Throughout the early part of the twentieth century, African-American activists fought to thwart the systemic scourge of lynching. Faced with a silent and complicit populace, particularly the media and political establishment, African Americans forced the nation to bear witness to the depravity of American racism. Between 1882 and 1968, close to 5,000 lynchings (73% of the victims were black) took place on American soil, and that is of course an estimate that does not account for the countless unknown souls who lost their lives at the hands of White supremacy. According to Richard Perloff, racial lynchings had become commonplace in part because of the media's failures to bring the injustice to light. He quotes a white resident of Emelle Alabama, who questioned a reporter's inquiry into the killing of an African American: "A few White residents who had been on hand when the men were killed refused to talk about the events to reporters from The Tuscaloosa News. "What the hell are you newspaper men doing here?" asked a White man who had been part of the vigilante group. 'We're just killing a few negroes that we've waited too damn long about leaving for the buzzards. That's not news'" (Raper, 1933, p. 67). The silence from the mainstream media about blacks victims burned to death, hung, and dismembered, embodied the normalization of white supremacist violence.
Activists and Black journalists responded to American media that often downplayed the practice of white-on-black violence and/or named African Americans as deserving of torment and murder. According to Perloff, writing in The Journal of Black Studies, "It is next to impossible to locate a newspaper article that does not identify the victim as a Negro or that refrains from suggesting that the accused was guilty of the crime and therefore deserving of punishment. For example, The New Orleans Picayune described an African-American who was lynched in Hammond, Louisiana for robbery as a 'big, burly negro' and a 'Black wretch'".
Amid this silence and sanctioning of White-on-Black violence, Ida B. Wells-Barnett and others within the Black press not only documented each and every lynching, but in providing the graphic details, they challenged the very fabric of American racism. From displaying signs announcing "A Lynching Happened Today" to the publication of various pamphlets, activists worked to force America to come to grips with the contradiction between its purported creed and the ongoing violence perpetuated within its boundaries
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
The history of racist violence, of lynchings, of state violence, or a complicit media and systemic injustice, all of which define the era of Jim Crow, remain a reality despite our purportedly post-racial moment. A recent report from the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM) entitled "Report on Extrajudicial Killings of 110 Black People" elucidates the contemporary struggle against lynchings. In the first six months of 2012, the police, security guards, and self appointed agents of "justice" have killed 110 African-American men, women, and children. Since its publication, there have been 10 additional killings in total, 2012, which means that in 2012, there has been 1 killing every 36 hours.
Many of these deaths are the consequences of stop and frisk policies, racial profiling, and a culture of White racist stereotyping of African Americans as criminals and suspects. According to Rosa Clemente, a member of Malcolm X Grassroots Movement and former vice-presidential candidate of the Green Party, "Nowhere is a Black woman or man safe from racial profiling, invasive policing, constant surveillance, and overriding suspicion." In the press release, she notes "all Black people - regardless of education, class, occupation, behavior or dress - are subject to the whims of the police in this epidemic of state initiated or condoned violence."
The study showed that 43% of those killed on these streets, prior to any legal proceedings, were stopped because of "suspicious behavior or appearance" or because of traffic violations. Another 10% were not involved in criminal behavior at all, with another 18% resulting from 9-1-1 calls, including several from family members seeking assistance with individuals suffering from mental illness, only to see them killed in the streets. With only 33% of those killed resulting from an actual investigation, we must begin to ask protecting and serving whom?
Among its victims are: Rekia Boyd, an innocent bystander shot and killed in Chicago; Dante Price, who was shot 22 times, while trying to pick up his children; and Travis Henderson, a "a suicidal man sitting in a church parking lot with a gun. When he got out of the car, he allegedly pointed the gun at an officer and was shot." An Orange County Sherriff killed Manuel Loggins, a former marine and father of two daughters, in front of his children. The "sheriff initially said he feared for his own safety and later revised his story to say he feared for the girls' safety." And there is Anton Barrett, "who was allegedly driving without headlights and running stop signs when a DUI Saturation Patrol signaled him to stop. According to the report, "he led the officers on a high speed chase, when his tires went flat, he fled on foot. One officer confronted him in a darkened alley and shot him multiple times, claiming he thought he saw him pull a 'metallic object' from his sweatshirt pocket. After Barrett was shot, he attempted to rise and a second officer tasered him. He was cuffed and died at hospital. Police admit they mistook wallet for gun." The history of state violence, of the consequences of systemic racism, a story often imagined as a concluded chapter in American history, remains a grave problem of the twenty-first century.
