In the Wee Hours of the Morning, (AKA The First Death of Innocence)

[laughing dog]

Naturally, because there is never enough evidence for you. You'd rather believe a white sheriff drove up behind 3 black men and killed his target while not noticing the other two men. I think most people familiar with that region during that time period find that explanation magnitudes less plausible than the idea that the white sheriff didn't care because of his confidence that his fellow white citizens would not convict him of any crime due to the color of his skin and that of his victim and witnesses against him.

The sheriff drove up behind 3 men and killed the one that had challenged him with a gun.

Interestingly, you left out that the three men were black. And your response does not address anything I wrote. I you agree that he drove up behind 3 men and killed his target, how can you doubt he knew there were witnesses? He identified the right man out of three, which leaves 2 witnesses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Naturally, because there is never enough evidence for you. You'd rather believe a white sheriff drove up behind 3 black men and killed his target while not noticing the other two men. I think most people familiar with that region during that time period find that explanation magnitudes less plausible than the idea that the white sheriff didn't care because of his confidence that his fellow white citizens would not convict him of any crime due to the color of his skin and that of his victim and witnesses against him.

The sheriff drove up behind 3 men and killed the one that had challenged him with a gun.

Interestingly, you left out that the three men were black. And your response does not address anything I wrote. I you agree that he drove up behind 3 men and killed his target, how can you doubt he knew there were witnesses? He identified the right man out of three, which leaves 2 witnesses.

I ignored the fact they were black because I was pointing out that there are two possible explanations.

And identifying someone at night when they aren't in the light is quite difficult. I wouldn't think it likely to be identified in such circumstances.

 

[laughing dog]

Interestingly, you left out that the three men were black. And your response does not address anything I wrote. I you agree that he drove up behind 3 men and killed his target, how can you doubt he knew there were witnesses? He identified the right man out of three, which leaves 2 witnesses.

I ignored the fact they were black because I was pointing out that there are two possible explanations.

There are always multiple possible explanations for any situation, but none that ignore the facts. Your alternative requires ignoring physical facts, the eye witnesses reports, and the history of that region.

And identifying someone at night when they aren't in the light is quite difficult. I wouldn't think it likely to be identified in such circumstances.

If there was enough light for the sheriff to correctly identify his target, there was enough light for him to see the other two men walking with him.

 

[Elixir]

If there was enough light for the sheriff to correctly identify his target, there was enough light for him to see the other two men walking with him.

Dem darkies is hard to see at night! Right?
Yeah, da good sheriff were jes protectin' de populace. Done seen some nigga what pointed a gun some other time. So what's a good 'ol boy gonna do? Well - shoot 'em of course!
Ain't got nothin' to do wid what color he be! Jes doin' his job, right?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Jolly, have you ever lived in the United States? In this and other threads you have conveyed that you do not have any understanding of race relations here. Which is lovely, I'm glad you have apparently never experienced the deep-seated fear and hatred that American White society has directed at American Black society. But the lovely fact that your world has not been marred by this evil does not mean that it doesn't exist.

You don't get it and this makes you conclude it's not there.

I never said it's not there, but nice try. And let's not pretend it doesn't exist here in Canada too, especially against first nations people.

And you are correct. I have have never lived in the USA. I have travelled but never lived there. I did receive some mildly racist comments there. "where you from?" "Canada" "No seriously, where you from"

Of course racism is a real problem in America. It is a cheap move to try you put the opposite words in my mouth. But being against prejudice, I apply that across the board. I am not going to presume something about someone because of where they live, what race they are, what gender they are, what their job is, how they look etc.

That applies to black guys driving Mercedes and it applies to this cop, in this story where no facts presented indicate racial animus. The story doesn't say the argument before the victim pulled out a gun on his eventual accused assassin was about race, though that argument does provide some motive
to claim it was this cop who did it. It doesn't say this cop had a personal history of being a horrible racist bigot either. And no, I won't presume him to be so because of the time and place and his race and job.

And no, I have not called Athena a liar. Biased? Absolutely. This is the woman who had the "black people can't be racist" thread and the one where you can safely bet she will be pro-black/anti-white as much as much as you can safely bet Floof will be pro-woman/anti-man, and Derec the opposite.

Note how those are judgements of particular individual posters based on their specific writings, and don't apply to women/men or to black people generally. Note how different that is from want you folks are doing here by leaping to conclusions about the cop in this story.

And I also hasten to add that though I expect a particular stance from Derec/Floof/Athena, if they actually say otherwise, I will hear them out at face value. Will you do the same?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Either Athena is making stuff up (please do let us know what your theory of her motives would be) or she is telling the truth as she knows it.

