Have You Heard About the new Ku Ku Klan?

[Pogo]

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I gtg. Deez nuts.

 

[Pogo]

He's definitely a smart feller, yet leans leftish.
I have known this for quite some time.

Yeah, classic liberals, which it seems Xelor is closest to, are rare and also intelligent people, mostly.

Note to Xelor; I hate replying to a third person and referring to you in third person; but, alas, the limitations of the English language bind me!

Anyway, Marion, I enjoy most of Xelors posts, and I doubt I will ever put him on ignore unless he wants it.

USMB is blessed to have a good group of reasonable classic liberals and some reasonable lefties also.

I think that is why I spend the biggest chunk of my day posting here, lol.

And yet you put me on Ignore because you can't handle the facts. Go figure.

 

[Marion Morrison]

deez nuts

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

What category do you fit former Louisiana House Representative David Duke in?

 

[JimBowie1958]

There are a very few who actually care about humanity, and how they can help it, but they are very rare indeed. They still have an authoritarian mentality don't ever forget that, but they would at least be benevolent tyrants. Unlike the others.

 

[OldLady]

Is this "unofficial" bunch of Klan wannabe's still lynching people, beating people up and burning down homes and churches? Does anyone know? I never hear about them claiming responsibility for an action, or getting charged as Klan members.

 

[martybegan]

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

What category do you fit former Louisiana House Representative David Duke in?

He formed a splinter Klan group, and is generally an asshole. I don't like him.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Dude, you and I have totally different viewpoints of non-white people. I can only say that as go my personal experiences with minorities. Truly, during my nearly 60 years of interacting with minorities, from....

• my relationships with the minorities who worked for my parents,
• my interactions and one friendship with the black kids in school,
• my friendship with a black guy in college,
• my friendships with a few blacks,
• my very close professional associations with a handful of minority partners/principals in my firm, and
• my relatively close acquaintanceships and professional and social associations with some number of minorities -- maybe 100, maybe a little over that...

The problem is with the ideological leadership and the hefty percentage of the black community that buys into that bullshit. The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

What are those odds?

You have the government that truncates your rights in federal contracts...

What is that supposed to mean?

I ask because my firm has quite a few federal contracts, and we're making really good money delivering as per the contract terms.

Lol, dude, look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

You have the government that truncates your rights ... as to whose perspective is relevant in a court of law.

What? In court, the relevant perspectives are those advanced by the defense and the prosecution.

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

In the U.S., the only group(s) that can actually do that is/are white. (Click the link to understand why I wrote that.)

Lol, that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

Group discipline and leadership overcomes lack of numbers in these kinds of situations. FACT.

The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

​

I'm sorry, but I'm not even sure how to construe that statement. Here's why:

• "The average black guy on the street" and "everyone else in [the black] community" strikes me as two rhetorical approaches for describing the same group of individuals, yet your statement implies there're material differences between the two "groups."
  • What makes that "average black guy on the street" be any different from "everyone else in [the black] community?"
  • Is not the "average black guy on the street" by definition the guy who is like the majority of black people? If he is, then "everyone else in [the black] community" must be some minority of the black community that is very different from the majority of it, but that then would make the majority of the black community not be "problematic." If and/or on the occasion of an "average black guy" aligning himself with "everyone else in [the black] community," the two are substantively of the same mind, in which case the two are not materially different. Accordingly, one must infer that you would/will thus take exception with the black community as a whole, which if that's the case, the "average black guy on the street"
• "The average black guy on the street" is "fine" provided he doesn't do "X," exe being vote (something one does as an individual) in accordance with that he perceives is in his own best interest (something I presume you expect everyone will do, and to which you don't object).

Maybe your point is that black Republicans don't "vote the party?" Should/need anyone actually do so? As go blacks and their voting habits, in 13 of the below shown 20 presidential elections, the GOP got as many as or more black votes than there were black individuals registered as Republicans. That indicates that black individuals do as everyone else does -- vote based on what they believe best suits them.

