Download Rage in the Gate City: The Story of the 1906 Atlanta Race Riot fb2

Excellent!

Needed for college. Good price and fast shipping.

Standing alone, it's a good account of a shameful and repressed history of Atlanta. Burns quickly reports the political, sexual, and racial hysteria in the city, and the riot itself, but doesn't spend much time on the aftermath. Compared to Negrohobia: A Race Riot in Atlanta, 1906, and it's not as comprehensive. Buy this if you want a quick read.

I'm familiar with the works of Rebecca Burns, author of 'Rage in the Gate City: The Story of the 1906 Atlanta Race Riot' (2009). Rebecca Burns is a journalism professor who was editor-in-chief of Atlanta Magazine and author of several books. Rebecca Burns wrote an article about the Leo Frank case titled, 'The Murder of Mary Phagan' (Atlanta Magazine, April 25, 2012) that I suggested possible editorial corrections, areas for further elucidation and pointed out several errors she made about well known facts. She thanked me for the thoughtful feedback, made an excuse suggesting a brain-fart, ending the explanation with "my bad" and as of yet never got around to fixing the acknowledged errors.

I regret to say the sum total collection of books Rebecca Burns has written, more often than not, reflect she has: a tendency to mangle objective facts, a predilection for conflating circumstances to advance the undercurrents of her politically correct "social history justice" machinations and used some of her works for the subversive agenda to perpetuate one-side anti-Gentile, anti-White, and anti-Southern narratives. Her "regression to the mean" narratives are both conspicuous and simmering under the surface.

For people who have read up on the primary sources of race riots and lynching in general, the book 'Rage in the Gate City' reads like agitprop regurgitation, as if the eminent author is a trained parrot who mostly relied upon borrowing social-democrat leaning monographs about the 1906 race riots and cherry picked primary sources (nice selection too), but doing the bare minimum independent research exploring alternative viewpoints in her approach to race relations historiography. To put it more bluntly: the book appears to be a total re-write of other egalitarian researchers work with the author's own tight and narrow colorful topspin and little else offered but undercurrents based on postmodern inversions of reality.

Fast paced, and mostly well written journalese, everything is focused like a lazer to advance the authors own admitted crusades for social and economic justice. Which is why the rapes of four White women by black men, get brushed aside as mistaken plot devices lost in the subjective background of her own version of pseudo-history.

As the great Psychologist Sigmund Freud once said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

Essentially denying (without real evidence) the rapes as the actual root-cause of this race riot is the central feature of this book upon deeper reflection thus not looking at what was the prominent why of lynching history. Instead every appeasement to external economic, social, and political factors that can be re-engineered and conflated are retroactively backdated to a monocular Al Sharpton worldview. The Black gang rapists that instigated the race riot, must ultimately be nothing more than noble victims of false accusations via newspaper circulation war misunderstandings and economic struggles, while the self-righteously indignant vigilante avengers of the rapes, who were trying to send an unforgettable message, are irrational marionette puppets, dupes hoodwinked by the daily paper pugilists antagonizing race wars for readership eyeballs.

30,000 White women are sexually assaulted by black men each year, are these allegations as well? Certainly some could be? What's the objective percentage moreorless? Is this a new phenomena that never existed before in the past based on the mathematical equation of racial population demographics? How about developing a statistical math equation based on racial demographics and population ratio to predict racial conflict and rape to advance our knowledge of racial conflict over the decades. I think this book is lacking in putting this race riot in context with the larger statistics of lynchings and "why" that occurred 40 years before and after this riot in the whole South, not just Georgia. She doesn't dive into the abyss like a fearless time traveler. I'm sorry to say this book is a door ajar letting in only certain light and I would have liked to see a better placing of this riot in time and space, and circumstances.

Rapes? What rapes? It was just a magic trick, now you see it, now you don't. They're just sortakinda newspaper concoctions we are led to believe, or more precisely "allegations" that should have been presumably retracted the next day, except for those gosh darn police reports and mentally shattered victims. Let's just pretend there are no documented police records or rape survivors, it was all a "misunderstanding", (more often than not interracial rapes are hoaxes right? what's the percentage?) nothing to see here, carry on. I guess the best thing to do is quietly sweep all the incontrovertible medical forensic evidence and accounts of the time under the rug of economic racism, why spoil a good opportunity to deracinate White Southerners and the South?

Rebecca Burn's selection of primary sources and clips are indeed fascinating, but the book doesn't read like a book, but more like concatenated choppy journalist's expose articles and chapters. The chapters are unsatisfying, because they don't answer the deeper sociological mysteries. She's definitely traveled back in time, gone into the original sources, but once there, rose tinted vintage glasses from 1906 and horse blinders stay on the whole time.

