¿Has leído sobre el caso de George Stinney, un niño de 14
años que murió en la silla eléctrica, acusado de haber cometido un crimen que
al parecer no cometió? Fue la persona más joven a la que se le aplicó la pena
de muerte en Estados Unidos. Ocurrió en en el año 1944, y ahora ha surgido un
movimiento interesado en reabrir el caso.
23 de noviembre de 2013
Calidad de vida
Undécima carta de Oscar López Rivera a su nieta
Las manos en el cristal: Oración entre cuchillas
¿Muy conmovedor ah?
Me parece que a la nieta de Oscar no le están contando toda la historia y por consiguiente...
"Un pueblo que no conoce su historia no puede comprender el presente ni construir el porvenir"
Helmut Kohl
Político alemán
Charles Stinney said he remembered the events vividly
because" for my family, Friday, March 24, 1944, and the events that
followed were our personal 9/11."
George Stinney, Black Teen Executed In 1944, May Get New
Trial
Associated Press
Posted: 11/10/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/10/george-stinney-black-teen-executed-new-trial_n_4250315.html
Triste realidad estadounidense y otra rayita para la
historia racista de los estados del sur de principios del siglo XX. Pero
resulta que muchos perciben que todo este contexto histórico también debe ser
estudiado para entender por qué llevaron a este niño negro a la silla
eléctrica.
Y sí, se debe reabrir el caso e investigar porque en 1944 se
llevó a un adolescente de catorce años a la silla electrica, porque, en aquella
epoca los demócratas no eran las blancas palomas que pretenden pintarse hoy en
día sino todo lo contrario, era los victimarios contra los negros que además
eran republicanos y no los dejaban votar.
Juzgue usted...
 |
| ¿Fue este niño víctima de la supremacía blanca del Partido Demócrata y del Ku-Klux-Klan? ¡Sí! |
After 1902, however, Democrats enjoyed literally absolute
control of the State House of Representatives. For more than half-a-century,
not a single Republican in South Carolina was elected to the State House of
Representatives. Democrats regularly won over 95% of the popular vote in
presidential elections.
That’s a record on par with that of the Communist Party in
the Soviet Union.
There are several reasons why this occurred. Democrats in
South Carolina were strongest of all the Deep South states, because blacks were
the majority of the population. Only Mississippi at the time also had a
black-majority population.
This meant that in free and fair elections, blacks would
actually have control of South Carolina politics. If a free and fair election
took place in another Southern states, the Democratic Party would still
probably have maintained power – since whites were a majority of the population.
In fact, this is what happens in the South today, except that the roles of the
two parties are switched.
The Rise and Fall of the South Carolina Democratic Party
By: inoljt Wednesday June 15, 2011
El caso de George Stinney tiene esqueletos en el closet y es
interesante que un periodista se haya tomado el tiempo de investigar que verdaderamente pasó
en esos años...
Carolina Skeletons Revisited:
Part 4 of 4,
by David Stout
In: BlogCarolina Skeletons Revisited: Part 4 of 4, by David
Stout
In 1988, while working as a reporter, David Stout published
Carolina Skeletons, based on the true story of a 1940s double-murder, for which
fourteen year-old George Stinney was controversially executed. The book won
Stout an Edgar award for best first novel. In this exclusive, four-part series,
Stout revisits the novel. This is part 4 of the series.
“A Life for a Life, Even at Age Fourteen.”
That was the headline over my March 1982 article in The
Record of Bergen County, New Jersey, about the 1944 execution of George Stinney
in South Carolina for killing two little girls near a saw mill.
The newspaper gave the article good display, even though the
editors had been skeptical at first about why I wanted to dig up the dead past.
But I’d recalled what the great William Faulkner had written years before about
his native South: “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”
Indeed, the events in Clarendon County, South Carolina,
never faded for those who were touched by them. The son of the sheriff saw
fourteen-year-old George Stinney put to death, became a lawman himself and
vowed never to watch another execution.
“I wouldn’t attempt to get capital punishment for someone
that age,” he told me. “But times were different then.”
Times were different then.
In 1982, I had observed white and black deputies working
side by side in the Clarendon County sheriff’s office, something that would
have been inconceivable not many years before.
In 1944, the outside world paid little notice as South
Carolina executed George Stinney less than three months after the killing of
two little girls.
Nowadays, many years go by between crime and execution.
Depending on the circumstances, a death penalty case can draw the attention of
the entire United States, other nations, even the Vatican.
The more I learned about the case of George Stinney, the
more I reflected on it, I came to see him as a victim of time and place and
circumstances.
In 1944, the governor of South Carolina was a New Deal
Democrat named Olin D. Johnston. Reading copies of the letters and telegrams
sent to him, I shed some of my Yankee superciliousness.
“Enough murder and carnage in this world at present, without
the state of South Carolina joining in by killing a fourteen-year-old,” wrote a
woman from Myrtle Beach.
“I am a white man, I believe in the right thing among the
white or colored,” wrote someone from Ridgeway, South Carolina. “Now I am
pleading with you for the life of the little Negro boy.” The writer said mercy
for George Stinney would only be fair in view of a lenient sentence recently
imposed on a sixteen-year-old white South Carolinian for a rape-murder.
