Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Ku Klux Klan

13

Comments

  • #62
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Mike747 wrote: »
    There is absolutely no problem with taking pride in the white race..............

    You want to take pride in a thing that doesn't really exist, feel free.


  • #63
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Nodin wrote: »
    You want to take pride in a thing that doesn't really exist, feel free.

    Bingo. There is no white race. If there is perhaps people can define it?


  • #64
    poundapunnet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭poundapunnet


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    When someone claims to be of 'pure race' I immediately get a picture in my head of missing teeth, overalls and scenes from 'Deliverance'. Either that or late 30's/early 40's Germany. Either way it is not a good picture.

    I remember years ago being on some internet forum and being in an argument about white pride with some American, when it came up that I was Irish their line of reasoning was 'well of course you're not proud to be white, you're not white, you're Irish'. The argument that by their own retarded criteria I was much more likely to be pure white than they were seeing as they lived in Minnesota or somewhere and my genes were sourced from the north-west tip of Ireland didn't get me very far.

    In the States at least, a lot of the time you have to parse 'white' as 'wasp', looking at the not-quite-white treatment Irish immigrants got for several generations illustrates how much it can be a social construct.


  • #65
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,302 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Viztopia wrote:
    Weren't they originally set up as anti catholic, Jew and black?
    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    The religious laws have been relaxed, a Catholic can join and become a full member.


    So the answer to Viztopia's original question is: Yes?


  • #66
    Stavros Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Stavros Murphy


    This thread is proving to be a cracker.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Mike747 wrote: »
    There is absolutely no problem with taking pride in the white race.

    A pic of the attendees at the last White Pride meet-up here.


  • #68
    Stavros Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Stavros Murphy


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    A pic of the attendees at the last White Pride meet-up here.

    Ah here, you fooled us with your lyin. Sorry, Lion.


  • #69
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    If I, for example, was to have a child with a black person, the child would be black too, perhaps a bit lighter in skin colour than the father, but still black, despite that I am white. So what is with 'white supremacy'? They think white people have 'supremacy' despite that our genes are clearly weaker? No wonder they are often creationists too. Darwin's theories are not for them. ;)


  • #70
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    It's not a big redneck thing in America anymore though, listen to the likes of David Duke speak. They don't wear the sheets and funny hats anymore and they don't burn crosses, any affiliate that engages in this activity is thrown out, that's why you still have these extremist lynch mob groups in the southern States.

    The modern Klan is trying to drag itself into the 21st century.

    Yeah but they are against race mixing, thats an extremely racist thing to say also how many poor black kids got lynched, how many houses or churches torched?
    So you like the new mask they have still the same ugly face beneath.


  • #71
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 994 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    So the answer to Viztopia's original question is: Yes?

    Most historians talk about three periods of the Klan. The first was its origin as a vigilante terrorist group trying to frustrate the new order after the Civil War. Their targets were blacks and white Republicans (mostly outsiders, Northerners)

    The second upswing of the Klan, in the 1920s, was when anti-Catholicism (and anti-Semitism) came into it. The Klan then was part of a wide nativist movement against the European immigrants that were flooding into the country.

    The third wave was from the 1950s, back to targeting blacks. They revived their old terror tactics (lynchings, murders, arson) in trying to stop first the desegregation of public schools in the 50s and then other civil rights legislation in the 60s.

    They have always been and still are pathetic violent losers frightened of losing their white privilege


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    Their origins go back to the planters that originally settled here, before shipping off to the colonies with their fears and prejudices that got passed down.


  • #73
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Calvin Candie in 'Django Unchained' kind of epitomises my idea of KKK leaders. He was very, very fond of his sister too. A good way of keeping the 'race' 'pure' I suppose!


  • #74
    Spring Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭Spring Onion


    Suas11 wrote: »
    I always found it funny that their leader is called a wizard. For that reason, I could never take them seriously.

    I wouldn't even call Enda Kenny a "wizard" but I doubt many take him seriously.


  • #75
    withless
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,741 ✭✭✭withless




    WAKE UP WHITE PEEPLE


  • #76
    Pug160
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Pug160


    steddyeddy wrote: »

    Ignoring the fact that there’s no such thing as race (in scientific terms) there are several holes in the KKK’s philosophy. First point is they accept Spanish and Italians. How can they do that if both peoples arose from an invasion from North African?

    My favourite plot hole is that fact that most if not all of the people from the southern states of America have an African ancestor in the last few centuries. This was confirmed by the geneticist Brian Sykes who found that most people in the south had at least one black ancestor. He concluded that under the “One drop rule” (i.e.a person with one drop of African blood) most of the south is black. He later took great pleasure in telling members of the KKK in the south that they were black and should be disbarred from being members.

    The other problem I have with the KKK is they preach that whites are some sort of pure race. White people are a mixture of Cro-Magnon peoples Neanderthals and maybe some Homo erectus or Denisnovan peoples. The same goes for Asians. Genetically speaking the African peoples are the purest peoples.

    That's still being debated actually. Richard Dawkins agrees with it. Not that Richard's view is the be-all-and-end-all or anything, but I think a lot of people still find it useful as a tool. In reality, no one is probably pure anything, but there are always going to be labels.


  • #77
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    As to Spaniards and Italians, I don't believe that the Klan accepts them. If they do, it is simply out of desperation.

    The Klan had a very anti-Catholic agenda, also. Yes, that included Irish Americans.


  • #78
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    In the 1920s the KKK made records on the same label that released jazz records by the likes of Louis Armstrong.

    http://news.yahoo.com/klan-indirect-role-fostering-jazz-age-100215753.html


  • #79
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Pug160 wrote: »
    That's still being debated actually. Richard Dawkins agrees with it. Not that Richard's view is the be-all-and-end-all or anything, but I think a lot of people still find it useful as a tool. In reality, no one is probably pure anything, but there are always going to be labels.

    A lot of the wrong people find it useful as a tool. Dawkins might agree with it but many geneticists, biochemists and evolutionary biologists do not. Just because labels exist doesn't mean they are right. Define what a race is will you?


  • #80
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Just wondering does anyone have any sort of definition of race?


  • #81
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    Race is the categorization of individuals based on aesthetic features, most specifically skin color.

    Ethnicity is the categorization of individuals based on shared ancestry, culture, language, and/or religion.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Killer Wench wrote: »
    Race is the categorization of individuals based on aesthetic features, most specifically skin color.

    Ethnicity is the categorization of individuals based on shared ancestry, culture, language, and/or religion.

    Every single human being bar twins have different aesthetic features. We all have varying levels of skin colour.


  • #83
    DazMarz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭DazMarz


    Mississippi Burning is a great film.


  • #84
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    DazMarz wrote: »
    Mississippi Burning is a great film.

    Great performance by Gene Hackman.


  • #85
    DazMarz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭DazMarz


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Great performance by Gene Hackman.

    For sure...

    "Make no mistake about it, Deputy; I'll cut your fúckin' head clean off and not give a shít how it reads on the report sheet!"

    "Now you listen to me, you backwoods, shít-ass, you... You got about 10 seconds to get the sheriff out here or else I'm gonna kick the goddamn door in, ok?"

    "Did ya smile, Pell?! Did ya SMILE?!"

    Pure class.


  • #86
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Pug160 wrote: »
    That's still being debated actually.
    NOt really P. It's become pretty clear we're all a mishmash of different genetic populations that makes up the modern human.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Just wondering does anyone have any sort of definition of race?
    I suppose one could base it on broad populations. There are some distinct populations of humans around today, though the contact edges are broad and vague within that. For me, yes we're all humans, but we do have some unique sub groups within that and the more the merrier IMHO. While some hippies seem to love the idea that one day we'll all be one homogenous brown skinned, dark haired human entity, I personally dislike the idea. Variety is what made us who we are. We need the gingers, we need the near blue black skin, we need the various eye colours and I would hope that variety will keep existing.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #87
    old_aussie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,409 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

    A fascinating organisation to study, especially their foundation after the civil war, and the fact that the group was hijacked by filthy racists in the 20th century.

    What's their personal hygene got to do with it?


  • #88
    Stavros Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Stavros Murphy


    old_aussie wrote: »
    What's their personal hygene got to do with it?

    How do you spot a KKK member? He's always the local sheet-head.

    I despise them myself tbh, their contribution to history and mankind is nothing but hatred, misery and pain. Funnily enough, most are thicker than shyte too and oblivious to any higher emotions beyond clan, hatred and an undeserved sense of superiority based on nothing more than the fact they have white parents. If they had half a brain, they'd be embarrassed themselves.


  • #89
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    American History X has just finished on Sky Atlantic. Appropriate movie for this thread!


  • #90
    Grand Moff Tarkin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Grand Moff Tarkin


    Vermin on two legs.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Pug160
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Pug160


    Steddy Eddy and Wibbs, you guys have probably read this, but I'm going to copy and paste it for other people to read. It's an excerpt from The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins.

    The African, who was the only black person there – and he really was black, unlike many “African-Americans” – happened to be wearing a red tie. He finished his self-introduction by laughingly saying, “You can easily remember me. I am the one with the red tie.” He was genially mocking the way people bend over backwards to pretend not to notice racial differences. I think there was a Monty Python sketch along the same lines. Nevertheless, we can’t write off the genetic evidence which suggests, all appearances to the contrary, we are an usually uniform species. What is the resolution to the apparent conflict between appearance and measured reality?

    It is genuinely true that, if you measure the total variation in the human species and then partition it into a between-race component and a within-race component, the between-race component is a very small fraction of the total. Most of the variation among humans can be found within races as well as between them. Only a small admixture of extra variation distinguishes races from each other. That is all correct. What is not correct is the inference that race is therefore a meaningless concept. This point has been clearly made by the distinguished Cambridge geneticist A.W.F. Edwards in a recent paper “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy.” R.C. Lewontin is an equally distinguished Cambridge (Mass.) geneticist, known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possibile opportunity. Lewontin’s view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. He wrote, in a famous paper of 1972:

    It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals

    This is, of course, exactly the point I accepted above, not surprisingly since what I wrote was largely based on Lewontin. But see how Lewontin goes on:

    Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxnomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.

    We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes on forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of “virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” This is Edwards’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.


Advertisement
Advertisement