Terrible, but not surprising :(
On a lighter note the author has the most NYC-Italian name ever
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/10/history-of-lynchings-and-racial-violence-continues-to-haunt-us?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000047
QuoteJim Crow lynchings more widespread than first thought, report concludes
Equal Justice Initiative report reveals history of racial violence and finds at least 700 more lynchings than previously recorded in southern states
Lauren Gambino in New York
Tuesday 10 February 2015 06.10 EST
In 1919, a black soldier returned home to Blakely, Georgia, having survived the horrors of the first world war only to face the terrors of a white mob that awaited him in the Jim Crow-era south. When the soldier, William Little, refused to remove his army uniform, the savage mob exacted their punishment.
Little was just one of 3,959 African Americans who were brutally and often publicly killed across the southern states between the end of the Reconstruction era and the second world war, which is at least 700 more lynchings in these states than previously recorded, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI). The authors' inventory of the nearly 4,000 victims of what the report calls "terror lynchings" reveals a history of racial violence more extensive and more brutal than initially reported.
Many of the victims were, like Little, killed for minor transgressions against segregationist mores – or simply for demanding basic human rights or refusing to submit to unfair treatment. And though the names and faces of many who were lynched have slipped from the pages of history, their deaths, the report argues, have left an indelible mark on race relations in America.
"The trauma and anguish that lynchings and racial violence created in this country continues to haunt us and to contaminate race relations and our criminal justice system in too many places across the country," it concluded.
The report, titled Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror, is the result of nearly five years of investigation by EJI, a nonprofit organisation based in Montgomery, Alabama, into lynchings that occurred in 12 southern states between 1877 and 1950. It explores how the legacy of racial inequality in America was shaped and complicated by these violent decades, which saw thousands of African American men, women and children killed by "terror lynchings", horrific acts of violence inflicted on racial minorities.
The sites of nearly all of these killings, however, remain unmarked in what the report calls an "astonishing absence of any effort to acknowledge, discuss or address" the violence that occurred. The authors make the case that the country cannot fully heal from this painful chapter of its history until it acknowledges the devastation that this era created and the residual effects of these acts.
Bryan Stevenson, the director of EJI, said the organization plans to erect monuments, memorials and markers in the communities where the lynchings took place, as a way of piercing the silence and starting a conversation.
Acknowledging the hardships he faces in getting the funding and approval to build the markers, not to mention the controversy that will almost certainly ensue, Stevenson said the process will force communities to reckon with the vicious history of racial violence.
"We want to change the visual landscape of this country so that when people move through these communities and live in these communities, that they're mindful of this history," Stevenson said. "We really want to see truth and reconciliation emerge, so that we can turn the page on race relations."
He added: "We don't think you should be able to come to these places without facing their histories."
The report argues that atrocities carried out against African Americans during this period were akin to terrorism, and that lynchings were a tool to "enforce racial subordination and segregation". It is the follow-up to the organisation's 2013 report Slavery in America.
"It's important to begin talking about it," Stevenson said. "These lynchings were torturous and violent and extreme. They were sometimes attended by the entire white community. It was sometimes not enough to lynch the person who was the target, but it was necessary to terrorise the entire black community: burn down churches and attack black homes. I think that that kind of history really can't be ignored."
Stevenson said this era had a profound impact on contemporary issues facing African Americans.
"The failings of this era very much reflect what young people are now saying about police shootings," Stevenson said. "It is about embracing this idea that 'black lives matter'," he added. "I also think that the lynching era created a narrative of racial difference, a presumption of guilt, a presumption of dangerousness that got assigned to African Americans in particular – and that's the same presumption of guilt that burdens young kids living in urban areas who are sometimes menaced, threatened, or shot and killed by law enforcement officers."
QuoteMany of the victims were, like Little, killed for minor transgressions against segregationist mores – or simply for demanding basic human rights or refusing to submit to unfair treatment.
And sometimes just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The point was to create an atmosphere of terror, the arbitrariness of it was part of the fear.
QuoteIt's important to begin talking about it," Stevenson said. "These lynchings were torturous and violent and extreme. They were sometimes attended by the entire white community. It was sometimes not enough to lynch the person who was the target, but it was necessary to terrorise the entire black community: burn down churches and attack black homes. I think that that kind of history really can't be ignored."
Haven't we been talking about this for years? It puzzles me how I keep hearing about things that were present in my basic history courses and I see mentioned all the time as if they are not being discussed or are being ignored. I think people just do not give a damn about history really and that frustrates people but it is no conspiracy. I certainly saw many graphic pictures of lynching and racial murder and race riots and large white crowds who showed up to see them.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 04:44:18 PM
QuoteMany of the victims were, like Little, killed for minor transgressions against segregationist mores – or simply for demanding basic human rights or refusing to submit to unfair treatment.
