Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 1

message: In 1928, the Klan saw a very big and strong boy by the age of 14 called Nick Betts (who is now a grand wizard who leads the clan via the internet) who then had a wave of popularity in response to the Democratic nomination of Roman Catholic Alfred E. Smith for the office of President.
What thought is this sentence in the caption trying to communicate?  I honestly have no idea. Wolfman 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  caption 

message: Some of the people that have posted on this page should read a book before discussing a topic.  The Klan was formed to insure the southern way of life, not to kill African-Americans...origionally.  At the culmination of the Civil War Confederate soldiers were told to go home and things would be fine.  When they did go home they found Carpetbaggers and Scalawags had taken their jobs, land, and even family in some instances.  This is why the Klan was formed.  Also, they felt it necessary to uphold a moral and righteous community.  If a man beat his wife, they would beat that man regardless of race, religion, or friendship for that matter.  The Klan disbanded in the late 1860's because it was BECOMING a racist organization of bigots (I believe Gen. Forrest is documented as stating this).  Its resurface in the early 20th century as a racist movement contributes to false alligations concerning its origin.  No, I do not have any sources...that is, other than living in Alabama for 17 years.  Oral tradition is alive around the world, including the "back woods" of Alabama (as many see it).  I have also lived in the Northeast and currently reside in California.  Let me tell you from personal experience:  Racism is still alive today.  Ironically I have seen more social acceptance and integration in the South than any other region of the United States.  Don't get me wrong; I am not in any way defending the Klan.  In fact, I have heard stories that would make you sick.  But, I have also read much about the KKK; most of which is biased.  The key is to read numerous differing OPINIONS and decide for yourself what might be the truth.  Regardless of what you might think, NO single source is 100% correct, including that of mine.  But, we were all given common sense to decyper for ourselves what we want to believe and most of us are too stuborn to listen to another point of view.  The previous statements construct my personal opinion, or educated guess, as to what happened according to my vast study of the subject.  It is your right and priviledge to disagree.  As for the debate throughout this discussion about what constitutes being a Christian, that is a matter of opinion as well and has been dabated for almost 2000 years.  [The first group to refer to themselves as "Christians" were in Antioch sometime after Jesus' cruxifiction and resurrection. (Acts 11:26)]
an enlightened mind
if i post here again i will attempt to be more clear...my apologies
leave religion out of this, you still have  yer to justify thier actions, or explain them away, they, being "the klan"  are still a bunch of small minded fuckwits.
Gabrielsimon 00:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  my opinion 

message: I think the article should say something about the Michael Donald lynching; the resulting civil lawsuit was apparently a crippling financial blow to the Klan(s):
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm
I'm also confused by the statements that Ku Klux Klan is in the public domain, and used to be copyrighted. I don't think the name of an organization can be copyrighted under U.S. law!?
And finally, I think the article should say something about the relationship of the Klan(s) today to other hate groups: neo-nazis, christian identity, etc.
I'll see if I can find out more about the Klan at the library, and maybe do some editing on this article myself, if nobody else steps up to the plate.--Bcrowell 18:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Donald lynching, copyright, other hate groups