Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Leadership Heierarcy?

I'd be very interested to see a list of how the klan is structured. Wizards and Dragons and what not. --69.9.212.229 03:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

INSERTED ON D-DAY, 6/6/05 The second group of 1915 introduced the "Kl" tradition. "Klavern" and "Kleagle" and such weren't a part of the original KKK. 17:40 Zebra

This may be off topic for the discussion here, but the Klan was not started by Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, he was made the Grand Wizard in 1867 when the Klan re-formed itself in light of the Reconstruction Acts. The costumes of the Klan were extremely similar to those worn by slave patrollers before the Civil war, (for further reading see Gladys Marie Fry Italic textNight Riders in Black Folk HistoryItalic text) and it is also noteworthy that the pre-1867 Klan was not simply an organization for bored aristocrats as is often reported. There is indication that even in its earliest days the Klan would ride out to black settlements to intimidate and assault their newly freed neighbors. The Klan has always been a violent organization, but has masked this with a language about being reluctant warriors. To clarify another point, the Klan officially died in 1869, but lynch law ruled the South well beyond the turn of the century. The official re-birth of the Klan was in 1915, but it had few adherents until 1920.

the "No true Scottsman" fallacy??


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.

I think this is point to make, but it needs to be in a better NPOV. I'd do it myself, but I don't know much about the KKK and nothing at all about COINTELPRO.

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?" User: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

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
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

The KKK pick out what they want to from the Bible...if they actually read it they would see that in the 10 Commandments it actually says 'Thou Shall Not Kill'. They obviously missed this...or misunderstood it. In modern English, it basically means 'Do not kill other beings'. It is just plain wrong, we are all the same in some way, it's not our fault that our bodies and skins are not all the same. Descrimination against a person with colour is basically like descrimination against another white person who is ugly. How many lessons are there in the Bible of accepting others?! The KKK sickens me...the fact that they atually killed coloured people who had the same beliefs and thoughts as they did...bt they looked different. O yeah...whats up with that hating Catholics and Immigrants too? -lil 13 year old who is by the way Protestant Christian

"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)

Harry Truman "believed" to be in the KKK? What about Senator Byrd? He *WAS* in the KKK! More examples of the Wikipedia liberal bias.

~I dont care what u say about "what u believe"...its wrong. Get it through your thick sculls.

Does anyone have information on their ranks? Why do the names sound like they were found in a D&D manual?

The first sentence states: "The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is one of several white-supremacist organizations in the Southern United States, which are dedicated to..."

Though they started in the Southern US, the article goes on to say how they shifted to the Midwest and are now even in Queens, NY. Perhaps it is better to drop the "Southern" from the first sentence and just say "in the United States". Otherwise it seems like the article is making the KKK out to be only a Southern problem rather than an American problem. It seems to be pointing a finger at "those racist Southerners" rather than "those racist Americans".

I did not change it yet because I wanted to see what others thought first.

I think you have a good point. Still, the KKK is (rightly or wrongly) generally associated with the US South by connotation. It's probably unfair to say that it's a Southern organization, but it is significant that people identify it with the South.
Acegikmo1 19:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the "Description" paragraph, I don't understand the following sentence: "The Ku Klux Klan has committed many acts of violence such as lynchings, the burning of homes, and even, in extreme cases, murder." Surely lynchings are murders (in fact, the first significant word in Lynching is Murder). I would edit out the duplication myself, but I am not sure what the OP is trying to say. PRB 14:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


This article needs to be rewritten. There is no one Klu Klux Klan today, the name is in the public domain. So anybody who wants can start a group, call it Klu Klux Klan or The Grand XXXs of the Klu Klux Klan and profess whatever beliefs they have. Hence, trying to characterize the beliefs of the Klu Klux Klan today is futile. The article should focus on the historical KKK and then link to individual pages for major modern day KKKs, like the one David Duke was part of.Ydorb 19:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

caption

In 1928, the Klan saw a very big and strong boy by the age of 14 called Nick Betts (who is now a grand wizard who leads the clan via the internet) who then had a wave of popularity in response to the Democratic nomination of Roman Catholic Alfred E. Smith for the office of President.

What thought is this sentence in the caption trying to communicate? I honestly have no idea. Wolfman 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandalsim

This page seems to require repair on a daily basis. I'm not familiar with the relevant Wiki mechanisms. Is there a way of improving the situation?

Disputed!

I have placed a dispute tag on this article.

TotallyDisputed

As another commentor pointed out, this page seems to be tinkered with far too often. Over the time I've monitored this page, I have seen factual inaccuracies, ommissions and important pieces of information disappear. From what I can tell, this is largely partisan in nature, as neither apparent supporters of the Democratic or Republican parties wish to acknowledge that the Klan influenced many important and prominent political leaders, and that most Klan members were thought to have affiliation with one party or another. The Democratic Party, particularly in the South, had significant Klan ties with each incarnation of the group, and this remained so until the liberal wing annd African-Americans effectively took control of the party in the late 60s and early 70s. The Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln and the Reconstruction, had far less in the way of Klan ties until far right-wing groups felt that the Democratic Party had been effectively usurped from its traditional control.

A true, neutral historian who is knowledgeable Klan history should clean up this article, and Wiki editors should respect the most neutral version that comes of this. Such a version, in my opinion, would not shy away from explaining the Klan's ties to both parties, and would present it in such a way tht no partisan bias is apparent.


It's not clear what exactly you are disputing. You raise two issues. First, vandalism. I think we all agree that this page is a target of vandals and probably should be protected. This, however, has nothing to do with NPOV and factual accuracy. Second, you raise the issue of the influence of the Klan in various incarnations on political parties. This seems to be an error of omission rather than fact. I don't think that a NPOV/factual dispute is warranted. It seems more like it is an incomplete article that still needs work. Ydorb 19:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Ydorb, though if the posters assertion that references to Klanish influence of major political figures are being deleted is corrected, it merits some investigation. The article is lacking in completeness, and not factual accuracy. If an NPOV issue exists at all, it is a minor one. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 07:38, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Currently Attending the Klan

I have read over this article, and I have read over the discussions. To be honest and straightforward, I personally have a first hand experience with a present day association of the Ku Klux Klan, and I believe it is wrong to dub the organization as hateful and discriminative simply by what one source will tell us. But I have had experiences of my own, and I want to let everyone know that the organization has and always will have a hateful and violent past. Its unfortunate for the organization, but its the truth. But these situations in the past have been taken purely biased from the media, and therefore, the majority of America will only experience one side of the story. This one side becomes their instant claim that the Klan is hateful, sickening, and bloodthirsty.

I hope to dispell these assumptions.

