Talk:Ku Klux Klan

From Conservapedia

BY any reasonable standards, the KKK are terrorists.

Dunno...don't terrorists actually, you know...DO stuff? The think about the klan is they're not a centralized organization...just a lot of tiny splinter groups...they're no longer the powerful machine they were in the twenties. Czolgolz 09:34, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Contents 1 Democratic link 2 More fantasy 3 Reverted text placed here 3.1 References 4 David Duke & Robert Byrd 5 Moving forward 5.1 mindless partisan solution 5.2 encyclopedic solution

Democratic link

I explained it in context. If the context is removed, so must be the link.-AmesG_yo! 16:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

More fantasy

I think this is pure fantasy:

Prior to the Reagan Realignment, the Democratic Party was the party of the South - it overwhelmingly controlled the South. Especially prior to Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrat" splinter movement, the Democratic Party was responsible for a good deal of racist legislation, and was perceived to be connected to the Klan. However, such a causal connection is over fifty years old and the Klan bears no connection with any modern mainstream political party.

Facts are, the Democratic party still controls the South at all levels of government, and any so-called "re-alingnment" was fictional or imaginary. But you get an "E" for "effort", putting Reagan's name on the KKK page. And the claim "the Klan bears no connection with any modern mainstream political party", we would have to actually ask Klansman what thier party preference is for this claim to be valid; anyone willing to wager what the result would be? RobS 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Rob, you could ask David Duke, who served as the chairman of the Tammany Parish Republican party for a while.

Sorry, but the GOP's Southern Strategy is no fantasy, as anyone old enough to remember the '60s and '70s will tell you. And before taking me up on this wager I should warn you, in fairness, that I am from the south, and can remember the exodus of southern racists from the Democratic Party to the GOP.

--PF Fox 17:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, RobS, I could cite you to a dozen books about Southern politics describing the Reagan Realignment (they're all by Earl or Merle Black, one of which I studied with, so... got anything better?), but if you want to delete that whole paragraph, I'll remove the cartoon too. Seems a good compromise, ne? I'm shocked, though, that you don't care to understand your own party's history.-AmesG_yo! 17:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It's incredible. All I can guess is that a lot of these people unaware of the GOP's famous "southern strategy" are too young to remember that time and haven't read much on the subject. --PF Fox 17:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I choose to believe willful blindness - its practice is rampant on this site. Radiocarbon dating?! Lalalalala I can't hear you.-AmesG_yo! 17:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Facts are, the Democratic party still controls the South at all levels of government, and any so-called "re-alingnment" was fictional or imaginary.

Yet they have a hard time getting Southerners to vote for Democratic presidential candidates. How odd. It must be the same way the Liberals control the media, yet can't seem to get their candidates and policies show in a good light. --BDobbs 17:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox, wow, una.

AmesG & BDobbs, yes we've read much of that, too. Crossover Democrats who voted for Reagan were not restricted to Southerners; many Nothern Cartholic (whom according to the article, the KKK wants to supress), labor union Democrats also voted for Reagan. All this so-called "re-allignment", which was proven to be fiction in 1992, 1996, and 2006, tells us more about the quality of Democratic Presidential candidates (and probably the method they are chosen, too), over past decades than anything else. Facts ares, Democrats remain in control of Southern legislatures, governorships, municipal elected postions, judges, not to mention appointed regulatory positions, etc. Then we have the "blue dog coallition". In Reagans & FDR's day, they were called Democratic "bollweavils".

What is particularly objectionable about these falicious claims is the KKK is known for terrorist activities which have resulted in murder; there is absolutley no connection whatsoever between the name of Ronald Reagan, and/or Strom Thurmond to murder and lybnchings. This is particularly reprehensible editing activity, IMO. Now, on the other hand, a link can be forged between the name of a prominant living person, Sen. Robert Byrd, and the KKK. Yet you have not done this. In my personal view, where in the case of Byrd we have such a basis to include his name on this page, other factors need to be considered first. Whereas this standared you've totally ignored in a blatant & naked attempt to paint Reagan, Thurmaond, and hence the Republican Party as racist.

I would suggest you stop this, now. RobS 17:54, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

RobS, if you read the full paragraph, it SAYS THAT MUCH. LOOK AT THE BOLDED TEXT now that it'll be bolded, once I revert it. My concern is that I have no desire for the KKK to be linked to the Democrats by that cartoon, and if they are linked, then it must be fully explained byt he paragraph that you just deleted. So pick it: cartoon AND explanation, or neither. Which is it?-AmesG_yo! 17:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You address the problem of Sen. Byrd first before impugning Thurmond, Reagen, or the GOP. RobS 18:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

RobS, you clearly misunderstand my intent in that paragraph. Re-read it with particular emphasis on the bold text. Our goals are the same. Don't get mad at me over nothing.-AmesG_yo! 18:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I read it clearly; it says the KKK is not married to the Dems anymore but maybe a bunch of "Reagan Democracts", and other Southerners who vote GOP, are klansman. RobS 18:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You're finding something that's not there. The bolded text could not be clearer. However, I think we both agree that associating the KKK with ANY party is bad bad bad bad bad. Accordingly I've removed the "comic." I'm sure you agree with this decision, and I'm glad we've reached a consensus.-AmesG_yo! 18:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Too late now; you put Reagan & Thurmund's names in there and never bothered to address facts. RobS 18:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying to follow this now... are we trying to say that Strom Thurmon was not a segregationist? Myk 21:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Are we trying to say Strom Thurmond was a klansman? RobS 22:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Reverted text placed here

Prior to the Reagan Realignment (after which point the Democratic Party became the "liberal" party, and the Republican Party the "conservative" party), the Democratic Party was the party of the South - it overwhelmingly controlled the South. In this era, the Democratic Party was responsible for a good deal of racist legislation, and was perceived to be connected to the Klan. However, such a causal connection is over fifty years old and the Klan bears no connection with any modern mainstream political party.^[1][2]

References

1. ↑ Earl Black, The Vital South: How Presidents are Elected (1992, Harvard University Press)
2. ↑ Earl Black, The Rise of Southern Republicans (2002, Harvard University Press)

David Duke & Robert Byrd

I don't suppose mentioning David Duke's run for governor of Louisiana would help this at all, would it. --BDobbs 18:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It IS one of the most notable instances of the KKK in the news in the past 15 or so years. MountainDew 18:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest we discuss both Duke & Byrd before proceeding down this path. RobS 18:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

And the fact that no prominent Republicans supported Duke (Reagan condemned him) MountainDew 18:21, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

We must either tar all party's names or tar none. I tried to tar all, but it honked RobS off, for some reason. I personally think not even engaging in this kind of finger-pointing is better practice; leave the article as it is without the comic. That way, it provides a minimum of offense.-AmesG_yo! 18:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I think these kind of efforts that we've seen will fail. While in popluar media you can get some milage out of this fraudulent garbage, it's just not gonna work here. Seriously, you need a new, fresh approach. RobS 18:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You stopped making sense about an hour ago, but this crosses the line of nonsense. Can you explain, please?-AmesG_yo! 18:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, David Duke was pretty embarrasing to the Republican Party, and it's to Reagan's credit that he denounced Duke. The problem is, the Republicans in St. Tammany Parish liked Duke enough to make him their party chairman. --PF Fox 18:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

And David Duke is now supporting Cindy Sheehan.Jaques 14:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Moving forward

Two possible routes to a solution

mindless partisan solution

Turn this article into an arms race, each side piling up more attack pieces on the other, which ultimately will backfire against Dems trying to imply the GOP is the home of the modern KKK, or—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobS (talk)

For the record, I NEVER IMPLIED that the GOP is the home of the modern KKK; my bolded line specifically denounced that -AmesG_yo! 20:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly who has claimed that "the GOP is the home of the modern KKK?" --PF Fox 21:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

He read my statement above as suggesting that (!?!). Frankly, I was offended. I would never slander a political group like that.-AmesG_yo! 21:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Projection. --PF Fox 21:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

encyclopedic solution

Write a clean history if this organizations first 100 years, roughly from the mid 1860s down to about circa 1964; how its membership peaked circa 1927 at about a 1,000,000, etc., and the political influence it once had at both the state and national level, etc. Then finish it off with a few paragraphs about how the organization hsa declined since the mid 1960s to what remains of it today. RobS 20:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds fun. Get on it.-AmesG_yo! 20:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Truth be told, US domestic history is outside my purvue (I'm only in the McCarthy junk as it relates to Comintern activities). So I'm really not the lead man here. RobS 21:21, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You're not that big on US domestic history and you revert my political history statements.-AmesG_yo! 22:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It wasn't a history statement; it was the recycled DNC program agenda from recent years. RobS 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The Reagan Realignment is history buddy, and I provided two books written by conservative Republican political scientists, but I can see why those would be within your area of expertise to refute. But again, no problem. The article's wound up free of anything controversial.-AmesG_yo! 22:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, we got the cites how groups like the SPLC go out at night and paint swastikas on tombstones, then they call in the local media to take pictures, then they cut the pictures out of the local newspaper and put them in national fund raising letters to allege the Klan is alive, active, and a big threat. All for the purpose of running a fundraising scam. Sorry, but the emphasis on writing this article to support fundraising scams, rather than accurate historical reporting, is where the probelm started. Let's put all those stupid games behind us, cause they just aren't going to go anywhere. RobS 22:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see those cites. Where are they? --PF Fox 22:46, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's one. [1] Wikipedia has an interesting write up about this group, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ásatrú#Politics >,

"While Ásatrú is generally a tolerant religion, it is sometimes erroneously identified with neo-Nazi and "white power" organizations which also use the same symbolism.[6] The three largest American Ásatrú organizations have specifically denounced any association with racist groups.[7][8][9] "

Amazing. You'd think WP would be bending over backwards to smear these folks. RobS 23:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I checked the cite.

Are you serious? --PF Fox 23:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

They are just repeating information that's available elsewhere; and there is a list of cites. Personally, I recall the WCCO cause I saw it on TV in Minneapolis. Some of the cast of characters reapppeared in the 1991 San Fransicso spying case. [2]

In other words you have no evidence to offer that members of the SPLC have been dressing up as klansmen and defacing Jewish Cemetaries. So why should we believe such nonsense? --PF Fox 03:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea what you just said, RobS. -AmesG_yo! 22:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)