Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2014, 08:42 AM
 
28,597 posts, read 18,629,703 times
Reputation: 30835

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Lynchings weren't done in dark alley's or at night and they were widely attended, photographed and published.
"Newspapers in every region of the country provided graphic coverage of lynchings, especially those that occurred in their area. "When discussing a lynching in their particular area," notes Wright (1990) in a study of racial violence in Kentucky, "local newspapers gave all of the grisly details and, significantly, would often point out that the lynching was not the first one that had happened in their area" (p. 5). Major newspapers or metropolitan dailies sometimes described lynchings that occurred outside their geographical area. For example, the February 2, 1893 issue of The New York Times, under the headline "ANOTHER NEGRO BURNED," described the grisly details of the lynching of Henry Smith in Paris, Texas. Readers learned that Smith was placed on a 10 feet-high scaffold and was tortured for 50 minutes by red-hot irons thrust against his body, after which he was set on fire and transformed from a human being to charred human remains."
The Press and Lynchings of African Americans



Better to be obstinate with facts than mulish with fiction.
You realize that you're talking about the 19th century, right?

Have you experience living in a pre-mass-media society? Or for that matter, even the US prior to the mid-60s? First, lynchings were really not ever that frequent, and certainly not after WWII.

The post-war reality was the continual state of institutionalized--and thus "banalized"--terror of Jim Crow (de jure in the South, de facto in the North). Segregation was banal. Nobody saw segregation as a horror prior to the early 1960s and until such events as the Freedom Rides.

This was something Jews recognized--it was their own experience--but had not seriously attacked on the part of blacks prior to WWII, and the post-war attention paid to it by Jews was launched out of the Holocaust experience, the true experience of what lies at the bottom of that slippery slope.

You can Google yourself for Jewish testimonies about their post-war change of attitude toward racism. I shouldn't say "change of attitude." I should say "change of strategy."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2014, 10:31 AM
 
17,876 posts, read 15,796,302 times
Reputation: 11656
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post

The Chinese were all armed to the teeth when the Japanese invaded China.
I never heard of this. Do you have a source? I know there were lots of warlords, but they were actually just the regular army flag officers who decided to stop paying attention to the Aisin Gioro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2014, 01:04 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,948,035 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
You realize that you're talking about the 19th century, right?
Oh, gee I'm sorry...

Duluth Minnesotta, June 1920




Press account on lynchings for 1934.

1934 LYNCHING RECORDS,LYNCHINGS OF 1934,LYNCHINGS OF THE EARLY THIRTIES,1930S AMERICAN LYNCHINGS, 1934 LYNCHINGS, - Article Preview - Old Magazine Articles


Quote:
Or for that matter, even the US prior to the mid-60s?
Ah, 60 plus years of age, at least as far as we can tell five generations African American born and raised in Louisiana. How about you?

Quote:
First, lynchings were really not ever that frequent, and certainly not after WWII.
How many lynchings does one need each year to impress upon a community that has been terrorized in plain few for hundreds of years? The atrocities committed by folks from Indiana to Indianola wasn't in the slightest a secret in the U.S. Hell, even the lynching of Emmett Till in 1955, ten years after WW2 did little to change Jim Crow in the U.S.


Quote:
This was something Jews recognized--it was their own experience--but had not seriously attacked on the part of blacks prior to WWII, and the post-war attention paid to it by Jews was launched out of the Holocaust experience, the true experience of what lies at the bottom of that slippery slope.
According to Javits, Kennedy has not lived up to his promises on civil rights. By attempting to pacify the Southern wing of his party, he has jeopardized the United States[sic] position in the crucial war against communism. The New York senator asked his audience how can we expect foreign nations to trust us with the moral leadership of the world if we can not eliminate racial and religious discrimination in our own borders?
The Cornell Daily Sun 15 February 1962 — The Cornell Daily Sun

Maybe I missed the Holocaust part?

Anyway, I would argue that for the most part, mainstream Jewish activist who were once engaged in civil rights turned their much needed attention to the establishment and security of Israel in the post war era, not the American civil rights movement.

Quote:
You can Google yourself for Jewish testimonies about their post-war change of attitude toward racism. I shouldn't say "change of attitude." I should say "change of strategy."
I've posted citations for my comments, since you've already Googled perhaps you can do the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,694,851 times
Reputation: 36642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Who defines "constitutional?" If we're talking about a situation in which the federal executive and legislature as well as the state executives and legislatures are all on the same page--and as said, they were all elected by like-minded constituents--the people defining "constitutional" will be the people authorized by the Constitution to define "constitutional." There simply won't be a significant rebel force.
The people with the most guns define "Constitutional". Which might be the government, the army, the police, or, with virtually zero probability, the citizenry. I've never seen them, but I woiuld bet that the Constitutions of countries like Cuba and North Korea are amazingly similar to ours, and maybe even fairly close to translations of ours, at least with respect to the Bill of Rights and other truths held to be self evident. All (including USA) are interpreted by bodies that have vested interest and police power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 05:44 AM
 
