...people who feel the broader culture has given them a green light to act on their basest hate and fears....

May 28, 2005 10:11 PM

Creating A Climate for Cross Burnings --the recent reappearance of this horrifying relic of the bad old days of the South, supposedly gone, have many wondering. Now where do you think small-change bigots would get the idea that public expressions of racism and intolerance are ok?
posted by amberglow (105 comments total)

more from Pam's House Blend
posted by amberglow at 10:13 PM on May 28, 2005

Domestic terrorists like these don't deserve much attention by the FBI. We've got hippies keying Hummers to worry about.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:55 PM on May 28, 2005

It's because nobody's every really sent them the message that this behavior isn't ok.
posted by Jon-o at 10:59 PM on May 28, 2005

Hmm. The story that jumps out at me is that there were crowds of hundreds of people at the vigil in response to the cross burnings. That's pretty heartening, IMHO. Maybe I'm just overly cynical about how willing people are to respond to threats to their neighbors.
posted by hattifattener at 11:17 PM on May 28, 2005

This, from your second link, entirely baffles me:

Burning a cross without the permission of the property owner is a misdemeanor in North Carolina. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that, under the First Amendment, cross burning could be barred only when done with the intent to intimidate.

I guess I missed this story. When isn't a crossburning meant to intimidate?
Anyway, I liked the local coverage, which emphasized the community's strength and downplayed the fearmongering that the perps were clearly going for. The kind of people who would do a stunt like this need to feel marginalised, and know that they don't get to partake in the community discourse when they behave like idiots. Less idiots in public office would probably strengthen that message, as well..
posted by maryh at 11:22 PM on May 28, 2005

The sad thing is, 600 people can come out against a cross-burning AFTER it's happened, but they'll never negate what the cross-burning was meant to imply: "We could have killed you if we wanted to."

Anybody who has this done to them has been violated in a way that can NEVER be undone.

Their sanctity of life is gone. They cannot sleep with their windows open on a hot summer night. They can't let their kids run around out of their sight, EVER. And of course they will never, ever look at their neighbors the same way again, no matter how close they thought they were before.

That's the damage the cowardly assholes who do this mean to impart, and unfortunately, it works... can you let your child play out at the edge of your yard after dusk when you've had a cross burned in your yard? No f**king way, and no matter how long you live in your home, you'll always have that fear... someone out there means you harm, and you have to fear for the lives of everyone in your family just in case they're a little bit drunker or a little bit meaner next time.
posted by BoringPostcards at 11:34 PM on May 28, 2005

Great post amberglow. You point out that someone has engaged in awful behavior but that there are many in the same community who are horrified by it. As a southerner I really appreciate the balance.
posted by Carbolic at 12:29 AM on May 29, 2005

Oh, and "Now where do you think small-change bigots would get the idea that public expressions of racism and intolerance are ok?"

The people who engage in that behavior are nothing more than hoodlums. They are outcast here just like they would be anywhere else. They know it's unacceptable and that is exactly why they engage in the behavior.
posted by Carbolic at 12:33 AM on May 29, 2005

Domestic terrorists like these don't deserve much attention by the FBI. We've got hippies keying Hummers to worry about.

Don't forget animal rights activists. According to the FBI, they're it's top priority right now.

I guess the geniuses at the FBI have decided that patriot and white supremacist groups just aren't that big a deal. What's the big deal with an occasional federal building blowing up or cross burning anyway?
posted by joedharma at 1:13 AM on May 29, 2005

I'm from Alabama, and left a number of years ago to live in the UK. Racism and religiosity are what I was most glad to leave behind.

On the other hand, it bothers me how stories like this are interpreted. My Alabama experience says that there were probably 100 times more Southeriers protesting than there were racists involved in the original incident. But that's never what shines through.

On the other hand, the recent politics of religion and conservatism in the South have made me sure that I'll never move back again.
posted by re6smith at 2:05 AM on May 29, 2005

I'm really unlikely to burn either a cross or a flag, I don't own either and the city really doesn't have space for burning anything larger than a cigarette, but it seems that if I burn a cross I support, though in a fanatical manner, what I believe it symbolizes. However, if I burn a flag, I seem to be opposed to what the flag symbolizes.
In other words, wouldn't a cross-burner be pretty upset if I lit up a flag? If he, for some reason, rather than just pounding on me said, the hackneyed but ever-useful "why do you hate America?" could I say, "why do you hate Jesus?"
What is there in the origins of cross burning that make the destruction (or transformation) of the symbol supportive?
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 4:54 AM on May 29, 2005

maryh : "When isn't a crossburning meant to intimidate? "

Off the top of my head: Possibly when making a film? Of course, that doesn't match up with the "without the permission of the property owner" clause from the previous sentence, but I strongly suspect it's just because they used the word "however" incorrectly, implying that the second sentence was related to and negated the first.

AlexReynolds : "We've got hippies keying Hummers to worry about."

Keys burn?
posted by Bugbread at 5:31 AM on May 29, 2005

What is there in the origins of cross burning that make the destruction (or transformation) of the symbol supportive?

Well, here's one explanation of the origin of the fiery cross.

Bit I'd guess you'd also need to look at the whole history of fire festivals, and the Beltane. Frazer has much on this.
posted by TimothyMason at 5:34 AM on May 29, 2005

Crossburnings and other forms of bias crime have been increasing for the last several years, coming off a lull in the 1999 - 2001 period. Nothing like the peak we saw in the mid-90s, but it's still early days.

The FBI has never claimed jurisdiction in cases like these. Since roughly 95% is rightwing in orientation, the FBI's record on letting domestic terrorists skate is no different than most rural sheriff's departments.
posted by warbaby at 6:02 AM on May 29, 2005

As a former participant in the Edinburgh Beltane festival I'd just like to clarify that we don't burn any crosses.
Also, Frazer's Golden Bough is available here at Gutenberg without any popups.
posted by Lebannen at 6:02 AM on May 29, 2005

*ahem* ...roughly 95% of domestic terrorism...
posted by warbaby at 6:03 AM on May 29, 2005

maryh: I thought bugbread had it, but apparently the two actually are related. In Virginia v. Black, the defendants were convicted under a Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ..., with the intent of intimidating any person or group ..., to burn ... a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place," and specifies that "[a]ny such burning ... shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group." (from the Supreme Court squib). So it's much the same law that they have in NC, apparently.

The crux of the plurality opinion, though, is precisely that you CAN'T make the automatic presumption that any cross burning is meant to intimidate, you have to inspect the actual situation in every case. Shocking, from O'Connor, but kind of a good point; I mean, I would hope that, for example, a school putting on a play ABOUT racism wouldn't have problems if the play involved a cross-burning scene. Of course the vast majority of cases have nothing to do with that.
posted by rkent at 6:19 AM on May 29, 2005

Lebannane : I know there are no crosses burnt at the Edinburgh Beltane festival. And if you don't want pop-ups, you don't have to have them at the Bartleby site.
posted by TimothyMason at 6:23 AM on May 29, 2005

sorry - maybe not in Edingburgh, but here's a Beltane burning cross for you. Why don't they do it in Edinburgh?
posted by TimothyMason at 6:28 AM on May 29, 2005

I can just feel the warmth of christian love every time I hear of a "good old fashioned" cross burning.

