No, it’s not “pretty clear that the attack in question had a provocation that had to do with the guy’s belligerence and goading.”
It’s pretty clear it had to with the same racial resentment that the article describes at the outset. ("The Tree” and all that.)
Please.
Can I ask a hypothetical question?
If the guy were not taunting the black kids about the black student who had gotten beaten, nor throwing racial epithets, nor bragging about knowing the guys who hung the nooses from the trees, would he have been attacked?
You seem bent on starting the causal chain with actions by the white kids. Why is that? The article you sourced doesn’t start it there. Please, this is not really that complicated. Racial resentment on BOTH sides was at work, and is to blame.
If it’s so uncomplicated, you should be able to answer the question.
There is no doubt that racial resentment on both sides was a factor… but was it the direct cause?
Raptavio - 14 September 2007 01:55 PM
(On a side note: Is a noose “hung” or “hanged?” A man is “hanged” from a noose, but art is “hung” from the wall. Which applies to hanging a noose from a tree?)
According to the OED: hang has two past tense and past participle forms; hanged and hung. You should use hung in general situations, as in they hung out the washing, while hanged should only be used when talking about executing someone by hanging, as in the prisoner was hanged.
Doesn’t seem right to say the noose itself was hanged, because I have this picture of a noose being led to the gallows.
I don’t know, obviously.
I think you’re right. It’s just one of those linguistic anomalies that made me scratch my head.
Yes, I should be able to answer the question and did answer the question.
Odette - 14 September 2007 12:28 PM
BOTH sides were plainly motivated by race. Let’s get real here.
That’s your answer to this question?
If the guy were not taunting the black kids about the black student who had gotten beaten, nor throwing racial epithets, nor bragging about knowing the guys who hung the nooses from the trees, would he have been attacked?
Okay, if that’s your final answer. Usually, “Yes,” “No,” or “I’m Not Sure” would be the answers that make sense, but y’know… if you don’t want to make sense, that’s cool.
Ah… so, though you choose to not answer directly you are saying that regardless of the direct cause, the racism was a proximate cause.
OK, another hypothetical then:
If the black students held no racial prejudice in their hearts against white people (and I’m not saying they did) and were met with the belligerence, taunting and goading about the violence and the lynching threats, do you think it possible they would have responded similarly to how they did, in fact, respond?
Do try to answer directly, not obliquely. There’s a good fellow.
Ah… so, though you choose to not answer directly you are saying that regardless of the direct cause, the racism was a proximate cause.
LOL.
Uh, no. In the law, we speak of proximate cause, not direct cause. It’s a term of art.
I’m trying to help you here, bro. Don’t be such s pissant.
If you want to bring this exclusively into the legal realm, fine.
Let’s talk about the cause-in-fact. Apply the “but-for” test to both the following alleged causes:
A) Racial resentment towards the white students by the perpetrators,
B) The belligerent goading and provocation of the victim.
Do one, both, or neither of the alleged causes meet the criterion for being the cause-in-fact? If both, are they concurrent causes or sufficient combined causes?
Y’all are drifting way away from making any sense here. Proximate cause is a concept related to negligence actions, and is the issue of whether someone’s negligence legally caused the injury (i.e., was sufficiently connected to the injury that liability attaches). That’s when “but for” and all that comes in. But the concept involves trying to connect someone’s negligent acts to the injury.
But this is a criminal matter; on the civil side, it is an intentional tort. The acts of the defendants (e.g., kicking and hitting) directly caused the battery and the injury—there is no question of causation.
The legal question then becomes only whether the racial resentment, or goading, or other provocation, amounts to justification of the battery. Justification in the sense that self-defense is a justification ("Yes, I did it, but . . ."). That’s a pretty tall hill to climb, and I’ll suggest that it does not. Such factors as provocation etc. would then simply not be relevant, in the legal sense.
Those factors are relevant as a political question, tho—involving what sort of punishment the state wants to seek, etc.
You’re right, pikku. My question was more sociological than philosophical; how much of the violence on each side is due to racism and how much is a reaction to the other side’s racist behavior.
You’re right, pikku. My question was more sociological than philosophical; how much of the violence on each side is due to racism and how much is a reaction to the other side’s racist behavior.
Socialogically and philosophically speaking, I think there appears to be equal racism on both sides of the situation Rap, as in fact, I believe there is between Blacks and Whites in general. The difference is only in how racism manifests, not in a question of its existence.
That is the large problem I have with the liberal viewpoint on racism; that it ignores one manifestation of it because it does not come from caucasian people, and focuses entirely on the manifestation that does, and THEN attempts to redefine the manifestation it ignores into something other than the racism that it IS.