In the spirit of Ida B. Wells and other freedom fighters, this report continues the tradition of baring witness to the atrocities of state violence. Under a cloud of silence, denial, and denied accountability, the death toll rises. While the media, political "leaders," and citizens alike ignore and justify these killings by blaming the victims, MXGM and this report make clear that African Americans continue to live "without sanctuary" in America, demanding that we not only "bare witness" to these ongoing atrocities but join them "in demanding that the Obama administration implement a National Plan of Action for Racial Justice to stop these killings and other human rights violations being committed by the government."
A lynching happened today;
One happens every 36 hours;
Will another happen tomorrow?
As Ida B. Wells-Barnett powerfully reminds us, "The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them."
This is worse than I thought. But what can be done to curb this violence? I invite you to read my blog posting 'There is Peace in the Eye of the Storm!' for some thoughts on this issue. Focusing on individual acts of violence will do nothing to solve this problem. We must look at what motivates hatred and educate people on how to handle their negative emotions without causing harm to others and to themselves.
RickLindal: This is worse than I thought. But what can be
Are we to assume that none of these killings were justified? Are we to assume that none of these killings were accidental? If not, does the author of this article want us to equate both justified and accidental killings with racial lynchings?
The author should check his source material and make a meaningful attempt to differentiate circumstances in which these killings occurred. Instead, he essentially lumps all these killings together and writes that those killed were "sentenced to death." In one sentence the author writes that "40 were said to have a weapon." In the very next sentence he writes that, "a small number of those killed, 21, were armed." I'm sorry, what? That makes little sense mathematically or otherwise. 40 plus 21 equals 61 which represents more than half of the killings--a substantial number. That the 40 are in dispute does not mean that those killed were unarmed, so we should not just assume those numbers away, as the author does. Also, police are oftentimes required to make split-second decisions in the field. People commit crimes with bb guns--bb guns that look like real guns--all the time. To require police to determine whether a gun is a bb gun or a real gun before taking decisive action is to require too much. Presenting the numbers in this way is extremely misleading and disingenous.
johnmill323: Are we to assume that none of these killings were
The "research" this report is based on is quite possibly the worst I have ever seen. It is primarily this list from Wikipedia. So what is the problem? The list is NOT limited to only black people. Take a look at the chart, and the actions reported of people who were shot, and decide for yourself how many are likely to be black, and how many shootings were unreasonable.
Karissa36: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States The "research" this report is based on is quite
I think there was a far more constructive way to have discussed this issue without being sensational. It maybe a reality but if you want to bring attention to it just do it. Present the facts not some cheap pop article that does no justice to those who have lost their lives.
Paul_A_Bishop: I think there was a far more constructive way to
Has there been any work on the effects of random policing on black communities? It seems to me that if criminals are unlikely to be caught, and there's a substantial risk of conviction and/or abuse no matter what you do, the incentives for behaving well are considerably weakened.
Also, the same sorts of abuses happen to white people, too, but not nearly as frequently-- my evidence for this is that the extent of police abuse is news to a lot of white people.
Nancy_Lebovitz: Has there been any work on the effects of random
Didn't even need to read the whole story. Here's how far I made it before I realized it was based on a fallacy: "our purportedly post-racial moment". We are in no way post-racial. Every gun law in this country is based on two things: Racism, and classism. That's it. Repeal those, start over, and then we can talk.
The were put on the books not for public safety, but rather to ensure guns were kept out of the hands of blacks and the poor (mostly blacks). By ensuring that those groups can't have the means to defend themselves, they remain underprivileged and dominated by the majority.
