In The Wake of Emmett Till, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #269 | @MDWorld
April 2, 2012 Michael Davis 1 Comment
Back in August 1955, there was a 14-year-old Chicago black boy named Emmett Till who was visiting relatives down in Mississippi. According to reports, he either spoke to or whistled at a white and married 21-year-old girl named Carolyn Bryant. Back up north, this was no big deal: a harmless, childish act from a harmless child. The white folks in Mississippi didn’t see it the same way and, a few days later, Bryant’s husband Roy and his half-brother J. W. Milam kidnapped Emmett from his great-uncle’s house, took him to a barn, bound him with barbed wire, beat him to a pulp, gouged out one of his eyes, shot him in the head and tossed his horrific corpse off a Tallahatchie bridge into the river below. His mother insisted on a public, open casket funeral and allowed – encouraged – press photographers to attend.
The slaying of Treyvon Martin and the resultant police leaks and cover-ups has been compared to that of Emmett Till, and that isn’t quite accurate. Yes, both were victims of racist and both were killed and both were teen-agers and the killers received protection from the local law authorities… and the comparison slows down from there.
Here’s a better one.
On Wednesday, March 21 a 32-year-old Iraqi woman named Shaima Alawadi, was found severely beaten next to a note that said “go back to your country, you terrorist.” She and her family lived in El Cajon, California; it was her 17-year-old daughter who found her mother’s body in a pool of blood. Shaima, the mother of five, was taken to the hospital and put on life support.
The following Saturday – a week ago last Saturday – Shaima Alawadi was taken off of life support. It was official. She had been beaten to death. Shaima wore a hajiba, which is more likely to get you killed than a pack of Skittles.
“At this point, we are not calling it a hate crime,” said Lt. Mark Coit of the El Cajon police. “We haven’t made that determination. We are calling it an isolated incident, because we don’t have any evidence of anything similar going on at this point.”
As of this writing, no arrests have been made. A week after the beating, the FBI offered its assistance to the El Cajon police. If Lt. Coit is any indication of the quality of police out there, I suspect they’re too stupid to take advantage of the offer.
If Alawadi “went back to her country,” she would have left El Cajon for Dearborn Michigan. That’s where she and her husband went when they fled Iraq in 1993 due to violent discrimination against Shia Muslims. Her father was a Shia cleric.
I’d say something clever like “Iraqi Muslim is the new black,” except the old black is still the new black.
I’d say something pithy like “Look at what has America has come to,” except that America has always had all types of lynching.
So instead, I’ll say this: America is a nation of mongrels. Each and every one of us belongs to at least one group that certain other groups do not like.
Watch your back.
——
Pissed-off and white, media metaphysician Mike Gold performs the Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind rock’n’blues show, which streams four times a week on www.getthepointradio.com and is also available at that same venue On Demand. He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com.
George Haberberger
April 2, 2012 - 8:57 am
The scum who killed Shaima Alawadi are as guilty of murder as is possible. Calling it a hate crime does nothing to make them more guilty or more contemptible.
Hate crime designation is the thought police.
This issue came up on Real Time this weekend and I found myself in agreement with Bill Maher.
Mike Gold
April 2, 2012 - 9:15 am
The designation of “hate crime” is an abrogation of First Amendment freedoms. Try people for the physical crimes, and leave the thought crimes to Philip K. Dick.
You have a right to hate. You don’t have a right to do anything about it. Why aren’t the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries fighting this? After all, they hate Scientologists.
Rick Oliver
April 2, 2012 - 10:40 am
America is the melting pot where nothing melts. There are millions of freedom loving Americans who will strongly defend your freedom to be just like them. If you aren’t just like them, you obviously hate freedom.
Mike Gold
April 2, 2012 - 10:57 am
Hate crime laws are, in fact, examples of hate crimes. They unduly hate those they accuse of hating.
I publicly acknowledge and confess, I hate bigots. Now bust my ass.
JosephW
April 2, 2012 - 12:31 pm
Mike, while you (and George) are certainly free to dismiss hate crimes as being antithetical to free speech, bear in mind that free speech does NOT give a license to act beyond that.
