Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat, West Virginia, KKK
Robert Byrd (D-W.Va., KKK): “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia [and] in every state in the Union.”
Robert Byrd (D-W.Va., KKK): “I will never fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
Obama Endorsed by KKK’s Most Successful Leader
Democrat Anti-Black Anti-Republican Poster
Robert Byrd is part of a long tradition in US Democratic Party politics. That of the K.K.K.
Robert Byrd filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His comrade, Al Gore Sr., vehemently opposed the bill, as did most of their fellow Democrat senators.
Robert Byrd opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court’s two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas.
Robert Byrd’s press secretary Tom Gavin is not sure whether Senator Byrd lynched any Black people or not.
When Senator Byrd took the stage in the National Archives building to read from his 2005 autobiography, he received three standing ovations. Patrick Conner, director of the West Virginia University Press, and David Hardesty Jr., president of West Virginia University, said they felt honored and humbled to work with Byrd on his memoirs. Conner said he found it to be “one of the most exciting days the West Virginia University Press has ever seen.” He especially praised Byrd’s enthusiasm and accuracy he showed during the whole process. Byrd, along with his editor and publisher, decided that there was no good reason to mention the KKK in the autobiography.
Here’s 2008 Democrat Presidential hopeful Chris Dodd’s panegyric to Sheets Byrd:
“It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation’s 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.”
Democrat Anti-Black Anti-Republican Poster, Clymer for Governor
+ + +
CONTENTS:
1. Democrat-KKK History
2. Frances Rice (National Black Republican Association): “The Ku Klux Klan was the Terrorist Arm of the Democrat Party”,
3. John H. McWhorter: “Party of Chains: The greatest oppressors of blacks have been Democrats” (a review of Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett), City Journal, 2008-02-08
+ + +
THE KU KLUX KLAN was created after the end of the American Civil War on December 24, 1865, by six educated, middle-class Confederate veterans from Pulaski, Tennessee, as a military force to serve the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. The KKK launched a reign of terror against Republican leaders, both black and white.
Their violence intimidated both black and white people against voting Republican. For example, in the April 1868 Georgia gubernatorial election, Columbia County voters cast 1,222 votes for Republican Rufus Bullock. By the November presidential election, voting declined drastically. Only one voter in the county dared to vote for the Republican candidate Ulysses S. Grant.
Historian Elaine Frantz Parsons:
“Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen.”
[Parsons, Elaine Frantz, "Midnight Rangers: Costume and Performance in the Reconstruction-Era Ku Klux Klan." The Journal of American History 92.3, 2005, p. 816]
There was then a national movement to crack down on the Klan, even though many Democrats at the national level questioned whether the Klan even existed or was just a figment of the Republican Party’s imagination.
Three closely related events sparked a KKK resurgence in 1915:
- The film The Birth of a Nation was released, mythologizing and glorifying the first Klan.
- Leo Frank, a Jewish man accused of the rape and murder of a young white girl named Mary Phagan, was tried, convicted and lynched near Atlanta against a backdrop of media frenzy.
- The new Ku Klux Klan was founded in Atlanta with a new anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic agenda. The bulk of the founders were from an Atlanta-area organization calling itself the Knights of Mary Phagan that had organized around the Frank trial. The new organization emulated the fictionalized version of the Klan presented in The Birth of a Nation.
D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation glorified the original Klan, which was by then a fading memory. His film was based on the book and play The Clansman and the book The Leopard’s Spots, both by Thomas Dixon. Dixon said his purpose was “to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!”
Much of the modern Klan’s iconography, including the standardized white costume and the burning cross, are imitations of The Birth of a Nation.
The film’s popularity and influence were enhanced by a widely reported endorsement of its factual accuracy by historian and Democrat U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as a favor to an old friend.
