Tax-supported photo exhibit deceptively suggests blacks, NOT whites, suffer from racial violence.

CNN ^ | May 11th, 2002 | NationalDebtGrows

[NationalDebtGrows]

My already posted response to the 20th Century Lynching exhibit's deceptively making it look like racial crimes usually involve whites' victimizing of blacks is as follows:

"How could our tax dollars have supported your biased exhibit? Haven't you considered also depicting the far more common examples of whites' actually being victimized by blacks, simply because of the caucasians' lack of pigmentation (such as L.A.'s Reginald Denny, or all the UNnoticed cases of white crime victims whose black assailants subsequently lurch for any historic justification for their own modern day lynch-like behavior)? Perhaps you would prefer that everyone think about the far fewer examples of whites' (admittedly INexcuseably) taking justice into their own hands against blacks nearly a century ago? I certainly don't defend the violently aggressive acts or whites, especially those that are vividly depicted in your important photos. Nevertheless, given how narrow your exhibit's focus is, is it unreasonable for reverse discrimination victims like me to suspect that your goal is mainly just to inflame passions enough to try and postpone a mending of welfare, or affirmative action governmental programs? Both parasitism-encouraging governmental programs punish innocent people of all ethnicities, and lead to the kinds of domestic strife that inspire blacks to victimize whites (or anybody else, even their fellow people of color). The point of my RESPECTFULLY INTENDED posting is that exhibits like yours should be less incomplete if they aren't to be viewed with suspicion. How could our tax dollars support your biased exhibit?

[I_Love_My_Husband]

All you have to do is take public transit. You want to sit by black guys while they say/do awful things? Sheesh. They're trouble. Not all of them, but a lot them, because they have single welfare moms, etc. This does not make a strong nation. It has weakened blacks for sure, for sure mentally, which is too bad.

[TopQuark]

Bias means a deviation from the norm, which in this case is truth.

The exhibit by which you are angered is not about crime in general and, most certainly, not about the present-day issues. The exhibit depicts the situation in America not too long gone. At that time, most of the crime, especially gang-murders, were committed by whites against blacks. This is the truth, hence no bias at the exhibit.

You appear to have misunderstood the objective of the exhibit.

[NationalDebtGrows]

Historically most gang-related crimes were committed by whites against blacks? Did you not see the 1992 re-make of Last of the Mohicans? The slaughtered settler remains found at that log cabin in the beginning are rare examples whereby the media actually told caucasians' side of the story in the realm of racial violence. Even if you are right that whites weren't victimized by blacks a century ago (do you have proof?), why did that tax-supported lynching exhibit (conveniently) focus on such a narrow timeframe?

[TopQuark]

Historically most gang-related crimes were committed by whites against blacks? Did you not see the 1992 re-make of Last of the Mohicans?

You should educated youself and watch less movies.

Even if you are right that whites weren't victimized by blacks a century ago You are putting words in my mouth. There was occasional violence, no doubt. But blacks have done nothing at all even comparable to lynching.

why did that tax-supported lynching exhibit (conveniently) focus on such a narrow timeframe?

Again, if you get education from sources other than movies, you will find that it is a standard feature of inquiry to limit the scope.

Further, why did you assume that the "time frame" was "narrow?" Blacks were subjected to such violence from the time they were brought to these shores until just a few decades ago --- for centuries, thus.

Moreover, the numbers of years in itself is not a criterion: the WWII lasted only a few years, but the study of it still continues.

It looks to me that you find reasons that would allow not to face the truth about the past, the history of our country.

