I feel like every time there’s an argument now about whether something is “racist,” there are like 12 different things being argued at once. Setting aside the grounds for the lawsuit itself, and also setting aside whether you would describe it as a “racist” thing to do, do you think this was an intimidating act? Do you think it would be unreasonable for the recipient to feel intimidated by the message? If you got a letter the predominant impact of which was the visual image of a Klansman doing a Nazi salute at you personally, would you feel like you had been targeted in an inappropriate way?
Another way to look at it - do you think burning a cross on someone’s lawn is bad because it’s “racist,” or bad, at least in part, because it’s terrifying and intimidating? I can’t tell whether you’re arguing the technicality that this was an abhorrent act that should be criticized, but does not actively express any opinion about African Americans in and of itself, or whether you’re actually saying there was nothing wrong with this message.
If it’s the former, I don’t understand why that would be important. If it’s the latter, I don’t understand why you didn’t frame it that way.
I don’t think this means what you think it means. Equivocating is the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth, or to avoid committing to a position.
An example of equivocating might be to note that the use of the KKK in the email was a negative one, and it’s unfair to saddle the writer with the label of racist because they didn’t really indicate support of the KKK. Or to point out that the email sender has 1st amendment rights and calling them racist is an attempt to silence a voting member of the public, and I thought you liberals liked the 1st A. Folks can read those as flowery language to conceal the email authors racism, or avoid taking a position on the racism, since it’s really a 1st amendment issue.
Saying “This shit is dead racist.” is the opposite of equivocating. It isn’t ambiguous, it doesn’t conceal anything, and it definitely commits to a position. You may think the statement is wrong, but it isn’t equivocating.
Another issue about this definitely racist email that I don’t think has been addressed yet, which is that its KKK-loves-Black-abortions message is a blatant lie:
Yes, racist “pro-lifers” are most concerned about the impact of abortion on white demographics, but that doesn’t mean they’re okay with allowing abortion rights to non-white people. (With occasional possibly-trolling exceptions, such as the infamous Tom Metzger.)
And just because some white pro-lifers occasionally use the KKK as a stalking horse for their anti-reproductive-rights propaganda directed at PoC doesn’t mean that the KKK actually supports allowing PoC the right to choose an abortion. Letting anybody but white men have the autonomy to control their own lives, including reproductive decisions, is something the KKK is staunchly against.
You miss the point. It doesn’t matter whether you are putting the KKK in a positive light. The KKK is an organization that has historically lynched numerous Black people. The KKK and those who share their views murdered thousands over the course of a century.
Think of it this way… You are a white person living and working in Saudi Arabia. You are the only white person with your team, and you propose something unpopular. You get an email from a Saudi that contains imagery of 9/11, and claims you are acting like a terrorist. How would that make you feel? They aren’t speaking positively of terrorism, but they still singled you out because of your race and intentionally used imagery that would have a uniquely negative effect on you, imagery tied to violence used against people like you.
And even that doesn’t hold the tiniest candle to the long years of terror that the KKK invokes.
This person was targeted because of her race. It was imagery used to upset her in a way that wouldn’t upset someone who wasn’t Black. It doesn’t matter if the person who sent it actually likes or supports the KKK, or spoke of them positively. It was racially motivated, and is by definition racist.
Nope, we seem to disagree here as to what constitutes a threat.
Now, if you remember that American campaign video where someone put AOC’s (or was it Nancy Pelosi’s?) face on an anime monster, then showed the candidate attacking the monster with a sword, that crosses the line.
But something like plastering a rabbi’s face or speech onto footage or stills from Downfall, or otherwise indicating his opinion is like Nazism with explicit imagery, I don’t see as inherently threatening.
Of course it’s racist. How can you even question that?
What makes burning a cross racist? There’s nothing inherently wrong or threatening about burning a cross. But it has historically been associated with killing black people. So it’s a threat. Sending images of the KKK is explicitly using threatening images. “Oh, it’s not racist because i implied i don’t like the KKK when i sent you that picture” is just absurd. They are reminding her that there are people who want to kill her.
I’m… just astonished that anyone can’t see that as benign.
Indeed, in my region of Europe, there is a completely benign tradition of burning a cross in winter as a symbol of trying to chase away the cold weather.
It was quite a shock, in our first year, to find a glossy brochure in our mailbox inviting us to the local cross-burning. For a few minutes, we wondered if maybe we shouldn’t have done some more research before the move. But then we figured it out, and reflected on the deep divisions between cultures. The image of a burning cross is simply not loaded the same way here as it is in the US.
But it is, of course, terribly loaded, and anyone arguing that the deployment of such symbolism in the United States does not connote fear and intimidation is simply wrong.
Why would you assume that was the intended message? Because they said so?
The thing is, by default, sending a Klan picture to a black person is a threat. And their claim that they just mean “you’re like X” doesn’t make sense since they didn’t accuse the two white people of the same thing.
The same would be true if it was one Jewish person instead of a black person. You just don’t send a Hitler or Holocaust reference to a Jewish person. There is an inherent threat implied there.
