Lynching recorded on videotape

[Melvin Loh]

What would've been the effect on US race relations had say at some point during the 1980s or 90s a video been found depicting a lynching of a black person at some isolated location in the Deep South, by a group of racist sadists ? Say if the episode of a secret racial murder portrayed on video was just as savage and sadistic as 1 of the spectacle lynchings of the late 19th and early 20th C ? How would the discovery of such an inflammatory piece of material have affected race relations in the US compared to other publicised incidents caught on camera such asthe Rodney King beating ?

[David Howery]

is the video of a lynching of someone in the 80's or 90's? If so, it would be treated as a crime and investigated. It'd also be the top topic of the news for some time. I don't think you'd have any rioting unless the murderers were found and then found not guilty, or something like that. If it was a film to video depiction of a lynching that occured back in the 20's or so, it'd just be a sad part of history....

[Derek Jackson]

What would have been the reaction to a movie showing a particularly sadistic lynching in the US and the rest of the World some time between 1900 and say 1930

[zoomar]

Unfortunately, a sadistic lynching in the Deep South would be considered business as usual by most blacks - and given US history rightfully so. A video of a modern lynching would probably not inflame black people any more than usual, but if the perpetrators were either acquitted or not executed then there'd be trouble. Now this might have a positive effect on the attitude of whites, many of whom are ignorant of the extent to which lynching was an ordinary event in many parts of the rural south and southwest and racism still alive and well in many parts of the south.

As an aside, in my historical work I often research 1900-1920 newspapers in rural Oklahoma. It is scary how many matter-of-fact articles about lynchings were written that basically approved of them - or at worse considered them poor decorum ("Now we know that nigger boy deserved to die for touchin' a white woman, but why didn't y'all wait for the jury and county sheriff to make it all legal?"). These articles never implied the lynchers were criminals, nor did they ever state they were arrested and prosecuted. And Oklahoma was not even a Deep South state! Don't get me started or I'll start sounding like Michael Johnson!

[Melvin Loh]

quote: As an aside, in my historical work I often research 1900-1920 newspapers in rural Oklahoma. It is scary how many matter-of-fact articles about lynchings were written that basically approved of them - or at worse considered them poor decorum ("Now we know that nigger boy deserved to die for touchin' a white woman, but why didn't y'all wait for the jury and county sheriff to make it all legal?"). These articles never implied the lynchers were criminals, nor did they ever state they were arrested and prosecuted. And Oklahoma was not even a Deep South state! Don't get me started or I'll start sounding like Michael Johnson!

zoomar, I've seen 1 of these Oklahoma lynching photos myself, off the WITHOUT SANCTUARY website, which portrayed the burning of a black man named John Lee in Durant, 1911 IIRC, which had on the back the handwritten caption "Cooked coon". Such comments on lynching photos/postcards, together with other similar lines like "This is the barbecue we had last night" in relation to 1 Waco resident's experience at the 1916 Jesse Washington lynch-burning, speak volumes about the endemic dehumanisation in the minds of lynchmobs towards their victims. BTW, have you ever come across any newspaper articles on the 1921 Tulsa race riot ? If so, were the newspaper comments at that time pretty much the same as contained in previous articles ?

[Brilliantlight]

Unfortunately, a sadistic lynching in the Deep South would be considered business as usual by most blacks - and given US history rightfully so. A video of a modern lynching would probably not inflame black people any more than usual, but if the perpetrators were either acquitted or not executed then there'd be trouble.


I think there wouldn't be much trouble if it were life without parole.

[zoomar]

quote: As an aside, in my historical work I often research 1900-1920 newspapers in rural Oklahoma. It is scary how many matter-of-fact articles about lynchings were written that basically approved of them - or at worse considered them poor decorum ("Now we know that nigger boy deserved to die for touchin' a white woman, but why didn't y'all wait for the jury and county sheriff to make it all legal?"). These articles never implied the lynchers were criminals, nor did they ever state they were arrested and prosecuted. And Oklahoma was not even a Deep South state! Don't get me started or I'll start sounding like Michael Johnson!

zoomar, I've seen 1 of these Oklahoma lynching photos myself, off the WITHOUT SANCTUARY website, which portrayed the burning of a black man named John Lee in Durant, 1911 IIRC, which had on the back the handwritten caption "Cooked coon". Such comments on lynching photos/postcards, together with other similar lines like "This is the barbecue we had last night" in relation to 1 Waco resident's experience at the 1916 Jesse Washington lynch-burning, speak volumes about the endemic dehumanisation in the minds of lynchmobs towards their victims. BTW, have you ever come across any newspaper articles on the 1921 Tulsa race riot ? If so, were the newspaper comments at that time pretty much the same as contained in previous articles ?

