My Account    
  Shopping Cart   ContactAbout
Home   Papers   History   T-Shirts   Concrete Calculator   Store
4,000 Lynchings? or 4,000 Lies? a reference of a reference of a references is not raw data

 
Last Updated: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:35 PM
 
* * * note: rough draft * * *
 
Black Lynchings: Lots of Hype, Hysteria and Money?
A lot of reporting has been made in recent news about "Black Lynchings" with the total number being reported, higher and higher, each year. These reports and "statistics" have been provided almost exclusively by Civil Rights Advocates who also have a financial incentive in regards to funding their non-profit organizations (with 5 and 6-figure salaries)and also their projects like Civil Rights Museums and even tourist attractions like Slave Museums and Slave Ships.

Unfortunately for them, this hyping of "lynching" stats doesn't even match their own ever-growing statistical "lynching" numbers. According to the below references, at the height of lynching between the years 1,890 to 1,900, there were "supposedly" around 175 lynchings of Blacks per year.

Yet, using 8 million as the Total Average Black US population between 1890 to 1900, that averages to be one lynching per 45,000 Blacks. This number is in the same ballpark as getting hit by lightning.
 
Black Lynchings: Lots of Hype and Hysteria?
The odds of getting hit by lightning in your lifetime in today's world is like 1 in 12,000 using a life expectancy of like 78. Note, back in the 1,900, you only lived approximately to 50 years of age. But there were far fewer people. Yet, on the other hand, many more people spend time outdoors than Today.

Using the numbers above, a Black person, during the height of lynching, had three times higher chance of getting hit by lightning than getting lynched. (Perhaps an even higher chance of getting hit by lightning, as while their lives were shorter back then, they spent way more time in the fields and outdoors.)

Some will say the above numbers and analysis is flawed. Regardless, if lynching was even in the range of getting struck by lighting, the chance of getting lynched was highly remote which is the opposite of what is being hyped by Today's historians and media.

Moreover, at least 40% of all lynchings were due to murder with 22% being an unknown for the reason to be lynched.
Hence, it appears (in general), there were legitimate reasons, like murder, for the lynchings in the past. And that lynchings occurred very rarely. Which is unlike what some on the Left who say that lynchings were a common event in the past.

LYNCHING STATISTICAL REFERENCES
Bar Graph of Lynchings of African Americans, 1890-1929 · HERB: Resources for Teachers - Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968

U.S. Population, 1790-2000: Always Growing

BlackDemographics.com | POPULATION

Odds of winning Powerball jackpot less than being hit by lightning — twice


Local Court Records in the 17th Century - Misplace != Destroy
The are some historians and Civil Rights activists who say that many court records were destroyed by "racists". However, why put a lot of care into Lynching records when something rarely happens, and you have far more important things to do to put food on the table? And just in case you didn't know, there were no Wal-Marts, MRE's 911, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. back then.

--- In other words, there were very little court records to take care of back then....and being a judge during colonial and civil war days was like their 2nd or 3rd job as there was nothing really to do in the court systems back then as crime was almost non-existent.

--- Back then, with crime so low, Whites working with Blacks side by side for hundreds of years, Civil War or not, and then you lynch your own neighbor you have seen for years, decades? Sundays was for God and Church, Divorce almost non-existent and the same with sex outside marriage, almost non-existent. 4,000 lynchings or 175 lynching per year? That doesn't make much economic sense or common sense.
 
 
Lynching Report Contradiction?
On some lynchings, they can say with great detail, "he got lynched for not addressing the police officer with the title 'mister'". Yet with most lynchings, they have no idea the name of the person, or the reason why they were lynched, (20%). Seems like the reporting was all over the map.


--- You are Erasing History? Or Erasing "Making it up as we go along" History?
The more questions that are asked..... those 4,000 lynchings seems like a compilation of newspapers "gossip" columns.

--- Back, then, there were far fewer people, everyone knew everyone else. Hence, how can a lynching be published with partial info in a newspaper???? Unless it was just gossip to sell newspapers and keep everyone interested? If there was ZERO CRIME, ZERO SLEEPING AROUND, ZERO TABLOID, back then, what are you going to write about to keep people PAYING for a newspaper?????

--- When they list total counts of lynchings by state, year and type, shouldn't they have solid raw data to back that up?

How can they possibly list all these overall lynching counts, but not have names readily available in that same news article?

How did that journalist or reporter write that story? Did they write,

"Hey, there was a lynching in this city for this reason, but that's all I know. I can't tell you the name and where he lived or if he had a wife and children or who he worked for. Yes, this is a super small town, and everyone knows each other, but sorry, I heard it from someone at the saloon, and I am just reporting what I heard."
Wouldn't it be great to see all news articles on 4,000 lynchings because how can anyone imagine a reporter writing something like that? In other words, you have all these historic researchers who can give all these lynching counts and statistics but they have no individual details.
 
