Christine the Lioness (3118)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1216)
Trouble the Pirate (592)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (527)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Ben2 the Soldier (56)
Yankee Jim the Virgin stated
There will be a rally in Knoxville on May 26!
Details here: http://www.vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=71
Ivy the Soldier commented
I hadn’t heard of it.. And its just mind blowing..
Aivar the Groupie mentioned
Never heard of this before and its sick that it didn’t get any publicity while the other things you mentioned were everywhere.
Christine i have seen sites about white people gloryfieing the murders of blacks and yeah its true theres sick people and idiots from all races… At the forum which Yankee Jim linked to there were quite a few white people that seemed racist and in the big sticky thread calling people to the rally and well calling only white people? White people fight against the black opression? This way its just going increase hatred IMHO
Why not call everyone to a rally against racism? Why not call everyone to a rally against media racism/bias/corruption and to support the families of the poor kids?
LMFAO i just realized that Vanguard News Network is a white supremacist site…
I do not understand at all why in America people take bride in their race or nationality or other such things. Proud to be black, proud to be white, proud to be japanese, proud to be gay, proud to be straight or proud to be a woman… I do not understand why people want to take pride in such things like just their genes because to me they are all equal and no one should take pride in such things but be proud of the things they have done and what kind of person they are.
To be honest i didn’t believe that it was true that it didn’t get any wider media attention and i searched around the net to find confirmation… i do not understand racism at all and it’s so syrreal to me. I hope that those who did it will get convicted even though it wont bring back the kids.
Sorry if i got too off topic or ranted too much
Christopher the Pyro quibbed this
1. Christine and I do support peoples rights to own and operate really really screwed up blogs even ones that say and do horrible things. We realize that many racist blogs on some level are designed to get a rise out of people however when it comes to glorifying murders we feel it is just extremely bad taste.
2. Christine and I are finding this subject very disturbing, the fact that this wasn’t reported on the level that it should have been and that we had to find out about it in a round about way points to a deep problem in this country. Racism works every which way and on many levels, not reporting black on white crime is a problem, let me just ask you if this situation was reversed and it was 5 white guys doing this to a young black couple what would the response have been? Flags at half-mass? This isn’t about fairness this is about awareness nobody in this country should want a society that is afraid to report the truth. This happened, it was horrible, terrible and it was a black on white crime. Horrible white on black crime happens also, we are not claiming it doesn’t we are saying that black on white crime is being buried at the national level.
Trouble the Pirate hunt n' pecked this
Was there a sale on Jumbo-size canned worms at Costco or something?
Christine the Lioness mentioned
Trouble… we aren’t afraid to take on those Costco-sized cans! 
I agree with you, Aivar (and I obviously agree with what Christopher said to). On some level, I think all the groups that people belong to that inspire and celebrate pride in a single aspect of one’s being, are inherently exclusionary and therefore promote superiority, or at least biases whether they intend to or not. For example, if I chose to belong to the National Organization for Women– a group that works to advance women’s equality mostly in the workplace, then I am choosing to do that as well… It shouldn’t be at the expense of promoting fairness and equality of men. The idea of “equality” implies no one is being advanced unfairly beyond anyone else, but that’s simply not the reality. And I think this holds true for every single one of these groups that promote just blacks, just women, just gays, just Asians, etc. The only difference is that white men aren’t allowed to have a group to advocate them. Well if these groups really did promote “equality,” would there be a problem with white men having one? Obviously not.
So we all know these groups don’t promote equality. They aid one group of people in trying to get ahead at the expense of others. And the problem is… none of the people involved in these groups had any control over why they qualify to be a part of them. We can’t help that we’re born white or black or male or female. It just is. And the promotion of any exclusionary group flies in the face of what our country really needs– to get past all the barriers that make us “difference” and recognize everyone as “equal.”
I am a big advocate of freedom of speech rights and I think these anti-black sites and anti-white sites have a right to be up and have a right to be read. The idiots that comment on them pretty much show their true colors and inability to reason with every comment they post– but we can’t get rid of stupid people, can we?
The problem is more with the media. Years ago, they only reported crimes when the victims were pretty white girls. And everyone started saying Hey… this is kinda skewed. You need to report about victims of other races, etc, because they deserve media attention too. But now the pendulum has swung in the other direction which is just as bad.
