Sacco and Vanzetti (and Berardelli and Parmenter)

[compared2what?]

As I said in the Boston thread, proof is the gold standard, the only acceptable standard ultimately, an absolute requirement, in a courtroom. But, again, this is just an internet forum. Inferences abound. Educated speculation. Hunches. Extrapolation. Opinions based on half the evidence a jury should demand, opinions despite a certain amount of exculpatory evidence. Just opinions. Not an official verdict. They're long dead, anyway.

And with all that in mind: They were a disgrace. They wanted to blow people up.

You're missing something about what being a Galleanist really meant, which was not synonymous with being disgraceful, murderous scum who wanted to blow people up.

And you wanna know why?

Because that's how well what they did with/to Sacco and Vanzetti worked. It's just unbeatable. Then and now.

Even if they only supported the actual-bombers with direct guidance, approval, comforts...

Adduce your ideas about what they did from the evidence of what they did. Not by extrapolating from the default narrative they seem to belong to. After you're done with that, if you still think...

They were still: Disgraces. Anyone, be they Galleanists, COINTELPRO, Black Bloc...
Anyone who comes to the conclusion, "Hey, let's blow people up!" = Disgrace.
(With rare exceptions in dire, no-choice circumstances, a la WWII.)

...Fine. They're not my guys, politically speaking. But still.

[FourthBase]

Enlighten me on what being a Galleanist really meant, then. Please.

[compared2what?]

There's more than one way to approach that question. But the shortest answer doesn't apply to Sacco and Vanzetti, specifically, since their exact stance vis-a-vis advocating armed overthrow of the state or attempting it via bombing isn't known to me (or, afaik, certainly known, period). And that's simply:

It was only three years after the October Revolution. It wasn't clear that Bolshevism didn't work. Or that uniting the workers of the world and freeing them from their chains wasn't attainable in the near future simply by having the courage and determination to make it real. It sounds good on paper. And changes along those lines were genuinely badly needed, long overdue and not showing any very convincing signs of developing on their own. Child labor wasn't that much a thing of the past that you could count on it being gone, for example. And "Hyphenated Americans" (mostly meaning Italian, Irish and German Catholics) were, at the time, officially, openly hated upon and condemned right up to the top:

"Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready."-- Woodrow Wilson

And he was a Democrat. Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion was his constituency.

But it's mostly the only being three years after 1917/sounds-good-on-paper thing. There are state actors from then I'd give the same limited, qualfied pass to on some things. Because you can't really ask for more than good-faith based on the best information available at the time.

How's that?

___________

ON EDIT: BTW, just because I say it as if it were authoritative doesn't mean it is. It's all just my opinion. Even I wouldn't argue it's not open to any and every challenge anyone with a different interpretation cared to make. I wasn't there. It's just my understanding, which is limited, offered fwiw.

[FourthBase]

That, is good.

I think there might be more evidence of S&V's inclinations than you, the honorable board jurist, would allow. But, I can see the context better now. Thank you. That said: Bolsheviks...were they not also scum? I mean, the ones who murdered? Yes, the robber baron enslavers and the aristocratic immiserators and the state-sponsored oppressors of the poor and working...very much so scum, also, just as much, if not more. But so then, the guys who choose the wrong way to overcome those pigs, the way that involves bombing and shooting and murder in which innocents are seen as collateral damage...scum, too. Yes? Let's not sympathize too much with any scumbags, even if they are the enemies of our enemies, mankind's enemies. Eh?

Funny story, by the way. So I go shopping today, and try to find the plaque there commemorating the event. No luck. Must be really hard to find, or I must be blind. Anyway, as I walked around I noticed that behind Pearl Plaza there is another plaza and behind that an industrial park. In my mind, these places are further apart than they actually are, because I either walk everywhere or I drive sometimes, and the corners and circuitous paths make it all feel further apart. But, make no mistake, in a straight line, Pearl Plaza and Armstrong Park are literally a stone's throw. I could literally stand at the rear outskirts of Pearl Plaza and throw a inch-wide rock into Armstrong Park, if I gave it all my torque and the right breeze came along. Pearl Plaza, where Sacco and Vanzetti are supposed to have shot Berardelli and Parmenter. Armstrong Park, where Logan Furniture was headquartered. (8bit's eyes must be almost about to pop, the spooky sync'ing is strong with this one, lol.) The original Armstrong building is still there, beautiful decrepit red brick, haunting, unused for what must be several decades now. Gave me...the willies. The curious should Google Map all this, I think it'd be worth it.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
What's a scumbag?

a scumbag to you may be an idealist/revolutionary to another, or vice-versa.

