NationStates Jolt Archive

Today in my Civil Rights class, we talked about the defenition of Lynching. We are reading this book "The Lynching of Emmit Till" and from page 20-23, it talks about the diffrent defenition of Lynching. The NAACP states in the book that Lynching is when a white man (or group) kills a black man (usually by hanging). However a writer for a newspaper in Missipi (I think) states that the NAACP is just using that defenition to incite people, to get them all excited and stuff.

So, what do yall think? Is the defenition of lynching used by the NAACP the right one, or was the writer right, that they only used that defention to incite people.

Personally I would have to agree with the writer, and as for the defenition of Lynching, this is what Dictionary.com has to say.

Lynching

n : putting a person to death by mob action without due process of law
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

That is the defenition I agree with.

Today in my Civil Rights class, we talked about the defenition of Lynching. We are reading this book "The Lynching of Emmit Till" and from page 20-23, it talks about the diffrent defenition of Lynching. The NAACP states in the book that Lynching is when a white man (or group) kills a black man (usually by hanging). However a writer for a newspaper in Missipi (I think) states that the NAACP is just using that defenition to incite people, to get them all excited and stuff.

So, what do yall think? Is the defenition of lynching used by the NAACP the right one, or was the writer right, that they only used that defention to incite people.

Personally I would have to agree with the writer, and as for the defenition of Lynching, this is what Dictionary.com has to say.

That is the defenition I agree with.

Yep same here.

Yep same here.

I actually think the defenition that the NAACP used was counter productive.

I also agree.

I might add that also in spanish the word "linchar", the exact translation of lynching, means death by mob.

"Putting a person to death by mob action" is probably more correct but the word has a special meaning in the US South, which is where the NAACP definition comes from. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormons, was a white man and he was lynched by the white citizens of a town in Illinois back in the 1830's or 1840's. But really, in the context of the United States from 1865 on, "lynching" does mostly mean the execution of a black man by a mob of whites.

That dictionary.com definition looks like the right one. Race is unimportant when it comes to lynching; the idea was around before there were white people hanging black people over here in the South.

"Putting a person to death by mob action" is probably more correct but the word has a special meaning in the US South, which is where the NAACP definition comes from. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormons, was a white man and he was lynched by the white citizens of a town in Illinois back in the 1830's or 1840's. But really, in the context of the United States from 1865 on, "lynching" does mostly mean the execution of a black man by a mob of whites.

Well let's also considered that the lynching of blacks happened in the North too, not just the South. However, even before the US there were thousands if not millions of lynchings! To try to make a specific time period and try to cram a broad statement into it, is folly and doesn't speak of reason.

I am surprised that the definition used was so badly defined....meaning only white on black...which is clearly preposterous...

I think we are all in agreement then by the looks of things so far...

i disagree with the dictionary.com definition.

seems to me that if its a mob who hangs someone who would have been hanged with due process of law, its vigilanteeism.

lynching is when a mob hangs someone for an "offense" that would never be punished with the death penalty, most often for an offense that isnt against the law at all. as in when a black man is rude to a white woman on the street.

an additional aspect of lynching is the aim for social control of a group through organized murder. as was pointed out in the book "freakonomics", over the course of time the KKK stopped lynching people because the threat of it was enough to get compliance. the end aim of lynching black people was not to punish crime but to get ALL black people to behave in a certain way.

I am surprised that the definition used was so badly defined....meaning only white on black...which is clearly preposterous...

I think we are all in agreement then by the looks of things so far...

Give it time, and someone will always disagree.

i disagree with the dictionary.com definition.

seems to me that if its a mob who hangs someone who would have been hanged with due process of law, its vigilanteeism.

lynching is when a mob hangs someone for an "offense" that would never be punished with the death penalty, most often for an offense that isnt against the law at all. as in when a black man is rude to a white woman on the street.

an additional aspect of lynching is the aim for social control of a group through organized murder. as was pointed out in the book "freakonomics", over the course of time the KKK stopped lynching people because the threat of it was enough to get compliance. the end aim of lynching black people was not to punish crime but to get ALL black people to behave in a certain way.