And improving race relations doesn’t come from neglecting to report crimes committed by a certain race. It comes from reporting all hate crimes, committed by anyone, and showing it in a way that exposes how unacceptable it is, and letting both blacks and whites show an outpouring of emotion (together) for the victims regardless of the victims’ ethnicities. THAT is what brings all of us together in an effort to squelch these horrific hate crimes.
Let’s stop doing all these things that mark how “different” we are, and start showing the world that beneath our skin color, we’re all very much the same.
Mara the Peacemaker spake, and sayeth
They should burn in hell. Why did I read that? Now the rest of my day is fucked…sigh
Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this
I know, Mara. I considered not posting this because of its incredibly depressing tone, but after discussing it with Christopher, we both thought it was worthwhile because it is a symptom of something bigger that we feel needs to be addressed and people should be aware of.
I promise to post something funny next.
Mara the Peacemaker asserted
And some things are just not supposed to make you feel good–I think posting this was a good move. I’m probably particularly sensitive to things like this because my own brother was murdered recently (four years next Sunday). So I know what that call is like (and we didn’t even get a call– some random person we didn’t know came to our house at 5 a.m.) All I could think about as I read this was the parents — how do you tell parents that something like that happened to their child? And how do you wake up everyday knowing that something horrific like that happened? And really, whatever happens to them isn’t enough. Getting the death penalty isn’t enough, life imprisonment isn’t enough because what you really want is for them to suffer the way their victims did. And sometimes that isn’t even enough because what you REALLY want is for it to never have happened.
Ok, I’m done now.
Christine the Lioness pontificated
At first I thought maybe the media didn’t plaster it all over for that reason– to shield the family (I guess that’s the idealist in me considering the media never takes the family’s feelings into account if it means sacrificing ratings).
I kept thinking about the same thing… how a mother or father could possibly hear the details of this and know that somehow, while you were asleep, someone was doing these things to your child. I also kept thinking how horrible it must’ve been for that girl to see her boyfriend tortured and then be kept there, not knowing how long her own torture would last, probably praying for days that it would just be over. I also kept trying to understand what could possibly be going on in a person’s head to make them do this to another person. The idea that there are some people (like that guy in New York a couple months ago who threw himself under a subway train to save a guy that had fallen onto the tracks, held the guy’s head down while two trains passed over them, and basically just yelled up between trains for someone to let his little girl know he was okay and saved the life of a stranger like that) who on instinct, risk their own lives to save lives… and then there are people who could do this to another person. I just don’t understand.
Christopher thinks there should be something worse than the death penalty for criminals who commit this kind of crime. Emotionally, I agree with him. Logically, when you look at the grand scheme of the implications of creating something like that on society and our legal system, I think the only thing we can do is put these people to death in a “humane” way. Anything more makes society barbaric, and we need something (at least in our own minds) that distinguishes us from the monsters that do things like this.
Considering you’ve had years of legal training, you might have a totally different opinion on that subject as well. The whole thing is just so fucked up.
Mara the Peacemaker penned this
I have no problem with allowing these people to suffer the same torment they’ve inflicted on others. I don’t give a shit about executing people in a humane way because frankly, after you’ve done something like that, I’m not interested in your humanity. You have none. The only problem is figuring out who gets to impose that punishment. The family members? Well, do we really want a vigilante system of justice? The state? That makes the state seem particularly barbaric and is that the proper role for the government anyway? There are no easy or simple answers.
Christopher the Pyro thought this
They could let me.. I could live with it… and I’m sure I would be more than harsh enough for anybodies tastes.
eric the Lil' Devil penned this
bro, feel free to post this up on b- side too, unreal man
Trouble the Pirate thought this
The US criminal justice system classifies multiple murders into several categories. Most people are familiar with Serial killers, whose MO is usually to stalk and kill multiple people over a longer period of time, with a ‘cooling off’ period between killings. These individuals are usually abused as children, or suffer some type of extreme torment at the hands of another in their formative years, which compels them to do what they do… A la Bundy, BTK, Gacy, Dahmer, Aileen Wournos, Ng etc… They usually act alone, but in some cases they recruit accomplices as in Ng’s case. They can target specific types of victims, and rape, torture, sodomise, dismember and even canibalise their victims. They are almost always psychopathic and appear normal to people who know them. Dahmer, if I remember correctly, had a taste for ‘dark meat…’
Mass murder is where one or more individuals, possibly even an organisation or state kills many people at roughly the same time. Large mass murder campaigns tend to be referred to as genocide like the Jonestown massacre in Guyana, and on to ethnic cleansing which takes place in many insurgencies or ‘wars.’ Some good recent examples are the dude who killed 21 mexicans in the Micky D’s, the U.of Texas tower guy, Columbine and Virginia Tech.
