Was Lynching Terrorism?

[BvBPL]

The Equal Justice Initiative is an organization that, among other things, reviews and records lynching incidents in America. The organization now refers to lynching of African-Americans as an act of terrorism.

Do you think that lynching was (is?) terrorism?

Do you think it is meaningful to classify lynching incidents as acts of terrorism?

Link.

 

[Cutlass]

Absolutely terrorism. The whole point to it was to, well, terrify, African Americans into not being willing to attempt to exercise their political rights. And so strip those people of liberty and property rights in the bargain.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Naturally, that brings us to the question what terrorism even is. I think regarding its use it mostly is a political buzz word. However, I am hopeful we can still salvage a useful definition.
Here is mine: Using partisan tactics against civilian targets in order to advance a political agenda.

Going by that my answer is: it depends. An angry mob is not a partisan tactic. It is an angry mob.
Planned covert attacks however may very well qualify.

edit: I don't think Cutlass' definition is very useful. Riot police uses terrorism, if terrorism simply means to use fear as a weapon.

 

[classical_hero]

It is possible to call it terrorism, but it was basically vigilante justice over perceived crimes committed, so they were taking the law into their hands. I do wonder if they will make a memorial to the white victims of the lynchings considering 1/3 of the victims were white, because the tried to make a difference and stop such lynchings.

 

[Leoreth]

It is possible to call it terrorism, but it was basically vigilante justice over perceived crimes committed, so they were taking the law into their hands.

You could say the same about the Charlie Hebdo attack.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think he refers to state's right, so his claim is probably a wee bit better.

 

[BvBPL]

Here is mine: Using partisan tactics against civilian targets in order to advance a political agenda.

I'm uncertain what "partisan tactics" means here, particularly in proximity to a question of politics. That said, murdering people in a falsity of justice for reasons related to skin color seems political to me.

It is possible to call it terrorism, but it was basically vigilante justice over perceived crimes committed, so they were taking the law into their hands.

I'm not sure that because something is vigilante in nature that the act is therefore not also terrorist.

Actually, I am sure. I am quite confident that an act can be simultaneously vigilante and terrorist.

 

[Leoreth]

I think he refers to state's right, so his claim is probably a wee bit better.

Then why the qualifier "perceived crime"? Also, by its very nature vigilante justice can hardly claim legitimacy from state laws.

 

[classical_hero]

No you can't. Many of the peole lynched were suspected of being criminals and were killed because of it. There was no crime being committed by the victims of the Charlie attack. The perceived crime was those written in the US penal code, like things such as murder and the like. Not the so called "blasphemy" since that wasn't in the French criminal code.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'm uncertain what "partisan tactics" means here, particularly in proximity to a question of politics. That said, murdering people in a falsity of justice for reasons related to skin color seems political to me.

Most of all partisan tactics means tactics designed for covert forces rather than a regular army.

 

[BvBPL]

Ah. The proximity to the political element appeared to indicate partisan as being related to political parties.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Oh lol no, sorry for the misunderstanding ^^

 

[kramerfan86]

Most definitely, highly public display like lynching was clearly went beyond mere hate crime, the goal was obvious to intimidate others.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Absolutely.

Next question.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I guess this thread will focus on the "felt" understanding of terrorism

 

[Borachio]

No you can't. Many of the peole lynched were suspected of being criminals and were killed because of it.

Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it.

There was no crime being committed by the victims of the Charlie attack.

Under sharia law, blasphemy is a crime. And drawing cartoons of the prophet is blasphemy.

The perceived crime was those written in the US penal code, like things such as murder and the like [and things like looking at someone in a funny way, or wearing a loud shirt, yes]. Not the so called "blasphemy" since that wasn't in the French criminal code.

What's the French criminal code got to do with the perceptions of jihadists?

 

[sophie]

No you can't. Many of the peole lynched were suspected of being criminals and were killed because of it. There was no crime being committed by the victims of the Charlie attack. The perceived crime was those written in the US penal code, like things such as murder and the like. Not the so called "blasphemy" since that wasn't in the French criminal code.

Oh? Really, I had no idea refusing to bow before whitey was a crime. Please, tell me more.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I guess this thread will focus on the "felt" understanding of terrorism

If this is directed at me, because I spoke categorically without providing a definition, then how about the following:

Murderous violence directed at members of some identifiable population by representatives of a group zealously convinced of its own righteousness, which violence is calculated, by aspects of the form that it takes (surprising, out-of-the-blue; spectacular) to intimidate other members of that identifiable population.

Riot police don't qualify because their efforts usually aren't murderous, because they're not acting zealously but in a measured fashion, etc.

You can press me to refine my definition by finding some borderline case that doesn't fit, but lynching ticks all the boxes.

 

[Azale]

No you can't. Many of the peole lynched were suspected of being criminals and were killed because of it. There was no crime being committed by the victims of the Charlie attack. The perceived crime was those written in the US penal code, like things such as murder and the like. Not the so called "blasphemy" since that wasn't in the French criminal code.

 

[sophie]

rec'd