Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/Archive 1

Old talk
We should think of a less timely example for the valid use of attacking the moral high ground. The current example is liable to flare some tempers. ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 18:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point, Toby. I just couldn't think of anything else at the moment, precisely because this example was so vivid and powerful. But just to think of it, what would be a better example? Imagine if Soviets would instead respond with "and you killed 100000 civilians with a nuclear bomb" or "you raped and murdered woman and babies in Vietnam"... To illustrate the use of similar responses we need an example that is not as horrifying, because the point isn't "America is evil", but "America can be as bad as everyone, stop pretending otherwise". So if anyone can think of an example which shows mostly the hypocrysy, not evil actions of the US, that would be great here.
 * And I just want to add that lynching was clearly bad, but it's not 100% evil, since it supposedly happened after some real or perceived crime, it wasn't just an act of random violence. And, more importantly, from my experience its usage was not deadly serious, it really just pointed to hypocrisy. Paranoid 22:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I want to mention that of course the Soviets did blame Americans for nuclear bomb also, and for Vietnam. Interestingly, Americans did not blame them for the German civilian casualties, such as during the storming of Berlin in which only Russian military casaulties numbered 300000, civilian casualties being unclear but believed to be over a million. To be sure, atrocities committed in Afghanistan against civilians by Soviet occupation forces were always fair game, much like those alleged American atrocities in Vietnam. And mind you, from what I have heard from Russian soldiers who were in Afghanistan, killing all civilians in a village was not a major or newsworthy event there. There would be no helicopter pilots ex machina to stop the atrocities and send the officers to trial. Watcher 09:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Why exactly should the US blame the Soviets for German civilian casualties when the Bombing of Dresden in World War II and the bombings of civilian areas of Berlin were acts of UK/US cooperation and when the US had shown they did not care for civilians in the Laconia incident? Get-back-world-respect 21:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I did not expect an obscure Russian phrase to provoke such great interest on the part of the community. :) Watcher 23:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I am removing and rewriting the following paragraph: However, a valid rhetorical use is to counter the other party's claims of moral high ground, which are often used to justify their position. For a particular example, the United States used claims of prison torture and "rape rooms" as some of its pretexts for invading Iraq, but this position was later weakened by the Abu Ghraib scandal. The Abu Ghraib incidents don't weaken arguments against the former regime on the basis of its prisons, but they can weaken arguments supporting invasion as a proper American response. This paragraph is contrary to the spirit of this statement, which implies that the argument is fallacious. Abu Ghraib argument is similarly fallacious, even though it is used with as much success now as the Negroes argument was back when they started making it. I have noted this in the paragraph I inserted.

What you say about the rape rooms is not a proper parallel to this argument because rape rooms were not the basic justification for the invasion. The basic justification involved WMD, alleged massive human rights abuses, alleged terrorist involvement, and alleged threat to the regional security. Rape rooms were just another factoid published once they discovered them. So the rape rooms accusations by Americans against Saddam are not by any stretch of imagination equivalent to lynching Negroes accusations by the Soviets.

Abu Ghraib allegations do not in any way detract from the moral underpinnings of removing Hussein (guilty of things orders of magnitude worse). They are just a grievous indicator of poor level of discipline in the military. Similarly, atrocities committed against Germans by Allied troops or by others with Allied sufferance do not in any way weaken the case for the removal of the Nazis, imho. Watcher 09:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I have removed much of the additions by Watcher, because they clearly violate the NPOV policy. See below for my criticism of specific paragraphs.

A more recent and well-known example involves the use of Abu Ghraib scandal to discredit the American policy in the Middle East and specifically American overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq.

Rather than address the real issues and concerns with what is going on in Iraq, many critics prefer to shout "and you are abusing your prisoners."


 * Use of "to shout" is wrong, because it plays down importance, relevance and rationality of arguments made by critics.

This is definitely a valid accusation, inasmuch as the crimes committed in Abu Ghraib prison are serious and deserve a harsh retribution, which those involved have already suffered or will suffer shortly.


 * That's not true. First, the punishments were primarily brought upon wistle-blowers who released the photos (see also the ban on camera-phones), second, in the home town of some of the criminals the guy who released the photos is scorned and the one who is in the photos is praised as a hero. Third, there is nothing really harsh about the retribution. Fourth, we haven't heard anything about the investigation of alleged murders and rapes (an execution or 5-10 years in prison would be ok for the perpetrators).

