Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

You've made me afraid before, and you didn't even use the threat of a noose.
 

Are you saying "hate crimes" laws are something you oppose?
 

ER: "There is a festering guerilla (sic) ((couldn't help but do that)) war underway over race in this country. The front line is where fist meets face, or bullet meets flesh, or noose meets neck."

Children, children, children, and damn it I mean Children, don't even think that you know what that means. We came close and missed it by the skin of our teeth and that hate crime law is a relic of that time. If we were going to do that we would have done it 1964-72 when there were, fists, and bullets, and dogs, and fires, and crosses, murders, and skinnings, and M-60's mounted on jeeps at intersections all across Washington D.C.. It ain't going to happen. Not unless we let the upper class machiavellians drive a wedge between us. They are afraid of a Class war, better to start a "race" war or an "immigrant war" or better yet get the Jews and the Hispanics and the Blacks and the Homo's and the Crackers to start one among and between themselves.

I was in my 20's when the riots first broke out in the 60's and summer after summer were flamed by racial hatred and poverty and hopelessness. Then they (whoever was behind it all) killed JFK, and Malcolm X, and Medgar Evers, and RFK, and MLK, and scores and scores of less lights.
They burned Detroit, Watts,Chicago, D.C., NYC, and on and on, all with the tacit if not active approval for both sides by J. Edgar Hoover.
We came close.

The Symbionese Liberation Army tried to help start it, as did the Chicago Mayor Daily and his blue thugs, as did the Black Panthers, the revived KKK, The Weathermen and the likes of the Manson Family. They didn't accomplish it. Why, because we are America and we still believe in ourselves.

The ACLU will step in and defend that dumb drunken redneck from that enclave of racial dumbness. Most probably they will win and he will get off with a lessor sentence of trash picking a highway somewhere in an orange jump suit on Saturdays.

I've stood in the middle of this fight my whole life. I've still got a bullet hole in my kitchen window put there after an editorial in a local paper gave my name in a tirade (haven't ever mentioned that have I, ER). I've been called a Nigger Lover, a Lying Honky, White Bastard, Race Traitor, and the second most hated man in my State because I did stand there (most of those comments came from highly educated people by the way). It weren't much fun.

So don't get your dander up over dumb doing dumb to dumb over dumb down in Jenna.

And if you of all people don't know the power of words and symbols what the hell are you doing, doing what you do?

Your grumpy old castigator...drlobojo
 

Trixie: You sort of are backing my point. Sort of. I am intimidating. Make me illegal.

MA: I oppose "hate crimes" laws. I think it's wise to consider such things in sentencing. But I think they already do that, don't they?

DrLobo: I defer to your experience -- always. I do know the power of words and symbols. And the answer to the misuse of powerful words and symbols is to answer them with other powerful words and symbols. And I hope the ACLU does defend the stupid racist sonofabitch.

And, DrLobo: You lurched into eloquence there.
 

As someone who is greatly in favor of "hate crimes" laws, this incident, though disgusting, does not rise to the level of a hate crime as defined by nearly every hate crime law with which I'm familiar.

With hate crimes laws, an *actual* crime has to be committed (robbery, assault, murder, vandalism, etc.) in order for the "hate" motivation to be considered. That's also true, as far as I understand it of the current federal statutes.

In other words, the hate crimes legislation that has been proposed for LGBT people for example (and constantly opposed by so-called "law-and-order" conservatives) simply takes motivation into account in sentencing, it does not create a new class of crime, contrary to the misinformation and lies being spread by those same conservatives about these laws.

Frankly, I wonder if this story has been incorrectly reported, if there is information missing (what's the deal with the inciting a riot charge? Was there a riot?), and/or if the federal prosecutor is making a charge that can't stick for political cover.
 