The author does not look at the conflict with new 21st century eyes, no new insights are to be elucidated in this real-life historical event nefariously transmogrified by Rebecca Burns into a series of mawkish racial morality lesson fables, via the usual nauseating politically correct rebooting of history into "Economic and Social Justice History", with cultural Marxist intonations and egalitarian contextualization. Conflations galore are asserted as established truth at the epicenter of every chapter with hardly any evidence presented to sustain them, except over-stretched circumstances and conjecture that fits the "social and economic justice history" narrative. We are supposed to presume that all the thick-and-fast claims fast-forwarded throughout the entire book are objective facts and indisputable conclusions of consensus, that hardly need much explanation or any real-not-unreliable evidence to back up most of the assertions. This is why few books on this subject can be taken seriously, because the ivory tower intellectuals whose agenda is "social and economic history justice" all conflate every racial contention in history with their conspicuous social-political agendas, then they quote and cite each other to deflect from the real heart of the matter in this particular saga. It has become one big ugly transparent progressive liberal academic scholarly sowing circle of sophistry. All other view points are ignored or drowned out as one variation or another of hate and racism.

Most people will see right through the anti-White-Southerner propaganda undercurrents of the book woven through every chapter. What the author doesn't realize is that 21st century students of history want to learn about the past without being inundated with either left-wing or right-wing slanting. Most people who are seeking to learn about history are not interested in being proselytized one way or another, they just simply want the real objective facts presented to them in an engaging manner with relevant details and mature prose. Since most people these days are skeptical about everything, and since we now all know history is bunk written by the victor's activists, we expect evidence and proof for blanket assertions. The average 21st century reader has a delicate and highly sensitive propaganda nose-detector, far too weary to fall for the attempted subconscious reprogramming of tiresome good-evil left-right paradigms or in the case of this book, politically correct racism.

Therefore the author, Rebecca Burns, needs to understand one can tell the fascinating story of history and it still be wildly enthralling, without the suppositions framed with agenda driven motivations for pushing the writer's self-righteous and one-sided racial, economic and political crusades. In other words, repeating it adnauseum and making it entirely clear again, just the objective facts please, with objective evidence and without the author's unwanted personal and subjective social agenda shoveled down our throats...

Otherwise people are going to think the author is writing a book as a cohort of fellow travelers, all writing about the same subject in linguistic superficially different ways, quoting and citing each other, for the purpose of creating a central artificial consensus and manufactured perceived norms for modern orthodox history of the subject -- that will now have to be labelled the ivory tower of ignorance version. Students of the 21st century know how this game works, we're no longer naive, you get a group of politically like-minded scholars (left or right), academics and researchers to write about a subject taking certain perspectives and positions, incorporating them into their own subjective variations, then each person in the same sowing circle group writes there own "unique" version of that same exact narrative, thus creating the fabricated cultural orthodoxy and mainstream popular culture about a given topic. The Internet age has fostered the new ability in many people now to sniff out such subversion and sometimes authors will need to be called out about it.

It was this book that finally brought me from the unconscious to the conscious conclusion that maybe it's time books should start having warning labels placed on them!

Does anyone have the capacity to dispassionately retell history anymore? If not could authors atleast inform the reader by disclosing their political agendas, before the curious buyer buys the book hoping for the "godseye" distillation, so they know what they're getting into? More broadly speaking, do any authors out there have the intellectual capacity to emotionally detach themselves from their own personal biases, regardless whether they be left-wing or right-wing? Are there any authors out there who can just present the objective facts and events in a riveting and thought-provoking way, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions free of bias? Does every book on contentious racial subjects in the South have to be an opportunity for either conservative or progressive couch potato revolutionaries and polemicists masquerading as academic scholars to re-write history for pushing their own ulterior motives of shaming, demoralizing, deracinating, dividing, guilting, stereotyping and attacking the "other"? (yes this applies to both the left and right)

If you want to know what this book is, open your mouth and frown, make sure you keep your mouth open while you frown, now tilt your chin ever so slightly sideways while holding that face and then point your chin upward toward the ceiling while still holding your mouth open and frowning. Now maintain that facial pose as long as you can and meditate on it hard, that's what this book is and its worth reading.

I encourage everyone who made it to the bottom of my long winded diatribe review to purchase this book right now and read it to see if I am right or not. Please let me know your own detailed analysis review of the book.

"enraged by the prosperity of the city's black residents,"

That line is actually in the book's description. How much keen historical insight are you really going to expect from that point forward? Becca Burns reduces the White population of Atlanta to a cartoon villain. You can probably guess how the narrative flows from there.

Trite and hopelessly boring. If you've read this description, I can guarantee you could write the book yourself.

Compelling story of a complex and little known chapter in race relations in the South... and a fascinating look at 1906 Atlanta. "Rage in the Gate City" is wonderfully written, carefully researched and surprisingly shocking in its depiction of an eruption of racial hatred fanned by the city press.

It's an often painful look at a brutal series of riots, when whites killed dozens of blacks in retaliation for events that appear to have been widely misunderstood, and then sensationalized in the day's newspapers.

Nevertheless, the story is told with real sensitivity and respect. Highly recommended for anyone who enjoys a dramatic narrative and a meaningful look at a powerful moment in history.