However, it is still merely a single incident that was already rectified, and which has elicited guarantees and assurances that nothing of that nature will ever happen again.


 * Bullshit, total bullshit, not NPOV at all. First, there have been similar reports from Guatanamo prisoners who were released. People who returned to UK and Russia reported more or less the same stories about conditions in that concentration camp, the only problem was they didn't have the photos to back their assertions up. Second, it is common knowledge that the prison system in the US is quite fucked up, so there is no reason to believe abuses are suddenly going to stop (not to mention allegations American kids being abused in "camps" in the Pacific where they were sent for "education"). And don't forget that it was Americans who invented concentration camps. The guarantees are not worth anything, the US was happy prohibiting Red Cross from access to prisoners, etc.


 * Please also tell me, how can you "rectify" a murder, or a rape, or humiliation? The Americans didn't even properly apologize... And don't try to spin the fact that they did something as a positive. They had to respond somehow to the incident that was so widely publicised. Tell me if anyone was punished for the Falluja bloodbath, for the latest wedding party massacre or for any other war crime the Americans have committed.

To say that this single incident invalidates any American claim that Americans are doing the right thing in Iraq is a similar fallacy.


 * Yes, but it's a valid argument to counter American claims of moral high ground, as was already said. I agree that this doesn't do anything to disprove allegations that Iraq has WMD, that Iraq was a threat to US/regional security or that it had links with Al Qaeda (these claims are now believed to be false, but that has nothing to do with Abu Gharib, you are right here).

The parallel to the Soviet propaganda usage is all the more obvious keeping in mind that the many middle eastern governments that are, as of 2004, widely publicizing such rhetorical arguments, are in fact allegedly guilty of much greater human rights abuses.


 * When such rhetorical arguments are used by these Arab countries, the US has the right to use it themselves again (Saddam killed Kurds -> But you rape prisoners -> But you stone women for adultery). But these arguments are also used by many Western European countries and others which have a much better human rights record than the US.

Similarly, Soviet Union was guilty of much greater and more widespread abuses than the sporadic lynchings in the USA even at the heyday of this heinous practice, giving rise to the irony of the and you are lynching Negroes saying.


 * Why, it was, but it wasn't for US to criticise, at least until they fixed their racial discrimination issues. Incidentally, by that point the USSR has stopped their worst abuses too. After Stalin's death there wasn't anything much worse than, say, maccarthism.


 * Still, this paragraph can be reused somewhere else in the article. Feel free to put it back in in some better place (perhaps in the first paragraph?).


 * In addition to that, there is a curious finding that the rate at which Saddam was killing people was actually lower than that at which Americans do it. And in regards to Soviets in Berlin, the point is that noone has the right to blame them for civilian casualties (how many were in Folksturm) after everything the Soviet people endured. The Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, on the other hand, didn't have much justification and were much more barbarious than what the Soviets have done in Berlin.

Paranoid 13:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I was unable to find any references to actual use of the phrase by the Soviet officials. It might have been that the response originated in this anekdote (joke), although the phrase is really commonly used by Russians as describe in this article and I don't doubt that the Soviet government used America's lynchings and racial segregation as a propaganda weapon.

From the review of Nixon's Civil Rights Politics, Principles, and Policy:


 * `Goodwill tours' by black entertainers were supposed to project an image of the United States as a vibrant democracy that honoured the cultural achievements of all races. But America's efforts to plant its leadership of the Free World on moral high ground continually foundered on the rock of American racial prejudice. After the Supreme Court's 1954 ruling that black children should not attend separate schools solely because of their race, racial crises erupted with embarrassing frequency. In 1957 a white mob in Little Rock, Arkansas, stopped nine black children entering a `desegregated' white school. The situation made headlines around the world. A disgusted Louis Armstrong--normally the most non-political of jazzmen--cancelled a government-sponsored tour of the Soviet Union. `I'll do it on my own,' he explained. `The people over there ask me what's wrong with my country and what am I supposed to say?'