Racism in action. Supported by most liberals. Thanks liberals (that was a bit of sarcasm, in case you missed it).
PickedName: Didn't even need to read the whole story. Here's how
You missed the point. What Dr. Leonard was saying is that we are absolutely not in a post-racial moment. Purported is synonymous with alleged. Here's the statement you take issue with, with a word swap edit in brackets.
"The history of racist violence, of lynchings, of state violence, or a complicit media and systemic injustice, all of which define the era of Jim Crow, remain a reality despite our [allegedly] post-racial moment. "
Finish the piece.
Speelyi: You missed the point. What Dr. Leonard was saying is
I understand what purported means. The entire article is based on a strawman arguement that he set up, that we're in a purportedly post-racial time. Nobody with any sense has that belief.
It's like if I wrote an article claiming that purportedly the moon is made of green cheese, then went on to attack people who believe the moon is made of green cheese. It's obviously not, and the only claim it is was made by me for the purpose of attacking that claim.
PickedName: I understand what purported means. The entire article is based
I totally agree with your assessment as to how this system was designed to keep us underprivileged by keeping us economically marginalized & strategically labeled as felons, for the purpose of ensuring that we'll never have the right to protect ourselves & our families, under the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution. What's interesting is the very fact that homosexuality, lesbianism, being 'gay' is becoming more prevalent today which is really shedding a light on what's been here from day one. Therefore, all of the ugly, freakish behavior that we've witnessed for over 400 yrs, and counting, is a result of a cultural instinct that's deeply embedded within the essence of the "status quo" and it would behoove us all, to acknowledge that.
goodgiant: I totally agree with your assessment as to how this
Young black men are killing each other with wild abandon daily. There is massive collateral damage with bystanders as gangs shoot at each other with willful disregard for others. Where is the indignation over that? Where is the black community's outrage? Guess it's easier not to look........
SMH1960: Young black men are killing each other with wild abandon
there is plenty of outrage over that...plenty! But just as those deaths are not widely covered by the media, neither is the outrage surrounding those deaths.
1luvTX: there is plenty of outrage over that...plenty! But just as
The methodological critique: A more macro analysis would increase the external validity, but the data is the ethos claim for those who wouldn't/couldn't pay any mind to the issue of State violence against the citizens of the United States that happen to be Black. So by exclusively focusing attention here...you miss the larger point.
Black on Black crime: It is an issue that has been covered elsewhere. To the point, by trotting out Black on Black crime there is implicit support for one of the main claims of the article, that Black folks are criminalized. That is what this article is pointing at, and by using the Red Herring fallacy as a rhetorical tactic you demonstrate that it is rather difficult to deny a militarized police force is killing Black people because we (as the larger American public) characterize them as thugs, or "Super Predators".
Law Enforcement has the right to protect themselves: A point that is undisputed. But to use this point to counter the fact that there is a history of violence against Black people is a rather myopic perspective to take. Now, by placing lynchings in a parallel with police violence against Black people we are able to see how we as a nation are complicit in the activity. For example the legitimization of lethal force by citizens against Black folks through these same constructions.
~S~
Speelyi: Three things, The methodological critique: A more macro analysis would
What would really increase the validity is if the study's authors did not assume that every person in America killed by the police automatically was black.
Karissa36: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States What would really increase the validity is if the
Fair enough. But as it turns out the thrust of the argument is that through criminalization we validate the use of violence by the police against people outside the dominant narrative. For example take a look at your link, 2010, John T. Williams...
The officer shot a Native man with a closed legal knife (he was a whittler) five times at close range. He resigned instead of being fired, and the prosecutor declined to prosecute. So the characterization here matters, as a police officer murdered a man of color and lost his job. Now employment may be important...but one man lost his job and the other lost his life.
So yes, not every individual that the police shoot is Black, innocent or unarmed. That doesn't mean that there isn't a parallel between legalized violent action against Black folks tantamount to lynching.
What is perhaps the most troubling is all the effort going into critiquing this piece on small facets instead of meeting the meat of the argument.
