5 ms·

.. confused by the title? > Yet, just as Cameron prepared for the end, someone spoke up. In Cameron’s retelling, a voice “rose above the deafening roar of the

.. confused by the title? > Yet, just as Cameron prepared for the end, someone spoke up. In Cameron’s retelling, a voice “rose above the deafening roar of the mob,” speaking “sharp and crisp, like bells ringing out on a clear, cold winter day.” The voice — “feminine” and “sweet” — delivered a simple instruction: “Take this boy back. He had nothing to do with any raping or killing.” i think it should be 'how to stop a lynching: speak out against hate'

brightball 10y ago
Seems like that should read 'speak up for the innocent'. I only say that because the word 'hate' gets thrown around a lot where it's neither accurate nor appropriate. Hate is an obsession level feeling that consumes a person. When people throw around the word, they lessen its meaning which causes people to dismiss it (and the person using it) when they hear it. Certainly, in the case of a lynching, using the word would be more appropriate so don't take my comment as direct at you in particular but more at just the overall internet's use of the word.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  This is so wrong. See, it did not matter whether or not the person was innocent. What mattered was that you don't take the law into your own hands. And that person did speak up, but only after two people were already killed without any form of due process.
  - brightball 10y ago
    According to the story it mattered that somebody stood up and DECLARED his innocence. If the mob was just up for killing black people (aka - hate) there would be no reason for that to stop them. The mob was out for what they perceived as some deranged form of justice. It's totally indefensible on all counts regardless. My comment was only around the use of the word "hate".
    - jessedhillon 10y ago
      I see no reason why hate is not an appropriate term for that animating force which is compelling a mob towards vigilante action against a perceived wrongdoer -- a perception certainly rooted in racial bias. In order to get to the point where a lynching is possible, a person who cares about justice, law, order etc must convince themselves of the victim's guilt beyond all doubt. If the victim is already nearly subhuman to you, it's much easier to convince yourself that there's no moral risk in making the wrong judgment. Just think about it from your own perspective: how certain would you have to be of someone else's guilt before you would feel comfortable attending their impromptu execution? If some neighbor came to you and said "we're gonna kill this guy, I heard he raped someone," you certainly would pass on that, if not stand up against it. If we take away the hatred, what you appear to be saying here is that lynchings are well-meaning attempts at justice, which are inappropriately realized. This is silly, at least, to anyone familiar with the history of lynchings.
- ars 10y ago
  > 'speak up for the innocent'. That actually surprised me. They were so angry and willing kill, yet as soon as someone said the person was innocent, he was left alone - even though he was black (and supposedly targeted for that reason alone). To me this means the story is more about rape than about race. (At least this story.) Obviously it's not for a mob to decide guilt - but still, it really surprised me that that was their motivation. I always assumed it was racism.
  - empraptor 10y ago
    Did you read the whole article? Sure sounds like racism to me. The lynching wasn't just about rape. It was about rape allegedly committed by black boys against a white woman.
    - ars 10y ago
      > Did you read the whole article? No, about 1/3 to 1/2. I agree that racism was a huge part, I doubt they would have lynched a white person. But despite that, them stopping after hearing a declaration that the black person was innocent just amazes me, it doesn't fit into my understanding of lynching which I always associated with just simple hate, i.e. "grab any handy black person and kill them".
      - AnAfrican 10y ago
        May be the fact that they had already killed 2 boys was part of it ? The article also mentions how many black families had fled the town and how they were ready to get another teenager. That's how the "grab anyone" part works. And it's definetly racism.
- justifier 10y ago
  > 'speak up for the innocent' i labored over the words i ended up with.. i thought about something similar to your suggestion but innocence is a loaded word that is associated with justice, and even if the others were guilty this is anything but justice
- mrexroad 10y ago
  agree on frustration with the inaccurate use of the word "hate". i have little/no tolerance for my kids saying "i hate you" or "i hate this/that", and have explained they have never truly experienced hatred. i also have little tolerance for putting down others for cognitive ability (real, perceived, or in jest). so in my house "hate" is the "h word", "stupid" is the "s word", and "can't" is the "c word." i imagine this may lead to a slightly amusing mixup down the road, but meh, the limit of my concern with "worse words" is making sure they know that it's in appropriate in some settings and that it will impact how others view them.
smadge 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that "angelic voice" was 100% ok with lynching the other two innocent black men. Not exactly a voice of love speaking against hate.
- ars 10y ago
  A: How do you know they were, or weren't innocent? And B: 100%? You don't even know who spoke, how can you possible decide what they would, or wouldn't be OK with? > Not exactly a voice of love speaking against hate. Or maybe they thought the first two were not innocent, and the third was?
  - smadge 10y ago
    innocent until proven guilty. lynching is never legitimate
    - NetTechM 10y ago
      Odd how often people forget that. Especially when they are the aggrieved, or sympathize with the aggrieved.
- ginzly_shoem 10y ago
  Out of curiosity, how much of the article did you read? It explicitly states that the other two men committed murder.
  - lkrubner 10y ago
    Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
  - smadge 10y ago
    I read the entire article :) How much did you read? It wasn't even the alleged murder that incensed the mob, but the dubious claim of rape: "But Deeter’s death wasn’t the principal outrage that wagged on everyone’s tongues: His companion, Mary Ball, accused Shipp, Smith, and Cameron of rape (an allegation she’d later recant). It was this — the story of Ball’s alleged assault told over and over — that incensed the white residents of Marion and surrounding towns." The claim and fear that black men rape white women is a common theme of racist violence in America, historically and today. Supposedly the Charleston shooter said "I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/white-female-sexuality-and-racist-violence-a-history_n_7613048.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/white-female-sexual...) The victims of the lynching were guilty of being black, and that is why they were attacked. Although they probably wouldn't have had much luck in the racist criminal justice system, ostensibly they should have been innocent until proven guilty by the legal system, not assumed guilty by a racist lynch mob.
DennisP 10y ago
I think they didn't mean the title that literally, since so much of the article is about what he did with his life after the lynching.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Now ask yourself - in the modern era, will you speak up for folks who've attracted the anger of a mob? In 1930, black people were the outgroup. Now we have a different outgroup. In 2016 you get huge amounts of social approval points for opposing racism nowadays, so the victims of mob mentality will not be black people. Nowadays they might be drunken frat boys who raped the poor black girl, the community leader who's attracted vague allegations of some kind of misconduct, or the douchey smirking CEO who raised prices of a good consumed by sympathetic people. Will you oppose the (now mostly internet, thankfully) mobs out for blood? Remember that get exactly zero social approval points for doing so.
- theaustinseven 10y ago
  I think(hope) you just chose bad examples there(aside from that community leader one). I feel that the right reaction is to get as much information on what actually happened and act accordingly. If there is actual evidence that such allegations are true, and it sufficiently outweighs the evidence against, then the outrage is well deserved. However, what happens far too often is that people read an article from buzzfeed, gawker, or some shady source and feel that they have gathered all of the necessary information, when in fact the way such an article will portray a situation is not anywhere close to an accurate description of what happened. I generally am suspicious of any article saying that someone did something super illegal/inappropriate/outrageous if it doesn't provide any real evidence for the allegations. 90% of the time the truth is far less interesting...
  - kkarakk 10y ago
    i agree->outrage is never well deserved when it can easily destroy lives- as evinced by the internet era. rape allegations are just as powerful as rape convictions and no one is legislating meaningfully on the issue of new media irresponsibly reporting on sensational topics just to get eyeballs.
- kaonashi 10y ago
  Just stop it, nobody is being beaten or lynched for not being 'PC' enough. Having grown up in the evangelical church, what you describe applies equally to those on the right when it comes to issues like opposing taxation or abortion.