The Tulsa Race Riot is an amazing thing. Virtually all records of it were expunged at all levels - local and state. Contemporary Tulsa (white)newspapers mentioning the events were removed from libraries and would not be released by their publishers for many years. Those few contemporary articles that I've seen pretty much took the tack that the black population deserved what they got because of the alleged sexual molestation incident although it was not stated in as crude a manner as the pictures and postcards you describe. From my (very limited) understanding, what white Tulsans did to the Greenwood district (a successful middle-class black business and residential neighborhood) rivals Kristalnacht, and the police were either powerless or unwilling to stop it. Violence was two-way however, and many blacks armed themselves and fought agressively to protect their lives and property. Within weeks of the riot it appears that Tulsa and Oklahoma got a huge case of official amnesia. There are few police records remaining. You can read university and highschool text books written as late as the 1970's which make absolutely no mention of the Tulsa riot - even though isolated rural lynchings are admitted and condemned. Most of what we know today comes from oral histories done in the last few years - and of course some of these these might be wrong. There remain rumors than hundreds of dead blacks were just dumped in the Arkansas River or buried in mass graves and that some whites even undertook "airstrikes" by flying planes over the neighborhood and droppping dynamite on people.

[robertp6165]

Unfortunately, a sadistic lynching in the Deep South would be considered business as usual by most blacks - and given US history rightfully so. A video of a modern lynching would probably not inflame black people any more than usual, but if the perpetrators were either acquitted or not executed then there'd be trouble. Now this might have a positive effect on the attitude of whites, many of whom are ignorant of the extent to which lynching was an ordinary event in many parts of the rural south and southwest and racism still alive and well in many parts of the south.

I'm sorry, but the South of the 1980s and 1990s is a vastly different place than the South which produced the lynchings of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There really has only been 1 "lynching" in the South in the past 20 years...the horrible dragging death of James Byrd a few years back in Texas...and the perpetrators of that heinous crime were given the death sentence. These were, by the way, the first death sentences ever given in the State of Texas to white men accused of murdering a black man. Indeed, I would daresay that there has been more of that going on...and to a significant degree more...in the North over the past few decades than in the South. White racist mobs have dragged people out of their cars and beat them to death with baseball bats (Boston, I believe) , chased black men into the path of speeding cars (Howard Beach, New York), ganged up on and murdered Asian Americans (Detroit, Michigan), etc. etc. That kind of stuff is vanishingly rare in the South anymore.

[eddie_falco]

Don't forget that historically there is probably more racism in the Northern states towards blacks. I read somewhere that in the 1920's, KKK membership in the state of Indiana was double that of Mississippi.

[Leo Caesius]

Do you folks have links for these accusations (regarding a higher incidence of racism in the North than the South)? I'm not accusing you of making things up, it's just best to back up such controversial statements with facts. Mind you, it's very dangerous to make generalizations on the basis of anecdotal evidence.

I've often heard people state that Boston is a racist city, on the basis of some highly-publicized busing riots that happened 30 years ago (this claim is repeated most often by people who have never even visited Boston)! Most people I know, notwithstanding their backgrounds, love the South, but I've yet to hear that racism is any less pronounced there than it is in the North today.

[Admiral Matt]

Well, I don't know about the North in general, but my own state, Pennsylvania, is the Klan's last big refuge in terms of membership.

[Brilliantlight]

Don't forget that historically there is probably more racism in the Northern states towards blacks. I read somewhere that in the 1920's, KKK membership in the state of Indiana was double that of Mississippi.


There was a much larger population in Indiana then Mississippi in the 1920s.

[zoomar]

[QUOTE=robertp6165]I'm sorry, but the South of the 1980s and 1990s is a vastly different place than the South which produced the lynchings of the late 19th and early 20th centuries..."