Now as for the fact that blacks are overwhelmingly registered as and vote as Democrats is a different matter. I suspect that in large measure most people -- without regard to their race -- vote in synchronicity with their party affiliation. It's hardly reasonable to expect blacks would not do the same.

It's probably worth noting that the fact that most blacks voted Democrat from 1936 to 1992 strongly suggests that the social issue of race is not the only thing that holds importance in black voters' minds.

look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

I suspected the SBA disadvantaged business set asides are what you had in mind, but I needed to confirm that.

From where I sit, that is a non-issue. The issue isn't the set asides, but rather one's reticence for partnering with a minority firm to win those contracts. Sorry, I'm not going to lament or begrudge minorities over the fact that for 5% of its contracts, the federal government sets aside contract award prioritization to minority-owned firms; thus non-minority-majority owned firms have to partner with majority minority owned firms to get "a piece of that pie."

Aside:

For almost ten years, my firm was a minority-majority owned one. It just happened that a white partner left and the person who took his place was a black woman. There were only five partners in the firm and two of them were minorities, and when the black woman made partner, we became majority-minority owned because they collectively had more partner units than I and the other white partner, even though I had more units than any single other partner.

During that period, our firm was the minority-owned prime on two contracts and we partnered with two of the top consulting firms on the planet. It was a "win-win" arrangement for everyone involved. That period and partnering played a pivotal role in growing the size of our firm and opened a lot of doors to additional work. We grew so much that we were about to "make" four new partners, but we received a purchase offer and accepted it. The individuals we were about to promote, along with the existing partners who continued to work, became partners in the firm that acquired us.

The point is that the minority set aside is only "a thing" if one lets it be. One doesn't have to let it be, but, yes, one can.​

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

Is that example taken from an actual case? If so, please cite the case so I can read its details.


What you've described above sounds like a civil rather than criminal matter. In civil matters, the "reasonable person" standard doesn't overrule the requirement that harm has to have taken place; legitimate harm must be established before the "reasonable person" standard comes into play. One's merely having their feelings hurt does not typically constitute harm, though in exceptional cases, it can. Some black guy who saw the C-ville events on TV and was offended cannot prevail in an emotional distress suit whereby the only harm experienced is his emotional distress in the wake of having seen Klansmen marching with shields, weapons, torches, etc. When there's tangible harm along with emotional distress, well, that's a different matter.

Looking at the "reasonable man" standard in an abstract criminal context, I agree that there is an element of racism "built into" the "biography" of the "reasonable man/person."

As goes the "reasonable person" standard's application in criminal law, there're are aspects of ambiguity in the standard's explication, but even so, the standard is applied when juries render judgment, and it's used in determining who bears culpability -- e.g., should Reagan have been held culpable because everything the actors in Iran-Contra did was done on an implicit or explicit instruction he issued or should Ollie North have been held culpable because he led the initiative that implemented the "vision"/instruction Reagan gave? -- in the commission of a legal wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the "reasonable man" concept, particularly with regard to passing judgment, aims existentially to inject into jurisprudence a degree of egalitarianism that might otherwise perish were a dispassionate jurist who's well aware of the law's nuances, thus, as goes legal theory, markedly more able to apply sophisticated notions of guilt and innocence that, frankly, wouldn't matter to any "reasonable man." In other words, the "reasonable man" standard exists to ensure that the spirit of the law isn't ignored due to the law's letter, that the law, it's enforcement, interpretation and application doesn't become "slicker" than be desirable to the community who live by it.

In the context of race, racism and its attendant forms of discrimination and for most of his long history, the "reasonable man/person" has performed the opposite function. Thus, rather than motivating decision-makers to question their unreflective biases and preconceptions, the "reasonable man" has long served as an ideal vehicle for articulating a relatively unchallengeable version of those very beliefs. Indeed, this worry was one prominent reason for suspicion of the "reasonable person" articulated by both courts and disadvantaged claimants -- i.e., individuals whose relevant status as it applies to a given social-justice matter under consideration is not white, male, able-bodied, Christian, literate, and heterosexual, which is how the "reasonable person/man" is defined.

