Talk:Ku Klux Klan

Name

Okay... so what does "Ku Klux" even mean? Where does the whole 'k' thing come from? Also, can anyone include a section on thier appearance in popular culture? I'm quite interested in secret societies (of all kinds) but I think this article has missed out some of the more "light reading" sections that most wikipedia articles have. There's a list of KKK jargon (all words begining with K) yet again, not explanation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.4.118 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The origin of the name is covered in Ku_Klux_Klan#Creation. As for appearances in popular culture, such references are generally trivial and not included unless they are discussed as such in independent reliable sources. Why? Several reasons: Imagine the length of such a section in God. Next is the "recentism" problem: references from the last 15-30 years would outnumber older references. This would NOT be because more recent examples are more notable or numerous, but because more editors know them. Then there's the matter of interpretation: was that white robe in whatever movie meant to evoke the KKK or was it just a robe (which plugs into verifiability as well). - SummerPhD (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A recent edit has removed the following cited statement:

“ The origin of the group's name became the subject of speculation by the media and opponents in their early years, with theories ranging from Mexican mythology to one popularly held idea—still circulated—that the words "ku" and "klux" were onomatopoetic words for the sounds of loading and locking a bolt-action rifle. ”

The ideas as to the origin of the name may have been completely incorrect, but it seems that if this is/was a prevalent misunderstanding, the fact that it was so misunderstood should be noted, at the very least. This assumes that the source is reliable and the information correct, of course. Any opinions on this? WDavis1911 (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

the KKK was a secret group and there were LOTS of rumors about it. People speculated without any information about the name and other K-codewords. We do not know what speculations were most prominent, but it's hard to see why uninformed speculation about the name is important enough to crowd out solid info. Rjensen (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would not know that there were lots of rumors about it, or their range, had it not been for that note in the article. I understand now, a little more, about the effect such mystique might have had on the populace. I think this is useful information. I'm not saying that we should support mass speculation, but rather report the fact that there was mass speculation. We have a source for this, and it is useful information. WDavis1911 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Right Wing versus Left Wing

User:ChristTrekker is making an attempt to label the KKK as a left wing organization. His/her rationale, based on the edit summarries is, "KKK is more left than right, considering that Republicans were often their targets and the GOP platform routinely denounced racism while the Democrat platform did not" and "Republicans (the right) condemned slavery, and were often victims of the KKK. Democrats (the left) did not and were not." Of course, this ignores the historical reality that the Democratic Party for most of its hstory, especially in the South was to the right of the Republican Party, especially with respect to the issues of slavery and civil rights.

No source labelling the KKK as left wing has been provided. The source cited by CT ([1]) does not classify either party as left wing or right wing and does not mention the KKK at all. CT's conclusions are not just original research -- they are bad original research. In any event, since two editors have reverted CT, the case should be made on these discussion boards before attempting to add the claim yet again. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, such attempts at labeling the KKK with terms that did not exist at the time, and ignoring what the major national political parties stood for then, is inappropriate, anachronistic, and inaccurate.Parkwells (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

CT has now added the material a third time with the following edit summary, "rv unsourced assertion that 'the Democrats were the right wing party with respect to racial issues'" - citation given here refutes that very claim." In fact, there are already three sources cited in the very first sentence of the article supporting the classification of the KKK as right wing. A fourth source, "The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics' by Rory McVeigh could also be added. CT should discuss rather than edit war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put a notice on his talk page.[2] We cannot say that the KKK is left-wing unless we have a source that indicates that that is the consensus opinion. TFD (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

quite right. The first KKK operated at a time when Karl Marx was active, and calling for the destruction of capitalism. That defines "left wing" for the 1860s and the KKK does not fit, to say the least. On the other hand the Republican attacked by the KKK called themselves "radicals" see Radical Republican. That is, the KKK was anti-radical in the language of the 1860s.Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can see about creating a FAQ to refer people to, Like the one over at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy, So we dont have to have these discussions? WE get this about twice a month especially over the whole Democrat-Republican ideological shift over the 150 years. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Using language 150 years out of date, that has completely reversed in meaning since then, in the summary infobox where it will be read by people who are more than likely going to take it in the modern (not historical) context, is academically dishonest. If the "wing" appellation is not removed completely for being anachronistic (see my earlier comment), then it should at the very least carry some clarification. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If "attempts at labeling the KKK with terms that did not exist at the time" is anachronistic, then I call for removing the "wing" label completely! That would be fine, and completely address the problems I see with the current article. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The KKK still exists, and it is clearly on the right. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OR? Maybe (debatable, I'd say it's putting two and two together to restate the same facts as "four", and if you're calling that kind of thing OR then WP ought to contain nothing but direct quotes instead of paraphrasing the sources), but certainly not bad.