There are plenty of stories of mobs lynching killers, robbers, etc, and are not defined by the racial boundry, how do you explain those?

Give it time, and someone will always disagree.

LOL!!!! Yer right! LOL

Well let's also considered that the lynching of blacks happened in the North too, not just the South. However, even before the US there were thousands if not millions of lynchings! To try to make a specific time period and try to cram a broad statement into it, is folly and doesn't speak of reason.

Probably did happen up north, and people have absolutely used mob violence against each other all through history. All I was pointing out is that the NAACP definition speaks to a specific historic context which has great meaning for black people in the US. I don't see as how the NAACP definition incites anyone to do anything more than remember some particularly shameful incidents in American history.

Probably did happen up north, and people have absolutely used mob violence against each other all through history. All I was pointing out is that the NAACP definition speaks to a specific historic context which has great meaning for black people in the US. I don't see as how the NAACP definition incites anyone to do anything more than remember some particularly shameful incidents in American history.

Yes, but it's still the wrong defenition.

I always thought that lynching specifically involved hanging, not just any form of mob justice execution.

There are plenty of stories of mobs lynching killers, robbers, etc, and are not defined by the racial boundry, how do you explain those?

vigilanteeism

the death of joseph smith, while not by hanging, is an example of using mob violence and murder as a way of controlling a group. the mormons were persecuted legally and illegally before their move into the wilderness of utah.

I always thought that lynching specifically involved hanging, not just any form of mob justice execution.

The image we have of it generally involves hanging, but what I thought set aside lynching from simple vigilante justice is that the victim of a lynching always dies. With vigilante justice, the victim could have some other punishment coming, such as being assaulted, being robbed, or even being mutilated, but unlike lynching, vigilante justice doesn't automatically imply death.

vigilanteeism

the death of joseph smith, while not by hanging, is an example of using mob violence and murder as a way of controlling a group. the mormons were persecuted legally and illegally before their move into the wilderness of utah.

and yet, when someone lynch a killer or thief, they aren't trying to control anyone, they're just trying to see justice done. Really, lynching and vigilanteeism are on diffrent side of the same coin.

here's a quote from a site about lynching. there is much more but i didnt get very far because it creeped me out

Lynching differs from ordinary murder or assault because it is a killing that is committed outside the boundaries of due process by a mob who enacts revenge for an offense. During the late 19th century, lynching frequently enjoyed the approval of the public. It is a practice that was committed, ostensibly, in the name of justice. But the motivations for these killings were alien to the themes of justice and honor.
Lynching became almost a necessary practice “that served to give dramatic warning to all black inhabitants that the iron clad system of white supremacy was not to be challenged by deed, word or even thought” (Friedman, p. 191) For all their suffering though, it would be incorrect to say that lynching was only used against blacks. Whites, too, suffered the rope, at times in greater numbers than blacks. Who became a victim had a lot more to do with where the lynching took place than the victim’s offense. In the Deep South[3], most often the victim was black. In the West, the victim was most often white. However, lynching, when used against African Americans, was utilized for reasons other than a form of substitute justice. That was just an excuse. As the noted psychologist William James (1842-1910) once wrote: “for all sorts of cruelty, piety is the mask” (Myers, p. 208).


http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/lynching/lynching_2.html

People of any coloe skin or indeed albinos of any race can be lynched. Mussolini was lynched. Wesley Everest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Everest) lynched on the first Armistice day. Neither was overtly black. i dont know why the NAACP chose to define lynching in that manner butI dont agree with their definition.

My personal definition (as if anyone cared) of what constitutes lynching does not completely agree with the one from the dictionary referenced either. I reckon a man can barely survive a lynching. A few of those who got tarred and feathered survived for years and even decades after while most died either on the spot or within a month. Same goes for the South Africans who had their hands tied and tires filled with gasoline placed around their necks and then ignited. All these people were still kynched in my book whether they died of it or not. I also think that mobs can and indeed do sometimes lynch dead bodies. For example if one man in a mob shot a person dead before the mob physically took possession of a victim then the victim would be assassinated rather than lynched, However if the mob then grabbed the dead body and hanged it and dragged it behind a truck and put the body on display in various poses or degrees of disgrace then it would once again count as a lynching.