brightball 10y ago

Seems like that should read 'speak up for the innocent'. I only say that because the word 'hate' gets thrown around a lot where it's neither accurate nor appropriate. Hate is an obsession level feeling that consumes a person. When people throw around the word, they lessen its meaning which causes people to dismiss it (and the person using it) when they hear it. Certainly, in the case of a lynching, using the word would be more appropriate so don't take my comment as direct at you in particular but more at just the overall internet's use of the word.

jacquesm 10y ago
This is so wrong. See, it did not matter whether or not the person was innocent. What mattered was that you don't take the law into your own hands. And that person did speak up, but only after two people were already killed without any form of due process.
- brightball 10y ago
  According to the story it mattered that somebody stood up and DECLARED his innocence. If the mob was just up for killing black people (aka - hate) there would be no reason for that to stop them. The mob was out for what they perceived as some deranged form of justice. It's totally indefensible on all counts regardless. My comment was only around the use of the word "hate".
  - jessedhillon 10y ago
    I see no reason why hate is not an appropriate term for that animating force which is compelling a mob towards vigilante action against a perceived wrongdoer -- a perception certainly rooted in racial bias. In order to get to the point where a lynching is possible, a person who cares about justice, law, order etc must convince themselves of the victim's guilt beyond all doubt. If the victim is already nearly subhuman to you, it's much easier to convince yourself that there's no moral risk in making the wrong judgment. Just think about it from your own perspective: how certain would you have to be of someone else's guilt before you would feel comfortable attending their impromptu execution? If some neighbor came to you and said "we're gonna kill this guy, I heard he raped someone," you certainly would pass on that, if not stand up against it. If we take away the hatred, what you appear to be saying here is that lynchings are well-meaning attempts at justice, which are inappropriately realized. This is silly, at least, to anyone familiar with the history of lynchings.
ars 10y ago
> 'speak up for the innocent'. That actually surprised me. They were so angry and willing kill, yet as soon as someone said the person was innocent, he was left alone - even though he was black (and supposedly targeted for that reason alone). To me this means the story is more about rape than about race. (At least this story.) Obviously it's not for a mob to decide guilt - but still, it really surprised me that that was their motivation. I always assumed it was racism.
- empraptor 10y ago
  Did you read the whole article? Sure sounds like racism to me. The lynching wasn't just about rape. It was about rape allegedly committed by black boys against a white woman.
  - ars 10y ago
    > Did you read the whole article? No, about 1/3 to 1/2. I agree that racism was a huge part, I doubt they would have lynched a white person. But despite that, them stopping after hearing a declaration that the black person was innocent just amazes me, it doesn't fit into my understanding of lynching which I always associated with just simple hate, i.e. "grab any handy black person and kill them".
    - AnAfrican 10y ago
      May be the fact that they had already killed 2 boys was part of it ? The article also mentions how many black families had fled the town and how they were ready to get another teenager. That's how the "grab anyone" part works. And it's definetly racism.
justifier 10y ago
> 'speak up for the innocent' i labored over the words i ended up with.. i thought about something similar to your suggestion but innocence is a loaded word that is associated with justice, and even if the others were guilty this is anything but justice
mrexroad 10y ago
agree on frustration with the inaccurate use of the word "hate". i have little/no tolerance for my kids saying "i hate you" or "i hate this/that", and have explained they have never truly experienced hatred. i also have little tolerance for putting down others for cognitive ability (real, perceived, or in jest). so in my house "hate" is the "h word", "stupid" is the "s word", and "can't" is the "c word." i imagine this may lead to a slightly amusing mixup down the road, but meh, the limit of my concern with "worse words" is making sure they know that it's in appropriate in some settings and that it will impact how others view them.