16,433 posts, read 22,134,819 times
Reputation: 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhom View Post
I know you're trying to make a point about gun rights. However, how would a well armed citizenry in this country do against Abrams tanks or Apache attack helicopters?
A well armed citizenry could take bases where such items are kept. You also are assuming that Apache pilots and Abrams commanders would follow unconstitutional orders to attack US citizens. The military swears an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 08:20 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,948,035 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
You also are assuming that Apache pilots and Abrams commanders would follow unconstitutional orders to attack US citizens.
Considering the history of the American military following the orders to "attack" civilians it is a pretty good assumption. In The U.S. military had no problem attacking armed citizens at Harper's Ferry whose goal was to start a slave insurrection, an insurrection that one would think that conservatives would consider one of the most fundamental causes for resorting to violence, freedom from bondage.

How can one forget the Civil War or the use of the U.S. military to re-establish order in New York during the draft riots. In the late 19th and early 20th century the U.S. military and the national guard had no problem attacking workers exercising their "right" as the saw it of free speech and assembly during the labor battles of that era.

In 1932 the 12th Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Calvary Regiment under Douglas MacArthur stormed an assembly of first world war veterans with fixed bayonets and tear gas as they camped out in the nation's capitol.

In 1962 5,000 U.S. soldiers and national guardsmen suppressed riots on the Campus of the University of Mississippi when citizens attempted to prevent the admission of African Americans. This was followed by the U.S. of federal troops to "attack" citizens engaged in civil unrest across the country in the long hot summer of 1964, and 1968.

In all of those instances, and others too numerous to mention, the U.S. military showed no compunction to use lethal force to "defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:21 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,017,209 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
Having just finished reading of the atrocities/horrors under Mao, the Japanese, as well as Pol Pot, and others, how many of these sadistic historical leaders might never have made history books had the citizenry been better armed?

As I try to wade through the horrors of these readings, I stop myself a number of times, thinking this question.

It's hard to imagine some sadistic leader arising in Switzerland or even the U.S., with a better armed citizenry.

Would any of these leaders have still seized power, even with guns pointed at them?

What do you think?
I think the existence of a broad middle class may be a more effective deterrent.

At least when it comes to the United States.

Last edited by kovert; 05-12-2014 at 01:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 7,858,525 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree View Post
How likely do you think it would be for the US to ever elect a Hitler? Even the worst of our elected Presidents has not come remotely close to invading multiple nations in succession and exterminating over 6 million!! I think that's even beyond Sarah Palin and her affection for water boarding.
I would put BHO before Palin when a Hitler personalty enters the picture. Palin is far more humble than the POTUS and that speaks volumes.
As far as waterboarding...compare that limited practice to what happened in BENGHAZI and get back.

This nation would elect a tyrant unquestioned if he/she had the right gimmic. Something along the slogans of HOPE, CHANGE or FOREWARD come to mind. It worked for Hitler. He even had his own sigil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 08:11 PM
 
28,597 posts, read 18,629,703 times
Reputation: 30835
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The people with the most guns define "Constitutional". Which might be the government, the army, the police, or, with virtually zero probability, the citizenry. I've never seen them, but I woiuld bet that the Constitutions of countries like Cuba and North Korea are amazingly similar to ours, and maybe even fairly close to translations of ours, at least with respect to the Bill of Rights and other truths held to be self evident. All (including USA) are interpreted by bodies that have vested interest and police power.
The US military is going to let elected civilian leadership make the decision. As I mentioned before, they're going to look at both the Executive and the Legislative and go with those two in agreement. US military authority is too distributed to do otherwise--there is no five-star general that everyone else salutes in operational matters (no, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not the military commander in chief...he's the chairman of an advisory committee to the President and SecDef).

If you assert that the president and Congress are both operating unconstitutionally, that situation must also presume that the state legislatures are on the same page...and they must be or the state national guards are not going to call up with the DoD.

No, the military authority is simply too distributed. They will go along with the civilian leadership, but pretty much all the civilian leadership will have to be on the same page...and then it would be hard to argue they they aren't operating constitutionally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 08:14 PM
 
28,597 posts, read 18,629,703 times
Reputation: 30835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
A well armed citizenry could take bases where such items are kept. You also are assuming that Apache pilots and Abrams commanders would follow unconstitutional orders to attack US citizens. The military swears an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic.
If you're attacking a base, you're a domestic enemy. Yes, the Apache pilots and Abrams commanders will resist allowing you to overrun their bases. If anything, they will sit tight and take no offensive action until the governmental matters are settled by what they recognize as competent authority, but they will definitely prevent anyone from taking the weapons they are in charge of keeping--no "good guys" are going to be trying to take their weapons from them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:29 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top