BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 08:34 AM

Yes. It is a great improvement. If the taxpayers of South Carolina want to foot the bill for yet another idiotic shrine to treason, slavery and white supremacy, that's on them. At least folks will have to pay museum admission to see it. I doubt there will be many takers in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: OldPossum
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 07:30 AM

Apparently they are going to build a "multimillion-dollar shrine" to house the recently lowered flag. Is that really an improvement?

News article: Confederate Flag Taken Down in South Carolina

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 10:59 AM

Finally, that emblem of treason, slavery and white supremacy has been consigned to the dustbin, where it belongs. Now, on to Mississippi - last in war, last inpeace, and last in the hearts of its countrymen.


==============

South Carolina Lowers Confederate Flag, and an Era Ends

By RICHARD FAUSSET and ALAN BLINDER
10:30 AM, JULY 10, 2015
NY TIMES

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Closing a chapter on a symbol of the Deep South and its history of resistance and racial animus, South Carolina on Friday lowered the Confederate battle flag from outside its State House, where it had flown for more than 50 years.

The flag came down amid heavy security and loud cheers at a Friday morning event that followed days of emotional debate in the State Legislature and, on Thursday, the final approval of Gov. Nikki R. Haley, who had pledged that the symbol would be lowered "with dignity."

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:05 PM

Thank you for contacting the office of Governor Haley

Monday, July 6, 2015 1:12 PM
From:
To:         GregF [e-mail]


Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.    These have been very difficult times for South Carolina, but our hearts and minds remain fixed on the nine families and the communities shaken by this tragedy. Their grace and strength set a powerful example for us all.

Even in the midst of our grief, South Carolina set about the process of healing – not by talking about issues that divide us – but by hugging our neighbors, holding vigils, honoring those we lost, and falling to our knees in prayer. We came together as a state, as a unified people, to remember those we lost and to begin this healing process.

We've also come together in acknowledging that certain symbols and events of our past resonate differently among us.    For some, the Confederate flag represents a history of their ancestry and heritage.   For others, the flag is a deeply painful reminder of a brutally oppressive past.   

Inspired by the victims' families and the re-opening of Emanuel A.M.E. church, I felt compelled to make a statement about moving the flag from the Statehouse grounds.    This is a moment in which we can say that the flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state, and that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward as a state in harmony.

The time has come for us to set the flag among the other markers of our history so we can set our eyes on the great promise of a united South Carolina.    God bless.

My very best,

Nikki R. Haley

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 15 - 09:14 AM

It's real historical significance is actually is from it's use, in the 20th Century, by segregationists, white supremecists, and such folks.

Not quite. It is significant because it WAS flown by Confederate units fighting to mantain and expand chattel slavery during the Civil War. It is significant because it was used to terrify southern Blacks both during Reconstruction and "Redemption". It is significant because it has been for the last 140 years or so employed by the KKK and other white supremecist groups, was so employed in the 20th Century, as you say, and is still, currently, so employed.

It may not have much "historical significance" to you, Stim, but it sure as hell does to Black folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 09:49 PM

My point, GregF, is that it doesn't really have the historical significance that it's cracked up to have--it was one of many flags used by state units in the Civil War, and was relatively unimportant. It's real historical significance is actually is from it's use, in the 20th Century, by segregationists, white supremecists, and such folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 08:23 PM

It was not adopted as the national flag of the Confederacy - that bunch of traitors that took up arms against the government of the United States- but it was the battle flag flown by military units fighting against the government of the United States for the right to retain and propogate chattel slavery throughout the Civil War and was recognized as such.

Enough with the weasel words, Stim.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 06:28 PM

Except that the "Confederate Flag", as you call it, never historically represented the Confederate States of America as a country, and was never recognized as one of the national flags. It was, in fact, rejected as the flag of the Confederacy in 1861. The fact that "The South Shall Rise Again" crowd has been waving the wrong flag for most of the last century shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 05:37 PM

So after all this kerfuffle, it's obvious that the Confederate Flag was about the Civil War, the Civil war was about slavery, that slavery was about racism, that racism continued after the Civil War, that the defeated Confederate states got to keep their flag, and the keeping of that flag was about slavery.

