4 ms·

> The fact that you can consider the 1950s in the US a "nightmarish historical moment" is nonsensical Well, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of

> The fact that you can consider the 1950s in the US a "nightmarish historical moment" is nonsensical Well, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of Emmet Till, or familiarize yourself with any of the many ways in which the Jim Crow laws were formally and informally enforced. You can look at the photograph of Emmet Till, even, before or after he was lynched. Maybe you have thicker skin than I, but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason, and knowing that your killers would not be convicted, is a nightmare.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>ell, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of Emmet Till, Funny you mention that. I was this >< close to preempting your comment by mentioning him but figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. Ask yourself, why do you even know Till's name? Why did Till's killing spark national outrage when 20yr later that would have gotten barely a peep out of people? Because times changed and that kind of behavior was no longer excusable. >but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason... Till was killed for violating social norms (that he presumably was not sufficiently aware of). His death was no different than that of a peasant 1000yr earlier killed for bad mouthing a local lord. It's tragic. But it wasn't without reason, though we may think the reason flimsy and disagreeable. And this time I am going to head off the inevitable reply by pointing out that I am not defending or justifying Till's killers, just explaining the context. Those who fail to understand history...
- pasabagi 5y ago
  > Till was killed for violating social norms (that he presumably was not sufficiently aware of). You are defending them; your 'context' is simply how these particular murderers justified their actions. The real context is that white people could kill black people with impunity. The context is not that black people kept on making mistakes.
roenxi 5y ago
That is a large chunk of history and a lot of people were in it. You've put forward 1 name. Although there is an argument for your position, you haven't made it. Can things even have been said to have changed if there was 1 example in the 50s and 0 examples in 2020? That is a low-signal trendline. People still felt the need to propose an anti-lynching law in 2020 [0] so maybe lynchings are an ongoing problem. There isn't anything to argue about without actual evidence. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/anti-lynching-bill-stalls-senate-floor-emotions-run-high-n1225596 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/anti-lynching-bill...
- pasabagi 5y ago
  The point about a lynching is it is a message. Imagine the power dynamic between a black man and a white man in the south, when the black man knows that the white man can murder him and get away with it. This particular lynching was obviously not the only proof of this reality in the decade.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>ell, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of Emmet Till, Funny you mention that. I was this >< close to preempting your comment by mentioning him but figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. Ask yourself, why do you even know Till's name? Why did Till's killing spark national outrage when 20yr later that would have gotten barely a peep out of people? Because times changed and that kind of behavior was no longer excusable. >but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason... Till was killed for violating social norms (that he presumably was not sufficiently aware of). His death was no different than that of a peasant 1000yr earlier killed for bad mouthing a local lord. It's tragic. But it wasn't without reason, though we may think the reason flimsy and disagreeable. And this time I am going to head off the inevitable reply by pointing out that I am not defending or justifying Till's killers, just explaining the context. Those who fail to understand history...

pasabagi 5y ago
> Till was killed for violating social norms (that he presumably was not sufficiently aware of). You are defending them; your 'context' is simply how these particular murderers justified their actions. The real context is that white people could kill black people with impunity. The context is not that black people kept on making mistakes.

roenxi 5y ago

That is a large chunk of history and a lot of people were in it. You've put forward 1 name. Although there is an argument for your position, you haven't made it. Can things even have been said to have changed if there was 1 example in the 50s and 0 examples in 2020? That is a low-signal trendline. People still felt the need to propose an anti-lynching law in 2020 [0] so maybe lynchings are an ongoing problem. There isn't anything to argue about without actual evidence. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/anti-lynching-bill-stalls-senate-floor-emotions-run-high-n1225596 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/anti-lynching-bill...

pasabagi 5y ago
The point about a lynching is it is a message. Imagine the power dynamic between a black man and a white man in the south, when the black man knows that the white man can murder him and get away with it. This particular lynching was obviously not the only proof of this reality in the decade.