When is lynching rhetoric acceptable?
When is lynching rhetoric acceptable? Newsbusters recounts recent kerfuffles over noose references and finds that it’s only okay when it comes out of the mouth of a black Hillary Clinton demagogue. Witness Ohio Democrat Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones:
Well, you [k]now what, the camp, the Obama campaign is trying to put that noose on her neck. But the reality is that Senator Clinton does not wear, uh, NAFTA. NAFTA is something that occurred during the presidency of her husband. She was the first lady, but she has been very clear about NAFTA.
Tubbs Jones, by the way, is the sycophant who calls Hillary her “sista.” And sistas gotta look out for each other’s backs. And necks.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nooses, Race Hustlers
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Riehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip ObamaLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeyRiehl World View
» Uncle Jimbo Re-deploys In War With AllahSister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinker
About 90% of the things she’s taking credit for happened during her husband’s presidency.
That’s an easy one to answer. When Her Royal Highness, Hillary is behind in the poles and is in real danger of losing to an up and coming “rock-star”.
Personally, I was hoping the fight among democraps would go on through the convention but we can’t have everything.
“and I don’t like whach you got me hangin’ from,
and I don’t like whach you got me hangin’ from,
and I don’t like whach you got me hangin’ from,
and I don’t like whach you got me hangin’ from”
Lyrics from Pretty Noose ~ Soundgarden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fZ86Fh0XPk
It’s interesting that on this very blog, we’ve seen the NAACP give the “N-word” last rights but for some reason african-american rappers don’t seem to be listening.
It’s the new old saying, “How can tell when a liberal is lying? His mouth is open.”
Wow, I think comments are disappearing quickly around here.
In response to a now erased comment from Rusty I ask: Why are all references to lynching “out of bounds?” In the past, lynching certainly played a terrifying role in the horrors of racism in this country, I am in no way excusing or trying to downplay that. But lynching isn’t unique to black people nor is it unique to America. As far as I know, lynching is defined as an act of violence perpetrated by a mob, free of law. Why is that term off limits?
I think Hillary’s toast. But to answer the question, I think its all in the way a person uses. Firstly, we’re going to have people that’ll make a stink regarldess of the way its used. I think most reasonable people would agree that you probably shouldn’t use the term “lynching” with a black person just like you might not throw around the term “nuke” with someone who’s Japanese, or other terms that may be relatively innocuous to most, but very serious to others.
If someone’s house burned down, you might not want to joke about burning their house down.(”The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!”)
Do I think her comments were out of place? Not really. But honestly, you all know that if someone said this about Obama, you’d feel different about it. At least you’d call the speaker an idiot for being so deaf. And if it were Jackson or Sharpton, you’d probably say that were race-mongering again. It’s all about context.
Nor is slavery. But consider this. If a white man walked up to another white man and said, “I’m going to make you my slave”, you’d probably react differently than if a white man walked up to a black man and said that. I’m just trying to demonstrate that words take on other meanings than their definitions.
Thank you, Noam Chomsky. A utilitarian function of dictionaries is to prevent dolts from assigning their definitions du jour to words.
From Lynch Law, and the head of the South Carolina Regulators was one Gideon Gibson a man of color. from PBS Famous Frontline Familys.
There are two versions concerning the origin of lynch law. I wish to refer to prior to discussing the story which Cutler attributes the origin of lynch law. The first version believes the phrase lynch law originated at Lynch Creek in South Carolina. In South Carolina around 1768 there existed a group known as ‘Regulators’. The Regulators prime function was to maintain law and order. Lynch Creek was a common meeting place for this group from which they dispensed their summary justice. There was a need for such a group in rural communities where our court system had not established itself in our rapidly expanding young nation. The assertion is made that lynch law evolved from the meetings of these Regulators at Lynch Creek.
TexasTiger,
Ah, you live in an amazing world Texas, where each word only has one definition. Let Webster know. They’re already up to 5 or 6, for some words.
Gideon Gibson famous frontline families PBS org, was a man of color. This is from Blurred racial lines. I am a family historian and I read revisionist history on a daily basis.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/gibsonfamily.html
My point is that this practice is blamed soley one ethnicity History is messy it doesn’t sort itself out so easy to fit todays historical agendas. If lynching is a new code word that can’t be used because it is racist…then people need to go back and see where it orginated and with whom, in this case FPC, Free People of Color, on the early frontier.