But a few people applauded when Johnston said he would not
halt the execution. “Sure glad to hear of your decision regarding nigger
Stinney,” one message said.
Johnston was running in the Democratic primary for the
United States Senate that year, against an old-line segregationist. It would
not have helped Johnston politically to delay the execution. (Johnston won the
primary, and a Senate seat.)
George Stinney’s court-appointed lawyer also had political
ambitions. Perhaps that’s why he bailed out of the case right after the
verdict, declining even to file a notice of intent to appeal, a simple step
that would have postponed the execution.
Of course, it’s futile to view a case from yesteryear through
today’s lens. But some things are worth saying.
The fact that George Stinney was tried in Clarendon County,
where the girls were killed; that the jurors were all white; that no
psychiatric evidence was presented on Stinney’s behalf; that his lawyer didn’t
try to undermine the confession; that there was no appeal--all this would be
inconceivable today.
Thoughts like those stayed with me after my article on the
Stinney case appeared in The Record in March 1982. (Soon afterward, I moved to
the New York Times.)
And I recalled what George Stinney’s brothers and sisters
had said: Why was there no investigation of a bullying white man who lived near
the saw mill? And is it really so hard to believe that the confession was
beaten out of George Stinney? Things like that are still happening, especially
to defendants who are poor, uneducated and dark-skinned.
But I couldn’t forget that the sheriff of 1944 had bought
George Stinney a candy bar and a Bible, an act of compassion that might not
have occurred to other lawmen in that time and place, an act that didn’t square
with a man who would beat a confession out of a suspect.
I had done all I could as a journalist. So, in the fall of
1982, I sat down and began to write a novel about what happened in the lumber
hamlet of Alcolu, South Carolina, in 1944, and of attempts to uncover “the
truth” long afterward.
I vowed I would finish the novel, no matter what. George
Stinney and the other people from that time and place deserved no less.
David Stout is an accomplished reporter who has been writing
mysteries and true crime since the 1980s. Born in Erie, Pennsylvania, Stout
took a job at the New York Times in 1982, where he began writing his first
novel, Carolina Skeletons. The book won Stout an Edgar award for best first
novel and is currently available through MysteriousPress.com.
¿Qué les parece?
 |
| ¿Presos políticos o terroristas presos? ¡Esa es la pregunta! |
Los independentistas socialistas acusan a los
estadounidenses de racistas y asesinos pero por una extraña razón apoyan el
Partido Demócrata de Barack Obama que una vez apadrinó la secta terrorista
llamada Ku-Klux-Klan. ¿Paradójico? Yo también lo creo. ¿Será que son la misma cosa?
Aunque las noticias cambian, la realidad es que muchos no
conocen la verdadera historia política de los Estados Unidos y tienen la percepción de que los racistas blancos son los del Tea Party, otra falsedad.
Oscar López utiliza este hecho lamentable de pie forzado
para contarle a su nieta una sola parte de la historia desde su perspectiva
particular de preso en una carcel del Sur y aprovecha para martirizarse como si
también él fuera una víctima inocente del sistema americano. Nada más lejos de
la verdad.
Yo honestamente creo que George Stinney fue una víctima
inocente en un caso amañado por demócratas blancos racistas que ejercían el
poder político y judicial en el estado de Carolina del Sur para el 1944.
Este caso debe reabrirse, pero también debe salir a la
palestra pública los pecados de los demócratas para que dejen de asumir esa
imagen casi santoral que se adjudican y dejar de diabolizar a los republicanos
que eran las verdaderas víctimas y es por eso que hoy Carolina del Sur es republicano.
Vamos, que la verdad siempre sale a la luz.
Por otro lado me parece que los socialistas que marchan hoy
también deben aceptar que Oscar López Rivera no es el “George Stinney” boricua
porque fue un adulto, que con todas sus facultades perteneció a un grupo
terrorista llamado FALN, que conspiró para asesinar americanos en actos
terroristas con materiales explosivos que él custodió y que al sol de hoy no ha
pedido perdón ni ha mostrado arrepentimiento, al contrario, utiliza su caso
para exacerbar pasiones bajo un manto de artista pacifista.
Su excarcelación significa la glorificación de otro
terrorista como lo fue Filiberto Ojeda Ríos y que estos mismos socialistas
pretenden utilizarlos de parapeto para ganar poder político.
Las cosas como
son.
En mi opinión, si a Oscar López Rivera lo indultan quizás se
acabe el chijí-chijá de las marchitas socialistas pero eso no será suficiente
para un pueblo que está harto de los criminales que no lo dejan vivir en paz.
En estos momentos este tipo de actividad no muestra ningún
tipo de lucha contra la criminalidad que nos arropa, sólo la glorifica, triste
ejemplo para los jóvenes adolescentes que los están mirando, una razón más para
creer que los socialistas amamantan a los delincuentes, — el mejor ejemplo son
las negociaciones de las FARC en Cuba — increíblemente tienen la capacidad de
autodenominarse víctimas y todo este embeleco para lograr un poder político que
no merecen,
simplemente, porque
el neocomunismo quita libertades.
Such is Life!