smadge 10y ago

I'm pretty sure that "angelic voice" was 100% ok with lynching the other two innocent black men. Not exactly a voice of love speaking against hate.

ars 10y ago
A: How do you know they were, or weren't innocent? And B: 100%? You don't even know who spoke, how can you possible decide what they would, or wouldn't be OK with? > Not exactly a voice of love speaking against hate. Or maybe they thought the first two were not innocent, and the third was?
- smadge 10y ago
  innocent until proven guilty. lynching is never legitimate
  - NetTechM 10y ago
    Odd how often people forget that. Especially when they are the aggrieved, or sympathize with the aggrieved.
ginzly_shoem 10y ago
Out of curiosity, how much of the article did you read? It explicitly states that the other two men committed murder.
- lkrubner 10y ago
  Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
- smadge 10y ago
  I read the entire article :) How much did you read? It wasn't even the alleged murder that incensed the mob, but the dubious claim of rape: "But Deeter’s death wasn’t the principal outrage that wagged on everyone’s tongues: His companion, Mary Ball, accused Shipp, Smith, and Cameron of rape (an allegation she’d later recant). It was this — the story of Ball’s alleged assault told over and over — that incensed the white residents of Marion and surrounding towns." The claim and fear that black men rape white women is a common theme of racist violence in America, historically and today. Supposedly the Charleston shooter said "I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/white-female-sexuality-and-racist-violence-a-history_n_7613048.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/white-female-sexual...) The victims of the lynching were guilty of being black, and that is why they were attacked. Although they probably wouldn't have had much luck in the racist criminal justice system, ostensibly they should have been innocent until proven guilty by the legal system, not assumed guilty by a racist lynch mob.

DennisP 10y ago

I think they didn't mean the title that literally, since so much of the article is about what he did with his life after the lynching.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Now ask yourself - in the modern era, will you speak up for folks who've attracted the anger of a mob? In 1930, black people were the outgroup. Now we have a different outgroup. In 2016 you get huge amounts of social approval points for opposing racism nowadays, so the victims of mob mentality will not be black people. Nowadays they might be drunken frat boys who raped the poor black girl, the community leader who's attracted vague allegations of some kind of misconduct, or the douchey smirking CEO who raised prices of a good consumed by sympathetic people. Will you oppose the (now mostly internet, thankfully) mobs out for blood? Remember that get exactly zero social approval points for doing so.

theaustinseven 10y ago
I think(hope) you just chose bad examples there(aside from that community leader one). I feel that the right reaction is to get as much information on what actually happened and act accordingly. If there is actual evidence that such allegations are true, and it sufficiently outweighs the evidence against, then the outrage is well deserved. However, what happens far too often is that people read an article from buzzfeed, gawker, or some shady source and feel that they have gathered all of the necessary information, when in fact the way such an article will portray a situation is not anywhere close to an accurate description of what happened. I generally am suspicious of any article saying that someone did something super illegal/inappropriate/outrageous if it doesn't provide any real evidence for the allegations. 90% of the time the truth is far less interesting...
- kkarakk 10y ago
  i agree->outrage is never well deserved when it can easily destroy lives- as evinced by the internet era. rape allegations are just as powerful as rape convictions and no one is legislating meaningfully on the issue of new media irresponsibly reporting on sensational topics just to get eyeballs.
kaonashi 10y ago
Just stop it, nobody is being beaten or lynched for not being 'PC' enough. Having grown up in the evangelical church, what you describe applies equally to those on the right when it comes to issues like opposing taxation or abortion.