Lynching exhibit to be held at JSU (Jackson Mississippi)

The Clarion Ledger ^ | December 4, 2003 | By Jerry Mitchell

[WKB]

Possibly the most controversial photo exhibit in America is coming to Mississippi

[WKB]

PING

[rvoitier]

Whew! And I thought they were going to display a (Confederate) flag.

[Naspino]

I wonder if it will be equal opportunity. I think it would be an outrage to not show a native america, caucasian, and hispanic being lynched because they were.

[A. Patriot]

"Between 1882 and 1952, at least 3,437 black Americans were lynched, 534 of them in Mississippi — the most of any state. During that same time, 1,293 white Americans were also lynched — 40 of them in Mississippi.

I never knew that white people were also lynched. Almost sounds like the lynch mobs practiced equal opportunity. I just wonder if the violent or heinous crimes were disproportionately committed by African Americans back then too?

[ken5050]

FYI..check out today's NYTImes website..type "Lynching" in the search engine...

[Naspino]

Lynching was widely used to punish alleged criminals in the absence of a speedy judicial system; be they black or white. Blacks just got the finger pointed at them more be it right or wrong.

As for the disporportion of crime committed by blacks today -- I certainly don't believe they were more law abiding then -- but then again they didn't have Je$$e and $harpton as leaders.

[stainlessbanner]

Look at the stats in the FR article: Lynching redefined in South Carolina.

Now tell me who is pushing revisionism.

[Steve_Seattle]

". . . images of lynchings from the nation's not-too-distant past."

The most recent lynching mentioned was in 1952, 51 years ago, and most of the lynchings presumably occurred well before that. So I think these lynchings ARE in the distant past. The "not-too-distant past" phrase seems to suggest that America in 2003 is pretty much the same as the America of the lynchings, reflecting the kind of "nothing has changed" mentality that Jesse Jackson likes to foster. .

[cyborg]

Lynchings are a part of the past, unfortunate but true. However, people who are looking at the past, have their back turned against the future. The only people I see still keeping lynching alive are the self appointed black leaders who need the 'Old South' to exist so they can have a job.

[Smogger]

I just wonder if the violent or heinous crimes were disproportionately committed by African Americans back then too?

You mean violent heinous crimes like lynching? What a moron.

[Smogger]

The most recent lynching mentioned was in 1952, 51 years ago, and most of the lynchings presumably occurred well before that. So I think these lynchings ARE in the distant past. The "not-too-distant past" phrase seems to suggest that America in 2003 is pretty much the same as the America of the lynchings, reflecting the kind of "nothing has changed" mentality that Jesse Jackson likes to foster. .

The 50's are the not to distant past. Unless your calling the baby boomers who lived during the 50's ancient. Things have changed, but not because people stuck their heads in the sand and refused to acknowledge the facts as so many here are prone to do.

[A. Patriot]

You mean violent heinous crimes like lynching? What a moron.

No. Not that the lynchings were not violent or heinous crimes, I was referring to the alleged reasons for the lynchings. I don't think even back then a mob would lynch a person, black or white, for no reason at all.

By the way, I have reported you for abuse.

[Smogger]

I don't think even back then a mob would lynch a person, black or white, for no reason at all.

I know what you were referring to. You were demonstrating your spectacular ignorance of America's history of lynchings, while simultaneously defending murderers and rationalizing mob violence.

[A. Patriot]

I know what you were referring to. You were demonstrating your spectacular ignorance of America's history of lynchings, while simultaneously defending murderers and rationalizing mob violence.

No, I was making a rather sarcastic remark on the fact that I had never heard or read of white people during this time in history also being lynched in any great numbers.

Then I implied that if black people committed a disprortionate number of serious crimes back then, JUST LIKE THEY DO TODAY, that could explain the disproportionate number of black lynchings verses white lynchings.

The fact that white people were also lynched is not commonly reported today because it is politically incorrect to possibly explain lynchings as being something more than pure racism.

If you don't agree with this, fine. You have a right to your opinion just as I do without being called a moron.

[Wallace T.]

All this represents is a haute culture equivalent of the repetitive (and heavily edited) depictions of the police beating of the obese black man who was "hopped up" on narcotics in Cincinatti a few days ago. The purposes of this "art" and of the constant repetition are the same. The first purpose is to engender "white guilt," allowing leftist politicians to advance their agenda of social spending that, in turn, increases the dependence of minorities on handouts, which in turn keeps the liberals in power. The second is to generate anti-white and anti-society sentiments among blacks, with the goal of encouraging their continued support of leftist politicians who would keep blacks down on the urban welfare "plantation."

I fear that this agitation may also be used to advance an American equivalent of South Africa's "truth and justice commissions," which were merely an excuse to persecute LEOs of the former white regime and to foster reparations. If 550 blacks were lynched in Mississippi from 1880 to 1949, then a Federal justice influenced, as Justices Ginsburg, Souter, O'Connor, et. al., say they are, by "evolving" standards of international "justice," may impose a special "reparations tax" on the white inhabitants of that state, to be paid to the descendants of the lynched, or more probably, to "politically correct" African American groups.

[Smogger]

No, I was making a rather sarcastic remark on the fact that I had never heard or read of white people during this time in history also being lynched in any great numbers.

That you have never heard or read that large numbers of whites were lynched further demonstrates your ignorance of the history of lynchings and to a certain extent history in general.

Then I implied that if black people committed a disprortionate number of serious crimes back then, JUST LIKE THEY DO TODAY, that could explain the disproportionate number of black lynchings verses white lynchings.

Then you make several assumptions about the cause of lynchings against blacks in the last century, though by your own admission, this is a subject you know nothing about. Finally, you extrapolate out to today, making more generalizations about "serious crime", the majority of which is black on black crime in a lame attempt to explain the desparity between the number of black lynchings vs white lynchings in the last century.

Finally, you ineptly try to link your ignorance of lynchings in general, with political correctness, while simultaneously futher defending lynchings (a criminal act of murder) as "being something more than pure racism." Well that's relief.

Your points are:

1. Lynchings are a justifiable.
2. Black people were lynched at a disproportionate rate because they as is the case today commit more crimes then white people.
3. As long as the lynch mobs were not purely racist they are OK.

[A. Patriot]

I apologize to you. You know better what I meant than I do. Sorry for arguing with you.

If you haven't gotten my point yet, you never will. Go in peace.

[Steve_Seattle]

I grew up in the 50s, and they seem like the distant past to me. The vast majority of people who perpetrated lynchings are long dead.

[wardaddy]

...oh boy....got yer horsehair shirt on?