Who is THE authority on who is to be deemed a scumbag, and therefore, vilified? Would this "Authority" have a clear understanding of the would-be scumbag's mental processes/core intent? Has this Authority experienced what the would-be scumbag experienced, appreciated the context of their actions?

I'm sure we've all been scumbags to one degree or another for one reason or another. Not always justified. Perhaps rarely justified, even. Still, how many of us can go a whole week performing wholly justifiable actions?

Life does not occur in a vacuum, after all.

Let he who has never been a scumbag cast the first stone.

[FourthBase]

.
What's a scumbag?

a scumbag to you may be an idealist/revolutionary to another, or vice-versa.

Who is THE authority on who is to be deemed a scumbag, and therefore, vilified? Would this "Authority" have a clear understanding of the would-be scumbag's mental processes/core intent? Has this Authority experienced what the would-be scumbag experienced, appreciated the context of their actions?

I'm sure we've all been scumbags to one degree or another for one reason or another. Not always justified. Perhaps rarely justified, even. Still, how many of us can go a whole week performing wholly justifiable actions?

Life does not occur in a vacuum, after all.

Let he who has never been a scumbag cast the first stone.

I've been a douchebag before. As far as being a scumbag, the kind who feels authorized to deliberately destroy innocent lives as collateral in the fight for any cause no matter how justified or petty, no: Never been. Who is authorized to judge? Other human beings with a common sense of decency. Life itself does not occur in a vacuum. Individual moral decisions do, more or less. It's not about setting a standard of perfection which serves to disqualify the flawed-but-good. It's about saying, "No murdering innocents as collateral", or more generally: No physical violence when there are peaceful alternatives, and there are almost always peaceful alternatives, multiple branching ones, and all it takes is dwelling, thinking, imagining, self-questioning, trying a little harder to conceive them. An effort that is marginalized when violent icons are idolized, or even mourned as martyrs, or even defended too vigorously as victims themselves.

[Joe Hillshoist]

- I'm a terrorist? Ha! Oh, my government. Yeah, I am responsible for a government of strangers, thousands of unelected people, about 536 people for whom I only get to vote for three, and the only one who won is Elizabeth Warren, and I don't see her piloting any drones. What am I supposed to do? Ask my unaccountable government in the stranglehold of a ghoulish network of delusional national-security-hawks, "Please, sirs, no more bombing innocent brown children, pretty please"? Ask more firmly, more nicely? It is a kind of political nihilism, to hold every citizen equally responsible for any of the evil deeds of his or her leaders or neighbors. I mean, isn't that exactly the angle taken by, hmmm...Al Qaeda and Hamas? The government of America and Israel? "It's okay to kill some innocent civilians because...uhhh...they didn't try hard enough to stop their unaccountable leaders or unreachable neighbors from atrocities. They are all one people." Fuck that shit. Fuck essentialism. I am as responsible for what Obama does as I am for what some random kangaroo in Australia does. I can express myself, is all. If I see the kangaroo rummaging through some innocent dude's garbage, I can try to yell at it, if I were in Australia, and hopefully it hears me. If I see Obama authorize the cold-blooded slaughter of civilians in Pakistan who fit a ridiculously-vague and normal pattern, I can type an angry letter, post something clever and outraged here, and hopefully he hears it. Someday maybe I'll run for president, lol. I voted for myself last November. That's about as much as I, a nobody in America, can do. Pfff, terrorist. Are you shitting me? Uh, no.

Yet you were there on another page in another thread talking about patriotism and supporting your flag, the same one the atrocities I'm referring to were committed under.

I'm happy to honestly say I don't hold you responsible for the actions of your govt. How could I in good conscience?

However it seems to me what you are doing wrt S and V is exactly that. How much evidence is there that S and V actually engaged in bomb making or bomb throwing or any other violence (lets leave the trial for a moment)? Associating with violent people doesn't mean you are engaged in the process, nor does it mean you approve. I once had a copy of the anarchists cookbook. Does that make me a terrorist? Cos i had a book? Well photocopied pages of one.

No it doesn't.

I once criticised Israel (well more than once) because of their actions in Palestinbe. Does that mean I'm in Al Queda? Of course not. I think AGW is a huge threat to humans and other life on earth, Bin laden is alleged to have made the same comments and expressed the same view. Does that make me his mate?

No of course not.

Its one thing to criticise bomb throwing psychos but its another to celebrate what amounts to murder for political reasons, to send a message basically, simply cos those executed were associated with people who blew things up.

Saccio and vanzetti' guilt or innocence is a biut beyond us now, but AFAIC the confession that names them as guilty are more suspect than multiple confessions from members of a criminal organisation who claimed to have committed the robbery, had form for that sort of thing and also had (and still have to an extent) the ability to corrupt legal processes to their own advantage.

