Talk:Ku Klux Klan

Template:V0.5

History in the States

I am sure the people writing here know more of the subject than I. However I was trying to write a section in the Ohio history article about the KKK and was wondering if anyone had any links I could use. It was removed because they said at first is was nothing more than trivia. So is there anyone who could like to help me write a small section? I was thinking that all states that had historical klan membership should be linked to this article. --Margrave1206 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you David Chalmers' book Hooded Americanism, he describes the second Klan state by state. - Darwinek (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth T. Jackson's Ku Klux Klan in the Cities is also a valuable resource. He goes beyond cities but also notes data about how urban the Second Klan was.--Parkwells (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote #2 in the article proper is incorrect. Membership in the original Klan was not restricted in the same manner as its second incarnation. Whether due to ignorance or convenience-of-argument, the method and motive of the two organizations are blurred in the text cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tttecumseh (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Far-right

• So how are they considered far right when they stand in opposition to everything the far right stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.131.27 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't. They stand in favor of everything the far right stands for. Yahel Guhan 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC

But under "political influence" is specifically says that political klansmen were in favor of many "progessive" causes. I'm removing the Far-right designation until a consensus can be reached - or not, it's locked. 71.232.60.16 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The far-right designation is ridiculous when the organization was so closely tied to Southern Democrats. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Southern Democrats of the late 1800's were "far right" especially when they were opposed to just about anything that would be considered progressive. The modern right/left description of our current political parties probably didn't enter common usage until the 1960's, give or take. The KKK is far right by any definition. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article makes it clear that "far right" is being used in modern terms, and it would certainly be wrong if that were the intention. About the only things the Southern Democrats of the late 1800s had in common with the modern right are that they abhorred protective tariffs and rejected mercantilism, but they also differed from the modern Klan on those issues. The modern progressive movement grew out of the populist politics of the agrarian part of the nation, which also followed those who left the farms for factory work. They stood against the monied interests of capitalists in the northeast. Thus these Democrats did come to stand for many progressive issues, such as opposition to child labor, support for labor unions, agricultural parity, income taxes, and also for institutional opposition to those who competed against these factions.

The Klan has almost nothing in common with the modern political right, which stands for global free trade, laissez faire economics, religious freedom, and educational choice. An extreme right-winger, in modern terms, is not a racist, but an extreme advocate of global democracy and free markets to the point of opposing even the most popular social supports and business regulations and even of favoring military intervention (by a volunteer army) in support of foreign democracies and foreign markets. By failing to define the term "far right" in appropriate anachronistic terms, the designation cannot meaningfully serve to describe the KKK, but instead makes the implicit claim that the extreme support for free markets characteristic of the modern far right is inherently racist. On political issues, the modern Klan stands with the left on more currently disputed issues than it stands with the far right--e.g. on the war in Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the outsourcing of jobs. But the defining issue of the Klan is its devotion to racial and ethnic isolationism, and on that issue the modern Ku Klux Klan is a fringe group of a small fraction of one percent of the population, and to apply any mainstream political label, left or right, is nothing more than propaganda, as nearly everyone on the left and right, even at the extremes, rejects their position. Mazzula (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're killing me.

"An extreme right-winger, in modern terms, is not a racist, but an extreme advocate of global democracy and free markets to the point of opposing even the most popular social supports and business regulations and even of favoring military intervention (by a volunteer army) in support of foreign democracies and foreign markets."

Foreign markets, yes, foreign democracies, emphatically not. The American Right (proper, not even the far right) has repeatedly used force in support of keeping foreign markets open to them, but AGAINST the will of the local people and the establishment of "foreign democracy". See the coups in Guatemala and Iran (Eisenhower) and Chile (Nixon), Reagan's support for the Contras (formed from former thugs of the Somoza regime), and Bush's support for the attempted military coup against Chavez in 2002. For the past hundred years the Republican Party has been consistently in favor of freer international trade, but at the expense of democracy and human rights. Some Democratic Presidents have done this also, but attempts to end the practice have always come from the political left, never the right.

Back to the Klan; Since the KKK has never really cared about economics, the words "Right" and "Far Right" are being used here in terms of social policy. In which case the KKK agrees with the present day "Far Right" on two key issues; immigration and fundamentalism. They believe in closed borders, particularly with regards to Latin America, and they believe in the exclusive rightness of conservative Protestantism, (rejection of Catholics, liberal Protestants and other churches, rejection of social liberalism in the form of gay rights or pro-choice politics).

As for their third defining issue, racism, okay, that's a fringe movement that doesn't apply to most right-wingers or even far-right-wingers anymore, but it is nevertheless a right-wing political orientation. And remember, the Klan has always gotten its maximum amount of support while emphasizing nativism and religious fundamentalism, not racism.213.181.226.21 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The only reason we supported those movements that were against Democracy was for our own survival. I'm not sure what the Guatemala mess was about, but the attempt to return the Shah back to power was to restore Iran to a constitutional monarchy, which, considering the relatively weak power of the monarchs in such a system, is somewhat democratic. Furthermore, Reagan opposed the USSR, which was a dictatorship. And why would they reject gay rights or pro-choice politics for all races? If they promoted such homosexuality and abortion among blacks, wouldn't that help them get their goals?--69.234.207.19 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not. Abortion and homosexuality have been available for blacks for decades and contrary to the Planned Parenthood-bashing conspiracy theorists' beliefs, they're nowhere near aborting themselves into extermination. Why is the KKK against gay rights? I don't know, I don't know why anyone is, but the fact is that they are, as were their colleagues in Germany. 147.9.230.146 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A constitutional monarchy? Please. The Shah was a dictator. Not saying that the theocracy (albeit with a president who does have a certain amount of power, subject to the Ayatollah's will) is better, but it's dishonest to suggest that the Islamic Revolution wasn't a popular movement. Reagan opposed the USSR, a [B]communist[/B] country. Likewise he supported the Contras, an [B]anti-communist[/B] group. It wasn't about democracy, it was about anti-communism. Furthermore, even if it's "irrational" to oppose choice and gay rights, that doesn't change the fact that the KKK is an anti-progressive group and does oppose such issues. Tiger Khan (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As the above poster said, the Shah was a psychotic dictator, one who managed to unite not only the conservative Iranian clergy but also the peasants, the merchant class and every political movement that didn't bend its knee to the Shah, like nationalists and Marxists, against him. The "Guatemala mess" as you said was something similar, as was the later coup against Pinochet. In all three cases, the national leader we overthrew was a democratically elected leftist and in all three cases he was replaced by a dictatorship of the worst kind.

"Furthermore, Reagan opposed the USSR, which was a dictatorship."

The essence of Republican foreign policy has never been "democracy versus dictatorship", but "left versus right". The one thing that hasn't changed in the GOP during the last hundred years; they're now as then the party of big business, and it's in the interests of American big business to maintain good relations with right-wing (read: open market) regimes, and to undermine left-wing governments. If said governments are dictatorial (USSR, China, Cuba, North Vietnam), so much the better. But democratic ones (Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile) are just as fair game.

Consider the two parties' foreign policy in the thirties as opposed to the fifties. The Democratic administrations of Roosevelt and Truman were consistent throughout - during the thirties, "all means short of war" mobilization and economic support for the French and British against Nazi Germany, during the post-war forties and early fifties, "containment" with the installment of NATO and the Marshall plan to help defend western Europe against the Soviet Union. The Democrats have always opposed the threat of foreign dictators regardless of their politics (Clinton going after Milosevic despite his leftism would be another example).

The Republicans, by contrast, went from being fanatically isolationist in the face of the Nazi threat during the thirties, to being fanatically interventionist in the face of the Soviets during the fifties. Partly that's because the world and America's place in it had changed - but it's also because the Nazis, for all their faults, were a government that the American business sector could and had made a ton of money trading with, which wasn't the case with the Soviets. The same policy continued during the Cold War and since George Bush's reelection; see the support he gave to the attempted military coup against Hugo Chavez, who may well be a clown but is a democratically elected one, whose political system has checked his power before (a popular referendum defeated his attempt to name himself president for life) and will do so again. 147.9.177.90 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're taking up TalkPage space for stuff that is way off topic - please get back to improving the article on the KKK, per Wikipedia policy.--Parkwells (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that far-right is reasonably accurate. I have previously raised the argument that the KKK is a fascist organization which I still believe is a pertinent, and accurate point. The discussion at that link may have some relevant information as well. ._-zro ^t_c 08:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I would hesitate to characterize the KKK as fascist (though certainly they are far-right), simply because fascism is a totalitarian ideology that advocates state control of - well, pretty much everything. (Private property is "a right and a duty," as Mussolini once said, which is one of the few differences with communism - but the State still reserves the right to nationalize the property of anyone when it's convenient).

The KKK, however, is not that. They don't want the government to be all powerful; on the contrary, they want the government to be weak and toothless, to the point that the FBI and courts will be unable to stop them, and they can become the law in the government's stead. I'd call the Klan's ideology extreme anarchism, not totalitarianism.

Granted that the results are largely the same - at least for Jews, Catholics, immigrants, women, and racial, sexual and political minorities - but they have a different way of getting there. A lot of people say that if you go far enough to the right and far enough to the left, you'll end up with the same thing (fascism and communism). It's also true of big government and small government. Government too big, it'll control everything. Government too small, someone else will - warlords, robber barons, or the KKK. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say women as much. White women hold as much power as white men in the modern KKK, the only thing is, they support traditional family roles. In fact, in most of the Aryan Nation and KKK rallies I've seen, or in the white power movement in general, the women members were far more rabid and prone to violence than the men. For an example, check out the History Channel documentary [i] Nazi America[/i]. Some of the clips they show are pretty wild. 74.61.78.14 (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New Image

Hey all. Took this picture at the Newseum in DC, and figured it might help out the article. Dunno where it should go, so feel free to stick it in the right place.  :) Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This picture is of a cartoon postcard sent by the FBI to Klan members in 1965-1966, as part of a domestic covert action program that disrupted Klan organizing between September 1964 and April 1971, called COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE (see www.geocities.com/drabbs/working papers for more such cartoons). There is an error on the Ku Klux Klan Wikipedia page regarding COINTELPRO: COINTELPRO operations against civil rights groups began much earlier than 1964 under the COINTELPRO-CPUSA and COINTELPRO-SWP programs, accelerating under the COINTELPRO-Black Nationalist Hate Group program (1967). 1964 was the COINTELPRO-White Hate launch date (see the Wikipedia entry on COINTELPRO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drabbs1 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Original aspects of the KKK

Its original purpose was to stop the pillage of foods and property, and to stop the rape and of women, daughters and slaves performed by the Union Army. Ref: A Brief History of the Ku Klux Klan, http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm

As this "international" site is predominantly operated by Americans, and like most people they do not want their skeletons aired in public, I sincerely doubt that the above correction will ever be applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.112.220 (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to keep our skeletons in the closet we wouldn't have articles about bill clinton or jimmy carter.

current numbers

The current numbers specify that the KKK has risen, shockingly, to 300,000. I can not find accurate sources on this, and would appreciate clarification.

sep 21/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazed Spy (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Where did you see that claim? The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks the Klan probably better than law enforcement does. If they saw an increase like that, they'd be losing their minds sending out alerts. I'm on their mailing list and haven't seen anything hinting at that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The claims are actually on this kkk page, scroll down to current numbers/year. 1980 has it at 5000, 2008 has it at 300,000. sep 22/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.221.202 (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• What Klan page? Do you have a link? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Resistance_and_Decline Right there. sep 23/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.221.202 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• That was vandlaism. I've corrected it to 3,000. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

bottom of page

I only have one question, having read this article- Below the templates, is a string of seemingly random text:

kouyovhbgxzchbdsjzhszbdjhsdgfysdhgfdsfhysbvfjdghrejvf rhgruygrerty4i7567845 yv487

Is there any particular reason for this? 74.69.245.119 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I never noticed it before. Got rid of it. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stucture of the Klan?

The page certainly presents an exhaustive history of the organization, but says little about how Klan groups are organized. Anyone out there have good sources and the inclination to talk more about that?Shuneke (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I can point you to the Kloran of the White Knights of Mississippi in the pdf. It contains rules and the process of inducting new members, as well as some local organization structure. - Darwinek (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)