Where's Azizi when you need her?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:52 PM

They are not necessarily racists, but they don't care what you think of them and they want you to know it.

Yup, assholes are pretty much always going to be assholes, come what may.

it is a dramatic way of not doing much of anything.

Actually, its doing a great deal in that some people of intelligence have finally decided after 150 years that Black folks having that emblem shoved in their faces is akin to flying the Nazi flag in front of a Jewish Temple.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:45 PM

Banning that flag is a symbolic gesture, which is another way of saying that it is a dramatic way of not doing much of anything.

Important point to keep in mind is that a lot of people at wave that flag do it because they know it pisses people off. it's a way of saying, "redneck and proud". They are not necessarily racists, but they don't care what you think of them and they want you to know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:43 PM

Flag-wavers who really do think of it as "just the flag of the South" should be more sensitive to history, but they're not necessarily "racists."

Not necessarily, but if not they're sure as hell insensitive self-absorbed jackasses with no knowledge of history.

Banning the flags at NASCAR won't measurably affect racist feelings or behavior, so we can't know if it's "working" or not.

We'll know its "working" to the extent that people of colorwill be seeing less and less of that emblem of slavery and racism.

That small step is the least the dominant white culture can do after 150 years.

And you're not going to talk or reason people out of being racists in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 10:24 AM

Pretty obviously I didn't mean "When will they stop waving flags at NASCAR?"

The bigger question is, "How will we know that banning the flags is having a significant effect on the racist behavior of certain NASCAR fans (and others) - including some of those who don't wave the flags?"

Flag-wavers who really do think of it as "just the flag of the South" should be more sensitive to history, but they're not necessarily "racists." Banning their flag will push some of them in exactly that direction.

Banning the flags at NASCAR won't measurably affect racist feelings or behavior, so we can't know if it's "working" or not.

That was my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 09:17 AM

The BBC's blog on white supremacist church burnings:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-33368317

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 08:25 PM

As an informal survey, I can report that no matter how often Black churches burn down, the denying of arson by white FB friends is far outstripping the certainty about arson by Black folks. My FB group is quite large and diverse.... It's mostly the Black folks (including organizations representing their interests) that are calling for a wait and see approach, and pursuing complete, time-consuming investigations.

The folks AT the burned churches are mostly thinking about how to get the churches back on their feet.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 08:17 PM

How will we know if it's "working"?

If they stop, or reduce the frequency, of sticking their finger in the eye of every Black peron in the U S of A.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 07:06 PM

> we'll see how well that works.

How will we know if it's "working"?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 05:11 PM

NASCAR has banned the rebel flag, yay. Pourvu que ca dure, and we'll see how well that works.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 10:48 AM

If someone as gun oriented as me can put mine down for good so should the rest of the country. We can no longer sit back and watch innocent people get slaughtered by them. I am sick of every day it's the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 09:07 AM

but it's surely statistically improbable for all or even most of them to be accidental.

Agreed- especially since burning Black churches in the southern U.S. took over as a form of public entertainment as regular lynchings began to go out of general favor.

Perhaps the South still needs Mencken's brass bands.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 09:01 AM

> it's surely statistically improbable for all or even most of them to be accidental.

Not too improbable at all. A former FBI official told CNN yesterday that a church burns down somewhere in the United States almost every day. Some of those churches are black.

Most church fires are caused by bad wiring, lightning, etc. About 16% are arson. In most of those cases the arson has been carried out by a disgruntled employee or parishioner.

Investigation is needed; but racist terror (presumably organized through social media) is hardly a forgone conclusion.

Not yesterday's report, but similar:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/south-carolina-church-fire-mount-zion-ame/

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 03:27 AM

In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies - "They would say that, wouldn't they".