I agree completely. You will note I was talking mainly about black perceptions. The example of a "Deep South" lynching was merely a premise of the original poster. I also believe that, since the 1960's, the North and West is just as guilty (if not more so) of anti-black violence, and that in general race relations are better today in the Deep South than most other places in the US. It is also a fact that the KKK was just as popular and active in some northern and plains states in the 1920's - 1930's as in the South, and that the (WW2) wartime labor riots in Detroit and other Northern cities were basically anti-black riots caused by northern whites' fear and hatred of blacks moving north to work in war industries. These are not controverial statements - they are facts easily found in written histories and textbooks.

All that said, however, I would argue that many white Southerners still have a patronizing attitude to blacks which can be considered "racist". They are now modern, well-meaning, and non-hateful people who have learned their lessons well over the past 50-years and decided to live gracefully with the reality of black legal and political equality (a fact which has been made easier by the fact that southern blacks share much of their cultural conservatism) - but deep down probably still wish things were like they were in the good old days. I can say this because I am basically southern by culture myself and 30-years ago married into a huge old-fashioned Southern family where the words "yankee" can only be said with "damn" in front of it.

[robertp6165]

There was a much larger population in Indiana then Mississippi in the 1920s.

Yes, there was, but what does that prove...that Indianans were not more racist, but were AS RACIST, as Mississippians? I hardly see where that exonerates the people of Indiana.

[robertp6165]

Do you folks have links for these accusations (regarding a higher incidence of racism in the North than the South)? I'm not accusing you of making things up, it's just best to back up such controversial statements with facts. Mind you, it's very dangerous to make generalizations on the basis of anecdotal evidence.

I've often heard people state that Boston is a racist city, on the basis of some highly-publicized busing riots that happened 30 years ago (this claim is repeated most often by people who have never even visited Boston)! Most people I know, notwithstanding their backgrounds, love the South, but I've yet to hear that racism is any less pronounced there than it is in the North today.

Well, we need to make distinction between RACISM and RACIAL VIOLENCE/LYNCHINGS. Is racism still present in the South? Yes. Is it more prevalent there than in other parts of the country? No. Which part of the country is more prone to racial violence today? The North, without a doubt. A simple Google Search using the names Bensonhurst and Howard Beach...and that is just a couple of the more highly publicized incidents that come readily to mind...in conjunction with terms like "hate crime," "race riot", "beat to death" and "black man killed" ought to bring up a number of articles, giving you evidence of more "lynchings" in the North than have been committed in the South in the past 20 years.

[Brilliantlight]

Yes, there was, but what does that prove...that Indianans were not more racist, but were AS RACIST, as Mississippians? I hardly see where that exonerates the people of Indiana.

It doesn't, but it does mean that Indiana wasn't more racist then Mississippi. Eddie seemed to imply that.

[Leo Caesius]

Well, I seem to remember a rash of African-American churches targeted in the last few years by arsons. It seemed to me that most of the church fires occured in the deep South. So, I did some research:

Methodist Churches (http://gbgm-umc.org/advance/Church-Burnings/methstats.stm) attacked by Arsonists, 1990-2000:

16 in Pennsylvania (!)

14 in South Carolina, Texas

12 in Tennesee

11 in Alabama, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina

8 in Georgia

7 in Missouri

6 in Oregon

5 in Mississippi

4 in Arkansas

and isolated fires here and there around the country. I can think of few things more offensive than setting fire to a church, and this phenomenon seems to have occurred with some frequency throughout the South (however, I will grant you that Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Oregon prove that it is in no way restricted to that region).

[MerryPrankster]

The guy who set most of those fires was a self-proclaimed "missionary of Lucifer" who liked to sign people for deals w/ the Devil. He was motivated by anti-Christian prejudice, not racism.