And sometimes just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The point was to create an atmosphere of terror, the arbitrariness of it was part of the fear.
ISIL reminds me a lot of the period described.
Stuff like this is in the realm of "hard to believe humans can be so inhuman".
I can no more imagine myself getting together with some friends to go out and randomly murder some black guy than I could imagine working the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
Quote from: mongers on February 10, 2015, 04:46:33 PM
ISIL reminds me a lot of the period described.
Using arbitrary terrorism to subdue a population was not invented in the American South for sure. It is old and works....so long as nobody pokes around too much.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
Stuff like this is in the realm of "hard to believe humans can be so inhuman".
I can no more imagine myself getting together with some friends to go out and randomly murder some black guy than I could imagine working the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
Well there's that whole argument that it's a very human so, 'we' have to guard against it both individually and collectively.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
Stuff like this is in the realm of "hard to believe humans can be so inhuman".
I can no more imagine myself getting together with some friends to go out and randomly murder some black guy than I could imagine working the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
It was considered a vile but necessary job. To protect society and so forth. That is what makes it so horrifying. For the most part these were good people doing what they thought was a good thing. That is hard to get my head around.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 04:50:36 PM
It was considered a vile but necessary job. To protect society and so forth. That is what makes it so horrifying. For the most part these were good people doing what they thought was a good thing. That is hard to get my head around.
They knew exactly what they were doing, and why. The Nuremburg Defense doesn't work for the South's ingrained history of racism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 10, 2015, 04:55:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 04:50:36 PM
It was considered a vile but necessary job. To protect society and so forth. That is what makes it so horrifying. For the most part these were good people doing what they thought was a good thing. That is hard to get my head around.
They knew exactly what they were doing, and why. The Nuremburg Defense doesn't work for the South's ingrained history of racism.
Of course they did. To protect society from the scary negros. If you didn't they would all go nuts and rape the white women or something.
Not sure why that is a defense. Merely that this view was held by people who in all other ways were good people. Hence the scariness.
Why are they wipping this old dog again?
When was the last time a black dude was lynched?
Are there still mobs of white dudes out for blood lynching people in the South?
This is like Zerobama talking about the crusades as the justification for muslim terrorism.
Sure dude.
The Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh had an exhibit with lynching photos several years back. Pretty grueling to make your way through the whole exhibit. One thing that was striking was the number of whites that were also lynched.
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 04:59:53 PM
Why are they wipping this old dog again?
When was the last time a black dude was lynched?
Are there still mobs of white dudes out for blood lynching people in the South?
Well that is a very good question Siege, thanks for asking! The last known lynching was in the late 90s in good old Jasper, Texas. At least the one I know of.
I presume we are talking about it because it is Black History Month.
QuoteThis is like Zerobama talking about the crusades as the justification for muslim terrorism.
I guess I don't see how it is like that. What was the article justifying?
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2015, 05:01:08 PM
The Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh had an exhibit with lynching photos several years back. Pretty grueling to make your way through the whole exhibit. One thing that was striking was the number of whites that were also lynched.
Race traitors I guess....eh more like miscegenation. Am I right?
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 05:06:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2015, 05:01:08 PM
The Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh had an exhibit with lynching photos several years back. Pretty grueling to make your way through the whole exhibit. One thing that was striking was the number of whites that were also lynched.
Race traitors I guess.
Leave it to derweiß to acknowledge the white victims of racism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 10, 2015, 05:11:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 05:06:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2015, 05:01:08 PM
The Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh had an exhibit with lynching photos several years back. Pretty grueling to make your way through the whole exhibit. One thing that was striking was the number of whites that were also lynched.
Race traitors I guess.
Leave it to derweiß to acknowledge the white victims of racism.
:(
For the white victims I'm guessing it was just mob justice. It was just striking to me because you never hear about that except for the Jewish dude who was lynched over the Mary Phagan murder.
William Lloyd Garrison was nearly lynched. In Boston. He survived only because the sheriff intervened physically with some deputies and put Garrison under arrest (for his own protection).
Count Axel von Fersen (lover of Marie Antoinette) was lynched in Stockholm in 1810. He was white.
According to this website, there were 4,743 lynchings in the US from 1882-1967, of which 1,297 were white and 3,446 were black.
http://faculty.berea.edu/browners/chesnutt/classroom/lynchings_table_state.html
The largest single lynching event recorded in the US was of Italian laborers in New Orleans. And lynchings in the Western states were largely mob justice against white victims. Of course, this doesn't change the fundamental fact that lynching as a form of organized political violence was overwhelmingly directed against former slaves and their black descendants.