I thought that it was 6 black churches burned, not 8, but it's surely statistically improbable for all or even most of them to be accidental.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 15 - 08:55 AM

Fire at black church in South Carolina wasn't arson
By BRUCE SMITH and MEG KINNARD, Associated Press
Wednesday, July 1, 2015

GREELEYVILLE, S.C. (AP) — A fire that destroyed a black church that the KKK burned down in June 1995 was not the work of an arsonist, a federal law enforcement source said Wednesday.

Preliminary indications are that the fire at the Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church in Greeleyville was not intentionally set and was not arson, the source said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly. The fire is still under investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 09:53 AM

Donuel, What is your source regarding lynchings? Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 09:47 AM

Do you dare know that 8 black churches have gone up in flames this week in the south? The news is carefully edited to be sure recent events do not escalate but its still knowable for those who want to know. A story about 2 escaped convicts has made good cover for the inflammatory killings that were ruled hate crimes instead of terrorism despite the confession of the killer's political motivation to mass murder blacks to inspire war.




Lynching black men in the south is as prevalent today as ever. It's just not done in the village square by celebrating white people.
2014 a black teenager was hung in South Carolina. He was judged as a suicide despite evidence that made that conclusion impossible. In 2014 Mississippi alone had 431 black hangings. They were all ruled suicide. The last confirmed lynching in MD was in 1986. The unconfirmed lynchings number in the thousands since they are all quickly ruled suicides 2014.





The Confederate flag in Charleston came down. A black woman climbed the pole and brought it down. The video showed the extraordinary care taken by the police to make sure the flag did not touch the ground was laughable.

The confederate flag went back up before the woman was in jail.


What is this 'dare we talk?' speech? New age causation theory or silent racism?

Congratulation to PRESIDENT OBAMA for his honest response.






















The only fear we all should have bout the supreme power of the NRA is fear itself. The power they have is fear itself. NRA whisper of insurrection makes them domestic terrorists that I do not think is greater than the power if the United states.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 08:48 AM

Confederate Flag Hung From Boston Memorial
By Niko Emack-Bazelais and Jennifer Smith, Boston Globe Correspondents June 29, 2015

A Confederate battle flag was attached Sunday night to a Boston memorial that commemorates one of the first all-black regiments to fight for the union during the Civil War, hanging there for over an hour before a woman removed it.

Melissa Carino, 37, of Lowell said she saw the flag hanging from the Robert Gould Shaw and Massachusetts 54th Regiment Memorial across the street from the State House at about 8 p.m. Carino said she left and returned to the location later, angered that it had not been removed.

The 54th Regiment was commissioned by Governor John A. Andrew shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the inspiration for the 1989 movie "Glory.''

Late Sunday night, the flag appeared ripped and torn from attempts to remove it. But it remained tied to the monument until 10:30 p.m., when Carino finally untied it and took it down, placing it in a trash can. "It makes me angry to have to do this in my own town," she said. "I was like, really? Is that for real?"

The memorial has a history of vandalism. It was splashed with paint in 2012, and a man was arrested for trying to remove a sword from the statue in April 2015.

Passersby expressed displeasure at what they called a racially motivated act, with some citing the outrage over the controversial flag after the murder of black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., earlier this month.

"Such an expression of hate is not acceptable," said Dara Poulten, 34, of Medway.

"Obviously it's pretty upsetting to see," said Jonathan Krieger, 29, of Jamaica Plain. "When somebody puts something in a spot like that, obviously they are trying to send a message, and it's an upsetting message.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 03:40 PM

Klan flyers litter Oklahoma lawns 3 days after Charleston ...
http://www.bdtonline.com/news/klan-flyers-litter-oklahoma-lawns-days-after-charleston-massacre/article_323758d4-195a-11e5-8aae-033295f5722b.html

Topeka Residents find KKK flyers on lawns
http://cjonline.com/news/2015-06-15/topeka-residents-receive-message-ku-klux-klan#