By the way my personal view this practice left a scar on our national phsyche, that we have had to live with and will have to live with for years to come.
There’s a difference between the meaning of a word and a personal interpretation of a word.
If we had to outlaw the use of any word with a negative personal interpretation, it would be a very shallow dictionary.
This is from Yale New Haven Teachers site. This is all about the Lynch Law, I really think before people go using this as rhetoric in discussing race today, they should educate themselves about the origin.
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1989/1/89.01.09.x.html
I believe you missed my point. I’ll consult Webster for some smaller words.
The point is that no one ought to submit to PC bullying in their choice of words. If “lynch” or “noose” meets your need, go ahead and use it. Ignore the blubbering of the delicate PC flowers.
Sometimes MM finds the silliest things to (pretend to) get upset about. Everyone knows that an ethnic group can say things about itself that others are not allowed to say. Can you imagine what would happen if a Jewish comedian referred to blacks the way black comedian’s often do? Or, what would happen if a black comedian referred to Jews the way Jewish comedians do?
And please don’t pretend you don’t understand why.
MrVibeman,
No one’s suggesting that the word itself be outlawed, but people should recognize that words have different meanings in circumstances. Words become symbols, and “lynching” is a symbol of a bad time in American history.
You can equate it to the swastika, which is and has been a religious symbol for hundreds of years. However, it’s also a symbol of the atrocities of the holocaust and should be treated as so. So you might be able to use the symbol in a relgious ceremony in India, but you should put it on your jacket and walk around NYC.
It’s this level of “I don’t care what you think. I’m going to do what I want when I want” that leads to this oversensitivity about language. So many people simply don’t give a *%$& that it messes things up for people who generally need to use the phrases, rather than people who simply can’t think of any other word.
Ummm…people would call him Don Rickles or Chris Rock, pay lots of money to see him perform and laugh their arses off?
It’s never the fault of the hypersensitive is it? Put the responsibility on the other person, right?
TexasTiger,
Tape a swatiska to your jacket and walk around town a little. And if anyone tries to stop them, tell that they’re hypersensitive. Give it a shot, and let me know how it goes.
Since you bring up Merriam-Webster as the authority:
—
Main Entry: lynch
Pronunciation: \ˈlinch\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: lynch law
Date: 1836
: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction
— lynch·er noun
—
I just want to point out that this word in particluar does not have 5 or 6 meanings, it has one. And, according to Webster, that one does not hinge on race.
Might be your style, but it’s not mine.
Besides, I’m too busy. In my righteous indignation, I must see to the destruction of this building. It offends me!
Raised Right the Lynch law is much older then 1836.
Lisa Lampannelli, an Insult Comedian who has crossed over and is on tv networks like BET. It is hypocritical to laugh at one and then turn around and lecture in another arena. What is acceptable if it is “context” then let that be included in the rule for use not selective use,when one segment of the American Population decides for all. Isn’t this right back where we start Freedom of Expression and Free Speech?
RaisedRight,
The issue is not definition, but connotation.
My Webster reference was only to show that words gain definitions as time goes by, which means that they’ve had to had gained different conotations.
Texas,
What are you even talking about anymore?
The point of this rhetoric is its perceived hypocracy. And on no other stage than politics is hypocracy so prevalent, IMO. It is what leaves so many of us with a bad taste in our mouths following debates, the watching of campaign advertisements, the reading of various quotations by various supporters, ad nauseum. The unprecedented length of this presidential campaign season has left me thoroughly disgusted by all candidates.
Hypocracy is a fundamental ingredient of pandering — tell ‘em what they want to hear, factuality be damned. To achieve office (or power), it is amazing to me how low people will stoop (and have stooped) to enrage and invoke, regardless of the high price extracted from those whose staunch efforts have been to “rise above.”
Nothing surprises me in politics anymore, except for the fact that I am no longer surprised.
This is accurate. Lynching, or ‘to lynch’ should not be inappropriate to use ever. What is next. . . are they going to have to rename ‘Lynchburg’ (Falwell’s town)? It was named after George Lynch (uh oh we are going to have to change his name too aren’t we?)
The problem is this victimization mentality of so many Americans. Americans here today would have never won independence from Britain. American’s today are not strong enough to live their lives without blaming someone else for their problems.
