Supplemental: Got no explanations!


With race, you just get to complain:
On Monday, Piers Morgan became perhaps the ten millionth person to write a rather pointless column about the use of the N-word.

According to Morgan, if black people want white people to stop using the word, they’ll have to stop using it first. None of these things will ever occur, but it does kill a column.

Morgan’s column appeared in The Daily Mail, which is published in a different country. You’d think it would be easy enough to ignore such emanations.

Easy for others, but not for Salon! At Salon, Joanna Rothkopf swung into action, trailing a string of motive assessments behind her. She condemned Morgan for his “very poorly conceived article,” without ever quite explaining what made it so “poorly conceived.”

What was wrong with Morgan’s piece? This is the closest Rothkopf came to answering that question:
ROTHKOPF (11/11/14): Morgan argues that since he is white, he has no right to “demand” that a black person refrain from using [the N-word]. “But as someone who believes passionately in civil rights, I just think it’s the right thing to do.” In a clever turn of phrase, he both relinquishes his right to make requests of an entire race while doing just that.
Unless you think that demands and requests are one and the same, you’ll see that that passage fails. But so it goes when the modern “liberal” decides to sound off about race.

Increasingly, no explanation is needed when we wail about race. This brings us back to Margaret Sullivan’s reaction to Alessandra Stanley’s lengthy profile of Shonda Rhimes, the high-profile TV producer.

Stanley’s profile appeared in the September 21 New York Times. Sullivan, the public editor, hit back hard the next day.

Sullivan offered a lengthy post on September 22, followed by a second post two days later. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it:

Plainly, Sullivan agreed with readers who thought the profile was racially offensive. Eventually, she even said those readers were “justifiably offended.”

Sullivan’s judgment may even be correct! But can you find a single place where she tries to explain or justify that conclusion?

In her two posts, Sullivan devoted roughly 2300 words to this topic. We can find no explanation for the conclusion she reached.

Early in her initial post, Sullivan simply reprinted a post from an aggrieved reader. On some unstated basis, this was apparently meant to explain the judgment Sullivan reached:
LETTER TO DEAN BAQUET: I am deeply offended by the story written by Alessandra Stanley about Shonda Rhimes being an angry black woman. At first, I tried to give Ms. Stanley the benefit of the doubt and thought that she was attempting to be irreverent. Then I realized that she was being racist, ignorant, and arrogant. It is interesting that I have never seen any of Ms. Stanley's stories refer to any white producers of TV or film programs in racist, stereotypical terms. As awful as the story is, she got her facts wrong because Shonda Rhimes is not the executive producer of the new show, "How To Get Away With Murder."

I am a black woman and a lawyer. I have worked very hard to achieve in my profession and earn respect. I live in a very nice suburban community in Maryland. And yet, none of that makes one bit of difference because a New York Times writer can make whatever offhanded, racist opinions about a successful TV producer who is a black woman she cares to make, and because she has the protection of The New York Times behind her, can publish it. Because Ms. Stanley is a New York Times writer, her story has reached a national audience. Why is Ms. Stanley allowed to characterize Ms. Rhimes as she did and get away it? Why is she allowed to characterize Viola Davis as she did in her story and get away with it?

Ms. Stanley's story was a backhand to me and it hurts. For the first time, I am considering cancelling my New York Times subscription because this story is much more than disagreeing with the writer's opinion. This story denigrated every black woman in America, beginning with Shonda Rhimes, that dares to strive to make a respectable life for herself. No matter what we do, as far as Ms. Stanley is concerned, we will always be angry and have potent libidos as we have been perceived from slavery, to Jim Crow, and sadly in September 2014, the 21st century.

Please remove Ms. Stanley from the New York Times. None of us who read your paper should ever be subjected to this.

(Note to readers: Shonda Rhimes is, in fact, an executive producer of How to Get Away with Murder. The Times has corrected a headline and caption that referred to her as the creator of the show.)
This writer asserted, several times, that Stanley’s profile was “racist.” That said, she made no attempt to support her claim. For good measure, she even included a large mistake right in her opening paragraph!