Whittier CA neighborhood receives KKK flyers
http://abc7.com/news/whittier-neighborhood-receives-possible-kkk-flyers-on-lawns/812349/

Fullerton neighborhoods find KKK fliers with candy on their lawns
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fullerton-kkk-flyers-20150623-story.html

Uproar caused after KKK flyers dropped on Atlanta lawns
http://www.cbs46.com/story/29391030/kkk-fliers-distributed-in-local-community-cause-uproar#ixzz3eO5A4mnG

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Janie
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 10:28 PM

Not enough information at this point, Bruce, to know. It seems it has been determined the fire was the result of arson. No assumptions being made at this time regarding motive, given the lack of evidence beyond that it was arson, and therefore no possibilities being filtered out.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 05:36 PM

To kill anyone is wrong,to argue over names is of no importance in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 04:20 PM

I reckon it might be, Bruce - if someone claims responsibility for it and declares themself to be carrying out an ideologically or politically or religiously motivated attack. Don't forget though, growing up in the Uk in the 70s, I heard the word 'terrorism' on the news all too frequently - this might have knocked my understanding of the word right out of kilter!

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 02:20 PM

http://nypost.com/2015/06/25/fire-at-african-american-church-in-north-carolina-ruled-as-arson/

Is this 'terrorism' too?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 11:26 AM

Here is one of the only possible ways to address the issue:(the other is also mentioned)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

...but it would require a far different legislative makeup than currently exists.... as would the other method.

When enough people go through the process of adjusting their thinking and electing sensible legislators who are not in the pockets of the NRA, we MIGHT get some action.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 09:32 AM

The answer to the 'difficulties' with gun ownership is quite plain. It's the second amendment to the Bill of Rights, so allow, nay, insist that every home have a single-shot long gun. That would fill the requirement of the amendment and make the NRA happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 08:07 AM

Tally of Attacks in U.S. Challenges Perceptions of Top Terror Threat
By SCOTT SHANE      JUNE 24, 2015

WASHINGTON — In the 14 years since Al Qaeda carried out attacks on New York and the Pentagon, extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States, explaining their motives in online manifestoes or social media rants.

But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.

The slaying of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church last week, with an avowed white supremacist charged with their murders, was a particularly savage case. But it is only the latest in a string of lethal attacks by people espousing racial hatred, hostility to government and theories such as those of the "sovereign citizen" movement, which denies the legitimacy of most statutory law. The assaults have taken the lives of police officers, members of racial or religious minorities and random civilians.

Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants have taken place in the same period.

If such numbers are new to the public, they are familiar to police officers. A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff's departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed "Al Qaeda-inspired" violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University.

Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 03:57 AM

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Well stop it.

It causes whole threads to disappear.

I notice yet another air of "it's too difficult to alter gun laws or culture in The USA" and "you obviously don't understand how things work over here."

Ironically true on both counts but not for the reasons given.

Keep banging the rocks together eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 02:34 AM

Did anyone else catch the Senate speech of Senator Paul Thurmond, the son of the infamous Strom Thurmond? Moving, and quite remarkable, considering his family history.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Janie
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 09:51 PM

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122110/i-dont-want-be-excuse-racist-violence-charleston

Hope the article will copy as I know the link won't stay hot.

By Chloe Angyal (June 22, 2015. New Republic)

We cannot talk about the violence that Dylann Roof perpetrated at Emanuel AME last Wednesday night without talking about whiteness, and specifically, about white womanhood and its role in racist violence. We have to talk about those things, because Roof himself did. Per a witness account, we know that he said: "You rape our women and you're taking over our country." "Our" women, by whom he meant white women.

There is a centuries-old notion that white men must defend, with lethal violence at times, the sexual purity of white women from allegedly predatory black men. And, as we saw yet again after this shooting, it is not merely a relic of America's hideous racial past. American racism is always gendered; racism and sexism are mutually dependent, and cannot be unstitched.

