I am puzzled, in part, as to what you're saying, Rob. I understand your concern over a double standard regarding effigy hanging, generally, but am thrown by your comment: By this, I am taking you to mean that this effigy hanging of Obama is in line with all the other effigy hangings of Presidents throughout the Republic's history: In other words, it seems you saw this as just a common practice regarding Presidents, and nothing to do with his race. I honestly thought you missed: Because it can't get any clearer to me that the effigy was hung as a comment on Obama's race. Was this a racist act, or was it a political comment on Presidents, generally, in your opinion?
In my personal opinion, both are done as a sign of hate. Regardless of the merit that it was done by, neither one should be considered anymore vile than the other in theory. There is a difference, but both are wrong.
I agree, and the Pearcys are complete tools. I'm merely wanting to clarify whether anyone believes this was or wasn't done as a direct attack on Obama, due to his race. By the way - I went to Berkeley. I loved my time there, learned a good deal inside the classroom - but a great many assholes like the Pearcys roaming the plazas and streets in a peripatetic display of idiocy. Anyone needing a comedy break, see Rob Riggles, U.S.M.C. major, Daily Show Correspondent, hitting the nail on the head: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=Marines-in-Berkeley
I dont think hanging someone of one race kills them substantially deader than hanging someone of another race. If hanging one guy in effigy is "free speech", hanging another guy in effigy is the same thing. Making it different depending on the color of the paper mache is a stretch. I dont doubt this is racially motivated, but "hate" is pretty much similarly disgusting to me regardless of which well of ignorance it springs from.
I need to be very clear about this, Rob. There is no history of systematically lynching whites as America as a tool of terror, as there was (and is, actually, from time to goddamned time, in one form or another - remember James Byrd? We all should) with blacks. This effigy was utterly motivated by racism - the "Act 6" bullshit proves it. I understand your point, and have had my issues with the very notion of "hate speech" as well, for the reasons you say; but I also cannot ignore that there is a difference between hanging Obama, with a racist placard attached to him, and hanging someone else, in effigy. I'd feel the same way if a Jewish politician in Germany was placed in an oven in effigy; despicable, directed, and in a category by itself. All hate, yes, to be condemned - but not the same thing, either.
Of course I remember James Byrd. A moronic white guy murdered a black guy because of his race. The liberals started screaming that we needed to enact a hate crimes law where we enact stiffer penalties for such things. The Governor of Texas pointed out that we already give the death penalty for murder and we are kinda hard pressed to enact something stiffer than killing the perpetrator. We can only kill the guy once. I'm saying hanging anyone is effigy is an example of hate. You're suggesting it is worse if the target is black. Which of us is arguing in favor of racial equality?
I'm suggesting that there is a fundamental difference when the effigy portrays a black lynching. I am suggesting it is specifically intended to terrorize blacks everywhere, reaching far beyond the act itself in its intended sweep. Therefore I am suggesting the lynching of a black man, or as in James Byrd's case, the intended reach of the sub-human act of public terror is greater than a holdup gone south at a gas station, and as such, I am suggesting such acts should be distinguished. In other words, do you not see the hypocrisy in the two kinds of logic: And the logic in Texas law that distinguishes the murder of a police officer from other kinds of murder: More broadly, the logic the President has used to justify anything under the name of "terror?" If it's all just "crime," why the need for creating a separate class of jurisprudence, to include military tribunals outside the purview of civil law? Because murders are viewed differently, as to the harm they imply against society generally. You must literally claim all murder is murder, and void all distinguishing criteria, or at least understand the reasoning behind the notion of hate crime.
We sentenced two guys to death for the murder of James Byrd. Sing out if you can think of what we should do to them in addition to taking their lives. As for distinguishing crimes against blacks from crimes against anyone else, no, racial equality is not achieved by passing laws that differ depending on someones skin color. Again... I'm the one favoring racial equality.
Please see edit, above. It is categorically impossible to construct a world dismissing hate crimes on the grounds "murder is murder," and then justify law that distinguishes murder for its manifestly greater harm due to the nature of that murder.
You can argue til youre blue in the face without ever making "racial equality" and "laws that differ based on skin color" mean the same thing. I prefer"racial equality". You favor whatever you want.
Rob, you can also do better than simply digging your heels in, if our brief history of exchanges is any indication. Attempting to portray me as simply blind to a reality completely ignores the logical inconsistency I raised. "Murder is murder," or it is not - if it is not (and this is the longstanding law of our land), it is not because of the potential greater harm certain classes of murder portend for our society. Texas cannot argue against hate murders by your reasoning, while maintaining law on the books distinguishing the murder of police officers, for example. Your snide comment above neither deals with the point, nor does it refute it, obviously.
NPT, who's to say that a white man who tortures and murders a black man based on his skin color is any worse than a black man who rapes and murders a white woman? Murder is murder is murder. The hate or disgust of the two shouldn't be any different. They should receive equal punishment.
Because there isn't a categorical, institutional history of black on white rape, but there is of black lynching, PHP. This is the reasoning behind the hate laws - because theses crimes are not intended to stop with the direct victim, but rather to extend terror to an entire people. The Supreme Court rightfully agreed - there is inherent in the notion of homicide law that different homicides are different, because of their potentially different adverse impact on society. Killing a cop is distinguished from killing a civilian; killing the President is called "assassination" and not just "murder" for a reason; lynching a black man is distinguished from a common holdup; all for the same reasons. I repeat my argument that you can't have it both ways. Either all murder truly is simply murder, or it is not. Anything else is hypocrisy.
Since I live in Oregon, It is truly no surprise that this happened, much less at a "christian" college. That is what bothers me most - the sheer hypocrisy of so - called christians engaging in hate -which goes against every principle that the prophet ever taught! I'm disgusted by it. The fact that every news organization pointed toward the south as opposed to showing the irony that this happened on a "christian" campus is what gets me. Bigoted Christians - is this an oxymoron?
Personally I believe murder is murder. I do however understand the differences from First Degree, 2nd and manslaughter for example. I do however see making a charge based on 'race' racist in itself.
Oh, sure - I understand that as well. I'd argue these two can't go together, Grim. It is hypocritical of Texas to claim the deliberate public lynching of a black man is simply "murder" while maintaining on the books that the deliberate murder of a police officer or fireman is a class apart. It can't be both. The reason both are considered different is because both are intended to do greater harm than the single act of murder itself. It's the reason domestic terror laws are an entirely different set of laws from simple acts of murder, even mass murder. Here - let me try another way. Can any not see why the deliberate murder of a black man over a domestic dispute is not a "hate crime," while the deliberate and public lynching of a black man, is?
GRIM pretty much summed up my thinking on the issue. We have worked too hard to combat racism to start distinguishing differences between them.
Northpoint - Calling my points "snide" does not make passing laws that differ based on skin color a good way to practice racial equality. We have a constitution that says people are equal regardless of race. I believe the laws should reflect that. We obviously disagree on whether "hate crime" laws are appropriate. Until you can explain how treating one race differently from others is the same as "equal"... dont give me arguments that it is still a really neato idea to do it.
PHP, respectfully, you're ignoring the argument being made. It isn't race, but terror - nanely, an act intended to reach an entire swath of people - that is at issue here. I can't say it any other way - it's why the murder of a black man by a white man in a back alley in Chicago is "murder," while lynching a black man with a board containing epithets on his chest is a "hate crime." At any rate, the Supreme Court ruled on this, and I agree with the legal theory behind the ruling. I've got nothing more to add.