[Leo Caesius]

The guy who set most of those fires was a self-proclaimed "missionary of Lucifer" who liked to sign people for deals w/ the Devil. He was motivated by anti-Christian prejudice, not racism.
While I don't doubt that these people aren't Christians (church arson being a rather definitively unchristian activity), it doesn't seem likely to me that one man was responsible for most of these fires, for obvious reasons. In that one list - specifically black Methodist churches - there were 163 churches set aflame in a period of 10 years, across 35 states. According to the National Coalition for Burned Churches (http://www.disasternews.org/disasters/1-5-01_church_burns.shtml) (NCBC), nearly 100 churches burned in the year 2000. This was a drop from 1999's 260 burnings reported - 100 in Texas alone, which has the dubious honor of being the state with the most church arson incidents. There were 249 church burnings in 1998, 299 in 1997, and 409 in 1996, which was widely publicized as a crisis year for church burnings.

I'm very skeptical that one man could do so much damage, missionary of Lucifer or no missionary of Lucifer.

[MerryPrankster]

"I'm very skeptical that one man could do so much damage, missionary of Lucifer or no missionary of Lucifer."

That one man got arrested a few years back (around the time a Methodist Church in Georgia burned...my church helped them rebuild). If there's of this BS going on, then there's something bigger than a lone maniac at work.

[robertp6165]

While I don't doubt that these people aren't Christians (church arson being a rather definitively unchristian activity), it doesn't seem likely to me that one man was responsible for most of these fires, for obvious reasons. In that one list - specifically black Methodist churches - there were 163 churches set aflame in a period of 10 years, across 35 states. According to the National Coalition for Burned Churches (http://www.disasternews.org/disasters/1-5-01_church_burns.shtml) (NCBC), nearly 100 churches burned in the year 2000. This was a drop from 1999's 260 burnings reported - 100 in Texas alone, which has the dubious honor of being the state with the most church arson incidents. There were 249 church burnings in 1998, 299 in 1997, and 409 in 1996, which was widely publicized as a crisis year for church burnings.

I'm very skeptical that one man could do so much damage, missionary of Lucifer or no missionary of Lucifer.

Actually, there was a big investigation done of this issue a few years back. It was found that there was, in fact, no "rash of burnings of black churches." It appears that church burnings IN GENERAL are increasing, not black churches in particular. The idea that there is a "rash of black church burnings" has been promoted by those who have a liberal political agenda to promote. This hoax was exposed some time ago in an article in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. You can read the article at this link...

http://www.consumeralert.org/fumento/arson.htm

[robertp6165]

Well, I seem to remember a rash of African-American churches targeted in the last few years by arsons. It seemed to me that most of the church fires occured in the deep South. So, I did some research:

Methodist Churches (http://gbgm-umc.org/advance/Church-Burnings/methstats.stm) attacked by Arsonists, 1990-2000:

16 in Pennsylvania (!)

14 in South Carolina, Texas

12 in Tennesee

11 in Alabama, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina

8 in Georgia

7 in Missouri

6 in Oregon

5 in Mississippi

4 in Arkansas

and isolated fires here and there around the country. I can think of few things more offensive than setting fire to a church, and this phenomenon seems to have occurred with some frequency throughout the South (however, I will grant you that Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Oregon prove that it is in no way restricted to that region).

There are several things wrong with these statistics and how you are using them.

1) Those are not all black churches. It is a list of all Methodist Churches which have been burned, both black and white.

2) You only cite, with a couple of exceptions, states which are in the South. You ignored burnings in the non-Southern states of California, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Washington.

3) Only Methodist churches are listed. Methodist and Baptist Churches are by far the most common in the South. It is likely that the reason the South is over-represented on the list is that in Northern and Western States, other denominations are harder hit. I know that out west, a lot of Catholic Churches burn, for example.

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." The way you are using these well illustrates the point Twain was making in so saying.

[Brilliantlight]

Actually, there was a big investigation done of this issue a few years back. It was found that there was, in fact, no "rash of burnings of black churches." It appears that church burnings IN GENERAL are increasing, not black churches in particular. The idea that there is a "rash of black church burnings" has been promoted by those who have a liberal political agenda to promote. This hoax was exposed some time ago in an article in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. You can read the article at this link...

http://www.consumeralert.org/fumento/arson.htm

I agree with you here, some civil rights groups seem to think that the fact that there is racism left means that there has been no improvements. This will always show failure since there ALWAYS be some racism since there is no utopia on Earth.

[robertp6165]

I agree with you here, some civil rights groups seem to think that the fact that there is racism left means that there has been no improvements. This will always show failure since there ALWAYS be some racism since there is no utopia on Earth.

