Photography as an instrument of terror

[George Kara]

Most of the time I think of photographers as people interested in the world surrounding them and attempting to memorialize our world. War journalism is essential to document and show us the destruction that men do to one another.

Then there are those who used silver to spread terror and dehumanize our fellow men and women.

witness: withoutsanctuary.org

How on earth could anyone have made postcards from such imagery. May God forgive them.

[Ash]

I don't see why those images are any less poignant than war photography.

They serve the same purpose as etchings did pre-photographic.

[jb7]

While it does seem abhorrent that these pictures could be taken, displayed, copyrighted even,
and it also seems that the photographers, in the whole, were complicit in these acts,
I think its probably better that the pictures were made-
lest we forget, or were never to have known-

I haven't visited their forum, and there are bound to be more informed views there-
but the power of these pictures is far greater in their immediacy, than any amount of words hidden in books-

May they all rest in peace-
words are wholly inadequate-

joseph

[George Kara]

Ash

Perhaps you don't understand. These are all postcards. Like you would send to your mother. "Hi Mom - having a great time lynching some slaves in Biloxi. Here is a photo of one that we just hung. He tried to run free. Hope all is well Your son. "

[Ash]

George I understand perfectly. My point is more along Joseph's lines.

I think, like many upsetting/disgraceful/unthinkable/etc acts, it is better to have a visual record to discuss and never repeat, than to ignore. Your OP ends with a question, and my response would be "because if they didn't, someone else probably did".

[claudiocambon]

Ash-

I think what is abhorrent is the implication that the photographer was implicit in the action, at least morally. "OK, smile everybody!" War photographs are in most cases made with the ultimate wish that what is being witnessed might some day stop happening altogether (one hopes). Here, there is someone who, again, to some unquantified degree, participated, and now makes a retail business out of it, but the tenor of the pictures, and their use show none of the protest we consider inherent to war photography.

That these pictures should exist is not really the issue. Of course they should, for the reasons you cited and more. What George is talking about is what appear to be the reasons for making the pictures, which, again, seem millions of moral miles away from why a war photographer does what he/she does. It's the motivations one perceives and senses that are so abhorrent.

I saw this book when it came out, and I have to say that it was as mortifying as seeing pictures of Nazi concentration camp victims. Incredible shock. It's an amazing book, and as such I recommend it, but it's definitely hard to take.

[Ash]

Claudio the comparison I was going to draw was with Nazism.

I believe there were a number of photographs by members of the KKK. Isn't this one and the same?

Then again you don't know the true intentions of the (now deceased, and often anonymous) photographers. It would be unwise to say that all photographs were taken with the same behaviour or views as the people they depict. However some might also argue that unless the people were taught any different, how would they know what they were doing was wrong? These images are of an era of extreme racism, antisemitism, etc. I don't condone the images at all, but it would be false to assume all these people, photographer included, knew better.

Traditionally hangings were public displays, it was a form of entertainment for many, and a deterrent for the rest.

[claudiocambon]

I agree that we shouldn't imagine the motives too much, because we will probably never know, but these people made some living selling the pictures, and I doubt their clients bought them out of outrage. That's what complicates it for me. War photographers sell their pictures, but hardly ever, I would hope, in an environment that encourages, or approves of the violence depicted.

[Ash]

Each person needs to make a living. If a person is sick to the stomach by their job, but must do it to earn money to feed their family, what would they choose? Once again the moral question of "what would you do to protect your family?". There are too many fantasies you could imagine for why the photographer was chosen to take the photo's, or why the photographer chose to take them.

[claudiocambon]

Each person needs to make a living. If a person is sick to the stomach by their job, but must do it to earn money to feed their family, what would they choose? Once again the moral question of "what would you do to protect your family?". There are too many fantasies you could imagine for why the photographer was chosen to take the photo's, or why the photographer chose to take them.

That's a dangerous moral relativism. So, if the only job in your town is working at a concentration camp, you do it?

White racists in the South knew that vigilantism was wrong and against the law, but they also knew they could get away with it, because these killers were hardly ever prosecuted.

Again, it's horrible enough that people wanted to commemorate these events, and, if you choose to speculate on the motives, it IS likely that they were for the wrong reasons. I mean, you don't even think for a minute that a black person took ANY of these group shots and made them into postcards.

But what makes it worse is that these became a commodity, and that goes above and beyond the question of who took these and why. It's that people thought these were worth having as objects that makes this all so repulsive and shocking.