[NationalDebtGrows]

TopQuark says: "You should educated youself and watch less movies." NationalDebtGrows says: Just because I didn't learn grammar where you forgot to doesn't mean I didn't get an education. Examples from the media are memorable and highly illustrative (unlike cybertext), so I like them. Regardless, why not lay off the ad hominem attacks so that our debate can be enlightening to all who choose to read it? In turn I'll stop with the pointed replies made in self-defense. Anyhow, regarding your assertion that blacks didn't do anything comparable to lynching, guns have been around since before the War of Southern Independence of the 1860's. How is shooting whites in cold blood from a distance while they're not looking less depraved than a lynching? Cold blooded shooting doesn't even require that others agree with you before an execution transpires. Meanwhile, are you asserting that none of those lynchings were provoked, and also expedited means of seeing to it that justice is served? Nowadays we spend over $1 million on trials and appeals for every guilty death row inmate despite our record high $6 trillion dollar national debt. I don't advocate encarcerating innocent people but I do advocate a return to fiscal prudence. Anyhow, folks can blame slavery or anything else for such black aggressions against whites, but is it not true that at least 90% of whites didn't even own slaves back then? Meanwhile, most if not practically all NEVER invited African warlords to peddle their captured prey on the USA. Unfairly enough, though, all had to tolerate the consequences. So do their descendants, many of whom have been disadvantaged by the War to promote Northern Heavy-handedness of the 1860's. You appear to think that it's fair to have tax dollars subsidize such a lopsided exhibit that doesn't also include the plight of whites who were on the wrong side of blacks' weapons. Intolerable violence & victimization was hardly just a white phenomenon, but the divisive exhibit sure would seem to suggest otherwise. "Coincidentally" it does so at a time when welfare and affirmative action are in for long overdue reforms. The conveniently narrowly focused lynching exhibit shows just how emotional (as opposed to rational) the foundation for creating such failed government programs was in the first place.

[TopQuark]

Regardless, why not lay off the ad hominem attacks so that our debate can be enlightening to all who choose to read it? My apologies, but I really did not know how to react to a movie being brought up as evidence.

How is shooting whites in cold blood from a distance while they're not looking less depraved than a lynching? You are changing the issue. I did not address the moraity of either act. Nor did I say that there were no black-on-white violence at all. I said that there was more white-on-black, and certainly more gang violence.

Incidentally, I am happy for you that you never expreienced it: gang violence creates constant terror. Every black knew that if a white person misunderstands him, he may be next. No white had ever felt like this as a result of whaever occasional violence that may have been perpetrated by blacks. In addition, such violence need not have been racist: it may have been in response to a beating by a slave-owner.

Meanwhile, are you asserting that none of those lynchings were provoked, and also expedited means of seeing to it that justice is served? I do find this outrageous: you condone taking law into one's hands. There is nothing more unAmerican than that; this was illegal then, and it is ellegal now for a reason.

Moreiver, somehow, you do not recall many cases of whites being lynched by other whites after a provocation --- a rape of someone's girlfriend, say. No, siree: no gang of whites would gather for that, and not gang of whites would hang a man from the tree for that.

If you stand for principle, you should be color-blind.

Can blame slavery or anything else for such black aggressions against whites, No, it is misguided leftist policies that are responsible for that.

You appear to think that it's fair to have tax dollars subsidize such a lopsided exhibit that doesn't also include the plight of whites who were on the wrong side of blacks' weapons. Yes, because there was no "plight of whites" in the social sense: individual violence existed, but it was not a social phenomenon. In contrast, slavery, racism, and lynching of black without due process WAS a social phenomenon, it is a part of our history, and it must be studied and remembered.

"Coincidentally" it does so at a time when welfare and affirmative action are in for long overdue reforms. Knoledge of one's history has nothing to do with the current political climate.

[NationalDebtGrows]

>>> I said that there was more white-on-black, and certainly more gang violence.<<<

So gang movements like the Crips and the Bloods down in the 'hood didn't materialize until after the public lynchings movement? Were there no antecedents to the Black Panthers either?

>>>>Incidentally, I am happy for you that you never expreienced it: gang violence creates constant terror.<<<<

I don't know where you got the idea from that I've never been physically ganged up on for months at a time by folks who were not of my ethnicity. Indeed, I have, but it didn't make any tax-sponsored, narrowly focused museum exhibit. This is not surprising though. Statists who influence how such grants are awarded tend to favor big government programs, and images of "oppressed minorities" help them justify their statist policies.

>>>>Every black knew that if a white person misunderstands him, he may be next. No white had ever felt like this as a result of whaever occasional violence that may have been perpetrated by blacks.<<<<

OH?