It was close enough for the New York Times! Sullivan posted the whole thing, howler and all. She went on to support the reader’s view without explaining why.

This is one of the many new rules which help explain why we progressives will never succeed. In matters of race, you don’t have to explain. You just have to get mad, feel offended.

To us liberals, this seems to make sense and it feels very good. Elsewhere, folk roll their eyes.


  1. Nobody respond to your fundraising post?

    Few fall for the Olbermann Rip-Off "Foppiest Person in the World"

    Folks pass on the bad reporters from the Fifties?

    Nobody much cares about Bush Dead Horse Beating '92 than Somerby Dead Horsae Beating '00?

    Not to worry. Put on your Dowdy Britches and fall back on those old Howler click bait favorites. Maddow and Race!

    1. TDH will always have you, though.

      Or at least he would if he read his commentariat. Does he? I don't know, but I can't imagine why he would bother.

    2. Click bait refers to websites that get paid when readers view ads placed alongside their content. There are no ads here. You have never explained why you think Somerby cares how many people read his blog or "click" on any particular posts -- which can all be viewed without any clicking, for that matter.

      Since there is no way for you to know how many people read this site, how can you conclude that no one is doing that?

    3. How gracious for the definitive source of the term "click bait" to inform 'we, the people are dumb" what the term really, really, really means.

    4. So, show us you can learn and stop using that term when you mean something else.

    5. Show us you aren't a pseudo-intellectual know-it-all and stop pretending that your narrow definition is the only one possible.

    6. This guy Bob writes like 2,000 words a day every day and doesn't charge. And he reads all these papers and watches all these shows. And everyone hates him and he has to supplicate for wifi money.

    7. No, instead it is Bob's mission in life to point out the horrible things on Nov. 12 that were written by the NYT's public editor on Sept. 22 and 24, based on a letter from a "reader" written on either Sept. 21 or 22.

    8. Bob regularly features posts centered around comments made to other publications other than his own, @ 8:56. When he does it kind of makes us wonder why, regardless of quality he might not read his own comments, as deadrat so frequently suggests.

      In fact, he is particularly fond of reading comments and displaying them as post centering pieces here at TDH when the issue is race.

      Today, for example, he contrasts the work of Rachel Maddow with that of Carl Hulse of the NY Times. Bob mentioned Hulse's work once before. A year ago, to prove a commenter to a Charles Blow column was a fool for suggesting a racial motive for the press to refer to Obama as Mr. Obama instead of President Obama Bob mentioned Hulse.

      Check it out.

      Moral: If you want to make a stupid comment online about race, better do it in the Daily Howler. Otherwise Bob Somerby might devote a whole post to proving you to be a fool.

  2. Damn those black women for not explaining to us white people why what they see as obvious examples of racism are racist. What's racist about expressly calling Rhimes an "angry black woman" -- her autobiography is supposed to explain how she got away with being that -- or implying that only light-skinned black women can be described as as "classically beautiful"? Of course, since Alessandra Stanley did not mean to offend anyone, anyone who was offended is just being a super-sensitive angry black woman -- and is handicapping the work of white progressives. and since she's one of us, Margaret Sullivan has no business agreeing with the letter writer, at least not without explanations we can understand.

    I guess since Bob grew up in a former slave state, he needs these things explained to him.

    1. This post by Somerby is not about racism -- he is not debating whether the behaviors described were or were not racist. It is about argument. Can someone just assert something without offering any rationale, evidence or arguments in support of their assertion?

      You clearly agree with the assertions being offered. That may prevent you from seeing that they are unsupported. YOU are supplying the evidence and argument from your own experience and knowledge. You may be entirely right in your agreement, but the writer has still not made her case herself because she has not supplied it -- you have.

      Calling Somerby a racist for pointing this out is a cheap shot, in my opinion.

    2. Except for one minor detail. When was the last time Somerby found any allegation of racism to be credible. Hell, he even ran to the rescue of good ol' boy Clive Bundy.

    3. 5:24 - that detail you describe doesn't make his claim untrue by the laws of logic. It may be untrue though of course but any previous support or non support of racial allegations has no bearing on the claim itself, as you know.