For me though, I have written a couple of remarks on the edit page of the Encyclopedia's definition of the Ku Klux Klan. To my dispare, these added changes have been removed (and I have no problem with people changing things, but don't cause yourself to remove someone else's). I felt it was my responsibility to try and show people a different side of all of the bad we might THINK we understand about the Klan. I have even thrown together a small web site to allow people to transition into realizing the objectives and idealisms of an organization such as the Ku Klux Klan. However, I understand a lot of people that see my explanations feel that I'm trying to protect an evil society. And they're wrong. The fact is, I have come from exactly the same teachings as these people might have had. I thought apprehended to even mentioning the Klan. I had an idea of this organization as being a group of brainwashed zombies breaking down doors to retirement homes, and killing anyone that moved. But essentially, I believed the organization was filled with fanatical people. And I was wrong.

But as I came to realize, history is only what our leaders want it to be. We have been so close minded to the Klan because we have absolutely no idea of how it operates. We have absolutely no reasoning to understand why they do the things they do. However, I came into it wondering if it all was true.

I came into it asking questions as many of you might ask of me. I wondered if all of the people in it were out of their minds. And I waited, and I tested the waters. And I came to realize that these people were NOT crazy, instead, they were kind to me, they were generous to offer assistance when I needed it. They showed me that the Klan was a fraternal order that was kept to hold a philosophy of moral dignity among themselves. This order was something they could rely on to protect themselves from anything that might try and harm them. I asked them about their sketchy past, and they admitted that it was unfortunate that many of these things had been told on a biased level. In the end, none of the Klan's original motives were declared. So no one knew the full story.

But how was I suppose to believe them? I had been brought up so vividly to believe an opposite way. I had such a deep rooted hate for this group. How could I break away? Well, at first, my beliefs had still been intact. I didn't want to change my position against them, nor did I want to change my entire outlook on the world.

But as I kept asking, I wondered about some things. I wondered about the small conscience I had in my mind. I wondered how bad it would be to strive to protect the fundamentals that my conscience drove to tell me. So I looked around, and I realized certain things about my world. I realized that there were bigger things for the world to be worrying about than some group that has nothing to harm but those that harm it. I could think of plenty of things our world needs more attention and control on. You could include the poverty of this world, the robberies, the corrupt police, even the corrupt governments. Our world is becoming a massive sewer of humanity. And it doesn't take a genius to realize this. And we may think that the Ku Klux Klan is a part of this indecency in our world, but do we really know the truth behind these stories? Do you really think these people get up in the morning and proclaim to kill off a number of people simply because they feel like it. If this were the case, then these people should be locked up. But it wasn't. It wasn't what I learned when I wanted to know more.

I never realized that it would be worth my effort to follow a group of people that felt so strongly about an idealism in this country, that they would lie down their lives for it. And I began to realize this belief. I came to respect it as a fraternal group of people that support and protect its own. That none of it was a brutal outcry to change the world. It WAS, however, a belief among the Klan that the world was becoming a stretched existence. A foregoing of dignity to tolerate the actions of another. To appease someone who wouldn't do the same in return. Our world has become a disrupted chaos of behavior, and I brought it upon myself to take a liking to a society that held strongly against this apparent outbreak.

Its fundamentals were never forcefully exercised onto anyone. They were only exercised when one of its own was threatened. They ARE militant, but they are constricted of killing out of unreason. The fact is, when someone is threatened, it is their duty to protect. If someone's life is taken, the life of the murderer is taken in the same way. It is unfortunate, but this is how things work in this WORLD let alone in this society. But what is even more unfortunate is the biased undermining message given to us in order to prove that this organization is hurtful and evil simply because of the actions taken from a situation's context.

The fact is, it is sites like these that proclaim and reinterpret the same old description that every other site has given. No one really looks beneath the surface. No one really cares to open a can of worms. And it is for this very reason, that a fundamental group such as the Klan is fading away. And what are we left with? We are left with a world that just might be unsafe to unlock our doors in. Unsafe to raise our children in. Even unsafe to trust our government or our police because a big enough bribe could change their decision. And if you don't believe me, then you're naive to this world, or you simply don't care. And these unaware people are more to the problem than a REAL problem could be. But I care, and I want the people that I'm around to care too. And as long as these one-sided media commentations exist, there will never be a real understanding of why we have certain radical foundations. So give yourself a little time and explore everything I've said. As much as it hurts to think about it, try to understand the other side before jumping to conclusions about both. - Camarofloyd 09:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am currently writing a history paper on the Klans and hope to add more information on the fraternal side of the organisation. I don't think that anybody is suggesting that the Klansmen were motivated by evil, although the early days of the Klan at least were certainly filled with violence, and they have become a symbol of intolerance through the years. Much of the operations of the Klan over the years can be attributed to their own sense of justice and vigilantism. All your contributions are welcome as long as they are presented from a neutral point of view.
It seems clear to me so far that the first Klan began in secrecy and fraternalism and expanded to vigilantism and violence from a sense of an "uprising of outraged manhood" (to use the words of Chief Justice Edward White). The second Klan began as a product what could almost be called Simmons's hobby, fraternal organisations, quickly grew as a result of social reaction to perceived social corruption, inspired at least in part by The Clansmen, its play and movie, and was milked as a cash operation by Tyler and Clarke. silsor 08:43, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I realize this site is neutral in its best ability, but I would hope a discussion board provides the chance to express one's own oppinions on any reasoning of his/her fundamentalisms. I would also hope that these oppinions can be expressed in any way possible, be it biased or neutral. But I could be mistaken, and I can take my position of the Klan elsewhere. - Camarofloyd 09:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is a discussion board, so you are free to express your opinions however you want here (within reasonable limits). But material that goes into the Ku Klux Klan article page itself must be kept neutral and report only the facts. silsor 09:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Weasel statement

I have removed the following text from the page, for a second time:

Many hold that the Klan's doctrine was not Christian, as they did not follow the nonviolent "turn the other cheek" teachings of New Testament Christianity, but followed the Old Testament traditions of "smite thine enemy" and "an eye for an eye."

for these reasons:

  1. The statement that "many hold" this belief is unsourced
  2. The statement that the Ku Klux Klan followed the Old Testament traditions of "smite thine enemy" and "an eye for an eye" is unsourced
  3. The statement that the Ku Klux Klan did not follow the nonviolent "turn the other cheek" teachings of New Testament Christianity is unsourced
  4. The statement that "many hold" this belief uses weasel words and reflects badly on the text.

silsor 20:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wilson and Birth of a nation