Speelyi: Fair enough. But as it turns out the thrust of
David J Leonard seems to be on a hair-shirt crusade to flagellate himself for his own whiteness.
Firstly to compare police shootings to lynchings is historically and morally absurd. Lynchings often involved entire communities and entailed a great degree of torture and other terror. The victims were also, for the most part, entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Police shootings happen but, given the amount of violent crime and criminals, it is surprising they are so low. Even taking the figures from this absurd study at face value that would mean that for every African American (I notice they don't care about other races) killed by the police around 60 are killed by other African-Americans. Police also kill white people as well at roughly the rate that they commit violent crime (another poster put a link to an earlier study below).
Now I am aware that the academic methods and standards of university departments like yours are pretty low but to so disingenuously present and argument as you do in order to ferment racial animus and misunderstanding is contemptible. You may have a desire to present yourself as more "right-on" than others when it comes to the issue of race relations as a way to assuage some ludicrous sense of white guilt but you are neither assisting the African-American community nor convincing anyone else. If you want to embrace original-sin then I suggest you join the Catholic church.
kasukabe: David J Leonard seems to be on a hair-shirt crusade
As for you however well you started a sentence with a lower-case letter and didn't use a full stop at the end of your sentence. If you're going to be a grammar and spelling Fascist at least learn to write correctly yourself. I also note that you provide no argument to refute my points.
Ever heard of the expression "people in glass houses"?
kasukabe: I didn't make any spelling or grammatical errors. As for
"The most recent national analysis from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that Blacks and Latinos were nearly three times as likely as whites to be searched by police—and Blacks were almost four times as likely as whites to be subjected to the use of force." Jorge Rivas 2'/25/10.
If the above quote is to believed then we have legitimate reasons for concern. If there is any racial animus stirred then perhaps the solution would be to create a society without racism. Venting your spleen on the victims or their advocates just adds to the problem.
suprabuddha: "The most recent national analysis from the Justice Department’s Bureau
If Latinos are four times as likely as whites to commit murder, and blacks eight to ten times as likely, then your statistics suggest that police are trying to go easy on minorities.
fsilber: If Latinos are four times as likely as whites to
I've debated on commenting on this, but I just can't help it, your numbers are basically meaningless.
While there is no question historically your premise is correct, and there is no doubt an issue exists still today, without comparative data for other races, your statistics show nothing. Nor does your statement that a lynching takes place every 36 hours account for any shootings that happened in legitimate defense of life.
I also disagree with condemning all shootings where a weapon ended up not being present. A police officer's first priority in every encounter with the public, from a random traffic stop, to raiding a drug den is to end that encounter alive. In a high stress, tense situation, specially one at the end of a chase or some other type of altercation, when a suspect reaches in a pocket, or waist band, or whatever, that police officer has maybe a half second to determine if what is in that person's hand is a threat or not. That's not very long to decide if the gun is a toy or a BB gun, or a stick...and if they decide wrong they won't be going home. When an officer gives you instructions, especially from a defensive stance, follow them, period. Any of your rights that have been or are being violated can be addressed at a later time.
I don't completely disagree with you on the issue, I just don't think you have shown us anything conclusive here.
RockinU: I've debated on commenting on this, but I just can't
I guess it "can", but what it actually does indicate is exhaustive evidence that leaves no room for doubt, question, or debate. What it does indicate is all information needed to rationally understand a situation is present...but as you say, it "can" mean whatever you need it to I guess.
RockinU: I guess it "can", but what it actually does indicate
110 vs 6000 which number is greater? 6000 of course. That is the number of Blacks murdered by other Blacks in 2010. Yet the author is more concerned with 110. When do we TALK about these numbers?