As Jessie Daniels writes at Racism Review, white womanhood has been and remains essential to the logic of American white supremacy. In anti-black racism, and particularly in the south, the defense of white womanhood was, in the recent past, used as a justification for the most horrific violence against black people, and particularly black men. Daniels quotes Photography on the Color Line, Shawn Michelle Smith's book about photographs of public lynchings, in which the 1935 lynching of a black Fort Lauderdale man named Rubin Stacy is described. Stacy, described as "a homeless tenant farmer," approached the home of a white woman named Marion Jones to ask her for food.

"On seeing Stacy," Smith writes, "Jones screamed. Stacy was then arrested, and as six deputies were transporting him to a Miami jail, a mob of over one hundred masked men seized and murdered him. Finally, Stacy's corpse was hung in sight of Jones' home." Stacy, Daniels argues, was murdered because he supposedly represented a threat to the sexual purity of a white woman, a perception that also depends on the centuries-old belief that black men are more sexually powerful, and more sexually predatory, than white men. And white men were all too ready to enact that racist violence in the name of protecting Jones's fragile and immensely valuable white womanhood. "All an individual white woman like Marion Jones had to do to activate the network of white fathers, brothers, uncles and cousins who would come to her 'defense' and murder a black man who was asking for help was scream," Daniels writes.
ADVERTISEMENT

That lynching happened in 1935. If you have a parent or grandparent who is 80 or older, it happened in his or her lifetime. Daniels notes that contemporary examples of the defense of white womanhood look horribly similar to the murder of Rubin Stacy. She points to the 2013 shooting of Jonathan Ferrell in Charlotte, North Carolina as an example. After crashing his car, Ferrell extricated himself, and knocked on the door of the first house he came upon, to ask for help—as any of us might do in such a situation. "A white woman, thinking it was her husband knocking, answered," Daniels writes. "When she saw Ferrell she shut the door, hit her alarm and called the police. Ferrell, who was unarmed, was shot ten times by a Charlotte police officer."

There is an important distinction between white women, a people, and the concept of white womanhood—one that holds that a white woman is the best thing you can be in America after a white man, and that it is the responsibility of white men to protect your virtue at any and all costs. This white supremacist and benevolently sexist ideology depends both on the subjugation of white women by white men, and on the subjugation of all people who are not white—by white people (including white women).



It isn't just black Americans who are policed by this dual invocation of racism and sexism, and by the holding up of white womanhood as a paragon of purity. When Donald Trump announced his bid for the presidency last week, he dredged up a common fear about immigrants crossing the border from Mexico: "They're rapists." To protect the women of America—the white ones, because when we say "women," we usually, by default, mean "white women"—we must practice this exclusion on the basis of race, Trump implied. This highly selective concern about preventing sexual violence is dependent on the peril of white women; Trump failed to mention that 80 percent of girls and women crossing that border are raped as they make the journey. Those girls and women aren't white. Gender is always raced, and race is always gendered.

That said, the distinction between women and womanhood should not let individual white women off the hook for how we benefit from and participate in racism. That we are victims of sexism does not erase our culpability in American racism. If anything, the powerlessness we feel as a result of sexism too often urges us to hold on to, and exert over others, what remaining power we have. For white women, that means the power gifted to us by the color of our skin. Few white women resisted lynching in the early 20th century. A gendered and raced pedestal isn't always comfortable to stand on, but it comes with a lot of perks and not a small amount of power. When contemporary black feminists critique white feminists for failing to recognize, interrogate, and cede their own racial privilege, that complaint is rooted in history. The bonds of sisterhood can be strong, but too often, they have been weakened by some sisters' willingness to continue benefitting from whiteness (or worse, their stubborn refusal to recognize that they do). While white women are people and white womanhood is an idea, it's an idea that white women reinforce.

It was, and remains, necessary for white women to decry the violence that is done in our name. It is on us to dismantle racism with just as much commitment as we dismantle sexism, for one cannot happen without the other.