President Wilson [Nobel Peace Prize, 1919] was a proponent of racial segregation. His grandfather was a Republican abolitionist. While president of Princeton University, Wilson discouraged blacks from even applying for admission. He received many votes from African-Americans by promising to address their concerns, but then re-introduced racial segregation in federal government offices, in some departments for the first time since 1863. Offices, washrooms, cafeterias, work areas, and employee housing were racially segregated. One justification given was health concerns: White government workers had to be protected from contagious diseases, especially venereal diseases, that Wilson imagined were being spread by blacks.
His administration imposed full racial segregation in Washington and hounded from office considerable numbers of black federal employees.The Washington police force and fire department stopped hiring blacks.
When a delegation of blacks protested his discriminatory actions, Wilson told them, “Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.” He argued that Negroes would only suffer if they had to compete with superior whites (a position that many or most Democrats agree with today). When the startled journalist William Monroe Trotter objected, Wilson had him thrown out of the White House. “Your manner offends me,” Wilson told him. Blacks all over the country complained about Wilson, but the president was unmoved. “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me,” he told The New York Times in 1914, “they ought to correct it.”
Wilson was a prominent supporter of the eugenics movement, alongside other racist, anti-Catholic and pro-Nazi activists such as Margaret Sanger (”No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child without a permit for parenthood.”), Planned Parenthood, The Rockefeller Foundation (which helped found the German eugenics program, and funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went on to Auschwitz), and The Carnegie Institution. In 1907, he helped to make Indiana the first jurisdiction in the world to introduce legislation against “allowing defectives to breed,” and then signed New Jersey’s compulsory sterilization act. One of his deputies went to work at Buchenwald Concentration Camp.
The Birth of a Nation includes extensive quotations from Woodrow Wilson’s History of the American People, for example, “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation … until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.” Wilson, on seeing the film in a special White House screening on February 18, 1915, exclaimed, “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”
Given the film’s strong Democrat partisan message and Wilson’s documented views on race and the Klan, his statement was seen as supporting the Klan, and the word “regret” as referring to the film’s depiction of Radical Republican Reconstruction. Later correspondence with Griffith, the film’s director, confirms Wilson’s enthusiasm about the film.
Wilson’s presidential endorsement of the film greatly enhanced its popularity and influence, and helped Griffith to defend it against legal attack by the NAACP. The film, in turn, was a major factor leading to the creation of the second Klan in the same year.
In the same year, an important event in the coalescence of the second Klan was the trial, conviction and lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager. In sensational newspaper accounts, Frank was accused of sexual crimes and of the murder of Mary Phagan, a girl employed at his factory. He was convicted of murder after a questionable trial in Georgia. The judge asked that Frank and his counsel not be present when the verdict was announced because of the violent mob of people surrounding the court house. Frank’s appeals failed. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented, condemning the intimidation of the jury as failing to provide due process of law. After the governor commuted his sentence to life imprisonment, a mob calling itself the Knights of Mary Phagan kidnapped Frank from the prison farm and lynched him.
For many southerners who believed Frank to be guilty, there was a strong resonance between the Frank trial and The Birth of a Nation. They saw an analogy between Mary Phagan and the film’s character Flora.
The Frank trial was used skillfully by Georgia Democrat politician and publisher Thomas E. Watson, the editor for The Jeffersonian magazine. He was a leader in the reorganization of the Klan and was later elected to the U.S. Senate. The new Klan was inaugurated in 1915 at a meeting led by William J. Simmons on top of Stone Mountain. It was attended by a few aging members of the original Klan, along with members of the Knights of Mary Phagan.
The Klan’s resurgence in the 1920s partially stemmed from the extreme militant wing of the temperance movement. In Arkansas, as elsewhere, the newly formed Ku Klux Klan marked bootleggers as one of the groups that needed to be purged from a morally upright community. In 1922, 200 Klansmen torched saloons that had sprung up in Union County in the wake of the oil discovery boom.
The KKK’s support for Prohibition represented the single most important bond between Klansmen throughout the nation and there was much interaction and overlap in membership between the Klan and other prohibition supporters. For example, a top leader of the Klan, Edward Young Clarke, raised funds for both the Klan and the Anti-Saloon League.