 
 
Lynched For Murder? But No Assailant Or Victim's Names?
--- But the fact remains, how do you write a newspaper article about a lynching with no basic info like, (a) Who was lynched, (b) For what reason, (c) exactly where it happened and (d) when. If all you can write is "I heard there was a lynching in the city of blah, blah, and it happened a little while ago,", then you have to ask, "How can this news article be taken seriously?"

And what about lynching because of Murder? No information on who was murdered, why they were murdered and how and with what weapon? Where is that family of the murdered? How in the world can you write about that 40% on lynching due to murder, yet don't list the other vital facts of the murder that led to a lynching?
 
 
Summary Data Only - No Raw Data?

Finally, the functional and publicly available data sets contain only a fraction of the actual data recorded. The Tuskegee data are available on the web by year and race or by state and race for the entire period but not by state, year, race, and victim's name. The same is true for the data contained in NAACP (1919). This would make matching names to Census and other data and estimation using panel data, e.g., random or fixed-effects models, difficult without adding further information from the underlying records - Converging to a National Lynching Database: Recent Developments and the Way Forward (PDF Download Available)

--- More Questions: If 40% of the lynchings were Murder and most were in Southern states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, would not Blacks have to be murdering more Whites back then to deserve a Lynching?

Does the above make sense back then in the 1890's when there was almost Zero Crime, almost Zero Divorce, no Welfare, no Food Stamps?

How can you have all these Lynchings in the South due to Murder, yet almost zero crimes like Robbery, theft, etc. Does that make sense? Forty Percent Lynches on Murder? Or, who was Murdered and list to me the demographics of those victims if you can eventually show the names lynched?????

If some Blacks in the 1890s really hated Whites back then, why not also steal, rob, or have massive theft? This lynching data doesn't make sense with overall crime almost being non-existent back then.

A reference of reference of a reference is not raw data, but a rumor
 
 
 
Unspeakable Cruelty? But Live To 100 Years Old?
The WPA Narratives (a.k.a. Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States) interviews 85 to 100-year-old Ex-Slaves and tells of "unspeakable" cruelty. But for some reason these ex-slaves outlived the general population by double the average American Life Expectancy of 48 years old, in the year 1900 (and most likely a lot less in the years 1830 of the Civil War). Hence, there is unspeakable cruelty but slaves live 35 to 50 years longer than everyone else, what type of cruelty is that? "Unspeakable", of course! We wouldn't want anyone to know how to live that long, would we?

SUMMARY:
WPA Slave Narratives = Another Bernie Madoff Like Research Scam


NOTE: With these WPA Narratives, you cannot have the ex-slaves read their own narratives or re-interview them to "verify" what they said as were already on their death bed...how convenient.
 
 
Comments On Wpa Narratives:
#1 - WPA Narratives are basically responses to sneaky polling questions.

#2 - WPA Narratives are basically cherry picked and use only the most sensational story tellers.

#3 - WPA Narratives have no way to verify their story.

#4 - WPA Narratives have no way to verify if their stories were not "sensationalized".

#5 - WPA Narratives are very easy to add a fake sentence to an informant.
 
 
Historic Math Question: 388,000 + Unspeakable Cruelty = 4,000,000?
So, how do 388,000 slaves eventually grow to become 4,000,000 slaves in around 300 years of slave trade and where many slaves live to 100 years old with "Unspeakable Cruelty"???
 
 
More Questions on Unspeakable Cruelty
And "who" paid for the food and shelter for 388K slaves to become 4M slaves? And "who" made all those businesses, agricultural, and economic decisions for 388K slaves to internally grow and become 4M slave?
 
Reference to Famine in Africa by Region and Country
> "Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America. And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage."
- How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.? | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

PDF DOCUMENT
Capture in West Africa, accounts from the narratives of former slaves, WPA narratives, 1936-1938 - capturenarratives.pdf

REFERENCES TO FAMINE IN AFRICA BY REGION and COUNTRY
West African Slavery and Atlantic Commerce: The Senegal River Valley, 1700-1860 - James F. Searing - Google Books

famine in angola - Google Search


famine in congo - Google Search

famine in senegal - Google Search

 
 
Newspapers back then...
Unlike what you see in Today's world with lots to read about, most people, back then, worked a lot via physical labor. Moreover, there were No Electric Lights to read during the day or nite. There was no Internet for source fact checking or even basic communication. Everything was by letter (via horseback) or word of mouth. Hence, not much to read in regards to an expensive-to-print newspaper to justify the spending money buying one.

In other words, Money was really tight back then. Printing a newspaper wasn't that easy back then, and there was way more work to just print a news paper back then than press a button like you can Today.

And in the 1860's, many newspapers were only four pages long, all text.

Nevertheless, Newspaper Reporters had to keep their job. Hence, why not write anything and everything you hear?
 
 
 
 
Quill Footer


Copyright © Founding Fathers