I’m tired of the standard “well all crimes are hate crimes” bullshit. They’re not. When someone breaks into your house and steals something (or everything), well, yeah–that’s bad. But those objects can be replaced and, typically, it’s done because the thief needs money. He’s not doing it because he “hates” someone (or even envies the person–an envious thief would simply steal an item and keep it for himself; that’s the nature of envy).
OTOH, when someone says they’re planning to go out and beat up a “fag” or a “nigger” or a “kike,” and then does just that, well, I defy anyone to suggest that the victim is NOT being targeted SOLELY for a specific facet of his/her being. How DARE you suggest that is not motivated BY hate!
Additionally, I’d like to suggest that you go talk to a prosecuting attorney and ask him (or her) if the law takes MOTIVE into account when charging a criminal. I think–almost to a person–the answer would be “yes.” So why would you think that explicit “hate” should somehow be exempt from being included as a motive for prosecuting a crime? If someone has a history of making incidienary comments invoking race, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, etc, and that person acts on those impulses, why should their history somehow NOT be a factor in their prosecution?
Just ask yourself this, Mike: IF that woman had been killed by her husband (or father or brother) for NOT wearing the hijab or for daring to want to associate with non-related men (even in a non-sexual way), would you be as willing to sit back and say “Well, that’s part of their religious culture, so no problem” or would you be outraged over a man who said he shouldn’t face prosecution because of an honor killing? I’d like to think that you would be outraged–whether it happened in El Cajon, USA or some remote village in Iraq (where shit like this has been going on since the Iraqi people were “liberated” from Saddam’s “tyranny”–and not just in remote villages, but even in neighborhoods in Baghdad). I know there’s a certain group of Islamophobes (ie, Islam haters) who would pounce on such an incident as “proof” that Islam is some type of foul cult but seem less willing to be concerned when a Muslim woman wishes to publicly acknowledge her religious beliefs and dies for it (the same folks, incidentally, who–if Ms Alawadi’s killer is discovered to be an Islamophobe–would be out there denying their words had anything to do with the incident).
Emmett Till’s murderers were racists. As were the killers of Viola Liuzzo a decade later. Matthew Shepards’ killers were homophobes and Brandon Teena’s killers were misogynistic homophobes. These peoples HATE led them to kill. I’m willing to bet that everyone has SOMEONE they hate, whether it’s based on race, religion, ideology, sexuality, gender, whatever. I’m equally willing to bet that the majority of these folks have no intention of acting on their hatred in a way that would deprive someone else of his/her very life. Millions of folks are murdered everyday for indiscriminate causes, yet circumstances can mitigate their punishment; for instance, killing during an armed robbery gets you a far different sentence than just committing the robbery, even though both are crimes while killing someone ACCIDENTALLY during that armed robbery gets you a far different sentence than DELIBERATE killing. If the law takes “accident vs deliberate” into account for a murder committed during an armed robbery, why do you think that killing someone BECAUSE he’s black or BECAUSE he’s gay (or even because he’s THOUGHT to be gay) should be given no less thought?
Martha Thomases
April 2, 2012 - 1:00 pm
I respectfully disagree about hate crimes. The murder of the Iraqi woman not only affected her but also served as a threat to other Muslims. I believe that there are circumstances when threats Re illeg. Hence , I don’t see why combining two crimes isn’t a greater crime.
Mike Gold
April 2, 2012 - 2:13 pm
JosephW sez “Mike, while you (and George) are certainly free to dismiss hate crimes as being antithetical to free speech, bear in mind that free speech does NOT give a license to act beyond that.”
Yep. that’s right, JW. Exactly as I said in my response to George. The part where I said “You have a right to hate. You don’t have a right to do anything about it.” And I NEVER said sundry incidents weren’t motivated by hate. I said hate was a form of expression and, thus, protected. An incidental definition of hate is highly dependent upon who’s ox is being gored. Hate most certainly can be used to illustrate motive; absolutely. But hate SPEECH has no business being a separate crime, so don’t even THINK about burning copies of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
Your argument about Muslim women being murdered by their families for their conduct has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the issue of freedom of expression. We have always held that murder is not protected by free speech, and conflating the two is ridiculous.