Jesus the warrior lives!
posted by nofundy at 7:48 AM on May 29, 2005

Well, I suppose that if you are burning a cross on your own land as part of a private function...
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:11 AM on May 29, 2005

Say, what ever happened about those nasty anthrax laced letters sent to those Democrat lawmakers and lefty lib'rul "news" rags?

Priorities are where you put 'em, I guess. Glad we got that one solved.
posted by Balisong at 8:16 AM on May 29, 2005

North Carolina is a strange place, especially in and around the triangle area. One the one hand you have a wide expanse of suburbia and tech jobs along with a lot of colleges and universities.

But, outside this area, where the cotton and tobacco still grow, there is tremendous resentment of the type of lifestyle and education those 'other' people have. Inside the triangle the politics is to the left. Outside, they go so far right you can't even see them any more.

There was a lot of tension due to this dichotomy when I lived there a decade ago. It doesn't seem to have changed.
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:27 AM on May 29, 2005

sorry - maybe not in Edinburgh, but here's a Beltane burning cross for you. Why don't they do it in Edinburgh?
They don't do it in Edinburgh because (1) fiery crosses are nothing to do with Beltane. (2) Edinburgh is a modern Lowland city - fiery crosses being taken round as a sign to gather for war is a highland tradition. (3) They're not actually fiery, the real thing is just slightly charred.

From the Scottish National Dictionary
(3) fiery cross, a wooden cross, charred at one end and, acc. to Scott, dipped in blood at the other, carried from place to place by a succession of runners to summon the fighting men of the district to arms. Hist. Now only in symbolical use.

Walter Scott is hardly a reliable historical source though - I wouldn't believe the stuff about the blood. I've never seen that in any contemporary account. The idea of transforming an old way of rallying clans into a dramatic means of threatening people of different races must have occurred to some misguided moron of Scots ancestry in the new world.
posted by Flitcraft at 9:50 AM on May 29, 2005

There was a lot of tension due to this dichotomy when I lived there a decade ago. It doesn't seem to have changed.

I moved to Raleigh in the decade since you've been gone, as have a large number of people. My work takes me beyond the Triangle, and I don't find this tremendous resentment you speak of...a lot of people look to this area as an opportunity, rather than something to be jealous about.

A few weeks before these burnings, Fred Phelps' band of inbred lunatics was in the area protesting a play about Matthew Shepard in Durham. Durham is where the burnings took place, and one of the churches targeted welcomes gays. Coincidence? I think not.
posted by pantload at 9:58 AM on May 29, 2005

outside this area, where the cotton and tobacco still grow,

*snorts* Cotton and tobacco? Could you try something a bit more stereotypical, please? For what it's worth, some of the strongest rightwing support in the area comes from the brand-new suburban sprawl north of Raleigh.

Inside the triangle the politics is to the left. Outside, they go so far right you can't even see them any more.

What a ridiculous oversimplification. I've lived in the Triangle for 19 years and I can say that UseyurBrain's formulation is laughably off-base. Cross-burners are either kids or morons - either way they're a miniscule subset of folks in NC, whether urban or rural. This kind of simplistic thinking reminds me of folks who think the Waynesville pastor who kicked Democrats out of his church stands for all of rural North Carolina. They seem to forget that in Waynesville, North Carolina there, ahem, are Kerry supporters who were willing to defy their pastor rather than vote for Bush.

Golly. Which one is the real North Carolina?
posted by mediareport at 10:46 AM on May 29, 2005

Golly. Which one is the real North Carolina?
They all are? It seems like an uneasy mix of the right, left, moderate, and far-right sickos willing to do stuff like this.

SPLC: Western North Carolina, long a home to white supremacists and other extreme rightists, is one of the country's centers of hard-line radicalism ...
posted by amberglow at 10:52 AM on May 29, 2005

The people who engage in that behavior are nothing more than hoodlums. They are outcast here just like they would be anywhere else. They know it's unacceptable and that is exactly why they engage in the behavior.

they might be hoodlums, but to say that they're outcasts like "anywhere else" doesn't take into consideration what it's like outside Durham in the small towns around this country.

when, as i experienced personally in Mississippi only 10 years ago, you have a local preacher, a lawyer, a rich salesman and a deputy sheriff holding town meetings where public statements like "i wouldn't be surprised when they burn those witches off that hill" are voiced... well, let's just say that when the deliberately threatening gunshots start echoing near the house, you don't exactly feel like you're being targeted by community outcasts. in fact, calling the police seems like you're just validating their "work."

i'm glad Durham came out against that sort of terror. but i'd wager there are lots of places where the memories of cross-burnings and similar intimidation keep people ducking their heads and trying to stay out of the crosshairs for years and years.

i think that separating the perpetrators of such things from humanity, as if they're not part of us, allows the festering to continue.
posted by RedEmma at 10:56 AM on May 29, 2005

Local blog Pam's House Blend, linked from amberglow's first link, has pics from two of the vigils and notes that St. Luke's Episcopal, where cops found the first cross, is a gay-positive church. She goes on to wonder why folks quoted in the press seem to be ignoring the anti-gay possibility:

One completely baffling aspect of some of the reporting about this that I came across, both in a report in the afternoon on public radio, and below in today's Durham Herald-Sun story, is a struggle by both the reporters and those interviewed to find a racial, teen prank, or local school board politics connection to the placement of these crosses -- really just about anything else except a possible message of intolerance toward gays. In neither case do they even mention the Westboro Baptist Church members' recent visit to picket the Durham School of the Arts production of The Laramie Project and several gay-accepting churches in the area, including St. Luke's Episcopal -- where a burning cross was actually found. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but come on people, at least the first Herald-Sun story by Eric Olsen had quotes from Bill Gutknecht, senior warden at St. Luke's, who brought up this possibility.
posted by mediareport at 10:58 AM on May 29, 2005

an uneasy mix of the right, left, moderate, and far-right sickos

Sounds like most states to me. The Southern Poverty Law Center link you mention puts it nicely:

North Carolinians are not more racist, or criminal, than others. To a large extent, the strength of the radical right in the area is the result of accidents of geography and history. But these accidents have produced a local movement that is remarkable.

Remarkable, yes, but hardly indicative of a broader racist tendency here than elsewhere. I dunno, amberglow, you and a few others seem just a bit too quick to generalize and then judge the people in the state where I live.
posted by mediareport at 11:03 AM on May 29, 2005

maryh : "When isn't a crossburning meant to intimidate?"