Paranoid 13:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Meelar|Meelar], I removed your addition "(although the lynchings were never on the same scale as the abuses in the Soviet Union)" for the following reasons. The scale of Cold War era abuses in the USSR and the USA were comparable. To say which one was greater is impossible, because there is no simple way to quantify them. USSR stopped large scale repressions and gradually proceeded with rehabilitation of former "enemies of the people", Stalin was condemned for what he did. USSR continued to prosecute political opponents, but it was usually much wilder than before. In the US similar things happened. Communists, blacks, human rights activists, gays, etc. were repressed, opressed, thrown into jail, blackmailed, etc. In addition to that, the USA fought two extremely violent and savage wars, while the USSR spent equal amounts of money on supporting third-world countries (there were arms supplies, but a lot was done to help them build their infrastructure, etc.). Women and national/racial minorities were in much better position in the USSR than in the US. Soviet Union supported women movements and anti-discrimination movements worldwide, while the US did a lot to hamper their progress.

If we compare apples with apples, I believe the scale of human right abuses in the USA and USSR will be comparable. And in the context of this article you can't mention the brutality of Stalin's regime, because at that point Uncle Joe didn't give a shit about American accusations and the US didn't dare say anything. The expression we are talking about came into being only after Stalin's death, so most of the Soviet abuses should be left out (just like the genocide of American Indians).

Paranoid 21:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * My mistake; for some reason, I thought the phrase originated during Stalin's era (thus the worse abuses). Best, Meelar 21:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Damn, and I wrote that huge explanation just to see "editng conflict" and your quick comment. :) I'll leave the explanation there for a while anyway. Paranoid 21:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I have decided to avoid going into extended polemics with Paranoid, who imho is spouting blatant anti-American POV on this page, effectively trying to force on all the world and on the Wiki his/her personal views about what gives and what denies one moral right to say things (along with those of Gore and other very neutral individuals). I figure there are pages of greater value in the Wiki than this one. That notwithstanding, I would like to clarify, for the sake of whoever will read this discussion page, the issue about abuses in the USA and USSR in question. The abuses Americans generally blamed Communists for did not have to do with mass murder and things like that, since after Stalin such things indeed ended. They blamed them for total censorship, absence of meaningful election system (i.e. having only one candidate on the ballot), and denying the people other rights accepted in the West like freedom of religion and freedom to organize. All these rights, by the way, were expressly mentioned in the Soviet constitution, and violating them blatantly constituted hypocricy. As for abuses in USA, yes there were lynches and yes there was FBI surveilance of potential subversives. However, the evil US government did not prevent those poor victims from publishing their plight extensively and working successfully for all sorts of social change, salutary and otherwise. Watcher 12:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to force my opinion on everyone in the article (only here, in the discussion). I am clearly as much anti-American as you are pro-American, but I am content with leaving the article neutral. In regards to US vs USSR, lynching is much worse than everything the USSR has done. Censorship doesn't kill. And the "evil US government" tried to prevent people it considered dangerous (commie traitors) from pretty much everything. If there is anything wrong with the current version of the article, feel free to improve it (but not by replacing with biased text).


 * Hello? Ever heard of the Gulag? Do you think the revolution happened without lynchings? No wonder you did not dare to sign.
 * What I do not like about this article is that it is so US-centered. It should be restricted to the Slogan and what is directly connected. The extension to "such arguments are a logical fallacy" is needless since there already are articles about ad hominem and tu quoque - as I see now there is no separate article about tu quoque, and the "tu quoque defense" seems to be a term that is for reasons unknown to me solely used in connection with the Nuremberg trials . The deletion of what follows would get rid of a questionable part in my eyes since the same kind of arguments are raised against most countries. In Germany many think they should not criticize Israel because the holocaust happened here. Others see that argument as an extension of the described argument to the past. Get-back-world-respect 21:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not dare to sign simply because I forgot to do that. Check the history if you really care about who made the argument. As for Gulag, read my comments above. Large scale repressions ended after Stalin's death. And the whole argument about negroes happened after Stalin. Everything about Gulag, revolution, Civil War, repressions, three-men tribunals, show trials, is irrelevant in this particular discussion. Ask any Native American you murdered if you disagree. :) Paranoid 08:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am from Europe, and not interested in murdering anyone. And yes for sure, with the death of Stalin the Soviet Union quickly converted itself into a democratic country, cared for fair trials and human rights in prisons and never murdered anyone. Ask people who lived there if you agree. Get-back-world-respect 10:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, you are not from the US, but the analogy is still valid - old crimes are not relevant here. As for democracy, I never said that, but it stopped pointless repressions, which immediately decreased the number of people jailed or murdered. And surely we didn't lynch any negroes. I live in Russia and I know. :) Paranoid 11:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you just lacked negroes? Sorry for black humour... Get-back-world-respect 12:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes there was no murder or opression post-Stalin.Ask Hungarians in 1956, Czechs in 1968 and Poles in 1981...--Molobo 13:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The article needs two things
First, it is in dire need of sources. We don't know how many times it was said, or which Soviet officials said it. (I couldn't find much besides Wikipedia mirrors and figurative uses.) Second, less importantly, it would be great to have a sound sample of the phrase in Russian. Deltabeignet 09:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, I've tried to find a specific example on google but to no avail. Could someone else have a look (searching for the english mostly brings up wikiclones). I've added the verify tag. - FrancisTyers 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem is that this is quite widespread, but more less an "oral tradition". It might be difficult to confirm this in English sources due to geopolitics and political correctness. -- Миборовский U 22:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * UN meeting logs? Maybe we have those? Maybe they have this recorded in their meeting transcript? -- Миборовский U 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need English sources...non-English sources that a few different Wikipedians can verify should be enough. Isn't that right? Babajobu 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the sources don't have to be in English (although it would be nice). The minutes of UN meetings where the term was used would be fantastic, I have no idea how to go about finding them though. I guess if the source is Russian government or (Soviet government) then they could be translated and put on Wikisource? - FrancisTyers 22:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, I'm sure someone would respond if we asked the official UN website... or maybe not. Try Wikisource/Wikitext, mayhap? -- Миборовский U 04:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Wikisource and UN Documentation Centre. -- Миборовский U 04:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To come full circle
Ahem. In Soviet Russia, negroes lynch you!