I have a photography book that probably corresponds to the exhibit derspiess saw. What I find most remarkable is that lynching was not really treated a vile but necessary activity, but something that the participants took pride in and that was perceived as wholesome fun for the whole family in the communities where it took place, even where it involved extreme torture or the mutilation of corpses. Many of the photos are taken from souvenir postcards of the period that were widely sold where lynchings took place, and then mailed to family and friends across the country; it took the intervention of the Postmaster General (during, IIRC, the T. Roosevelt administration) to drive this market underground, alongside the equally robust trade in the memorabilia of lynching victims' body parts.
Although there was some hand-wringing on the part of New South boosters in big city newspaper editorials, lynchings were largely something that you had to explain *not* participating in if you were a prominent male citizen in the communities where they took place.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 05:06:11 PM
I guess I don't see how it is like that. What was the article justifying?
Obviously federal over reach.
So for a quick estimate of the role racism played in lynchings, lets take modern male incarceration rates applied to historical demographics.
Incarceration rates:
White: 0.678%
Black: 4.347%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Race
During the period in question, the US was roughly:
White: 90%
Black: 10%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States
If race was not a factor, one would expect whites to be lynched in the following percentages (with that data):
(0.678*.9)/(0.678*.9 + 4.347*.1)= 58%
and blacks (by a similar calculation) = 42%.
In fact, whites were just 27% of those lynched, while blacks were 73%.
Toby Keith and Willie Nelson think there's nothing wrong with lynching bonafied criminals. :outback:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1JOFhfoAD4
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 10, 2015, 06:17:18 PM
Toby Keith and Willie Nelson think there's nothing wrong with lynching bonafied criminals. :outback:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1JOFhfoAD4
Save you can never have those three words together, bona fide criminals fine, but a lynching is a singular outrage.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 10, 2015, 06:17:18 PM
Toby Keith and Willie Nelson think there's nothing wrong with lynching bonafied criminals. :outback:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1JOFhfoAD4
:rolleyes:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 10, 2015, 06:17:18 PM
Toby Keith and Willie Nelson think there's nothing wrong with lynching bonafied criminals. :outback:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1JOFhfoAD4
But it's a no-go if they are deboned first, then?
Yes, I've met many Lynchs in the south. And Smiths, Reeds, Burkharts, and many many others.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 10, 2015, 07:12:47 PM
Yes, I've met many Lynchs in the south. And Smiths, Reeds, Burkharts, and many many others.
But no matter how many Lynches you previously thought there were, there were at least 700 more than that. Even if you previously knew about the 700.
I failed math.
David is my favorite of them all. By far.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
Stuff like this is in the realm of "hard to believe humans can be so inhuman".
I can no more imagine myself getting together with some friends to go out and randomly murder some black guy than I could imagine working the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
being an active participant is one thing. I don't think anyone here would do such things.
But being a bystander, not knowing the crime that was done, in that time period, you see a black guy being lynched, not many of us would actively try to prevent the lynching. It would likely appear to be normal. Heck, maybe even for many of those lynching the black guys, they thought they were killing a criminal.
Probably similar to those police shootings, when a black man and a white officer are involved. I doubt the officer makes the conscious decision
"oh wait, he's black, I'm gonna shoot that nigger and be done with it, then I'll claim he came at me".
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 04:59:53 PM
When was the last time a black dude was lynched?
Well, I think they prefer lethal injection nowadays. You could make a case that it is not the same thing as a lynching, despite the end result being very similar.
Quote
This is like Zerobama talking about the crusades as the justification for muslim terrorism.
Sure dude.
Here's a novel idea: quote me the exact words of Obama instead of relying on Gop spin doctors. I'd really like to read that justification he supposedly made...
Quote from: Caliga on February 10, 2015, 07:29:06 PM
David is my favorite of them all. By far.
Mono's favorite is Merrill. Marty's favorite is Jane.
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 12:26:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
Stuff like this is in the realm of "hard to believe humans can be so inhuman".
I can no more imagine myself getting together with some friends to go out and randomly murder some black guy than I could imagine working the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
being an active participant is one thing. I don't think anyone here would do such things.
If we were somehow transported back in time, no. Though, if we were all white males born in the South back in the day, or Germans during WWII, I think a lot of us wouldn't be so noble. Look at some of our posters' attitudes toward Moslems. If those same posters were Germans of 70-some years ago, don't you think they'd be positively enthusiastic about gassing the Jews?
