Fraternity party is sad lesson in racism

Indianapolis Star ^ | Nov. 10, 2001 | Cynthia Tucker

[Quilla]

My alma mater -- already struggling with slashed state funding, meddling, megalomaniacal trustees and a demoralized faculty -- now has a racial controversy on its hands. In late October, members of two white fraternities, Delta Sigma Phi and Beta Theta Pi, celebrated Halloween with elaborate, racist tableaux.

[sneakypete]

but a hate crime is a hate crime (not sure if this qualifies). if we are to rid ourselves of government rules and live free, then we must rid ourselves of racism.

What the hell kind of twisted logic (?) is this? You write about a "hate crime" which is nothing more than criminalizing thought is the same sentence you want to rid ourselves of gooberment rules and live free? Does your version of living free exclude the freedom to think?

[mlocher]

what kind of twisted logic is this?

very sound logic if you believe that with freedom comes responsibility. like you, i despise government intervention in most things, including race relations. unfortunately, the government has found it necessary to intervene because racism exists (it is a two way street). if we want the government to step aside, we must police ourselves as people.

where do you stand on the actions of the students?

[RWG]

member since 10/25/01

Jail time? Are you a pc thought policeman?

[mlocher]

and you find the actions of the students as acceptable behaviour?

[sneakypete]

where do you stand on the actions of the students?

I don't. They did nothing criminal,so it's nobody's business. It surely isn't any more offensive than white kids dressing up as black gangsta's and pretending to be from the "hood".

[mlocher]

are you a pc policeman?

no

member since 10/25/01

what relevance does this have in the discussion? a tactic that liberals have used in the past to stifle free speech is to discredit whoever is speaking. since you are a free speech advocate, i can assume that this is not your reason for incorporating irrelevant info into a public discussion. please clarify. thanks

[yarddog]

That was about as good a summary of the way things were as I have ever seen. You are exactly right.

[Gimlet]

Well said. Thank you.

[Gimlet]

You discredit your point of view, history and your family by contributing such fantasy and untruth.

[Howlin]

11/07/01

November 7 statement regarding situation at Auburn

Contact Name: Jon Hockman, Executive Director
Contact Phone: 317-634-1899 x432
Contact E-mail: Hockman@deltasig.org

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (November 7, 2001)—Delta Sigma Phi provides the following update to our ongoing investigation into the racial incidents at Auburn University this week.

The chapter has taken the following action:
Two individuals have been permanently removed from the organization.

Four additional individuals have been suspended from the organization. This means they will not be able to participate in Delta Sigma Phi while they are students at Auburn University.

We have also learned that during the party held at Delta Sigma Phi on October 27, 2001, those inappropriately dressed individuals were immediately confronted by the chapter president upon his arrival at the function. He told the individuals involved to immediately change their outfits, which they did.

We continue to investigate the matter. Further action will be taken once all information is collected. We continue to work with the Auburn administration and others in the community to fully, firmly, and educationally address this situation.

[Don Myers]

Shameful. And to think, they could have gone dressed as Vaginas. When will these kids ever learn?

[yarddog]

What in the world are you talking about?

[rface]

here, I'll pull this one off of the shelf...

Missouri Republicans, upset over charges of racism against Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo.,
have released this 1960 photograph of Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan, second from left.
The photo originally appeared in the Rolla Daily News on Oct. 12, 1960.
(AP Photo)

Ashland, Misouri

[Hillary? Hell no!]

The fact that I know a lot more than was said in the article only means you are speaking from ignorance.

Yes, you certainly do know a lot more than what was said in this article. For instance, the first time you told this story you "knew" that four men had been murdered in revenge for the crime, and that those four men were memorialized on an anti-lynching website, while your grandmother's cousin had only her tombstone to mark her passing. You remembered quite clearly that there were four men who became victims of the mob, but after calling your mother (who, just so we are clear, was not actually involved in the incident having not been born yet) you realized that there were only three who were lynched.

I don't believe for a second you were lying about the number of men who were murdered by the angry mob. I believe that you believed you were absolutely correct on all the details of the story. And yet, the fact remains that you were not. You admit to being mistaken on one detail of the story. What if the others you heard the story from were also mistaken on one detail of the story? What if they spared your grandmother, a twelve year-old child, some of the horrible details? And what if she decided to spare another young child some of the horrible details she did hear? Once again, the palest ink is better than the best memory.

Just in case you are too stupid to figure this out, the fact that the article says they were brought together does not mean they weren't questioned separately.

Actually, the newspaper accounts are clear that one man was picked up for the crime and implicated others, who were brought before him and the mob.

But I forget, you have no interest in the newspaper accounts, only the half-remembered stories of those who were involved but not actually there.

The fact that one was caught and cleared pays lie to your nonsense about a crazed mob killing everyone they came across. BTW I know of one Black man who was on the side of the mob, his name was Tip Broxson.

Actually, they didn't kill everyone they came across. Instead, they picked the man nearest the tracks and forced him at gunpoint to confess and implicate others. According to the Panama City account, when the others were brought before the angry mob he told them to tell the truth that they were innocent and he apologized for dooming them. He begged for his life. Then, once the others were forced at gunpoint to confess they were all murdered.

If you are so stupid as to believe every detail of a newspaper article is accurate (I suspect you are not that stupid but that dishonest) then you don't have walking around sense. The fact is that article was much better than most, but as I said, had a few errors.

