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.
I did not state imagined event but what I wrote in #44. When you input your values into the past you are imaging the past according to your criteria not how it was viewed by participants. Hence Slavery = bad would make no sense to someone who keeps a plantation. Womens Should have same Rights as Men = good would make no sense in a society where muscle strength is the prime valued physical attribute. Indians being dispossed = bad would make no sense in a culture where land existed to be tilled or used for stock or mined to create capital.etc,etc.
Perhaps but one would need to research and understand the regional social patterns to be objective. Otherwise it is a form of propaganda.
The problem with your claim is that lynching was always considered wrong except by the parties who used it to terrorize others. It was tolerated by the majority of whites in the South and the West, partly out of bigotry against blacks, Mexicans, and Chinese and partly out of fear.
More than 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress between 1882 and 1968. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal anti-lynching law. In 2005, the US Senate apologized to the descendents/families of lynching victims for blocking the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in 1922.
There was never a debate on the merits of lynching. It was always wrong.
i would prefer rather than you live in the past that you live in the present. how bout a memorial for jessica chambers that black squad burned to death in panola ms a few months ago? or are you interested in white racial violence only?
if that is the case yes you must go back and live in 1862 all the time.
Yep!
You can always make your own thread about black racial violence against whites. You also include how, Jim Crow era laws held back whites on purpose, as so Blacks could forge ahead in society
Go ahead and make a thread Huck, im all in
The problem with your claim is that lynching was always considered wrong except by the parties who used it to terrorize others. It was tolerated by the majority of whites in the South and the West, partly out of bigotry against blacks, Mexicans, and Chinese and partly out of fear.
More than 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress between 1882 and 1968. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal anti-lynching law. In 2005, the US Senate apologized to the descendents/families of lynching victims for blocking the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in 1922.
There was never a debate on the merits of lynching. It was always wrong.
Big claims about bigotry in your conclusions in boldfaced as evidenced by the use of lynchings towards white suspects.So there is a problem with your conclusion stating there is a problem with my claim. You did not specify what my claim is/was so I do not know what you are referring to. If the reference is to the first paragraph about lynchings, I never claimed anything about them being good.
The underlined is interesting but without a time line as there are four generations within the span from 1882 to 1968. That is a fact but alone does not tell us much and is why research is always needed to verify.
What the members of the U.S. Senate do in 2005 has no bearing on events occurring decades prior to their stewardship. A cynical person might see it as an act of rhetorical pandering to a specific disaffected group. A more magnanimous person would take another view.
But that is assuming that everyone at the time supported the practice. Certainly plantation owners supported slavery, but they made up a minuscule fraction of the population. Over time, the number of people who opposed slavery grew.
As far as lynching goes, there were always people who saw it as wrong or evil. Anti-lynching is not strictly a contemporary value.
I agree with the above. History is human acts which affect their own and other lives and the relationships between them. It is not stagnant and is very much alive and evolves and changes. What we later have is the physical remnants once the biological ones are gone and we have to deduce what occurred and why from either considerable detail or fragments but generally never from those present as they are gone. Unfortunately, recorded history is subject to human biases and interpretations and we are interpreting an interpretation decades or centuries later. Always with bias as well. Humans you know.
Read about an event and then input contemporary values into the existing cultural patterns of the era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C
I did not state imagined event but what I wrote in #44. When you input your values into the past you are imaging the past according to your criteria not how it was viewed by participants. Hence Slavery = bad would make no sense to someone who keeps a plantation. Womens Should have same Rights as Men = good would make no sense in a society where muscle strength is the prime valued physical attribute. Indians being dispossed = bad would make no sense in a culture where land existed to be tilled or used for stock or mined to create capital.etc,etc.
Perhaps but one would need to research and understand the regional social patterns to be objective. Otherwise it is a form of propaganda.
Of course one has to look at the historical context and consider both the culture and "regional social patterns" when judging the events of the past. The word missing from your post is dominant. Each of the historical examples you cite was the dominant viewpoint of the time and these situations were legal. However, opposing points of view were well known in these time periods.
While lynching certainly had social patterns and a culture that made it acceptable to those with political and social power, it was illegal. There's no question that the law was being broken, even if you want to look it it through the eyes of "I was raised to believe it was the right thing to do." There were plenty of Jim Crows law that were "legal" on a local and regional level. Why don't we discuss the Southern phenomena called white guilt?
Here are points to consider- the degree to which laws were considered as binding or not by the community.
One, two, three people break the law they are crimminals.
A community breaks the law for any reason and then they have ipso facto created a new law repealing the previous one.
A law does not need government enforcement or mandate to be a law or better said other perceived laws[as in natural ones] superceded gov't laws particulary in an era or location where the reach of gov't is weak and considered foreign to include an occupation army, forced on the populace, individualism high and of course tempers are inflammed, and communal action carried more weight than we are familar with today.
A riot or a public political demonstration can be the same and only different by degrees.
Change the era from 1900 to today and much of the above was recently seen in parts of the USA.
I agree with the above. History is human acts which affect their own and other lives and the relationships between them. It is not stagnant and is very much alive and evolves and changes. What we later have is the physical remnants once the biological ones are gone and we have to deduce what occurred and why from either considerable detail or fragments but generally never from those present as they are gone. Unfortunately, recorded history is subject to human biases and interpretations and we are interpreting an interpretation decades or centuries later. Always with bias as well. Humans you know.
We don't know their potential guilt (or potential innocence) bcuz it often wasn't adjudicated before they were executed.
They were not executed. They were murdered.
Quote:
But to memorialize a potential criminal, bcuz he/she was denied full justice,
And they were not denied "full justice", they were completely denied justice.
There's no such thing as a "potential criminal". Innocent, until the opposite is proven. The lynching victims could have been very bad people, but that does not make the crime of lynching any less.
Here are points to consider- the degree to which laws were considered as binding or not by the community.
One, two, three people break the law they are crimminals.
A community breaks the law for any reason and then they have ipso facto created a new law repealing the previous one.
A law does not need government enforcement or mandate to be a law or better said other perceived laws[as in natural ones] superceded gov't laws particulary in an era or location where the reach of gov't is weak and considered foreign to include an occupation army, forced on the populace, individualism high and of course tempers are inflammed, and communal action carried more weight than we are familar with today.
A riot or a public political demonstration can be the same and only different by degrees.
Change the era from 1900 to today and much of the above was recently seen in parts of the USA.
So, by your reasoning, because the German people pretended that "they knew nothing" about the butchery of millions of people in the name of Nazism, they established an ipso facto law that made killing Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally retarded, etc perfectly okay. Is that how you view the Holocaust? As an ipso facto exercise of popular will?
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.
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.