False dichotomy. Athena doesn't have to be dishonest to be biased or to be incorrect. And her experience with racism makes her less objective, not more.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And identifying someone at night when they aren't in the light is quite difficult. I wouldn't think it likely to be identified in such circumstances.

Indeed. And who else would they expect it to be? They threatened him with a gun earlier. Did they do that to lots of people? Or is he a special case and likely to occur in their minds it they can't see the assailant clearly?

 

[Elixir]

Either Athena is making stuff up (please do let us know what your theory of her motives would be) or she is telling the truth as she knows it.

False dichotomy. Athena doesn't have to be dishonest to be biased or to be incorrect. And her experience with racism makes her less objective, not more.

So what? Do you expect her to couch her recounting with "at least that's how I remember it" after every sentence?
If you have to dig that deep for a reason to doubt the veracity of her story, THAT speaks volumes about YOU, not her ability to recall.

 

[KeepTalking]

For those who are raising their doubts about the veracity of this story, or whether or not racism was the motivation of the Sheriff, you are missing the point.

Athena prefaced the story with the fact that she was 4 years old, going on 5 when this occurred. Athena is no spring chicken. It is doubtful that she would have been given all of the details of the murder, and what led up to it, at the time, and also doubtful that she would have retained all of that information over the intervening years, but providing verifiable facts is not why she posted this story. Please look at the words placed in parentheses in the story title "(The First Death of Innocence").

This thread is about how a very young black girl in the Jim Crow South lost her innocence with regard to racism. It doesn't matter if the details are 100% factual, or not. What matters is that this event caused a change in a very young girl that has stuck with her for the rest of her life. This event has shaped her world view, and her view of racism. This event was not unique for a young black girl of the era. The question you should be asking yourself is why you feel the need to discount Athena's pain and bewilderment as a young child. Why do you feel such a need to push your denial of racism in a thread where a poster is trying to explain to you when and how she became aware of exactly how racist people can be?

Why don't you stop trying to poke holes in her story, and listen to what she is really trying to convey to you? Maybe you will learn something about Athena, and the motivation she has for posting here about racism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So what? Do you expect her to couch her recounting with "at least that's how I remember it" after every sentence?
If you have to dig that deep for a reason to doubt the veracity of her story, THAT speaks volumes about YOU, not her ability to recall.

I didn't say anything about the veracity of the story. I took the story completely as true. The story doesn't say the argument was racial, that the particular cop has a racist history, etc, as I noted above. It doesn't even say who all the witnesses are (were there any (regardless of race) who were not present at the argument?).

The questions in my first post in this thread are reasonable. The absolute need for you folks to skip to prejudiced judgement isn't so much. Could there be a cop who did this due to racism? Absolutely. It was common at the time. It wouldn't be surprising at all if that was the reason. But this particular cop shouldn't be judged because others with his race, gender, etc acted in such a way. For the same reason that that black guy driving that Mercedes or that black lady walking around a store shop should be suspected a thief just because of skin colour.

And yes, with the fact of the argument and threat with the gun, I would be very hesitant to leap to any conclusion that the cop did it if the victim and witnesses were all white, especially with no additional evidence or witnesses other than his friends present at the argument.

 

[Toni]

Jolly, have you ever lived in the United States? In this and other threads you have conveyed that you do not have any understanding of race relations here. Which is lovely, I'm glad you have apparently never experienced the deep-seated fear and hatred that American White society has directed at American Black society. But the lovely fact that your world has not been marred by this evil does not mean that it doesn't exist.

You don't get it and this makes you conclude it's not there.

I never said it's not there, but nice try. And let's not pretend it doesn't exist here in Canada too, especially against first nations people.

And you are correct. I have have never lived in the USA. I have travelled but never lived there. I did receive some mildly racist comments there. "where you from?" "Canada" "No seriously, where you from"

Of course racism is a real problem in America. It is a cheap move to try you put the opposite words in my mouth. But being against prejudice, I apply that across the board. I am not going to presume something about someone because of where they live, what race they are, what gender they are, what their job is, how they look etc.

That applies to black guys driving Mercedes and it applies to this cop, in this story where no facts presented indicate racial animus. The story doesn't say the argument before the victim pulled out a gun on his eventual accused assassin was about race, though that argument does provide some motive
to claim it was this cop who did it. It doesn't say this cop had a personal history of being a horrible racist bigot either. And no, I won't presume him to be so because of the time and place and his race and job.