Hi ER,
I think I agree with your view here. I am opposed to hate-crime legislation across the board. It is redundant legislation. Displaying a noose to a group of blacks, while stupid and insensitive, does not rise to the level of a crime. Using it does. Then the issues is murder, not a hate crime. Prosecute on that point. Hate crimes always seem to try to determine motives and the heart, that is not for man to determine. Our actions speak loud enough. Convict the action, not the motive.
Blessings
 

"Hate crimes always seem to try to determine motives and the heart, that is not for man to determine."

Actually our entire system of laws and sentencing is based on motive. We use motive as evidence to convict. And, once convicted, we use motive to determine sentencing. That's why there is a difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

"Convict the action, not the motive."

Actually we convict both, and Western law has done so for centuries.
 

Normally I am for free speech no matter how ignorant , stupid, or even obscene. But the noose does fit within the SCOTUS exception of "Yelling Fire! in a crowded theater". Thus inciting a riot is appropriate whether it actually happened or not. A judge would have to determine the degree of guilt there. I agree that it does not fit the spirit or probably even the law for a hate crime.

Hate crime laws are soft ground, to be tred on lightly.
 

First of all, I am all in favor of hate crimes legislation. We make distinctions on motive in criminal law all the time - the difference between homicide and manslaughter is a question of motive, to be proved in a court of law, as in hate crimes. If there is evidence of deep seated racial (or other) animus that can be proved in a court of law at the root cause of a crime, then, by God, use it.

The First Amendment is not absolute in criminal law, according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a ruling that still stands. In a case where an anti-WWI, anti-draft activist was arrested for sedition, Holmes, speaking for the court, said that speech that was incendiary, immediately incendiary, was not protected. This is his famous "fire in a crowded theater" test. Driving by a group of African-Americans during a civil rights action with nooses draped on one's vehicle certainly sounds incendiary to me, especially as the situation in question was already actively racially volatile.

By psychologizing the fear and intimidation, you miss the point of the intimidation. This isn't about some doofus in a rusty pick-em-up with a Stars-N-Bars in the back window and a couple nooses dandling out a window making a whole bunch of adult men and women suddenly flee for their lives. Whether you like it or not, or admit it or not - the history of race relations is centered on the noose as a tool of social control (I wrote about this on MLK day). This isn't about fear as an emotion, or primarily as an emotion. This is about fear as a system of social control. We are really not that far removed in time from the days when a black man would wind up getting photographed only after a whole bunch of white folks decided he had looked cross-eyed at a white woman, and his lifeless body, sometimes still bleeding from where he was castrated, hung from the hearest tree or pole. This is domestic terrorism. Period.

There is far too much history behind a white man brandishing a noose before a group of blacks, especially in the south, to be sanguine about it and dismiss it as the stupid act of a stupid person. This was a threat, a very real, existential threat, not just to the lives, but to the social well-being of a group of people actively participating in a lawful march for civil rights. Had this man sat on the side of the road and shouted obscenities, or racial epithets, or what have you, that would have been less of a threat, and rude, and probably embarrassing for him and those around him. But, it would have been protected speech. This, however, isn't, nor should it be.
 

Geoff,
I might agree if it had been a group of white men with a noose, and one black man. Yes, I agree that the history is in play. But it was ONE white man and a boy with a noose, doing so in front of a large number of black people. I don't see that as being a REAL threat.

Please, not trying to pick a fight, but just think this situation is not quite what you and others are saying as hate crime. If anything, it was one white man about to have his head handed to him on a platter. Again, it's stupid and insensitive, but I don't see it as a real threat.
 

Geoffrey, Amen. You articulated that very well. It's a wonder that in this day there are still people who would advocate, condone and protect such actions in the first place, not to mention the academic aspects of the discussion.
What purpose could there be to such an action other than to incite or, as you said G., make an effort towards social control.
Bullyism isn't cool at any level. When it comes to the nooses, well, you just can't make that right.
 

I think the prosecutor thought he had to do something, and this 18-year-old was the only one he could successfully indict.

