8 ms·

> if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident" Lynchings are never this circumspect.

by zrail 4y ago

wahern 4y ago
In retrospect, no. But reality was never so clear cut, especially contemporaneously. Lynchings of whites wasn't uncommon. The so-called "last lynching in California" was of two white murder suspects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmond_and_Holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmo... The application of lynchings were, however, disproportionate, and this must have at least been apparent to anyone who cared to consider the question. According to Wikipedia, between 1883 and 1941, "3,265 were black, 1,082 were white." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States Accounts of lynchings also emphasize the treatment of black bodies as evidence of disdain. But even lynchings of white victims often involved mutilation and the taking of "souvenirs", as in the aforementioned lynching. Again, no doubt this was disproportionate, but even the most obvious sorts of discrimination aren't as "black & white" as popular narratives would have you believe. (NB: I'm not challenging the idea or existence of disdain regarding black bodies.) I think these finer distinctions matter because they're fundamental to understanding the concept of systemic racism--arguably, there really is no other kind but systemic racism. To sell the idea of systemic racism, we tend to shape historical narratives to better fit how people conceive of racism. But taking that license can be counter-productive as it then makes it easier to refute or justify claims of racism, or the very notion of racism, particularly for those so inclined.
- aaronbrethorst 4y ago
  Those numbers don't take into account the percentage of the total US population that was Black and white from 1883-1941. In 1880 and 1940, respectively, 13.1% and 9.8% of people in the United States were identified as Black. The Wikipedia article below only offers the white population number for 1940, but that is reported as being 88.4% of the US population. Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_population_as_a_percentage_of_the_total_population_by_U.S._region_and_state_(1790–2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
  - erichocean 4y ago
    > Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. Now do per-capita murder rates today, I think you'll find the same disparity. The fact is, lynching of whites and blacks (usually for murder) were inline with "likelihood to commit that crime" based on having virtually identical per-capita murder rates today. Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. No one wants vigilante justice (then or now), but we shouldn't be too surprised that communities police themselves when the government can't (or won't).
    - magicalist 4y ago
      > Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. Jesus Christ I thought this thread was bad but then we get to this post.
      - DuskStar 4y ago
        It's trivially true though? If you had a functioning justice system, the lynchers would be arrested and it wouldn't happen again. It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.
        foldr 4y ago
        The point is that OP is ignoring the blindingly obvious element of racism involved in lynching of Black Americans in the Jim Crow South (and indeed elsewhere). The post is bordering on apologism for these crimes by painting them as merely a rational reaction to underpolicing. If there is a place for wildly revisionist takes on this part of America's history, I'd suggest that HN is probably not it.
        Chris2048 4y ago
        > the blindingly obvious element of racism involved in lynching Except the context is the high number of white lynching's that also occurred.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Let me stop you right here. Do you really believe that black and white lynchings were certainly recorded accurately? To say nothing of the proportions as someone said below. You're providing nothing useful here. Typical softening of racism as many, for whatever reason, like to do. Cut it out.
- amrangaye 4y ago
  This sounds a LOT like “there’s always been slavery throughout human history - I’m not denying the transatlantic slave trade was brutal. But we need to put it into context [insert Wikipedia article talking about the history of slavery]”. You can’t “both sides” this with Wikipedia links or arguing you’re speaking from a logical / non-personal perspective.

> if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident" Lynchings are never this circumspect.

by zrail 4y ago

> if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident" Lynchings are never this circumspect.

wahern 4y ago

In retrospect, no. But reality was never so clear cut, especially contemporaneously. Lynchings of whites wasn't uncommon. The so-called "last lynching in California" was of two white murder suspects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmond_and_Holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmo... The application of lynchings were, however, disproportionate, and this must have at least been apparent to anyone who cared to consider the question. According to Wikipedia, between 1883 and 1941, "3,265 were black, 1,082 were white." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States Accounts of lynchings also emphasize the treatment of black bodies as evidence of disdain. But even lynchings of white victims often involved mutilation and the taking of "souvenirs", as in the aforementioned lynching. Again, no doubt this was disproportionate, but even the most obvious sorts of discrimination aren't as "black & white" as popular narratives would have you believe. (NB: I'm not challenging the idea or existence of disdain regarding black bodies.) I think these finer distinctions matter because they're fundamental to understanding the concept of systemic racism--arguably, there really is no other kind but systemic racism. To sell the idea of systemic racism, we tend to shape historical narratives to better fit how people conceive of racism. But taking that license can be counter-productive as it then makes it easier to refute or justify claims of racism, or the very notion of racism, particularly for those so inclined.

aaronbrethorst 4y ago
Those numbers don't take into account the percentage of the total US population that was Black and white from 1883-1941. In 1880 and 1940, respectively, 13.1% and 9.8% of people in the United States were identified as Black. The Wikipedia article below only offers the white population number for 1940, but that is reported as being 88.4% of the US population. Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_population_as_a_percentage_of_the_total_population_by_U.S._region_and_state_(1790–2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
- erichocean 4y ago
  > Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. Now do per-capita murder rates today, I think you'll find the same disparity. The fact is, lynching of whites and blacks (usually for murder) were inline with "likelihood to commit that crime" based on having virtually identical per-capita murder rates today. Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. No one wants vigilante justice (then or now), but we shouldn't be too surprised that communities police themselves when the government can't (or won't).
  - magicalist 4y ago
    > Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. Jesus Christ I thought this thread was bad but then we get to this post.
    - DuskStar 4y ago
      It's trivially true though? If you had a functioning justice system, the lynchers would be arrested and it wouldn't happen again. It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.
      - foldr 4y ago
        The point is that OP is ignoring the blindingly obvious element of racism involved in lynching of Black Americans in the Jim Crow South (and indeed elsewhere). The post is bordering on apologism for these crimes by painting them as merely a rational reaction to underpolicing. If there is a place for wildly revisionist takes on this part of America's history, I'd suggest that HN is probably not it.
        Chris2048 4y ago
        > the blindingly obvious element of racism involved in lynching Except the context is the high number of white lynching's that also occurred.
jrm4 4y ago
Let me stop you right here. Do you really believe that black and white lynchings were certainly recorded accurately? To say nothing of the proportions as someone said below. You're providing nothing useful here. Typical softening of racism as many, for whatever reason, like to do. Cut it out.
amrangaye 4y ago
This sounds a LOT like “there’s always been slavery throughout human history - I’m not denying the transatlantic slave trade was brutal. But we need to put it into context [insert Wikipedia article talking about the history of slavery]”. You can’t “both sides” this with Wikipedia links or arguing you’re speaking from a logical / non-personal perspective.