And no, I have not called Athena a liar. Biased? Absolutely. This is the woman who had the "black people can't be racist" thread and the one where you can safely bet she will be pro-black/anti-white as much as much as you can safely bet Floof will be pro-woman/anti-man, and Derec the opposite.

Note how those are judgements of particular individual posters based on their specific writings, and don't apply to women/men or to black people generally. Note how different that is from want you folks are doing here by leaping to conclusions about the cop in this story.

And I also hasten to add that though I expect a particular stance from Derec/Floof/Athena, if they actually say otherwise, I will hear them out at face value. Will you do the same?

Why would the cop have had to be racist to have done it?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why would the cop have had to be racist to have done it?

He wouldn't have to be racist to have done it. There are two open questions and conclusions being lept to here; that he did it and that if he did it, it was because of racism. Neither is warranted based on the facts as stated in the OP.

 

[Toni]

Why would the cop have had to be racist to have done it?

He wouldn't have to be racist to have done it. There are two open questions and conclusions being lept to here; that he did it and that if he did it, it was because of racism. Neither is warranted based on the facts as stated in the OP.

You need to re-read the OP. There was at least one eye witness to the murder so the question of whether or not he did it is already established. It is possible he would have murdered his rival even if the rival were white. It is less likely that he would have committed the murder of his rival in front of a white witness. He was likely not convicted because of the level of racism in Jim Crow Georgia.

I think I understand a couple of reasons you are unwilling to acknowledge what most of the Americans in this thread see every plainly.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You need to re-read the OP. There was at least one eye witness to the murder so the question of whether or not he did it is already established.

Did I misread? Was that witness not the victims friend, who was present at the argument and gun threat. Or was there a totally independent witness I missed? If the former, please read above. I addressed it multiple times without response.

I think I understand a couple of reasons you are unwilling to acknowledge what most of the Americans in this thread see every plainly.

Oh do tell. These presumptions about my "reasons" make it easier for you to dismiss what I wrote above, yes? I do see a lot of prejudice in America. That doesn't prevent me from seeing it in this thread as well.

 

[Toni]

You need to re-read the OP. There was at least one eye witness to the murder so the question of whether or not he did it is already established.

Did I misread? Was that witness not the victims friend, who was present at the argument and gun threat. Or was there a totally independent witness I missed? If the former, please read above. I addressed it multiple times without response.

I think I understand a couple of reasons you are unwilling to acknowledge what most of the Americans in this thread see every plainly.

Oh do tell. These presumptions about my "reasons" make it easier for you to dismiss what I wrote above, yes? I do see a lot of prejudice in America. That doesn't prevent me from seeing it in this thread as well.

I didn’t think you were willing to do that much self examination.

The fact is that you truly do not know what it was like to live as a black person under Jim Crow laws in Georgia. You truly have no idea what power law enforcement had over lives in small towns, much less black lives. I am not black, was born near the end of Jim Crow and lived my whole life north of the Mason Dixon line but I certainly heard enough growing up to imagine. I don’t even need to imagine that herd. I see today the power of certain names, certain families, certain jobs in my small city way above the Mason Dixon.

No I ne could fault you for not living in Georgia in the Jim Crow era. But it does say a great deal about you that you are unwilling to listen to those who did grow up in that era, who grew up seeing gross injustices carried out on the basis of skin color.

You want to try this recollection as though you were the prosecutor and the public defender all rolled up into one, with a dash of judge and for good measure move the events and people ahead 60 years or so and to Canada where slavery wasn’t an institution but instead racism was mostly —is mostly directed against First Nations people—not that there is t plenty to go around.

You simply do not know what you are talking about and you feel entitled to pass judgement on s bunch of people you don’t know in circumstances with which you are entirely unfamiliar. You are too arrogant to even consider that your own vanity and prejudice is informing your ignorance.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The fact is that you truly do not know what it was like to live as a black person under Jim Crow laws in Georgia. You truly have no idea what power law enforcement had over lives in small towns, much less black lives. I am not black, was born near the end of Jim Crow and lived my whole life north of the Mason Dixon line but I certainly heard enough growing up to imagine. I don’t even need to imagine that herd. I see today the power of certain names, certain families, certain jobs in my small city way above the Mason Dixon.

No I ne could fault you for not living in Georgia in the Jim Crow era. But it does say a great deal about you that you are unwilling to listen to those who did grow up in that era, who grew up seeing gross injustices carried out on the basis of skin color.

