The Long Term Economic Impact of Lynching.

[ParkCungHee]

To the best of my knowledge not a single individual currently holding a high paying job has ever been lynched.

That is certainly not the case. One of the important factors that probably played a strong part is that lynching was a tool of economic disenfranchisement as well.

The image we have of lynchings targeting exclusively vagrant, entirely disempowered people is in part a legacy of the language used to defend lynchings.

There certainly was a black middle class in the south, and they were certainly not immune to lynching. And the law would certainly not protect the legal inheritance of the victims of lynching.

Any black man that looked like a good, or inviting target could have his property stolen, or he could be lynched and then his property would be stolen.

 

[Cutlass]

Basically are they saying crime doesn't pay?

In this case crime did pay. People raised their incomes through the murder of others.

 

[Borachio]

That is certainly not the case. One of the important factors that probably played a strong part is that lynching was a tool of economic disenfranchisement as well.

The image we have of lynchings targeting exclusively vagrant, entirely disempowered people is in part a legacy of the language used to defend lynchings.

There certainly was a black middle class in the south, and they were certainly not immune to lynching. And the law would certainly not protect the legal inheritance of the victims of lynching.

Any black man that looked like a good, or inviting target could have his property stolen, or he could be lynched and then his property would be stolen.

I understand what you're saying, but I fear you've misunderstood Mr Nothin.

He said that no one currently holding a high paid position has ever been lynched. Which is literally true.

But then, of course, no one currently holding a low paid position has ever been lynched either.

It is a bit of a truism to say that no one currently alive has ever been lynched, though.

Well, not successfully lynched, I suppose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To the best of my knowledge not a single individual currently holding a high paying job has ever been lynched.

Sorry, red diamond, momentary outburst.

More seriously.

The concept of the 'rags to riches' story is a perpetuated beneficial myth among those with money. Almost everyone with significant money knows that their money was built on a generational base. By maintaining a widespread belief in the R2R myth the number of families actively pursuing generational planning is minimized, which makes said planning far more effective for those who do pursue it.

Since I strongly believe this, it would be absurd for me to think that people who come from ancestry that has been exposed to severe hardship in fairly recent generations are on an even footing with people who don't.

Yes, but my argument is that the lynching/recent crime is a symptom of the inequality. People aren't held out of high paying jobs because someone related to them was lynched, but due to the same discrimination that led to the lynching.

Severe hardship from a disaster has long-term implications, but severe hardship due to uneven social norms is systemic. It's a mistake not to distinguish these two things. Discrimination is different from a drought...it's pretty hard to get rid of it using water.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, but my argument is that the lynching/recent crime is a symptom of the inequality. People aren't held out of high paying jobs because someone related to them was lynched, but due to the same discrimination that led to the lynching.

Severe hardship from a disaster has long-term implications, but severe hardship due to uneven social norms is systemic. It's a mistake not to distinguish these two things. Discrimination is different from a drought...it's pretty hard to get rid of it using water.

I was in no way implying that there is not continuing systemic inequity. This is not an either/or thing. I was just providing my "yes" answer to the question of whether lynching, in itself, has long term economic consequences.

Spoiler :

By the way, it isn't necessarily easy to solve a drought by 'just add water'. If the cause of the drought is a policy of 'develop until all water sources are consumed' then adding water allows more development, but the drought remains the same.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I was in no way implying that there is not continuing systemic inequity. This is not an either/or thing. I was just providing my "yes" answer to the question of whether lynching, in itself, has long term economic consequences.

Spoiler :

By the way, it isn't necessarily easy to solve a drought by 'just add water'. If the cause of the drought is a policy of 'develop until all water sources are consumed' then adding water allows more development, but the drought remains the same.

1 lynching doesn't lead to long-term economic consequences. It's the fear of that kind of treatment on a wide scale altering how populations act that leads to long term economic consequences, generally quite brutal too even on the $$$ side. Wealth gets congregated, but in aggregate there is less because you are driving away resources. Do that enough, and even those with concentrated wealth wind up behind where they would have been in a good environment.

Nations have stagnated themselves on that pattern. Heck, regions of the world have done so. The reason hasn't been racial in every case (could be religious, could just be a dictator nationalizing assets, or just wide-scale destruction of people or property from war), but driving out/relocating/limiting loads of human capital places a burden on society in numerous ways (loss of the resource directly, adjusting for the change to multiple regions, loss of innovation and incentive driven by more competition you'd have had with a better pool of human capital, tension/uncertainty impacting investments, the works). History has seen this in most regions of the world.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

1 lynching doesn't lead to long-term economic consequences.