Well, BL, you and I don't agree on a lot of things. But I have to say it is always nice when we do. :)

[Brilliantlight]

Well, BL, you and I don't agree on a lot of things. But I have to say it is always nice when we do. :)

Utopianism (for want of a better word) is one of my pet peeves. IMO it has caused more political deaths then any other reason in the last 200 years. Communism and Facism are the two most famous branches of Utopiaism and they responsable for at least 100 million deaths.

[robertp6165]

Utopianism (for want of a better word) is one of my pet peeves. IMO it has caused more political deaths then any other reason in the last 200 years. Communism and Facism are the two most famous branches of Utopiaism and they responsable for at least 100 million deaths.

Again, totally agree.

[NapoleonXIV]

Utopianism (for want of a better word) is one of my pet peeves. IMO it has caused more political deaths then any other reason in the last 200 years. Communism and Facism are the two most famous branches of Utopiaism and they responsable for at least 100 million deaths.

How is Fascism Utopian in its outlook?

[Brilliantlight]

How is Fascism Utopian in its outlook?


Hitler was trying to make a Utopia for Germans. It was a VERY SICK utopia but it was one.

[Leo Caesius]

There are several things wrong with these statistics and how you are using them.

1) Those are not all black churches. It is a list of all Methodist Churches which have been burned, both black and white.
You neglect to mention that AME Churches are the largest single group within the list, and that it is safe to assume that the rest of the churches have African American congregations, as the people who gathered the data state elsewhere that they have focused primarily on Black churches.
Many, many more churches (both white and black) were burned during this period. Within a four year period (1996-2000), well over a thousand churches experienced arson attacks. Texas was the state with the largest number of arson incidents. These are indisputable facts. The 163 churches burned that I referenced are only a subset of larger arson incidents.

2) You only cite, with a couple of exceptions, states which are in the South. You ignored burnings in the non-Southern states of California, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Washington.
That's because those states had, in nearly all cases, only one incident of arson in ten years. If I had mentioned all of them the list would have been very long indeed. I cut things off (quite logically) at 3 or fewer incidences in 10 years, and mentioned this in my original post. By protesting that I didn't include the other ones, without mentioning the fact that all of them combined don't even equal the number of church fires in Pennsylvania, you are applying some serious spin.

Look, you can quibble with the facts as I've presented them, but they remain facts: during this period, well over a thousand churches were burned (the largest number in Texas, overall). Of this number, 163 black Methodist churches were burned during the period 1990-2000. Of these, the majority were in the south, although the phenomenon was by no means restricted there. Don't try to occupy the high moral ground here - previously you were offering nothing more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that the North was more racist than the South, so you've forfeited your right to protest that I'm somehow spinning the data.

[Melvin Loh]

Hey guys, got an interesting set of links to the issue of racism vis-a-vis white racism against blacks and vice versa- http://www.amren.com/9012issue/9012issue.html
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu12ee/uu12ee0o.htm#incidents%20of%20bias%20in%20new%20yo rk%20city
http://www.nycivilrights.org/about/begin.jsp
http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/rr00548.htm
http://www.th-record.com/1999/08/23/bensohur.htm

[Gedca]

[QUOTE=Leo Caesius]Do you folks have links for these accusations (regarding a higher incidence of racism in the North than the South)? I'm not accusing you of making things up, it's just best to back up such controversial statements with facts. Mind you, it's very dangerous to make generalizations on the basis of anecdotal evidence.
QUOTE]

According to DK Atlas of World History the following states had over 4% KKK mambership from 1914-41 (same years for all stats):
Oregon
Colorado
Oklahoma
Indiana

3-4%:
Texas
Florida

2-3%:
Kanasas
Lousiana
Georgia
Ohio

1-2%:
Washington
Nevanda
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
Arkansa
Missippi
Tennesse
Kentucky
West Virginia
Maryland
Delaware
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Connecticut
Maine

The following cities had over 10,000 KKK members:
Los Angeles
Portland
Denver
Dallas
Memphis
Atlanta
Chicago
Indianapolis
Detroit
Cincinnati
Dayton
Columbus
Akron
Youngstown
Pittsburg
Philadelphia
New York
Albany

The following cities had race riots:
Los Angeles
Tulsa
Detroit
Harlem
Elaine (in Arkansaw) ;)
St. Louis

States with over 300 reported lynchings:
Texas
Alabama
Georgia

Over 150 reported lynchings:
Arkansas
Loiuisiana
Missippi
Tennesse
Kentucky

So the KKK was somewhat more popular in the north and west while there were more lynchings in the south.