If people are so bothered by the term ‘lynch’ then maybe they should go to a country that doesn’t allow free speech.
So if that is the case, why not just ‘redefine’ all these ‘offensive’ words so that no words are off limits?
Why can’t we say ‘to lynch’ means to hug really really tight?
Why can’t we say the ‘N-word’ means distinguished and resourceful?
We have freedom of speech. We are allowed to say whatever we want – even the most offensive of words.
When you’re black.
ThackerAgency,
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. Our freedom of speech is completely irrelevant to this conversation. It’s the equivalent of defending the Klu Klux Klan or Al Qaida hate-speech by simply stating that they have freedom of speech.
Do you believe that words have different conotations depending on the circumstances of them being used?
Fourstring,
That’s untrue, and you know it. People say that the noose is tightening aroud someone’s neck all the time, particulaly in situations where the pressure to perform is rising.
There’s a difference between using the word “noose”, which MM is posting about, and “lynch”, which all the people that Newsbusters criticized.
(And that weak, weak comment about there being no difference between noose and lynch that Newsbusters attempted is ridiculous).
This is almost reasonable. I would argue that connotation comes in to play, but not necessarily in the way that you are saying.
There isn’t a clear division along race lines as you imply. I would say that it’s more the specific use of the word, with race as factor only within the usage.
- To tell someone, even jokingly, that you are going lynch them is kind of sick in my book no matter what, but I can definitely see why it would be more shocking when said to a black person. (But then if one joked with a person, “I’m going to kill you!” or “He’s going to kill me!” is that more or less offensive based on race? Black people have a higher rate of committing and being the victim of violent crimes.)
- However, when someone talks about a group of people “lynching” a public figure in the media or the word is used in other such terms, I would argue that race doesn’t matter here because lynch is a word with a meaning separate from race.
The case that comes to mind is that of the anchorwoman on the Golf Network that joked about young players wanting to dethrone Tiger Woods and “lynch him in a back alley.” She was not suggesting any violence toward Tiger nor was she trying to make light of a history of lynching committed against blacks in America. She was trying to make a statement about young players wanting to knock Woods out of the race. In my opinion, she made her point poorly because it sounds as though she misused the word, but that’s neither here nor there. Tiger Woods was not offended by the phrasing and yet it was turned into an issue, solely because of the word lynch.
This, to me, seems to be the opposite of connotation being the important factor. In the Tiger Woods example, connotation was ignored and the situation was escalated merely because the word lynch was used in reference to a black man. (Actually, a man who identifies as Asian.)
My, my, Rusty is getting combative since he changed his nom de plume
Probably get the same reaction as somebody who walks around with a “Che” t-shirt. People would give them dirty looks and go on about their business. BTW, that’s “swastika”, and if you’re in the Oriental part of town people would think nothing at all about it. For that matter, it hasn’t been all that uncommon around bikers and others of that ilk. Comes under the same heading of “free speech” as you calling GIs baby killers and such.
txvet,
Ha. Exactly, my friend. That’s exactly my point.
RaisedRight,
I agree with what you said without qualification. Well, maybe a little qualification:
I don’t think the golf anchor meant anything malicious with her statement. Not at all. I do think it was a very, very dumb thing to say. I don’t think Tiger was offended because he’s good friends with her, but I can understand how others would be even though it wasn’t directed at them. I think it was a blown up bigger than it needed to be. Should she have been suspended? Probably, just to emphasize how dumb that statement was. But it should have ended there.
People like talking about stuff like this though. Increases the ratings. Hell, the magizine editor put a noose on the cover of a golf magazine.
mpChops (#35) – But I think that the only “dumb” thing about that statement was that the word was used incorrectly. If she had used it more properly, but still used the word lynch, it should not be a problem. Say Tiger Woods got away with some foul (I know nothing of golf, by the way) which perturbed many of the other golfers and she referred to them wanting to lynch Tiger (i.e. take the law into their own hands) — this should be acceptable. His race has nothing to do with the word. Talking about lynching — as a group of people taking matters into their own hands — is perfectly legitimate.
Must use smaller words and shorter sentences.
Others’ inferences should never overrule one’s choice of words.
RaisedRight,
I disagree here. Yes, she would have used the word correctly there, but the contations word in the circumstance would have made it a stupid thing to say given her role.