    4. Nice try, but the "claim" under discussion is whether Somerby race-baits to increase traffic on his dying blog.

      He seems to be in quite the habit of doing so.

    5. Oh. Well, I'm not touching that one.

    6. 7:42 - I regret to inform you that claim is an unprovable waste of your time.

    7. ran to the rescue of good ol' boy Clive [sic] Bundy.

      That didn't match my recollection, and when dealing with anonymous trolls, it's always best to check. Is TDH a racist who defends fellow-racists like Bund? Here are three quotes from last April:

      <quote date="4/24/14">
      Yesterday, Bundy offered some rather under-baked thoughts concerning forty million of his fellow citizens.

      <quote date="4/26/14">
      In truth, it isn’t hard to be brighter than Bundy, who hails from the far perimeter of the outer reaches of the edge of the fringe.... Granted, Bundy is deeply clueless.

      <quote date="4/28/14">
      We’re wondering why it takes such ridiculous statements by such ridiculous figures to rouse our liberal world.

      This is the kind of "rescue" often described as throwing an anchor to a drowning man.

      (And, of course, most of the relevant blog entries discuss journalists' reaction to Bundy and not Bundy himself.)

      As the saying goes, fish gotta swim; trolls gotta lie.

    8. And as Bob worried about the fecklessness of the "liberal world" paying so much attention to a "ridiculous figure" in the desert, the right-wing noise machine helped Bundy raise a small army that drew down on federal agents.

      That aspect of the while fiasco seemed to elude Bob.

    9. In Bob's view, Mr. Bundy's misdeeds, like all those of the right, are irrelevant unless he can use them to show how worthless, or even worse, the left is by comparison. If the right blows a house up, Bob would be outraged because the left wasn't standing by with a tent and a warm meal for any survivors.

    10. Where's this small army? Last June, the Rep for the district reported there were 15. Were you looking for another Waco? Bundy may yet face criminal charges for that little escapade. Do you think this small army can stop the feds from arresting him?

      In any case, the claim was that TDH came to the (presumably rhetorical) "rescue" of Bundy. Not so.

      Of course.

    11. True deadrat. As you have just shown, TDH devoted three posts last April to prove Bundy was a crackpot who should have been ignored. Just as he devoted a post today to a crackpot whose column in Britain he says should be ignored.

      Kind of like suggesting he ignores comments in his own blog because they are idiotic as you did in this post. Meanwhile Bob builds posts in his own blog about comments and letters elsewhere because they are idiotic. Like this post.

    12. Try to focus. I know it's hard, and I'll take care to type verrrry slowly so you can follow. The claim was that TDH tried to "rescue" Bundy, presumably from the properly-aimed abuse directed at the latter. That was a lie, as I have "just shown."

      TDH spent no time "proving" that Bundy was a crackpot. Bundy provided all the proof necessary all on his own. TDH didn't claim that Bundy should be ignored, but that he wasn't worth all the time spent on his craziness and that he certainly was not a case worth generalizing from.

      Meanwhile Bob builds posts in his own blog Yeah, imagine that, TDH writes what he wants to write in his own blog. Go figure.

    13. Your reputation as a speed-typer is overrated.

    14. As we recall, the Bundy thing reached its peak around April or so. The number of people there in June hardly strikes us as an honest attempt at describing the magnitude of the event. But it seems to defend Bob is to adopt his ways.

      We also note, with much more interest, that in Bob's eyes the Bundy standoff wasn't worth paying attention to, while he devoted a post expressing his outrage at some young women who dared to protest at one of Joni Ernst's rallies ("Raise The Wage" the vile bitches had the nerve to say. And Bob was rightly furious about it). Casting irony aside (we so amuse ourselves with our wit), we can think of few ways to better highlight the pathology that now grips Bob. Armed standoff with federal agents by large groups of men who express a wide variety of views far outside the mainstream, including the destruction of the federal government? Not worthy of attention, except to demean the people who cover it. A few women chanting "Raise The Wage"? How dare the bitches! In all seriousness, we begin to suspect Bob suffers from mental illness.

