…and the KKK have something to say too
JC
No surprise I guess that the KKK would want to rally against immigration. It’s just that it still baffles my mind that the KKK exists and is active — but I am in my little NYC bubble (or so I think …there are actually quite a few hate groups here….but one never hears of them, which could be good or bad). The KKK used San Angelo, Bush’s hometown, as their platform for their protest against immigration. And anti-racist groups were there to protest the KKK.
The bulk of the protesters - and several of those arrested - were members of Anti-Racist Action groups from across the state. Many chanted slogans and screamed to drown out the Klan’s message, delivered largely by Thompson and San Angelo grand dragon Steven Edwards.”We’re not here against Hispanics or blacks,” Edwards told the jeering crowd. ”We’re here for Americans.”
The mostly black-clad Klan members called for a temporary closure of the U.S. border with Mexico and rejected the president’s guest-worker program, calling it blanket amnesty for lawbreakers. At one point, while referring to the porous Mexican border, Edwards mused that terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden ”is probably working at McDonald’s.”
Aerosolee wrote:
Where would America be without immigrants? Those “Americans” themselves are immigrants too. The KKK need to smarten up.
Posted 20 Jun 2006 at 11:02 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Aerosolee: why should they start now? No matter how they whitewash it (HAH!), they’re still a hate group, and one specializing in acts of domestic terrorism to boot.
My mother has always said that if there were any justice in the world, we’d (most of us) would be on the reservations.
The danger of the immigration debate, in general, is that many people are using a color line to typify illegal immigrants, they’re using national security as an excuse for racial profiling, and those with a vigilante streak are not going to ask for someone’s green card or birth certificate before kicking (or worse) the crap out of anyone.
Do we really want to be the type of nation where everyone must carry around an identity card out of fear of being stopped by the wrong people in the wrong neighborhood?
Posted 20 Jun 2006 at 12:19 pm ¶
Aerosolee wrote:
True. I guess there will never be any kind of ideology through out the masses (meaning 99.9%) that does not believe in a superior race. It’s like wishing for the impossible.
Posted 20 Jun 2006 at 1:14 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
The repackaging of the Klan is killing me!!!
Could you see these people in a Madison Ave. boardroom?!!
“A kinder, broader more-inclusive Klan”
This reminds me of BPs commercials.
If Dubya could for a minute pretend that he has a modicum of decency, he’d tell them to get out of his town (in typical Mission Accomplished fashion). But Alas…with his numbers he can’t afford to alienate any part of his base.
Posted 20 Jun 2006 at 2:24 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
“Where would America be without immigrants? Those “Americans” themselves are immigrants too. The KKK need to smarten up.”
Actutally, many of those “Americans” are just as clueless as the KKK in this regard.
Posted 20 Jun 2006 at 3:22 pm ¶
Bohwe wrote:
Ok, I have a problem when people say that Immigrants build this contury. Ok, let’s be realistic. This contury would not have survived or lasted if it wasn’t for the forced labor of black slaves. This includes African idigenous population known as black Indians. As well as the Chinese who worked the railroads. Black slaves were doing the cropping of tabacco and other prodcuts that kept this contury afloat. So, immigration did help this contury but without slaves,this contury wouldn’t be where it is today. That is why slavery was such a big issue and why many Northerners and Southerners wanted to keep slavery, because without this labor , the contury was in jeopardy.
Posted 20 Jun 2006 at 8:11 pm ¶
lyonside wrote:
Bohwe:
Noone is saying that slaves were irrelevant. However, there were a lot more immigrants in the past than Chinese. Acknowleging the hundreds of other nations whose people came here (mostly by choice, but some by indenture) does not mean putting down blacks forced into or born into chattel slavery - it;s not an either/or choice.
What “indigenous population?” What do you mean by “black Indians?” Yes, some archaeologists have theorized that there was trading and other limited contact with various African sailing cultures on the Atlantic coast (South America, I believe) before the European-contact-era contact, but not in the sense of changing the population makeup of the North and South American indigenous populations. There are similar theories for suspected Asian and Polynesian influences pre-European-contact from the Pacific.
Posted 21 Jun 2006 at 12:12 am ¶
Francis wrote:
Well at least we ought to aknowledge that these racists are getting smarter…
Yes, however surreal, the above sentence included both the words “racist” and “smart”.