>>>> you condone taking law into one's hands. There is nothing more unAmerican than that; this was illegal then, and it is ellegal now for a reason.<<<<

Aren't you putting words in my mouth by saying that I condone it? Haven't I in fact said that I don't condone what went on?

>>>>>Moreiver, somehow, you do not recall many cases of whites being lynched by other whites after a provocation --- a rape of someone's girlfriend, say. No, siree: no gang of whites would gather for that, and not gang of whites would hang a man from the tree for that.<<<<<

OH?

>>>there was no "plight of whites" in the social sense: individual violence existed, but it was not a social phenomenon.<<<<

There are plenty of District Attorneys that would disagree with you there.

>>>>In contrast, slavery, racism, and lynching of black without due process WAS a social phenomenon, it is a part of our history, and it must be studied and remembered.<<<<

But no conclusory photo of Reginald Denny's beating would have been appropriate to send the message out that gang violence and "group-think" contaminates all races, and needs to be addressed as a social phenomenon instead of a racial issue?

>>>Knoledge of one's history has nothing to do with the current political climate. <<<

Actually, the CNN article concludes in a way that would suggest that inspiring political activism's the goal of the curators, etcetera: ""It certainly is our hope that when they leave, when they go home, they'll feel different toward African-Americans and toward other minorities, immigrants, gay, whomever," Catroppa said..."

I enjoyed our discussion. I think we've taken this one about as far as it can go without potentially making lurkers feel unwelcome. Would anyone else care to contribute?

[TopQuark]

I did enjoy it too. Not to belabor the point, let me just say: I was referring to the country prior to '60s, and most of your examples are about what happened after that. On that I am in agreement with you. Also, what CNN takes from an exhibit is not necessarily what other people do.

Have a good night.

[jackd]

I have read with interest your dialogue with the white southerner. I must state though that your ignorance of the past and present day conditions in American cities is frightening: every WHITE knows that if he/she says the wrong thing in the presence of blacks that he/she faces gang violence every day.What color is the sky on your planet. Furthermore your argument follows that deluded notion of groupthink and places people into groups, in this case based on color, which is decidedly racist and unAmerican. Read a little of the founding of this nation. Try ignoring the shakedown racists like Sharpton and Jackson and realize that this is a nation of INDIVIDUALS not based on race, color or creed.

[mikegi]

Do you not think that Reginald Denny was a victim of a lynching? Or the whites in downtown Atlanta that were beaten to a pulp at the same time?

Even more recently, what about all the whites and asians in Seattle and Cincinnati?

These whites and asians were lynched by mobs of blacks. Of course, the media never labels them as lynched because we all know that only whites do lynching. They were victims of black anger. Where were the Nightline town meetings about black lynching? I saw plenty of news shows that implicitly justified the lynching of whites and asians because of black anger.

[NationalDebtGrows]

I'd be very surprised if deadly black gangs resembling the Santana Crips, or the Bloods did not exist in the 'hood PRIOR TO the 1960's, as TopQuark asserts. I'd also be surprised if national entities like the Black Panthers didn't have historical antecedents predating the 1960's, as well. Nevertheless, the tax-subsidized Atlanta lynching exhibit depicts the gang violence as being white on black almost every time.

[TheOtherOne]

Do you not think that Reginald Denny was a victim of a lynching? Or the whites in downtown Atlanta that were beaten to a pulp at the same time? Even more recently, what about all the whites and asians in Seattle and Cincinnati? These whites and asians were lynched by mobs of blacks. Of course, the media never labels them as lynched because we all know that only whites do lynching. They were victims of black anger. Where were the Nightline town meetings about black lynching? I saw plenty of news

Look up the word 'lynching.' No, Deny was not lynched. He was attacked and maimed viciously. Reporters do not refer to these acts you mention as lynchings because they are not. Words have meanings and lynching refers to a specfic act of extra-judicial mob killings/hangings

[TheOtherOne]

An exhibit on the history of slavery in the US would probably look one-sided to you too.