    15. As we recall Warning! Lying is about to start.

      There was never "a small army" in support of Bundy, and no one in his right mind thinks the people there could have stopped the feds from doing whatever they wanted. Fortunately, the feds didn't want violence over someone who owed them money. By June, the tiniest army in the world was down to 15 souls, and Bundy was gone from the headlines. No one much cared in October, when he tried to get back in the limelight with a political ad. TDH didn't think Bundy in April merited more attention than he got in October, and whatever attention Bundy got, TDH thought such a character from the fringe couldn't serve as a valid general lesson. YMMV, but at least you could characterize TDH's opinion properly.

      We also note Warning! Lying will continue.

      Some women opposed to a candidate for the Senate shouted down said candidate at a speech. That election will have consequences for the country, as opposed to anything that Cliven Bundy was doing. TDH expressed no outrage -- that's your word; TDH didn't characterize the shouters as "vile bitches"; those are your words. He wrote "We can shout at people we don’t support. Or we can learn how to speak persuasively to average voters." The candidate is now a Senator-elect. You can decide for yourself how persuasive the shouters were.

      Bob suffers from mental illness Why is it always about the projection, KZ?

      Don't you have a spell to cast?

    16. We will note that the definition of "small army" is likely to vary from person to person. We wonder how the federal agents who were forced away by "Bundy's Band" would characterize it. We do know that a google search for "bundy small army" turned up quite a few hits, some of them referring to the federal agents who were there as being a "small army." Those same agents were forced away by Mr. Bundy's band, claiming they were outnumbered and outgunned. Which brings up the obvious question: if a "small army" was outnumbered and outgunned by an opposing force, why is it wrong to also describe the opposing force itself as a "small army"? Don't spend too much time on it. We assure you we don't expect a coherent answer.

      At any rate, we are certain that the number of armed people expressing extremist views while brandishing their weapons at federal representatives in April numbered much more than your dishonestly tossed-off fifteen. And yet, Bob thought it not worthy of attention by the press. We know what Bob thought worthy: Rachel Maddow, the 2000 election, and later, those chanting bitches.

      As an aside, we hope that the term "Bundy's Band" is less infuriating to your ever-delicate sensibilities. Or does that, too, rankle? At least you gave up lecturing people for using the name "Bob." Now, if only you could stop with the "I'm typing this very slowly" bit, we could commend you on your progress. We apologize for having such modest expectations for you, but it is, alas, what you've earned.

      Finally, we are not "KZ." We do, however, oftentimes find ourselves amused by you chasing after that individual like a dog chasing its tail. You still haven't quite caught up, but do keep trying. It's about the only thing amusing left on this blog. The rest of it is a dreary, obsessive series of expositions by someone, we are increasingly convinced, who is caught in the ever-strengthening grip of some mental illness.

    17. Sure thing, KZ. The federal agents who were there said they were outgunned, and of course, where could federal agents possibly get more people with more guns? Don't spend too much time on the answer.

      Bob thought it not worthy of attention by the press Stop lying. TDH thought it not worthy of the amount of attention it got.

      We know what Bob thought worthy Yeah, from his blog. He wrote about what he wanted to write about on his own blog. Imagine that.

      At least you gave up lecturing people for using the name "Bob." Stop lying. I call Bob Somberby TDH when I talk about his blog entries. I've never said anybody should follow my example. I don't care what you or anybody else calls the blog owner.

      if only you could stop with the "I'm typing this very slowly" bit Oh, I'm sorry. You want new material. Too bad. Just consider it worth what you paid for it.

      Finally, we are not "KZ." I suppose there could be two people broadcasting nonsense from the Galaxy Schizophrenia, but what are the odds?

      It's about the only thing amusing left on this blog. And yet here you are.

      caught in the ever-strengthening grip of some mental illness. Get help. I hope you do if only so you can ask your therapist about projection.

