5 ms·

Reminds me of the Sacco and Vanzetti case, which I learned as a kid was an unambiguous miscarriage of justice and xenophobia. It's perhaps not well known, but t

Reminds me of the Sacco and Vanzetti case, which I learned as a kid was an unambiguous miscarriage of justice and xenophobia. It's perhaps not well known, but there's pretty good reason to think they were guilty all along: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5245754 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=524575... ...but generally people feel when stories catalyze social progress that's more important than the details. I think about this a lot, and how it applies to stories we tell in every aspect of life, from personal to business to policy. I'm not sure how I feel about it.

pjc50 7y ago
This is making me think of the OJ case, where although he actually did it (as found in the subsequent civil suit), at the time it was obvious to everyone that he was being lazily framed and the post-Rodney King LAPD was still profoundly racist. Then there's the Lockerbie case, which was weird on a whole number of levels; I can believe it was carried out by Libya but the actual evidence is unconvincing.
- thaumaturgy 7y ago
  We remember the circumstances of the OJ case at the time somewhat differently. LAPD were still in the news for the Rodney King riots when the OJ Simpson trial kicked off. There were some pretty damning recordings of the lead detective (Fuhrman; had to look it up) with a lot of racist content and talk of planting evidence. But opinions of the case, by my recollection, fell along predictable racial and political lines. There were an awful lot of people that were certain from the beginning that he was guilty, and they had among their spokespeople Rush Limbaugh, who started practicing talking out of both sides of his mouth right around then by refusing to talk directly about the OJ case but instead spending a lot of air time on the "cultural differences" between white people and black people. I remember it somewhat distinctly because, unfortunately, both my dad and his dad were listeners of that show and that was about the time I first realized that they were a little bit racist.
  - pieterhg 7y ago
    Who is "his dad" here?
    - jonsen 7y ago
      Dad’s dad is my guess.
  - dhrjrifirj3 7y ago
    It's worth noting that discussing cultural differences between ethnic groups is not inherently racist (in fact, it's what many of the best and brightest advocates for diversity spend a lot of time and energy doing). It is an axiomatical truth unless you are yourself a racist who does not subscribe to the benefits of multiculturalism! Now it is racist to reference FBI crime statistics or UK grooming gangs, for example, and try to infer negative cultural differences from that (I'd strongly suggest nobody even look them up) but it is not racist to celebrate Ramadan or support the NBA as long as you are invited and welcomed by PoC.
  - DavidWoof 7y ago
    > But opinions of the case, by my recollection, fell along predictable racial and political lines. Just racial. Hard to believe now, but polling on racial scandals in the 80s and 90s, including OJ, Rodney King, Goetz, etc. didn't show much difference between Republicans and Democrats. The opposite is true now, of course. Basically the Limbaugh wing now dominates the Republican party.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  My opinion: not sure if he was guilty,but in the criminal case at least, the accuser (the state) failed to maintain integrity which casted doubt on the evidence they presented(the gloves thing for example) and if they were acting in good faith. There seems to be reasonable doubt of his guilt. Social politics aside, it is better for a criminal to go unpunished than for an innocent person to be punished wrongfully. If only everyone accused of a crime was given similar luxury of presumption of innocence, the media circus made a joke out of the process. It shouldn't have been televised. This is why it is important for police and prosecutors to have integrity and good reputation, else it will be difficult to catch or punish criminals.
- justin66 7y ago
  > at the time it was obvious to everyone that he was being lazily framed Yeah, and what a good thing it was that everyone was in agreement about the obviousness of him being lazily framed. It would have certainly caused a certain amount of discomfort and cultural strife if people disagreed on a matter of such importance. I can't even imagine what it would have been like if such lines were drawn largely based on race. Thank goodness it was all obvious to everyone.
- sk5t 7y ago
  > at the time it was obvious to everyone that he was being lazily framed Well, at the time, it was obvious to most people that OJ had murdered Nicole and Ron Goldman.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
...but generally people feel when stories catalyze social progress that's more important than the details. Once it's in the past, especially long ago and everyone directly impacted has died, we tend to feel pretty free to co-opt stories for our own current needs. It's also hard to not filter stories through the lens of our current lives and culture and draw sometimes wildly erroneous conclusions. Sort of the reverse of this process or perhaps the antidote (sometimes!) is modern takes on classic stories, such as West Side Story. Retelling it with updated language and updated cultural references can serve to make the story more understandable and relatable. Of course, it can also just butcher the original story. It can be a case of imposing our current ideas on a story in a way that wildly misconstrues the original tale. But the general intent is to place a classic story in a more relatable setting so you don't need a lot of explaining to get important details.