Instead of plainly saying “We gonna hang y’all ni99ers, jew5 l@tino5 and ch1nks! …and f@ggot5 too!“, they’ve moved to the subtler and much more euphemistic “We folks are just pro-white.“
Posted 21 Jun 2006 at 5:01 am ¶
lyonside wrote:
Francis: I agree - but then, there have always been the “smart” ones, people who have seriously had logical (if misinformed or twisted or otherwise lacking full information) justications for racism, for eugenics, for labor and death camps…
The scariest thing in the world to me is not the guy burning the church or firing the gun, but the person who writes the books that get sent nation-or-world wide to inspire countless others to do the same damn thing.
Posted 21 Jun 2006 at 5:29 am ¶
Meg wrote:
i think my feelings on this are similar to lyonside:
the racists that scare the hell out of me are the ones who are calm, well spoken and sound educated/reasonable. They claim to have ideas based on research/studies and that most people agree with them as a result they push the debate/public discourse way to the right and the line keeps getting pushed.
australia had pauline hanson (admittedly not well spoken) a politician who pushed everything to the right and now we’ve got a PM who can adopt racist policies but look reasonable and if you accuse someone of racism you have to prove a cross burning/white hood otherwise it’s put back on you and you’re just a crazy PC leftie.
there was also a professor at one of the better known universities who was spewing racist crap against sudanese refugees who’ve been settling in a certain area of sydney. spins the line, i’m not racist, this is based on research, people agree with me, etc. Luckily he seems to have shut up publicly but privately who knows - it was alleged at the time he had connections to a nationalist organisation so who knows who his audience is now……….
Posted 21 Jun 2006 at 6:46 am ¶
Francis wrote:
Last summer’s publication in Denmark of cartoons unfatteringly depicting the prophet Muhammad and the failure of the Danish government to stand up for the freedom of its press led to a diplomatic incident with the international Muslim community and the death of innocents.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, famous immigrant Dutch politician and critique of Islam, was stripped of her Dutch citizenship this year on the grounds that she had lied in order to get a refugee’s visa upon her arrival in the Netherlands in 1992. Some think she was kicked out because she was making to much waves with Islam in the Netherlands.
Most of the constitutions in European countries classify racist discourses as a punishable crime. In Germany, Austria and the U.K. it is a crime to bear a Nazi svastika, sing Nazi hymns, make the Nazi salute and er… basically endorsing anything related to the Nazis.
The Austrian government is particularly tough on revisionists, that is people who like to make complete fools of themselves by denying well-documented historical facts; like British historian David Irving, who got arrested some time this year and sentenced to three years in jail by even though he had previously make public apologies.
European countries don’t have in their constitutions anything such as the United States First Amendment for the rights of freedom of speech. On the old continent, racist discourses are considered as a punishable crime. But are these govenments being too invasive or being too loose in comparison to the United States?
Posted 21 Jun 2006 at 8:10 am ¶
Sabrina wrote:
Pretty bizarre, no doubt…and those so-called “smart” racist folks will use ANY sort of excuse or venue to push their trash. There’s even one group out there with a yahoo!group discussion group claiming to be a fan group for a very famous pop star and supposedly “celebrating” their whitness…trouble (for them) is that the guy is NOT a racist…in fact, for many years he’s been pretty outspoken against such things…so the joke is on them!
Posted 22 Jun 2006 at 7:49 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Francis: I think many of the EU nations are struggling with a host of issues, and they seem to be responding in mixed messages. You’re right in that there seems to be a lot of ad hoc decision-making, at least as it’s been reported in the States.
I’m honestly not sure where I stand on some of the recent events. The Denmark publications only caused a global issue when they were talked about in other nations (MONTHS after the first run), then reprinted in several places, then rioted over in various other places - the timing of all this is suspect. In some cases, governments used the people’s anger to diffuse other internal and external political tensions. I’m not sure how an EU regulation or law would have changed much about that. Other voices that questioned the assumptions of both the newspaper publishers and the rioters who claimed that ALL artistic representations of Mohammed were wrong (in some Islamic nations/cultures/sects, art depicting Mohammed IS allowed to exist as an object or remembrance) were hard to hear.
As far as WWII goes, Europe was the main theater for all of the war and the horrors that preceded it - each nation that was affected has had to deal with it in their own way. I personally think that blanket censorship only promotes conspiracy theories of Holocaust fraud and cover-ups. If every public statement supporting the Nazis or doubting the Holocaust or the ghettos or work camps were met with public outcry and the bitter factual TRUTH, maybe the statements would grow more ridiculous every time someone said them. The problem is that as those who lived through the 1930s and 1940s in Europe (and later pogroms in the Soviet bloc, and the Balkan genocides,etc.) no longer make up the majority of the population, it’s easier for those with ulterior motives to whitewash history. If the government itself censors discussion, then the job of the apologists and revisionists just gets easier.