Give it time, and someone will always disagree.

No, they won't.

and yet, when someone lynch a killer or thief, they aren't trying to control anyone, they're just trying to see justice done.

But in many cases the person the mob lynched may later be found to be completely innocent and hanged due to hysteria or racial hatred or both. A lynching mob isnt looking for justice, it is looking for a scapegoat.

and yet, when someone lynch a killer or thief, they aren't trying to control anyone, they're just trying to see justice done. Really, lynching and vigilanteeism are on diffrent side of the same coin.

thats why when you are watching a western and a bunch of men get together to ride after the bank robbers, they are vigilantes.

when they get together to punish an uppity black man or mexican, they are a lynch mob.

they are very similar things eh? mob justice is seldom justified. the kind that gets called lynching is never justified.

thats why when you are watching a western and a bunch of men get together to ride after the bank robbers, they are vigilantes.

when they get together to punish an uppity black man or mexican, they are a lynch mob.

they are very similar things eh? mob justice is seldom justified. the kind that gets called lynching is never justified.

Neither of them are justified, and they both deal with mob justice, so yes, they are very similar. To split hairs like you're doing is just silly.

i assume that the naacp considers lynching a white on black crime because in the US the vast majority of lynchings were to assert white control of the black population.

the crime is not limited to white on black however. nor is it only american. so i do disagree with the naacp definition but i would never let that blind me to the reality of the centuries of violence against black people in what is now the US.

FYI:
http://www.answers.com/topic/lynch-law

from the page:

lynch law
Origin: 1780

If we Americans think "the courts are slow, uncertain, and unduly sympathetic with the rights of the accused," as one author wrote in 1905, what do we do about it? Nowadays we petition our legislators for stricter laws and our courts and police for stricter law enforcement. Until recently, however, our nation was notorious for quite a different solution to the problem, one that avoided the law entirely.

Lynch's law, lynch law, or just plain lynching, as it is now known, had its birth on the Virginia frontier in the 1780s during the American Revolution. It was named either after Captain William Lynch of Pittsylvania County or after Colonel Charles Lynch of Bedford County. It could well have been named for both, because both men independently organized their neighbors to defend their property against outlaws and disgruntled pro-British Tories. Both Lynch organizations not only captured suspicious characters but gave them fair trials and punished them if convicted. The punishment at Charles's court was usually thirty-nine lashes.

As the frontier moved westward over the course of the next century, lynch law moved with it. At first, lynching sometimes meant bringing together the citizens of a community to hear a case and mete out punishment, and the punishment was rarely capital. But in the later nineteenth century, lynching usually meant mob action and death by hanging or even burning. And it was not confined to the frontier; lynchings took place in every part of the country except New England. While members of all races were lynched, lynching was particularly hard on blacks in the South, who had little recourse to the law; some three thousand were lynched between 1880 and 1960. Only then, with the success of the civil rights movement, did the practice finally die out.

I think its like Holocaust and holocaust. The NAACP is referring to the traditional sense, while the actual defintion is something else.

Lynching is an equal opportunity activity.

Lynching happens when a group of people gets angry, and possibly drunk, and kills someone.

Probably did happen up north, and people have absolutely used mob violence against each other all through history. All I was pointing out is that the NAACP definition speaks to a specific historic context which has great meaning for black people in the US. I don't see as how the NAACP definition incites anyone to do anything more than remember some particularly shameful incidents in American history.

Deluth minnesota had a lynching (we had to read the book for our CJS course back in the day)

But that was white mob rule on blak again ...

I think its like Holocaust and holocaust. The NAACP is referring to the traditional sense, while the actual defintion is something else.

Only traditional in the US sense you mean