The Family Fang

1. I feel like this is the story of the emotional truth of my upbringing, just enlarged.

2. Whew. I’m glad to have read this.

Advertisements

Well, Here’s the Bad News

In my fantasy world, if you pick up and move an unconscious woman for any other reason but to aid her, you’re kidnapping her. If you pick her up from a crime scene and move her to some place that is not a crime scene in order to give her or the authorities the impression that she was never at the crime scene, you’d be kidnapping her and being an accessory to the crimes being committed against her. In my fantasy world, if you touched a passed out woman for any reason other than to offer HER assistance after you knew she’d been sexually assaulted, there’d be some kind of lesser assault charge you’d be guilty of.

In the real world, apparently it’s perfectly legal to move an unconscious woman around. The misdemeanor crime is in deleting picture or video evidence of her rape.

But just moving her? You still get to be quarterback.

Also, Hal Hardin? “One of the most difficult things that any person can go through is to be the victim of rumors, unfounded rumors, and know that you’re innocent.”? Try being raped by guys you thought were your friends, you jackass. Just shut the fuck up about “difficult.” God damn. What the fuck is wrong with people?

Snodgrass, continued

So, here’s what I realized–Snodgrass’s participation in the seance is incredibly important, basically because it clarifies what’s at stake. We’re used to a conflict between states rights and federal powers. How much can the states do what they want and when is the federal government allowed to set the rules for everyone.

But what I was not aware of, but which is obvious just from the participation of Snodgrass and the existence of lots of lawyers willing to protect lynchers is that there was a concurrent argument being had in Tennessee in the 1890s through to, I don’t know when. Okay, I don’t know when it started or when it ended, just that it was clearly happening from the time Snodgrass shot a dude at least through the Johnson lynching.

And that discussion was about how much power the state should have to dictate how white men acted. Should a white guy be allowed to shoot a white guy who offended him without going to jail? THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF OUR SUPREME COURT THOUGHT SO! Look at that seance–we have a bunch of guys who are judges and lawyers basically arguing that they or their clients aren’t really obliged to follow the law.

My mind is blown. I had no idea there was a third leg to the state vs. federal argument that mirrored that argument but at an individual vs. state level.

I mean, just spelling it out like that, it seems obvious. But it wasn’t clear to me just how much the “leave Tennessee alone to facilitate lynchings if it wants to; it’s not the Federal government’s job to step in” mirrors Snodgrass and them’s position which seems to be “leave me alone to carry out my own justice if I want to; it’s not the state’s job to step in.”