The default characteristics of the "reasonable person" are the source of much of the difficulty. To the extent that a claimant is privileged, that is, their status matches that of the "reasonable man," his or her characteristics will already be extant in the reasonable person, hence they bear no burden of displacement. If the unmodified standard works properly only to the extent that the claimant is privileged, then the risk of any failure to appropriately modify the standard falls most heavily on the least privileged. This is because it is up to the disadvantaged to identify and displace the default characteristics of the "reasonable person." Unlike the privileged, the disadvantaged -- who are by definition most divergent from the unmodified reasonable person -- are forced to insist on an almost endless specification of their own characteristics. Thus, the illiterate Hispanic woman with a disability must demand attentiveness to all of those characteristics or the standard will not function properly; however, being forced to put the claim in this way makes the claim for simple equal consideration look like a plea for special treatment. But this is problematic from an equality point of view. And this concern is augmented by the fact that the deeper and more complex the diversity implicated in any equality inquiry, the more significant this worry will be.
​

In part perhaps because of the lack of clarity about what the reasonable person is meant to accomplish in the constitutional context, his primary role seems to have shifted away from being a way to problematize the judge’s dispirited point of view and to have, instead, a way of justifying it. So the corrective function of the reasonable person with its emphasis on the way in which the claimant’s experience may differ from the judge’s seems to have given way to a justificatory use of the reasonable person where its primary role is as a vehicle to convey the objective content of discrimination.

For instance, consider a matter whereby the "reasonable man" may serve to provide parents and teachers with a defence to assault where they were using reasonable force against their children or pupils for the purpose of correction. The "reasonable man" test would be whether a reasonable person possessing the claimant’s attributes and in the claimant’s circumstances would conclude that the law marginalizes the claimant or treats her as less worthy on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. Applied to a child claimant, this test confronts one with the fiction of the reasonable, fully apprised minor. The best one can do is to adopt the perspective of the reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, who seriously considers and values the child’s views and developmental needs. To say this, however, is not to minimize the subjective component; a court assessing an equality claim involving children must do its best to take into account the subjective viewpoint of the child, which will often include a sense of relative disempowerment and vulnerability.

In applying the "reasonable man" test to the matter, one may well conclude as follows:

A reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, apprised of the harms of criminalizing parental discipline -- and in light of the presence of other governmental initiatives to dissuade abusive corporal punishment and the fact that generally abusive and harmful conduct is prohibited -- would not conclude that the child’s dignity has been offended. The deciding jurist/jury might further assert that children often feel a sense of disempowerment and vulnerability; this reality must be considered when assessing the impact of the imputation of the "reasonable man's" mindset on a child’s sense of dignity. Moreover, the force permitted is limited and must be set against the reality of a child’s mother or father being charged and pulled into the criminal justice system, thereafter bearing the attendant rupture of the family setting, or a teacher being detained pending bail, with the inevitable harm to the child’s crucial educative setting.​

What is worth noting here is that the emphasis is not at all on the subjective experiences of the child. Rather it is on the response of the "reasonable person" acting on behalf of the child. But this person is typically, of course, the very parent who is the accused and who in these cases deploys physical force against the child. And this "reasonable man" seems focused not on the attributes of childhood that may give the events particular significance or meaning but rather on the reasons behind the legislation. This is why the "reasonable person" here stresses the importance to children of stability in their family and educational relationships. Applied thus, the "reasonable man/person" standard serves as a vehicle for expressing the ultimate judicial point of view, rather than for questioning it. This becomes existential the standard's shift from the corrective to a justificatory use of the "reasonable person" also accounts for why the reasoning emphasizes not the subjective characteristics and experiences of the complainant but rather the purposes of the legislation expressed through the reasonable person charged with the care of the child.