Well how the hell else am I gonna get rid of all these old crosses?
posted by graventy at 11:18 AM on May 29, 2005

I dunno, amberglow, you and a few others seem just a bit too quick to generalize and then judge the people in the state where I live.
Go ascribe attitudes elsewhere, mediareport. I purposely linked to the protests against this horrendous horrendous unacceptable shit instead of the news reports of the actual burnings in the FPP. We don't have cross-burnings where i live, and while most states are of course a mix of people, it's funny how that doesn't translate into violence and intimidation in most states, no?

You don't like how your state is portrayed? That's just too damn bad.
posted by amberglow at 11:32 AM on May 29, 2005

Maybe you should devote all the energy you spend defending your state here into fighting those responsible for this, and ensuring that the people there don't live terrified by these disgusting expressions of hatred and intolerance.
posted by amberglow at 11:35 AM on May 29, 2005

On the other hand, it bothers me how stories like this are interpreted. My Alabama experience says that there were probably 100 times more Southeriers protesting than there were racists involved in the original incident. But that's never what shines through.

On the other hand, the recent politics of religion and conservatism in the South have made me sure that I'll never move back again.

While I'm grateful you added some balance to your opinion, I'm not sure how claiming you'll "never move back" is helpful. Avoiding the problem is part of the problem. The view of alabama on metafilter is a comical one, and not the alabama I've lived in for several years.

Remarkable, yes, but hardly indicative of a broader racist tendency here than elsewhere. I dunno, amberglow, you and a few others seem just a bit too quick to generalize and then judge the people in the state where I live.

Racism is everywhere, but the south is a popular whipping boy for metafilter (and amberglow, plus a few trolls like nofundy). A few morons burn a cross and suddenly it's the old south again. It's easier to point the finger than solve problems in your own back yard.

Don't generalize about gay people, or muslims, or 'insert topic here', but the south is fine. Listening to amberglow preach about the south is like listening to an autistic child explain sarcasm. It means nothing. Don't argue, just humor him.
posted by justgary at 11:44 AM on May 29, 2005

You guys derailing this thread because you don't like how the South is portrayed here better redirect your energy into stopping this shit--You couldn't be wasting your time more.
posted by amberglow at 11:52 AM on May 29, 2005

SGT Nelson sez:
"The second amendment prevents cross burnings in my neighborhood."
posted by buzzman at 11:54 AM on May 29, 2005

We don't have cross-burnings where i live, and while most states are of course a mix of people, it's funny how that doesn't translate into violence and intimidation in most states, no?

You don't have cross burnings because its not part of your history. Racism comes out in ny in other ways (catch a cab if you're a black man...oh joy). As far as violence, are you joking? Do a google search and I promise you'll find plenty of racial violence in ny, la, etc.

New York City, the mythical melting-pot of white ethnicities, despite having the largest numbers of South Asians living in the US, is increasingly an unsafe space. Led by an openly hostile and belligerent mayor and police commissioner, the city has become a racially-charged, exploitative environment for South Asian taxi-drivers, street-vendors, and students alike.

Maybe you should devote all the energy you spend defending your state here into fighting those responsible for this, and ensuring that the people there don't live terrified by these disgusting expressions of hatred and intolerance.

Maybe you should be fighting everything wrong in your state instead of spending all your time on metafilter pointing elsewhere. Funny how it works both ways.

You couldn't be wasting your time more.

Look in the mirror.
posted by justgary at 11:56 AM on May 29, 2005

Howard Beach is in NC? Laramie, AL. What was the deal with the NYPD and a plunger? Boston is where you want to look for an example of how to integrate your schools, no problems there. Good thing the range of the racist homophobe is limited to the south.
posted by Carbolic at 12:03 PM on May 29, 2005

Oh yeah. That was the Mississippi Highway Patrol I saw beating the shit out of Rodney King.
posted by Carbolic at 12:42 PM on May 29, 2005

Well, for me, I think the real story includes the quick response by the police, and the large protests after the incident. But that seems to be less interesting, or or popular than the claim that there is something odd about NC culture that would host a gay-positive play, hold the first cross-burning in 22 years, and then protest the cross-burning.

We don't have cross-burnings where i live, and while most states are of course a mix of people, it's funny how that doesn't translate into violence and intimidation in most states, no?

Matthew Hale was a product of East Peoria, IL and Benjamin Smith came out of Chicago suburbia. Smith, in case you forgot, went on a two-state shooting spee targeting African-American and Asian American pedestrians. While his mentor Hale was convicted of attempting to arrange the assassination of Judge Joan Lefkow. IME tagging with racist grafitti seems to be universal in American cities.

From what I can tell, much of this regionalism is just another form of bigotry.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:59 PM on May 29, 2005

They don't do it in Edinburgh because (1) fiery crosses are nothing to do with Beltane.

The Edinburgh Beltane is a mish-mash of different - and often enough contradictory - practices, which one might well claim had 'nothing to do with Beltane', if it were not for the fact that it's extremely difficult in such matters to decide what has to do with what. In so far as Beltane can be identified with the Celts, the Highlanders have as much, if not more, right to decide what goes in the mix as do Edinburgh Lallans.

The fire festival can be found throughout the Indo-European cultural areas - to speak only of that. The fiery cross crops up in India, and throughout the region - as does the burning man and other flaming symbols. One reason why to burn the cross is not seen is blasphemous is because the cross - or the man, or the wheel - is, as it were, written in fire. This was, if I remember correctly, what the original burning cross of the modern KKK was supposed to do, standing high on a mountain and spreading the word of the Lord for miles around.

amberglow, I have lived nowhere where there was not racism, and everywhere where there is racism it can boil over into violence. My understanding was that many of the black people who had migrated to the North had moved back down South since the 70s, and had found that life was better for them there than in the North.
posted by TimothyMason at 1:16 PM on May 29, 2005

Howard Beach is in NC? Laramie, AL. What was the deal with the NYPD and a plunger? Boston etc..

Oh yeah. That was the Mississippi Highway Patrol I saw beating the shit out of Rodney King

Sorry, Carbolic, but the South has many incidents of blacks and gays getting jumped and beaten (like oward Beach and Laramie), it has many incidents of racially motivated police brutality (like Rodney King) PLUS it has a whole bunch of cross burnings, and the occasional lynching, ON TOP OF THAT.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:33 PM on May 29, 2005

I mean, shit, the normal violence in the south doesn't even make the news. You've got to chain a guy to a pickup and drag him a few miles if you want to get any TV exposure, and even then, it won't be considered a 'hate crime' by the local gov't.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:36 PM on May 29, 2005

You guys derailing this thread because you don't like how the South is portrayed here better redirect your energy into stopping this shit

Derailing? WTF? Sorry, amberglow, those of us who live here are comfortable in the knowledge that the group of shits who did this are an anomaly for North Carolina, have been quite pleased to see the immediate, strong and serious reaction on the part of the rest of the community, and are well within our Mefi rights to call you out in this thread as you sit up there in New York using the event to paint North Carolina with your own brand of overstated stereotyping.

And now, when confronted with your obvious desire to write off the people of NC as more racist than the rest of the country (based on evidence your own link made sure to describe as the historical accident of a small group of racists moving here), you try to attack us for - what? not doing enough to stop racism ourselves because we're doing the same thing on a Sunday afternoon that you are? Good lord, you're flailing.

Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, hon. Learn to recognize it in yourself and you'll be better equipped to fight it effectively elsewhere. Free clue: focusing on states instead of individuals is going down the wrong track.

"You couldn't be wasting your time more."
posted by mediareport at 1:42 PM on May 29, 2005

media, your ONLY comments in this thread have been to paint the rest of us as bigots and stereotypers attacking your state, and to characterize the people who did this, as redemma said, as separating the perpetrators of such things from humanity, as if they're not part of us, allows the festering to continue.

Funny how that's your reaction to this horrendous shit. Why was it that the only way you saw this thread was as a call for you to leap to North Carolina's defense? Why did these actions--either the burnings or the protest and response to them--occasion NOTHING except for an attack and a defense of your state?
posted by amberglow at 2:01 PM on May 29, 2005

bashos_frog: "I mean, shit, the normal violence in the south doesn't even make the news. You've got to chain a guy to a pickup and drag him a few miles if you want to get any TV exposure, and even then, it won't be considered a 'hate crime' by the local gov't."

Your an expert on the extent of unreported crime in the south?

"PLUS it has a whole bunch of cross burnings, and the occasional lynching, ON TOP OF THAT."

Cross burnings, especially these days, are in no way limited to the south. Try googling "cross burning" and Ohio for example. Do you seriously believe lynching is something that actually occurs with any regularity? Name one. Oh, that's right, they are all unreported.

I guess its easy to look down your nose at us when living in that little slice of heaven call New Jersey.
posted by Carbolic at 2:03 PM on May 29, 2005

media, your ONLY comments in this thread have been to paint the rest of us as bigots and stereotypers attacking your state

Flailing, darling. Flailing.

Why did these actions--either the burnings or the protest and response to them--occasion NOTHING except for an attack and a defense of your state?

That's just horrible, amberglow - truly a low point for you. Go ahead, finish your thought. What are the possible answers to your misinformed question?
posted by mediareport at 2:08 PM on May 29, 2005

*snorts* Cotton and tobacco? Could you try something a bit more stereotypical, please?

I lived several years in the country south of the triangle and when I looked out of my house, guess what I saw? Cotton and tobacco. I never thought the fields were being so 'stereotypical'. The horror!

What a ridiculous oversimplification. I've lived in the Triangle for 19 years and I can say that UseyurBrain's formulation is laughably off-base.

It wasn't an oversimplification when I lived there. Jesse Helms didn't get his votes in Chapel Hill. I read the 'News and Observer' when I lived there and saw on a daily basis the editorial page and the total dissonance between say Smithfield and Durham. I heard it in my congregation too.

As for the racist thing, it existed there more than anywhere else I have lived EVER. It wasn't just a case of ignorance either. There was real hate and resentment there. I saw it from day one in my own community and church.
posted by UseyurBrain at 2:12 PM on May 29, 2005

Cotton and tobacco. I never thought the fields were being so 'stereotypical'. The horror!

Ok, fair point. Twelve years ago, I was living in a cabin in Durham County that was right next to a tobacco field, and you're right, we'd see small cotton fields driving 15 miles east of Raleigh. I still think your post oversimplified the state for outsiders in really dumb ways, though. First off, Chapel Hill ain't all that liberal; there was a *huge* stink in town when folks recently tried to rename Airport Road Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (they just succeded, but not after an acrimonious debate). Second off, the rural areas aren't uniformly right-wing and racist, not least because many of them are - wait for it - filled with black folks.

That's just the start, UseyurBrain. But ok, the cotton and tobacco thing was kinda off.
posted by mediareport at 2:26 PM on May 29, 2005

p.s. That tobacco field sat at what is now a busy elementary school stoplight intersection.
posted by mediareport at 2:27 PM on May 29, 2005

How come I never see any negroes in those photos from metafilter meetups?
posted by bukvich at 2:29 PM on May 29, 2005

but not after an acrimonious debate

Make that "but only after an acrimonious debate." Thank you.
posted by mediareport at 2:30 PM on May 29, 2005

amberglow : "Why did these actions--either the burnings or the protest and response to them--occasion NOTHING except for an attack and a defense of your state?"

Probably because that's the part there's disagreement about. Nobody here disagrees that cross burnings are bad. Nobody here disagrees that racism is bad. Nobody disagrees that protesting cross burnings is good. Everybody agrees, so there just plain isn't a whole lot to discuss there. But whether one's state is a bunch of racist hicks compared to the racially harmonic utopia of New York; well, that's something there's disagreement about, and hence the area where discussion is likely to center.
posted by Bugbread at 2:35 PM on May 29, 2005

I just want to make it clear that I am not denying the existence of racism and other bigotry in the south. I'm reacting to the posters who act as if we have a monopoly on it. I work for an airline and have spent weeks at a time working in the JFK area over the last 20 years. I witnessed the same kind of racism there that turns my stomach when I witness it in rural Alabama or Mississippi. There are also many areas of the south where I rarely see overt signs of racism much like my experiences with Manhattan (other than those black guys who cannot seem to get a cab). I also suspect that some of the "expert opinions" given regarding conditions in the south are coming from individuals who have spent little or no time here.

I actually think amberglow's post was rather balanced and said so way up at the beginning of the thread. A lot of the material linked was talking about the community's negative reaction and distress over the cross burnings.
posted by Carbolic at 2:44 PM on May 29, 2005

Everybody agrees, so there just plain isn't a whole lot to discuss there.

bugbread, i think there's plenty to discuss, and that's why i purposely linked to an analysis of increased instances of racist and intolerant behavior possibly relating to the incidents, and to the coverage of the community protesting these incidents--instead of to the incidents themselves. It was mediareport's decision (helped along by justgary) to make this thread about whether one's state is a bunch of racist hicks, and that's just sad. Carbolic understood that, but mediareport couldn't see past a kneejerk response.
posted by amberglow at 2:49 PM on May 29, 2005

Ok, let me rephrase that: A possible reason for the front page post occasioning NOTHING except for an attack and a defense of the state might be that for some users, the issues on the table appear to be those for which they feel there is little disagreement or fodder for discussion, while an issue of much greater dispute was on the table.

It's something akin (but, of course, not nearly as extreme; I'm exaggerating for example understandability) to saying "Batman and Robin was a bad film by Joel Schumacher (a jew)". It shouldn't be too surprising if conversation centers on the judaism part instead of the central topic, the badness of Batman and Robin, even though there's plenty of badness in that movie.
posted by Bugbread at 3:14 PM on May 29, 2005

mediareport couldn't see past a kneejerk response

Wow. That's stunning. I don't know when you first heard about this story, amberglow, but we've been dealing with it down here for a while now. I'm sorry your call to massive outrage didn't quite resonate with someone who know this area and has been generally pleased with the positive local reaction to the episode, but perhaps you should stop to consider that maybe - just maybe - *you're* the one who's having the kneejerk reaction.

