Wow, I thought this kind of thing was done away with years ago

[--Pete]

Hi,

First the comparisons you mention are not really valid.

Why? They are all examples of groups that used violence to gain some goal and only managed to generate more violence.

Second, I understand your point, but it is easy to make when you are white middle class in the 60's in the US. A country were an eye for an eye is more or less in the constitution (with the weapons and all) and I guess you can at least imagine that people that for years are treated like 2nd grade citizens, are victims of police brutality and lynch mobs after a few 100 years say to themselves.....I won't take this anymore.

I am, by nature, often a violent person. I completely understand the desire to lash out. But I don't sympathize with it, either in myself or in others. If the objective is revenge, then violence is the path. If the objective is equality and respect, then one Martin Luther King, Jr., is worth a million of Malcolm X.

The big problem of course being that the victims of such behavior are often inncocent people.

No, the big problem is that hate generates hate and violence escalates.

But as I said before, murder or terrrorism and freedom fighting can sometimes be difficult to distinguish. In teh case of the KKK it is not so difficult to make that distinction.

The KKK is a great example of my point. Established to fight the perceived injustices and excesses of reconstruction, it rapidly became a racially motivated organization. The hatred it generated are part of what fueled the racial violence of the civil rights movement. Perhaps, had Lincoln lived and been able to impose his moderate plan for reconstruction, racial relations in this country would be generations ahead of where they are now. But the hatred of the South by the North generated, by many steps and over many generations, the hatred of the race riots of the 60's.

Sometimes violence is needed. But as a great leader will say in the far future, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Unfortunately, that was a perfect example of the legal system working right and the justice system failing. By making trials a technical game instead of an attempt to arrive at an objective truth, we've opened the door to that type of nonsense. So, the better team won. Especially since the losing team played like a bunch of jackasses. I never saw the memo, but someone must have put out the word to the cops; "Don't worry about procedure, it's just a minor case. Be as sloppy as you like. O.J.'s legal aid attorneys will never know how to exploit your blunders."

Bah.

--Pete

Did you read "Outrage" by Belosi, the guy who put Manson away? He did a great job ripping the DA's office, and his read is as clear as yours.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Again, you are also totally besides the point. Farakhan, Wright etc. can simply not be compared to the KKK.

Your illusions aren't even amusing any more. The KKK have already been marginalized, by and large by their own means and nonsensical approach to a civil society,and by some folks with backbone who stood up to them.

The others are continually being empowered by more useful idiots -- people like yourself.

[Jester]

But the hatred of the South by the North generated, by many steps and over many generations, the hatred of the race riots of the 60's.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that, by a couple more steps and a couple more generations, that the race riots of the '60s were generated by slavery?

Also a question: was the KKK really not a racially motivated organization from day one? It would be rather remarkable to me if it wasn't - reconstruction was one thing, but the biggest single change in the post-Civil War south was the end of slavery, and the nominal end of legal white supremacy. Restoration of those "rights" would have been at the very top of their agenda, wouldn't it? I don't know much about the topic, so maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to see something that says otherwise.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that, by a couple more steps and a couple more generations, that the race riots of the '60s were generated by slavery?

-Jester

Only if you wear blinders. The race riots in Detroit, for example, WERE NOT ABOUT SLAVERY.

They were about standard inter-racial antipathy, one of the less brilliant traits of the human race as a social animal.

See also Japanese disdain for Round Eyes like me.

Occhi

[Jester]

Only if you wear blinders. The race riots in Detroit, for example, WERE NOT ABOUT SLAVERY.

I'm pretty sure I disagree, but it doesn't even really matter in this case. Pete said that they were about reconstruction, which is obviously not the proximate cause either. My comment was entirely in response to that - if we're going to tie things to centuries-old historical phenomena, slavery seems more important than reconstruction.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Did you read "Outrage" by Belosi, the guy who put Manson away? He did a great job ripping the DA's office, and his read is as clear as yours.

Nope, never read it. Tried to avoid all O.J. related items, but was sucked in to looking at the synopsis of the trial in an attempt to understand what had happened. The conclusions I came to, I came to on my own, although I freely admit that many others did too. Is Outrage worth the read?

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that, by a couple more steps and a couple more generations, that the race riots of the '60s were generated by slavery?

Yes and no. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the racial tensions that would develop where at most weak. However, the reconstruction plans which would strip almost all of the Southern men (and this was before woman's suffrage) of the vote, the influx of Northern 'carpet baggers', and the blatant purchasing of black votes led to strong feelings. In many cases, blacks who had fought for the Confederacy (and there were many) were not denied their citizenship while whites who claimed not to have fought (and how does one prove a negative?) were. Had the more forgiving plan of Lincoln been followed, perhaps the injustices would have been avoided and a less hostile relationship might have been generated between the races. But then, perhaps not.

Also a question: was the KKK really not a racially motivated organization from day one? It would be rather remarkable to me if it wasn't - reconstruction was one thing, but the biggest single change in the post-Civil War south was the end of slavery, and the nominal end of legal white supremacy. Restoration of those "rights" would have been at the very top of their agenda, wouldn't it? I don't know much about the topic, so maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to see something that says otherwise.

Not from day one, but probably from day two. It is a very complex subject and it is difficult to get to the truth. Most accounts available today are more politically than historically correct. However benign the start of the KKK might have been, it soon turned into an organization of evil and hatred and has so remained throughout its history.

--Pete

[Jester]

Had the more forgiving plan of Lincoln been followed, perhaps the injustices would have been avoided and a less hostile relationship might have been generated between the races. But then, perhaps not.

Well, I'm all for more forgiving, but the lingering effects of widespread human slavery don't just vanish with the morning breeze. Maybe Southern whites would have felt less resentful about having lost both the war and their social supremacy (not to mention nice jobs overseeing the slave economy), but the resentments by blacks (formerly Southern) doesn't strike me as so easily solved, given its roots.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . not to mention nice jobs overseeing the slave economy . . .

If slavery had been strictly along race lines, perhaps. But the situation was much more complex than that. But, lacking a time machine or access to alternate universes, I doubt the issues will ever be settled. For sure, one hundred and forty years of discussion has not added much clarity to the issue.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Again, I never said that. I know that there are racist organizations of all sorts, anywhere and always.

I checked your link......and just like the white supramacists these guys are again religious nut-jobs. My god, black hebrew israelites.....who invents these names??

(don't you think I am onto something?:) )
So to start at the beginning again it is far more likely that Obama's 'being religious' is more of a problem then his 'being black'.

But... He's not religious. He wraps himself in religion to get votes. In my opinion, he's actually a Tartuffe. Now back to your proposition... "nut-jobs" also use or wrap themselves in religion to justify their twisted view of reality. There are plenty of examples of evil in world history where the nut-jobs were not religious... e.g. Mao... Stalin... Pol Pot... Kim Il Sung... Hitler... Mengistu...

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is an example of someone walking the talk, or Mother Teresa... Pope John Paul II, Desmond Tutu, or the Dalai Lama... These are the examples of religious people who exemplify the meaning and spirit of their faiths. Why do you always need to look at the fringe wacko's? Mad scientists aren't the status quo in your profession. How would you feel if you were compared to Dr. Jekyll all the time?

[--Pete]

Hi,

How would you feel if you were compared to Dr. Jekyll all the time?

I am. But that's alright, I'm really Mr. Hyde. :w00t:

--Pete

[eppie]

But... He's not religious. He wraps himself in religion to get votes. In my opinion, he's actually a Tartuffe. Now back to your proposition... "nut-jobs" also use or wrap themselves in religion to justify their twisted view of reality. There are plenty of examples of evil in world history where the nut-jobs were not religious... e.g. Mao... Stalin... Pol Pot... Kim Il Sung... Hitler... Mengistu...

Welcome to religion kandrathe. Thanks for the definition.

Now I need to go back and think if I should reply Occhi's statement that people like me support religious nut-jobs.

[eppie]

The others are continually being empowered

Is this the Texan or the NRA member in you speaking? I bet you really are a bit afraid because Obama is president. :blink:

by more useful idiots -- people like yourself.

Dear oh dear, yes people like me are always supporting religious racist extremists in other countries. I mean all the time. Because that is what we stand for....you must have read the undertone in all my posts here.:angry:

[Jester]

But... He's not religious. He wraps himself in religion to get votes. In my opinion, he's actually a Tartuffe. Now back to your proposition... "nut-jobs" also use or wrap themselves in religion to justify their twisted view of reality. There are plenty of examples of evil in world history where the nut-jobs were not religious... e.g. Mao... Stalin... Pol Pot... Kim Il Sung... Hitler... Mengistu...

Aside from Hitler, who was religious (albeit in a weird way, twisted by his peculiar ideology), all your examples are hardcore Communists. I'm with Russell on this one - Communism shares all the worst traits of a religion: Infallible Dogma, Apocalypse, Promised Land, Chosen People, Prophets of Dubious Worldly Merit, Schisms, Excommunications... the list goes on.

Are there equivalent examples that don't share this quasi-religious political dogma?

-Jester

[Jester]

If slavery had been strictly along race lines, perhaps. But the situation was much more complex than that. But, lacking a time machine or access to alternate universes, I doubt the issues will ever be settled. For sure, one hundred and forty years of discussion has not added much clarity to the issue.

The situation was slightly more complex than that. I wouldn't say "much". If one operated for the rest of one's life under the impression that slavery was all about white people enslaving black people, one wouldn't be straying very far from the truth. A few thousand "black" slave owners (many/most of whom would have thought of themselves as mixed race) is a drop in the bucket against the entire system of white slaveownership.

However, you're right that we don't have a very good sense of how things might have been different.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

I have nothing to contribute to this thread, aside from this.

[kandrathe]

Welcome to religion kandrathe. Thanks for the definition.

Look. Your viewpoint is no less bigoted than someone who assumes every Muslim is a potential terrorist, and who won't ride on an airplane with people in Arab garb. You just choose to be bigoted toward a different class of people, namely religious people. I find it equally offensive as racism or sexism.

[kandrathe]

Are there equivalent examples that don't share this quasi-religious political dogma?

Round peg. Square hole. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Bertrand Russell argument.

If you squint, and the sun is in the right place in the sky, and the sea cow happens to have sea weed on its head, then it looks just like a mermaid. This doesn't make mermaids real.

[Jester]

Round peg. Square hole. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Bertrand Russell argument.

You're free to reject it. I'm just wondering if you have any examples outside Communists, because, since I accept Russell's argument (it actually seems pretty obvious to me), the field starts to empty out very quickly.

-Jester