[George Kara]

The photographers had to know there was a lynching about to happen. Someone told the photographers in person (no phones at the time of some of these shots), they packed up their gear slung it into a wagon or on a horse and showed up just at the time the lynching either started or just ended. There are alot of people standing around after the murders.

There is simply no way to justify the action of profit making on the murder of another person. Seeing as many of the people in these photos were probably church going people is even more frightening. Ash I don't think you believe it justifiable to profit on the hideous actions that occured in these photos - whether your family is hungry or not.

The context is the most disturbing element - not the photographs. Some of these shots are well lit, composed, developed, printed and sold in volume. What must the photographer have been thinking while taking each of the actions needed to create a postcard? Perhaps not much, and that is the most dehumanizing and haunting thought.

[QT Luong]

> "because if they didn't, someone else probably did".
> Each person needs to make a living.

Wait a minute, wouldn't those lines justify *any* human actions ?

[Ash]

Please note that the points I make here are for the sake of argument. I can easily say "yes these are disgusting images, showing the cruelty of man", but for sakes of an open discussion I'm trying to ask your opinions on both sides of the fence, whether you agree with them or not. I don't consider myself a supremist or a racist, I don't consider a race, religion, gender or age more important than any other.

QT you are right in your counter question. With millions of people across the globe in a variety of cultures, the chances of something happening is very likely over a 100, if not 1000 year stretch.

It is too easy to look on the images with hindsight, we can draw as many conclusions based on fact, as on bias. Neither of which may be relevant considering little primary source material from the time apart from the photographs themselves.

We don't know the people in the pictures, but from the website it is clear the practice was widespread and popular. What does that tell you about the culture at the time?

[claudiocambon]

We don't know the people in the pictures, but from the website it is clear the practice was widespread and popular. What does that tell you about the culture at the time?

That it was proud of indulging its own deep hatred, that it was impudent about the lack of legal consequences to their actions, and therefore, about the moral responsibility as well, in other words, hardly innocent or unaware of its own depravity. The pictures are all about how highly they think of themselves.

[Louie Powell]

In looking at these photographs, it may be helpful to recall that in earlier times, executions were required-attendance events intended to deliver a message to the general population about the consequence of deviating from the accepted rules of public behavior. So in that case, the fact that photographs were made of public executions, even the lynchings that may have come about as a result of less formal judicial processes, should not come as a surprise. I suppose we can actually be grateful that photography was not invented earlier - otherwise, we would also have to deal with photographs of 'drawing and quartering', death by guillotine, and even crucifixions.

In fact, there are instances from recent memory in which execution photographs were made surreptitiously - there is the famous case of the photographer who smuggled a camera into an execution chamber strapped to his ankle. Who can forget the famous execution mage from the Viet Nam war? And there is at least one web site that specializes in such ghoulish material, including videos of terrorists beheading their hostages.

The role of photography is to record what we see. The fact that we don't like what we see is a separate matter. In fact, in many instances the objective in making photographs of events such as executions is to build political pressure to bring about change.

My only question about this site is not why were the photographs made, but what did the creators of the site have in mind when they decided to create brought the collection together. Are they trying to make a point about lynchings, or is this simply exploitation?

[claudiocambon]

In looking at these photographs, it may be helpful to recall that in earlier times, executions were required-attendance events intended to deliver a message to the general population about the consequence of deviating from the accepted rules of public behavior. So in that case, the fact that photographs were made of public executions, even the lynchings that may have come about as a result of less formal judicial processes, should not come as a surprise.

The role of photography is to record what we see. The fact that we don't like what we see is a separate matter. In fact, in many instances the objective in making photographs of events such as executions is to build political pressure to bring about change.

My only question about this site is not why were the photographs made, but what did the creators of the site have in mind when they decided to create brought the collection together. Are they trying to make a point about lynchings, or is this simply exploitation?

While it is true that executions were big social events throughout the Western world, the key word in that first paragraph is 'may.' They were only ever outside the judicial system. Their illegality and consequent immorality are embedded in the word; these are not legally motivated hangings, as far as I know. Think 'pogrom.' They were socially required, perhaps, but not legally, because this was always outside the law.

No one is disputing the right of these photographs to exist. It is the social context of the pictures, what we can deduce about how and why they were made that is so upsetting and despicable: not only that people were proud of their hatred, but that they wanted to record it for posterity, and, for the photographer, to make a little money at it.

The site and book are not about exploitation, most definitely not. They were made to call attention to how much of an accepted process this sort of vigilantism was, and in turn, how deep and ingrained racist hatred was for these people, with of course all the implications for our modern society in terms of our duty to know and remember and, therefore, prevent.