Klan delegates played a significant role at the path setting 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City, often called the “Klanbake Convention” as a result. The convention initially pitted Klan-backed candidate William Gibbs McAdoo against New York Governor Al Smith, who drew the opposition of the group because of his Catholic faith. After days of stalemates and rioting, both candidates withdrew in favor of a compromise. Klan delegates defeated a Democratic Party platform plank that would have condemned their organization. On July 4, 1924, thousands of Klansmen converged on a nearby field in New Jersey where they participated in cross burnings, burned effigies of Smith, and celebrated their defeat of the platform plank.
Democrat Anti-Black Anti-Republican Poster
Hiester Clymer for Governor
White-Supremacy Platform
+ + +
The “moderate” John William Davis ran as the Democrat nominee for President in 1924. He denounced his former ties to the KKK, but ran on an anti-anti-lynching-law and an end to Black voting rights platform.After alienating his KKK Democrat base, he lost the election to Republican Calvin Cooledge.
His legal career is most remembered for his impassioned (and unsuccessful) pro bono defense of the “[racially] separate but equal” doctrine in Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court.
“We Are All Loyal Klansmen” by William Davis
+ + +
+ + +
The Ku Klux Klan was the Terrorist Arm of the Democrat Party
By Frances Rice (The National Black Republican Association)
History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s The Kourier Magazine: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”
Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.
On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”
Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi – assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins – was ‘president of a republican club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”
“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page 186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where Santa has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150 persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly with black customers.“
Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/
+ + +
Two years ago, on his Daily Kos website, Markos Moulitsas asked: “Is it any wonder the GOP is the party of racists?” While Moulitsas conceded that “not every Republican is a racist,” he maintained that “the opposite—every racist is a Republican—is just about right.”Such sentiments typify a common view that racism is the soul of the Republican Party, and that black Republicans are traitors to their race, or at least peculiar. Bruce Bartlett sets the record straight in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, in which he observes to the contrary that “virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” Democrats are today best known as the party of the “little man,” but the party’s original agrarian base included plantation owners distinctly uninterested in the abolition of slavery. The Democratic Party, then, was home to politicians determined to maintain blacks as possessions.Bartlett begins his history, naturally enough, with the now-familiar contradictions in the life of Thomas Jefferson—apostle of liberty, slaveholder, and founder of what would become the modern Democratic Party. He continues with former presidents such as Andrew Johnson, who welcomed prominent ex-Confederates back into Congress and fought civil rights legislation, and Woodrow Wilson, who segregated federal government buildings and barely allowed any black participation in his administration. Franklin D. Roosevelt, meanwhile, appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court and largely ignored black concerns, reluctant to jeopardize his relationship with Southern committee chairmen.John F. Kennedy’s racial priorities were similar to Roosevelt’s; his few progressive efforts on racial questions were due to political expediency. Kennedy would have done nothing significant for black Americans had the growing political and public-relations problem of Jim Crow in the South not forced his hand. The influence of television—and America’s ongoing propaganda war with the Soviet Union, in which the Soviets could cite American hypocrisy on human rights—made it imperative for Kennedy to act.Bartlett also examines the roles of lesser-known figures like Senator James Vardaman of Mississippi, an ardent defender of lynching who also spoke of his love for the “Mammy” who helped raise him. Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi tirelessly advocated that blacks be given their own state in the West, in order to ensure that no one would force “our Southern girls to use the stools and toilets of damn syphilitic nigger women.” All of these characters, and many others whom Bartlett profiles, were Democrats.
Some readers will value this book as an historical chronicle of American racism in the “never forget” vein, but Bartlett’s aim is more concrete: he hopes to dissuade black Americans from voting monolithically for “the party to which their greatest oppressors belonged.” Yet the number of black people who will start voting Republican upon learning that Woodrow Wilson didn’t like them is minuscule. The figures whom Bartlett covers were not only Democrats but Southerners, and it will be no surprise to contemporary readers that white Southerners tended to be open bigots back in the day. In addition, the Democratic Party’s platform has changed so substantially since then, and the political landscape with it, that treating the Democratic Parties of 1850, 1910, and 2008 as a single entity doesn’t make much sense.