[FourthBase]

Okay. First off. About the patriotism and flag thing.
Can we have a new rule, where people actually read what they describe?

FB, do you really feel such a strong need for an apology? Some people simply didn't like what you wrote. Nope not apologizing. Get over it, it was out of control and extremely disruptive.

Okay, so, quoting myself it is:

Do you not have even an ounce of patriotism? Do you not have an iota of respect for good cops?
The American flag is inherently a bad, scary, distasteful thing? Is that how you feel? If so, [redacted].

And no, no flag is good up or down. Nationalism is a danger to all of Humanity.

Even the "nationalism", i.e. democratic republic that enshrined that very same freedom of not letting the government take away your words and thoughts, in its constitution, which, despite being insidiously undermined by the 1947 National Security Act, is still alive and well and in force? The flag can also represent that, to you, if you wish it to. You should go down the store and buy one for a trial run of a week. See how it feels, waving an emblem of that freedom you cherish. Might feel good. If not, throw it out. Light it on fire. Your choice.

I was the kid who refused to stand up in class and praise a flag, not because it was cool, because it is my RIGHT. Cultural heritage is important, but not a Flag, Ever, IMO. If I displayed a Flag upside down at my home, some douchebag neighbor would probably call the cops like an idiot anyways, or I would get vandalized. And for what? Making a valid free-speech point, when the law specifically states what it stands for? So I don't see anything "cool" about it.

1. Symbols are important, self-determined as much as culturally so. Did your ancestors not value symbols? Do you? Some people value them too much, or for the wrong reason. That's their problem. You get to decide what a flag or any symbol means to you.

2. Your douchebag neighbor would get a mighty earful from a real veteran. Fuck him. Do it.

And so, that is what you depicted as Limbaugh-ish FOX-style "questioning board members patriotism and the flag", and I defy anyone here to find anything similar on FOX or from Limbaugh, i.e., pleading for just a minute trace of patriotism (versus demanding total loyalty), defining the greatness of our peculiar "nationalism" as a contract guaranteeing that the government will not take away freedoms but which had been compromised by the National Security Act of 1947 (versus shut up and believe the president of course there are nukes in Iraq what are you a socialist), praising the flag as having the potential to represent whatever ideal and conception of country an individual wishes including radical dissent and entailing the sacred right to casually discard the thing in a fire if you choose (versus salute the flag or else you commie), reminding that the upside-down flag can absolutely conform to even the most proper set of protocols as a message of distress (versus the clueless idiots on FOX and right-wing talk radio). Perhaps I was not clear enough, and so was misread. If so, my apologies.

[FourthBase]

Associating with violent people doesn't mean you are engaged in the process, nor does it mean you approve.

They were Galleanists. Not just fans of Galleani. Galleanists.

[Project Willow]

Thank you C2W.

This thread initiates an earworm of Woody Guthrie's song, which has long stuck in my mind since my ex is distantly related to his son, but especially because when Woody sings "Sacco" it sometimes sounds like "psycho".

OOOh, psycho.....



Leave it to RI to tear down all comers, regardless of what cause they or their legends might serve. Only perfection will do I suppose.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
What's a scumbag?

a scumbag to you may be an idealist/revolutionary to another, or vice-versa.

Who is THE authority on who is to be deemed a scumbag, and therefore, vilified? Would this "Authority" have a clear understanding of the would-be scumbag's mental processes/core intent? Has this Authority experienced what the would-be scumbag experienced, appreciated the context of their actions?

I'm sure we've all been scumbags to one degree or another for one reason or another. Not always justified. Perhaps rarely justified, even. Still, how many of us can go a whole week performing wholly justifiable actions?

Life does not occur in a vacuum, after all.

Let he who has never been a scumbag cast the first stone.

I've been a douchebag before. As far as being a scumbag, the kind who feels authorized to deliberately destroy innocent lives as collateral in the fight for any cause no matter how justified or petty, no: Never been. Who is authorized to judge? Other human beings with a common sense of decency. Life itself does not occur in a vacuum. Individual moral decisions do, more or less. It's not about setting a standard of perfection which serves to disqualify the flawed-but-good. It's about saying, "No murdering innocents as collateral", or more generally: No physical violence when there are peaceful alternatives, and there are almost always peaceful alternatives, multiple branching ones, and all it takes is dwelling, thinking, imagining, self-questioning, trying a little harder to conceive them. An effort that is marginalized when violent icons are idolized, or even mourned as martyrs, or even defended too vigorously as victims themselves.

All good points -- can 't disagree with most of it.