[Leo Caesius]

So the KKK was somewhat more popular in the north and west while there were more lynchings in the south.
That certainly is still true today. The Klan still has a heavy presence in places like Pennsylvania, Upstate NY, and Idaho. When I was a student at AUB, there was a guy by the name of Angevine who liked to go around reminding the Lebanese that his family used to own the ruined castles in the countryside.

According to him, his folk back in upstate NY were Klan. A really charming fellow. He avoided eating Lebanese food while he was there, prefering instead to dine at McDonalds and the Hard Rock Cafe. This was, in fact, his main claim to fame. Anyone who had eaten Lebanese food knows what a travesty this really is.

To be fair, he made it seem as if the Klan was an old-boy's network - not unlike the Masons - and wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. It reminded me of how some of my relatives used to go on about Vito Genovese. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe him now.

[robertp6165]

You neglect to mention that AME Churches are the largest single group within the list, and that it is safe to assume that the rest of the churches have African American congregations, as the people who gathered the data state elsewhere that they have focused primarily on Black churches.

Well, actually, no they don't say they are focusing primarily on African American Churches. The list you cited is the National Church Arson Registry, published by the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church. Nowhere does it say the list is only black churches, either on the page you cited or on any of the other pages of the website. And if you look at the list, the AME Churches do not make up a majority of them, nor are they the "largest single group." "United Methodist Churches" (the vast majority of UM churches are white congregations) are far and away the largest single group listed. The AME or other clearly African American churches listed are as follows...

--In Alabama, 2 out of 11.
--In Arkansas, 2 out of 4.
--In California (a state you did not list), 2 out of 3.
--In Florida, 2 out of 11.
--In Georgia, 1 out of 8.
--In Kentucky, 1 out of 3.
--In Louisiana, 1 out of 3.
--Massachusetts (another one you didn't list), the 1 church burned was African American.
--Minnesota (another one you didn't list), 1 out of 2.
--Missouri, 1 out of 7
--New Jersey (another one you didn't list), 2 out of 2...i.e. ALL listed.
--New York (another one you didn't list), 1 out of 2.
--North Carolina, 5 out of 11.
--Oklahoma, 1 out of 2
--Pennsylvania, 2 out of 16
--South Carolina, 9 out of 14
--Tennessee, 3 out of 12
--Texas, 1 out of 14

The church burnings in other States not listed above (for example, Mississippi) are not of identifiable African American Churches, so I do not list them here.

So once again, you are distorting the figures to prove a point that just isn't there.

Many, many more churches (both white and black) were burned during this period. Within a four year period (1996-2000), well over a thousand churches experienced arson attacks. Texas was the state with the largest number of arson incidents. These are indisputable facts. The 163 churches burned that I referenced are only a subset of larger arson incidents.

And there is a reason for this sudden increase after 1996, as mentioned in the Fumento article which I cited earlier. That is, the media coverage given to the specious claims of an epidemic of racially motivated church burnings led to 1) various agencies started keeping statistics of church burnings, which weren't being regularly kept beforehand; and 2) copycat burnings fueled by all the media hype. So what we have, in effect, is an artificial issue, artificially created by the media and promoted by left-wing activists for political and fund-raising purposes, not an actual problem.

That's because those states had, in nearly all cases, only one incident of arson in ten years. If I had mentioned all of them the list would have been very long indeed. I cut things off (quite logically) at 3 or fewer incidences in 10 years, and mentioned this in my original post. By protesting that I didn't include the other ones, without mentioning the fact that all of them combined don't even equal the number of church fires in Pennsylvania, you are applying some serious spin.

Well, as I just cited above, most of these that you did not cite have more than one. And the majority of the ones in these non-cited Northern States (unlike the ones in the Southern States) are African American Churches.