Spree killers do similar work over a slightly longer period of time, up to two or three days and their victims are usually just in the wrong place at the very wrong time. It tends to be spontaneous and most examples of spree killings take place after botched robberies, or jail breaks, when the perpetrator/s find themselves in a desperate situation, and usually results in their death at their own hands or on the receiving end of a SWAT rifle… Like the white supremecist Williams[?] who killed the black minister in front of his three kids, the Korean college student, and also shot 5 or 6 orthodox Jews…
Classifying these types of murders can be confusing because the circumstances and methods are dynamic and can overlap… How does a drive-by shooting in a gandland war fit in? The gruesomeness of any murder is only limited by the immagination and determination of the perpetrator, and as human beings, we are aware that there is precious limit to our drive and immagination… Ask yourself what you would like to do to someone whom you felt wronged you so badly, like say by torturing, raping and killing your mother… Or busty blonde girlfriend…
What motivates an action like this? Does it begin ‘innocently enough’ and then escalate? Is it completely pre-meditated? Pack mentality? Don’t be so naieve as to think this only happens in the USA, the world suffers this problem… Remember that Columbian guy who confessed to 57 torture/killings, but was suspected of like 300? Europe, Australia, China, every continent has sick fuckers like this. In the ninety’s when I was in university in the UK, a group of white dudes were going around analy raping random black and Indian men in train station bathrooms… With broomsticks… I remember a Hatian man died from internal injuries…
The issue is not so much the nature of the crime, or the motivation… There will always be individuals who do this. All murders are hate crimes are they not? Even if the murderer does not hate their victim, their motivation stems from the results of a life influenced by hate in one form or another, even hatred of one’s self, life or surroundings…
The issue is not even making sense of it. Imagine what it costs just in ’specialists’ who determine whether they are fit to stand trial, or be executed… Your government spent 14 million dollars chasing and prosecuting just one serial killer. Luckily in this case they had a state’s witness. The issue is not keeping them on death row or in prison for life without parole at a cost of a million US dollars a year each… The issue is not rehabilitation… It ain’t gonna happen… Is the issue even why the media would hype or bury one killing over another based on race relations?
People are very short -sighted, the things that affect us, the things we get riled up about are the things that happen in our time, Vlad ‘the impaler, the Marquis du sade, Jack the ripper did worse shit than this… The US killed more people in 10 seconds than any other country… Hundreds of people are viciously tortured and killed in the Caribbean every year, but more hype couldn’t have been made about Natalie Holloway…
We glorify gore on a daily basis, movies take the most gruesome ideas and make them entertainment. Ever watch the Devil’s rejects, Natural born killers, or Dexter? Who are we kidding but ourselves? Sorry if I’m bouncing around, I’m drinking… We are human, sickness pervades us, we get off on it, we slow down to a crawl to look at traffic accidents and deformed people… We are sick and that’s what makes us what we are… Dolphins have been recently observed, torturing their prey, gang raping, and killing each other and their behavior makes us feel they are more sophisticated, intelligent and ‘human’ than previously thought… I’m rambling now… I’ll stop.
Jenni the Virgin said this
I appreciate you posting this! I think a lot of Americans are in the dark on black on white crime. And more needs to be done about making sure news is equally published despite the color.
Marie the Virgin hunt n' pecked this
I totally agree.
Jesse the Virgin said this
As a young hispanic male, I am 100% with my white brothers and sisters on this issue, this is a horrendous crime…those blacks did this just because they were whites. Nothing else. This is not just a murder, but a psycho behavior full of revenge and hate.
God bless those poor kids..and their parents.
Skammy Fresh the Virgin quibbed this
hey u retarded white lover try readin this if u can read that is…there was no dismemberment….once again u retards try and twist things..have fun burnin in hell with Hitler…HOLLER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom_murder
Christine the Lioness remarked
Actually, there was dismemberment. Channon’s body was found in three different trash cans on the premises, and removing someone’s breasts qualifies as dismemberment, so while you’re adding your wikipedia links, try checking out dictionary.com as well.