Likewise, if you worked at the YMCA with kids that come from abusive households and are about to play them in basketball, you wouldn’t jokingly say: “Hey Billy, watch out, I’m goig to abuse you on the court!”.
It’s the circumstances surrounding the situation.
Let’s say it wasn’t Tiger Woods but Rosa Parks, and a TV anchor said that “her friends would lynch her to have her popularity”. Obviously we don’t think her friends would literally string up up, but that’s a real messed up thing to say.
But you don’t even believe that. If you have ever used a word with your friends that you would not use with your boss, or vice versa, that statement you wrote is untrue.
The situation we are in has an effect on the words we use.
Let me revise and extend my remarks:
The opinions and sensitivities of the lowest elements of society should never overrule one’s choice of words…unless you are addressing those elements.
TexasTiger,
Its statements like this that got your comments deleted earlier. Regardless, I won’t be responding to your comments anymore.
Thank goodness we know where to look when the Ministry of Language starts recruiting informants.
The only reason to suspend Kelly Tilghman of the Golf Channel would have been if she had said something that caused a drop in viewers or advertising revenue. Giving in to race-thugs is like paying protection to the Mafia.
Back at ya!
This isn’t the same thing. The kids in your hypothetical situation have been the victims of abuse. Of course it would be wrong to joke about abuse to someone you know has been abused. If Tiger Woods had been the victim of a mob attack or an attempted hanging, then your example would hold water.
It’s hypocrisy plane and simple. For one element of society to be able to use a word, but for it to be “wrong” for another element of society to use that same word is hypocrisy.
For example, if a black rapper uses the N word, why can’t a white person… be they a rapper or a political commentator? If it’s wrong for me to use that word, it should be wrong for everyone> to use that word. And, if you’re going to outlaw the usage of words like that, how can we say that we have freedom of speech?
Jim C
If it weren’t for hypocrisy, the civil rights industry would be financially bankrupt…as well as morally bankrupt.
RaisedRight,
True, if my scenario, the kids were directly abused. But i disagree that the person wasn’t directly abused makes it any less appropriate. If I were to make a holocaust joke to my jewish friend, who wasn’t involved, I’d understand if he got upset. Now, most my friends know my sense of humor, and it wouldn’t be outside of me to make a joke concerning the holocaust and my jewish friend would likely brush it off, but if another person who was jewish heard it, even though the joke wasn’t directed at him, I’d also understand if he got offended. Needless to say, I’d probably make a joke about the holocaust in my house than in a crowded movie theater, even though I’m talking to my friend in both circumstances.
I say we quit arguing over the small stuff, it will be solved on the battelfield soon enough.
Talk about a run-on…
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/03/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
BS! This idea that these words are off limits or that black people are forever scared is pathetic and Marxist to the hilt. Of course maybe some races are fragile and need big brother to constantly look out for them. BTW I am a Christian don’t EVER say the word lion around me.
It’s all PC bu!!$h!t. I’d like to go to Foggy Bottom, and “lynch” about 50 of those b@$t@rds; regardless of skin color, or party. Stick that in your dictionary, and smoke it!
AlturaCT,
The only ones who are saying that certain words should be off limits are the people saying that they shouldn’t be off limits. It’s a straw-man argument, as I have never said they should be off limits.
AlturaCt – I like the lion analogy.
RaisedRight and AlturaCT,
Would you joke about crusifying people with the priest at your church?
A: On a rap album
The Raging Republican,
What rap album are you refering to specifically?
Man, I missed all the fun. I see Rusty posted but I do not see them any more. Bummer.
Chops,
Are you too close to this? Raging was making a funny.
What About all the rhetoric you hear from the Black Panthers? so if you are going to point to one extreme – Group- there are extremes on the other end. What about the guy who called Michelle Malkin a dirty name on Fox when she was hosting the Factor, was that his Freedom of Expression or Free Speech that door swings in both directions.
On-my-soap-box,
Yeah, I know he was making a joke, but it’s a tired joke. At least the other poster that wrote about rap tied it to the subject. I mean, we could make a ad-lib with what Raging wrote:
Q: When is (verb)(adjective)(noun) acceptable?
A: On a rap album?
Q: When is nuking gay baby whales acceptable?
A: On a rap album.