This is also not to say that we should make this horrific event all about white women, or all about white womanhood. It's not. So often, the defense of white womanhood against black men results in violence against black women, and this time is no different. Six black women were shot dead in Charleston this week because of the centuries-old and still going strong perception that white women are in peril from black men. The reality is that rape, like most violent crime, is more likely to be intraracial than interracial. If we're genuinely concerned about a sexual threat posed by black men, we should be focusing our energies on the safety of black women. A five-year-old girl is alive because she played dead, and, as Dr. Kali Nicole Gross wrote in Jet last week, "that the girl had the presence of mind to play dead among the bodies of likely family and friends, perhaps more than anything else speaks to the perils of being Black in America and the violence that Black people, especially Black women and girls face daily." Six black women—Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Cynthia Hurd, Myra Thompson, Ethel Lee Lance, Rev. Depayne Middleton-Doctor, and Susie Jackson—are dead because Roof claimed to want to protect white women. White womanhood might be an abstract idea; the murder of black people is not.

In this raced and gendered hierarchy, black women continue to be the least valuable, the lowest rung on the ladder. As Rebecca Carroll argued last week in The Guardian, those women were shot because the belief that white women must be protected at all costs depends on the belief that black women aren't truly women, that they're barely people. That they're disposable. Racism is always gendered, and gender always raced.

What Roof did on Wednesday was the latest in the long line of acts of violence against black churches; of American mass shootings by white men with guns; of anti-black terrorism designed to make black Americans and their families and friends live in perpetual fear. What was perpetrated at Emanuel AME was all those things.

It was also the latest in an unbearably long line of lethality meted out in the name of white womanhood—in my name, and maybe in yours. In the name of my purity and virtue and perfect femininity. We must not ignore the role of white womanhood in this act of white supremacist violence, or in any other. We must not find a way, yet again, of avoiding talking about whiteness. And until white women decide that we will no longer be used as an excuse for violence, until we decide that we will no longer tacitly condone and benefit from the violence, we will continue to have blood on our pale, "perfect" hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 08:52 PM

No, I'm not an expert in US constitutional law, but I did lecture at two different universities in England on English constitutional law.

On a natural reading, the wording on the second amendment (at least the version without the manifestly incorrect punctuation) uses the requirement of the need for a well regulated militia as the foundation for the restriction on the latter part of the amendment, forbidding the infringment of the right to keep and bear arms.

Secondly, the amendment leaves wholly untouched the question of exactly what that right is. It also leaves untouched what the meaning of the word "arms" is. Those, I think are two big reasons why the Stevens opinion is to be preferred to the Scalia version (without the need to return to the problem that Scalia is a dickhead).

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 07:12 PM

Would you have denied eighteenth-century people, many of them living on the frontier, the right to own firearms...

In case its escaped your notice, it's been a while since the 18th C.

but eighteenth-century reality makes it unreasonable to insist that it restricted firearm ownership solely to members of state militias

Eighteenth century reality required ALL able-bodied men to turn out for militia duty when summoned. That's no longer pertains since, as you say, the Militia duties have been subsumed by the National Guard. I have no problem with gardsmen having firearms.

Eightenth century reality also made women the property of their husbands and they HAD no rights - to own a firearm or otherwise.They did not/could not serve in the militia.

So I suppose, taking 18th C. reality into account & with your interpretation, currently U.S. women have no right to own or possess firearms.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 07:03 PM

I can't immediately see the relevance of your reference to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Easy one! Happiness is a warm gun! Bang, Bang; Shoot Shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 06:10 PM

> Scalia's views on arms cannot long survive.

There is no way to know this.

Wikipedia gives an extensive and seemingly reliable summary under "District of Columbia v. Heller." There is more under "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The Bill of Rights elaborates the fundamental insistence on unalienable rights (which, of course, appears not in the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence. Apologies for that slip.) All rights guaranteed in the bill are unquestionably conducive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as understood by the Founders.