But Skam, please come back as often as you like to the blog, it’s much easier for us to make fun of people who make asinine remarks than to make fun of the ones who actually put an iota of thought into them.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent chimed in with
Christine wrote: “… it’s much easier for us to make fun of people who make asinine remarks than to make fun of the ones who actually put an iota of thought into them.”
Thanks, ‘tine. I know that reference was about me — I just hope I was the latter example 
As for the first comment posted better yet the comment with the pictures and the alleged murderers Whom ever you are Fuck you and excuse my prophanity but you arent any better then the next sinner your not Perfect Neither are those who murdered those college students but who that has not sinned may cast the first sin so Shut The Fuck Up dont come down on all blacks and assume we are all the same way you sorry fuck. Its incredible how this Person whom im making a pretty good assumption that he’s white is claiming that the few situations thats been caught up in the media are all racist which is not intierly true . He is just infuriated and blurts out the umbest bull shit possible He’s a prick or She what ever the BASTARD is FUCK THEIR RACIST ASS THEY CAN SUCK MY BLACK DICK
Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this
I’m sure, Mr. Black Dick, you can see an inequity in a media downplaying or refusing to report at all on certain crimes because they were committed by people of a certain ethnicity. Can you not step out of your own little world for one minute and see how that concept — allowing political agendas to affect what the country is allowed to know about — could be problematic? You can say that it’s dumb to point out that it’s a problem, but it’s also a problem if the media refused to report crimes committed by whites. So it’s not one-sided at all.
I agree that I’m certainly not without sin, but I also didn’t kidnap, rape, sodomize, torture, murder, and dismember anyone. And it is quite reasonable for regular old people like myself to have an opinion about those who do that, and it’s also reasonable for the law to deal with those who commit such heinous actions.
The equally disturbing thing here, is that there are many blacks (like yourself) who get so caught up in the idea that everything is racist, that they’ll actually defend monsters simply because they are black also. The problem with that particular loss of objectivity, is that it’s no better than the mentality of white supremicists.
To even suggest that no sinner is any better than the next sinner and the people who committed this crime are just sinners like every other is really, really ludicrous. If the victim had been your mother or your son, I don’t think you’d be defending them as passionately as you are and calling everyone else racist. Quite frankly, the fact that you can defend them after what they did, shows that you are the one whose thinking is blinded by race and therefore, a racist.
Christine the Lioness uttered
By the way… I think the quote is “That he who has not sinned may cast the first STONE.” Which obviously implies that we should not be hypocrites and judgmental of others because we also sin and that man (as in humankind) is an inherently sinful creature, and that is true. However, considering that society couldn’t function if we were all running around torturing each other with no consequences and justifying it with this idea that we’re all just sinners anyway so we might as well just sin, I think you might be lending your own interpretation to the intent of that quote.
Trouble the Pirate hunt n' pecked this
Why isn’t Christine on the ballot? …Oh right! You have to be old &/or ugly to be president…
Trouble the Pirate chimed in with
…and as we sit at our computers reading this blog […or in my case, searching for free granny porn, and pretending to read this blog…] Debra Lafave is standing TELEVISED trial to determine whether she violated the zero-tolerance terms of her probation, by talking to a 16 year-old girl whom she worked with at a restaurant…
Just when I thought she was only into boys… Looks like she may swing BOTH ways now… Just keeps getting better & better…
Christine the Lioness pontificated
You are obviously able to multi-task, Trouble.
Trouble the Pirate remarked
My dear… The extent to which I can multi-task has only been witnessed by a few, very lucky women… 
Christine the Lioness said this
LOL.