I certainly agree that the murderers of Till, Liuzzo, Shepards, and Teena were bigoted killers whose hatred played a major role in their actions. Absolutely. Again, you can hate whomever you want. Obviously, you hate the murderers of Till, Liuzzo, Shepards, and Teena. And you have pretty much just said that right now. Are you guilty of a hate crime? No. If you killed any of them, you would be guilty of murder and the statements you just made might be used in evidence to establish your motivation. But motivation is NOT a crime in and of itself; ACTING on that motivation is a crime.
Mike Gold
April 2, 2012 - 2:31 pm
Martha, most acts of murder are motivated by hatred on some level — other than contract killing, I guess. Hate speech does not make those many murders the least bit murderier. As I said to JW, hate speech is evidence in that it speaks to motive, and that can be very strong. But hatred in and of itself is not a crime, it is a normal part of the human psyche. Can you honestly say there’s nobody you’ve ever hated? If so, I’ve got a list that I’ll lay out for you in person — I don’t want to leave any evidence that could get you in trouble… or me subpoenaed.
If I were to say “I hate Nazis” and then I went out and put a bullet between Eichmann’s eyes (that’s a metaphor; it just so happens I have an alibi for May 31, 1962), would I be guilty of a hate crime as well as murder? If so, should my defense be “I was misquoted; I love Nazis and it’s really too bad about Eichmann?”
It’s okay to say you don’t like Nazis. Really. Try it. I hum “Springtime For Hitler” all the doo-dah day.
Rick Oliver
April 2, 2012 - 2:41 pm
There’s absolutely nothing to prevent a prosecutor from claiming that hatred or bigotry was the motive for a crime, without having to rely on some statute about hate crimes. As for a “hate crime” serving as a threat to other members of a particular group, having a special crime category doesn’t really do anything to mitigate that threat. And in the case of murder, you can only execute someone so many times, and sentencing them to life without parole plus a whole bunch more years because it’s a hate crime doesn’t seem like much of an additional deterrent.
Martha Thomases
April 2, 2012 - 3:56 pm
Mike, my point wasn’t that hate should be illegal, but that a lynching or fag-bashing are not just Crimea against as individual but threats against an entire class of people. In the case of Emmet Till, for example, they didn’t just murder that boy but used him as an exams to any other. Lack men who might look at a white woman. In a sense (and I guess that sense is what we’re disagreeing about), it is two. Ie t acts within one crime
Pennie
April 2, 2012 - 5:23 pm
(I) Like Mike am completely prejudiced against bigotry–racists, homophobes, misogynists, self-propelled supremicists of all stripes, spots, colors, genders and religons.
I agree with Martha–through the ages, when a majority wanted to send a clear message to a minority group–racial, religious, gender or due to sexual orientation, they beat, maimed, lynched and killed. Far beyond the affected individual (s), the clear message was sent to others sharing the same minority distinction–and those who supported them. Ex: Cheney, Goodman and Schwerner. Emmett Tilll’s muder was hardly an isolated incident. Each death was meant to send a message to many–“We are superior. You are inferior. You have no rights that can’t be smothered in a heartbeat. You dare step out and you’ll suffer consequences.”
The same fate met by those who dared to express the love that has no name. And all queers.
Hatred comes in many shapes and forms.
David Oakes
April 2, 2012 - 5:28 pm
If the Law – is just for Punishment, then all killngs are Muders, and all sentences are life. “Hate” does not enter into it anymore than “Intent”, “Accident” or “Justifiable”.
But if the Law is intended to have a rehabilitative component, then Motive, State of Mind, and Recidivism *must* be considered.
If I kill Mike Gold because he is “Mike Gold”, then, having served my time, the State is secure in releasing me, knowing that I will no longer kill Mike Gold. (If you are hung up on a just punishment, assume it was just Assault rather than Muder, and I am out in five years.) But if I killed Mike Gold because he was “A Jew”, then the State needs to be more careful about releasing me, because there are still other Jews otu there I might decide to kill. Distinguishing the two crimes on the books allows the State to allow for other factors to be considered in the application of Justice, other than “Someone is dead”. It is the reason we have both Murder and Manslaughter, or Assault and Aggravated Assault.
I think you are also a little too quick to dismiss Martha’s “Hate Crime = Terrorism” concept. If I kill Mike Gold in a particularly extreme way as “notice to my enemies” – whether they are a particular Racial or Social group, or just people I don’t like – then I have committed both the crime of Murder and the crime of Menace.
