This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Your comparison of the Zebra murders with Emmitt Till doesn't work. The Emmitt Till case is well-known because it was historically important. It was an important factor in the success of the Civil Rights Movement, because it engendered white, middle class support therefor. The Civil Rights Movement in turn was nothing less than a social revolution. Moreover, the Emmitt Till case was representative of a much broader phenomenon, ie, Jim Crow. So, of course it is well known. Hell, it was even indirectly responsible for the development of The Twilight Zone.
In contrast, the Zebra killings and shootings had little effect on history or society, though I suppose it is possible that Art Agnos would never have become mayor had he not been a victim. Nor were they representative of a larger social issue. Had they given rise to a race war, or perhaps in the alternative some sort of police state, they would be better known.
And, btw, you answered your own question re the shooting by the Minneapolis police officer (a case that was the subject of about 20 articles in the NY Times, btw): You called it "inexplicable." That implies that it has no greater implication, does it not? Unlike, say, George Floyd, which was, at least arguably, an example ,albeit an extreme one, of the larger phenomenon of excessive force by police. And, btw, it doesn’t help you to misstate the facts of your ostensible examples; the victim in Minneapolis was not "totally unconnected" to the cop's work, because she is the one who called the cops in the first place.
But why? Because that case was widely promulgated in the media. The Civil Rights movement got extremely favorable media coverage: incidents that supported them were played up. Incidents that damaged them were swept under the carpet. Nobody hears about the teacher in a
Because the media didn't run with them and say 'let's have a massive scare campaign about blacks randomly killing whites that we use to raise the militancy of the white population and make them demand more anti-black policies/refuse to support pro-black policies'. They could have chosen to do that, it's within their power. What do you think they would've done if there was a band of 4-8 white supremacists wandering around murdering dozens of blacks on the street?
What, so when George Floyd gets choked and dies that's extreme force but when a woman gets shot dead, it's not? The 'implication' that the media rammed down everyone's throats was that white police officers hate and kill black criminals unjustly. They create that narrative, picking out whatever supports their case regardless of its statistical relevance and then ignoring opposing examples. Police anti-black racism is not a thing, it's been shown statistically: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
Sure but this doesn't alter my point at all. She wasn't supposed to be a target in any way, shape or form. If it had been some other woman there, he would've shot her too.
Looking over Mohamed Noor's spotty biography, he may have benefited from Affirmative Action by MPD (see: Psychiatric concerns). The Somali community is significant in Minneapolis and they are underrepresented in policing. "Noor had been lauded in the past by Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges and the local Somali community as one of the first Somali-American police officers in the area".
Perhaps a story about an incompetent jumpy cop shooting a woman who posed no threat could have been deemed Newsworthy and sparked a debate about Affirmative Action.
There was another bit in his wikipedia page about how he supposedly put a gun to someone's head during a routine traffic stop. All around not a good guy! I left that out for brevity though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Minneapolis case is so bizarre that it is sui generis. It was a rookie cop panicking when someone approached the window of his car, and shooting that person -- and, in doing so, shooting across the body of his partner, who was sitting in the seat next to the window. It was not a cop using excessive force to arrest someone, or to punish someone for giving him lip, or for any of the usual reasons.
I don't understand why that matters. The point is not what they intended (unlike the Zebra killers, who might well have intended to create a race war, IIRC). The point is that one turned out to influence a major, major historical development, and the other did not. That is why everyone has heard of the former, and not the latter.
? Why does it matter whether they had more or less success than they deserved? My point is not about deserts, but about the extent of change that happened subsequently. As I mentioned, the Civil Rights Movement was quite literally a successful social revolution. Whatever success the radical left of the 1970s achieved, it was quite marginal compared to the Civil Rights Movement, which was one of the two or three most momentous developments in US history. Of course we are going to be familiar with people associated therewith.
Well, of course a story can't have impact unless people hear about. But the story of the Zebra killings also was widely told at the time. The reason that one is well known today is because it was part of a massively, massively, massively important historical development. You might as well ask why everyone in the world has heard of Hitler, but not Father Coughlin. After all, they were both anti-Semitic demogogues!
Is number of deaths the only metric? Gandhi didn't kill anyone, yet he is better known than Idi Amin. And probably better known than Pol Pot. And certainly better known than Ratko Mladic. My point was that the relevant distinction is their historical impact. Obviously, part of Hitler's impact was the number of deaths he was responsible for, but Hitler would be far better known than Coughlin even had Hitler stopped with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland, and had not engaged in genocide. Father Coughlin is a historical footnote, like the Zebra killings, because ultimately he/they and his/their efforts had little effect on history.
More options
Context Copy link
The story of 70+ people being murdered is of course going to circulate at the time it's happening and not be completely buried. The question is why is it considered literal bar trivia? As mentioned, many of us hadn't heard of the killings at all and have heard of many Dahmer-type serial killers. The obvious reason is the racial angle. Five Klan members killing 70+ black people in the 1970s would still be widely discussed today, but I'm not sure what could convince you of that.