Christopher the Pyro pontificated
Speaking of black people getting bent about the most retarded crap, a reporter for the golf channel has been suspended for two weeks because Al Sharpton called for her firing. The reason he was calling for her to be fired was because while speaking with another golfer about how to compete with Tiger Woods… … something along these lines…. Reporter: “So what do you think up can coming golfers can do to compete with Tiger.., take him out in the alley and lynch him…” ok it might read really bad but if you hear the audio, it’s very innocuous and jestful.. so what is Tiger Wood’s take… considering him and this reporter have been friends for over 10 years.. he laughed saying it was obviously a joke and not meant in a harmful way… kind of funny that Al Sharpton can be offended on behalf of Tiger.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent up'n wrote this
Only ‘topher could follow an overtly sexual dialog between Trouble and ‘tine with a Tiger Woods golf discussion…
Mara the Peacemaker stated
I don’t know if the Al Sharpton issue is really about him being offended on Tiger Woods’ behalf as much as it is an objection to broadcasters being able to say whatever they want on the air, including statements that jokingly refer to a black man being lynched. That statement is quite different from saying the golfers could take it him to an alley and beat him although I suspect Sharpie would probably protest racism at that remark as well. I could very well see him coming up with some “you shouldn’t be allowed to insult a black man publicly” or something equally ridiculous. Anyway, my point is, sometimes you object to something because it’s wrong or unjust. That Tiger Woods himself wasn’t offended doesn’t mean what the anchor said wasn’t wrong.
Christine the Lioness remarked
I think you might be using the word “wrong” a bit too loosely, Mara. If she’d said that same comment about Jack Nicholson, no one would’ve thought a thing about it. I wasn’t aware that white people are no longer allowed to use the word “lynch” in the same sentence as the name of someone who’s black.
People say things that are not in the best taste– or not well thought out– all the time. Here’s an example for ya… I’m in a story meeting with three men and myself yesterday talking about a character in an upcoming horror movie. The character is female, and because everyone keeps changing their minds about her motivations for doing what she does, the way she’s written now, she’s impossible to understand.
I bring this up (again) and say “Right now, she doesn’t make sense. No one is going to understand her until we are all clear on who she is and why she does what she does.” One of the guys says, “She’s a woman, of course she doesn’t make sense.” In poor taste? Um, sort of. Offensive to me? I suppose a little… but I got over being offended by having to deal with misogynists a long time ago– particularly when there are about a hundred men who would love to be writing this horror movie and I’m the one that landed the contract. My point is… people can say and think whatever they want. The only damage done is the damage I allow to be done by the comment. Tiger wasn’t damaged. No one was damaged. I can understand someone saying “Hey… you know some people might be offended by what you said… you should probably be more careful” to this reporter, but the only reason she was suspended is because good ole Al decided to bring attention to it for lack of better things to do…
I do agree that it’s fine to object to something because it’s wrong or unjust. I think gays should able to get married… it doesn’t affect me, but I feel denying them this right is unjust. Personal opinion. But there’s also this problem of being offended by “everything” and I guarantee if a black reporter had said the same comment, no one would have cared.
Mara the Peacemaker remarked
“I think you might be using the word “wrong” a bit too loosely, Mara.”
No, I don’t think I am. To joke about a black man being lynched is wrong when you consider the history of lynching of black people (especially from Reconstruction until the 1950s). Period. There’s nothing funny about that. No, I don’t think people would have had the same reaction if she’d made the same comment about Jack Nicklaus (I’m assuming this is who you meant and not the actor) because there, the context is totally different. The issue is not that white people can’t use the word lynch in the same sentence as black people. That would be beyond absurd. The point is that it is wrong to joke about it regardless of WHO says it. Al Sharpton probably wouldn’t have made a fuss if it were a black anchor but that’s more a reflection on the kind of person Sharpton is and not on whether to joke about something as horrific as the lynching of black people is wrong.
“My point is… people can say and think whatever they want.”
People can and should be allowed to say and think whatever they want. But whether they should be allowed to express these things on national television is a different matter. I have no problem with a newscaster being a racist and referring to black people as niggers at every occasion. However, I would have a problem with it, if during his broadcast, he decided to use racial epithets while reporting the news, even in jest.
Christine the Lioness mentioned
Okay, I agree that things said on national television should be ‘tailored’ because of the audience who is hearing it– and this girl making the same joke to Tiger himself over cocktails would be a totally different story. So yes, I’ll give you that. But I highly, highly doubt that this woman went through any sort of thought process before saying it in which she consciously thought, hrmmm… i can make a joke about lynching black people and then refer to Tiger because he’s black. While it is obviously common knowledge that blacks were lynched in this country, I can honestly say I’m guessing it never even popped into her head that she would be offending anyone. Since she’s white, I doubt she has an emotional reaction to the word “lynch” like most blacks do. Why in the world she would expect her to know that saying that would be offensive particularly when the person she knew well, whom she was saying it about, would not be offended?