I snipped everything I agreed with...which as you can see was almost everything that you said. Even this I agree with, in terms of the wealth of nations and other macro-economic considerations.

From a micro-economic perspective though, this one line is inaccurate, to say the least.

It is fair to assume that a lynching qualifies as 'unexpected death prior to end of productive span'. Lynching or not, that impacts generational earning potential, at least, so the family has lost earnings that could have contributed to accumulation and fallen a generation behind similar family units. There is no 'making that up,' even if a future generation is wildly successful. It can always be argued that the successful generation would have accomplished even more had it started with a greater base.

It could be argued that if the lynching occurs after the victim has ceased being productive that it reduces the generational expenses of the family unit and was therefor a benefit; purely from the micro-economic perspective of the particular family entity.

 

[Hygro]

1 lynching doesn't lead to long-term economic consequences. It's the fear of that kind of treatment on a wide scale altering how populations act that leads to long term economic consequences

Now, connect them dots. What's the best way to instill a fear of being lynched for being too successful or bold?

 

[jackelgull]

Now, connect them dots. What's the best way to instill a fear of being lynched for being too successful or bold?

lynching successful and bold people

Do I get a prize?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do I get a prize?

Moderator Action: Please ensure your posts are making more of a contribution to an RD thread. Image-only posts are generally not okay.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Now, connect them dots. What's the best way to instill a fear of being lynched for being too successful or bold?

I ask you to connect the dots in reverse. When you ask yourself "was this lynching done by a deranged psychopath that the community is trying to hunt, or is the majority in this community not going to see this behavior as such and look the other way", one is a LITTLE bit more likely to make you start to think you and your family might have markedly better odds elsewhere.

It is fair to assume that a lynching qualifies as 'unexpected death prior to end of productive span'. Lynching or not, that impacts generational earning potential, at least, so the family has lost earnings that could have contributed to accumulation and fallen a generation behind similar family units. There is no 'making that up,' even if a future generation is wildly successful. It can always be argued that the successful generation would have accomplished even more had it started with a greater base.

I can't say I disagree with this. Even accidental death inside a family unit can have a lasting impact (both emotional and $$$) to a family unit, it usually does. I was thinking along the lines of the implications of the OP articles (which took a macro view of this), but it's accurate to say that losing someone this way is devastating to the family itself in many ways. I would argue, however, that this income variance will not be materially different between a lynching versus simple armed robbery --> shooting death or getting flattened by a drunk driver.

It could be argued that if the lynching occurs after the victim has ceased being productive that it reduces the generational expenses of the family unit and was therefor a benefit; purely from the micro-economic perspective of the particular family entity.

You could I guess, but humans aren't computers, it's hard to predict the impact this has on productivity and emotional well being of the other members of the family. I made my argument earlier thinking in terms of the macro scale, where systemic hate crime is quite distinguishable from other forms of accidental (or intentional, but indiscriminate) death. On the micro level, losing someone is still among the most awful experiences one can possibly endure.

 

[Hygro]

I ask you to connect the dots in reverse. When you ask yourself "was this lynching done by a deranged psychopath that the community is trying to hunt, or is the majority in this community not going to see this behavior as such and look the other way", one is a LITTLE bit more likely to make you start to think you and your family might have markedly better odds elsewhere.

The reverse dots would be that fear of being successful leads to lynchings which leads to the desire by the lynching side to wish to instill a fear.

So what are you saying? That the lynchings were done by a deranged psychopathic minority that the majority sought to prosecute? No, that'd be crazy. So it's the latter: the power-majority community endorsed the lynchings.

So lynchings cause a fear of lynchings, right?

We don't need to argue that, right?

Then we can almost finish with your quote here:

1 lynching doesn't lead to long-term economic consequences. It's the fear of that kind of treatment on a wide scale altering how populations act that leads to long term economic consequences

Which means we have drawn a causal link between lynchings and long term economic consequences.

Indeed, I'm only giving your own case back to you, only without the added "but the lynchings didn't cause the economic problems" you tack on the end to contradict your own argument.

I would argue, however, that this income variance will not be materially different between a lynching versus simple armed robbery --> shooting death or getting flattened by a drunk driver.