[claudiocambon]

Sorry folks, my work is boring today, so I just can't stay away.

An analogy to these pictures today might be the Abu Ghraib pictures, even if the scale there is far, far smaller. They provoke similar questions about the makers and actors in the pictures, and especially their motives.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"That it was proud of indulging its own deep hatred, that it was impudent about the lack of legal consequences to their actions, and therefore, about the moral responsibility as well, in other words, hardly innocent or unaware of its own depravity. The pictures are all about how highly they think of themselves."

Incorrect, it was simply 'the same old same old' back then, wrap your head around that.

photo 51 text (http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/pics_51_text.html)

Seems a black man assaulted 2 black girls so a black mob took him out and lynched him. That was just the way it was back then, rather common, everyday 'same old same old', nothing special and it appears to have happened in all 50 states, to whites and blacks.

[George Kara]

Great to know that there are still racists lurking around huh? Even on this forum.

[claudiocambon]

"That it was proud of indulging its own deep hatred, that it was impudent about the lack of legal consequences to their actions, and therefore, about the moral responsibility as well, in other words, hardly innocent or unaware of its own depravity. The pictures are all about how highly they think of themselves."

Incorrect, it was simply 'the same old same old' back then, wrap your head around that.

photo 51 text (http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/pics_51_text.html)

Seems a black man assaulted 2 black girls so a black mob took him out and lynched him. That was just the way it was back then, rather common, everyday 'same old same old', nothing special and it appears to have happened in all 50 states, to whites and blacks.

I don't appreciate the condescending tone.

Lynching happened overwhelmingly to blacks at the hands of whites. Overwhelmingly. It would be highly ignorant and dangerous to pretend otherwise. Just because you found a case of blacks lynching another black man, perhaps even somewhere blacks lynching a white man does not mean it was somehow 'fair and balanced.' A black man could be lynched for almost anything in the South, even for just driving on the wrong road or getting ahead in business of his white competitors. It was a widespread pathology and a terror against the black community, not a case of "everybody's doin' it." It's like saying Jews killed a Nazi official in small town X, therefore the Holocaust didn't happen, because it was really was same old same old for both sides.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"I don't appreciate the condescending tone."

It wasn't racist or condescending, sorry if it came off that way.

Did anyone else bother to view the entire site? Please do. Hanging from trees, bridges, fence-posts, still burning corpse, burned and partly shinned corpses on Main St. USA. These photos were news reportage of their time, as sick as they are now.

The point is that these lynching went on all over the USA up until WWII, after which they were no longer readily accepted. These are not all back at the Civil War but up into living memory, sorry if most people are not comfortable with that reality.

"It was a widespread pathology and a terror against the black community, not a case of "everybody's doin' it."

Incorrect, again. Please to view all of the photo and you will see that all races are included across the entire country, I don't like revisionist history. This was a widespread pathology and a terror for EVERYONE, not just blacks! Scratch the veneer of civilization and it disappears over night, witness the Balkans, Africa or Mexican drug dealers.

[claudiocambon]

Paul,

When you say 'wrap your head around that,' I bristle.

Of course it happened to people of all races across rural pockets of the country, BUT, again, it overwhelmingly happened to blacks, and it was overwhelmingly done by whites. Blacks were more at risk for getting lynched, and were lynched more often than any other group in America. That is not revisionism, but the record. Again, just because it happened to rural whites who got scalped by Indians (into the 20th century!), or who were even lynched by their fellow whites does not take away from this. No one is diminishing the risk that whites also ran at times, and no one is saying that rural America was any more evil than other places. Yes, lynchings in America aren't any different from other violence elsewhere in the world. They were just as despicable, but they certainly weren't any less despicable.

I agree that when people are left to their own guises, without a government to provide order, things devolve pretty badly. I myself think rural under-development has helped produce and maintain some of our more notorious social pathologies: the Sicilian mafia, FARC and the Colombian and now also Mexican drug trade, even the Taliban.

However, the demographics don't change the essential fact, that there is something awful about the social phenomenon of these pictures, that people not only engage in these acts, but have them recorded, and then traffic in them as commodities. They're proud of being barbarous. And even if every person in that album swinging from a tree was white, it would still be horrifying.

I should also specify that I don't think the pictures themselves are to blame. Like children, we bring them into the world, and we shove them around; the picture in and of itself is a record, and nothing more. And as a record, I am glad they exist for what they illustrate, and how they serve to remind us of the darker corners of our nature.