Again, that’s why I think with a bit more thought, she would have realized it was in poor taste, but I don’t think it was intended to be malicious at all. On any level. So to make this big of a deal about it is sort of ridiculous. And I agree that in her position she should be more sensitive and careful than the average Joe should, but I don’t believe she ever made the connection between lynching and Tiger being black and despite realizing that it’s a scar on America’s history, decided to throw caution to the wind and make the joke anyway.
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
“Why in the world she would expect her to know that saying that would be offensive particularly when the person she knew well, whom she was saying it about, would not be offended?”
Well, for one, I would be very doubtful of any claim that she didn’t understand the implications of her joke. She probably did, but she said it anyway. Not out of any malicious intent but I am saying that people make racially loaded/suggestive comments all of the time knowing full well what they are saying, i.e., that the statements are racially suggestive. I would suspect that she’s simply gotten away with making these kinds of jokes. As for her thought process, in my experience, to reach for a racially loaded remark does take an extra step which is why the statement would have been different had she said “beat” instead of “lynch.” It’s like the Dog bounty hunter guy saying he didn’t dislike his son’s girlfriend because she was black yet he used racial epithets to refer to her. That takes an extra step — in your mind, you have to choose between calling the girl a nigger and calling her, say a bitch. And if you’re someone who doesn’t have to choose because nigger falls instantly from your lips, well enough said.
And to give her some credit, there is a certain “power” that can be gained from making those kinds of jokes. Not racist power but power in taking the sting out of the joke, etc. The fact that she’s never been called onto carpet until now doesn’t mean she was unaware — it just means this time, she just got “caught” so to speak.
“Again, that’s why I think with a bit more thought, she would have realized it was in poor taste, but I don’t think it was intended to be malicious at all.”
Well, again, whether she meant it to be malicious is irrelevant to whether it was wrong for her to make that comment. I don’t think a BIG deal should be made out of it but I do think someone should have pulled her to the side and let her know what was up.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent chimed in with
“No, I don’t think people would have had the same reaction if she’d made the same comment about Jack Nicklaus (I’m assuming this is who you meant and not the actor) because there, the context is totally different.”
Mara, did you forget Christine is a Hollywood type — of course she meant Jack Nicholson!
Oh yeah, and I totally agree!
Christine the Lioness commented
Well, I honestly don’t know what was going through her head before she said the joke, so I’m not going to go to any special effort to defend her. Mara’s scenario could be the case although I feel it’s a bit presumptuous to assume that she subconsciously said it for a power gain or because she’s a closet racist.
In reality, how different is it to say “lynch” vs. “crucify”? I think this ultra-sensitivity to certain words is a bit much. It’s just interesting how a black rap artist can use the word “nigger” which is the king daddy of all racist words and a white woman referring to a black guy can’t say the word “lynch” even though the black man it was directed to wasn’t offended at all. Sure seems like some people are getting all the hall passes and sort of looking for reasons to be offended. If Snoop saying “nigger” doesn’t bother you (you in a general term) but “lynch” does, I think you’re picking and choosing who you want to be offended by.
And yes, I did mean Jack Nicklaus– LOL. I was writing an email about Nicholson earlier as I was actually getting a little bit of work in between my comments.
Mara the Peacemaker remarked
“…although I feel it’s a bit presumptuous to assume that she subconsciously said it for a power gain or because she’s a closet racist.”
I said that may be the motivation of people who make those kinds of remarks, not necessarily hers. I don’t know what her motivations were but I find it hard to believe that she didn’t understand the implications of what she was saying. She’s a smart woman. She’s not that ignorant. The guy in your example above who made the comment about women knew exactly what he was saying. He said it anyway. Who knows WHY he said it (maybe he’s a misogynist, maybe he’s not but thought jokes that imply sexism are funny…who knows). The point is, people are not as ignorant about these things are you seem to think. Or maybe you’re just more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. Experience tells me differently.
“If Snoop saying “nigger” doesn’t bother you (you in a general term) but “lynch” does, I think you’re picking and choosing who you want to be offended by.”