BiggpussJr: 110 vs 6000 which number is greater? 6000 of course.
plenty of people talk about these numbers. Just as you barely hear about that 6000 in the media, you never hear about the outrage surrounding those 6000. Not to mention that this article was not about the 6000
1luvTX: plenty of people talk about these numbers. Just as you
Wow. 110 Blacks killed by Law Enforcement types. But no mention of 6,000+ killed by other Blacks. While I agree that it is worth investigating that 110 cases, what are we doing about the 6k? It seems like the Author is saying those 6000 murders are not as important as the 110. There are many cases of Law Enforcement types killing people of ALL colors and Nationalities. Shouldnt the outrage be in finding out WHY we are killing each other more often than we are being killed by Law Enforcement? I hate to say it but where is Jesse and Al when it comes to THIS very important issue? If they are supposed to be "Black Leaders" their leadship should be in question.
BiggpussJr: Wow. 110 Blacks killed by Law Enforcement types. But no
It's funny you should point to the internecine violence that occurs in the African American community. Obviously, you'll agree it doesn't have a genetic component; nobody is born violent but we all do violent things, sometimes and for different reasons..
Racism is bad for your health;
"Being on the receiving end of overt or subtle racism creates intense and constant stress, say some experts, which boosts the risk of depression, anxiety and anger"
Well they can't come out against that black on black killing, those individuals MUST support it. If they were to condemn that killing, they'd have to stop their money making machines and advocate politically unpopular positions. They'd have to support ending the war on drugs, which causes a tremendous amount of deaths, in particular among minorities. They'd have to come out against gun control, which is designed to keep minorities and the poor from being able to defend themselves.
Can you see those two guys coming out against gun control and in favor of ending the war on drugs? I can't.
PickedName: Well they can't come out against that black on black
If you are a squirter.. you should be shot.
Maybe not shot to kill... but yes, shot.
The author should check his source material and make a meaningful attempt to differentiate circumstances in which these killings occurred. Instead, he essentially lumps all these killings together and writes that those killed were "sentenced to death." In one sentence the author writes that "40 were said to have a weapon." In the very next sentence he writes that, "a small number of those killed, 21, were armed." I'm sorry, what? That makes little sense mathematically or otherwise. 40 plus 21 equals 61 which represents more than half of the killings--a substantial number. That the 40 are in dispute does not mean that those killed were unarmed, so we should not just assume those numbers away, as the author does. Also, police are oftentimes required to make split-second decisions in the field. People commit crimes with bb guns--bb guns that look like real guns--all the time. To require police to determine whether a gun is a bb gun or a real gun before taking decisive action is to require too much. Presenting the numbers in this way is extremely misleading and disingenous.
The "research" this report is based on is quite possibly the worst I have ever seen. It is primarily this list from Wikipedia. So what is the problem? The list is NOT limited to only black people. Take a look at the chart, and the actions reported of people who were shot, and decide for yourself how many are likely to be black, and how many shootings were unreasonable.
Also, the same sorts of abuses happen to white people, too, but not nearly as frequently-- my evidence for this is that the extent of police abuse is news to a lot of white people.
Between 1882 and 1968, (86 years or 753,360 hours) close to 5,000 lynchings. That means there was a lynching about every 150 hours.
These numbers are confusing.
The were put on the books not for public safety, but rather to ensure guns were kept out of the hands of blacks and the poor (mostly blacks). By ensuring that those groups can't have the means to defend themselves, they remain underprivileged and dominated by the majority.
Racism in action. Supported by most liberals. Thanks liberals (that was a bit of sarcasm, in case you missed it).
"The history of racist violence, of lynchings, of state violence, or a complicit media and systemic injustice, all of which define the era of Jim Crow, remain a reality despite our [allegedly] post-racial moment. "
Finish the piece.
It's like if I wrote an article claiming that purportedly the moon is made of green cheese, then went on to attack people who believe the moon is made of green cheese. It's obviously not, and the only claim it is was made by me for the purpose of attacking that claim.
The methodological critique: A more macro analysis would increase the external validity, but the data is the ethos claim for those who wouldn't/couldn't pay any mind to the issue of State violence against the citizens of the United States that happen to be Black. So by exclusively focusing attention here...you miss the larger point.