This is a horrid thing to have happen on your doorstep, yes. But it's hardly cause for the kind of regionalist bullshit amberglow seems to want to stir up.
posted by mediareport at 3:21 PM on May 29, 2005

Amberglow, just to be extra crunchy clear: I'm not accusing you of baiting. Your post was quite evenhanded. You just asked "Why are you focusing on this part instead of that part?", and I'm just providing a possible answer. I don't know if it's the actual answer or not.

And, out of curiosity, could you explain what you meant by this part? :

amberglow : "Funny how that's your reaction to this horrendous shit."

The way I'm reading it sounds like a veiled accusation of bigotry at mediareport, but I'm pretty sure (or at least I strongly hope) that's not what you were getting at. Still, better to ask directly than mull over or misinterpret it.
posted by Bugbread at 3:24 PM on May 29, 2005

By the way, anyone who wants to protest stories like this, which blatantly ignore even the *possibility* of an anti-gay angle to these cross-burnings, can contact the reporter and his editors here. amberglow, I assume you'll follow my lead and make your feelings known on the matter.
posted by mediareport at 3:32 PM on May 29, 2005

The way I'm reading it sounds like a veiled accusation of bigotry at mediareport...
No, it's an open accusation of his being more angered over the perceived slurring of his state and his decision to attack me--than about anything else about this post, including the incidents that happened. He immediately dismissed the incidents and its perpetrators as "kids or morons" and a "miniscule subset of folks in NC". Some of us called him on that, with links as well. Call it a priority thing, or a derailing thing--whatever you like. I don't know why he decided not to talk about what happened in Durham--the incident, the response to the incident, possible motives for the incident, etc. and would rather talk about my "bigotry" and generalizations. It's puzzling, and weird. It's also something that most here didn't feel the need to do. And i purposely and carefully constructed this post so that it had less chance of becoming just another north/south, red/blue post, so am angered.
posted by amberglow at 4:17 PM on May 29, 2005

So, this story is actually a positive one because for every person who commits a racist hate crime there are a hundred people who feel bad about it afterwards?

I suggest a more pro-active approach.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:30 PM on May 29, 2005

Well (I continue only because I'm anal, not because I think it's important)...

- You did construct the post well.
- Some of your followups may have left a little to be desired, but certainly weren't bad, and I probably would have said the same (even though I'm from Texas. Remember, Texas isn't the South, it's the Southwest). I think the dam burst with "while most states are of course a mix of people, it's funny how that doesn't translate into violence and intimidation in most states, no?"
- I agree that it is a discussion that perhaps didn't need to happen.
- I understand your anger at the discussion not going as you'd hoped.
- I just don't quite understand why you find it puzzling or weird. My (possible) explanation doesn't make sense to you?

If you understood it but didn't like it, I'd understand, but the fact that you find it puzzling is what puzzles me.
posted by Bugbread at 4:31 PM on May 29, 2005

For the record, I just want to clarify that I do not think all Southerners are racist. Neither do I believe that racist incidents only happen in the South.

I do believe that anyone who thinks that racist incidents per capita are the same in the south as in the northeast or midwest, or west coast, is either mistaken or willfully ignorant.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:43 PM on May 29, 2005

it's an open accusation of his being more angered over the perceived slurring of his state and his decision to attack me--than about anything else about this post, including the incidents that happened.

This is where you fell down, amberglow - asserting I'm "more angered" over the perceived slurring than over the incident in question. As if anyone with half a brain wouldn't be angry at cross-burnings. What is it you wanted to see?
posted by mediareport at 4:45 PM on May 29, 2005

Most of East Texas is still the South.
posted by raysmj at 4:48 PM on May 29, 2005

What is it you wanted to see?
From you? Something more than a dismissal of the incident, and an attack in response. You live in the area, yet had nothing to contribute? puzzling. And stop this right now: ...But it's hardly cause for the kind of regionalist bullshit amberglow seems to want to stir up. ... -- I didn't stir up any regionalist bullshit at all--YOU DID. Again, puzzling. I don't care why you have a chip on your shoulder, but you definitely do, and it's clearly evident here. I'm sorry you couldn't find anything to discuss in my post--maybe you shouldn't have entered it? it's easy to scroll past.
posted by amberglow at 4:56 PM on May 29, 2005

raysmj : "Most of East Texas is still the South."

D'oh!!

(Houston)

amberglow : "I didn't stir up any regionalist bullshit at all--YOU DID."

Actually, nobody "stirred up" any regional bullshit, it developed naturally, with a disagreement between two people who had both lived in NC (UseyurBrain and mediareport). You did add a little fuel to the flames by saying that most states don't have racial violence or intimidation, which is either patently false or just really poorly phrased.

amberglow : "You live in the area, yet had nothing to contribute? puzzling."

Not at all. I live in Houston, where Paul Broussard was killed for being gay. I have nothing to contribute to that discussion, though. I may be interested by it, but it's not like I have some secret knowledge because I live where it happened. Few people deal with a true cross-section of their communities. Some people do (depends on your job and drinking hole), so it's not unusual when someone can give background on a local issue or local attitudes, but in the same vein, some people don't, so it's not puzzling when they can't.
posted by Bugbread at 5:09 PM on May 29, 2005

Ok, let me rephrase that: A possible reason for the front page post occasioning NOTHING except for an attack and a defense of the state might be that for some users, the issues on the table appear to be those for which they feel there is little disagreement or fodder for discussion, while an issue of much greater dispute was on the table.

Or perhaps, it is due to the leading question that makes up the bulk of the FPP, which seems to assumes both that "culture" is limited to the south, and that the community is a safe place for racism.

One of amberglow's links has this very insightful statement:

And of course this doesn't even touch on the structural racism that deeply shapes our lives every day -- predatory banking, discrimination on the job, redlined communities, racial profiling by law enforcement, racial bias in sentencing, arbitrary detentions and deportations of immigrants, school re-segregation, voter disenfranchisement, environmental racism -- all carried out (or allowed to happen) on a grand scale by the elites of finance, industry and government.

All of these things are epidemic throughout the United States. Indianapolis has had a disturbing habit of young black men dying in police custody over the last 10 years. Los Angeles school systems are both highly segregated, and extremely predatory in its school segregation. Racial segregation in Chicago means that predatory banking is likely to be the only banking in many "black" neighborhoods.

I guess I'm seeing a few too many smug, "it can't happen here" responses. I used to think that as well about my supposedly utopian progressive northern college hometown. That is, until a kid who lived in fucking Chicago suburbia until he moved here drove through town on 4th of July weekend, unloaded his gun at a Korean Methodist Church, and left behind a dead body and a community wondering where the shooter was going to strike next.

bashos_frog: I do believe that anyone who thinks that racist incidents per capita are the same in the south as in the northeast or midwest, or west coast, is either mistaken or willfully ignorant.

