Lynching redux

[Joel S. Berson]

And why postcards were sold with photographs of the results of lynchings.

At 8/2/2005 03:40 PM, you wrote:
>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
>Subject:      Re: Lynching redux
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You're wrong on at least one point, Jim.  Lynchers think lynching is
>fine and don't care who knows it.  That's why crowds of them can mob
>the courthouse in the little Western town yelling "Lynch him ! "
>
>JL
>
>"James A. Landau" <JJJRLandau at AOL.COM> wrote:
>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender: American Dialect Society
>Poster: "James A. Landau"
>Subject: Re: Lynching redux
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>At 12:11 AM -0400 7/28/05, Wilson Gray wrote:
> >In an earlier thread, there was some question as to whether vigilantes
> >had to use hanging as the means of execution in order for said
> >execution to count as a lynching.
> >
> >The NYT, in a recent article, referred to a vigilante killing as a
> >lynching, even though the four victims had been shot to death. IIRC,
> >the article described the occurrence as "the last mass lynching."
>
>
>
>I am going to take the law into my own hands.
>
>I state: EVERY SINGLE ADS-L MEMBER who has contributed to this and related
>threads has been WRONG.
>
>First to dispose of an extended meaning of "lynching". During the Clarence
>Thomas confirmation hearings, someone (I forget whether it was Thomas or
>Anita Hill, but both were justified in the usage) referred to the
>ongoing circus
>as "a legal lynching". This extended sense does not concern us here.
>
>A lynching is
>1) a premeditated killing
>2) in which the killers (sometimes called "vigilantes") have no legal
>standing to try or punish the victim
>3) in which the killers justify their premeditated action by claiming the
>victim's alleged action justified and/or required killing him/her
>4) AND in which the narrator who uses the word "lynching" disapproves of the
>killing.
>
>Note number 4). "Lynch" is NOT a neutral term. It is a value judgment,
>used only when the narrator disapproves of the killing.
>
>I have not seen the NYT article cited above, but I would be willing to bet
>money that the author disapproved of the "vigilante killing" and hence it was
>not just proper but required that he refer to it as a "lynching". I also do
>not doubt that Wilson Gray disapproved of the killing and hence he too was
>proper and using correct English when he also used the term
>"lynching" (I might
>add that I am rather sure I too would disapprove of the killing were I to
>read the article).
>
>When you use the word "lynch" you do not imply a hanging; rather you state
>that the killing in question was both vigilante-style and UNACCEPTABLE.
>
>"Lynch" is therefore a "loaded" term, but since the activity being described
>is widely disapproved, I can hardly object to the use of such a loaded term.
>
>For comparison, consider the words "homicide" and "murder". "Murder" is a
>value judgment term. "Homicide" is a neutral term, used in law to refer to a
>killing before the court has decided who, what, why. It is understandable
>for a court to return a verdict of "justifiable homicide". The term
>"justifiable murder" however would be a rather moronic oxymoron.
>
>- James A. Landau (prescriptivist and proscriptivist
>vigilante)
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com