    18. We are finding this tedious, and the game not worth the sport. Or something along those lines. We do, however, find ourselves scratching our heads over a logical formulation you have now repeated. To wit: you continue saying, or implying, the government "could have brought in more." What does that have to do with whether or not Bundy had a "small army"? We have a lowish opinion of your intellect, but not that low. Surely, you understand that 10 is still 10, even if someone else has 11? Or 12? Or 150,000,000? An army, sir, is an army, whether or not someone else has a larger one. The question at hand isn't what the government "could" have brought to the affair, but what the Bundyites DID bring to the affair. We had thought that was obvious and your original post a mis-typing, but now we see that is not so, since you repeat the logical error.

      For your information, we typed this at normal speed.

    19. We are finding this tedious, and the game not worth the sport. And yet you manage to drag yourself here day after day to comment on a blog you find tedious.

      10 is still 10; an army is an army; a rose is a rose is rose; and you are still a buffoon. A few minutes on the google finds that in April, there were maybe 300 people as dumb as Cliven Bundy looking for trouble. In a real army, say like the one the United States operates, this would be described as a company, larger than a platoon, smaller than a battalion.

      Of course, the Bundy "Army" operating out of its headquarters in Fort Stinking Desert, Nevada wouldn't have to face the United States Army, just federal law enforcement officers, whose association claims to represent 25K people in 65 agencies. Not all of those would be available, but for any Battle of Fort Stinking Desert, the US could draw from 14,000 special agents of the FBI; 2,400 agents of the ATF, 4,600 special agents of the DEA, 95 marshals and 2,500 deputy marshals; and as a last resort 3,600 members of the Nevada Army National Guard. Now that's an army.

      Someone in charge, however, decided that a government confident in its legitimate power doesn't have to kill anyone over civil charges of failure to pay fees and fines. Someone in charge said, "You know what? It's hot in the Nevada desert at the end of April, and it's only going to get hotter. Let's wait until June and see how many people we'll have to deal with." By that time, Bundy couldn't muster much more than a couple of squads. By now, all that remains of the whole affair is the stench of overflowing latrine in Nevada and the memory of the stupidity at Fox "News."

      Yes, an army is an army, except when it's an overblown metaphor. What DID the Bundyites bring to the affair? Despite the hype you couldn't see through, the answer is nothing.

    20. We said we didn't expect coherence, but this fell below even our low expectations. We think it safe to say, judging by this riotous spew, that even you now realize your idiocy over "small army" was just that: idiocy.

      We would say we hope to see you do better next time, but we've learned in Bobville that hoping is a waste of time. So we'll simply lower our expectations even further instead.

    21. There's deadrat, still diligently taking attendance.

    22. "The candidate is now a Senator-elect. You can decide for yourself how persuasive the shouters were." deadrat

      Yes, indeed she is. The good citizens of Iowa just elected her. They now are the proud owners of a US Senator who openly talked about needing her 9mm Smith and Wesson to protect herself from "the government", should the need arise. It's a strange country we're living in.

      Rachel Maddow did a segment about this crazy woman and TDH immediately jumped on Maddow. Trouble is, TDH neglected to mention to his readers that Maddow played video of Joni Ernst saying that to the NRA. Then TDH pretended like Maddow was crazy for saying the following:

      Maddow: "I mean, if you catch somebody telling Iowa college students that they can stay on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26, is that a shooting offense in Joni Ernst’s Iowa or would that just be an arresting offense? I know it sounds nuts, but weirdly, it is not a stretch to ask that of Senate candidate Joni Ernst right now, because based on her public statement, the answer is not clear.

      If it’s yes to arresting federal employees trying to implement Obamacare but no to shooting them, but there are some things for which she will shoot federal employees, and she advocates that other people do too, well, what are the circumstances in which she is going to shoot federal officials? When is it is OK?"

      TDH just thought Maddow was nuts for saying such a thing, but Bob never showed his readers the premise of Maddow's questions.

    23. low expectations

      No, not expectations. What's that other thing?

      Oh, yeah. Comprehension.

      I'll repeat the truth, and just for you I won't connect repetition with typing speed.