The quote is highly questionable. There's no evidence that Wilson actually ever said this; the only source was Thomas Dixon's widow, who claimed that Wilson made the statement in a letter which conveniently no longer existed. Wilson never confirmed the quote or, as far as I can tell, ever said anything else about the movie. The fact that it's been repeatedly quoted does not mean that it is true. Perhaps the item can be phrased to indicate the distinction; Wilson has enough warts on him that it seems hardly necessary to add more. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Given that the quote is not directly about the KKK, and since it is apparently not 100% verifiable (or even 50%), I suggest we remove it from this article. It would be better suited, with qualifications, for the article on the movie. And yes, Wilson and race relations - ugh. -Willmcw 23:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Considering that the Woodrow Wilson Foundation attests to the accuracy of the statement, it is fairly pointless for Wilson apologists to try to distance Wilson from this quote. 155/ 11 Apr 05

The quote, if true, should go in the articles about the movie and about Wilson. It is only tangentially related to the KKK itself. If FDR saw and commented on Gone with the Wind, we wouldn't necessarily include that in the American Civil War. -Willmcw 21:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that while Wilson't quote about the movie may be disputed, it is undisputed that the movie repeatedly quoted Wilson's book, "History of the American People". [1]. It is entirely possible that Wilson uttered the line quoted, though it is still of questrionable relevance to this article. -Willmcw 21:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

IMMIGRATION QUOTAS

NEGROES DID NOT IMMIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES FOR ABOUT 75 YEARS (1885-1960) DUE TO A QUOTA SYSTEM THAT PERMITTED ONLY A PAUCITY OF PEOPLE TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES FROM AFRICA.

Why lie about it? March 10th, 2005 1807Z UTC

  • Above contributed by 68.162.134.204, who has repeatedly tried to add POV information about "sneaky blacks" to the KKK article. Katefan0 18:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • As for immigration quotas, regardless of whether what you say is true (I have no opinion on this particular part), what in the world does that have to do with the KKK? I fail to see how it is relevant, and adding the information to the article in the way you did ("sneaky blacks") was highly biased and, frankly, offensive to me at least. Katefan0 18:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I challenge you to point out where somebody lied about it. silsor 18:49, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

My interest in the KKK article is due to my desire to see accurate statements in Wikipedia articles. The KKK article is full of wishy-washy statements.

A FEW FACTS ABOUT IMMIGRANTS. (Taken from an encyclopedia). African (black) immigrants to the United States in 1914 totaled 8,447 0f the 1,218,480 immigrants who entered the United states that year.

Chinese totaled 2,354. Japanese totaled 8,941. East Indians totaled 174. Koreans totaled 152. Pacific Islander, 1 person.

Some 33 other categories of people are listed, too. Italian (south) totaled 251,612. Italian (north) totaled 44,802. Polish totaled 122,657. Hebrew totaled 138,051. (Jews are not on the list). German totaled 79,871. English totaled 51,746. Irish totaled 33,898. Greek totaled 45,881. Russian totaled 44,957. Slovak totaled 25,819. Scandinavian totaled 36,053. Magyar totaled 44,538.

In 1910, a man named Dillingham proposed that a "national-origins" rule be added to the immigration laws. The Burnett-Dillingham Bill created quite a stir from 1911-1913. The national origins provision was approved in 1921 on May 19th, and became effective on June 3rd. It was extended in May, 1922 to June 30, 1924. The Immigration Act of 1924 was another important measure. By that time, immigrants were being called "aliens" or "alien immigrants."

The national origins provision (or rule) based its quota of immigrants on the number of people of each type already in the United states in 1910. It was designed to modify the types of immigrants who were entering the United States. It was referred to as the 2 percent provision. The rule resulted in the selection of more immigrants from northern and western Europe, and fewer from southern and eastern Europe. As proclaimed by President Coolidge on June 30, 1924, the largest quota for 1924-25 was that of Germany, 51,227. The quota for Great Britain and Northern Ireland was 34,007; Irish Free state, 28,567; Italy 3845; Russia, 2248.

In 1921-22, the quota for the entire continent of Africa was 120; Australia, 271; United Kingdom, 77,206; Germany, 68,039; Russia, 34,427; Italy, 42,021; Poland, 20,019; Czecho-Slovakia, 14,269; France, 5,692.

The Chinese Exclusion act of 1882 led to a decrease in their population numbers from 71,531 in 1910 to 61,686 in 1920. The Japanese population total increased from 72,157 to 111,025 in the 10 years. In that decade, 5,735,811 immigrants entered the United States from 1911 to 1920.

It is a case of deception whenever a person hints that Blacks and Asians led or encouraged Mr. Simmons to form the new Ku Klux Klan in 1915 because of their "increasing numbers." His organization was intent on reducing the influx of southern and eastern Catholics from Europe (i.e., to keep a Catholic out of the White House).

Jews were catching hell in Russia due to pogroms, so they fled for their lives.

Whenever inaccurate, misleading statements are made in Wikipedia articles of the KKK sort, they taint all of the other Wikipedia articles. Accuracy must be the most important ideal in Wikipedia. Please do not obliterate the facts and figures. they represent accuracy, not conjecture.

Friday, March 11, 2005, 1915Z (UTC)

  • And I guess you adding that information by calling black people "sneaky blacks" also represents your dedication to accuracy, right? Katefan0 19:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Saturday, March 19th, 2005

From 1911 through 1921, the total number of immigrants was 6,535,039. Koreans totaled 1,110 during those eleven years. Pacific Islanders totaled 101. African (black) totaled 76,344. Chinese totaled 23,280. Japanese totaled 91,269. Mexicans totaled 236,548. Italian (south) totaled 1,181,603. Italian (north) totaled 206,229. Slovak totaled 141,630. Scandinavians totaled 274,716. Hebrew totaled 610,201. (Jews are not on the list).

Due to the Great War in Europe, the total number of immigrants fell from 1,218,480 in 1914 to 110,618 in 1918, which was the lowest total since 72,183 immigrants arrived in 1862. Records of immigration to the United States begin in 1820.

FOREIGN-BORN WHITE MALES 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER, 1910.

All countries 6,646,817. Germany1,278,667, Russia 737,120, Italy 712,812, Austria 609,437, Ireland 597,860, Canada and Newfoundland 533,359, Canada---French 170,987, England 437,152, Sweden 349,022, Hungary 255,844, Norway 213,042, Scotland 133,116, Denmark 102,398, Mexico102,009, Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro 17,524.

I do not know how many of these purported "foreign-born white males" were actually sneaky "Blacks" who out-foxed the Governmental authorities. "Blacks" are too clever to be caught (everyone knows that)!

