San Bernardino County.