I'm not suggesting a sensational Top Men coverup of the story. It's more mundane than that. People in media will highlight and dwell on stories that conform to their world view and forget or downplay those that counter their worldview.
You are being a bit fast and loose with that 70 number, that is a theoretical maximum that was hypothesized by someone who might or might not be credible.
Anyhow, I have no idea why many of you hadn't heard of it, but I have to say that a lot of people here are poorly informed about a lot of things.
But, here is the real problem. You say:
The problem is that I have never said otherwise. That is obviously true. My claim was very, very specific: That the comparison of the Zebra Killings to Emmitt Till is an awful example. That's what I said: "Your comparison of the Zebra murders with Emmitt Till doesn't work."
The Emmitt Till case is literally the worst possible example he could have chosen, for the reasons I have discussed at length: In a nutshell, it was part of one of the two or three most important developments in US history. In contrast, the Zebra killings seemed at the time, along with the Weathermen, SLA, etc, etc, to be part of an important development, but that turned out not to be the case. That whole movement petered out; the Civil Rights Movement did the opposite. Do you think that the OP knows who the SLA were? I doubt it; why should he? What about Black September?
Not only that, but the victim was unusually charismatic, and if it was just about the "racial angle," why is it that Medgar Evers is not as well known? What about all the other people listed here, virtually all of whom no one has heard of? Again, choosing Emmitt Till, of all possible examples, was just the worst possible choice. The OP's claim, and your own claim that "The obvious reason is the racial angle" are based on the most obvious cherry picking, based on the most superficial analysis imaginable: "One is black, and one is white, and that is all that could possibly be relevant to my comparison." That is not how fruitful comparison is done
You're correct that Emmett Till's murder had a significant impact on support for the Civil Rights movement and a 1-for-1 comparison to the Zebra killings isn't accurate. The Zebra killings did not have a historical impact of note. Likewise, it's still early, but George Floyd's murder doesn't seem to have had a long term impact on policy. We are probably experiencing some sort of Ferguson Effect with rising murders and de-policing right now, but that part will probably be short lived and will be forgotten in 20 years. In that sense, his murder is not historically significant.
You have mentioned that you're not making claims about media coverage as it relates to this topic, so feel free to ignore the rest of this. This is my primary issue (maybe not the OP's), and maybe we were talking past each other a bit.
Despite its apparent lack of historical significance, I don't think Floyd's name will disappear from mainstream media coverage in 25 years, but will be revived in mainstream press whenever useful. Similar to how Emmett Till's name appeared 0 times in NYT coverage in 1980, and 72 times in 2018. Perhaps I'm "poorly informed" that I had never heard of the Zebra killings (dozens killed). Like many, I typically rely on popular media, news media, and the education system to inform me of these stories. But I also have the feeling that if I ask 10 younger people close to me (many Californians), maybe 1 has heard of Zebra. This seems odd to me but fits a pattern of the media suddenly becoming uninterested in a mass shooting when the perpetrator's identity/motives are "off-narrative" (or being cagey with details, not publishing his picture). That was the "racial angle" I was referring to.
Thanks for the links.
More options
Context Copy link
As it happens, I am old enough that I probably heard about the Zebra killings as they happened (I seem to recall as a kid possibly confusing them with the Zodiac killer, another case that was very famous in the same time period and same locale, but also is largely forgotten), so it in particular is not a great example one way or the other. But Juneteenth might be: I went to a Juneteeth celebration 30 years ago in Oakland. If people hadn't heard of until recently, that is in part because of where they live, but that is a reason not to infer from their own lack of knowledge that it is not generally known. Similarly, people here ofren claim that issue X has not been covered in the mainstream media, when I have seen numerous articles in the NY Times. Again, people drawing incorrect inferences from their own lack of information.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Emmitt Till is historically important because it was well known, not the other way around. If it got as much coverage as the Zebra murders it wouldn't be any more important today.
The OP actually made no claim about the amount of coverage that each event had at the time. (And in fact the Zebra killers got enormous coverage at the time). OP's claim was about why one event is known broadly today. Even if Till got more coverage, the difference is not so great that it is a plausible explanation of why it is so much better known today.
Again, the Till story affected history, specifically, it affected one of the most significant developments in US history. Hence, it is included in history books, and hence is still remembered today. The Zodiac case did not affect history, hence it is not remembered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you are completely missing the posters point.
He's arguing that the Zebra killings could have been every bit as significant as Emmitt Till if the people writing history chose for them to be. They could have been politically impactful if the crafters of narratives and politicians at the time chose for them to be. You are both working with opposite models of cause and effect. He's arguing that powers chose the cultural and historical narrative, and fit the events that advantaged that narrative into our national mythos. You are arguing that events have whatever impact they have, and earn their place in our national mythos by merit.
I'm not sure how it used to work, back when these events were, or weren't, cemented in history. But seeing how it works now, and the raw, naked, narrative crafting that just gets adopted as institutionally protected truth, now and for all time, immutable no matter how much the common people know how wrong it is, I'm more inclined to adopt the OP's framing than yours.