Time: 2000Z GMT

Don't presume to speak for me (or everyone). Your biased language reveals your true motives, regardless of how many "facts" you dump into this page. Katefan0 22:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

April 2nd, 2005 The human brain can develop certain psychoses which prevent it from regarding facts and figures. Whenever the human brain becomes afflicted by those psychoses, a "stupid" person results. I am not wasting my time by trying to affect the minds of other people.

My aim was to show that there were no "increasing numbers of Blacks and Asians" in the United States in 1915 who inspired Mister Simmons to organize the Ku Klux Klan. Mister Simmons was from the State of Georgia (U.S.A.). More than one million Negroes lived in that State in 1915. Those Negroes were laborers (cotton-pickers, etc.) and the backbone of the economy in that State and elsewhere.

Mister Simmons may not have ever heard of a "Black" or ever seen an "Asian." Negroes were lynched in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and other States without anyone raising an eyebrow, so Mister Simmons knew that the Negroes were powerless. Most of the "Asians" lived in the three States on the West Coast in 1915 (a long way from Georgia).

Many immigrants were white men and Catholics who eventually might become voters and vote for other Catholics. About eighty percent of the immigrants were males. The American men gave women the right to vote in 1920 because they knew that the women were mostly ("indigenous") Protestants who would blunt the impact that the influx of Catholic immigrants had created.

Prior to 1916, women were given equal suffrage rights with men in the States of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Washington, California, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Kansas, Arizona, Nevada, and the Territory of Alaska. Women in Illinois could vote in the national elections, but they faced some other restrictions.

The Constitution confers the the right of suffrage directly on no one, so that there are no United States voters (individual States control who may vote). Many States kept Negroes from voting by inserting clauses into the State Constitutions. Such clauses were designed to defeat the Fifteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court gave such amendatory clauses the ax in June, 1915. Even so, Negroes did not vote because they had to risk their lives to do so. They might be hanged from a tree, and give the law enforcement officers a good laugh.

Sneaky Blacks were never caught, though (everyone knows that).

12:15 GMT

A basic fact about immigration totals follows. There are two basic figures that are relevant. The total admitted minus the total departed which yields the "increase."
In 1914, 1,218,480 immigrants and 184,601 nonimmigrants entered the United States. Thus the total admitted was 1,403,081. There were 303,338 emigrants and 330,467 nonemigrants who exited from the United States. Thus the total departed was 633,805. These figures produce a net "increase" of 769,276, or 443,213 less than the 1,218,480 who were called immigrants.
In the 10 years of 1911-20, a total of 7,112,082 persons were admitted, and a total of 3,988,157 departed for a net "increase" of 3,123,925.
Many people went back home (or some other place). Although 56% of the admitted were counter-balanced by the various sorts who skedaddled, Blacks stayed to exploit Whites. July the 7th, 2005 at 01:48 Zebra, 14:36 Zebra, and 17:09 Zebra, too.
Wikipedia does not allow original research. · Katefan0(scribble) July 7, 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Symbols

The sections on symbols includes this text:

Some Klan groups in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to usurp the use of the Confederate battle flag (the Southern Cross, not related to the "Stars and Bars" or governmental flag of the Confederacy) in efforts aimed against desegregation and racial integration in the South. This appropriation of Southern symbols has been widely disavowed by historical and heritage activists in the South today. In its current fragmented form, the Klan in some instances continue to use both the Battle Flag and the American flag, but in both instances without official sanction.

This seems oddly written. Was the aim of the KKK in the 50s and 60s to "usurp" a symbol, or to have one? It seems to me that we should just say they used it. And from whom would they have received official sanction to use the flags of either the U.S.A. or the C.S.A? The whole notion is off-the-wall. I hope someone around can do the research. In the meantime, I'm inclined to cut some dubious assertions. -Willmcw 11:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Some Klan groups in the 1950s and 1960s appropriated the Confederate battle flag (the Southern Cross, not related to the "Stars and Bars" or governmental flag of the Confederacy) in efforts aimed against desegregation and racial integration in the South.
First it said "usurped", now it says "appropriated." How does someone "appropriate" a flag? They did not take it for their exclusive use, but simply began to use it. The more correct phrase would seem to be, "began to use", as in "some groups...began to use the flag." -Willmcw 01:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

A couple of boys?

I'm dubious about the recent addition regarding "a couple of boys".... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The facts in the addition are basically correct but the language is crap. They were grown men, not boys, although "boys" could be used as a slang term for them (see for example good old boy). silsor 03:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

A Protestant Organization

Saying that the KKK was a " Protestant white-supremacist organization" in this context means that they were composed of Protestants and believed in Protestant supremacy. It does not imply that they were endorsed by some sort of centralized Protestant authority; indeed, there is no such Protestant centralized authority. Any organization with a Protestant character or an exclusively Protestant membership is therefore a 'Protestant organization', regardless of whether or not they are recognized by a Protestant church.

Saying that they were just 'Protestant-based' is insufficent. The original KKK's Protestant identity was absolutely, incontrovertibly central to its ideology; the article must touch on the fact that it was virulently pro-Protestant and virulently anti-Catholic, and then explain how these views changed over time. You can add sentences saying that they were never endorsed by any Protestant church, that they were never formally identified with the Protestant faith, or that the vast majority of Protestants never supported them; but presenting the original KKK as anything other than a Protestant organization is false. Aquillion 03:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Personally I agree that simply leaving it at "Protestant-based" is not quite enough. They were not only composed of Protestants, they were rabidly anti-Catholic (though their slanted propaganda at the time denied this). WASPs who joined the KKK saw the KKK as part of their faith, they felt that WASPs were inherently superior to other races (and religious groups) and that oppressing Jews, Catholics and black people was part of "God's plan." From a pamphlet of the time: "The KKK... chief aims of which are to bring the different branches of the Protestant Church into a closer relationship ... and to preserve the US as a Protestant Christian nation." ([2] (from the Michigan State University digital archives [3]). I do think there should be careful wording to make it clear that there was no central Protestant body that endorsed these beliefs. Also, let's be clear, Protestants didn't have to be in the KKK to dislike Catholics -- enmity between the groups, regardless of whether individuals belonged to the KKK or not, was fairly widespread and cut both ways. Katefan0 17:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Would describing it as "an organization with an exclusively-Protestant membership" convey the right meaning? -Willmcw 20:23, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think what Aquillion has been trying to convey is that the KKK was not simply a white supremacist organization in its earliest incarnation. I think WehrWolf's moving Protestant to describe its early founders is fine, but the text of the intro still does not adequately convey that the KKK, originally, were not only racists, they were also religious zealots. I would propose that language to that effect be added in the same place, up at the article's top, where white supremacy is mentioned. Katefan0 21:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of theories about the origins of garb

Also, WehrWolf, why did you remove the information about Spanish Easter garb? I'm not familiar enough to know whether this is a widely accepted theory, but I'd want to see some sort of disproof before just deleting that information. I personally have no opinion, but ask for the sake of making sure valuable information wasn't deleted. Katefan0 21:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these traditions were adopted by the KKK. Aside from an anecdotal and superficial resemblance, there is nothing linking these costumes together. The Spanish Easter costume is intended to demonstrate the penitence and shame of the religious pilgrim, the KKK had no such motives. In addition, the Klan was virulently anti-Catholic when the traditional costume was adopted, and it is highly doubtful they would drape themselves in the trappings of Catholicism. It doesn't pass the logic test. If you can find evidence that proves they were related, I would be happy to reconsider. WehrWolf 21:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Where is the Klan?