QuoteBut being a bystander, not knowing the crime that was done, in that time period, you see a black guy being lynched, not many of us would actively try to prevent the lynching. It would likely appear to be normal. Heck, maybe even for many of those lynching the black guys, they thought they were killing a criminal.
While some blacks were lynched for actual crimes, most were lynched simply for being "uppity". You know, for doing things like wearing their Army uniform, trying to register to vote, or reading a newspaper.
People that were lynched out west, as opposed to the south, were mostly those accused of crimes (and were usually white). Whether they were actually guilty of those crimes is another issue.
QuoteWell, I think they prefer lethal injection nowadays. You could make a case that it is not the same thing as a lynching, despite the end result being very similar.
It's the same thing if you think kidnapping someone is the same thing as sending someone to prison.
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 12:30:13 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 04:59:53 PM
When was the last time a black dude was lynched?
Well, I think they prefer lethal injection nowadays. You could make a case that it is not the same thing as a lynching, despite the end result being very similar.
If you do nothing at all to a person, the end result is "very similar" to a lynching, by this reasoning.
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2015, 07:42:09 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 12:30:13 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 04:59:53 PM
When was the last time a black dude was lynched?
Well, I think they prefer lethal injection nowadays. You could make a case that it is not the same thing as a lynching, despite the end result being very similar.
If you do nothing at all to a person, the end result is "very similar" to a lynching, by this reasoning.
Jesus will lynch us all, but people still worship him. Talk about an uncle tom attitude...
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 12:30:13 AM
Well, I think they prefer lethal injection nowadays. You could make a case that it is not the same thing as a lynching, despite the end result being very similar.
Even if you view the death penalty falling disproportionately on blacks it is not comparable at all because the terrorism is not present. Black men are not terrified of interacting with white people today because we might get them placed on death row if they say the wrong thing.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 10, 2015, 05:51:02 PM
The largest single lynching event recorded in the US was of Italian laborers in New Orleans. And lynchings in the Western states were largely mob justice against white victims. Of course, this doesn't change the fundamental fact that lynching as a form of organized political violence was overwhelmingly directed against former slaves and their black descendants.
The purpose was similar, terrorism. Sometimes justifiably so I suppose. In my genealogical studies I found the story of a man who kept offering to guide pioneers through the local community but instead he was murdering them all and taking all their valuables. One time a young boy escaped, made it back to the locals and told the people what was going on. So they lynched him and left him hanging there as warning to others.
QuoteI have a photography book that probably corresponds to the exhibit derspiess saw. What I find most remarkable is that lynching was not really treated a vile but necessary activity, but something that the participants took pride in and that was perceived as wholesome fun for the whole family in the communities where it took place, even where it involved extreme torture or the mutilation of corpses. Many of the photos are taken from souvenir postcards of the period that were widely sold where lynchings took place, and then mailed to family and friends across the country; it took the intervention of the Postmaster General (during, IIRC, the T. Roosevelt administration) to drive this market underground, alongside the equally robust trade in the memorabilia of lynching victims' body parts.
True. Both of these things were true at the same time. This part had a lot to do with Southern Redemption and the mythical Reconstruction. I mentioned the coup that overthrew the government of Wilmington in another thread, the propaganda of black men rampaging through the streets and a Reconstruction era government aimed at destroying the South was what got everybody ready for battle. And I suppose it was in the sense that it was a biracial Republican government. You better believe the guys who took part in that were damn proud of it, having taken the South back from the evil Yankees and the blacks they brainwashed through lies etc...
But at the same time, especially as the Civil War generation began to die off, there was that disconnect between the image of the genteel South where everybody knew their place and was happy and the terror. This required secret societies and all kinds of myth making to work.
QuoteAlthough there was some hand-wringing on the part of New South boosters in big city newspaper editorials, lynchings were largely something that you had to explain *not* participating in if you were a prominent male citizen in the communities where they took place.
Well yeah, why aren't you doing your duty for the community? It was sort of like draft dodging.
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 12:26:15 AM
being an active participant is one thing. I don't think anyone here would do such things.
But being a bystander, not knowing the crime that was done, in that time period, you see a black guy being lynched, not many of us would actively try to prevent the lynching. It would likely appear to be normal. Heck, maybe even for many of those lynching the black guys, they thought they were killing a criminal.
So? Even if they thought that, it isn't up to the mob to dispense justice. In killing a "criminal", they became criminals
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 12:26:15 AM
Probably similar to those police shootings, when a black man and a white officer are involved. I doubt the officer makes the conscious decision "oh wait, he's black, I'm gonna shoot that nigger and be done with it, then I'll claim he came at me".
I may dislike the police but I don't see how this is similar at all.