You know what, I don't give a flying fuck about "per captia." I don't know a person of color who has not been the target of at least one racist incident. I don't know a gay person who has not been the target of at least one anti-gay incident. I see an article about the first cross-burning in 22 years, and I'm reminded that I live in a supposedly utopian northern progressive college city where the Jewish centers get tagged by skins every other year. This triggers a bit of outrage that never extends to reflection about the fact that my supposedly utopian northern progressive college city has big whopping problems with race and class.

It may certainly be the case that the NE, midwest and west coast may be "better." But that is damning with faint praise indeed. I know of too many people who would excuse their own racial prejudices on the grounds that at least they are not burning crosses at construction sites. "Better" is still not "equality" or "justice," by any measure. Too often I see "better" used as an excuse to remain blind, deaf and dumb to the racism in our own back yard.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:17 PM on May 29, 2005

So you ask, what is it about NC that leads someone to burn three croses in a single night. I'm still wondering, what is it about IL that leads someone to go on a racially-motivated shooting spree. I suspect that the answers to these questions convirge.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:23 PM on May 29, 2005

Something more than a dismissal of the incident

Good lord. I said it's horrid; what more do you want? Sorry for having moved beyond the initial stage of righteous outrage to something deeper while you were still stuck in righteous outrage.

Not.

I do believe that anyone who thinks that racist incidents per capita are the same in the south as in the northeast or midwest, or west coast, is either mistaken or willfully ignorant.

Well, basho's_frog, I'm not sure how best to quantify that. Perhaps we should look at the FBI's 2003 Hate Crimes Statistics Report? Scroll down to Section II, Table 12 - Agency Hate Crime Reporting by State, 2003.

NC reported 77 incidents for 8.3 million people, for a ratio of 9.27 incidents per million. NY reported 602 incidents for 19.2 million people, for a ratio of 31.35 incidents per million.

I'm trying to be fair, so I'll adjust for the percentage of relevant agencies who submitted any incident reports at all. In NC, that was 22 out of 461 agencies, or 4.7% In NY, it was 61 out of 520, or 11.7%. Using that as a metric (and I don't have a better one, so be sure to let me know if you do), NY agencies are 2.49 times as likely to report hate crimes than NC agencies (and I think I'm being generous here).

So, we multiply NC's 9.27 incidents per million by 2.5, and come up with 23.18 incidents per million for North Carolina. Which means that in 2003, according to the FBI, North Carolina had 73.94% *less* hate crime incidents per capita than New York. And that includes hate crimes that were other than race-based, too.

If I've mangle the numbers here, please, someone, let me know. Otherwise, I think basho's_frog owes me an apology for calling me "mistaken or willfully ignorant."
posted by mediareport at 5:29 PM on May 29, 2005

Er, I mean NC had less than 3/4 of the hate crime incidents per capita that NY had. That "less" thing screws it up. Apologies.
posted by mediareport at 5:33 PM on May 29, 2005

bashos_frog: "I do believe that anyone who thinks that racist incidents per capita are the same in the south as in the northeast or midwest, or west coast, is either mistaken or willfully ignorant."

That is exactly where I believe it is you who is mistaken. It is everywhere, no more so in the south. I live in a city in the south, Memphis, which is 60-65% black. Atlanta and New Orleans aren't far behind. If this is such a racist society why aren't these cities enveloped in constant racial violence.

I live in a section of the city that is approximately 50-50. My work group is the same. I'm living in the south in a racially mixed environment. I travel extensively within the US and have for the past 25 years. I'm telling you from my personal experience that there are pockets where racism is more prevalent but that no single region is worse/better than any other. For every Jasper Country Texas (the dragging you referred to) there is a Howard Beach.
posted by Carbolic at 5:37 PM on May 29, 2005

June 5, 2003:
Police Try To Determine Who Burned Crosses In Yard
Three Crosses Found On Mixed-Race Family's Property

LADOGA, Ind. -- Police this week were investigating the burning of three crosses in the yard of a mixed-race family. The couple awoke Tuesday to find the crosses, which apparently had been ignited by towels doused in fuel, said Luther Blanton, a Montgomery County police officer.

Laura Myers said she was not frightened by the discovery. "It just makes me mad," she said.

Neighbors in Ladoga, about 35 miles northwest of Indianapolis, suggested the cross burnings might have something to do with the fact that Myers, who is white, lives with a black man and their child. Her daughter, Michelle Myers, also lives in town with a black man.

Michelle Myers, 20, said she believed the three crosses represented the only three black people she knows living in the town of 1,000.

"There's a lot of racism that goes on in little towns around here," she said.

Damn that racist Midwest.
posted by mediareport at 5:49 PM on May 29, 2005

Welcome Signs, Anderson, CA, Winter 2004
In January of 2004, an 8-foot cross was erected and burned on the lawn of an African American family in the town of Anderson in Shasta County. Fearing for their safety, the family considered moving. City officials met with the family and encouraged them to stay, vowing to take action. The police chief treated the cross burning as a hate crime and called in the FBI to treat the offense as a federal crime.

Goddamn fucking racist California.
posted by mediareport at 6:23 PM on May 29, 2005

Wait, folks, it gets much much better.

amberglow: We don't have cross-burnings where i live
Reality: 11/22/04, Long Island, NY - Two interracial Long Island couples awoke yesterday to a horrible sight straight out of the vilest chapters in U.S. history books - a burning cross on their front lawn.

"I was shocked," said Richard Eggert, who lives with his fiancée in a two-family home in Lake Grove. "The whole bedroom was flickering from the light of the flames."

I could stop now, but I don't think amberglow would get it.

9/7/04 - Police investigate cross burnings in South Philadelphia [reg'n]

Carpenter Mike Dillon was all set to work on a deck at a home near 42nd and Pine Streets today, but he had to cancel: Someone burned two crosses near his home in South Philadelphia. Dillon, 27, a white Boston native, moved into a home near 28th Street and Passyunk Avenue last Wednesday with his fiancee, Ebony Williams, who is African American, and their infant son, Aidan. Dillon said he assumed the crosses were directed at him.

"We're a biracial couple with an infant, we're new to the neighborhood and we've gotten some looks by a few people," he said. "I'm putting one and one together."

7/6/04 - Giant swastika burned onto Staten Island street on July 4th:

A large swastika apparently burned into the road at an Eltingville intersection early yesterday morning is being investigated by police as a possible bias crime. Spanning 20 feet by 20 feet, the hate symbol was discovered in the middle of the intersection of Petrus and Pompey avenues...

Damn that racist North!

Middletown, OH, 11/5/04 - Police Investigate Cross-Burning In Middletown
Cincinatti, OH, 11/8/02 - Four Juveniles Arrested In Cross Burning Incident

Oh, shit. With the Lagoda, IN thing, that's three Midwest incidents in three years. A fucking epidemic!