I’m just asking the man to name ONE rap album that he’s listened to.
mpChops – I know that last question wasn’t directed at me, but check out the lyrics of the old (early 90s) group Da Lench Mob, produced by Ice Cube. They not only use the term lych but also have lots of “kill whitey” lyrics. I had to turn to a friend who actually listens to rap on this, I couldn’t remember the group’s name. But a quick check of Google and Wikipedia sure make it look like there was no uproar over their lyrics.
I would rather be lynched than listen to a rap album.
“Lord, I apologize for that right there, and please be with the starvin’ pygmies down there in New Guinea, A-men”
Sorry, I missed this one before. I don’t think that I would hesitate to use the term crucify in it’s accepted sense (i.e. when someone is tormented or treated very cruelly) with the pastor at my church. It is a word that has a meaning apart from it’s connection to Christianity and my pastor is certainly able to see that.
RaisedRight,
Kill whitey lyrics? I think your friend might be mistaken. I remember a couple of their songs, and they weren’t “kill whitey” but “I’m a gang-banger. Look what I can do.” Selling drugs. Shooting up places. Stupid, senseless stuff, no doubt, which is why I wasn’t a fan. I don’t think they ever even used “lynch” when they weren’t saying it as part of their name.
As there not being uproar over their lyrics, there was uproar over ALL the raps lyrics of that era. Remember, that was right after NWA, when rap was just becoming mainstream. They simply didn’t make a mark to distinguish them from the rest of the pack.
Again, I don’t think lynching is a theme that you’ll hear on rap albums.
My priest told me this one:
Q: Why didn’t Jesus get into medical school?
A: He got nailed on his boards.
Then a minister and a rabbi walked into the bar.
Better call the waaaahmbulance. I can hear the whiners now.
Would you use it in jest, like “I’m going to crusify little Timmy if he cheats in checkers again”, given that it has a meaning apart from its connection with Christianity?
Let’s try again.
Anytime you feel like it. Just be prepared for the onslaught of race-baiters and hucksters out for your hide.
Oops, I said hide. My apologies to all fur-bearing animals I might have offended.
“Lord, I apologize for that right there, and please be with the starvin’ pygmies down there in New Guinea, A-men”
mpChops (#65)-
Well aren’t you just contentious today! What got your panties in a bunch?
Are you sure you’re thinking of the same group? My friend gave me the group’s name, not the lyrics. How about you try looking some up? Here’s a fun sample for you:
“The crackers ain’t s***; chase them out of the jungle; now raise up off the planet… we get the 12 gauge; shot to the chest… we hitting devils up… Da Lench Mob, environmental terrorist… I gripped the Glock and had to knock his head from his shoulders…. I got the .30[6] on the rooftop; pop; pop; so many devils die… make sure I kill them… lynch a thousand a week if it’s necessary”
Rusy and lgm have the day off so he has to pull a triple shift.
RR,
…and you are just starting to scratch the surface!
Would I jokingly threaten to torment someone or treat him cruelly?! No! But that has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s crucifixion.
On March 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm, On-my-soap-box said:
Yes. I was making a funny, but Chops got me thinking so I did a little search for song lyrics to back up my point:
The Nigga Ya Love To Hate
By Ice Cube
“Now who do ya love to hate
Cause I talk sh** and down the eight-ball
Cause I don’t fake you’re begging I fall off
The crossover might as well cut them balls off
And get your a** ready for the lynching
The mob is droppin common sense and
We’ll gank in the pen will shank
Any Tom Dick and Hank or get the a**”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trouble (Eve Of Destruction)
By blackalicious
“I’m breaking all yall necks in half flex
know the mathmatic formulas of fury
hey lets go the path of the terror dome zone dwellar
never goin gold
nigga better phone home
tell them mail a chrome tombstone
head up on a pedastal
a medical attention couldnt ever make it better from the metaphor of lynching”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rollin Wit Connect
Verse 1: Binky Mack
“Business and pleasure make up your own mind
You gotta be a hoe on your own time
Don’t sleep cause even on a solo creep
Nigga Connect is still deep
And we’ll play ya just like a trick
You thought you got with the crew you can’t f**k with
So get the noose cause ya we still lynching
”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Holla Back!
I think Chops is gone, but I’d be willing to pinch hit for him.
Wachoo talkin’ ’bout Willis? How’s the weather where you are? Raining hard or hardly raining? Non-sequitur. Change subject. Out.