If I hate someone, for whatever reason, then I should be allowed to say “I hate you, Kike.” But what I cannot do is say “I am going to kill you, Nigger,” or “The same thing will happen to you if you don’t do what I say, Cunt.” There is a difference between Hate Speech and Threats, just like there is a difference between Free Speech and Libel.
Jonathan (the other one)
April 2, 2012 - 8:07 pm
I see El Cajon hasn’t changed much over the past decade-plus. Back in ’97, my fiancee (later, wife) and I were heading to a friend’s house, when we were pulled over for having a taillight out. (That part was a fair cop – usually a ten-buck fix-it ticket, though.) The cop didn’t seem all that unfriendly – until he noticed the ring on my fiancee’s finger. She’s black, you see, and I, er, am not.
Suddenly there was examination of documents, calling of backup cars (eventually totaling four, including the watch sergeant), inspection of the car for weapons, and finally, the car being impounded because she didn’t have her driver’s license yet, had forgotten her learner’s permit at home, and was driving. (The cop also tried to tag us with driving straight ahead in a turn-only lane, but it was pretty easily proved that the lane was in fact marked for both maneuvers.)
No, I was not permitted to take the car home, even though I had my driver’s license on me.
Yep, plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose, all right…
Mike Gold
April 2, 2012 - 8:30 pm
Speech equals terrorism? It’s really come to this?
You are guilty of conspiracy if you and somebody else — even in sequence — concur on an illegal act, even if you do not commit that act. Conspiracy is a felony, even if the unperfromed illegal act is a misdemeanor. Hate speech in public is evidence of conspiracy to commit terrorism. Ever been to a baseball game? “Kill the ump!” Tens of thousand of hate-speaking terrorists at each and every one! Arrest ’em all!
Everybody hates somebody at some time. Let’s all bust each other.
Shit. I’m now a people-hater terrorist
Jeez, folks. Let’s hold people responsible for goring your ox and not simply for mumbling about it. Amazingly, liberals turn out to be the Brain Police…
MOTU
April 2, 2012 - 9:38 pm
… Shaima Alawadi, was found severely beaten next to a note that said “go back to your country, you terrorist.”
THAT’S NOT A HATE CRIME??
Rags
April 2, 2012 - 9:48 pm
It’s official (well, always has been) we suck. Can we get a do-over? And….Mike Gold is the smartest man in the room.
Mike Gold
April 2, 2012 - 10:16 pm
MOTU, I didn’t say it wasn’t a crime. It was. The crime is called murder. That’s what my whole piece was about. The “hate” part is motive, not crime. The current debate is about vengeance, not justice.
Adriane
April 3, 2012 - 2:34 am
I think that if there are laws in the jurisdiction that define it as a hate crime than it is a hate crime technically. There’s no doubt her murder was motivated by hate and whether or not the killers intended a greater message of fear or not, obviously these actions would cause members of a community to be afraid whether or not they were actually organized enough to have that be a desired result or terrible bonus.
The law is the law and if they have special definitions there then it’s a hate crime. I live in a state where we do not have rape on the books as a crime, it’s sexual assault. I’m not sure if that’s just to save using a scary word or to allow the law to cover attacks that may be sexual in nature but not narrower definition of sex. It also allows for multiple charges to be leveled depending on other crimes committed during the assault I’m supposing. Much like in Florida where you can kill an unarmed teenager because you felt “menaced”. I’m guessing that is the flip side to vermont’s asking you to swear you don’t have “malice in your heart” in order to receive your gun permit.
I’ve said, in other forums, that my shock comes from the police who have the option in this case to define this as a hate crime and have not.
The unfortunate byproduct of freedom of speech is that the people with ugly things to say are also protected to say their horrible thoughts. Insert Voltaire quote here. And again I’ll point out we have laws; laws that define when thoughts become illegal plans of action.