Your need to paint this on me is most telling. But just because I don't rush to prejudiced judgement of this individual doesn't mean what you try to project onto me above.

You simply do not know what you are talking about and you feel entitled to pass judgement on s bunch of people you don’t know in circumstances with which you are entirely unfamiliar.

Um... I am not the one passing judgement here. I am one of the few refusing to do so based on noting but prejudice from the guy's skin colour, place, and time.

You are too arrogant to even consider that your own vanity and prejudice is informing your ignorance.

Thanks for that personal attack and goading. Did you know I got banned from here over the Christmas holidays, for "goading", for saying something laughing dog wore was Orwellian? Yet you can goad with shit like this with impunity. That must be nice for you.

 

[Toni]

Your need to paint this on me is most telling. But just because I don't rush to prejudiced judgement of this individual doesn't mean what you try to project onto me above.



Um... I am not the one passing judgement here. I am one of the few refusing to do so based on noting but prejudice from the guy's skin colour, place, and time.

You are too arrogant to even consider that your own vanity and prejudice is informing your ignorance.

Thanks for that personal attack and goading. Did you know I got banned from here over the Christmas holidays, for "goading", for saying something laughing dog wore was Orwellian? Yet you can goad with shit like this with impunity. That must be nice for you.

I actually wasn't trying to goad you at all. I'm pointing out an observation. But if you want to play that way, you've made some pretty nasty personal attacks on me. Loren even said my leg should be broken--with zero consequences.



My judgment in this thread is that Athena knows what she is talking about, having lived the circumstances and events she describes. This is something none of us has done: we haven't lived her life nor had her experiences. I do, however, remember the end of Jim Crow, and the types of de facto rather than de jure segretation I saw from my side of the Mason Dixon. It gives me absolutely zero pleasure to know that I had family members who would have acted exactly as that white sheriff did and maybe worse. I grew up hearing stories as well....from a different perspective. As an adult, I realize exactly what some people were saying to me that, when what I heard as a child, only made me feel angry and sick to my stomach, although I could not understand the meaning of the words. I do now. I understand why my stomach had such a hard knot in it when certain people spoke about certain things....

You think you can just look through some magic looking glass back into time and know what really happened, what was in the hearts and minds of people you never met in a place and time where you've never been and call that true. And anyone who disagrees with you is (as always) a racist.

You've had your own experiences. I don't try to tell you that they weren't true, they didn't really happen.

 

[laughing dog]

Either Athena is making stuff up (please do let us know what your theory of her motives would be) or she is telling the truth as she knows it.

False dichotomy. Athena doesn't have to be dishonest to be biased or to be incorrect. And her experience with racism makes her less objective, not more.

Why would her experience make her less objective, not more?

- - - Updated - - -

You need to re-read the OP. There was at least one eye witness to the murder so the question of whether or not he did it is already established.

Did I misread? Was that witness not the victims friend, who was present at the argument and gun threat. Or was there a totally independent witness I missed? If the former, please read above. I addressed it multiple times without response.

I think I understand a couple of reasons you are unwilling to acknowledge what most of the Americans in this thread see every plainly.

Oh do tell. These presumptions about my "reasons" make it easier for you to dismiss what I wrote above, yes? I do see a lot of prejudice in America. That doesn't prevent me from seeing it in this thread as well.

It appears it does prevent you from seeing it yourself.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I actually wasn't trying to goad you at all.

Oh really?

I'm pointing out an observation. But if you want to play that way, you've made some pretty nasty personal attacks on me. Loren even said my leg should be broken--with zero consequences.

You can't tell Loren and I apart?

My judgment in this thread is that Athena knows what she is talking about, having lived the circumstances and events she describes. This is something none of us has done: we haven't lived her life nor had her experiences.

So? That makes it ok to be prejudiced against this individual cop?

You think you can just look through some magic looking glass back into time and know what really happened, what was in the hearts and minds of people you never met in a place and time where you've never been and call that true. And anyone who disagrees with you is (as always) a racist.

Do you even read what you respond to? I am the one not insisting in a prejudiced judgent here, and not crying racism.

You've had your own experiences. I don't try to tell you that they weren't true, they didn't really happen.

Nobody in this thread has told anybody that their experiences didn't happen.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why would her experience make her less objective, not more?

Think about it. It isnt complicated. She has clearly developed a victimhood complex. Doesn't mean she isn't a victim btw. But does mean she is biased to see herself as one even where it isn't so. When you are studying systems, everything is sexist, everything is racist, and you've got to point it all out.

Oh dear, is the above "goading" again?