4 ms·

> Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. Now do per-capi

> 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.
      - foldr 4y ago
        If someone wants to argue against the scholarly consensus regarding the role of racism in lynchings in America, I'm happy for them to do so if they do it properly. That is, if they take on the best existing scholarship on the subject and give references to support their arguments. The OP's comment simply asserts that the existing consensus is wrong. I see no reason to take such an assertion seriously, or even to debate it. In the absence of any real effort to engage with the historical facts and scholarship it's mere apologism.
        refurb 4y ago
        What consensus? Im not even sure what your arguing is true or not true.
        foldr 4y ago
        Say, the points made in the first few paragraphs of the relevant Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States Nothing controversial, just the normally accepted historical reality.
        refurb 4y ago
        OK, that doesn't seem to run counter to the grandparents comments?
        foldr 4y ago
        I’m talking about this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32948728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32948728
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    >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. Given the way that lynchings seemed to function in some parts of the U.S based on documentary photographs and such that probably some people would like to make illegal, it could just as well be argued that lynchings happened because the country did not have effective mass entertainment.
  - magicalist 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. That is explicitly not what the GGP argued. They were very clear, and it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest otherwise. You can make your own argument but don't misrepresent others'. > 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. "I want to beat someone, hang them from a tree, and then have a picnic around their mutilated body" is not something that needs to be both-sides-ed as someone's personal beliefs on justice. I don't know if this is the typical HN thing of "I know a few details, I can figure out the rest from first principles" but there's an incredibly large amount of historical evidence of people who very plainly stated their motivations that you need to reckon with before you can make claims like these. Like, it's not reasonable to claim the KKK was primarily an activist group primarily motivated by the need for criminal reform.
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
There are lynchings in large parts of the world, and yes the government is dysfunctional, but not as dysfunctional as a mob acting on relgious prejeducies. Take pakistani lynchings for halucinated sacrilege to the qroan or african lynchings. So comunity circulating word of mouth becomes "fact" and then murder. Meaning the most crazy, shizophrenic person told tale in a comunity becomes the "law" base. Lynchings are a horror.

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.
    - foldr 4y ago
      If someone wants to argue against the scholarly consensus regarding the role of racism in lynchings in America, I'm happy for them to do so if they do it properly. That is, if they take on the best existing scholarship on the subject and give references to support their arguments. The OP's comment simply asserts that the existing consensus is wrong. I see no reason to take such an assertion seriously, or even to debate it. In the absence of any real effort to engage with the historical facts and scholarship it's mere apologism.
      - refurb 4y ago
        What consensus? Im not even sure what your arguing is true or not true.
        foldr 4y ago
        Say, the points made in the first few paragraphs of the relevant Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States Nothing controversial, just the normally accepted historical reality.
        refurb 4y ago
        OK, that doesn't seem to run counter to the grandparents comments?
        foldr 4y ago
        I’m talking about this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32948728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32948728
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  >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. Given the way that lynchings seemed to function in some parts of the U.S based on documentary photographs and such that probably some people would like to make illegal, it could just as well be argued that lynchings happened because the country did not have effective mass entertainment.
- magicalist 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. That is explicitly not what the GGP argued. They were very clear, and it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest otherwise. You can make your own argument but don't misrepresent others'. > 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. "I want to beat someone, hang them from a tree, and then have a picnic around their mutilated body" is not something that needs to be both-sides-ed as someone's personal beliefs on justice. I don't know if this is the typical HN thing of "I know a few details, I can figure out the rest from first principles" but there's an incredibly large amount of historical evidence of people who very plainly stated their motivations that you need to reckon with before you can make claims like these. Like, it's not reasonable to claim the KKK was primarily an activist group primarily motivated by the need for criminal reform.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

There are lynchings in large parts of the world, and yes the government is dysfunctional, but not as dysfunctional as a mob acting on relgious prejeducies. Take pakistani lynchings for halucinated sacrilege to the qroan or african lynchings. So comunity circulating word of mouth becomes "fact" and then murder. Meaning the most crazy, shizophrenic person told tale in a comunity becomes the "law" base. Lynchings are a horror.