I admit that I made a mistake calling the American midwest the middle of the western United States. I already admitted this in my last edit summary, but you felt the need to gloat. I think that calling a group of the Eastern United States the "midwest" has no meaning to anybody outside the United States, and that we should just say "eastern and southern United States". If you make it "midwest" and link it, nobody will click, because they will assume they know what it means. After all, I used the specific word "midwest" wrongly to describe exactly what many other people will think when they read that. silsor 15:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I was not gloating. If you were offended by my edits and explanations, I'm sorry, but apparently they were needed to finally convince you. This started out with you calling these states the mideast - which according to wikipedia is closer to Baghdad than Indianapolis. The whole point of this exercise is to be clear and factual. The membership in the Eastern united states (ie Northeast according to wikipedia) does not compare in numbers to the membership in the Midwest. Additionally, we are contributing to Wikipedia, and should stay consistent with Wikipedia geographic designations. WehrWolf 17:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
How does this help our readers know where Klan operations are centered? People who are not American will have no clue what your meaning is. Saying "southern and eastern United States" is clear and factual, but your version is only factual, and then only to a limited readership. Just because Wikipedia acknowledges the naming conventions of our US readership doesn't mean they should be used.
Also, if you're going to use the American meaning of "Midwest", shouldn't it be capitalised? silsor 20:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is the English language version of Wikipedia. The terms here are common to the English speaking world - they are not used only in the United States. If the Swedes define US geography differently then the Swedish terms should be used in the Swedish language article on the KKK. In regard to your question about "how does it help our readers know where Klan operations are centered? - this was not my platform, I was only correcting obviously erroneous information. You provided the map. Please, get over this injury to your pride and move on. WehrWolf 20.43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you have to assume this is about my pride? What happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I haven't accused you of pride or US-centrism. I argue there's no reason to believe that the terms you are using are commonly known outside the United States, and that we should put our readers first by using universal terminology. Can we carry on a conversation on such a simple topic without any more insults? silsor 21:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Silsor, thanks for doing that re-write. It is more relevant to indicate where the KKK are than to say where they are not. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Silsor - RELAX. If you think I was insulting you, then you should get out more. That was never my intent, or my action. I agree that we should put our readers first - by providing them accurate information, not a contributor's personal views. Best Wishes. WehrWolf 23:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Relocated from article page - In Canada after one attempt in the early 20th century to stop a black man and a white woman from marrying in ontario, the government of canada passed a law that made the KKK illigal in canada.

  • (Above by User:Wehrwolf). The paragraph was terribly formulated, but I think the information is true. From [4] - Is spreading hatred illegal in Canada? (The answer is yes: the Criminal Code of Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Immigration Act all address hate mongering.) This isn't a definitive Website but it does appear that it probably would be banned under this sort of statute. Their symbols are probably banned or something. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


Superman vs. the Klan

Ref Levitt and Dubner, 62-66. Binkymagnus 21:12, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Structure?

As most Christian based religious groups there is no structure. All donations go to a mission in neverland where the Pastor is molesting your children and lusting after your wife. The last klan member I heard about was in Louisiana. Pastor jailed in child molestation inquiry Kansas City Star - May 20 12:02 AM PONCHATOULA, La. — A minister and his followers are suspected of sexually molesting as many as two dozen children — as well as dogs and cats — at their church, authorities say.

Same day as Saddam in his briefs??????????

It seems even in the heart of the south the klan has fallen into the trap of waiting for Jesus to clean his house.

"Etymology"

Under the "Etymology" section of the article: What is the last sentence referring to? It doesn't seem to be referring to the Sherlock Holmes story... it also contradicts the first sentence... — flamingspinach | (talk) 20:54, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

my opinion

Some of the people that have posted on this page should read a book before discussing a topic. The Klan was formed to insure the southern way of life, not to kill African-Americans...origionally. At the culmination of the Civil War Confederate soldiers were told to go home and things would be fine. When they did go home they found Carpetbaggers and Scalawags had taken their jobs, land, and even family in some instances. This is why the Klan was formed. Also, they felt it necessary to uphold a moral and righteous community. If a man beat his wife, they would beat that man regardless of race, religion, or friendship for that matter. The Klan disbanded in the late 1860's because it was BECOMING a racist organization of bigots (I believe Gen. Forrest is documented as stating this). Its resurface in the early 20th century as a racist movement contributes to false alligations concerning its origin. No, I do not have any sources...that is, other than living in Alabama for 17 years. Oral tradition is alive around the world, including the "back woods" of Alabama (as many see it). I have also lived in the Northeast and currently reside in California. Let me tell you from personal experience: Racism is still alive today. Ironically I have seen more social acceptance and integration in the South than any other region of the United States. Don't get me wrong; I am not in any way defending the Klan. In fact, I have heard stories that would make you sick. But, I have also read much about the KKK; most of which is biased. The key is to read numerous differing OPINIONS and decide for yourself what might be the truth. Regardless of what you might think, NO single source is 100% correct, including that of mine. But, we were all given common sense to decyper for ourselves what we want to believe and most of us are too stuborn to listen to another point of view. The previous statements construct my personal opinion, or educated guess, as to what happened according to my vast study of the subject. It is your right and priviledge to disagree. As for the debate throughout this discussion about what constitutes being a Christian, that is a matter of opinion as well and has been dabated for almost 2000 years. [The first group to refer to themselves as "Christians" were in Antioch sometime after Jesus' cruxifiction and resurrection. (Acts 11:26)]

an enlightened mind

if i post here again i will attempt to be more clear...my apologies


leave religion out of this, you still have yer to justify thier actions, or explain them away, they, being "the klan" are still a bunch of small minded fuckwits. Gabrielsimon 00:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am not trying to justify their actions. And, I agree that they ARE "small minded fuckwits"; operative word being ARE. If you READ my post you will see that I am simply expressing my OPINION!


i aknowleged that, but its still something that can rile people up quite a bit, and btw, theres no need to get antzey... btw, sigh your posts. Gabrielsimon 00:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

get over it...and yourself

are and were, with these people, they have always been as stupid and morally lacking as they currently are. Gabrielsimon 01:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am sure you've met numerous klansmen in Canada. Unlike you, I have a basis for my statements. "Always" applies to nothing and these people are not stupid. In fact some of them hold very high positions in the United States government. They are smart enough to work the system from within. I believe the word you are looking for is ignorant, which they are. Who are you to label someone elses morals? You may not agree with the morals of the klan, and I can agree with you on that, but don't generalize a subject about which you yourself are ignorant.