The sources I gave clearly show the Republican Party (right) denouncing racism while the Democratic Party (left) did not. The historical record is clear that Republicans suffered attacks from the KKK, as is mentioned in the article already. The article also already mentions the Klan being made of up Democrats. It makes no sense that the right wing is going to attack the right wing. The Democrats are the left. If the Klan has a "wing" it is definitely the left. To say otherwise, whether you claim that the definitions have flip-flopped over the past century or whatever, provides a summary that is going to be misunderstood by the modern reader. That's dishonest, and a disservice to readers. It smacks of libel against the modern political right. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources you gave (Wallbuilders) are unreliable and partisan. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You would need a source that calls the Klan left-wing. Even if your synthesis klan=Democrat=left were accepted, you would still need a source showing that Southern Democrats in the 19th century were left-wing. Next time you see a guy wearing a Confederate flag baseball cap tell him that you think he is a leftist and tell us what he says. TFD (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Republican party = right in 1860s? well no, the ones under KKK attack called themselves "Radicals". (The Dems in the South called themselves "conservatives" -- positions on race have reversed in last 140 years so don't use 2010 model for 1870 groups.Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is well known fact "KKK" has backed both Parties (D) and (R) the SPLC list KKK as far right hate group however - The latest endorsement from KKK - http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?a=1227&c=117 --Kimmy (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your source is a joke. Literally. The KKK did not endorse Obama any more than Kelly Osbourne ate a whole pig in less than an hour[3] or Lady Gaga had a leg amputated as a fashion statement[4]. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

SummerPhD , Same thing could be said about - Stephen Colbert To Testify Before Congress On Immigration - - still Remains a Fact , KKK has endorsed both parties - --Kimmy (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the same! ...Except, of course that Colbert did testify while the KKK did not endorse Obama. So, no, not the same. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

SummerPhD , It is a shame "Congress" did not come to Wiki and learn about , RS . However - speaking in General Through out history, KKK (it is well known Fact ) endorsed both parties , Depending on who fell for their Tattics .--Kimmy (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity

My attention was drawn to this page by edits at Christian terrorism, and I see that references to Christianity have just been deleted from this page [5]. I'm not an expert, but I find this surprising (not that I consider the KKK to be anywhere near mainstream Christianity, of course, but there is the obvious use of crosses). I want to point this out, and see whether this would need some further discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found 8 References to protestantism in here and their conflict with the catholics. I think that works nicely... do you think it needs more? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not me, of course not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Being a Christian and being a terrorist does not make one a "Christian terrorist", and more than a Mexican who joins the U.S. army may be considered a Mexican soldier. You need a source. TFD (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean in the diff you just provided, I might agree with that removal as the source did not say so. However It's a grey area to me, as they were christians who committed acts of Terrorism its debatable its inclusion because it's not quite strictly religious motivation unlike Christian blowing up Abortion Clinics, Christian Patriot movement, or the Christian Identity movement. I think what you indicated is a Valid concern that is worth discussing.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be a matter of finding the right sources, but it would seem to me that the sources would have to indicate that their violent actions were related to their religious beliefs. Such sources may well be out there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The first KKK had very little connection to religion (and was not anti-Catholic or anti-Jewish). The 2nd KKK in 1920s did proclaim a religious connection to Protestantism, and was hostile to Catholics and Jews, but was not accused of terrorism against them, (indeed it was much more likely to attack black Baptists).Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, then, the second KKK explicitly cited religious motivations for acts of terrorism against blacks. Terrorism does not have to be logical, nor does it have to be directed towards other groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

the second KKK (1920s) was NOT hostile to blacks on religious grounds. They mostly shared the same Baptist (& Methodist) religions. Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They used burning crosses to symbolize that hostility. Did they cite religious justifications for that hostility, regardless of the illogical nature of those justifications? I persist in asking, because you seem to be arguing, at least in part, that they were not religious terrorists because their positions do not make sense when those religious tenets are applied rationally. And, as I said, religious terrorists can direct that terrorism at co-religionists, not just at those outside the religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They self-identified as white, native-born American (no Canadians allowed) and protestant. Their goal was to protect their position in society against what they saw as less valuable people within and outside the U.S. including socialists, trade unionists, drinkers, Catholics, Jews and African Americans. Religion was not a major part of their motivation although protestantism was part of their identity. TFD (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What I hear in your comment is that being Protestant was part of their self-described identity, and they considered Catholics and Jews, among others, as being less valuable. Editors here may, at this point, just be talking past one another. I'll look for sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking, but for what it's worth: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