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 12:30:13 AM
Here's a novel idea: quote me the exact words of Obama instead of relying on Gop spin doctors. I'd really like to read that justification he supposedly made...
Get off your high horse.
neigh
Quote from: dps on February 11, 2015, 07:34:32 AM
If we were somehow transported back in time, no. Though, if we were all white males born in the South back in the day, or Germans during WWII, I think a lot of us wouldn't be so noble. Look at some of our posters' attitudes toward Moslems. If those same posters were Germans of 70-some years ago, don't you think they'd be positively enthusiastic about gassing the Jews?
I think it depends on the age&education we got.
Were we raised by Hitler's Youth, there's zero doubt that most of us would have happily gazed jews.
But if we're around 30 when the Nazis come to power, hard to tell. Well, Jacob wouldn't do it for sure, that I know. What with him being arrested in 1934 and deported to some concentration camp already ;) . Siege is a no brainer, if he was not Jewish, he would have killed the Jews, ennemies of the State.
Others, I still think most of us wouldn't have done it. Fighting in the war, certainly. Turning a blind eye to suspicions we have, most likely, like most Whermacht army officers who didn't actively participate in the masscres. But volunteering for the Totenkopf, even the muslim haters I find them unable to do so. Maybe I'm too idealistic.
Quote
While some blacks were lynched for actual crimes, most were lynched simply for being "uppity". You know, for doing things like wearing their Army uniform, trying to register to vote, or reading a newspaper.
What I'm trying to say is that I am unfamiliar with the process. I always assumed that a lynch mob would take a black and simply decide to hang him, and when asked why by someone they would make trumped up charges and people would go along with it.
Quote
It's the same thing if you think kidnapping someone is the same thing as sending someone to prison.
If you send someone to prison knowing he's not really guilty or that there exist a strong possibility he is not guilty, but he's a poor black and nobody will miss him, yes, it is the same.
It's also the same when you refuse to condemn a bunch of white guys who murdered a black man because it was just kids having fun.
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
If you send someone to prison knowing he's not really guilty or that there exist a strong possibility he is not guilty, but he's a poor black and nobody will miss him, yes, it is the same.
Is your contention that the above has widespread occurrence?
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 09:12:21 AM
So? Even if they thought that, it isn't up to the mob to dispense justice. In killing a "criminal", they became criminals
Because Americans living in the South and mid-west at that time had an inane sense of justice, believing it's the State's responsibility to dispense justice and they had nothing to do with it? Yeah right.
Quote
I may dislike the police but I don't see how this is similar at all.
It is. It is called racism. You assume that the black guy is a criminal and he's dangerous because he's black and all blacks hate whites. So, you're a police officer, you see a black guy resisting arrest, you assume he is armed and will kill you, no more question, you defend yourself.
In the case of a lynching mob, they assume they are doing what is necessary to protect themselves, to protect their families. Most bystanders would probably not bother to find out why the guy is lynched.
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 10:24:59 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
If you send someone to prison knowing he's not really guilty or that there exist a strong possibility he is not guilty, but he's a poor black and nobody will miss him, yes, it is the same.
Is your contention that the above has widespread occurrence?
in some States where they have death penalty? Absolutely. Didn't we have threads on this?
Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2015, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 12:30:13 AM
Here's a novel idea: quote me the exact words of Obama instead of relying on Gop spin doctors. I'd really like to read that justification he supposedly made...
Get off your high horse.
You are offended, yet, you do not provide me with the exact quote. :)
Mob psychology is interesting stuff.
I think if you find some picture of a bunch of white guys standing around a black guy they just hung, 100% of them will be thinking that what they just did was necessary and moral, if legally questionable.
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 10:27:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 10:24:59 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
If you send someone to prison knowing he's not really guilty or that there exist a strong possibility he is not guilty, but he's a poor black and nobody will miss him, yes, it is the same.
Is your contention that the above has widespread occurrence?
in some States where they have death penalty? Absolutely. Didn't we have threads on this?
I thought the issue was blacks getting tougher sentences for the same offenses as other less black races, not that we were tossing completely innocent people on death row in large numbers.
Quote from: Berkut on February 11, 2015, 10:28:42 AM
Mob psychology is interesting stuff.
I think if you find some picture of a bunch of white guys standing around a black guy they just hung, 100% of them will be thinking that what they just did was necessary and moral, if legally questionable.
Yep. I wonder if any of them had second thoughts the next day or a few years down the road.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 04:44:18 PM
Haven't we been talking about this for years? It puzzles me how I keep hearing about things that were present in my basic history courses and I see mentioned all the time as if they are not being discussed or are being ignored. I think people just do not give a damn about history really and that frustrates people but it is no conspiracy. I certainly saw many graphic pictures of lynching and racial murder and race riots and large white crowds who showed up to see them.
