> 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'
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.
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...
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.
The entire point of my post was to explain the feeling of going against the crowd. Defending those black dudes in the past probably felt the way that defending Martin Shkreli or Jacob Applebaum does today.
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.
And that person did speak up, but only after two people were already killed without any form of due process.
It's totally indefensible on all counts regardless. My comment was only around the use of the word "hate".
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
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.
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?
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-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.