The "reasonable man" has long held an appeal for common law reasoning, in part because it is possible to invoke him even when (or perhaps especially when) his exact role is not terribly clear. However, even the very brief discussion above suggests why on this count the rhetorical unity of the "reasonable man" may be dangerous. As described above, one can draw lessons across varying manifestations of the "reasonable person" but those lessons need to be carefully drawn with a full awareness of the variations within each jurisprudential context.

The invocation to adjudicate equality claims is another good illustration of this. I used the context of child abuse, but the type of abuse is irrelevant to the test. Let the child be a minority or woman adult and they and the jury/jurist find themselves facing the very same adjudicatory dilemma. There, the "reasonable man" was clearly invoked for a very laudable reason, designed to further the aims of the equality guarantee. But his vague role and ill-defined content made it all too easy to slide into a very different, less compelling use of the standard. With more attentiveness to the exact role he is to play, however, it does seem possible to reshape the reasonable person to fulfill the very important corrective function for which he was originally invoked.

that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

No, it's not at all like saying that. Superficially, sure, one could say that. In substance, hell no, and most especially not like me saying that. (Did you read the first major section (there were two, IIRC) of the content at the hyperlink in the sentence that inspired you to make the remark above?)

I will come back to explain why not, but I'm tired right now.

92% will think "TL;DR" Welcome to the internetz!

That's okay. I did't have as the intended audience 92% of the membership. The people who think the post is "TL" and therefore "DR" it will have correctly assessed that the ideas it contains weren't by me shared for their consumption.

Everybody arrives daily at similar conclusions. I, for example, have literally several hundred television channels from which to choose programming. Of those channels, I bother to tune to about 10 to 20 of them. The remainder of them aren't there for my consumption, and I'm aware of that even though the content providers who put them there aren't. Be that as it may, they as I are comfortable with that state of affairs; they don't gripe that I don't consumer their content and I don't gripe that their content is there.

 

[Pogo]

Does anyone know what Ku Klux Klan stands for? What an odd name. Pogo?

Actually yes.

"Ku Klux" is corrupted (deliberately) from Kuklos, the Greek for "circle". The KKK was originally put together by six bored twentysomething ex-soldiers as a cross (no pun intended) between a fraternity and a practical joke. The silly hazing/initiation/structure rituals it adopted were based on those of the Kuklos Adelphon, a popular and widely-known college fraternity of the time.

Once they had morphed Kuklos into Ku Klux, deliberately to add mystery to it, one of the collaborators (named Kennedy) continued the alliteration joke with "Klan", reasoning "we are all of 'Scotch-Irish' descent". Then the other silly K-alliterations (kleagle, klavern etc) followed along the same lines.

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

Depends on what you mean by 'silly stuff'. In a sense it's all silly, starting with the dunce caps (which were not originally pointed --- I suspect but don't know for sure, that that dunce cap is strictly a 20th-century thing). The original 19thC Klan didn't dress that way; the point was to look like a ghost, not a ghost with a point.

The cross burning thing absolutely begins with the second Klan, in fact literally at its inception when Simmons and 15 cohorts trudged up Stone Mountain, laid out an American flag, a bible and an unsheathed sword and then it a cross on fire, mimicking the scenes in "Birth of a Nation", which in turn had made it up for Hollywood effect, taking imagery from the Sir Walter Scott sagas so popular in the "Scotch-Irish" South. But there was no such thing in the 19th century.

And a temporal correction -- the original Klan was 1860s-1870s, didn't extend to the '80s. It was dried up by the mid-1870s even in the unofficial-activity version. When Dixon wrote "The Clansman" in 1905 he was reaching back to romanticize a history of some 40 years past.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Dude, you and I have totally different viewpoints of non-white people. I can only say that as go my personal experiences with minorities. Truly, during my nearly 60 years of interacting with minorities, from....

• my relationships with the minorities who worked for my parents,
• my interactions and one friendship with the black kids in school,
• my friendship with a black guy in college,
• my friendships with a few blacks,
• my very close professional associations with a handful of minority partners/principals in my firm, and
• my relatively close acquaintanceships and professional and social associations with some number of minorities -- maybe 100, maybe a little over that...

