Was Lynching Terrorism?

[Gori the Grey]

Well that would only mean that generally policing and terrorism will be an indistinguishable mush in this case.

In before Tim

 

[Borachio]

I must confess that the sight of a policeman makes me slightly nervous.

I guess the sight of a terrorist would make me much more nervous. But I've never knowingly seen one.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sign me up with the camp that totes agrees it's always been terrorism. Only thing that's stuck in my craw on this one is some idiot that was on NPR on Friday spouting that lynching of blacks was indeed terrorism but since whites were lynched to "make whites feel safe" that wasn't terrorism. Which is idiotic.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Sign me up with the camp that totes agrees it's always been terrorism. Only thing that's stuck in my craw on this one is some idiot that was on NPR on Friday spouting that lynching of blacks was indeed terrorism but since whites were lynched to "make whites feel safe" that wasn't terrorism. Which is idiotic.

Yeah, insufficient flexibility of mind when it comes to defining the targeted group. Here's my definition again (which I again commend to the forum's awe-struck admiration for its precision and completeness and non-convolution):

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.

In this case, if you slot "blacks and their white sympathizers" in as the "identifiable population," you see how lynching can be an act of terror toward blacks and some whites, even if conducted by other whites.

 

[Borachio]

Do the Black Panthers and ANC qualify as terrorist organizations?

 

[Oruc]

Why were they lynching so many whites? They lynched over 1000 it was almost half the number of blacks they lynched. Seems counter productive.

 

[classical_hero]

Do the Black Panthers and ANC qualify as terrorist organizations?

The ANC crtainly had terrorism in it's history because it killed mainly blacks who didn't follow their ideology of the ANC by necklacing them. Google that term to see what a marvellous thing. I don't know much about the Black Panthers.

Why were they lynching so many whites? They lynched over 1000 it was almost half the number of blacks they lynched. Seems counter productive.

Because like the Blacks of South Africa lynched by the ANC, they were a thorn in the side of the lynchers. Many whites in the south found the practice abhorrent and tried to stop them from happening, thus costing them their lives.

@borachio, a slave that can be freed after 7 years isn't much of a slave. Clearly you don't have a clue about what the Bible teaches. The fact is that Wilberforce saw that the Bible doesn't teach man has control over other men to enslave them. You should ask Plotinus in his thread about that since you are ignorant of the issue.

 

[Flying Pig]

@borachio, a slave that can be freed after 7 years isn't much of a slave. Clearly you don't have a clue about what the Bible teaches. The fact is that Wilberforce saw that the Bible doesn't teach man has control over other men to enslave them. You should ask Plotinus in his thread about that since you are ignorant of the issue.

I'm not sure the slave himself would agree!

 

[Borachio]

@borachio, a slave that can be freed after 7 years isn't much of a slave. Clearly you don't have a clue about what the Bible teaches. The fact is that Wilberforce saw that the Bible doesn't teach man has control over other men to enslave them. You should ask Plotinus in his thread about that since you are ignorant of the issue.

I am indeed an ignoramus. Thank you so much for your insight into this issue.

I can tell that you read my relevant post in another thread with an almost endearing attention to detail.

But just in case, here it is again:

Of course, before long someone is sure to point out that "slaves" in the Old Testament often refers to indentured* labourers (selling themselves into slavery usually because of debt), who were supposed to be released from bondage after six or seven years, or at the Jubilee if this happened earlier.

This only applied to Israelites, though.

Non-Israelite slaves could be enslaved indefinitely and were to be treated as inheritable property.

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#cite_note-39

But, hey! let's see some fundamentalist bible literalist perform their usual mental gymnastics to either persuade themselves that slavery in the OT didn't mean slavery, or that slavery isn't as bad as some people would have you believe.

*As if indentured servants weren't slaves! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

During the late 17th and early 18th centuries poor children from England and France were kidnapped and sold into indentured labor in the Caribbean for a minimum of five years, but most times their contracts were bought and sold repeatedly and some laborers never attained their freedom

I'm not overtaxing your powers of comprehension am I, Mr Hero? I wouldn't want to do that. But given that I'm a simpleton, that just doesn't seem possible.

 

[JollyRoger]

@borachio, a slave that can be freed after 7 years isn't much of a slave.

Care to volunteer for 7 years of servitude?

 

[Berzerker]

Clearly you don't have a clue about what the Bible teaches. The fact is that Wilberforce saw that the Bible doesn't teach man has control over other men to enslave them. You should ask Plotinus in his thread about that since you are ignorant of the issue.

What was the advice Jesus gave slaves and their owners? It wasn't abolition

 

[Borachio]

Oh, now. That's far less clear. The only direct references to slaves in the NT is in Ephesians and Timothy, I think (though I may well be wrong).

Jesus talks a lot about servants, but it's not at all clear when he's talking about literal slaves, or indentured servants, and when he's talking metaphorically.

It's true though that Paul told a runaway slave to return to his master. (Again, I think. Honestly it's a long time since I looked into this. And I really can't be bothered to review it all for the sake of a casual chat on the internet.)

