The KKK And The Democratic Party

[GotZoom]

Just to throw something out there....for fun....

The Ku Klux Klan was formed as a social club by a group of Confederate Army veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee in the winter of 1865-66. The group adopted the name Ku Klux Klan from the Greek word "kyklos," meaning circle, and the English word clan. In the summer of 1867, the Klan became the "Invisible Empire of the South" at a convention in Nashville, Tennessee attended by delegates from former Confederate states. The group was presided over General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is believed to have been the first Grand Wizard -- the title for the head of the organization. Lesser officers were given such names as Grand Dragon, Grand Titan, and Grand Cyclops. Dressed in robes and sheets, intended to prevent identification by the occupying federal troops (and supposedly designed to frighten blacks), the Klan quickly became a terrorist organization in service of the Democratic Party and white supremacy. Between 1869 and 1871 its goal was to destroy Congressional Reconstruction by murdering blacks -- and some whites -- who were either active in Republican politics or educating black children.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_kkk.html

 

[Abbey Normal]

And about Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat.
(from Wikipedia)

In the early 1940s, when Byrd was approximately 24 years old, he joined the Ku Klux Klan, which he had seen holding parades in Matoaka, West Virginia as a child, his father having been among the hooded marchers. He "recruited 150 of his friends and associates to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. After Byrd had collected the $10 joining fee and $3 charge for a robe and hood from every applicant, the Grand Dragon Joel L. Baskin for the mid-Atlantic states came down to tiny Crab Orchard, W.Va., to officially organize the chapter... "When it came time to choose the Exalted Cyclops, the top officer in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously."[3]
...

Though Byrd did not serve himself [in the military], he commented on the 1945 controversy raging over the idea of racially integrating the military. In his book When Jim Crow Met John Bull [5], Graham Smith referred to a letter written that year by Byrd, when he was 28 years old, to racist Democrat Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, in which Byrd vowed never to fight:
"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." [6]

 

[William Joyce]

Please. The whole Democrats-are-Klansmen business is lame on so many levels. It's basically motivated by white conservative fears that they're actually racists. So they go out of their way to deny it.

It's really like a gay man acting macho and making homo jokes. C'mon. Don't deny your true self!

It's also so lazy to pick the biggest whipping-boy issue of the day and try tagging your enemy with that. "Racist!" "Bigot!" "Nazi!" Blah blah blah. You can always count on everyone from Ted Kennedy to Bill O'Reilly resorting to "racist!" as the ULTIMATE weapon - the fallback, the nuclear bomb, the Hail Mary, the Fat Man and Little Boy of political debate. As my sig signifies, screaming that so-and-so is a racist is usually a sign that you're LOSING a debate. Those who have nothing to say whip out "racist." Don't have facts? "Racist!" Tiresome.

My advice: admit that racial groups are inherently different and that it's perfectly legitimate to have a preference for your own. Every other race does. Why not whites?

I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

Sound radical to you? Might ask some questions: Do blacks degrade nations or build them up? Ever seen an all-black country? Is it a peaceful and prosperous place? Or is it something in between animal and human? What happens to neighborhoods inhabited by blacks? Do they become quiet, clean, desirable places to live? Or do they turn into filthy, crime-and-drug-ridden shitholes?

 

[dilloduck]

Please. The whole Democrats-are-Klansmen business is lame on so many levels. It's basically motivated by white conservative fears that they're actually racists. So they go out of their way to deny it.

It's really like a gay man acting macho and making homo jokes. C'mon. Don't deny your true self!

It's also so lazy to pick the biggest whipping-boy issue of the day and try tagging your enemy with that. "Racist!" "Bigot!" "Nazi!" Blah blah blah. You can always count on everyone from Ted Kennedy to Bill O'Reilly resorting to "racist!" as the ULTIMATE weapon - the fallback, the nuclear bomb, the Hail Mary, the Fat Man and Little Boy of political debate. As my sig signifies, screaming that so-and-so is a racist is usually a sign that you're LOSING a debate. Those who have nothing to say whip out "racist." Don't have facts? "Racist!" Tiresome.

My advice: admit that racial groups are inherently different and that it's perfectly legitimate to have a preference for your own. Every other race does. Why not whites?

Preferring your own race over others is not any more "unnatural" than preffering to have sex with the opposite sex.

 

[007]

Please. The whole Democrats-are-Klansmen business is lame on so many levels. It's basically motivated by white conservative fears that they're actually racists. So they go out of their way to deny it.