pjc50 7y ago

This is making me think of the OJ case, where although he actually did it (as found in the subsequent civil suit), at the time it was obvious to everyone that he was being lazily framed and the post-Rodney King LAPD was still profoundly racist. Then there's the Lockerbie case, which was weird on a whole number of levels; I can believe it was carried out by Libya but the actual evidence is unconvincing.

thaumaturgy 7y ago
We remember the circumstances of the OJ case at the time somewhat differently. LAPD were still in the news for the Rodney King riots when the OJ Simpson trial kicked off. There were some pretty damning recordings of the lead detective (Fuhrman; had to look it up) with a lot of racist content and talk of planting evidence. But opinions of the case, by my recollection, fell along predictable racial and political lines. There were an awful lot of people that were certain from the beginning that he was guilty, and they had among their spokespeople Rush Limbaugh, who started practicing talking out of both sides of his mouth right around then by refusing to talk directly about the OJ case but instead spending a lot of air time on the "cultural differences" between white people and black people. I remember it somewhat distinctly because, unfortunately, both my dad and his dad were listeners of that show and that was about the time I first realized that they were a little bit racist.
- pieterhg 7y ago
  Who is "his dad" here?
  - jonsen 7y ago
    Dad’s dad is my guess.
- dhrjrifirj3 7y ago
  It's worth noting that discussing cultural differences between ethnic groups is not inherently racist (in fact, it's what many of the best and brightest advocates for diversity spend a lot of time and energy doing). It is an axiomatical truth unless you are yourself a racist who does not subscribe to the benefits of multiculturalism! Now it is racist to reference FBI crime statistics or UK grooming gangs, for example, and try to infer negative cultural differences from that (I'd strongly suggest nobody even look them up) but it is not racist to celebrate Ramadan or support the NBA as long as you are invited and welcomed by PoC.
- DavidWoof 7y ago
  > But opinions of the case, by my recollection, fell along predictable racial and political lines. Just racial. Hard to believe now, but polling on racial scandals in the 80s and 90s, including OJ, Rodney King, Goetz, etc. didn't show much difference between Republicans and Democrats. The opposite is true now, of course. Basically the Limbaugh wing now dominates the Republican party.
badrabbit 7y ago
My opinion: not sure if he was guilty,but in the criminal case at least, the accuser (the state) failed to maintain integrity which casted doubt on the evidence they presented(the gloves thing for example) and if they were acting in good faith. There seems to be reasonable doubt of his guilt. Social politics aside, it is better for a criminal to go unpunished than for an innocent person to be punished wrongfully. If only everyone accused of a crime was given similar luxury of presumption of innocence, the media circus made a joke out of the process. It shouldn't have been televised. This is why it is important for police and prosecutors to have integrity and good reputation, else it will be difficult to catch or punish criminals.
justin66 7y ago
> at the time it was obvious to everyone that he was being lazily framed Yeah, and what a good thing it was that everyone was in agreement about the obviousness of him being lazily framed. It would have certainly caused a certain amount of discomfort and cultural strife if people disagreed on a matter of such importance. I can't even imagine what it would have been like if such lines were drawn largely based on race. Thank goodness it was all obvious to everyone.
sk5t 7y ago
> at the time it was obvious to everyone that he was being lazily framed Well, at the time, it was obvious to most people that OJ had murdered Nicole and Ron Goldman.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

...but generally people feel when stories catalyze social progress that's more important than the details. Once it's in the past, especially long ago and everyone directly impacted has died, we tend to feel pretty free to co-opt stories for our own current needs. It's also hard to not filter stories through the lens of our current lives and culture and draw sometimes wildly erroneous conclusions. Sort of the reverse of this process or perhaps the antidote (sometimes!) is modern takes on classic stories, such as West Side Story. Retelling it with updated language and updated cultural references can serve to make the story more understandable and relatable. Of course, it can also just butcher the original story. It can be a case of imposing our current ideas on a story in a way that wildly misconstrues the original tale. But the general intent is to place a classic story in a more relatable setting so you don't need a lot of explaining to get important details.