The problem is with the ideological leadership and the hefty percentage of the black community that buys into that bullshit. The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

What are those odds?

You have the government that truncates your rights in federal contracts...

What is that supposed to mean?

I ask because my firm has quite a few federal contracts, and we're making really good money delivering as per the contract terms.

Lol, dude, look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

You have the government that truncates your rights ... as to whose perspective is relevant in a court of law.

What? In court, the relevant perspectives are those advanced by the defense and the prosecution.

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

In the U.S., the only group(s) that can actually do that is/are white. (Click the link to understand why I wrote that.)

Lol, that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

Group discipline and leadership overcomes lack of numbers in these kinds of situations. FACT.

The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

​

I'm sorry, but I'm not even sure how to construe that statement. Here's why:

• "The average black guy on the street" and "everyone else in [the black] community" strikes me as two rhetorical approaches for describing the same group of individuals, yet your statement implies there're material differences between the two "groups."
  • What makes that "average black guy on the street" be any different from "everyone else in [the black] community?"
  • Is not the "average black guy on the street" by definition the guy who is like the majority of black people? If he is, then "everyone else in [the black] community" must be some minority of the black community that is very different from the majority of it, but that then would make the majority of the black community not be "problematic." If and/or on the occasion of an "average black guy" aligning himself with "everyone else in [the black] community," the two are substantively of the same mind, in which case the two are not materially different. Accordingly, one must infer that you would/will thus take exception with the black community as a whole, which if that's the case, the "average black guy on the street"
• "The average black guy on the street" is "fine" provided he doesn't do "X," exe being vote (something one does as an individual) in accordance with that he perceives is in his own best interest (something I presume you expect everyone will do, and to which you don't object).

Maybe your point is that black Republicans don't "vote the party?" Should/need anyone actually do so? As go blacks and their voting habits, in 13 of the below shown 20 presidential elections, the GOP got as many as or more black votes than there were black individuals registered as Republicans. That indicates that black individuals do as everyone else does -- vote based on what they believe best suits them.

Now as for the fact that blacks are overwhelmingly registered as and vote as Democrats is a different matter. I suspect that in large measure most people -- without regard to their race -- vote in synchronicity with their party affiliation. It's hardly reasonable to expect blacks would not do the same.

It's probably worth noting that the fact that most blacks voted Democrat from 1936 to 1992 strongly suggests that the social issue of race is not the only thing that holds importance in black voters' minds.

look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

I suspected the SBA disadvantaged business set asides are what you had in mind, but I needed to confirm that.

From where I sit, that is a non-issue. The issue isn't the set asides, but rather one's reticence for partnering with a minority firm to win those contracts. Sorry, I'm not going to lament or begrudge minorities over the fact that for 5% of its contracts, the federal government sets aside contract award prioritization to minority-owned firms; thus non-minority-majority owned firms have to partner with majority minority owned firms to get "a piece of that pie."

Aside:

For almost ten years, my firm was a minority-majority owned one. It just happened that a white partner left and the person who took his place was a black woman. There were only five partners in the firm and two of them were minorities, and when the black woman made partner, we became majority-minority owned because they collectively had more partner units than I and the other white partner, even though I had more units than any single other partner.

During that period, our firm was the minority-owned prime on two contracts and we partnered with two of the top consulting firms on the planet. It was a "win-win" arrangement for everyone involved. That period and partnering played a pivotal role in growing the size of our firm and opened a lot of doors to additional work. We grew so much that we were about to "make" four new partners, but we received a purchase offer and accepted it. The individuals we were about to promote, along with the existing partners who continued to work, became partners in the firm that acquired us.

The point is that the minority set aside is only "a thing" if one lets it be. One doesn't have to let it be, but, yes, one can.​

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

Is that example taken from an actual case? If so, please cite the case so I can read its details.