Well, it's a complex issue - comparable to, say, participation in Holocaust in Central and Eastern Europe (and within the similar time frame, since last lynchings happened in the 1950s). It's one thing to acknowledge that "some (nameless and faceless) whites lynched blacks" and "these were just a few bad apples" and get on with your life. But for the healing/reconciliation to really happen you need people to acknowledge that it was their grandparents/parents/uncles etc. who were murderers/accessories to murders and their memory is still being cherished in their respective communities. That is much harder to admit.
I mean, the article mentions that often whole white communities participated in the lynchings - where are these people (at least in the metaphorical sense, as most of them are dead) now? Has every one of them been named and shamed (if not brought to justice) and recognised for this by their children and grandchildren? I very much doubt it.
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 10:27:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 10:24:59 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
If you send someone to prison knowing he's not really guilty or that there exist a strong possibility he is not guilty, but he's a poor black and nobody will miss him, yes, it is the same.
Is your contention that the above has widespread occurrence?
in some States where they have death penalty? Absolutely. Didn't we have threads on this?
Really? Can you name some states (and provide some evidence) where it is common to send people to prison because they are "poor black[..s] and nobody will miss [them]?" 'Cause I think you are full of shit, and that we have never had threads about such states.
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 04:59:53 PM
Why are they wipping this old dog again?
When was the last time a black dude was lynched?
Are there still mobs of white dudes out for blood lynching people in the South?
This is like Zerobama talking about the crusades as the justification for muslim terrorism.
Sure dude.
It takes a nerve for a Jew to complain about people complaining about old wrongs. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 11, 2015, 12:33:41 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 10, 2015, 07:29:06 PM
David is my favorite of them all. By far.
Mono's favorite is Merrill. Marty's favorite is Jane.
What the fuck are you? A psychic? :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on February 10, 2015, 05:46:04 PM
According to this website, there were 4,743 lynchings in the US from 1882-1967, of which 1,297 were white and 3,446 were black.
http://faculty.berea.edu/browners/chesnutt/classroom/lynchings_table_state.html
Does this number include the lynchings mentioned in the article Tim posted as unaccounted for?
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2015, 11:11:52 AM
Well, it's a complex issue - comparable to, say, participation in Holocaust in Central and Eastern Europe (and within the similar time frame, since last lynchings happened in the 1950s). It's one thing to acknowledge that "some (nameless and faceless) whites lynched blacks" and "these were just a few bad apples" and get on with your life. But for the healing/reconciliation to really happen you need people to acknowledge that it was their grandparents/parents/uncles etc. who were murderers/accessories to murders and their memory is still being cherished in their respective communities. That is much harder to admit.
Well the problem is I have no idea how many members of my family were involved. The KKK member rolls have never been published. Granted there probably is no such thing. But the issue is even the ones who did not directly participate were accessories to one degree or another, and frankly why wouldn't they be? The anti-black cultural influences were everywhere, hammering you from birth. It wasn't until the horror of it was brought to light during the Civil Rights days that decent people in the South realized it was all bullshit.
But today it gets mixed up with weird stuff. Siege thinks this story is about trying to guilt white people into giving shit to black people and that this is all ancient history. I mean nevermind my parents remember it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2015, 11:29:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2015, 11:11:52 AM
Well, it's a complex issue - comparable to, say, participation in Holocaust in Central and Eastern Europe (and within the similar time frame, since last lynchings happened in the 1950s). It's one thing to acknowledge that "some (nameless and faceless) whites lynched blacks" and "these were just a few bad apples" and get on with your life. But for the healing/reconciliation to really happen you need people to acknowledge that it was their grandparents/parents/uncles etc. who were murderers/accessories to murders and their memory is still being cherished in their respective communities. That is much harder to admit.
Well the problem is I have no idea how many members of my family were involved. The KKK member rolls have never been published. Granted there probably is no such thing. But the issue is even the ones who did not directly participate were accessories to one degree or another, and frankly why wouldn't they be? The anti-black cultural influences were everywhere, hammering you from birth. It wasn't until the horror of it was brought to light during the Civil Rights days that decent people in the South realized it was all bullshit.
But today it gets mixed up with weird stuff. Siege thinks this story is about trying to guilt white people into giving shit to black people and that this is all ancient history. I mean nevermind my parents remember it.
Ok, then don't be surprised when someone says this is not really being discussed. Because it isn't. You yourself have no idea if your family was involved so clearly this wasn't something that was discussed in your family, despite the fact that, as you say, even your parents remember it. :)
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2015, 11:11:52 AM
I mean, the article mentions that often whole white communities participated in the lynchings - where are these people (at least in the metaphorical sense, as most of them are dead) now? Has every one of them been named and shamed (if not brought to justice) and recognised for this by their children and grandchildren? I very much doubt it.