Would you have denied eighteenth-century people, many of them living on the frontier, the right to own firearms for hunting and protection regardless of the "militia" clause?

If you question that line of reasoning, please indicate what makes it implausible. Clearly the militia clause is relevant to the entire one-sentence Amendment, but eighteenth-century reality makes it unreasonable to insist that it restricted firearm ownership solely to members of state militias (which now make up the National Guard - certainly a well-regulated organization).

Supreme Court opinions may certainly be overturned, but it does not happen often. And, as you know, it would have to be in the context of a specific case. No attorneys, apparently, have ever been able to formulate a case that would result in any fundamental changes to the current interpretation of the Amendment.

Of course, this isn't the place for a detailed legal discussion, particularly since neither of us, so far as I know, is an expert in US Constitutional law.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 05:24 PM

PS- if you mean "Heller" - I have expressed my views of Scalia elsewhere, and I'll take Stevens over Scalia any day of the year... Scalia's views on arms cannot long survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 05:12 PM

Lighter, I should appreciate a case citation. I have seen my interpretation argued before and would have expected such a citation to have been mentioned then. I can't immediately see the relevance of your reference to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so perhaps you would at the same time clarify your relevant purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 02:57 PM

"His manifesto is completely explicit about his cause."
You've obviously followed it far more closely than I have Jack - I bow to your superior knowledge
I just wanted to make sure the real lesson was not missed or avoided - unless them upstairs do something about gun control, this sort of thing will reoccur with grim regularity.
! would suggest that, if people seriously feel that guns are a necessity, the industry should be owned by the state, thereby removing the profit motive from gun sales and putting their manufacture passing their responsibility into the hands of somebody (allegedly!!) answerable.
It seems obscene that profit should play any part in such a lethal industry.
All a little too much like 'Communism' for our cousins across the pond, I suppose!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 02:18 PM

He was described as "a recluse", which seems to indicate he wasn't part of any organised plot.

He was the sort of foot soldier certain organizations like to inspire so they can use and disavow them. White supremacism is certainly organized in the US.

There was no organized logistical backup for most of the classic 19th century terrorists either. Gavrilo Princip, with a serious political movement helping him out, was not a typical assassin.

A "terrorist" seems to describe a fanatic ready to kill and die for a cause - don't think there's too much evidence of that to date.

His manifesto is completely explicit about his cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 01:45 PM

Lighter, 8:06 am: ..."it would be no easier for the government to confiscate many existing bullets..."

Note that I never suggested confiscating existing bullets. I proposed not allowing more to be manufactured.

There would/will still be many bullets out there- until they are all gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 01:14 PM

"A terrorist indeed. Particularly since he explicitly stated his intention to start a race war."
I really don't think it is as simple as that L
He was described as "a recluse", which seems to indicate he wasn't part of any organised plot.
He was certainly a racist, but finds have described him as having "issues" over a girl at the local school.
A "terrorist" seems to describe a fanatic ready to kill and die for a cause - don't think there's too much evidence of that to date.
Describing him as such appears to let a society off the hookk for allowing such an unstable individual own guns - his parents share the blame in buying them for him (as a birthday present).
Gun ownership and accessibility are the issues here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 01:12 PM

"... he explicitly stated his intention to start a race war."

And because in 300,000,000 people there are many hate-filled people, unstable people, and sadly, stupid people in both categories, the easy access to weapons WILL ensure horrible incidents keep happening- perhaps not 'quite' this jaw-dropping or with exactly the same reasoning, but with similar pain, frustration and effects for victims. There is even some evidence that the wide publicity by so many 'news' outlets gives rise to copycat incidents - even as it encourages the sane to do something.,,, and unfortunately, mourning and vigils and fist-shaking are about all that many can deal with.

I am not sure what it would take to get a majority to vote for legislators who will pass relevant laws to make real change.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 12:51 PM

Thank you all.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 12:37 PM

A terrorist indeed. Particularly since he explicitly stated his intention to start a race war.