Black on Black crime: It is an issue that has been covered elsewhere. To the point, by trotting out Black on Black crime there is implicit support for one of the main claims of the article, that Black folks are criminalized. That is what this article is pointing at, and by using the Red Herring fallacy as a rhetorical tactic you demonstrate that it is rather difficult to deny a militarized police force is killing Black people because we (as the larger American public) characterize them as thugs, or "Super Predators".
Law Enforcement has the right to protect themselves: A point that is undisputed. But to use this point to counter the fact that there is a history of violence against Black people is a rather myopic perspective to take. Now, by placing lynchings in a parallel with police violence against Black people we are able to see how we as a nation are complicit in the activity. For example the legitimization of lethal force by citizens against Black folks through these same constructions.
~S~
What would really increase the validity is if the study's authors did not assume that every person in America killed by the police automatically was black.
The officer shot a Native man with a closed legal knife (he was a whittler) five times at close range. He resigned instead of being fired, and the prosecutor declined to prosecute. So the characterization here matters, as a police officer murdered a man of color and lost his job. Now employment may be important...but one man lost his job and the other lost his life.
So yes, not every individual that the police shoot is Black, innocent or unarmed. That doesn't mean that there isn't a parallel between legalized violent action against Black folks tantamount to lynching.
What is perhaps the most troubling is all the effort going into critiquing this piece on small facets instead of meeting the meat of the argument.
Firstly to compare police shootings to lynchings is historically and morally absurd. Lynchings often involved entire communities and entailed a great degree of torture and other terror. The victims were also, for the most part, entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Police shootings happen but, given the amount of violent crime and criminals, it is surprising they are so low. Even taking the figures from this absurd study at face value that would mean that for every African American (I notice they don't care about other races) killed by the police around 60 are killed by other African-Americans. Police also kill white people as well at roughly the rate that they commit violent crime (another poster put a link to an earlier study below).
Now I am aware that the academic methods and standards of university departments like yours are pretty low but to so disingenuously present and argument as you do in order to ferment racial animus and misunderstanding is contemptible. You may have a desire to present yourself as more "right-on" than others when it comes to the issue of race relations as a way to assuage some ludicrous sense of white guilt but you are neither assisting the African-American community nor convincing anyone else. If you want to embrace original-sin then I suggest you join the Catholic church.
As for you however well you started a sentence with a lower-case letter and didn't use a full stop at the end of your sentence. If you're going to be a grammar and spelling Fascist at least learn to write correctly yourself. I also note that you provide no argument to refute my points.
Ever heard of the expression "people in glass houses"?
If the above quote is to believed then we have legitimate reasons for concern. If there is any racial animus stirred then perhaps the solution would be to create a society without racism. Venting your spleen on the victims or their advocates just adds to the problem.
While there is no question historically your premise is correct, and there is no doubt an issue exists still today, without comparative data for other races, your statistics show nothing. Nor does your statement that a lynching takes place every 36 hours account for any shootings that happened in legitimate defense of life.
I also disagree with condemning all shootings where a weapon ended up not being present. A police officer's first priority in every encounter with the public, from a random traffic stop, to raiding a drug den is to end that encounter alive. In a high stress, tense situation, specially one at the end of a chase or some other type of altercation, when a suspect reaches in a pocket, or waist band, or whatever, that police officer has maybe a half second to determine if what is in that person's hand is a threat or not. That's not very long to decide if the gun is a toy or a BB gun, or a stick...and if they decide wrong they won't be going home. When an officer gives you instructions, especially from a defensive stance, follow them, period. Any of your rights that have been or are being violated can be addressed at a later time.
I don't completely disagree with you on the issue, I just don't think you have shown us anything conclusive here.
Racism is bad for your health;
"Being on the receiving end of overt or subtle racism creates intense and constant stress, say some experts, which boosts the risk of depression, anxiety and anger"
http://tinyurl.com/88dbaey
The increased stress levels have been shown to lead to increased violence. This is known.
"Black Leaders" are best suited to fighting the racism that induces this iniquitous level of suffering on the melinated members of our society.
Can you see those two guys coming out against gun control and in favor of ending the war on drugs? I can't.