I'm sorry. No disrespect intended. And I don't even visit the site, that's what makes it sad. JRM · Talk 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Question
Unless someone tells me why this shouldn't be at And are you lynching Negores?, with the question mark, I will move the article tommorrow.--Sean Black (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be there because you have not provided any positive reason why it should be there. See also Burden of proof. Digwuren 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your implication that only the addition of the question mark (like Are We Not Men We Are Devo!) would be changed seems a bit misleading, since you actually plan to change a stated accusation ("And you are lynching Negroes!") into a question ("And are you lynching Negroes?"). Also, be sure not to repeat the "Negores" typo if you move the page. You may also want to consider the fact that "And are you lynching Negroes?" currently gets 0 Google hits. -Silence 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Sean, you weirdo, when did the Soviets ever make a question out of it? Babajobu 02:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

what rubbish
what's with the sentence "This state affairs continues to this day". This is utter nonsense and should be deleted.

Callivert 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What's up with this discussion?
What a bizarre talk page. The article is informative and interesting - assuming that the phrase is, indeed, "common in modern Russian, Polish and Serbian usage to refer pejoratively to this type of logical fallacy rhetorical device." It appears, on its face, to be intended as a parody of official-speak, so people insisting on specific citations of that exact phrase from Soviet leaders is silly. All that matters is whether or not the phrase is in fact commonly used with that parodic intent. Whether it's important enough to include in an encyclopedia is another question. (I'm glad it's here)


 * It was a propaganda device, with 'propaganda' in its Soviet meaning. Consequently, the main accusers were not politicians but journalists.  Unfortunately, old Russian newspapers are not yet very well represented on the Web. Digwuren 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AND/BUT
The phrase is usually used as a "counter-argument", so probably a better translation would be "But you are ...". Although "a" in Russian can also mean "and", it usually stands for "but". Lebatsnok 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Valid point. I'll rename the article accordingly. Digwuren 10:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The title was grammatically correct. New title has different flavor. Reverted, including changes in translation, which were even plian wrong in some places. `'Mїkka 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

US stopped lynching Negroes in 1998.
This article is interesting and educational and well worth having, but it's written as if the US was just being castigated (unfairly) for lynching a few Negroes in the 60s. When there had been mass lynchings in earlier decades, and it was still, to a degree, going on at least until the outrage and conviction of the 1998 Texas dragging death. And the US is still treating Negroes outrageously - is it 1/10th of the entire black male population incarcerated at any one time, with over one half in the judicial process or under restrictions? The jeering of Russians, then and now, is pretty nearly justified. PalestineRemembered 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe your comparisons and remarks are patently ridiculous. That's like saying that because a homosexual is killed by a bunch of homophobes in the United States, the U.S. 'lynches' homosexuals and is as bad as, say, a theocracy where homosexuality is punished with imprisonment and execution. Your statement of 1/10th of the black population being in jail is also incredibly glib and without context- and assumes that all of those men are innocent. Epthorn 08:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)