“Of course we all know planes were crashing all along but stories of crashing planes weren't allowed in their newspapers….Things we would never read about when there was one newspaper and a couple of short newscasts a day are sensationalized in our new media.”
That probably has an effect, but there are other indicators that are less subjective…number of crimes, number of prisoners, age of violent criminals, etc. Further, things seem to be getting worse even if we look only at local news.
“That happened in the early ninety's and was front page news here locally for about a week. It certainly wasn't national news. Of course today it would be fertilizer used to fill endless hours of "news" over months.”
I don’t think you can see the trend if you take the nineties as your starting point. I would argue that your murder wasn’t national news because we had become inured to news of such crimes by the nineties as a result of their frequency.
In earlier times such “local” crimes did often become national news, because of their heinous nature. Lizzie Borden, Sacco and Vanzetti, Leopold and Loeb, the St. Valentine’s Day massacre…we used to hear about heinous crimes, even when the only media were print and radio.
For your point to have validity, then, it would have to be true that there were other, equally heinous crimes that we did not hear of, in numbers proportionate to those we hear about today. I have not seen the evidence that this is so.
“we are pretty lucky to live in this time.”
Oh, absolutely. However, in which direction are we headed?
“Much the same as the good people of Germany didn't really support the Nazis but let WWII happen. The Jim Crow situation in the South wasn't as severe as the Holocaust in terms of deaths but morally it was still plenty bad.”
Um…woah. “There are 2805 [documented] victims of lynch mobs killed between 1882 and 1930 in ten southern states. Although mobs murdered almost 300 white men and women, the vast majority—almost 2,500—of lynch victims were African-American.” From Stewart E. Tolnay and E.M. Beck, A Festival of Violence: An Analysis of Southern Lynchings, 1882-1930. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992.
Are we really going to compare a state policy of racial eradication that led to 6,000,000 murders in ten years with mob action that led to fewer than 2,500 murders over 48 years?
One thing I always wonder about is, how many murders occurred in northern states during the same period that would have been termed lynchings if they had been in Southern states?
“Montgomery definitely wasn't a unique situation.”
Neither have discriminatory practices and laws been restricted to the South.
“I don't think there is any reason to minimize the odiousness of the Jim Crow South to forgive the people there any more than we need to minimize the odiousness of the Holocaust to forgive the people of Germany.”
The word “minimize” is one with which I have often quarreled. When I hear “minimize,” I think “reduce to the minimum possible level.” When something has been exaggerated, though, a return to accuracy requires that it be seen as less severe, without in any way seeking to minimize anything.
For instance, if we arbitrarily set the wrongitude of Jim Crow at X, but the media and academia continually show it at 3X in their propaganda, any effort to present this history accurately will see one presenting it as significantly less bad than most people have been told. This is usually when the “M” word is brought out and used to paint its object as a liar who is seeking to defend the indefensible.
Some people seem to think that a consensus that something or someone is or was bad is a license to exaggerate their badness without limit. I think this is a very dangerous practice that needs to be stomped out wherever it raises its ugly, leftist head.
“The good people of the Jim Crow South would have benefited from applying this rule as the good people of the modern South do.”
I think sometimes we fail to understand how difficult it is to stand alone against one’s entire society.
That probably has an effect, but there are other indicators that are less subjective…number of crimes, number of prisoners, age of violent criminals, etc. Further, things seem to be getting worse even if we look only at local news.I agree that less subjective data is better. From what I remember the FBI statistics about violent crime show a continual decline in the crime rate from at least the early nineties. The late eighties were the high point if I remember right. I'd get a link to the statistics but I'm packing to drive to Colorado in the morning and a little in a hurry.
In earlier times such “local” crimes did often become national news, because of their heinous nature. Lizzie Borden, Sacco and Vanzetti, Leopold and Loeb, the St. Valentine’s Day massacre…we used to hear about heinous crimes, even when the only media were print and radio.True, but at nowhere near the rate that we hear about today. The news pipe was smaller and couldn't carry the volume of cases that is carried today. The coverage of these crimes make them more like live soap operas than crimes. The crime of the century seems to happen about once a quarter these days in spite of a generally falling crime rate.
For your point to have validity, then, it would have to be true that there were other, equally heinous crimes that we did not hear of, in numbers proportionate to those we hear about today. I have not seen the evidence that this is so.An interesting research project I would love to do if I had time :). I think the closest we can get is the FBI crime statistics.
Are we really going to compare a state policy of racial eradication that led to 6,000,000 murders in ten years with mob action that led to fewer than 2,500 murders over 48 years?Absolutely not, I specifically said they didn't compare in terms of the numbers of deaths. I did say morally the Jim Crow policies were pretty bad. Lynchings were the extreme and I assume even most racists were not in favor of them.
Neither have discriminatory practices and laws been restricted to the South.Absolutely. In the North there was a lot of racism and discrimination also but it wasn't enshrined in law the way it was in the South.
I think the good people of the South (I'm a native Texan myself) deserve forgiveness as much as the people of Germany or Japan do. I don't hear many people looking down on the citizens from those places and I don't think the people of the South should be looked down on today. One of the tenants of Martin Luther King's leadership was to solve the problem in such a way that all of the citizens of the South could benefit.I thought it was interesting that you didn't comment on the point above. The people of Germany and Japan had much more guilt to atone for then the Jim Crow South. Japan actually made Germany look quite tame in comparison to their atrocities. Yet in most people's mind modern Japanese and Germans are considered our friends and their countries our allies. Each of their societies looked inward and resolved their problems. The South has done the same and I think is looked at positively by most people.
When something has been exaggerated, though, a return to accuracy requires that it be seen as less severe, without in any way seeking to minimize anything.No doubt. But I have never heard people discuss the numbers of people lynched, or even imply it was more than it actually was. As far as the persecution and humiliation that Negroes suffered in the South I think it's pretty much documented. I'm not sure what you feel has been exaggerated.
I think sometimes we fail to understand how difficult it is to stand alone against one’s entire society.Ah yes, but that's how heroes are born.