No offense, but the newspaper articles (and as you know, we're talking multiple articles, whether you want to read the others or not) are remarkably consistant with each other, and with you.. The only place the details differ with your story is as to whether or not the men were questioned in anything like a fair and orderly manner and whether or not they were murdered humanely. I find it interesting that you have seized on this one discrepency as though your family honor depended on it.

You have the inredible affrontery to tell me what my own relatives told me. You also stupidly or recklessly try to tell me they were too old for me to have known.

No, I have not tried to tell you what you remember your own relatives telling you. I do admit to being quite skeptical that a man of an age to be involved in an bloodthirsty mob would share intimate details of those mob activities with a young grandchild, but as I said earlier, it's your family. However, as you yourself have proven, memory is an imperfect thing. You remembered being told there were four men who were murdered by the mob, when in fact there were "only" three. It's not surprising, considering that the people who would have been directly involved in those murders and who might have told you all about it have been dead for years, if not decades.

As I said before you are a total jerk. You are distorting everything I said and everything which was in the article. you do it to the point where there is no doubt as to your integrity.

Nope. It is your own words, and your family account, which has proven to be distorted in comparision to the historical record. I don't believe this is any comment on your integrity but rather the human nature of your own memory.

As you admitted to coming from White Trash, you even dishonor them by descending to scum.

I'm sorry my love of truth and loyalty to history displease you. However, I must say that I admire your nerve. If I came from a family who participated in the bloodthirsty lynching of three quite possibly innocent men and who allegedly bragged to their very young children and grandchildren about it, I certainly wouldn't go around calling anyone else's family white trash.

BTW, I can't help but notice that you have continued to indulge in insults aimed at my ancestors and my family, as well as myself. I think it's an interesting reaction to what is essentially only a minor point of history (which, of course, was major to your family and the families of those the mob ruthlessly murdered). Why do you feel so threatened by history?

[sneakypete]

That was about as good a summary of the way things were as I have ever seen.

Thanks. I have no idea why everybody doesn't know this. It isn't like it has been kept secret. Remember the movie "Missippi Burning"? The left were wetting their pants with joy over how this movie "shows the ignorance of the white southerners". Oddly enough,all the movie really did was expose the hyprocisy and guilt of the federal gooberment. Remember the scene where the head Feeb was meeting with the local sheriff to tell him about the two missing "civil rights workers"? When the local sheriff said "Maybe those boys just took off for a few days to go fishing?",the head Feeb responded with "These men were trained agents,and knew to check in every day". The Feebs SENT a black man and a Jew with long hair and a beard touring through the deep south in the early 60's in a new car with plenty of cash to stir up trouble,and when they were successful,the Feebs act surprised. A local white boy in 1963 with long hair and a beard would have problems in that area of the country,never mind a New Yord Jew and black with their accents who were looking for trouble.

This is the crap the Dims used to buy the blacks back into slavery by passing the "Civil Wrongs Act of 1964",also known as "The Lawyers Full-Employment Act of 1964." The Dims cared not one whit that they were destroying the most basic Constitutional freedom,the right of free association. All they cared about was bagging votes to stay in office.

[Hillary? Hell no!]

Thank-you.

As a Southerner, I am aware that we have a sad history in this region that touches many, if not most, families in some way. For instance, my ancestors owned a handful of slaves. Those of us who have a family history that has some degree of ignominy, such as particpating in a lynching, either learn to embrace our past warts and all or we are haunted by it. Either way, the past is always with us in the South.

[Hillary? Hell no!]

The Feebs SENT a black man and a Jew with long hair and a beard touring through the deep south in the early 60's in a new car with plenty of cash to stir up trouble,and when they were successful,the Feebs act surprised.

Actually, there was already plenty of trouble in Mississippi at the time. If you were black and tried to register to vote, you were subject to intimidation, bodily harm, and the threat of murder. If anything, the gov sent a black man and a Jew with long hair and a beard to stop trouble in the deep South.

[Ohioan]

The real problem in this country is not racism. The real problem in this country is political correctness. It exploits "extreme cases" to set precedents, which are then used in a subjective, selective manner to persecute anyone who harbors ideas with which the liberals disagree.

Amen!

I will not join others in speculating on what the guys' motives were at this particular party. They may--as some have suggested--been indulging in a celebration of actual racial hatred. But it is equally possible--if I were to speculate, I would have to say probable, but I promised not to speculate--that their real target was the mindset that wants to force people to apologize for their past. In seeming to celebrate the bad side of their past, rather than the good, they would seem to be more clearly showing a more total disdain for the "politically correct."

But, I do not know any of the kids involved, so I will withhold judgment, except for one thing. They obviously need someone to instruct them better on how public the internet can be. If they really wanted this on the Internet, they have very, very poor judgment--regardless of their private motives.

That said, the idea of public scrutiny for private costume parties is very, very offensive. It is not very hard to remember seeing otherwise responsible people in costumes that hardly reflected their philosophy or attitude. One needs to be very careful in passing judgment. To suggest that these kids wanted to lynch anyone would be to conclude that every Dracula at a Holloween party wants to suck your blood.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Revolting cat!]

On the other hand, there is no monument or rememberance at all for the little 12 year old, except her tombstone. I expect some time there will be a TV movie made over the incident in which the little girl will be portrayed as a hooker, her parents as toothless rednecks and the murderers as heroes who really tried to save the little girl from her molesting relatives.

I find this part of your inital post most interesting and relevant and it is too bad that the thread deteriorated into a pissing match with some halfwit who apparently thinks himself to hold the most original ideas that bad things are wrong and, presumably, that ice cream is delicious. Wow!

But the quote above is a relevant comment on here and now.