What you've described above sounds like a civil rather than criminal matter. In civil matters, the "reasonable person" standard doesn't overrule the requirement that harm has to have taken place; legitimate harm must be established before the "reasonable person" standard comes into play. One's merely having their feelings hurt does not typically constitute harm, though in exceptional cases, it can. Some black guy who saw the C-ville events on TV and was offended cannot prevail in an emotional distress suit whereby the only harm experienced is his emotional distress in the wake of having seen Klansmen marching with shields, weapons, torches, etc. When there's tangible harm along with emotional distress, well, that's a different matter.

Looking at the "reasonable man" standard in an abstract criminal context, I agree that there is an element of racism "built into" the "biography" of the "reasonable man/person."

As goes the "reasonable person" standard's application in criminal law, there're are aspects of ambiguity in the standard's explication, but even so, the standard is applied when juries render judgment, and it's used in determining who bears culpability -- e.g., should Reagan have been held culpable because everything the actors in Iran-Contra did was done on an implicit or explicit instruction he issued or should Ollie North have been held culpable because he led the initiative that implemented the "vision"/instruction Reagan gave? -- in the commission of a legal wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the "reasonable man" concept, particularly with regard to passing judgment, aims existentially to inject into jurisprudence a degree of egalitarianism that might otherwise perish were a dispassionate jurist who's well aware of the law's nuances, thus, as goes legal theory, markedly more able to apply sophisticated notions of guilt and innocence that, frankly, wouldn't matter to any "reasonable man." In other words, the "reasonable man" standard exists to ensure that the spirit of the law isn't ignored due to the law's letter, that the law, it's enforcement, interpretation and application doesn't become "slicker" than be desirable to the community who live by it.

In the context of race, racism and its attendant forms of discrimination and for most of his long history, the "reasonable man/person" has performed the opposite function. Thus, rather than motivating decision-makers to question their unreflective biases and preconceptions, the "reasonable man" has long served as an ideal vehicle for articulating a relatively unchallengeable version of those very beliefs. Indeed, this worry was one prominent reason for suspicion of the "reasonable person" articulated by both courts and disadvantaged claimants -- i.e., individuals whose relevant status as it applies to a given social-justice matter under consideration is not white, male, able-bodied, Christian, literate, and heterosexual, which is how the "reasonable person/man" is defined.

The default characteristics of the "reasonable person" are the source of much of the difficulty. To the extent that a claimant is privileged, that is, their status matches that of the "reasonable man," his or her characteristics will already be extant in the reasonable person, hence they bear no burden of displacement. If the unmodified standard works properly only to the extent that the claimant is privileged, then the risk of any failure to appropriately modify the standard falls most heavily on the least privileged. This is because it is up to the disadvantaged to identify and displace the default characteristics of the "reasonable person." Unlike the privileged, the disadvantaged -- who are by definition most divergent from the unmodified reasonable person -- are forced to insist on an almost endless specification of their own characteristics. Thus, the illiterate Hispanic woman with a disability must demand attentiveness to all of those characteristics or the standard will not function properly; however, being forced to put the claim in this way makes the claim for simple equal consideration look like a plea for special treatment. But this is problematic from an equality point of view. And this concern is augmented by the fact that the deeper and more complex the diversity implicated in any equality inquiry, the more significant this worry will be.
​

In part perhaps because of the lack of clarity about what the reasonable person is meant to accomplish in the constitutional context, his primary role seems to have shifted away from being a way to problematize the judge’s dispirited point of view and to have, instead, a way of justifying it. So the corrective function of the reasonable person with its emphasis on the way in which the claimant’s experience may differ from the judge’s seems to have given way to a justificatory use of the reasonable person where its primary role is as a vehicle to convey the objective content of discrimination.

For instance, consider a matter whereby the "reasonable man" may serve to provide parents and teachers with a defence to assault where they were using reasonable force against their children or pupils for the purpose of correction. The "reasonable man" test would be whether a reasonable person possessing the claimant’s attributes and in the claimant’s circumstances would conclude that the law marginalizes the claimant or treats her as less worthy on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. Applied to a child claimant, this test confronts one with the fiction of the reasonable, fully apprised minor. The best one can do is to adopt the perspective of the reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, who seriously considers and values the child’s views and developmental needs. To say this, however, is not to minimize the subjective component; a court assessing an equality claim involving children must do its best to take into account the subjective viewpoint of the child, which will often include a sense of relative disempowerment and vulnerability.