  • Sign your posts, please. You can do this by typing ~~~~ after you post. It makes it a lot easier to follow a conversation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Official homepage?

Should we link to KKK.com, after all it seems to be the official homepage, or at least the page of an organisation calling itself the KKK. --Ashmodai 08:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no one Klan anymore - the copyright has expired and anyone can call themselves the "KKK" now. The group that has that website, The Knights Party, is just one more tiny group. The website is down at the moment, but it may be set to redirect to http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm. Does it tell the readers much about the KKK? I don't think so, but other may disagree. [Here's a line from their version of history: The Knights Party is the 6th era of the Ku Klux Klan. Whew.] -Willmcw 09:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comment on ACLU

The concluding statement that the American Civil Liberties Union defended the Klan's first amendment rights more appropriately belongs in the article on the ACLU. The relevant point being that the Union defends First Amendment rights, not the Klan per se. soverman 20 Jun 0109 (UTC)

It's a significant fact that the KKK has needed, and accepted, the help of the ACLU. If you object to it being at the end we could potentially move it to a different location within the article. -Willmcw 07:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Donald lynching, copyright, other hate groups

I think the article should say something about the Michael Donald lynching; the resulting civil lawsuit was apparently a crippling financial blow to the Klan(s): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm

I'm also confused by the statements that Ku Klux Klan is in the public domain, and used to be copyrighted. I don't think the name of an organization can be copyrighted under U.S. law!?

And finally, I think the article should say something about the relationship of the Klan(s) today to other hate groups: neo-nazis, christian identity, etc.[5]

I'll see if I can find out more about the Klan at the library, and maybe do some editing on this article myself, if nobody else steps up to the plate.--Bcrowell 18:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KKK outside the USA

Are there KKK or KKK-originated organisations outside the USA? I have heard that there are in Canada. How about other countries? Everton

terrorist

Today, an anonymous editor (not me) inserted "a domestic terrorist group" in the first sentence. Silsor then reverted the edit. I've reinserted the (wikified) word "terrorist" in the first sentence, so it now reads "The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a terrorist fraternal organization in the United States that advocated white supremacy, and promoted Protestantism to the exclusion of other religions." Silsor, could you explain your rationale for reverting the anon's edit? The terrorism article says this by way of definition:

Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal.

It seems to me that the KKK was a terrorist organization under either of the two definitions. It targetted civilians exclusively, and it also used violence and the threat of violence for the purpose of creating fear, etc.--Bcrowell 22:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the words "domestic terrorist group" because they have an extreme negative connotation, and since the anonymous editor only added those words without touching the rest of the article, it seems to me that he or she was trying to slur the KKK and did not have the intention of writing a neutral introduction. I was the second person to revert, not the first. silsor 22:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
How do you feel about the present version? Note that the word "terrorist" is also used elsewhere in the article. Just because a word has a negative connotation to many people, that doesn't mean that its use makes the article POV.--Bcrowell 22:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By changing "Ku Klux Klan was" to "Ku Klux Klan is" you lumped all the Klans together under the label of "terrorist". I rearranged the words to make the present tense description make sense, but did not remove the "terrorist" designation. Have you done the research to verify that every independent group that has ever used the name "Ku Klux Klan" (dozens at least) is/was in fact a terrorist organisation? silsor 22:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
The designation might be better placed elsewhere in the article. The SPLC calls the earlier KKK, "one of the nation's first terrorist groups" [6]. The modern KKK, such as it is, has been called a terroist group too. See SC City Labels KKK Terrorist Group, and General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association Condemning the Ku Klux Klan. It is also included in the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base. Maybe we shuold have a discussion of this towards the end of the article, where we can properly attribute it. -Willmcw 22:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I've put in a somewhat revised version of what you wrote as a footnote in the first sentence, along with a wikilink to the article on terrorism, and a quote from the article's definition of terrorism.--Bcrowell 23:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article already states repeatedly that the KKK's are/were violent. (Note that the reason Forrest called for the disbanding of the original organization was that he disapproved of its violence.)--Bcrowell 22:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, MSN Encarta's article "Ku Klux Klan"[7] has the following lead: "Ku Klux Klan, secret terrorist organization that originated in the southern states during the period of Reconstruction following the American Civil War and was reactivated on a wider geographic basis in the 20th century." --Bcrowell 23:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • While I find the KKK's activities largely abhorrent, I'm not sure that we should label them, de facto, a terrorist group. The word "terrorist" as an adjective is on Wikipedia:Words to avoid because it is so highly charged. I think it's fine to say that people or groups have criticized the KKK as a terorrist organization, but just to state it outright is perhaps too authoritative a judgment on our part. I think we have to be careful with how we use this word. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...I disagree that it's not objectively a terrorist organization, but I have nothing against presenting it as a "Some people say..." kind of thing, so I've added it back to the page with that type of formulation. Obviously a word like "terrorist" can be avoided throughout wikipedia, since, e.g., it needs to be used in the article on Terrorism :-) --Bcrowell 22:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, though it's mind-boggling, some folks like the KKK and their activities, obviously. To them they would not be terrorists. Since it's a disputed issue, it's best not to take a side by de facto calling the group terrorists. Rather, it's best to say they've been criticized as terrorists. Thanks for your efforts · Katefan0(scribble) 23:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
"Rather, it's best to say they've been criticized as terrorists." That's what the current version of the article says.--Bcrowell 23:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the United States Marine Corps' definition, "A terrorist group is an organization of like-minded individuals who use terror as a means of influencing or intimidating others, governments, and societies with the intent of bringing about the groups desired outcome", the KKK is a terrorist group which fits into this definition. Here is a real world example: "On Sunday, 15th September, 1963, a white man (part of the KKK) was seen getting out of a white and turquoise Chevrolet car and placing a box under the steps of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. Soon afterwards, at 10.22 a.m., the bomb exploded killing Denise McNair (11), Addie Mae Collins (14), Carole Robertson (14) and Cynthia Wesley (14)." Another real world example, on June 21, 1964 memebers of the Mississippi KKK killed voting registration workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney near Philadelphia, Mississippi. In the most objective sense, it naturally follows that the KKK is a terrorist organization.