Both reference mass violence against those groups, in a context where such is not remotely necessary. Just because someone comes up with a flimsy excuse for why they said it doesn’t mean that excuse is true.
Now I don’t agree it’s full on burning cross level. But that’s just because they’re trying to be sly. But that’s the more usual case. There’s a reason why your example (with actually killing the AOC monster) was considered crass even by people on their side. You’re supposed to be more subtle than that.
You seem to want these sorts of things to be far more blatant than they usually are. I guarantee you that my black friend back in junior high didn’t leave town because someone directly threatened violence against him and his family. But they got the message, loud and clear.
Exactly. If, for example, a group of concerned Black constituents were trying to tell a Black legislator that her proposed bill was a terrible idea and was promoting the agenda of the Ku Klux Klan, would they send her a message with a picture of a Klansman on it?
No, they would not; they would send her a message saying “Dear Delegate Walker, We are deeply horrified and disappointed that blah blah blah…How can you promote an anti-Black measure endorsed by the racist terrorists of the Ku Klux Klan?” Or something along those lines.
Sending Black or Jewish people images of Klansmen or swastikas, under the guise of expressing concern that they’re giving aid and comfort to racist or antisemitic attitudes, is like white people loudly explaining how regrettable it is for Black people to use the term “N*****”. Because “N*****” is such a terrible racist term and by using the word “N*****” themselves they are encouraging all the terrible racists who want to call them “N*****”. And so on.
Yeah, sure. Excuse me, your suppressed glee at being able to indulge in this offensive form of expression while claiming to reject it is showing.
While that is evidence of bad faith I don’t think it carries much weight. Not enough to convince me, and certainly not enough for me to support a case where the defendant has the presumption of innocence. I think it is unlikely that the email, as described in the Vice article (quoted by post #1), was intended to be a veiled threat of racially motivated violence against Ms. Walker. I think to change my mind, I would need evidence that the individual or organization behind the email have a history of more overt threats of racially motivated violence, or a history of perpetrating / sympathizing with racially motivated violence. Saying Klansmen like Ms. Walker’s stance on abortion does form a rhetorical argument; though it relies on a fallacy of association, such appeals are common in political discourse.
Now, if the email was a picture of a Klansman with the caption “be pro-life as if your life depended on it!”, that could arguably be seen as a threat of violence.
None of the above is to be interpreted as belittling Ms. Walker’s reaction to the email. It may very well be that over the course of her life she has seen too many racists making and perhaps acting on veiled threats of racial violence. Her experience in life may lead her to reasonably treat such rhetoric as a credible threat. Mine does not, however. Without further evidence and putting myself in the defendant’s place, without Ms. Walker’s experiences, I can not and do not conclude that the message is threatening. Furthermore, in general, I do not think victims should prevail in court based on what makes them feel threatened, versus what I think reasonably constitutes a threat. A good lawyer will need to find a way to strike people like me from the jury. (West Virginia has juries for civil cases)
No, in the specific instance where the person is compared to Nazis, there isn’t. Comparing a Jewish person to a Nazi does not imply this particular Jewish person (or any) should be the target of mass violence like the Nazis targeted Jews, Soviets, Poles, etc. If - if - there is a threat of violence implied, the threat is that the Jewish person should be fought like Nazis should be fought.
The two are not comparable. Burning a cross may be a threat, but it doesn’t follow that a images of a burning cross is a threat. Correct me if I am wrong, but images of burning crosses are not widely recognized paraphernalia at the scene of racially motivated lynchings.
If a Black politician supported something like an Amber alert but for manhunts, and a member of the public emailed said politician in a similar manner to the present case but with the burning cross.
Subject: “Your Plan”,
Body: image of burning cross with Klansmen standing beside it, top caption “what do you think goes through his mind when he sees a manhunt alert”, bottom caption “be anti-manhunt alerts like your race depends on it! It’s the American thing to do”
I think that would be comparable, and I don’t see that as a threat.
Here’s another perspective. A symbol is not inherently threatening; if you see a report of some racist burning crosses with a photograph, it is unreasonable to conclude, simply by virtue of the presence of an image of burning crosses, that the newspaper is threatening you. The newspaper did not set fire to the cross. Depictions of burning crosses in textbooks are not necessarily threats on the part of the schools and publishers against the students who read them. Not to say they couldn’t be, just that they aren’t necessarily. Only acts may constitute threats, and actions have contexts. A cross burned among other wooden trinkets as part of a dumpster fire is not a threat. A depiction of a burning cross falling upon a piece of legislation and setting fire to it, that’s art, not a threat.
That’s a fairly nonsensical inference. Obviously an actual burning cross is more threatening than a picture of one, so hateful racists who have an opportunity to threaten people in a real-life physical confrontation with burning crosses do so, rather than merely waving around pictures of a burning cross.
But that doesn’t mean that sending an image of a burning cross to a Black person should be presumed to have no threatening intent. As you just said, actions have contexts, and the historical context of burning crosses in the presence of Black people in America is absolutely steeped in intentional threat. You can’t send a Black American an image of a burning cross and pretend it’s innocently separate from that context.
