The Long Term Economic Impact of Lynching.

[Timsup2nothin]

"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.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said "they" had appropriated the word.

 

[Hygro]

Because making it is a destructive red herring to a serious issue that still exists. The social construct that's allowing disproportionate amounts of people to be handled unfairly/shot/robbed/whatever is still a factor today and it's likely the factor that led to the lynching back then. It's never been okay, but it is absurd to claim that the lynching is the CAUSE of the issue. The cause of the issue is a society that accepts (to different degrees) unfair treatment of its minority populations or gross violence in the first place. US history doesn't really have a time period where it didn't happen.

If the goal is just to say that long-term oppression and violence of minorities has a negative impact on said minority groups, well okay, but that's not exactly rocket science.

The article doesn't actually tell us the paper makes a causal link, but also makes room for it to have a causal component. Okay here's my beef: you are denying the lynching itself can have causal agency as its own category. You are also doing right reminding us that the underlying cause of lynching could have described all of this. I would be surprised, however, if being afraid of mobs of your neighbors or strangers was not more terrorizing than other oppressions, even silent night assassinations with given warnings... ..an on down in types of murder, and then from murder to less-than-murder, all the way down until it cannot be oppression anymore.

But let's not stop there, let's consult the actual paper.

The paper doesn't prove the distinction you want to believe it is one way or another, but it does say that sudden changes in cotton prices that lead to a rise in lynching followed by a flight of black citizens away from the town and its labor market, thus giving white farmers a greater economic advantage. It might not be the lynching, but that seems to be a pretty literal and direct damn good guess for these demographic discrepancies.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I would be surprised, however, if being afraid of mobs of your neighbors or strangers was not more terrorizing than other oppressions, even silent night assassinations with given warnings... ..an on down in types of murder, and then from murder to less-than-murder, all the way down until it cannot be oppression anymore.

I don't think the hostility of those neighborhoods was in doubt though, regardless of method used. The underlying cause was/is too deep in this regard, though the most useful thing is how to actually root it out.

The paper doesn't prove the distinction you want to believe it is one way or another, but it does say that sudden changes in cotton prices that lead to a rise in lynching followed by a flight of black citizens away from the town and its labor market, thus giving white farmers a greater economic advantage. It might not be the lynching, but that seems to be a pretty literal and direct damn good guess for these demographic discrepancies.

It pushes my own point further though, that the problem was systemic which is also why it persists. Maybe I'm mistaken, but my interpretation from US history in this timeframe is that you had a lot more "writing on the wall" than lynching, wrt heavy discrimination and threats to one's continued existence. You had overt disparity in rights across the board.

I suppose you could attempt to make a case that this was done partially on some sick economic incentive, and not just systemic discrimination, and for some individuals at the time that was probably the case. It's hard to imagine a majority taking the "we're killing these guys to mess with prices" stance though, in most cases those were straight hate crimes.

 

[Hygro]

The paper is saying it the other way around: when prices are messed with they have incentive to kill more. The paper is also showing that the incidence of lynching and fleeing was likely a pretty direct, local, and short-term affair that happened to have its own longer term consequences.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The paper is saying it the other way around: when prices are messed with they have incentive to kill more. The paper is also showing that the incidence of lynching and fleeing was likely a pretty direct, local, and short-term affair that happened to have its own longer term consequences.

How local is local? It makes sense to run if you know your nearby community is so hostile.

But I certainly would agree that regardless of the cause for the crime, having it be a legit threat would have the long term consequences. I just don't want the discussion to lose scope; those lynchings happened for a (bad) reason that has been reduced, but not totally gone away. What exact crime manifests barely matters compared to the fact that it was open killing that the community did directly or overtly ignored.

I still believe that incited lynching for economic incentive to be relatively remote/unusual, regardless of direction. Large numbers of people aren't that well educated today in this country, it's hard to believe that most lynch mobs (which already profiles some nasty things about a person certainly, but not intelligence) would have the education and cold rationality to make that their motivation.