One thing though: specific to Sacco and Vanzetti, since they're the topic of this thread. Assuming for a moment they actually were innocent of the crime[s] they were accused of, did they actually murder anyone?
Sure, they were reportedly considered Galleanists, or sympathizers to the movement. So they're scumbags for entertaining radical views, then?

What does it take for the average human to entertain such radical thoughts? Perhaps certain personal travails, loss of family members due to political/govt actions, etc.
We live in a world now where many in impoverished lands take very extreme measures -- radical measures -- due at least in part to actions perpetrated on them [or those they care for] by outside entities/parties/govts. These folks may also be scumbags -- but what does that make the entities that ended/altered the lives of these relatively innocent/impoverished people? Uber-scumbags?

I'm all for taking the non-violent approach, but it may not be so easy to practice such ideals when one's life/livelihood is irrevocably and violently altered by outside forces. One tends to become less concerned with ideals then. Of course, regardless of one's personal experiences it should never justify taking violent measures on another.

That said, it's far easier to strive for and ruminate on ideals in more amenable life settings.

[compared2what?]

That, is good.

I think there might be more evidence of S&V's inclinations than you, the honorable board jurist, would allow. But, I can see the context better now. Thank you. That said: Bolsheviks...were they not also scum? I mean, the ones who murdered? Yes, the robber baron enslavers and the aristocratic immiserators and the state-sponsored oppressors of the poor and working...very much so scum, also, just as much, if not more. But so then, the guys who choose the wrong way to overcome those pigs, the way that involves bombing and shooting and murder in which innocents are seen as collateral damage...scum, too. Yes? Let's not sympathize too much with any scumbags, even if they are the enemies of our enemies, mankind's enemies. Eh?

I aim to extend the maximum amount of sympathy possible under the circumstances-whatever-they-are to everyone.

I miss all the time. But that's my aim.

I'm sure I've called people scum at some point in my life. But it's not really a go-to word/concept for me. I usually go more in an evil/contemptible/asshole/villain/monster-type metaphorical direction when condemning others, I think. Not sure, though. I'll have to start trying to keep track.

Amiable disagreement, is what I'm saying.

[FourthBase]

Leave it to RI to tear down all comers, regardless of what cause they or their legends might serve. Only perfection will do I suppose.

Oh, my god.

Yeah, let's start singing songs about the Unabomber, because his cause was mostly legit, even if his method of trying to solve problems was a little off, and his actions served the cause and "legend" (puke) by...oh, yeah, by ruining by association for most of society every single thing he believed and every single book he read. "Hey, have you ever heard of Jacques Ellul?" "Ewww, isn't that the guy the Unabomber read? No thanks." Yes, what great service to the cause. A real hero. Not scum, not at all. And by "a little off", of course, I only mean: Blowing people up. Hey, nobody's perfect. Sometimes you just can't help yourself, you wake up in the morning, yawn, scratch your elbow, and think, "You know what...today I'm gonna set off explosives that will likely maim and eviscerate innocent people...yeah, good times. Here I come, world! To murder you!" Yeah, what a folk hero. Let's say a prayer for the Unabomber. Oh and what about Bin Laden? Or, if not Bin Laden because you suspect him of being a USA asset not a genuine "legend", then substitute any murderous jihadist. Errr, murderous jihadist "legend", that is. Hope that doesn't irk you, bringing up people you may not be so fond of, but hey, they were fighting for a few good causes, right? Gotta admit that. And who are we to condemn the actions of a terrorist, if the terrorist has a good cause? Let us not tear down the good by demanding unmurderous perfection! Nobody's perfect!

Yeah, uh, fuck that shit.

[FourthBase]

Sure, they were reportedly considered Galleanists, or sympathizers to the movement. So they're scumbags for entertaining radical views, then?

Seems the cops had been eyeing them for one after another Galleanist crime for half a decade, and Vanzetti was charged with...what, does anyone here remember? In 1919? Plymouth? And if they weren't important and influential Galleanists, then why why did anyone give a crap? Why did their fellow Galleanists blow stuff up on their behalf in protest? (Once after Vanzetti basically begged them for said bombing revenge.) Why did the state have any big desire to rig the trial a little to ensure their imprisonment? Not to say the rigging was justified, but: Because those two were actually, in fact, dangerous, menaces, wannabe if not consummated murderers.

[compared2what?]

Further to the history stuff --

I'm not even sure bomb-throwing/sending had been a thing for all that long in 1920. Seems like maybe a mid-nineteenth-century-ish sort of a development, intuitively.

...

Maybe not, though. Gunpowder is old. But if anyone knows the history of IEDs, I'm curious to know when the phenomenon started.