Look, you can quibble with the facts as I've presented them, but they remain facts: during this period, well over a thousand churches were burned (the largest number in Texas, overall). Of this number, 163 black Methodist churches were burned during the period 1990-2000.

No, 163 METHODIST Churches were burned. The great majority of them were not black, and you have given no evidence to show that they were. Only 38 can be clearly identified as black.

Of these, the majority were in the south, although the phenomenon was by no means restricted there.

Of the 38 clearly identifiable black churches on the list, 29 were in the South. I grant you that. But in each of the States where those burnings took place (except South Carolina), AME or other clearly identifiable black churches are a small minority of the total number of church burnings which occurred. And as I stated in another post, there is a very simple explanation that quite likely explains the over-representation of church burnings in Southern States. The list only cites Methodist Churches, and the Methodist Church is one of the two largest single denominations in the South. In other parts of the country, this is not true...other denominations hold that position. Therefore it makes complete sense that Southern States would figure more prominently on a list of burned Methodist churches than would States in other regions where Methodist Churches are not as prevalent. And in South Carolina, the only one which defies the pattern for Southern church burnings, blacks form a majority population in most of the State. So it makes sense that their churches will be more numerous, and therefore, more likely to be targeted.

Don't try to occupy the high moral ground here - previously you were offering nothing more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that the North was more racist than the South, so you've forfeited your right to protest that I'm somehow spinning the data.

Wrong on two counts. First, I did not suggest that the North was "more racist" than the South. I have no doubt that racism is as much alive and well in the South as it is anywhere else in the country. What I did say was that more "lynchings" (defined as violent attacks on racial minorities by groups of white racists) have occurred in the North than in the South over the past 20 years, which is a fact. And second, I offered no "anecdotal evidence" at all. I listed several incidents which were all HIGHLY publicized in the media at the time they occurred. As for "occupying the moral high ground," I have made no claim to doing so. But I also have not engaged in distorting statistics to prove my point, either. One can draw their own conclusions from that fact.

[Leo Caesius]

And there is a reason for this sudden increase after 1996, as mentioned in the Fumento article which I cited earlier. That is, the media coverage given to the specious claims of an epidemic of racially motivated church burnings led to 1) various agencies started keeping statistics of church burnings, which weren't being regularly kept beforehand; and 2) copycat burnings fueled by all the media hype. So what we have, in effect, is an artificial issue, artificially created by the media and promoted by left-wing activists for political and fund-raising purposes, not an actual problem.
As an aside, I will never understand why Right-wing types blindly accept anything originating in the media when it agrees with their preconceived views, but immediately begin with the allegations of "left-wing" bias the very moment they find something they don't like. A little consistency would be nice. I don't believe this is an artificial issue, I think that it is clearly indicative of a real problem, and certainly no one is benefiting from it.

Wrong on two counts. First, I did not suggest that the North was "more racist" than the South.
No, what you actually said was
Indeed, I would daresay that there has been more of that going on...and to a significant degree more...in the North over the past few decades than in the South. That kind of stuff is vanishingly rare in the South anymore.
and
Which part of the country is more prone to racial violence today? The North, without a doubt.
It will suffice to say that I think both those statements are incorrect. It is impossible to disassociate racial violence from racism. One is the physical manifestation of the other. You can't simply state, based upon two events, that racial violence is more prevalent in the North, and then distance yourself from the comment by saying that you never meant to imply that racism was more prevalent in the North. That's disingenuous. I've tried to provide evidence for my view, and all I'm hearing from you are quibbles about the format of the data I've presented. I would to say more but I don't think that this is the proper forum for it. If you'd like to continue this discussion we can start a thread in the Chat forum.

[MerryPrankster]

Darn it, let's get back on track.

Perhaps whoever is burning the churches videotapes themselves doing it, but then lose the camera (perhaps someone comes by and they run). The camera is found in the ruins (still-functioning...perhaps it's dropped outside) and, live on CNN, Fox News, NBC, ABC, etc, we've got live footage of a church-burning in progress. Let's make it a black church so it's more in line with the thread.

Now what?

[robertp6165]

I would to say more but I don't think that this is the proper forum for it. If you'd like to continue this discussion we can start a thread in the Chat forum.