Unless you think that people avoid seeking riches due to fear of getting flattened by a drunk driver, you would also argue the opposite:

1 lynching doesn't lead to long-term economic consequences. It's the fear of that kind of treatment on a wide scale altering how populations act that leads to long term economic consequences

 

[Cutlass]

I ask you to connect the dots in reverse. When you ask yourself "was this lynching done by a deranged psychopath that the community is trying to hunt, or is the majority in this community not going to see this behavior as such and look the other way", one is a LITTLE bit more likely to make you start to think you and your family might have markedly better odds elsewhere.

Much of the lynching was done by, or with the collaboration of, the local cops and leading citizens.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The reverse dots would be that fear of being successful leads to lynchings which leads to the desire by the lynching side to wish to instill a fear.

So what are you saying? That the lynchings were done by a deranged psychopathic minority that the majority sought to prosecute? No, that'd be crazy. So it's the latter: the power-majority community endorsed the lynchings.

So lynchings cause a fear of lynchings, right?

We don't need to argue that, right?

Sigh. Read through the arguments please. My claim is that 1 isolated case of murder with that method isn't worse than any other, and that what causes problems on the macro scale is when it happens systemically. I have also already stated that it happening systemically is the root issue.

Which means we have drawn a causal link between lynchings and long term economic consequences.

No more so than you have drawn a causal link between murder and long term economic consequences on the macro scale.

Much of the lynching was done by, or with the collaboration of, the local cops and leading citizens.

I'm aware, and this is why people were fleeing, not because the murder method was lynching. If people were flattened by vehicles or stabbed routinely as part of the most common hate crimes rather than lynched, the economic impact would be very similar. This suggests that systemic hate crime and discrimination (alongside people getting away with doing it), not lynching specifically (thread title), is the issue.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

TMIT...it seems like you are answering the question: Is there something genuinely unique about lynching, economically speaking? I don't see where that is the question.

Yes, the effects of lynching are in every aspect comparable to the effects of other forms of murder that have a comparable terrorist aspect.

Yes, I even said in commenting on the micro-economic aspects that ultimately lynching was in effect just unexpected death during productive span.

Yes, Hygro is acknowledging that the mechanisms by which lynching impacts macro economics long term are the same mechanisms you are pointing to.

I just don't get why you seem to be committed to having anything that involves intermediate mechanisms treated as if the incident lynchings are then not at cause for the results unless absolutely nothing else could or would affect those mechanisms. Or that results associated with any murder somehow don't count as results that fit the initial topic of lynching based just on their generality as opposed to being somehow specific to lynching. Am I missing something here?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I just don't get why you seem to be committed to having anything that involves intermediate mechanisms treated as if the incident lynchings are then not at cause for the results unless absolutely nothing else could or would affect those mechanisms. Or that results associated with any murder somehow don't count as results that fit the initial topic of lynching based just on their generality as opposed to being somehow specific to lynching. Am I missing something here?

What bothers me about both the OP title and the focus of the article is the emphasis. Lynching where a community looks away doesn't happen in a vacuum; communities didn't start targeting a minority group for lynching on the sole basis that lynching previously existed. Therefore, I assert the long-term economic issues in question (the macro issues in the OP) are caused *more specifically* by the fact that communities were/are willing to allow disproportionate crime against a minority group, and that it's a mistake to focus on one type of crime because it doesn't capture the whole picture.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What bothers me about both the OP title and the focus of the article is the emphasis. Lynching where a community looks away doesn't happen in a vacuum; communities didn't start targeting a minority group for lynching on the sole basis that lynching previously existed. Therefore, I assert the long-term economic issues in question (the macro issues in the OP) are caused *more specifically* by the fact that communities were/are willing to allow disproportionate crime against a minority group, and that it's a mistake to focus on one type of crime because it doesn't capture the whole picture.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The phrasing of this as a crime that authorities looked away from misrepresents and simplifies lynching.

Lynching was an active policy pursued by government authorities.

If Lynching can't be talked about as a driving economic force, you're basically engaging in determinism to such a degree that economic policies can't have economic impacts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The phrasing of this as a crime that authorities looked away from misrepresents and simplifies lynching.

Lynching was an active policy pursued by government authorities.

If Lynching can't be talked about as a driving economic force, you're basically engaging in determinism to such a degree that economic policies can't have economic impacts.

I think you are appropriating the term lynching and applying it in an exclusive manner to a particular set of lynchings that occurred in a particular period and region. "String him up" has been a part of "frontier justice" since man invented rope, and still is.

 

[ParkCungHee]

"Lynching" as a verb has only existed since 1838. In common parlance and from context, it is easily understood which particular region and period of hangings it refers to.