<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A traditional text lacking the full story
Review: This all to typical account makes the base argument that every single trial between 1900-and 1960 in which a black man was accused of raping a white women was a sham. Full of clichés such as 'white mobs' and 'lynchings' which were actually the exception and not the rule this book argues that because white men dared to say they were defending 'white womanhood' that therefore they were enacting white patriarchy and suppressing blacks who they felt were 'inferior'. This argument goes on to further show that the 'white patriarchy' tried to enforce a feeling of conflict between civilization and barbarism thereby enflaming racist passions.The end conclusion here is that the trials pitted not just race but also class against each other and that the courtroom eventually gave blacks accused of crimes he right to confront their white accusers. And in essence the question of interracial relationships is raised, turning the white female victims into heroines for daring to have inter-racial relationships during a time of segregation. Yet problems persist in this simplistic and textbook account. The question of white men raping black women is never addressed. Why? Because apparently that subject doesn't fit the traditional argument. This book should have shed light on this all to common phenomenon, one at the heart of Strom Thurmonds own extra-familial relationships. Thus the other side of the coin is never looked at. And furthermore the text never addresses the fact that some of the women actually may have been raped. The text takes it for granted that every single women was lying and that the 'racist' white mobs simply assumed victim hood. But perhaps the truth is that many of these women weren't lying and actually were victims of a crime, now glossed over to serve a traditional view of the pre 1960s south. Seth J. Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: A traditional text lacking the full story
Review: This all to typical account makes the base argument that every single trial between 1900-and 1960 in which a black man was accused of raping a white women was a sham. Full of clichés such as `white mobs' and `lynchings' which were actually the exception and not the rule this book argues that because white men dared to say they were defending `white womanhood' that therefore they were enacting white patriarchy and suppressing blacks who they felt were `inferior'. This argument goes on to further show that the `white patriarchy' tried to enforce a feeling of conflict between civilization and barbarism thereby enflaming racist passions. The end conclusion here is that the trials pitted not just race but also class against each other and that the courtroom eventually gave blacks accused of crimes he right to confront their white accusers. And in essence the question of interracial relationships is raised, turning the white female victims into heroines for daring to have inter-racial relationships during a time of segregation. Yet problems persist in this simplistic and textbook account. The question of white men raping black women is never addressed. Why? Because apparently that subject doesn't fit the traditional argument. This book should have shed light on this all to common phenomenon, one at the heart of Strom Thurmonds own extra-familial relationships. Thus the other side of the coin is never looked at. And furthermore the text never addresses the fact that some of the women actually may have been raped. The text takes it for granted that every single women was lying and that the `racist' white mobs simply assumed victim hood. But perhaps the truth is that many of these women weren't lying and actually were victims of a crime, now glossed over to serve a traditional view of the pre 1960s south. Seth J. Frantzman
<< 1 >>
| 