Rick Oliver
April 3, 2012 - 7:29 am
Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
Mike Gold
April 3, 2012 - 9:53 am
Adriane, when I applied for my Illinois State gun card way back in the year Gimmel, I was asked if I was planning on overthrowing the lawful government of the United States of America. Being a form there was no way for me to ask “what do you mean by the word ‘planning’?” Having no other choice, I answered that question according to my definition of the term. Is planning what you do, or what you have in your heart? Again, we are establishing thought crimes here, and I have no doubt the government’s definition of the term today differs from the definition of the term circa 1970… when things were also getting blowed up.
By the way, I believe some states in the Union still refine rape as something that can only be inflicted upon women, and then only by men. It wasn’t too long ago when a whole lotta people thought that was the only way it was. Today, most of us know better. So, just as I wondered what the state meant by “planning,” I wonder what the legal definition of “sexual assault” is in your state, and probably others.
I think the BEST thing about freedom of speech is that the people with ugly things to say are protected to say their horrible thoughts. We do not need freedom of speech in order to protect popular opinions — and, I might add, relying upon what is presently in vogue is a slippery standard indeed. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish and protect the rights of the minority.
I like Voltaire. Maybe I should do a graphic novel adaptation.
George Haberberger
April 3, 2012 - 12:31 pm
Amazingly, liberals turn out to be the Brain Police…
I do not think that is amazing at all.
Rick Oliver
April 3, 2012 - 2:19 pm
Right. Liberals are the brain police. Conservatives are the bedroom police.
Mike Gold
April 3, 2012 - 5:44 pm
Brains in the bedroom only get in the way. Gimme a liberal in bed every time.
For one, I don’t have to worry about splinters.
Reg
April 3, 2012 - 7:20 pm
Respect for bringing the horrific truth of Emmett Till’s visage back to the light of conscience, Mike.
The only quibble I had with your article was “Back up north, this was no big deal: a harmless, childish act from a harmless child.”
There were (and are) many places in the north that would make the most rabid redneck feel right at home. Case in point…http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/howard-morgan-ex-cop-shot_n_1399834.html
Re: Shaima Alawadi…Her murder absolutely deserves the same amount of media focus that Trayvon Martin does. And I hope that a Rachel Maddow or Cooper will reignite same so that her killer can be brought to justice.
And at this point…with all of the questions/concerns that have been raised…is there any legal reason why Zimmerman would NOT be brought in and held in custody by now?
Mike Gold
April 3, 2012 - 8:33 pm
Your point is well-taken, Reg, although it was safer for a black kid on Stony Island Blvd (where Emmett Till Place now exists) in Chicago back in the 1950s to whistle at a white woman than it was in Mississippi at that time. Chicago and northern cities were not immune from racism, then or now, but such blatant lynching was far less present. Again, at the time. Today, we use economic lynching, pretty much all over the nation. It’s less photogenic.
As for Zimmerman, well, if he told the police at the time that his nose was broken or he was injured to the point of needing medical attention (which, evidently, he refused) then he should be busted for lying to the cops. Which won’t satisfy anybody. Certainly not the Florida Tourism people.
Yeah, the Till story really affected me. I was too young to understand the black/white thing. To me, it was just another kid who happened to get viciously beaten to death for what, in fact, I saw on teevee sitcoms all the time.
The photo — and I used it before, and probably will again — is from the front page of the Chicago Defender. From just a couple years ago, in fact.
Rene
April 5, 2012 - 4:11 pm
From wikipedia:
“A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize speech.”
Seems pretty clear to me. There is no restriction of free speech or free thought in the definition of a hate crime. You just get a longer sentence if you commit violence. If you don’t commit violence in the first place, then you don’t have to worry about your speech or thoughts.
I’m not sure about US criminal law, but Brazilian law has a lot of stuff about motivation that can get you a bigger or smaller prison time. They include killing with frivolous motivation, abhorrent motivation, extreme cruelty, with no possibility of defense, hate crimes, etc.
Mike Gold
April 6, 2012 - 11:06 am
With all do respect, Rene, the day I get my moral or legal advice from Wikipedia will be the day after I’m sent to Gitmo. And as I’ve said repeatedly, so-called hate speech may likely be evidence as to motivation, but there is absolutely no call for hate speech to be a crime.
There are very young kids in American schools today who are being suspended from school for saying they hate their teacher or the kid who’s dipping their hair into the inkwell. Yeah, these seven and eight year-olds are fucking terrorists all right.
Political correctness is the death of the First Amendment.