This is totally irrelevant for several reasons. One, we’ve already had this discussion and there are many people who have chastised black rappers’ use of the word nigger INCLUDING Sharpton. Moreover, you’re missing the point by oversimplifying what happened. It isn’t merely that this woman said “lynch” and a black person in the same sentence. It’s that she made a JOKE of it. Joking about black people being lynched is WRONG. Period. It’s not merely in bad taste. It is WRONG. I’m not saying that I want to control what people should think or say but there are some things are that are simply wrong. Of course, I’m not going to infringe on a person’s freedom to be wrong. But it is and she shouldn’t be allowed to say things like that on national television.
“In reality, how different is it to say “lynch” vs. “crucify”? ”
Because lynching of black people has a particular history while crucify doesn’t. They are very different. It’s not about being ultra-sensitive to WORDS. She made a joke about something that isn’t funny and frankly, I think it was wrong. It’s wrong to joke about Jewish people being burned in ovens. It’s not just in poor taste. It’s wrong.
Mara the Peacemaker hunt n' pecked this
“Mara’s scenario could be the case although I feel it’s a bit presumptuous to assume that she subconsciously said it for a power gain or because she’s a closet racist.”
Christine, I reread what you wrote and realized I may have misinterpreted this part of your response. So I’m going to say this. I do get what you’re saying about assumptions. None of us knows what she was thinking so it is difficult to say exactly WHY she made the remark. So I have and will again concede that she did not mean any ill intent. However, I do think that my argument about taking an extra step to use racially suggestive words is a fair assumption to make. Most people don’t just go around using those kinds of words in their everyday vocabulary willy nilly (unless you’re Snoop Dogg but if you know anything about Snoop Dogg you would know that he doesn’t use the n-word by accident either). So choosing to use a word that appears racially loaded in certain scenarios raises a red flag in my mind as least to the assumption that the speaker had NO idea what they said.
Christine the Lioness mentioned
And that is the part I disagree with. While I think that yes, you are right about many people using those words with some agenda (either conscious or not), I have white friends, whom I’ve heard say “His boss is gonna lynch him when he finds out”, in reference to another white person (we’re all white in this situation) who are not– for a moment– thinking anything racially connotative in using the word lynch. They also say, “She’s gonna get crucified.” Those are just common phrases that express a person is in trouble. They’re understood simply because we all know what crucifying is and what lynching is. The fact we know what lynching is because it was happening to blacks several decades ago and the fact we know what crucifying is because it happened to Jesus (one is familiar because we’re a Christian-based society and the other is familiar because it was fairly recent in our history) doesn’t make it inherently racist.
We could just as easily say “She’s gonna be put in the gas chamber when her boss finds out.” But we don’t. We don’t avoid it because it might offend Jews, we avoid it because we’d sound like a dork saying that.
My point is, people use that word without associating it with blacks every time the phrase pops into their head. The fact that thoughts of lynching blacks AREN’T on their mind and present at any given time is a good thing as far as I’m concerned. The fact they can use the word “lynch” without associating it with black people means that the person isn’t constantly, in their thinking, setting blacks apart from whites and seeing them as a group of people they have to walk on eggshells around.
The assumption I’m suggesting you’re making (and that anyone who was offended by her joke is making) is that she thought this out and specifically used that word because Tiger is black. And that’s assuming the worst about this girl when quite frankly, there’s at least a 50% chance the fact Tiger was black never even crossed her mind. Which I believe, not because I’m in the habit of defending all white people, but because she’s friends with Tiger and when you become friends with people of different races, you seem them as a person, not as a representative of their race anymore, so you are more comfortable in the things you say and you stop censoring yourself around them because you aren’t sure if they’ll be offended or not.
Christine the Lioness commented
“It’s not about being ultra-sensitive to WORDS. She made a joke about something that isn’t funny and frankly, I think it was wrong.”
Had Tiger actually been lynched, then she’d be making a joke about it. He wasn’t. She wasn’t saying “Haha, isn’t it funny that black people were lynched.” THAT would have been a joke about something that isn’t funny– lynching blacks.
The joke was really about Tiger kicking everyone else’s ass in the tournament and how the other golfers would react. It wasn’t about lynching black people. If anything, the white golfers she was referring to could have been offended and said “Oh my God, she’s suggesting I’d do some horrible, racist thing like lynch a black person. She’s implying I’m a Klan member.” Seriously, now. Come on.
It IS about being ultra-sensitive to words. You said yourself that if she’d used the word crucify, it wouldn’t have been offensive. Aren’t the results the same? In her JOKE, someone was going to KILL Tiger?