In applying the "reasonable man" test to the matter, one may well conclude as follows:

A reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, apprised of the harms of criminalizing parental discipline -- and in light of the presence of other governmental initiatives to dissuade abusive corporal punishment and the fact that generally abusive and harmful conduct is prohibited -- would not conclude that the child’s dignity has been offended. The deciding jurist/jury might further assert that children often feel a sense of disempowerment and vulnerability; this reality must be considered when assessing the impact of the imputation of the "reasonable man's" mindset on a child’s sense of dignity. Moreover, the force permitted is limited and must be set against the reality of a child’s mother or father being charged and pulled into the criminal justice system, thereafter bearing the attendant rupture of the family setting, or a teacher being detained pending bail, with the inevitable harm to the child’s crucial educative setting.​

What is worth noting here is that the emphasis is not at all on the subjective experiences of the child. Rather it is on the response of the "reasonable person" acting on behalf of the child. But this person is typically, of course, the very parent who is the accused and who in these cases deploys physical force against the child. And this "reasonable man" seems focused not on the attributes of childhood that may give the events particular significance or meaning but rather on the reasons behind the legislation. This is why the "reasonable person" here stresses the importance to children of stability in their family and educational relationships. Applied thus, the "reasonable man/person" standard serves as a vehicle for expressing the ultimate judicial point of view, rather than for questioning it. This becomes existential the standard's shift from the corrective to a justificatory use of the "reasonable person" also accounts for why the reasoning emphasizes not the subjective characteristics and experiences of the complainant but rather the purposes of the legislation expressed through the reasonable person charged with the care of the child.


The "reasonable man" has long held an appeal for common law reasoning, in part because it is possible to invoke him even when (or perhaps especially when) his exact role is not terribly clear. However, even the very brief discussion above suggests why on this count the rhetorical unity of the "reasonable man" may be dangerous. As described above, one can draw lessons across varying manifestations of the "reasonable person" but those lessons need to be carefully drawn with a full awareness of the variations within each jurisprudential context.

The invocation to adjudicate equality claims is another good illustration of this. I used the context of child abuse, but the type of abuse is irrelevant to the test. Let the child be a minority or woman adult and they and the jury/jurist find themselves facing the very same adjudicatory dilemma. There, the "reasonable man" was clearly invoked for a very laudable reason, designed to further the aims of the equality guarantee. But his vague role and ill-defined content made it all too easy to slide into a very different, less compelling use of the standard. With more attentiveness to the exact role he is to play, however, it does seem possible to reshape the reasonable person to fulfill the very important corrective function for which he was originally invoked.

that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

No, it's not at all like saying that. Superficially, sure, one could say that. In substance, hell no, and most especially not like me saying that. (Did you read the first major section (there were two, IIRC) of the content at the hyperlink in the sentence that inspired you to make the remark above?)

I will come back to explain why not, but I'm tired right now.

Sorry, I'm not going to lament or begrudge minorities over the fact that for 5% of its contracts, the federal government sets aside contract award prioritization to minority-owned firms; thus non-minority-majority owned firms have to partner with majority minority owned firms to get "a piece of that pie."

Apologies. I conveyed the wrong meaning by writing "...; thus..." The correct and intended meaning is found in the construction "..., thereby calling...." Sorry if my mistake mislead you.

 

[Pogo]

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

There was certainly uptick in the 1920s over the teens -- followed by a plunge after 1925 ---- but they were of the same Klan. I can't count those as separate entities just based on rising or falling activity. We can certainly mark those upticks but that's not the same as declaring that a group reorganized.

The 1960s one was a social reaction --- on the part of extremists, but a reaction nonetheless --- to a perceived rising of civil rights, certainly not the first time that happened, but that's not the same thing as saying "a whole new Klan rose up".