I think that prosecuting this as a a hate crime will do more harm than good for the cause -- not that I'm for the cause. But it will be seen as overkill, and overkill always causes a backlash.

And I'm not even thinking about this as a free speech issue. Didn't even occur to me to defend him on those grounds. (Not defending the action itself!)

He denied the group of their civil rights? How? Did he stop them from their protest? Did he even say anything to them? Did he drive onto private property, or was he on a public street or roadway?

These are important questions, and I don't have the answers to them.

"What's the difference in what he did and pointing a loaded gun at someone?" Dr. ER asked.

"The noose wasn't loaded. If it had been, it would've had a neck in it, and that would've been a clear crime. An empty noose is a rope."

There was no crime here. Only hate. And that's not a hate crime.

This is another example of how a symbol means different things to different people -- and can be MISUSED.

A noose used to represent law and order, on the frontier. Yes, in other contexts, it represents a lynching. Awhile, a big golf course in Oklahoma got into a shitstorm over a noose that had hung in a tree for years, near a hole where most people "choked." That was bullshit, too.

Rambling here. But as one who intimidates people with his mere large, stern presence sometimes, I believe that intimidation is in the hands of the alleged victim. You might feel intimidated. But I cannot intimidate you.

Again, here: No crime, only hate, and that's not a hate crime.

Reasonable people can disagree, of course.
 

I hope y'all understand that I am not defending the action. I am saying that chasging this young man with a hate crime cheapens the concept of hate crime; and that charging him with violating the blacks' civil rights is ludicrous.
 

In reference to ER's last comment, to repeat myself, that would only be true if there wasn't a long, loaded history of whites using the noose as a method of social control. It cannot, and the act speaks volumes - regardless of the numbers involved on each side (to reference Timothy's objection). There are centuries of violence, death, and near-genocide behind that simple gesture. The reality is very different from the perspective of an African-American than others. We have the luxury of not having that history against us. I think we should listen, and in listening, learn.
 

Do you mean this?

"charging him with violating the blacks' civil rights is ludicrous."

What rights were violated?
 

Sorry, but you have not (and not sure you can) convinced me that a noose in this context could be construed in any way to be "just a rope." No. A rope that's just a rope is not tied in a fashion that can be placed over someone's head for the purpose of causing death. It's like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" in the context of a 4-year-old who takes a loaded pistol to school in his backpack. There's just no good spin you can put on this that would neutralize the implied threat of a noose in this context. That golf course comparison is just some stupid thing -- that I can give you as a non-threat, albeit stupid.

I don't think you can remove this "symbol" from the context. That yahoo didn't have that noose with him in that circumstance to show his skills at calf-roping.

I can climb higher on this soap box. Wanna see? I can get as tall as you! ;^)
 

What rights were violated? The right to peaceable assembly, for one. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

Come on. That's almost akin to saying Rosa should have been glad to have any seat on the bus because the back gets there at the same time as the front.
 

I don't know the circumstances of their assembly, and I don't know, as I said, whether the dumbass was on public or private property, which is important. He. Has. Rights. Too. Rights clash. (I wonder if the indictment is online? Might answer a lot of questions.)

He had the electric cord fashioned into a nmoose attached to the left side of the back of his truck. Probably a reference to the guy dragged behind the truck in Texas several years ago, but maybe not.

I accept that he meant to piss them off, and maybe even to make them afraid. I actually don't know enough about the circumstances to have an opinion as to whether it was illegal or not.

Pursuit of happiness? Then my boss violates my rights when work comes in unexpectedly and I have to cancel a dinner date with my wife, or anyone else.

Rosa Parks? Non sequitur.

:-)
 

Is not.

A noose would not have the same social impact on a white gathering. In a black gathering, cracker with a noose is a threat. Because of race and the history that goes along with it here. Same reason the bus seat was an issue. Context of race and threat.
 

Then, are you saying there is no equal protection under the law? Sounds like it.

Still don't see any connection at all to Rosa Parks legally.
 