      There was never a Bundy "Army" at Fort Stinking Desert, Nevada. Not in April, when the clown car held 300 people as ignorant as Bundy. Not a month later, when the clown census was down to 15. And not now. It was always hype, overblown rhetoric, and the idiocy is to pretend otherwise.

      WPM about right for you?

  3. Poor, poor Piers Morgan.

  4. the anonymous troll gets angriest when Bob exposes the race baiters.

  5. Bob: "This writer asserted, several times, that Stanley’s profile was “racist.” That said, she made no attempt to support her claim. "

    "The writer": "No matter what we do, as far as Ms. Stanley is concerned, we will always be angry and have potent libidos..."

    We read part of the story. Sure enough, in the first few paragraphs, black people are described as angry, with potent libidos -- it's actually a direct quotation, which "the writer" typed out as paraphrase. But Bob couldn't find "the writer" using an example of what she considered racist language. Of course, it's possible, even probable, given that Bob read the profile and was unable, himself, to find offensive stereotyping, that he doesn't think referring to black people as angry with active libidos is offensive. "We Irish," indeed.

    "Liberals" -- especially (us) black folk -- should just keep their traps shut when it comes to race. Shoot us, insult us, beat us, but we should just keep our fucking traps shut. Otherwise, it might offend "average (white) voters," who might even "roll their eyes," they are so offended by those taking offense. As with Rachel Maddow, the problem with "the left" is that it needs to fight, to stick up for itself. Of course, as soon as it does fight, it turns out it should have just "keep its trap shut" or else "average (white) voters" will "roll their eyes." Once again, we find Bob in rare form. A very pale shade of pink rare.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. What is "pink rare"?

    3. "Pink rare" is roughly the color one might find in a pork chop or pork roast, cooked just shy of medium, but beyond medium-rare. It looks something like this, but just a tiny shade lighter:

      It's how we cook our own pork, as anything more than that is usually dry, while anything less than that makes us queasy.

      We have the recipe, and assure you it is excellent. It is our view that our friends from south of the border cook pork better than any other culture. Do not blame us if you get hungry after viewing the picture.

    4. It isn't up to Somerby to find and make the author's case for her. Again, the point isn't whether racist things were said. It is that the author didn't explain to readers what they were.

    5. No, instead it is Bob's mission in life to point out the horrible things on Nov. 12 that were written by the NYT's public editor on Sept. 22 and 24, based on a letter from a "reader" written on either Sept. 21 or 22.

    6. We lament the fact that your reading skills are no better than Bob's. She specifically stated what Ms. Stanley said that she found racist. Bob, to his discredit, actually quoted it, but then pretended it wasn't there or, more likely, was baffled as to how someone could find it racist. We quoted it AGAIN. And explained it. Yet, you think the original author failed to "explain" it. We don't know what more the original author could have said that would have made it plainer, or we could have said to highlight her words. We suspect that, given the kind of intellect it requires to make a statement like yours, there is nothing we could say, no quotation we could provide, that would break through.

      Finally, we will point out that this is a letter to the editor, and such things are routinely heavily edited to save space. Bob knows this as well as anyone. So even had the letter, as printed, not contained the specific words the writer found racist (which, ONCE AGAIN, it did), it is probable that this would have been the result of bad editing rather than bad letter writing. But still, Bob raged. And you, kind person, swallowed Bob's cant whole. And then some.

  6. Maybe she is angry. Anger motivates some people. Ice Cube, for one, has made a fortune playing an angry scowling black guy.

  7. In the old days we took pride in the achievements of minorities. Now we celebrate victim hood. This is a terrible switch. It encourages young people to become victims rather than high achievers.

    1. Who's "we"? In the old, old, old days we hanged them from trees for daring to "achieve" anything. In the old, old days we turned fire hoses and police dogs on them for trying to "achieve" the right to vote. In the old days, we thought a policy of benign neglect was best way to let them achieve.

      There's a terrible switch, all right. It's the one in your mind that's locked in the closed position. You appear to know nothing about the social history of this country. I doubt you know anybody who's in a minority.

      I also doubt you know any young people.

