Re: [ARSCLIST] Recordings of lynchings?

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "phillip holmes" <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Mea Culpa?  Well no, not at all.  Are you accusing me of being a racist 
> because I believe that this information should be available to those 
> other than the thought police?  I find that childish.  I don't have any 
> lynching pictures or anything else like it (though I did have some 
> Kennedy assassination related items that I gave to a history major). I 
> find it disturbing and repulsive (give me nightmares actually).  Are you 
> saying that I shouldn't be allowed to buy something because it is 
> offensive?  What make it offensive?  What gives you the right to make 
> those decisions?  If the "powers that be" decide that you shouldn't be 
> allowed to have something like that, what guarantee is there that they 
> will keep it available to those who legitimately need it (civil rights 
> groups)?  What you are saying is that you know what's best for me and 
> that we should just hide this stuff in a museum.  If I were a member of 
> the NAACP, I would try to use these images to prevent hate crime, just 
> as the Anti-Defamation League uses images from WWII to educate people 
> about the dangers of nationalism and racism.  They support the 
> dissemination of information on the holocaust.  How would suppressing 
> images further their cause?  I'm sure there are skin-heads that buy it 
> and put it on their walls like a centerfold.  So does that mean that 
> because some moronic imbecile gets his jollies off of it, that it should 
> be a controlled substance?   That's a possible solution.  It'd be a form 
> of prohibition, and like prohibition, it would fail.
> 
> So, according to Steven Barr, anything offensive should be confiscated 
> by people who "know better".  Is that right?  So, when the people who 
> "know better" are wearing confederate flags, or swastikas, or whatever, 
> it will be okay when they confiscate things that they find offensive to 
> them (like the constitution or bill of rights)? 
> 
> What's the difference with buying a recording or picture of a lynching 
> and some kind of documentation from Auschwitz (or even Andersonville--do 
> you even know what that was?)?  I did say that if there is any idea that 
> this is evidence to a crime, it should be made available to the 
> authorities.  To not make evidence of a crime available to law 
> enforcement is a felony or perhaps makes you an accessory after the 
> fact.  After that, the evidence is sometimes returned to the original 
> owner.  And as I stated before, it's silly to think that there is only 
> one copy of this stupid postcard and that it hasn't been documented by 
> the FBI, the DOJ and the NAACP already.
> 
> Are there laws in Canada or the US that prevents the purchase and 
> distribution of images or recordings that document crimes?  I don't 
> think so.  Aren't such laws a slippery slope that helps people deny the 
> truth?
> 
> Phillip
> 
keep going...
> Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "phillip holmes" <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >   
> >> So, who is supposed to be the final arbiter of taste and morality on 
> >> this?  A librarian?  Congress (yeah, sure, they're always right, aren't 
> >> they!)?  I don't think there's anything wrong with lowly ordinary people 
> >> having this kind of thing.  If they destroy it, then it is lost 
> >> forever.  If they keep it, (whether they are a bunch of rednecks, or a 
> >> museum, or a civil rights organization) the evidence of brutality and 
> >> crime is preserved.  Let's suppose some racist has it and he commits a 
> >> hate crime.  Did he do the crime because he had the postcard?  No, he 
> >> did the crime because he was a racist and the postcard is entered into 
> >> evidence (just like child pornography is used as a smoking gun against a 
> >> child molester).  I have, in my rather large collection of records, 
> >> things like Hitler speeches, Roosevelt chats, WWII audio, etc...  That 
> >> doesn't make me a NAZI, a "New Dealer" or a WWII historian.  If I 
> >> decided to sell them, it's nobody's business if I make a profit.  If 
> >> this postcard is one of a kind (or is suspected to be one of a kind), 
> >> then the collector/dealer _should_ make a copy available to the 
> >> authorities.  But they should be able to do what they wish with the 
> >> original.  As an aside, I doubt that ONE postcard was printed.  They 
> >> were printed by the hundreds and passed around by racists.
> >>
> >> We should look at how this played out in Germany.  Any kind of NAZI 
> >> paraphernalia was made illegal. Every last trace of it was removed from 
> >> public view except for a few exceptions.  I don't think it's at all 
> >> surprising that Germany has a group of holocaust deniers and neo-NAZIs.  
> >> I know this is comparing apples and oranges, but common people should 
> >> see what happens when hate goes unchecked:  wars, genocide, lynching, 
> >> etc...  Taking this ugly side of our history in America, and locking it 
> >> up, makes repeat offenses more likely. 
> >>
> >>     
> > Woops...!
> >
> > IMHO, this "Mea Culpa" makes you...at least in MY eyes...guilty of a
> > MUCH worse offense...! Unfortunately, we have arrived, in the XXI
> > Jahrhundert, at a new and extremely offensive (well, to me and Ecru,
> > at any rate...!) social point!
> >
> > What you are saying (cut to the chase here)...is that your sale of
> > ANYTHING...to the highest bidder...is somehow entirely justifiable!
> > What you are trying to do is to justify your personal improvement
> > in standing in the Homo Sapiens dominance hierarchy (or a subset
> > thereof...!)...regardless of the immediate and/or eventual result
> > of that sale...!
> >
> > Don't think so...?!
> >
> > Steven C. Barr
> >
Finally...!

First, I find it mainly the neo-conservative crowd that rail against
that old devil, "political correctness"...! This somehow seems logical
to me...since "p.c." both interferes with their presumed right to
put certain messages before the public...and, WORSE YET, their
presumed right to MAKE MONEY...which often seems to be not only
their favoutite activity, but essentially their only one...!
Hence the all-too-true film cliche: "Greed is GOOD!"

Second...I was NOT commenting on your right to access lynching-
related content...! Rather, I was commenting on your apparent
(as I read it, anyway) assumption that you have an inherent
right to sell such material to the highhest bidder...with little
or no regard for WHY that party might want the item(s), or how
he/she/it plans to use it/them once acquired...! You yourself
admit that the potential buyer may be "a 'skinhead' that will
put it on his wall like a centerfold...!" Keep in mind that
this same individual, after some time contemplating the item,
may well decide that it is only reasonable to re-enact the
event pictured...?! After all, someone else was apparently
applauded for his action...

Further, unlike the vast majority of the "western world," I am
NOT so totally and blindly influenced by the desire for material
gain that I am willing to participate in ANYTHING which gains me
$$$ (and thus status, power, and gains in one's dominance-
hierachy ranking...!)...or to willingly accept and tolerate
such actions from others! Yes, this makes me an execption to
the general rule...but I wear that as an honour...!

I don't have the exact quote...nor the identity of the quotee...
but, IIRC, it was some Communist muck-a-muck who postulated that
capitalists would always be all too willing to sell the very tools
and weapons that could be used toward their defeat...!

What all too many of us have done in this new century is to slightly
rewrite the cliche usually credited to Vince Lombardi:

"Money (winning) isn't everything...it's the ONLY thing!"

Steven C. Barr