But that, iirc, was because the idea was to maintain the link between the master and slave (who'd become Christian) and more easily convert the master.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It was to send the message that others whites need to bow to whitey thus an extension of the terrorism committed against blacks in the named of trumped up vigilantism.

Did they have internalised negroidism?

Oh and why do we have to end up talking about the Bible in EVERY thread? Is this just what general conversation is like in America?

 

[Harv]

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.

I don't think we are that far apart on definitions.

The definition I have in mind is: Terrorism is a continuation of warfare by different means. That is a bit general. More specifically, the different means is to attack a civilian target using a false flag to gain access to that target.

Referencing the Clausewitz definition of warfare: War is a continuation of politics by different means, we can now replace "warfare" with politics, we now have the "in order to advance a political agenda" and suddenly the definition I use for terrorism is nearly identical to what is above.

The logic I have is there is a political agenda that does not have broad support. So we would resort to warfare, but we cannot win there. So we resort to terrorism to wear down the public will.

I also have to agree with the point that it is an over-used political buzz-word.

Going by that my answer is: it depends. An angry mob is not a partisan tactic. It is an angry mob.

The answer I have is not quite. I see it as a continuation of "justice" by a different means.

We have a justice system in this country. (talking about the USA) A suspect is arrested and charged with a crime and possibly separated from the public until there is a public trial. The suspect is tried and if found guilty, sentenced.

But many of us do not want justice out of the justice system. We want revenge. If we cannot get the result we want out of the justice system, then we will throw it out and install our own system.

So no. I do not call a lynching an act of terror. I call it what it really is: It is simply murder.

Also, I do not call the general practice of lynching terrorism. We can call it what it is. A group of people are robbed of their civil rights guaranteed according to the Constitution. This is injustice - oppression.

Planned covert attacks however may very well qualify.

I was trying to think of the word we use when we do it.

That's all I can think of for now. Corrections are welcome. Did I miss anything?

 

[BvBPL]

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.

I don't think you're using a proper definition of partisan here.

In most cases, a partisan unit is an irregular unit operating in an occupied territory.
More broadly, a partisan unit may be one using guerrilla tactics behind enemy lines.

In either case, the partisan focuses on perceived state and military targets, not civilians. While the rules of engagement may be slightly looser for a partisan than a regular unit, but that doesn't mean the partisan is going to target civilian targets. Targeting civilians is not a "partisan tactic."

In contrast, the terrorist does target civilians intentionally (and possibly exclusively). The partisan and the terrorist have very different and distinguishable targets and rules of engagement.

Which brings up the broad use of war by Harv. A war is not merely the violent resolution of a political dispute. It is instead a series of engagement by militaries on multiple sides. Maybe towards a political end, but the important part here is that there are combatants on both sides. If you held a war and one side simply didn't militarize you wouldn't have a war. You might have something awful, something worse (or something relatively bloodless, like the Russian annexation of Crimea), but it wouldn't be a war.

Terrorism, with its focus on attacking civilian non-combatants, isn't war because the terrorist targets civilian targets.

I'm not sure that gets us any closer to the question of whether lynchings were or were not terrorism, but at least it helps to limn terrorism and call out those definitions that are inaccurate.

 

[Borachio]

I think you're confusing partisan as a noun with partisan as an adjective.

Yes, as a noun partisan refers to irregular military personnel.

But as an adjective, it has a much broader meaning: taking a particular line on, or having a vested interest in, something. Anything, really.

Now, it may be that Mr Seyton meant partisan in the sense that you're referring to (on reflection, I think he probably did), or maybe not.

edit: I decided to check my facts. Here's the dictionary definition:

partisan/ˈpɑːtɪzan,ˌpɑːtɪˈzan/noun
1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
2. a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in German-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in the Second World War.

- adjective
prejudiced in favour of a particular cause.

I think I was pretty close.

But I'm probably inhabiting a bubble all of my own.

 

[BvBPL]

Terx addressed the potentially confusing homonyms earlier to my satisfaction.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I realize. Don't mind me.

terrorism/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/noun
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

[Gucumatz]

Most definitely terrorism. Lynchings became public events too, bringing in the community in a them vs us mentality that systematically furthered social divisions.

Whats worse is in the US is this aspect of history is often skated over in school. A history teacher back in high school of mine used to complain that it was difficult to get any textbook that even mentioned lynching [We live in the south]. Since it was an IB school we ended up with a different textbook than most of the county/state, one much better and more elusive. I think it was good for students to see a picture of how barbaric lynchings were and I think every US student should be exposed to the historical reality which stuff like this was:

Spoiler :

 

[Borachio]

I don't know much about it. Though I'm agin it.

Most lynchings from the late 19th through the early 20th century were of African Americans in the South.[3][20] Other victims included white immigrants, and, in the Southwest, Latinos. Of the 468 lynching victims in Texas between 1885 and 1942, 339 were black, 77 white, 53 Hispanic, and 1 Indian.[21]

The murders reflected the tensions of labor and social changes, as the whites imposed Jim Crow rules, legal segregation and white supremacy. The lynchings were also an indicator of long economic stress due to falling cotton prices through much of the 19th century, as well as financial depression in the 1890s. In the Mississippi bottomlands, for instance, lynchings rose when crops and accounts were supposed to be settled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States