    2. Think Marion, Indiana, 1932. Trophy Day.

    3. Scroll down to the Week 1 entry on this webpage.

      [QUOTE] Chapter Eight: Demonic Terror [from the book A Time of Terror: A Survivor’s Story by James Cameron]

      Earlier in the day, I later learned, the only black physician in Marion, Dr. Bailey, had received word from his white friends in the town that three black youths in the Grant County jail would be lynched that night. They would be taken from the jail and lynched by a Ku Klux Klan mob. His white friends told him of the general plot that had been planned with the precision of a military coup….

      News of the impending lynching in Marion was broadcast over the radio stations in the state and heard throughout the Midwest.

      [Photo caption: Marion prepared for the lynching on August 7, 1930. Interurban trains brought spectators from around north central Indiana. Extra trains were scheduled to handle the load.]

      [Editor’s Note: James Cameron narrowly escaped being hanged with two other black teenagers in Marion, Indiana, in 1930. That lynching, while it took place outside the South, was typical of the thousands of “spectacle lynchings” that were held in the former Confederacy from the 1880s to the 1940s. A spectacle lynching followed a certain ritual:

      --a large number of spectators attended from far and wide;
      --a mob of white men from all walks of life planned and executed the lynching;
      --local law enforcement officials generally made weak or no attempts to stop the process – and were sometimes part of the mob;
      --the black (usually male) victims were often killed several times, that is, they were severely beaten, often tortured and mutilated, then hung or burned alive or dead, and finally body parts, clothing, and pieces of the rope might be taken as souvenirs by the crowd; and
      --souvenirs photos were taken of the spectators and/or mob posing with their dead trophies....][END QUOTE]

      See additional text and the photos from the Week 1 entry at the link.

      I'm not familiar with Brundage's work but from another source here's an interesting footnote referencing it:

      [fn]5 Walter Brundage, using Georgia and Virginia as case studies, estimates that approximately one third of all lynchings involved mass mobs (crowds of sixty or more). If his estimate is correct, then more than 1,100 black individuals died before mass mobs. This number is relevant because Brundage observes: “Mass mobs more than any other type of mob, were likely to torture or burn victims. The size and fervor of mass mobs and the anonymity offered by the vast crowds incited lynchers to acts of almost unlimited sadism. In Georgia, news accounts suggest that mass mobs tortured and mutilated nearly a quarter of their victims in grisly ceremonies” (42). See Walter Brundage, Lynching in the New South (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993).

    4. What did you expect from a state with a legislature openly run by the KKK? But fair's fair. Why didn't you mention that the day after the lynching, Marion held a "Dr Baily Appreciation Day" with a pancake breakfast in the morning and a parade that afternoon. I'm sure it happened because DAinCA assures us that in the old days we took pride in our minorities.

    5. From slide 5 at a "10 things you may not know about Jackie Robinson" article [LINK] you'll find proof that "in the old days we took" so much pride in anyone who was a member of a certain minority but who was willing to show up on time, tuck in their shirttail, and display some gumption that there was almost no telling what they might find themselves doing:

      Jackie Robinson became vice president of Chock Full O’Nuts in 1957 and served as VP for ten years. He was the first black vice president of a major American corporation.

    6. Gumption was not an admirable trait for a certain minority in the old days. In fact, it could be lethal.

  8. Point taken orecic,

    I was going to write "show a little talent at performing some task" but I cut back on the word count and erred by using "display some gumption" instead.

  9. クロックス スニーカー
    セシルマクビー ポーチ
    アビレックス ブーツ
    fabio rusconi フラットシューズ
    スライ 店舗
    アビレックス アウトレット
    ファビオルスコーニ ローファー
    スライ ブログ
    セシルマクビー 財布
    Keds KATE spade
    ケッズ スニーカー メンズ
    スライ バッグ
    ファビオルスコーニ ブーツ
    ネイバーフッド tシャツ
    セシルマクビー iphoneケース
    ファビオルスコーニ レインブーツ
    クロックス パンプス
    セシルマクビー 財布
    三愛水着 2015
    クロックス レディース
    ファビオルスコーニ パンプス
    neighborhood superstar
    シンクビー ショップ