It's really like a gay man acting macho and making homo jokes. C'mon. Don't deny your true self!

It's also so lazy to pick the biggest whipping-boy issue of the day and try tagging your enemy with that. "Racist!" "Bigot!" "Nazi!" Blah blah blah. You can always count on everyone from Ted Kennedy to Bill O'Reilly resorting to "racist!" as the ULTIMATE weapon - the fallback, the nuclear bomb, the Hail Mary, the Fat Man and Little Boy of political debate. As my sig signifies, screaming that so-and-so is a racist is usually a sign that you're LOSING a debate. Those who have nothing to say whip out "racist." Don't have facts? "Racist!" Tiresome.

My advice: admit that racial groups are inherently different and that it's perfectly legitimate to have a preference for your own. Every other race does. Why not whites?

WJ... I'd have to say I'm with you on almost everything about the races, and I don't consider myself racist, I'd just like to see blacks stop using whites as a whipping post. The fucking slave days are over OK? Get over it.

But I think the article above is a good example for blacks themselves to read. After all, it is they who vote democrat, and they seem to deny these old truths of what the democrats used to be. They also deny the NEW truths of how the democrats KEEP blacks down. If they don't, who the hell will vote them back in year after year? If the democrats LOST the black vote, we'd never have another democrat president. And lots of other elected offices would become Republican/other as well. The democrats would be finished. I think that's what GotZoom was pointing out.

Sound radical to you? Might ask some questions: Do blacks degrade nations or build them up? Ever seen an all-black country? Is it a peaceful and prosperous place? Or is it something in between animal and human? What happens to neighborhoods inhabited by blacks? Do they become quiet, clean, desirable places to live? Or do they turn into filthy, crime-and-drug-ridden shitholes?

EVERYONE should know the answer to these questions WJ. I do.

 

[Gunny]

Just to throw something out there....for fun....

The Ku Klux Klan was formed as a social club by a group of Confederate Army veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee in the winter of 1865-66. The group adopted the name Ku Klux Klan from the Greek word "kyklos," meaning circle, and the English word clan. In the summer of 1867, the Klan became the "Invisible Empire of the South" at a convention in Nashville, Tennessee attended by delegates from former Confederate states. The group was presided over General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is believed to have been the first Grand Wizard -- the title for the head of the organization. Lesser officers were given such names as Grand Dragon, Grand Titan, and Grand Cyclops. Dressed in robes and sheets, intended to prevent identification by the occupying federal troops (and supposedly designed to frighten blacks), the Klan quickly became a terrorist organization in service of the Democratic Party and white supremacy. Between 1869 and 1871 its goal was to destroy Congressional Reconstruction by murdering blacks -- and some whites -- who were either active in Republican politics or educating black children.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_kkk.html

Quite a twist on history. The entire statement highlighted in red is rather one-sided, simplistic, and inaccurate.

That the Klan was in the service of the Democrat Party is nothing more than a twist. Most Klansmen WERE the Democrat Party as the overwhelming majority of Southerners of the day were members of the Democrat Party.

A question that comes immediately to mind is how does the Democrat Party of today compare to the Democrat Party 1865-1872? Since the implication is that they are one and the same, I would like to see that substantiated.

 

[jAZ]

Quite a twist on history. The entire statement highlighted in red is rather one-sided, simplistic, and inaccurate.

That the Klan was in the service of the Democrat Party is nothing more than a twist. Most Klansmen WERE the Democrat Party as the overwhelming majority of Southerners of the day were members of the Democrat Party.

A question that comes immediately to mind is how does the Democrat Party of today compare to the Democrat Party 1865-1872? Since the implication is that they are one and the same, I would like to see that substantiated.

They were/are Dixiecrats and they were Southern Racists who essentially abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the modern-day Republican party as the Democratic Party began it's push to broadly adopted civil rights (and anti-segregation) policies.

They pushed for segregation under the guise of "states rights", just like the Southern Racists Democrats of the pre-civil war era did for slavery. I guess "I hate blacks" wasn't a good campaign slogan even then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats/

 

[William Joyce]

They pushed for segregation under the guise of "states rights", just like the Southern Racists Democrats of the pre-civil war era did for slavery. I guess "I hate blacks" wasn't a good campaign slogan even then.

Hmmmm....

But it is the thought that runs through EVERY white person's head. Even yours, jAZ. In fact, I'm betting my goddamn LIFE that liberals hate blacks more than conservatives, just 'cause they're kinda bug-up-the-ass persnickety types, you know. Not that I love 'em, obviously, I'm just speculatin', here. I bet you make my man Adolf look like a choco-vanilla SOFSERV once we plumb your noggin.

 

[jAZ]

Hmmmm....

But it is the thought that runs through EVERY white person's head. Even yours, jAZ. In fact, I'm betting my goddamn LIFE that liberals hate blacks more than conservatives, just 'cause they're kinda bug-up-the-ass persnickety types, you know. Not that I love 'em, obviously, I'm just speculatin', here. I bet you make my man Adolf look like a choco-vanilla SOFSERV once we plumb your noggin.

See I don't see it as race. You take (IMO) a very selective, biased and somewhat lazy view of the behaviors that you object to.

Black people can be lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal.

White people can be lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal.

It's those characteristics that people (both sides) object to, not the color of the skin. However racially minded conservatives only see the color of the skin and assume those things are traits based upon race.

The reality is that you will find the lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal white kid living along side the lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal black kid.

People that fit this description are typically found in poor, urban, forgotten, under-eductated, under-motivated regions of the country. These are predominantly black/minority, in large part because of slavery, segregation and the impact of networking effects.

 

[no1tovote4]

See I don't see it as race. You take (IMO) a very selective, biased and somewhat lazy view of the behaviors that you object to.

Black people can be lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal.

White people can be lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal.

It's those characteristics that people (both sides) object to, not the color of the skin. However racially minded conservatives only see the color of the skin and assume those things are traits based upon race.

The reality is that you will find the lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal white kid living along side the lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal black kid.

People that fit this description are typically found in poor, urban, forgotten, under-eductated, under-motivated regions of the country. These are predominantly black/minority, in large part because of slavery, segregation and the impact of networking effects.

And Liberal Racists see the "lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal" see an opportunity and entrap them with 'kindness'.

You can only get anywhere if you follow their special recipe for 'success'. "We know you cannot pass school because of the school you go to, we therefore will make them take you," is what they say out loud. "We will ensure that from now on everybody will focus on race for your entire life basing laws on race, giving benefits based on race, continuing to draw attention to the fact that you can't make it without out our help specifically thus ensuring both you will be kept down in the minds of the population as we condescend you and your entire 'race' and that you will continue vote for only us!" is their thoughts. This mantra is hidden under the relatively benevolent-sounding term of "affirmative action".

It is just as racist, only directly so, as they focus on those differences to judge just how much help you really 'need' from them. The more help they give the more they are insured you will be be observed as an Affirmative Actionee who could never have made it without their 'special help' and that really ends up being the very chains to keep you down. A disgusting overt racist program of derogatory internal dialogue that leads one to a 'they can never make it on their own' attitude that is far more insidious than a 'racist republican' that just wants to end Affirmative Action and begin to work towards that Great Dream that MLK spoke of where people are judged "...for the content of their character, and not the color of their skin." Instead this has been replaced by: "Where you will always be judged as wanting based on the color of your skin and never for your ability to succeed."

I have a dream, indeed....

 

[jAZ]

And Liberal Racists see the "lazy, angry, racist, unmotivated, selfish, uneducated and criminal" see an opportunity and entrap them with 'kindness'.

You can only get anywhere if you follow their special recipe for 'success'. "We know you cannot pass school because of the school you go to, we therefore will make them take you," is what they say out loud. "We will ensure that from now on everybody will focus on race for your entire life basing laws on race, giving benefits based on race, continuing to draw attention to the fact that you can't make it without out our help specifically thus ensuring both you will be kept down in the minds of the population as we condescend you and your entire 'race' and that you will continue vote for only us!" is their thoughts. This mantra is hidden under the relatively benevolent-sounding term of "affirmative action".

It is just as racist, only directly so, as they focus on those differences to judge just how much help you really 'need' from them. The more help they give the more they are insured you will be be observed as an Affirmative Actionee who could never have made it without their 'special help' and that really ends up being the very chains to keep you down. A disgusting overt racist program of derogatory internal dialogue that leads one to a 'they can never make it on their own' attitude that is far more insidious than a 'racist republican' that just wants to end Affirmative Action and begin to work towards that Great Dream that MLK spoke of where people are judged "...for the content of their character, and not the color of their skin." Instead this has been replaced by: "Where you will always be judged as wanting based on the color of your skin and never for your ability to succeed."

I have a dream, indeed....

I think you make a few good points along with a few bad ones.

In an ideal world, racial quotas would be a thing of the past. They do indeed force the issue to be able race. However, they are in place for a very real reason, it's called network effects. I provided a link above for those who are interseted in learning more.

Basically, it's a way of breaking up the entrenched "white" networks that have evolved (rather naturally) over generations and by way of historical racism.

There will (hopefully) come a time when such policies are unnecessary, and networks won't be able race, but performance.

The push from the racially minded right (I'm trying not to use the term racists here), will have a positive impact in that it will keep liberal politicians honest. There will come a time when the faux clamoring of anti-white discrimination will become meaningful. Today it's an absurd notion in a macro-sense, but one day it will become true.

 

[no1tovote4]

I think you make a few good points along with a few bad ones.

In an ideal world, racial quotas would be a thing of the past. They do indeed force the issue to be able race. However, they are in place for a very real reason, it's called network effects. I provided a link above for those who are interseted in learning more.

Basically, it's a way of breaking up the entrenched "white" networks that have evolved (rather naturally) over generations and by way of historical racism.

There will (hopefully) come a time when such policies are unnecessary, and networks won't be able race, but performance.

The push from the racially minded right (I'm trying not to use the term racists here), will have a positive impact in that it will keep liberal politicians honest. There will come a time when the faux clamoring of anti-white discrimination will become meaningful. Today it's an absurd notion in a macro-sense, but one day it will become true.

Rubbish, "We direct attention to race specifically in order to end racism!" is simply rubbish. So long as we direct our efforts towards race we will only enable the racist to continue the pattern as they will 'know' that their racial quota is the only reason that they got where they are today. This perpetuates racism while making others feel good about their efforts to end it. Racism cannot be ended by a program that is racist in itself, whether it is supposedly beneficial or not. Hate cannot be dispelled by hate, degradation cannot be dispelled by more degradation. Efforts to end the racist direction of such policies could be made that would enable those programs to move forward rather than to remain stagnant. They have taken us as far as they will while focusing on race, it is time to remove that factor from the equation.

 

[jAZ]

Rubbish, "We direct attention to race specifically in order to end racism!" is simply rubbish. So long as we direct our efforts towards race we will only enable the racist to continue the pattern as they will 'know' that their racial quota is the only reason that they got where they are today. This perpetuates racism while making others feel good about their efforts to end it. Racism cannot be ended by a program that is racist in itself, whether it is supposedly beneficial or not. Hate cannot be dispelled by hate, degradation cannot be dispelled by more degradation. Efforts to end the racist direction of such policies could be made that would enable those programs to move forward rather than to remain stagnant. They have taken us as far as they will while focusing on race, it is time to remove that factor from the equation.

Your point is entirely valid in a eutopian sense, but the pragmatics of the situation prevent the eutopian solution from being effetive. You remind me of the Buddhist who says that you can stop violence with violence. Sure you can, but only when handled carefully. And with a willingness to end your own use of violence in time.

Network effects are very, very powerful things. Leave it up to time to change them (and break the cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity that lingers from segregation and slavery) and nothing will change.

The thing that can break the cycle effectively is organzied willingness to work outside the networks. Regulation provides that organized effort by demanding it. Because it's inherantly about race, those regulations need to be defined by race. But they also need to eventually be removed because in the long run, you are entirely correct. It's only valuable for a limited time before it causes more harm than good.

 

[no1tovote4]

Your point is entirely valid in a eutopian sense, but the pragmatics of the situation prevent the eutopian solution from being effetive. You remind me of the Buddhist who says that you can stop violence with violence. Sure you can, but only when handled carefully. And with a willingness to end your own use of violence in time.

Network effects are very, very powerful things. Leave it up to time to change them (and break the cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity that lingers from segregation and slavery) and nothing will change.

The thing that can break the cycle effectively is organzied willingness to work outside the networks. Regulation provides that organized effort by demanding it. Because it's inherantly about race, those regulations need to be defined by race. But they also need to eventually be removed because in the long run, you are entirely correct. It's only valuable for a limited time before it causes more harm than good.

This is simply working with a one dimensional world. Either we base the programs on race or they will be ineffective? Network effects would be just as effective if such 'help' were given to those in demonstrative need without regard to their race. That this would effectively bring much of them into such areas where they too can build a network effect and at the same time it would no longer be based on race. Economics determine far more accurately than race where you will likely end up in life. Statistically it isn't race but economic power that will be a far more likely determination of your position at the end of your travels.

Basing this on race simply gives them more of a reason to vote for those who wish to continue such basis, a crutch, an addictive style of mentality.

 

[jAZ]

This is simply working with a one dimensional world. Either we base the programs on race or they will be ineffective? Network effects would be just as effective if such 'help' were given to those in demonstrative need without regard to their race. That this would effectively bring much of them into such areas where they too can build a network effect and at the same time it would no longer be based on race. Economics determine far more accurately than race where you will likely end up in life. Statistically it isn't race but economic power that will be a far more likely determination of your position at the end of your travels.

Basing this on race simply gives them more of a reason to vote for those who wish to continue such basis, a crutch, an addictive style of mentality.

That's a pretty good point.

Consider this a concession on my part for now, while I think about it more.

 

[Kagom]

Just to throw something out there....for fun....

The Ku Klux Klan was formed as a social club by a group of Confederate Army veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee in the winter of 1865-66. The group adopted the name Ku Klux Klan from the Greek word "kyklos," meaning circle, and the English word clan. In the summer of 1867, the Klan became the "Invisible Empire of the South" at a convention in Nashville, Tennessee attended by delegates from former Confederate states. The group was presided over General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is believed to have been the first Grand Wizard -- the title for the head of the organization. Lesser officers were given such names as Grand Dragon, Grand Titan, and Grand Cyclops. Dressed in robes and sheets, intended to prevent identification by the occupying federal troops (and supposedly designed to frighten blacks), the Klan quickly became a terrorist organization in service of the Democratic Party and white supremacy. Between 1869 and 1871 its goal was to destroy Congressional Reconstruction by murdering blacks -- and some whites -- who were either active in Republican politics or educating black children.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_kkk.html

But what we neglect to tell people is that later the Republican Party and Democratic Party would switch places on platforms and ideals.

 

[Gunny]

They were/are Dixiecrats and they were Southern Racists who essentially abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the modern-day Republican party as the Democratic Party began it's push to broadly adopted civil rights (and anti-segregation) policies.

They pushed for segregation under the guise of "states rights", just like the Southern Racists Democrats of the pre-civil war era did for slavery. I guess "I hate blacks" wasn't a good campaign slogan even then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats/

So what you are saying is the Democrat Party from 1865-1872 is not the same Democrat Party as today.

Probably because they actually stood for something THEN, even if it was wrong.

 

[jAZ]

So what you are saying is the Democrat Party from 1865-1872 is not the same Democrat Party as today.

Probably because they actually stood for something THEN, even if it was wrong.

You were doing well for a minute there. Then went straight for the Rush Limbaugh talking point. Too bad.

 

[Gunny]

You were doing well for a minute there. Then went straight for the Rush Limbaugh talking point. Too bad.

I hardly need your approval for my opinion.

Simple point .... the Democrat Party and the KKK between 1865 and 1872 were pretty much the same entity. One overt and offical, the other covert and unofficial, with pretty-much the same players.

You are the one who tried to take it elsewhere by implying Post-Civil War Democrats are now Republicans. The fact is, the Republicans offer far more opportunites to minorites while the DNC offers them only handouts and a perpetuation of their current status.

 

[jAZ]

I hardly need your approval for my opinion.

Understood. It's kinda like the fact that your desire to hear my opinions has hardly an impact on my willingness to share them.

Simple point .... the Democrat Party and the KKK between 1865 and 1872 were pretty much the same entity. One overt and offical, the other covert and unofficial, with pretty-much the same players.

You are the one who tried to take it elsewhere by implying Post-Civil War Democrats are now Republicans.

Huh? I'm not sure how there is any dependance between these ideas or thoughts as you suggest.

Yes, the KKK was a largely Southern Democrat (dixiecrat) phenomena. However, the Democratic Party rejected those ideals over time and those people (and ideals) migrated to the Republican party. And have primarily resided there for the last 100 years or so. In the process of remembering what the Dems were like in the 1800's (and being critical of it), you seem to be willingly ignoring what the Reps are and have been like in the recent 100 years. Neither group (pre 1900 Dems and post 1900 Reps) have much to brag about. Only one of the two are in the wrong now and in recent history.

The fact is, the Republicans offer far more opportunites to minorites while the DNC offers them only handouts and a perpetuation of their current status.

The seek to convince the world of that statement. It's not been remotely proven factual as you state.