Since that would be impossible you are very much correct. How could we possibly know who did what? It would be impossible to do that for any number of modern riots much less ones from decades ago.
And I am not casting stones, because (like most modern nations/groups) I come from one whose members, within pretty much living memory, did unspeakable wrong to other people - whether it's pogroms, Holocaust, apartheid, anti-black racism, rape of Nanking, it's not really important. And this is also not something that was discussed at my home, not extensively (and only recently Polish culture started to come to grips with such issues).
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2015, 11:32:45 AM
You yourself have no idea if your family was involved so clearly this wasn't something that was discussed in your family, despite the fact that, as you say, even your parents remember it. :)
My Grandparents, the Marylanders, were little kids at the time so nobody told them shit. The only stories they told were about the Racism constant in the culture. They were big on southern manners and all that and always were incredibly polite to everybody black and white. But they were certainly infected by the cultural standards. They had a black maid they paid a pension to after she retired as per the tradition at the time. My father intentionally broke the traditions by doing things like always referring to her as 'Mrs. Masterson' instead of by her first name, which she thought was funny. My father talks about different Black people were back then, so obviously terrorized.
But yeah what were my Great-Grandparents or my Great-Great-Grandparents up to? No idea. Nothing they ever told my Grandparents I will tell you that. I do wonder though. How much do you know about the actions of your Great-Grandparents?
I don't. I made that point few posts back. Again, I wasn't trying to say you are a "bad person", just that I do not agree with your comment that this is something that has already been discussed a lot. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2015, 11:44:15 AM
I don't. I made that point few posts back. Again, I wasn't trying to say you are a "bad person", just that I do not agree with your comment that this is something that has already been discussed a lot. ;)
I do not think I am a bad person for possibly having KKK/lynching/race rioting Great-Grandparents :P
Believe my I let my anti-Confederate and anti-Jim Crow anger go when I was a teenager which upset my Grandmother a great deal. That puzzled me until I later realized her own grandfather was a Confederate veteran. Things you don't think about when you are a kid.
I am saying the reason it has not been discussed a lot is not because there is some grand conspiracy to keep it hidden, quite the contrary it is out there all the time, but that people just do not give a damn about history. Particularly unpleasant history.
Remember when Martim was all up on his high horse about the conspiracy in the US to not discuss the looting/murders committed by the US troops in Germany at the end of WWII and the subsequent camps where lots of Germans starved? Oh it is discussed but it does not leave much of an impression on anybody.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2015, 11:47:10 AM
Remember when Martim was all up on his high horse about the conspiracy in the US to not discuss the looting/murders committed by the US troops in Germany at the end of WWII and the subsequent camps where lots of Germans starved? Oh it is discussed but it does not leave much of an impression on anybody.
The German POW thing was about the decision to switch them from the US military ration (which was enormous) to the displaced person ration.
Interestingly, I recently read a bit in the NYT by a guy kvetching about US treatment of concentration camp rescuees, and one of his bitches was they only got as much food as German POWs.
This is what it means to be an American. We help destroy Nazi Germany and help liberate all the concentration camps and people are still annoyed with us.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2015, 10:29:39 AM
I thought the issue was blacks getting tougher sentences for the same offenses as other less black races, not that we were tossing completely innocent people on death row in large numbers.
how many people executed than later found innocent in States where they have death penalty?
Quote
University of Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan) law professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor) Samuel Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_R._Gross) led a team of experts in the law and in statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) that estimated the likely number of unjust convictions. The study determined that at least 4% of people on death row were and are innocent. The research was peer reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) and the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences) published it, Gross has no doubt that some innocent people have been executed. [12][13]
Statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions because once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes unlikely at that point that the miscarriage of justice will ever be exposed. In the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell III (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Roger_O%27Dell_III&action=edit&redlink=1), executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, a prosecuting attorney argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O'Dell, "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man." The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed.[14]
Than we add the number for people freed before they are executed, and I think we have "a lot".
Not really. The numbers of people on death row are statistically insignificant. Further people wrongfully convicted is different than knowingly executing innocent people because they are poor and black. The presumption is that the justice system actually thinks it has the guilty party. This is an argument against the death penalty not a continuation of lynching.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2015, 03:55:29 PM
Not really. The numbers of people on death row are statistically insignificant. Further people wrongfully convicted is different than knowingly executing innocent people because they are poor and black. The presumption is that the justice system actually thinks it has the guilty party. This is an argument against the death penalty not a continuation of lynching.
aren't blacks over represented in death penalty cases?