8/4/2004, Lake Oswego, OR - Police make arrests in case of cross burned into family's lawn

On June 19, a Lake Oswego family discovered that a cross had been burned into their lawn using weed killer. Herb Saloman and Marcia Liberson, who are both Jewish, said at the time that while the poison might have killed their grass, the crime did not shake their belief in the goodness of people.

the Northwest, too? Where oh where has your outrage been, amberglow? Why have you not been posting about this before it appeared in the dreaded SOUTH? Look closely at "Hatewatch For the Record" from your new favorite site and tell me why I see crosses burned in New York and Massachusetts before any in North Carolina. Goshamighty. It's the South that's the center of cross-burnings? What are you, racist?
posted by mediareport at 7:07 PM on May 29, 2005

amberglow, before you get your back up about mediareport's hostile attitude...he has a damn good point.
posted by Bugbread at 7:56 PM on May 29, 2005

He's proving my point--his point isn't, and never was, the point of this thread, and is continuing his pattern of derailing and deflecting attention away from the events in NC, something he's bound and determined to do. Since he's already turned this thread into everything and anything but the events i linked to, there's nothing further to say. It's sad, really.
posted by amberglow at 8:15 PM on May 29, 2005

Amberglow: He didn't so much deflect from the events in NC as point out that the same sort of events occur in places that aren't located below the Mason-Dixon. The derail was as much due to one of your comments as anything else. You did indicate that such things don't occur in you neighborhood - which is incorrect. The change in direction was more closely connected to that comment than to the content of your post.

I don't intend to speak for mediareport but I will admit that I am extremely sensitive when the racist label is so enthusiastically applied to the south. We've got our problems but we are not alone. Justgary's comment regarding the south taking the position of "whipping boy" on the subject of racism pretty much explains my feelings. I don't believe the south is "just fine" but neither is the rest of the US or the world for that matter.
posted by Carbolic at 8:45 PM on May 29, 2005

Mediareport & Carbolic nailed it.

You need to get out of NYC once in awhile, amberglow.
posted by dhoyt at 9:42 PM on May 29, 2005

posted by troutfishing at 9:43 PM on May 29, 2005

We don't have cross-burnings where i live

I think that sums it up just fine, thanks. Good night, amberglow.
posted by mediareport at 9:55 PM on May 29, 2005

It doesn't make what happened in North Carolina any better to list all the racist acts all over the country, you know. Sadly, you don't. I'm still waiting to hear about Raleigh-Durham--from someone who lives there. You could have taken this thread as an opportunity to educate us all, but no--you decided to attack. Again, sad. Too bad you refuse to talk about it--it's very telling.
posted by amberglow at 10:13 PM on May 29, 2005

Amberglow isn't a villian here. I think this turned out to be a good disscussion. The first I've seen where a little balance has come in from the otherside of the south/racism issue. In the words of Rodney King "Can't we all just get along". (Hope not. What a bore.)
posted by Carbolic at 10:15 PM on May 29, 2005

Amberglow isn't a villian here.

Well, he certainly isn't as much of a villain as the folks who burned those crosses in Durham. But he *does* need to apologize for his ignorance of a cross-burning in his own backyard just six months ago, while sneering at another part of the country for its entrenched racism.

What's the holdup, amberglow? You were wrong. Admit it.
posted by mediareport at 10:19 PM on May 29, 2005

As someone who is normally right there with you, Amberglow, all I can say is somewhere you veered off and others called you on it. I'm from Tennessee and now live in Oregon. I the mid-90s, I spent two years following the KKK and protesting against their organizing tactics. I had my busiest days in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana. Your comments did have a anti-southern tinge to them.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:30 PM on May 29, 2005

It's a shame this thread got sidetracked by geography. To me, the larger issue here is whether the aggressive, bullying us-versus-them modus operandi of the present junta is creating a fertile ground for a resurgence of this type of hate crime. This is an administration that thrives on demonizing "the other" and fostering divisiveness for political gain. The first thing that I thought of when I heard about these burnings is that today's targets could as likely be gays, judges, or college professors as blacks or jews - the fundie and wingnut echo chamber are certainly providing enough kindling that I am not surprised to see some fire.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:25 PM on May 29, 2005

Resurgence? When did it go away? Hate takes no notice of the "present junta". This shit occured just as often when Bill was in office. College professors? Give me a break. The south, Republicans and the "moral majority" are not the root of all evil. It's here with or without them.
posted by Carbolic at 11:38 PM on May 29, 2005

It's a shame this thread got sidetracked by geography.
It really is a shame. That people feel emboldened to act out in this horrific way has to come from somewhere. I saw this thread as a sad complement to my recent thread on the national rise in gay-bashing--other examples of recent rises in horrific actions taken against a minority.

sneering? hmmm.

on preview: Carbolic, hate crimes of all sorts are on the rise.
posted by amberglow at 11:52 PM on May 29, 2005

I'll recant. Maybe it didn't happen just as often under Bill. Hate crimes may be on the rise. I don't think the rise is a recent development. My problem is that some people seem to think the solution is somewhere other than their own neighborhood. "If those other people would just get it together we wouldn't have this problem". It is everywhere. It is here regardless of which party is in power or which group is getting coverage on CNN or Fox. If the current administration had come out in favor of gay marriage I don't know that there wouldn't have been an even sharper rise in anti-gay violence. I agree that hate crimes are a problem I just don't think that the politics of the party in power have much to do with their prevalence. When Bill was in power these things just happened when Dubya's in power it's somehow connected to the government's attitude.
posted by Carbolic at 12:29 AM on May 30, 2005

My problem is that some people seem to think the solution is somewhere other than their own neighborhood.

Bingo. It's definitely worth noting when someone decries a rise in hate crimes while stating, "we don't have cross-burnings where I live." You want to know where stuff like this comes from? Try looking at folks who point their finger elsewhere.

And you're still pulling the aggrieved party thing and refusing to admit you were wrong, amberglow. It's clear you don't think your own ignorance on this matter is as important as standing and pointing somewhere else.
posted by mediareport at 4:50 AM on May 30, 2005

In order to not disappoint justgary, who brought my name into this thread as an example of a MeFi troll, let me say I think Alabama sucks shit through a straw. And Census Bureau statistics back me up.
posted by nofundy at 4:51 AM on May 30, 2005

...standing and pointing somewhere else.
LOL! You must be joking--what was that laundry list above but exactly that?
posted by amberglow at 5:34 AM on May 30, 2005

I think mediareport's right here, amberglow.

For you, the most important contribution he could make in this thread would be to echo your outrage at the events in NC, sharing his own perspective living there.

For him, the most important contribution he felt he could make was to make it clear that these sorts of events are not widespread in NC, and that they in fact occur across the country.

And that seems like a perfectly tenable position to me, even if you don't personally feel it's as important a statement. Despite the couching of civility ("strange", "puzzling"), the implications of some of your comments are way over the line (and mediareport rose to yr bait more strongly than he ought to have).
posted by Marquis at 5:46 AM on May 30, 2005

amberglow : "Since he's already turned this thread into everything and anything but the events i linked to, there's nothing further to say."

Well, he is deflecting the thread from the events you linked to, but he is also addressing the comment you made:

amberglow : "We don't have cross-burnings where i live, and while most states are of course a mix of people, it's funny how that doesn't translate into violence and intimidation in most states, no? "

If you didn't want to derail the topic, you probably shouldn't have helped to do so.