[mikegi]

The Emory website that is part of "Without Sanctuary" calls the murder of James Byrd in Texas a "lynching" (see bottom of this page. Does Byrd fit your definition of lynching? What was "extra-judicial" in his killing?

Maybe Denny's case should be considered an "attempted lynching" since he survived.

[NationalDebtGrows]

>>>"An exhibit on the history of slavery in the US would probably look one-sided to you too."<<<


Are you saying that it's completely insignificant that the media has downplayed if not ignored how over 90% of Southerners NEVER owned slaves during the slavery era, and that they certainly didn't welcome how African warlord chieftains peddled their captured prey, or their undesirables, onto the new world and thereby put slavery-spurning farms at a competitive disadvantage? How much longer must such white victims continue to suffer for crimes they did not commit through paying astronomically high taxes to the IRS, and subsidizing counter-productive welfare policies, and enduring racial quotas? Isn't it bad enough that the opportunistic stifling of the War of Southern Independence left the South in an economical shambles? Where are OUR reparations?

[TopQuark]

I have read with interest your dialogue with the white southerner. Thank you. It appears, however, that you misunderstood what I said entirely.

I must state though that your ignorance of the past and present day conditions in American cities is frightening: every WHITE knows that if he/she says the wrong thing in the presence of blacks that he/she faces gang violence every day. Of course, this is very, very true of the present, and I am appalled by that as much as you are. Everything I said in the previous posts was addressed to the pre-1960s America.

What color is the sky on your planet. Gimme a second...

I just looked outside; it appears my planet and yours are of the same color.

Furthermore your argument follows that deluded notion of groupthink and places people into groups, in this case based on color, which is decidedly racist and unAmerican. I completely agree: it is both decidedly racist and un-American. Moreover, groupthink is Marxist at its roots.

That was not my argument, however: that was the argument that this country used in the past with respect to blacks. It was racist and, in that sense, not as "American" as it is now. So that we do not repeat these mistakes, this "groupthink" past of this country must be studied and remembered; this is what the exhibit in question is devoted to; and I argued that it was proper to have that exhibit. It was my opponent who argued against it. You and I appear to be in agreement.

Read a little of the founding of this nation. Thank you; I have and continue to do so.

Try ignoring the shakedown racists like Sharpton and Jackson Sorry, this is really hard for me to do: they promote racism in this country and are very divisive. It is hard to ignore that.

and realize that this is a nation of INDIVIDUALS not based on race, color or creed. I hope you now understand that this is what my basis was in MY arguments.

You appear to have misattributed as to who said what in that dialogue.

[TopQuark]

Everything I said was regarding the pre-1960s America. This is what exxhibit was about, and this is what the dialogue was about.

[TopQuark]

?I'd be very surprised if deadly black gangs resembling the Santana Crips, or the Bloods did not exist in the 'hood PRIOR TO the 1960's, as TopQuark asserts.

Why don't you research it and see.

[NationalDebtGrows]

So you're inviting me to disprove your SEEMINGLY racist assertion that prior to the 1960's, gang violence was only subscribed to by whites? Is there a continent more violent nowadays than Africa, itself? The violence in Africa would seem to undermine your racist assertion, wouldn't it? Oppressive international intervention helped make a mess of Africa, and blacks have responded with violence and bloodshed against their own. So how is it that you can think that blacks here in the USA suddenly LEARNED about gang violence in the 1960's? Gang violence is a social phenomenon, not a racial one (despite what that tax-subsidized exhibit in Atlanta that CNN's aggressively promoting now suggests).

As for looking for photos of blacks lynching whites, is it as likely that they would have invested resources and time into photographing such acts of illegality? They certainly didn't film the Reginald Denny beating. And indeed it was a caucasian plummer who filmed the beating of Rodney King a year earlier. The FULL footage shows how King's other companions in the car he speedily and unlawfully drove had NO problems with the police because they did not resist the cops' intervention on the public's behalf. The FULL footage shows that King initially attacked the police officers, whose adrenaline was understandably elevated as a result before they went too far with their responses. The media sensationalized the issue and made it racially divisive, just as they have done with the lynching exhibit. Fortunately the internet helps even things out a bit.