Posted 22 Jun 2006 at 9:10 am ¶
Changeseeker wrote:
Bohwe and Lyonside: Ivan Von Sertima’s “They Came Before Columbus,” pretty well laid to rest the idea that European’s were the first to come to the Western Hemisphere after the indigenous peoples had settled it (long after they had settled it). But “Black Indians,” as I understand it, were not indigenous people. They were former slaves who had escaped and joined tribes (after all Africans and indigenous groups had a common enemy: “White” folks).
One particularly well known group of “Black Indians” were Black Seminoles who still exist as an integrated part of the tribe, as far as I know. The Seminoles caused the U.S. government great problems because they went into the Everglades in Florida and refused to do as they were told. When the government finally decided they couldn’t beat them, they offered to “let” them relocate to the Western U.S. as long as they left the Africans behind (as criminals). The Seminoles refused to leave anyone and fought the government another 13 years until they were “allowed” to let with everyone in the group. For more, see this.
Posted 22 Jun 2006 at 10:41 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Changeseeker:
Yes, that’s what I understand as well, but the contact was limited to specific areas, and as I said, didn’t really influence the overall genetic and cultural legacies of the indigenous peoples outside of the specific/anecdotal sphere of influence (also, in the seems to not have spread the population-decimating diseases of the post-Columbus era, which of course directly tied into genetic and cultural losses).
I’m also familiar with the integration of indigenous and Africans (slaves and free persons) in both N. and S. America - but I didn’t think that was where Bohwe was going, hence my comment questioning what was meant.
Thanks for the additional information!
Posted 22 Jun 2006 at 12:29 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Sorry, should read: “Also, in the positive column, there seems…”
Posted 22 Jun 2006 at 12:30 pm ¶
brad wrote:
I think the surprise people have about the Klan is naive; the Klan have been attacking immigrants historically: Irish, Italian, etc. They’re evil. But the reality is that there are lots of vile racists in business suits and formal dresses who teach in schools, run companies, sit as judges, or serve as president.
The focus on Latinos is about perceived race and the indigenous features of Latin Americans. There isn’t the same anger or hatred against European immigrants who are illegal.
Posted 22 Jun 2006 at 9:56 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Brad:
ITA. Another thought my mother raised me with was that she wished that all racists (white, black, Asian, whatever) would wear sheets. PLEASE wear the sheets - then we know who you are.
The subtlety of racism and bias is the scary part, as I’ve said before. The US has a very subtle culture and subculture, but the vast majority of the nation seems to not want to analyze it - out of discomfort or laziness, I haven’t decided…
Posted 23 Jun 2006 at 8:25 am ¶
marvin hammond wrote:
I beleive hate of any race is stupid,people need to grow up.And quit using excuses to hate any race of people.Let history of slavery be forgotten.
America should use it’s resources to bring all hate groups to justice.and
make it a crime to organize hate groups.All races pay taxes of some sort
in this country and should have the right to walk down the street with out
looking over there shoulder’s.With the price of fuel and the lack of jobs ,
who has the time to hate.I think hate groups are cowards hiding behind sheets scare to face reallity of ever changing America.That’s my $.02.
Posted 10 Jul 2006 at 10:32 am ¶
Steven Edwards wrote:
It still amazes me that my group can travel, and speak of love for our race, love for America, and for future generations of American’s yet unborn, and people will still call it “Hate”. Not one public word of hatred has come from either my mouth, or that of any member, and we are taking our message across Texas. If Blacks have org.s to promote their heritage, it is love for their own kind. Same with mexicans, Jews, etc. BUT GOD FORBID a white group do it, and it’s not just the Klan, because all white groups (what few there are) are attacked and called Haters. Where is the American Caucasian college fund? Could you imagine the hell that would be raised? Oh, but I forgot, we are all rich and our children don’t need help with college.
Anyhow, this sounds like a pretty liberal rag, and I didn’t intend to get into all this. I just wanted to point out that the article got the facts wrong. Our Klan Group is based in San Angelo. We rallied in Midland Texas, which is Bush’s home town. God Bless
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 2:17 am ¶