Re: [Marxism] Blacks versus the New Deal

["Mark Lause" <markalause@xxxxxxxxx>]

I wrote, "Ida B. Wells didn't equate the KKK with lynchings, which you
seem to be doing.  So I'm absolutely certain that she wouldn't agree
with you that the KKK had a big influence in 1916..."

Charles replies, "They must have gotten it going pretty quickly after
1916 according to wikipedia( or maybe there _were_ some lynchings by
the KKK even in 1916, ya think Mark ?"

Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with your impeccable research on
wikipedia, but let me restate (yet again) the bleedin' obvious:
LYNCHINGS DO NOT REQUIRE THE  KKK.  Lynchings not only don't need the
KKK to have that big influence, but they even don't need the KKK to
exist.  There have been lynchings going all the way back into colonial
times...way before there was a KKK or the Confederacy that fathered it
or even the Democratic Party that fathered the Confederacy.

So however many lynchings there may have been in 1916, it didn't
require the newly formed KKK to have a big influence.

This is plain damned common sense, Charles.  Surely you know that.

ML

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu