Encyclopedia > Talk:Ku Klux Klan
Talk:Ku Klux Klan
I seem to recall that they also used a name Knights of something or other?
Yes, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), or Grand Knights, and so forth. There have been hundreds--literally--of these groups, which go out of business or split into fractions when the leaders quarrel.--AMT
- Knights of the White Camilla
How is KKK related to the white supremist groups today?
In movies, the KKK was first portrayed as staunch defenders of decency and morality (c.f. The Birth of Nations--a film considered beautiful but racist by many late 20th Century African Americans and European Americans, but later portrayed as a film full of hatred and bigotry.) But were the KKK legitimate in their actions according to the laws then? For example, was public linching a legal thing to do back then? Any historian to comment?
- Oh crap! is this legal?! I just edited someone else's remarks. Please undo this if this is unfair. I apologize!!! (I don't remember the original). I, for a moment, thought I was editing a wikipedia main page--where they encourage me to "Edit Boldy!". but i don't mean to rob anyone of their voice. If I screwed up, please fix it!!
I'm no historian, but I believe lynching was always illegal. But police, prosecutors and judges would often turn a blind eye to it. -- Simon J Kissane
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has a website, documents a lot of the shifting of personnel among white supremacist groups. The various Klans are related/not related to the others--the groups split up and form alliances largely on the basis of personal quarrels and legal difficulties. Also there are various ideologies and gurus that come into fashion and pass.
As to the Klan: the original groups were formed to intimidate free blacks and middle-of-the-road whites during Reconstruction. They continued through at least the 1930s with the support of many influential people. The main thing to keep in mind is that they were political terrorists--lynching has always been illegal, as SJK says, but lynchings do not always come from political motives. In San Jose, California, for example, some kidnappers were dragged from the jail and hanged in the town square in the late 30s. A certain social prejudice may have been involved--they were drifters or less reputable members of the community. But the mob was just angry. On the other hand, Klan actions were undertaken for political ends: to prevent blacks from voting, to prevent labor organizing, to prevent votes against candidates that the Klan favored, to intimidate juries, and so forth.--AMT
This An organization in America dedicated to opposing civil rights for blacks, Jews, and other disadvantaged groups. does not strike me as how they would describe their primary purpose. I don't know how they would describe it, but in an article about them, how they describe themselves would seem to be a key fact, which it is essential to mention in the article itself. --LMS
I believe that the timeing of the KKK's re-emergence in the 20th century precedes the Great Depression by at least a decade. I seem to recall that it was a powerful force in Indiana politics in the 1920s, for example, and certainly "Birth of a Nation" was much earlier (1915 or so, as I recall).
Egern
It is often heard that the name represents the sound of a gunman chambering a bullet. I've never heard of "kuklos" before. Can someone document this? --Dmerrill
- The COINTELPRO program of the FBI has also been credited with decimating the KKK in the 1960s, leaving many anti-COINTELPRO liberals in a philosophical conundrum about the powers that should be granted to government.
- opposing [civil rights]? for Blacks, Jews, and other disadvantaged groups
Since when were Jews in US 'disadvantaged' ? --Taw
- well, Jews in America were legally disadvantaged - excluded by legal covenant or by silent consent from home ownership in many communities or neighborhoods and stated or tacit quotas were established for admission to universities. I don't much like the formulation as it is, but Jews were certainly not assimilated into broader American society before the 2nd quarter of the 20th century, with the process accelerating after WWII. --MichaelTinkler
(I'm not sure what this means in a sociological sense, but I think it's interesting...) My mother grew up in a very small, all-white Minnesota town in the 1930s and 1940s. She never even saw a black (or latin or Asian) person until she went to Minneapolis, half-a-day's drive away. Yet still, her town held Ku Klux Klan meetings regularly. One wonders, "Why?" firepink ---
Removing "Christian." Do they profess to be Christian? Then state that they profess it, not that they are. :-)]
- The KK has always been a Protestant Christian organization. In the United States, millions of Protestant Christians viewed the KKK as a valid Christian organization. (less do today, obviously!) This statement makes some people feel uncomfortable, but is the historical truth. In the USA from the late 1800s to World War II, hating black people, as well as Jews and Catholics, was seen as part of God's plan, by huge numbers of conservative southern Christian protestants. Many Americans still have such views today. I don't think we have the right to claim that "Well, they aren't really Christian, they only claim to be Christian. That is the infamous "No true Scottsman" fallacy that has always been used to whitewash religious intolerance and extremism. The fact is that they were and are Christians. [[[user:RK|RK]]]
I beg to differ. A Christian follows the teachings of Christ, and Christ overwhelmingly taught acceptance, inclusion, humility, and love. So someone claiming to be a Christian while hating and terrorizing people would not be a Christian. And no, I am not a Christian, either; I am an agnostic. Koyaanis Qatsi
If you actually read the bible, it is filled with passages advocating, with divine mandate, just the type of violent terrorism practiced by the KKK. check out the doings of Jehu: he gathered the followers of a competing religion into a temple under false pretenses and then slaughtered them all. Christianity has always viewed anything outside itself to be of the devil, and therefor a legitimate target for destruction. Bearing this in mind, I propose that the KKK are not just christians, but the epitomy of christianity. Anyone who thinks the cult of christianity is not soaked in blood is not very familiar with their own doctrine and ignorant of much of world history.-Helios
- I agree, though not for the same reasons. I simply don't think that Protestant Christianity is a homogeneous group, so that such an assertion can be made. There were certainly groups of churches in the south that included racism in their official or unofficial creeds, and they would certainly reject being called non-Christian simply because what they believed differs or even contradicts what other Protestant Christian groups believed. On the other hand, it is not representative of American Protestantism as a whole. A statement about Protestants should be more specific. Danny
- "So someone claiming to be a Christian while hating and terrorizing people would not be a Christian.", who ever said people don't contradict themselves? Define a christian and I will find you a christian who disagrees with you. Someone is christian if they believe they are, it's not like there is some council that approves people who want to become christian. -- Ydd
Yes, and by that logic someone who ate veal consistently and professed to be a vegan would in fact be a vegan. There is also no council to approve vegans--not that it's relevant. Koyaanis Qatsi
- The difference being, Veganism has a pretty solid grounds for reference. Where as religion, typically, is a huge matter of interpretation and personal beliefe. Despite any of this, I certainly wouldn't tell someone they aren't a vegan if they ate veal and vehemently said they were vegan. maybe they're a special sect of vegan. Are Ichthy-Ovi Vegitarians not vegitarians? -- Ydd
Christians do share some characteristics which are not shared with, say, Buddhists or Wiccans.
Koyaanis Qatsi writes "A Christian follows the teachings of Christ, and Christ overwhelmingly taught acceptance, inclusion, humility, and love. So someone claiming to be a Christian while hating and terrorizing people would not be a Christian."
- Jesus. only "Christ" if you're a Christian (Muslims, who love and venerate him will not call him "Christ", claim that jesus was a Prophet--not the Son of God [a non-monotheistic concept]). Jesus, according to some, never advocated acceptance or open mindedness in any manner. Read the Christian Bible. Jesus personally beat people who changed money in the Temples. Did Mohammed? Did Moses? Did Joseph Smith? Did Darwin? No! Only Jesus! Jesus is judged by some (c.f., Why I am not a Christian[?] by Bertram Russell[?]) to be the most judgmental and cruel of all religious leaders (based on Christian Scriptures).
- That is absolutely incorrect. A Christian may reasonably be defined as a person who believes in the Religion of Christianity, is a member of a Christian Church, and is recognized by many other Christians as a practicing Christian. By this definition the members of the KK were Christians. You seem to be claiming that you have the ability to define who a Christian is and isn't, but you don't. Again, you are using the "No True Scottsman fallacy". Are you familiar with this? [[RK]]
Do you realize you've just defined Christianity in terms of Christianity not once but three times?--Anon
I hate to disagree with KQ here, or risk looking like I am in any way defending the KKK, but the KKK regard themselves as Christian and that by itself is enough for us to call them Christian. I have heard many arguments that state that Mormans, Unitarians and Catholics also aren't Christian - but this doesn't make that assertion correct. The only thing we can do here is depend on self-identification - not some external definition. BTW, my personal feeling is in agreement with KQ - that the KKK are very un-Christian - but we shouldn't let our personal feelings cloud our attempt at nuetrality. We could say that the KKK claim to be the only true Christians (which many groups in the KKK do) and that others in the Christian world think otherwise for KQ's reasons. --maveric149
We need a much stricter definition of "Christian" than just the mere claim of being Christian. The mere claim, by itself, means nothing. After all, even I could claim to be a Christian. But I reject most everything about Chrisitian beliefs! The word "Christian" has to have some meaning, or else it has no meaning. Consider Mormons; they are in no way, shape or form Christians, because they reject most Christian beliefs.
- Can you provide some references here? Show us how Mormons are not Christians! If you cannot, please stop saying that!
They imply that all other Chrisitians are not really Christians, and that they are the true Christians. While I agree that they have the right to their beliefs, they don't have the right to totally rewrite the dictionary. Or, rather, they may even have the right to rewrite the dictionary, but they can't force the rest of the world to go along with this rewrite. Unitarians also are not Christian, but they no longer claim to be. [[RK]]
The same is true for other religions as well. Consider proselytizing fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups like "Jews for Jesus"; they claim to be "Jews" practicing "Judaism", yet their faith is evangelical Protestant Christianity. Is it rational to say that Protestant Christianity is the same as Judaism? Nope. The mere use of the word, by itself, means nothing. Back to the specific topic of the KKK, there are firm reasons why they must be considered Chrisitians: (1) They accept Christian scriptures, and add no new "testaments" or "hidden books" to them. (2) They believe in the Trinity, and follow traditional Protestant Christian theology, (3) they follow traditional Christian holidays, and (4) non-KKK members in America historically have recognized them as Christians in good-standing vis-a-vis Christianity. In short, there is no way that they can be called anything except Christian.
- Yes, but Catholics worship the Madonna and pray to saints which is arguably a form of idolatry. Should we also not consider them Christian because of this? I for one am not so presumptuous to think that I have the ability to say just who, or who not is a "true" member of any faith. But then, that's just me. Go ahead and define who is a Christian - I will have no part of it. --maveric149
I shouldn't have brought it up--it's not particularly productive. I think maveric is right, that we shouldn't let our opinions interfere with the article. If the KKK consider themselves Christian, we can state as much without having to deal with whether they are or not. Apologies, bowing out, Koyaanis Qatsi
The KKK page is annoying. It is entirely lacking in NPOV. Is there no KKK-knowledgeable wikipedian? (Don't get me wrong! I hate the KKK. I hate nazis. I hate all things that good liberals (not an "L word" to me!) hate. But this article is written in a largely uninformed way. The origins of the KKK are entirely misrepresented here. The current beliefs of the KKK are entirely misrepresented here.)
Is there no legitimate scholar here? (No! It can't be me. I don't know enough. But I know some. And this stuff is biased.)
Arthur3030
- Yes, it's very biased, and at some points just plain wrong. For example, NB Forrest did not found the Klan. It was started by six Confederate soldiers, almost as more of a social club. Forrest, if he actually was a member, did not even come into the picture until the Klan had grown substantially, and he was nominated to be the Klan's (I believe first) "Grand Wizard." There are too many KKK websites online for there to be this many mistakes. (Another: The anti-Catholic stance was more a thing of the 50's and 60's, and other than that doesn't have much to do with the Klan's beliefs or practices.) RL Barrett 19:39 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|