You’re right, pikku. My question was more sociological than philosophical; how much of the violence on each side is due to racism and how much is a reaction to the other side’s racist behavior.
Socialogically and philosophically speaking, I think there appears to be equal racism on both sides of the situation Rap, as in fact, I believe there is between Blacks and Whites in general. The difference is only in how racism manifests, not in a question of its existence.
That is the large problem I have with the liberal viewpoint on racism; that it ignores one manifestation of it because it does not come from caucasian people, and focuses entirely on the manifestation that does, and THEN attempts to redefine the manifestation it ignores into something other than the racism that it IS.
I’m asking questions, IDP. I’m not making accusations.
I’m just looking at it from this perspective: If I were a highschooler and this guy were bragging about beating up and threatening to kill my friends, I’d want to kick his ass too.
I think it’s easy to say “racism is equal on both sides” - and that feels nice and comfortable - we’re all human, we all have similar flaws, after all - but that, honestly, is a load of crap. There are places where black-on-white racism is absolutely endemic, and places where white-on-black racism is de rigeur, and these are not necessarily the same places. To say “it’s all equal” in all cases and in all places is simply to handwave a problem away.
This town is clearly a place where racism - white on black racism - is heavily insititutionalized and actively oppressing black residents. Does the resentment build racist notions from blacks towards whites in return? Almost certainly. Is it less than, equal to, or greater than the racism that oppresses them? That’s an interesting question.
But to say that every negative action by both sides is motivated by racism is utterly false. It’s equally false to say that the negative actions by both sides are equally motivated by racism.
This is a large problem I have with the conservative viewpoint on racism - it’s entirely built on assumptions of what conservatives would like it to be, rather than an analysis of what is.
This thread (and its well intentioned participants) is really missing the whole point here. The media is missing the point as well but there really isn’t anything unusual about that.
Everyone seems to be focused on the town of Jena and its obviously dysfunctional population.
Step back a minute and remember that this is Louisiana. The rules, customs and ethics that most people are acquainted with simply do not apply here.
I offer up for evidence what happened in New Orleans in the days following Hurricane Katrina. If you were like me, watching that ridiculous mess unfold, you were saying to yourself, “How stupid can these people be?” As a former resident of New Orleans and a casual observer ever since, I am convinced the answer to that question is, “Pretty darned stupid.”
The same holds true for Jena and just about any other municipality that you could care to name on the Louisiana map.
Louisiana is the only state in the union that has parishes. Louisiana is the only state in the union that’s legal system is based on the Napoleonic code. Louisiana is thoroughly and completely steeped in French culture and traditions. Like France, Louisiana elections (for state and local offices) use a blanket primary system in which a candidate must have more than 50% of the vote to win, also unique in the USA. As I have said on other threads, Louisiana is the epicenter for corruption in the USA...it makes Chicago corruption look quaint by comparison. Louisiana actually has a measurable demographic that practices voodoo.
It is one very seriously screwed up place and all I can say when I read and hear about the details of this case is, “Well, of course.”
Everyone seems to be focused on the town of Jena and its obviously dysfunctional population.
Neither LA nor Jena. And one complained that too many jurors were white. But most of Jena’s population is.
The issue isn’t with a ‘bad’ Jena. I’m sure the people of Jena are decent. The issue is that certain black dj’s and radio hosts, along with the decaying ‘civil rights’ infrastructure, needed an issue. So they ginned this up to help propel a “21st Century Civil Rights Movement”. It’s how people in that business make their money. And the business was losing money.
As for getting black folks ginned up for professional bussed-in demonstrations, it’s probably the more liberal contingent. White liberals are just as ready for such bussed-in screaming. It’s a sort of ready-made cadre, a genuine ‘rainbow’ of people who are just looking to be offended, and just looking for a fight.
That’s what is going on. That’s why a nothing issue, about what probably is a small, decent town, has been made, artificially, what it is.
As for the complaint, itself, that one conviction was overturned on appeal, and that the prosecutor should then now reduce the charges on the other confessed attackers, perhaps one might see that. Perhaps one might recommend it. But on the other hand, given the current reality, does surrendering in what’s become such a public spectacle only encourage local black thugs or gangs to feel that they can do whatever they like and will face only minimum prosecution, if that, for fear of another ginned up set of demonstrations?
I’d like to see these clowns’ scorecard of how many times they have helped racial healing, rather than made it worse. I think their batting average is pretty far below the Mendoza line.