I agree, it is off-topic, and have opened a thread in the Chat forum at your suggestion. I am at your service, Sir, if you desire to continue to joust on another field. ;)

[robertp6165]

Darn it, let's get back on track.

Perhaps whoever is burning the churches videotapes themselves doing it, but then lose the camera (perhaps someone comes by and they run). The camera is found in the ruins (still-functioning...perhaps it's dropped outside) and, live on CNN, Fox News, NBC, ABC, etc, we've got live footage of a church-burning in progress. Let's make it a black church so it's more in line with the thread.

Now what?

Well, that depends on what the video shows. If it shows a bunch of Klansmen or other white supremacists doing it, then Leo is vindicated, and I will humbly grovel at his feet in supplication and humiliation as I beg his forgiveness. :D

If it shows a black man doing it, that could be very interesting, and would be in line with some other things that have happened in the recent past, such as the highly publicized incident of the swastikas being painted on the doors of black servicemen at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. That incident, as you may recall, was much ballyhooed by the Clinton Administration as an example of increasing white racism (at the same time it was ballyhooing the ficticious church burning crisis as part of it's re-election campaign), but turned out to have been committed by a black serviceman intent on creating a racial scandal.

If the tape leads to the capture of a suspect, then it may turn out that his motives were anti-Christian rather than anti-black...or that he is simply a teenage vandal with nothing better to do with his time than create some mischief. That happens all too often in our decaying society today.

[Leo Caesius]

There are only four states today that have anti-lynching laws on their books: California, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. In three of the four states, the laws are not applied very often; in Virginia, for example, these laws had seen very little use until quite recently. On 13 August 2003, a group of sailors were charged with "lynching" a Filipino - in this instance, beating him to death outside of a Virginia Beach nightclub. Two of them were later convicted of the crime.

The only state that vigorously prosecutes lynchings to this day is South Carolina. In the last few years (since 1998), 4,000 people have been charged with lynching under the South Carolina law - resulting in 136 convictions. There's a twist, however - two-thirds of those convicted are Black. Clearly this was not anticipated by the original framers of the law. Nonetheless, it is clear that lynching, according to the legal defininition of the term, is far from "vanishingly rare" in the New South.

[robertp6165]

There are only four states today that have anti-lynching laws on their books: California, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. In three of the four states, the laws are not applied very often; in Virginia, for example, these laws had seen very little use until quite recently. On 13 August 2003, a group of sailors were charged with "lynching" a Filipino - in this instance, beating him to death outside of a Virginia Beach nightclub. Two of them were later convicted of the crime.

Interesting that the culprits in this particular crime were "sailors," I would assume from the nearby US Naval bases. That doesn't mean they were Southerners. They could have been from Boston or New York, you know, and just happened to commit their sordid crime in the South. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, we are now up to 3 confirmed lynchings now since 1980. Or it would be confirmed if you had provided a link...

The only state that vigorously prosecutes lynchings to this day is South Carolina. In the last few years (since 1998), 4,000 people have been charged with lynching under the South Carolina law - resulting in 136 convictions. There's a twist, however - two-thirds of those convicted are Black. Clearly this was not anticipated by the original framers of the law. Nonetheless, it is clear that lynching, according to the legal defininition of the term, is far from "vanishingly rare" in the New South.

The South Carolina lynching law defines "lynching" as any act of violence committed by 2 or more people against another, regardless of race. So non-fatal fist fights between drunks in bars...kids fighting (or even just pushing each other around) in school...cases of road rage where there is more than one person in the attacking car...drive by gang shootings where several gang members are in the offending car...are all counted as lynching under that statute. And it is still considered a lynching EVEN IF ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED ARE OF THE SAME RACE. The number of actual killings committed by groups of whites against single blacks (or other single minorities) is very small...practically non-existant. Indeed, despite an extensive search, I have yet to find evidence of a single one committed in South Carolina during the time period specified by the thread...1980 or later. There has been at least one case where a white was killed by a group of blacks, though.

An couple of interesting articles on that subject...

http://www.blackherbals.com/anti-lynching_laws.htm
http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=778

But since the topic of the thread was based on the more classic definition of lynching...i.e. white on black (or white on minority) group attacks involving a murder...I don't see how all this really affects my point.