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Agree. They're both fascistic elements so they have that sensibility in common. And in a sense it recalls how the original Klan was taken for a ride by the pre-existing vigilante and "night rider" elements who saw a paradigm they could use to their terroristic advantage.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

Maybe because the OP has me on Ignore and is "not reading" this?....

 

[Pogo]

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

What category do you fit former Louisiana House Representative David Duke in?

He formed a splinter Klan group, and is generally an asshole. I don't like him.

Exactly -- he took it upon himself to declare himself Grand Wanker of Louisiana or whatever he called himself, and needed no nod of approval from any national hierarchy, which is what I call "playing dress-up". Others in other areas do the same thing and even compete or fight with each other.

 

[Pogo]

He's definitely a smart feller, yet leans leftish.
I have known this for quite some time.

Yeah, classic liberals, which it seems Xelor is closest to, are rare and also intelligent people, mostly.

Note to Xelor; I hate replying to a third person and referring to you in third person; but, alas, the limitations of the English language bind me!

Anyway, Marion, I enjoy most of Xelors posts, and I doubt I will ever put him on ignore unless he wants it.

USMB is blessed to have a good group of reasonable classic liberals and some reasonable lefties also.

I think that is why I spend the biggest chunk of my day posting here, lol.

And yet you put me on Ignore because you can't handle the facts. Go figure.

]


no, you're just a faggot True story.

 

[martybegan]

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

There was certainly uptick in the 1920s over the teens -- followed by a plunge after 1925 ---- but they were of the same Klan. I can't count those as separate entities just based on rising or falling activity. We can certainly mark those upticks but that's not the same as declaring that a group reorganized.

The 1960s one was a social reaction --- on the part of extremists, but a reaction nonetheless --- to a perceived rising of civil rights, certainly not the first time that happened, but that's not the same thing as saying "a whole new Klan rose up".

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Agree. They're both fascistic elements so they have that sensibility in common. And in a sense it recalls how the original Klan was taken for a ride by the pre-existing vigilante and "night rider" elements who saw a paradigm they could use to their terroristic advantage.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

Maybe because the OP has me on Ignore and is "not reading" this?....

The one from the 60's though lacked the lodge-like structure and the attempted mainstreaming you saw with the 1920's Klan. They tried to sell themselves as basically White Protestant Pride Knights of Columbus/Masons.

Yes the 60's Klan was reactionary, but it had a much different (diffuse) structure and the 20's Klan which was a national organization.

To me the Neo-nazi types had much more of a draw for the angry types. It was more militaristic and related to the punk/skin movements from the late 70's early 80's.

 

[martybegan]

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

What category do you fit former Louisiana House Representative David Duke in?

He formed a splinter Klan group, and is generally an asshole. I don't like him.

Exactly -- he took it upon himself to declare himself Grand Wanker of Louisiana or whatever he called himself, and needed no nod of approval from any national hierarchy, which is what I call "playing dress-up". Others in other areas do the same thing and even compete or fight with each other.

While I agree they are unorganized, that was the case in the 60's which to me gives more credence to calling them a new "generation" as opposed to linking them to the 1920's Klan.

 

[Pogo]

Is this "unofficial" bunch of Klan wannabe's still lynching people, beating people up and burning down homes and churches? Does anyone know? I never hear about them claiming responsibility for an action, or getting charged as Klan members.

Theoretically anybody can do something, or claim to have done something, and simultaneously claim to be representing Klan or DAESH or a religion or a political party. In the last year we've had posters wagging their finger about "the Klan endorsed the Democrat" and "the Klan endorsed the Republican" but it means nothing outside of a Composition Fallacy; these are just wankers playing dress-up representing their own individual views.

There have certainly been churches burned and lynchings, but whether some klown chooses to attribute it to "the Klan" depends mainly on how much terrorism mileage he figures he can milk out of it. Once the image is established, its emotional value is exploited, with or without its permission.