Once again, with the extreme examples: If someone posted a thread about racism in Germany, and then said, "We don't have racism in America", I don't think that someone addressing that point is in any way out of line, even though it doesn't address the link itself. Posting a link does not mean that you can say whatever you want without disagreement because it doesn't address the link contents.

amberglow : "It doesn't make what happened in North Carolina any better to list all the racist acts all over the country, you know."

And it doesn't make it any better to deny that it happens in your own state, you know.

amberglow : "Too bad you refuse to talk about it--it's very telling."

Telling of what?!?! This seems, again, like a thinly veiled accusation of racism. I'm certainly hoping that's not what you're getting at, but if so, allow me to counter with an equally vague and suspicious comment: Too bad you refuse to address the fact that you have cross burnings in your own state, amberglow -- it's very telling.

mediareport : "...standing and pointing somewhere else."
amberglow: "LOL! You must be joking--what was that laundry list above but exactly that?"

The laundry list above was pointing the finger at everywhere. It seems some people here think that racism exists everywhere, while some (er, you) appear to think (and I'm not saying you do think, but you certainly appear to think) it just happens somewhere else. A person pointing their finger at the whole country, including themselves is not pointing there finger somewhere else, they're pointing it at everything. A person who says "cross burnings don't happen where I live" is pointing their finger somewhere else.
posted by Bugbread at 6:11 AM on May 30, 2005

Since the desire is to hear from someone in Durham about our perspective, here's mine. I went to college in Annapolis, MD, where the impoverished black underclass waits on the almost all-white Naval Academy, state legislature, and yachting crowd. Durham is the least racist, most integrated city in which I have ever lived. In Durham, my neighbors run the gamut from plumbers to college professors, from recent immigrants from pretty much any country you can think of to backwoods NC natives. Every night, the teenagers in my neighborhood, who seem to possess among them every possible shade of skin color, play basketball together at the elementary school. Thursday night, my neighbors lit candles and put their arms around each other and stood together, as they always do, against whatever that was--whatever it was, it wasn't Durham.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:47 AM on May 30, 2005

Now where do you think small-change bigots would get the idea that public expressions of racism and intolerance are ok?

From just about anywhere in America or the world maybe? Without the "racism and" part you get ordinary social discourse. Is the inclusion of the "R word" all that matters?

And hydro, isn't Durham expensive as hell to live in? What good is being all "liberal" if you've got to be rich to do it?
posted by davy at 9:29 AM on May 30, 2005

bugbread, crossburnings don't happen where I live. When a white cop can get away with shooting a fleeing black man in the back by calling it "self-defense" who needs to burn a cross?

Civil Case Against Police Detective Who Fatally Shot Man Opens

Louisville crowd protests officer's acquittal in death

And there's plenty more about Mattingly via Google.
posted by davy at 9:43 AM on May 30, 2005

And hydro, isn't Durham expensive as hell to live in?

No.

I've spent most of my life in upstate New York (Rochester and Ithaca) but lived in Durham for three years. While I would never claim that the city is just one big interracial love-fest, I agree with hydropsyche's sentiment. I was shocked to hear that crosses were burned there but entirely unsurprised at the community response.
posted by purplemonkie at 9:58 AM on May 30, 2005

davy, Durham is one of the cheapest places to live in the Triangle/central NC area. Has been for years. The number of neighborhoods where it's still possible for a young couple to buy a cheap house is sort of the great hidden secret of Durham, if you must know. Check this AskMe thread for lots of sharp opinions about Durham housing.
posted by mediareport at 10:14 AM on May 30, 2005

i appreciate greatly the exposure of the obvious: this stuff happens everywhere in various forms.

a few peripheral comments:
--i think that if you ask many black folks whose elders participated in the Great Migration and have now returned to the South, they will tell you that they a) found the same racism in the North and b) at least in the South, the way racism is expressed tends to be more overt, and thus easier to deal with and fight against. In the North, I've heard often, folks will pretend to like you to your face, but destroy you when your back is turned. a generalization, to be sure, but since i'm not the one reporting the experience, i'll accept it as something to think about.

--regarding modern-day lynchings: Matt Shepherd was in Wyoming. pretty recent, and not in the South.

and to really confuse matters, and as a point of interest, there have been several probable suicides recently in the South where the impact of history has made their folks suspicious and defiant of the police determination (of suicide.)
posted by RedEmma at 12:01 PM on May 30, 2005

crap. don't know why my link won't work. too new at HTML? i plainly don't know what i'm doing. apologies.
posted by RedEmma at 12:02 PM on May 30, 2005

Looks like there was a space after the http, RedEmma, and the post page added the metafilter.com stuff. Here's the story. Thanks for pointing it out. The uncertainty is bad enough, but the possibility that the hangings are racist murders is truly horrible.
posted by mediareport at 12:39 PM on May 30, 2005

(may i email you (mediareport) with what ought to be an obvious question on what i did wrong? i'm a neophyte, and can't seem to find out by searching MeFi if i'm doing something weird.)

back to the subject at hand: i'm currently doing extensive research on lynchings, and i can say confidently that although i understand the people's resistance to the idea of a black man hanging himself (and the history which leads to their suspicion)--it would be truly extraordinary to have a lynching in which the victim was not at the very least beaten. Most of the lynched are mutilated and tortured extensively. the primary purpose of the crime being to send a message to the public at large (and the representative's specific constituency), perpetrators do not generally want that message to be left unclear.
posted by RedEmma at 5:51 PM on May 30, 2005

RedEmma, you don't think they might adapt to a society that scrutinizes that behavior more? An all-out beating will leave a lot of evidence, and nowadays outside investigators are more likely to be involved, no?
posted by MightyNez at 7:16 PM on May 30, 2005

MightyNez: show me a lynching that's that well-planned and i'll change my mind. (assassinations, on the other hand...)

when i first started reading about these recent deaths, i had the same thoughts. but the more i read, the more it seems like families in denial about suicide accompanied by communities still plagued by some form of intergenerational PTSD (justified, certainly) due to white terrorism. in at least one of the cases, the investigating sheriff was black, and went to extraordinary lengths to rule out murder. if these bodies were actually cleansed, i.e. pristine, then i'd be suspicious. if there were footprints, or tracks of anyone other than the dead. car tracks. then yes, i'd be less secure in my opinion.

i'm not saying there's no possible way these could be lynchings, and i'm certainly not saying that lynchings in today's world aren't possible. it's just that i think you're overestimating the forethought that goes into this sort of murder, or even fear of being caught. the perpetrators of this sort of crime are operating in a fog of delusional justification. it may not be the days when whole towns quite literally BBQed black men in town squares and took pieces home as souvenirs, but we're really not that far away from that world. (still in living memory for anyone over 80.) and i think modern-day lynchers are closer to that place than the average.
posted by RedEmma at 9:21 PM on May 30, 2005