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
“I have white friends, whom I’ve heard say “His boss is gonna lynch him when he finds out”, in reference to another white person (we’re all white in this situation) who are not– for a moment– thinking anything racially connotative in using the word lynch.”
A white person joking about another white person being lynched is NOT the same. The context is completely different.
“The assumption I’m suggesting you’re making (and that anyone who was offended by her joke is making) is that she thought this out and specifically used that word because Tiger is black.”
It’s a fair assumption. I think she knew exactly the implications of what she said. I’m not saying she meant it maliciously, but I don’t believe she is completely ignorant.
Mara the Peacemaker penned this
Saying you’re to lynch a black man and saying you’re going to crucify him are totally different, Christine. I can’t believe you don’t see the difference.
Trouble the Pirate stated
Actually, it was a perfectly set-up joke… This is probably the best proof that it was said innocently enough… A well delivered [on-the-spot] joke is difficult enough to compose, most people don’t possess the intelligence to intentionally invoke extra signification… Often the inscrutable force of language itself, will allow the joke to bring with it unintended innuendo that doubles, or even triples its effectiveness… Hence why most double-entente’s are unintentional, and triple one’s are near unattainable… And usually require that the person reading or hearing them has intricate knowledge of the events concerned.
Remember that the word “lynch” intrinsically had no racial intonation, it is defined roughly as; To execute [especially hang] without due process of law, as by a mob.
Many non-black individuals were lynched in the US’s history, before the States developed a structured Law & Order system. The actual racial intonation the word now carries, has been loaned to it by more recent events of its nature, such as the actions of the KKK and other ‘white-power’ groups & individuals.
Had no more black people than other ethnicities been lynched in your history, no stigma would have been associated with the action as a result… Then the statement would have been as innocent as a statement referring to the frivolous killing of another human being could be…
But because of the ‘darker’ [no friggin’ pun intended for chrissakes] implications placed on the word by your history, then comes the actual meaning which adds to the statements ‘complexity’… And humour…
Example #1
“How can other golfers compete with Tiger Woods?”
“They can’t compete on the green, so they should seek an alternative career instead.”
Analysis: Okay ‘Green’ is a pun due to the reader’s knowledge that it also refers to ‘money’… Simple… BUT NOT FUNNY!
Example #2
“How can other golfers compete with Tiger Woods?”
“They can’t compete on the green, so they should get a rifle, shoot him, skin him, and use him as a rug in their living room.”
Analysis: Okay, his name is Tiger… a tiger skin rug I get it, that and the whole ‘killing him’ being the only real option… possibly offensive to some tigers, BUT STILL NOT FUNNY!
Example #3
“How can other golfers compete with Tiger Woods?”
“They can’t compete on the green, so they should bait a trap with frosted-flakes, then club him to death with a branch, and use him as a rug in their living room.”
Analysis: Okay there’s the ‘Green’ pun, and frosted-flake/tony the ‘Tiger’ reference, ‘trapping’ a ‘Tiger’, death by ‘Wood’-en branch option, and ‘Tiger’-skin rug thing… freakin’ complex, way too complex to come up with on-the-spot… BUT STILL NOT FUNNY!
Example #4 [and final]
“How can other golfers compete with Tiger Woods?”
“asides from taking him into the alley and lynching him… Not much.”
Analysis: Okay, now it’s funny… It’s actually a compliment to Tiger [alluding that no-one has a chance other than killing him], it’s a simple enough structure, and the sinister tone of the word ‘lynch’ adds just enough complexity to kick it over the “hey, that’s kinda humourous” ledge… but that’s also what now makes it offensive.
Were it written:
“asides from killing him… Not much.” It would have remained on that ledge…
So what have we learned class?
It’s perfectly acceptable to make a simple joke referring to killing someone because you cannot beat them at a particular ’sport’…
It’s more funny… BUT ALSO WAY MORE OFFENSIVE, if you describe that killing in a manner that attributes it similarity to an historically noted method of killing the particular ethnicity you are referring to. 
» Little, white girl murdered Hallucinating Harmony: Christian Hedin’s Weblog the Virgin said this
[…] a white person would make the newspaper/tv station dead scared of being called racist. This is described in all its horrid reality by one of my favorite blogs, Chris vs […]
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