I don't believe that is OP's argument at all. He is complaining about why Till got into history books, and the Zebra killings did not. OP is not complaining about how they were treated at the time -- and in fact the Zebra killings were a big deal at the time, and were seen as a harbinger of things to come (of a piece with various violent radical movements, such at the Weathermen, and the SLA, and the Red Army Faction, etc, etc). And, had they turned out to be a harbinger of things to come, they would be better known. But, that didn't happen; radical left terrorism died out, it was a blip, not the leading edge of a new reality.
Basically, both were seen as a big deal at the time, but only one of them turned out to be at the leading edge of historical change. Hence, it is hardly surprising that only one of them is widely known.
I have never heard of the Zebra killings before now. I would have expected to hear of 70+ racially motivated serial murders in a "non-historical" manner the same way as I have heard about Dahmer, Ted Bundy, the Unabomber, etc. None of those serial killers had a historical impact that you could point to, yet they all have Netflix specials.
There are ways to shape this into a historical narrative (or counter-narrative):
Why did the public have a growing taste for Tough On Crime policies in the 1970-90s? Why did large swaths of the public support racial profiling or de-facto racial profiling (stop and frisk, etc.) where Civil Rights organizations did not (as documented in the Zebra wiki)? People trash Biden today for Crime Reform in the 90's (strict sentencing, "Superpredators", etc.), but crime was a top issue in politics in this era.
If the NYT (especially with their writers who are very skilled at crafting narratives) repeatedly reminded the public of the Zebra killings, it would be on everybody's mind every time the topic of racial profiling or Criminal Justice Reform came up. Instead it's just deemed "not relevant".
The Zebra killers also spawned books and TV specials back in the day. And I am unclear what your discussion of crime rates has to do with anything.
Yes, if the NYT repeatedly reminded people of X, more people would know about X. What does that have to do with Emmitt Till?
Earlier you had suggested that the Zebra Killings are not discussed in media because they lack "historical" relevance rather than the story being memory-holed for uncomfortable political reasons. Modern political issues can be given "historical" salience if there is motivation to do so. Bizarro Right Wing-NYT: "Activists say black on white crime is rare, the grandchildren of Zebra Killings victims beg to differ" could be used to promote racial profiling. In this scenario, activists would have statistics on their side, but enough repetition leads to a distorted view of the world.
Emmitt Till is relevant because the story of his murder gets reinvigorated every time progressives want to push for Criminal Justice Reform or to tie it in with some tragic police shooting, giving the story narrative throughline. Between him and George Floyd, people mentally have an anchor when it comes to lynching and police brutality. Vivid stories of "black on white" violence exist but don't receive the same level of obsessive coverage because it would lead the general public to have more right wing views of policing/crime. I don't think obsessive coverage of "black on white" violence is good because it would enflame racial tensions and because they account for a relatively small number of crimes. However, you can't get mad a people noticing the double standards in coverage.
No, I did NOT talk about why the Zebra Killings are not discussed in media, because that was not the question. The OP was talking about why "few outside the US have heard of the Zebra murders . . Yet practically everyone in the entire Anglosphere has heard of Emmett Till," and opining that it must be because of some sort of racial bias.
I simply pointed out that OP's unspoken premise -- that the events are otherwise indistinguishable* -- is incorrect.
*Actually, OP claims that the Zebra killings were "worse," apparently because, not being an American, he does not understand the historical context, symbolism, etc of the Emmitt Till case; which was "worse" is irrelevant. The Emmitt Till case is well known because it ended up having historical significance, not because it was particularly "bad" -- there were certainly worse lynchings than his; as far as I know, for example, he was not castrated. And, at the time, the fact that he was a Northerner was probably more significant that how "bad" the event was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, even a movie The Zebra Killer (1974). In which a Black detective, after his Black girlfriend is raped, finds that the murders are commited by a white man in Blackface.
And you think that that movie -- by a director whose oeuvre includes "Three on a Meathook" and "Asylum of Satan" -- is representative because ...? Look, I know a lot of people here are very young, and hence have no memory of events like the Zebra killings, but the idea that somehow they were ignored is just wrong.
I literally went to the Wikipedia page and saw 20 years of people trying to remove references to the nation of Islam and the perps being black, with the page being left orphaned with no links to other articles referencing it.
Yes, it has been deliberately memory-holed to the point that assigning reading on it got a college professor mobbed and punished. Are you trying to claim it was not suppressed?
So, apparently some Nation of Islam types have repeatedly gone on Wikipedia and (unsuccessfully) tried to remove references to the Nation of Islam, and THAT is supposed to be evidence that "the Man" has suppressed knowledge of the Zebra Killings?
All I know is that if a topic is included in a 2019 "San Francisco Trivia Quiz" as well as in a 2017 iteration thereof, as well as a 2012 feature on SF's crime history, all published by a website established by the San Francisco Chronicle and which is "the second most popular news site in California, after the Los Angeles Times", then, no, knowledge of that topic has not been suppressed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link