Michael Donald lynching image

I've added a photo of the 1981 Michael Donald lynching. I believe it falls within Wikipedia's guidelines for fair use, and I think it's necessary to the article, because if the article is weighted heavily toward pre-1922 images, and never shows anything within the last 50 years, people will get the comfortable feeling that the Klan is a thing of the past. The Michael Donald lynching was also extremely historically important, because of the large civil judgment, which had the effect of bankrupting one of the large national Klan organizations, and furthering the decentralization of the Klan.--Bcrowell 20:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have grave misgivings about the use of this image and wish to protest it's implementation. Not only are the current lynching photos up disturbing enough, a full colour graphic image of a murdered person is not suited for the Wikipedia project. Whilst it is accepted that this goes on, illustration of it without warning, to the point where it can be accessable by a minor or someone who's religion dictates that imagery or imagery of the dead is prohibited would cause neccesary negativity. Jachin 22:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A number of other articles contain images of dead people, murdered or worse.(Rape of Nanking, Mary Jane Kelly) There is no law or rule that minors should not see photos of dead people (otherwise families would not own televisions). Anyone reading an article about a group known for violence should expect that there may be photographic evidence. That said, such photos should not be larger than necessary and should not be at the top of the page, where they'd be the first thing a browsing reader sees. This photo seems appropriately sized and placed. -Willmcw 22:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Willmcw, particularly given this article's subject matter. If it were an article on bunnies, the picture was too gory or was improperly placed, I'd have to vote it down. But this is the KKK. Besides which, Wikipedia isn't censored. If someone's afraid of having their sensibilities offended, this perhaps isn't the place to be browsing an article on such a topic. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Jachin, I agree with you that the images are disturbing. It's been a very unpleasant and depressing process for me to work with these images. It makes me feel negative about the human race. However, just because reality is disturbing, that doesn't mean we should ignore it. I got into editing the KKK and lynching articles this week because of the news about the Killen trial, which I discussed with my 5-year-old and 8-year-old children at the breakfast table. I think it's important for generations who have no personal memory of some of these events to realize that this kind of thing is always waiting to happen to society as soon as we let down our guard. My grandmother (their great-grandmother), who is Jewish, hid under the bed as a girl in Ohio when the KKK marched down the street. I don't want that to happen again during my kids' time on earth, and I think the way to keep it from happening again is to remember it accurately, not to try to forget that it happened. I think Wikipedia:Profanity is relevant here: "Images, particularly photos, often have a greater impact than words. Therefore, it may be preferable not to embed possibly offensive images in articles, but rather use a [[media:image name]] link with an appropriate warning. On the other hand, if the page title already tells the reader what to expect (e.g. Erotic art in Pompeii), such a warning may be unnecessary. Censorship should be avoided, if an image adds something to an article."--Bcrowell 03:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Al-Qaeda for an example of a NPOV treatment of a group that "uses terrorist tactics". -Willmcw 23:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bcrowell's edits

Bcrowell, just wanted to point out a paragraph that I think is not entirely in keeping with encyclopedic style. You wrote: It is important to understand that, in the context of the post-Civil War South, the "protection of southern womanhood" has implications beyond its literal meaning. In this society, violence and the threat of violence, including lynching, were tools of social control used, for example, to enforce Jim Crow etiquette, or to prevent economic competition from blacks. This reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia -- an encyclopedia shouldn't tell a reader what it's important to understand or not. I suggest something like: Some suggest that "the protection of southern womanhood" in this context was a euphemism for continued subjugation of and violence against black people. or something like that. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0 -- Good point! Would you like to do the edit yourself? --Bcrowell 16:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh no, please go ahead. I don't really know enough about the subject to write about it with authority -- it's a good and valid point, the phraseology just caught my eye. I mostly patrol this page because it frequently gets vandalized, not because of any real expertise in the subject, beyond what one would know from an interest in American history. · Katefan0(scribble)
Well, I did a bit of research and tweaked the info some. Take a look and make sure you agree. Thanks for being patient · Katefan0(scribble) 20:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...I found a book at the library that quotes the complete text of Forrest's proclamation abolishing the Klan (his only proclamation as leader), as well as a newspaper interview that was his only public statement about the clan. Neither one says anthing about "the protection of southern womanhood," so I think the statement was bogus in the first place, and the whole issue of giving the context for it was a wild goose chase. That was interesting about the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching, though! The reference to it is now in the article on Lynching in the United States.--Bcrowell 03:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excellent work, thank you! · Katefan0(scribble) 19:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Senator Byrd was not from a poor family

Someone has written words which tend to lead unknowing individuals to believe that "Blacks" were creating hardships amongst people whom he describes as being "poor whites."

Senator Byrd has been in the news this year. He has explained that he made the biggest mistake of his life by joining the KKK. Senator Byrd is of particular importance to this Wikipedia article on the KKK because he illustrates the fact that the KKK was composed of many white men of a high character who wore suits, ties, and white shirts. The KKK wasn't composed of suffering "poor whites" like the article suggests. The KKK was composed of landowners who held KKK rallies on their farms.

Senator Byrd is probably a member of the Byrd family of Virginia. William Byrd II and Richard Byrd are in that family of important Americans. Doctors, Lawyers, and similar well-educated members of society joined the KKK in the 20th century. Farmers and landowners, not "poor whites," were members.

People who live outside of the United States should guard against being misled by the LIARS who place absurd tidbits of information into the KKK article. Don't believe the lies.

During the 1990s, a landowner named Terry Nichols assisted a mad bomber named Terrence McVeigh who blasted the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It is not an unusual thing to see an American landowner complaining about being maltreated by the Federal Government. The Ku Klux Klan contains plenty of them. They are not "poor whites."
These above comments are full of crap. In Byrd's autobiography, that he just had published, he states that he is was born into a poor family. He was an orphaned by his parents at a young age. He was raised by his aunt and uncle and they were poor. I'm not a Byrd fan--I think he is an embarassment--but I at least know that Byrd was poor and that most KKK members were poor. You stated "Byrd is 'probably' a member" of the Virginia Byrd family. You attempt to put a "fact" in your rant and it mere speculation which is not based in reality Nichols, another moron, is and was NOT wealthy. This is another example of you making crap up to support your wild accusations about historical facts.-----Keetoowah 29 June 2005 14:16 (UTC)
Please avoid calling peoples' opinions (even uninformed ones) "crap" — we can all disagree in a respectful way (Wikipedia:Civility). Similarly, the anon should avoid calling contributors to the article who disagree with his viewpoint "liars." Thanks · Katefan0(scribble) June 29, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
But it is crap.-----Keetoowah 3 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
It's a commonly-accepted scholarly premise that the KKK was primarily the bastion of poor white men. If you have a scholarly source disputing this assertion, please cite it. Thanks · Katefan0(scribble) June 29, 2005 14:00 (UTC)
Additionally, your assumption about Senator Byrd's upbringing is incorrect. Byrd's mother died when he was 1, and his father gave him to his aunt and uncle to be raised. It took him 12 years of working as a gas station attendant, grocery store clerk, shipyard welder and butcher before he saved enough money to go to college. That hardly seems like he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. · Katefan0(scribble) June 29, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen much information about Klan members' class origins, which may be partly because it was a secret organization. There were certainly members at the top of the economic spectrum and also at the bottom, and I don't know of any evidence that the mix was any different than that of society at large. The six original founders were middle-class lawyers, etc., and I've added a note to that effect. I've taken out a later remark about the Klan's appeal being tailored to economically pressured poor whites, because I'm not sure it's true. It seemed to work just as well in recruiting car dealers and congressmen. One possible way of finding out something about the class composition of the Klan would be to go carefully through primary sources from people who infiltrated the Klan (Stetson Kennedy and Jerry Thompson are the ones I know of), but I don't know if anyone has actually done that.--Bcrowell 29 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)

July 1st, 2005

Whenever the Ku Klux Klansmen burn their crosses, they do not have to rent a place for those crosses, they simply erect them on their own land which they own, therefore Ku Klux Klansmen are not "poor whites" who are suffering because "blacks" are maltreating them. Ku Klux Klansmen are landowners.

In the 1970s the Ku Klux Klan was a registered corporation in the State of West Virginia. As far as I know, that may still be true. They must he wealthy enough to pay a law firm to perform the legal work (or do the work themselves because they happen to be lawyers).

The Byrd family of Virginia is an eminent family in the United States. I do not believe that anyone was kicking Senator Byrd around when he was a child. I have worked in the State of Virginia and I have been to Richmond, Virginia. I did not notice any "poor whites" hanging around the streets of Richmond. "Poor whites" exists in Wikipedia, but not in Richmond or any other part of Virginia.

In the State where I live now, the local leader of the Ku Klux Klan owns a small farm. The local Ku Klux Klansmen were quite active in the 1990s, but they have been quiescent, lately. They had rallied on the steps of various County Courthouses in this State and waved swastikas around in the air whilst they growled angrily.

In the 1950s, the white men would say these words: I'm free, white, and 21. The Ku Klux Klan was virtually non-existent in the 1950s. The tumult that accompanied civil rights activities such as "sit-ins" resurrected the KKK.

See the history page at Free, White and 21.

00:49Z July 1st, 2005

July 3rd, 2005 A big LIAR has erased the history of Free, White and 21. LIARS destroy the truth.

In general, the history which had been at Free, White and 21 recounted the words of white men of the 1950s, including the words of Elvis Presley who stated that he considered himself to be "free, white and 21" and, therefore, unrestricted by others. I'm free, white, and 21 was an often-heard phrase that white men of the 1950s employed when describing themselves.

There were no "blacks" in the United States prior to 1960, therefore, every reference to "blacks" existing prior to 1960 is factually a big LIE.

Colored people were of three principal types:

1. Brown-skinned (see Joe Louis)
2. Dark-skinned (see The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.)
3. Light-skinned (see Thurgood Marshall)

Negroes are a mixed-race mass of human beings who are descendants of a great variety of ethnicities from Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America.

Virginia is a State that is noted as being a place where white men have interbred with Indians and slaves. They produced mixed-race human beings, not "Blacks." Some of those mixed-race people may be descendants of a Byrd or two.

A big LIAR may delete my words in a hurry in order to conceal the truths.

July 3rd, 2005, Sunday, 15:55 Z


23:58 Z The trouble-causing destructive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "signed into law" 41 years ago yesterday. Today is July 3rd, 2005, 23:59 Z

00:03 Z (Corrected the mistake). Monday, July 4th, 2005.



Please confine your comments on talk pages to discussions of articles themselves -- talk pages are not for deconstructing theories, but rather to point out inaccuracies or problems within the text of articles. Also please sign your comments by using four tildes ~~~~. · Katefan0(scribble) July 3, 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Harding a Klansman?

I'm trying to find more information about the evidence that Harding was a Klansman. By googling, I found what seems to be the most detailed discussion on a (yech!) KKK web page:

President Warren Harding - Klansman
As the Republican victor in the 1920's presidential campaign, Harding may have benefited from Klan demonstrations on election eve warning blacks in various parts of the South not to vote. Shortly after his inauguration, Harding was initiated as a Klansman in the Green room of the White House, with William Simmons leading the 5 man imperial induction team. The nervous Klansmen forgot their bible, required for the final oath and Harding sent for the White House Bible to complete the ceremony. Afterward, Simmons and company received special War Department license tags, thereby securing immunity for them against traffic citations. On August 2, 1923, while returning from a tour of Alaska, Harding fell ill and died in San Francisco, not long before scandals rocked his corrupt administration. Rumors of his Klan membership leked out as early as 1924, and Imperial Klokard Alton young, a member of the induction team, described the ceremony for journalist Stetson Kennedy on his deathbed in the late 1940's. Imperial Wizard James Venable (now deceased) claims to have possessed photographs of a Klan funeral ceremony conducted for Harding in Marion, OH August 1923.

I've also seen claims that it is discussed in Wyn Craig Wade's book, which I need to get back out of the library. Does anyone have a copy of Stetson Kennedy's book, The Klan Unmasked, so we can see if he says anything about the Alton Young account in there? There seem to be some interviews with Stetson at Georgia State (http://wwwlib.gsu.edu/spcoll/Collections/GGDP/skennedy.htm), but it says "These interviews are restricted until further notice - 9/26/2000," dunno why. --Bcrowell 30 June 2005 23:50 (UTC)

The Kennedy claim, which came long after Harding's death, is the only source I've ever heard of. It doesn't seem adequate to establish Harding's membership. -Willmcw July 1, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
Is it a documented fact that Alton Young made that claim to Kennedy? So far all I've been able to find on the web is the Klan's own statements that Kennedy said that to him. Of course even if he did say that to Kennedy, it could be an example of the Klan trying to aggrandize itself.--Bcrowell 1 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

I hate the klan,they're evil!!!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_1&oldid=1136884943"