tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post2746661469436205036..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Agitators and Race-Baiters: A Rhetorical History From Past To PresentDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-54026273875953719202007-06-24T10:04:00.000-07:002007-06-24T10:04:00.000-07:00Fortunately, the first Scottsboro Case was decided...Fortunately, the first Scottsboro Case was decided in 1933, so... :-)David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-72557369715182968542007-06-24T02:43:00.000-07:002007-06-24T02:43:00.000-07:00At what point are you thinking of the ACLU as havi...At what point are you thinking of the ACLU as having Communist Party ties? It must have been before 1940, when the national ACLU complied with the Smith Act by kicking out the declared Commies.<BR/><BR/>As for the NAACP, DuBois declared that the Communists had screwed over the Scottsboro boys through their intervention. Langston Hughes said that "the NAACP's initial efforts in behalf of the boys were nullified by the intervention of the Communists. The latter, seeking to exploit the matter for their own ideological purposes, misrepresented the NAACP... and persuaded the boys to abandon the NAACP-provided counsel, which included Clarence Darrow and Arthur Garfield Hays." There appears to have been a real battle between the NAACP and the ILD over who would represent the defendants.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-7979697067051647112007-06-23T11:25:00.000-07:002007-06-23T11:25:00.000-07:00In a previous article, the paper referred to the N...In a previous article, the paper referred to the NAACP, ACLU, and International Labor Defense as "radical groups." The latter was a communist arm, the middle had ties, the former was not really communist at all.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-85247976396721484402007-06-23T11:17:00.000-07:002007-06-23T11:17:00.000-07:00IS that first Advertiser quote not talking about t...IS that first <I>Advertiser</I> quote not talking about the CPUSA? It seems like one could interpret the term 'agitators' as a generic anti-communist/radical signifier. If so the term does discredit the supports of the Scottsboro boys a priori but only insofar as everything the CPUSA did was discredited. Indeed, CPUSA members probably would have embraced the label.<BR/><BR/>Alternately, the paper might be exploiting anti-communism in an effort to discredit all defenders of the scottsboro boys by association.<BR/><BR/>Also, anyone know when newspapers adopted style rules prohibiting passive voice?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347368506159692311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-23439094086754139612007-06-22T21:18:00.000-07:002007-06-22T21:18:00.000-07:00There probably is such a link, and it is depressin...There probably is such a link, and it is depressing. I don't think 'race-baiter' is as horrible or destructive a label as 'agitator' though, just based on what they're trying to appeal to.<BR/><BR/>The 'race-baiter' label aims at the fact that many white Americans just want racial issues and discussion to go away. Especially those who weren't alive during the segregation era don't like having racial problems pressed into their face, since they don't think it's 'their' fault. "Race-baiter" conjures up images of someone trying to refuel the fires of racial tension that, blissfully ignorant of the more subtle biases that still remain, us young whites think have nothing to do with us.<BR/><BR/>The 'agitator' label seems intended to conjure up images of actual armed resistance, rebellion, and anarchists; a much scarier prospect than being forced to revisit a past you'd rather forget.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com