So it would be OK to strap a phony bomb on your chest, walk into the nearest Starbucks and expect NOT to get into trouble? After all, it can't actually hurt anyone, it's just a symbol.
 

Nope. And I didn't say what the stupid redneck did was "OK." I say charging him with the crimes he's been charged with is overkill.
 

I agree with you that I fail to see the actual crime being perpetrated here that you could elevate to a hate crime. Hating while driving drunk? But here's the thing: not many crimes are prosecuted as hate crimes because it's tough to make that case. The guy had a clear symbol of domestic terrorism dangling from the back of his pickup. Maybe the prosecutor just got a little excited. It probably will go nowhere.

I'm actually more interested in the fact that anyone picked this stupidity up when it took more than a year for anyone in the media outside of the African-American media and bloggers to even touch the Jena 6 story (http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4454). So what does THAT tell us about the images at work?

And by the way, your place in the world determines whether or not being afraid is a choice. One of the things that I've learned in theological education is to consider my position in the world and what rights and privileges it gives me, and whether or not I want to claim them, or if they're better relinquished in the name of justice. A world where there are people who are not safe means I'm not safe, either. We're either all safe, or none of us are.
 

"Nope. And I didn't say what the stupid redneck did was "OK." I say charging him with the crimes he's been charged with is overkill."

No, what you said was that the noose wasn't loaded. It's just a symbol. So, apparently it should be completely legal to walk into a Starbucks with a bunch of phony TNT strapped to your chest -- after all, it's just a symbol. And you, sitting there drinking your latte in that Starbucks, well if that intimidates you, that's your fault, according to what you've said so far.

You don't really believe this nonsense you're writing, do you? ;)
 

Oh.

Well, a noose hanging from the tailgate of a moving pickup cannot possibly be mistaken for a noose ready to be used to hang someone, in the same way that fake dynamite would be mistaken for dynamite ready to blow people up.

Bad comparison.

The noose(s) on the pickup was/were a symbol because nooses were what the whole dang thing in Jena was all about in the first place, AND because of the manner in which the noose(es) was/were displayed -- as a symbol, not as a rope ready for a neck.

People seeing a noose from the back of a truck, in such a situation, could be expected to be pissed, offended, upset -- not intimidated, in my opinion. People seeing dynamite, fake or real, strapped into someone in a Starbucks would not be intimidated; they'd be scared shitless.
 

"Well, a noose hanging from the tailgate of a moving pickup cannot possibly be mistaken for a noose ready to be used to hang someone, in the same way that fake dynamite would be mistaken for dynamite ready to blow people up.

Bad comparison."

Nope, completely reasonable comparison. You talked about a symbol. It's just a symbol according to you. Neither a noose hanging in a speeding pickup, nor a bunch of fake TNT can be used to hurt anyone. You don't get to change the idea, just because of ease of use. Clever rhetorical trick, but that wasn't your original argument. :)

"People seeing dynamite, fake or real, strapped into someone in a Starbucks would not be intimidated; they'd be scared shitless."

But as you've said, it's their fault that they're intimidated, and/or scared.
 

Alan, ol' buddy, this movie quote comes to mind, by the lovely Pearl Smooter in "Sweet Home Alabama":

"Now don’t go accusin' me of thinkin'. I haven’t done anything of the sort."


I don't believe, unless I announce it ahead of time, that much of anything I say around here is an "argument." I'd call it spoutin' off. I've said the same to the righties whose panties I wad; so, same to you. :-)

I write complete thoughts and cogent articles and essays for a living. I do not always do so here. Here, I think as I type, not before.

So, claim the pelt if you want. It don't make me no never mind.

In other words: Don’t go accusin' me of makin' an actual argument -- I haven’t done anything of the sort.
 

So does that mean you're admitting you're wrong? :)
 

No. It means I'm trying to walk away from a heated discussion that is real damn close to becoming one more angry shouting match and insult fest.

Let me.