outdent. The KKK was a purification movement against corruption in politics (eg violation of prohibition) & felt that some groups threatened American values, especially Catholics (becaue of their wet politics and control of big city machines) and blacks (issues going back to Reconstruction) & perhaps Jews. Their main motivation was political not religious. For example, they ministers rarely/never held major positions. As for violence or terrorism, the main target in the South = blacks, and they shared the same religion (most KKK and most blacks were Baptists, some were Methodists) so they were not hostile in any way to black religion. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note what I already said: it's not a question of whether they were hostile to black religion. It's a question of whether they were hostile to blacks and others and expressed what they thought were religious justifications for that hostility. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

they always expressed their views in political terms, not religious ones. They said Catholics were a threat because they were controlled by priests and bishops who were controlled by Rome, which they believed was unamerican. They said corrupt politicians controlled the blacks. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd really prefer to look for sources instead of have editors arguing our personal opinions. But, on face value, it strikes me as hard to define the line between political and religion-motivated, when the example is the assertion that Catholics are bad because their allegiance is supposedly to Catholicism. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You may read the literature about them: Lipset, Wilcox, Diamond, Berlet. They all categorize them as radical right/right-wing extremist/right-wing. TFD (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The KKK argued that the Pope would tell the president what to do--foreign control of the president was unamerican. John Kennedy running for president in 1960 explicitly denied he would obey the pope. If you look at the KKK cartoons you will see the emphasis on the Pope-in-control of AmericaRjensen (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's more of the same. Kennedy's successful navigation of the situation was widely credited as a blow against religious bigotry, not merely as a fix to a political issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Radical Muslims flew into Buildings on 911 , does this make all Muslims part of Terror group ? I say no - Any more than KKK claiming they are Christians - This is a tool used to appeal to more people - KKK also studies Hitler - It is well known Fact , Hitler sought "Appeasement" from Christians , Muslims and Buddhist. Like Hitler the KKK just lies in what they follow( only thing constant, HATE) - Hitler told , Christians they were the chosen , Hitler told Muslims they were the chosen , Hitler told Buddhist they were the chosen !--Kimmy 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

The Grand Wizard's no more Chiristian than your Freemason Lodge.

Pike: creation of the KKK -

The leading pro-KKK historian, Walter L. Fleming, disclosed and praised the kingpin role that Pike had played in the Klan's terror spree against U.S. law.[5] (An academic darling of the eastern elite, Fleming was considered the pre-eminent historian of Southern Reconstruction.)

Pike was the KKK's "chief judicial officer," Fleming wrote; Pike thus ruled officially over the Klan's internal disciplinary or counterintelligence department. In the KKK birth-state of Tennessee, Pike was the president of the Bar Association and publisher of the main racist newspaper.

But it was as "Sovereign Grand Commander" of the Scottish Rite, the recognized boss of the southern white freemasonic order, that Pike exercised the great clandestine power that welded the KKK together. Fleming cites Pike's masonic colleagues and Klan co-founders as the main sources for his KKK history. Pike's successor as Scottish Rite masonic Grand Commander, Congressman James Richardson, introduced the 1898 House resolution authorizing the Pike statue; Richardson had been Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives in the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan power in that state.

A Massachusetts tory, Pike went south to incite whites against the Union; he helped lead the Knights of the Golden Circle, which made armed, filibuster attacks against Mexico and Cuba, and organized the Southern secession. As a Confederate general during the Civil War, Pike was in charge of enticing American Indians to war on the United States; his atrocities and war crimes led to his arrest by the embarrassed Confederates, and an 1865 indictment by the United States for treason. Pike fled to Canada, remaining there under the protection of his sponsors until the heat was off.[6]

When Pike returned to the South, the old Knights of the Golden Circle logo was transmuted into the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan--the title taken from the Greek kuklos, or circle. Pike's Arkansas indictment for war crimes against American soldiers was swept aside by the power of Pike's own clandestine terrorist movement over the Southern justice system. Well known in European occult circles for his satanic writings, a sybarite of massive girth, Pike died in 1891. (Anton Chaitkin, March 20, 1998 issue of Executive Intelligence Review)

The Freemasons were founded by the pope's Knights Templar. The Templars use the cross on their shields. And it seems the KKK burned crosses to frighten the Blacks from anything Christian, or have them run to the Catholic Church for help. Involved in US immigration, numbers are power to the Pope. He does not want the Blacks becoming Protestant.72.161.220.32 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.114.105 (talk)

Albert Pike Freemasonry and the KKK

Freemasonry is very important to understanding the Knights of the KKK. There certainly should be an inclusion in the article about Secret societies and Freemasonry.