Viper, you are sounding a little nutty. As, I think g already asked - where is the proof of this plot to put away innocent people just because they are black?
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: dps on February 11, 2015, 07:34:32 AM
If we were somehow transported back in time, no. Though, if we were all white males born in the South back in the day, or Germans during WWII, I think a lot of us wouldn't be so noble. Look at some of our posters' attitudes toward Moslems. If those same posters were Germans of 70-some years ago, don't you think they'd be positively enthusiastic about gassing the Jews?
I think it depends on the age&education we got.
Were we raised by Hitler's Youth, there's zero doubt that most of us would have happily gazed jews.
But if we're around 30 when the Nazis come to power, hard to tell. Well, Jacob wouldn't do it for sure, that I know. What with him being arrested in 1934 and deported to some concentration camp already ;) . Siege is a no brainer, if he was not Jewish, he would have killed the Jews, ennemies of the State.
Others, I still think most of us wouldn't have done it. Fighting in the war, certainly. Turning a blind eye to suspicions we have, most likely, like most Whermacht army officers who didn't actively participate in the masscres. But volunteering for the Totenkopf, even the muslim haters I find them unable to do so. Maybe I'm too idealistic.
Oh, yeah, I think you're WAAAAY too optimistic. Frankly, I think that almost all of us, if we were heterosexual, non-Jewish, and raised in pre-WWII Germany, would at the very least turn a blind eye to the Holocaust. I just don't think that we can reasonably claim that as a group, we are somehow more moral and noble than Germans of that time.
I do agree that most of us wouldn't have been active participants or Nazi party members, but OTOH, Siegy wouldn't be the only exception. Aside from anti-Semites, I can also see some people who would join the party because they'd think it a good career move, and people who would have seen Hitler as the strong leader Germany needed.
Ide, of course, would have been a party member, but wouldn't have taken part in the Holocaust, 'cause he would have been one of Ernst Rohm's SA boys and would have been purged in the Night of the Long Knives.
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 07:17:30 PM
aren't blacks over represented in death penalty cases?
Aren't blacks over-represented as victims in cases where convicted killers are not executed, escape from prison, and murder again?
Quote from: dps on February 11, 2015, 07:44:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: dps on February 11, 2015, 07:34:32 AM
If we were somehow transported back in time, no. Though, if we were all white males born in the South back in the day, or Germans during WWII, I think a lot of us wouldn't be so noble. Look at some of our posters' attitudes toward Moslems. If those same posters were Germans of 70-some years ago, don't you think they'd be positively enthusiastic about gassing the Jews?
I think it depends on the age&education we got.
Were we raised by Hitler's Youth, there's zero doubt that most of us would have happily gazed jews.
But if we're around 30 when the Nazis come to power, hard to tell. Well, Jacob wouldn't do it for sure, that I know. What with him being arrested in 1934 and deported to some concentration camp already ;) . Siege is a no brainer, if he was not Jewish, he would have killed the Jews, ennemies of the State.
Others, I still think most of us wouldn't have done it. Fighting in the war, certainly. Turning a blind eye to suspicions we have, most likely, like most Whermacht army officers who didn't actively participate in the masscres. But volunteering for the Totenkopf, even the muslim haters I find them unable to do so. Maybe I'm too idealistic.
Oh, yeah, I think you're WAAAAY too optimistic. Frankly, I think that almost all of us, if we were heterosexual, non-Jewish, and raised in pre-WWII Germany, would at the very least turn a blind eye to the Holocaust. I just don't think that we can reasonably claim that as a group, we are somehow more moral and noble than Germans of that time.
I do agree that most of us wouldn't have been active participants or Nazi party members, but OTOH, Siegy wouldn't be the only exception. Aside from anti-Semites, I can also see some people who would join the party because they'd think it a good career move, and people who would have seen Hitler as the strong leader Germany needed.
Ide, of course, would have been a party member, but wouldn't have taken part in the Holocaust, 'cause he would have been one of Ernst Rohm's SA boys and would have been purged in the Night of the Long Knives.
Sadly, I think you are right. That is why I think open dialogue and reconciliation is necessary - not because, say, Southern racism stands out so much amidst inhuman crimes comitted by people against people in history - but exactly because it doesn't and everyone has their dirty laundry they should air (even "victim nations" like the Irish for example).
Human nature sucks.
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2015, 07:52:12 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2015, 07:17:30 PM
aren't blacks over represented in death penalty cases?
Aren't blacks over-represented as victims in cases where convicted killers are not executed, escape from prison, and murder again?
:huh: