It’s only Monday morning, but I hope this is the stupidest thing I read all week. Jeffrey Lord: Sherrod’s story about a lynched relative is false– the man was merely beaten to death after being arrested. No, seriously, that’s what it says.
Recent comments
- 160serpentinegmailcom on An open letter from the populists of the 1890s to the populists of today
- 160serpentinegmailcom on Trumpism, local and global
- eric on A wreck by any other name: on the inadequacy of “Great Recession”
- Brad DeLong on A wreck by any other name: on the inadequacy of “Great Recession”
- Alex on Hitchens minor on the English and their history
- David in San Jose on Trump, populism, Hofstadter, Heer.
- eric on What does Paul Campos know that the Public Policy Institute of California does not?
- ari on What does Paul Campos know that the Public Policy Institute of California does not?
- eric on Keeping a finger on gold
- ari on Keeping a finger on gold
- kevin on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- ari on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on A life well lived!
This is officially an award-winning blog
Archives
- September 2021
- July 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- August 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- January 2013
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- May 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Edge of the American West 
23 comments
July 26, 2010 at 7:53 am
zunguzungu
There’s coming to be a real consistency to this form of denialism, this sort of obsessive fixation on a particular *form* of behavior rather than the reason why that category of behavior is bad. After all, the reason “torture” is wrong and stupid applies just as much to “extreme interrogation methods” or whatever the euphemism is. But if you make “torture” into the magical fetish object and then define it so narrowly that nothing actually *is* torture, you’ve cleansed the republic of sin! The same sort of thing seems to be happening here, where the problem is not the police beating a man to death on the courthouse steps but rather the use of that horrifying word.
July 26, 2010 at 8:09 am
Neddy Merrill
My faith in the general rule “taxonomic precision will not by itself solve normative problems” remains intact. In this case Lord is just wrong about the classification of the act, though if he were right it wouldn’t matter.
July 26, 2010 at 8:16 am
silbey
Wow.
July 26, 2010 at 9:15 am
dana
It’s strange that he skips over the contrarian-dumbass middle-ground “Sherrod said Hall was lynched, but actually, he was beaten to death on the steps of the courthouse” and went straight to claiming that Sherrod is lying, which would mean that she knew that the definition of “lynching” was “extralegal death by hanging”, and thought that the relevant thing to misrepresent to her audience was the manner of death.
We can only speculate as to why….
July 26, 2010 at 9:28 am
Chris J
For what it’s worth, The Dyer anti-linching bill of 1918 defines lynching this way:
“three or more persons acting in concert for the purpose of depriving any person of his life without authority of law . . .”
No ropes required.
July 26, 2010 at 9:54 am
STL
Right. Exactly. Lynching is extralegal killing, not hanging. So, it turns out that Sherrod has better command of English than the author and editors at American Spectator.
Wikipedia:
“Lynching is extrajudicial punishment carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake and shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people, however large or small.”
kill without legal sanction; “The blood-thirsty mob lynched the alleged killer of the child”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
July 26, 2010 at 10:16 am
McDevite
This is one of those times where the show stopping idiocy would be blackly hilarious–in a sort of “Brazil” way–if it weren’t so horrendous an underlying act and as the writer is a grown man over 60 and not straining for satire.
That said, a trip to his wikipedia page suggests that this man is distinctly allergic to irony.
July 26, 2010 at 11:14 am
dance
The entire article has 5 pages, so I read them, just to be fair. It’s a wholly bizarre assertion that Sherrod not only lied about the lynching but deliberately neglected to make personal attacks on specific individuals on the Supreme Court and in the Senate because naming more names would have forced her to admit that some people who supported the New Deal were also KKK supporters, and of course she desperately needs to hide that fact because she is the personal heir to the New Deal.
(Also, it’s 2010. I feel that if you know your writing is going to be chopped into multiple pages, you might want to make sure something like this “What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack — and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none.” isn’t buried on the second page. Also, you know, google before writing “But in the heyday — a very long time — of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal “anti-black jack” or “anti-fisticuffs” laws.”)
July 26, 2010 at 11:24 am
elizabeth_d
I read the whole article as well. So f—ing bizarre. Did you get the part where he compares her to Dick Russell for manipulating racial tensions to get progressive policies passed? And then proceeded to yell at her for not rejecting the Democrats and progressives because of people like Richard Russell, who were responsible for her father’s lynching? It’s completely incoherent.
July 26, 2010 at 11:25 am
elizabeth_d
Also, credit where due: all his colleagues at the Spectator seem horrified with the article.
July 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm
NM
The Dick Russell bit was the best. You kind of see it coming and you think, no, no he couldn’t, and then he does. Like a quadruple salchow of stupid.
July 26, 2010 at 1:40 pm
silbey
Like a quadruple salchow of stupid
Even the Russian judge thought he nailed it.
July 26, 2010 at 2:42 pm
elizabeth_d
I think what we should draw from this article is that black people who support progressive goals are lynching themselves. And then lying about it.
That’s the part that gets me the most: the presumption. Does Jeffrey Lord really think Shirley Sherrod is unaware of the racism of the Dixiecrats?
Also, by Lord’s logic, you know who wasn’t lynched? Emmett Till.
July 26, 2010 at 9:51 pm
andrew
Just to pile on: Fritz Lang’s Fury is clearly a movie about lynching, and people at the time recognized it as such, despite the lack of ropes (and the lack of race).
July 26, 2010 at 9:54 pm
andrew
Well, that’s odd. WordPress has reformatted my link to the New York Times’ 1936 review of Fury, apparently so that people are forced to log in or register to see it (which was not required when I viewed it originally).
July 26, 2010 at 11:13 pm
samuraipoet
That’s kindof what I thought too.. that ‘lynching’ doesn’t necessarily refer to hanging specifically.
July 27, 2010 at 8:36 am
ajay
Also, the original Lynch? Who gave his name to “lynching”? Never hanged anyone.
July 27, 2010 at 8:40 am
ajay
As far as I can find out, anyway.
It’s interesting that, from the start, “lynching” had the connotation of “punishment that is not sanctioned by law but is still approved of by the state” – Lynch’s attacks were retrospectively legalised by the Virginian government.
July 27, 2010 at 10:10 am
silbey
He’s still digging:
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/27/jeff-lord-defends-jeffrey-lord
July 27, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Chris J
And still getting pounded in the comments.
July 27, 2010 at 4:12 pm
rmg
Wow. Did you read Lord’s response to all the hoopla this article has caused? Apparently it was okay for the sheriff and his deputy to beat a man to death because they acted, as the Supreme Court put it, “under color of law” which, Lord explains, means their behavior was legal. Those who made the analogy to the present-day debate over the precise definition of “torture” couldn’t have been more dead on. Lord–and torture apologists–seem so caught up in technicalities and hair splitting that they’ve lost the bigger picture, which in this case is: IT IS OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY WRONG AND MORALLY REPUGNANT TO HAVE A SYSTEM IN WHICH IT IS OKAY FOR PEOPLE TO GET BEATEN TO DEATH! Sheesh.
July 28, 2010 at 1:09 am
ajay
they acted, as the Supreme Court put it, “under color of law” which, Lord explains, means their behavior was legal.
LAW FAIL
July 28, 2010 at 7:26 am
dance
My bad habit of reading comments has been “rewarded” by seeing Lord continue to defend his points in the comments of this otherwise minor piece: (as well as the comments in his own self-defense):
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/27/defining-lynching-down
Media Matters doesn’t capture the full flavor, but it’s a shorter version:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007270052