Pike: creation of the KKK -

The leading pro-KKK historian, Walter L. Fleming, disclosed and praised the kingpin role that Pike had played in the Klan's terror spree against U.S. law.[5] (An academic darling of the eastern elite, Fleming was considered the pre-eminent historian of Southern Reconstruction.)

Pike was the KKK's "chief judicial officer," Fleming wrote; Pike thus ruled officially over the Klan's internal disciplinary or counterintelligence department. In the KKK birth-state of Tennessee, Pike was the president of the Bar Association and publisher of the main racist newspaper.

But it was as "Sovereign Grand Commander" of the Scottish Rite, the recognized boss of the southern white freemasonic order, that Pike exercised the great clandestine power that welded the KKK together. Fleming cites Pike's masonic colleagues and Klan co-founders as the main sources for his KKK history. Pike's successor as Scottish Rite masonic Grand Commander, Congressman James Richardson, introduced the 1898 House resolution authorizing the Pike statue; Richardson had been Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives in the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan power in that state.

A Massachusetts tory, Pike went south to incite whites against the Union; he helped lead the Knights of the Golden Circle, which made armed, filibuster attacks against Mexico and Cuba, and organized the Southern secession. As a Confederate general during the Civil War, Pike was in charge of enticing American Indians to war on the United States; his atrocities and war crimes led to his arrest by the embarrassed Confederates, and an 1865 indictment by the United States for treason. Pike fled to Canada, remaining there under the protection of his sponsors until the heat was off.[6]

When Pike returned to the South, the old Knights of the Golden Circle logo was transmuted into the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan--the title taken from the Greek kuklos, or circle. Pike's Arkansas indictment for war crimes against American soldiers was swept aside by the power of Pike's own clandestine terrorist movement over the Southern justice system. Well known in European occult circles for his satanic writings, a sybarite of massive girth, Pike died in 1891. (Anton Chaitkin, March 20, 1998 issue of Executive Intelligence Review)

The Freemasons were founded by the pope's Knights Templar. The Templars use the cross on their shields. And it seems the KKK burned crosses to frighten the Blacks from anything Christian, or have them run to the Catholic Church for help. Involved in US immigration, numbers are power to the Pope. He does not want the Blacks becoming Protestant. 207.119.114.105 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

let's have some exact quotes from Fleming, please. --the "Executive Intelligence Review" is a notorious Lyndon Larouche conspiracy rag with a bad reputation. For example it argues that Queen Elizabeth II was the head of an international drug-smuggling cartel, and that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was the first strike in a British attempt to take over the United States. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it'd be worth the research. 207.119.114.105 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Second Klan

The ending of the first paragraph states this "The first and third KKK had well-established records of using terrorism, but historians debate how central that tactic was to the second KKK." Yet this page clearly shows that the second Klan did indeed engage in terrorism a lot, so that sentence does not seem NPOV to me. It's clear that in every single iteration of the Klan it has been a terrorist organization. Can this sentence be removed? 76.105.6.113 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In the 1920s the Klan had millions of members, most of whom were law-abiding, even respectable people. However many Klansmen were involved in terrorist activity which led to these members leaving. TFD (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that historians debate how widely the tactic was supported by the membership, as opposed to how central the tactic was. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.180.173.157, 26 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please return white nationalism to the "Political ideology" section in the taxbox. There's a gap. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done -Atmoz (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor change with the "Right-wing" issue

I don't mind if we include "far-right" in its infobox, but I believe that we should remove the term from the opening statement, it sounds very biased (in its current context) and gives people the wrong idea of what the term means. I suggest that we just leave it as saying that its a white nationalist group. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see also #Right Wing versus Left Wing, just above. I assume you mean that it reflects badly on the political right, not that it reflects badly on the KKK, but it seems to me that "far" separates it adequately. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand this, but it seems like not everyone will understand the separation, and could exploit either side by referencing this article as a source. I just don't want people to have the wrong idea about what the KKK is/was, and it seems that having Far right a bit further down in the opening might be more acceptable. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is the term used in the literature. TFD (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What literature do you mean by? - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean peer-reviewed articles books written by social scientists and published in the academic press. See for example the Google book hits for "far right".[7] Or read this description of how the terms are used by scholars. TFD (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. Our burden is verifiability as opposed to truth, and scholarly sources trump any concerns about making people feel bad, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)