Where Wrong on Race does have contemporary relevance is in clearing away myths about Republican racism. Bartlett debunks the widely held view, for example, that Richard Nixon courted racist white votes in the South in 1968. Nixon could not have pulled off such a thing, since George Wallace—who had the racism market pretty well cornered—was running as a third-party candidate. Once in office, Nixon helped initiate affirmative action and did more to desegregate holdout Southern schools than any president since the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling. In 1968, a year before Nixon entered the White House, 68 percent of black students in the South went to all-black schools; just two years later, in 1970, only 14 percent did. Similarly, Bartlett points out that Ronald Reagan was accused of racism largely because of his opposition to the government programs that many blacks had come to depend on since the sixties. Reagan developed his small-government convictions, however, long before he entered politics, and hardly with blacks in mind. Blacks’ median income actually rose during Reagan’s terms in office.
For all of their rhetoric on race, the Democrats, Bartlett argues, will likely concentrate most closely on the Latino vote in the near future—especially as the perceived anti-immigrant tendency in the Republican Party leads Latinos to the Democrats in greater numbers. He argues compellingly that if blacks increased their Republican vote by 10 to 20 percent, they would qualify as an important voting bloc in the party. So far, so good. But Bartlett also makes the dubious argument that reparations would make blacks feel welcome under a Republican Big Tent, which would pave the way for the elimination of affirmative action. More likely, blacks would indignantly regard the suggestion as a bribe, and incantations like “Katrina” and “Willie Horton” would continue to substitute for serious thought about how to make Black Power more than a slogan.
In fact, the younger generation of blacks, growing up in an increasingly multiracial America, will be less encumbered by the reflexive sense that voting Republican is somehow straying from racial authenticity. In the meantime, Bartlett’s book, especially its later chapters, provides a useful perspective for blacks interested in resisting, once and for all, the idea that any political party should own their votes.
[John McWhorter is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Race and Ethnicity. His book on hip-hop music and culture, All About the Beat, will appear in May.]
10 Comments
February 10, 2008 at 6:09 am
What’s your point?
February 10, 2008 at 7:24 am
Re: “What’s your point?”
It’s called “History”.
I notice on “Sandman”s blog he refers to Karl Rove as “KKKarl Rove”, which is nothing but infantile slander.
I see no mention of noted Bush-hater Robert KKK Byrd, who is, by the way, a well-beloved hero of Al Gore.
February 10, 2008 at 9:54 am
According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I’m a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast. But I’m voting for Obama. I’ve waited all my life for a viable woman candidate for the presidency, but this is not the right woman. I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
She rode into power with her husband, and together they’ve acquired a long and seriously flawed history of self-serving and secretive financial and political dealings. The most cursory research will prove that true. She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater. She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush. When I hear woman saying, “Oh, but that’s how you get things done in Washington,” I literally cringe.
I am passionately supporting Barack Obama. He can beat the Republicans; she cannot. Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp, and in a general election they would vote for him, but not for Clinton. Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it. Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. Obama brings us hope–and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience.
Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.
Diane Wald
February 10, 2008 at 10:20 am
Re: whydidyoudoit:
“According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I’m a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast.”
- According to what!? How pathetic! Such typical Gliberal-think! And highly-educated? Judging from your comments, I’d say too educated for your intelligence.
“I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.”
- No kidding!
“She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater.”
- Racist? Rubbish!
“She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush.”
- Well, that wouldn’t be hard, since GWB is not very deceptive or tricky.
“I am passionately supporting Barack Obama.”
- Weird.
“Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp.”
- Obama has attracted [far left] Independents and even [dumb] Republicans to his camp.”
“Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it.”
- Don’t worry yourself. She never meant it when she voted for the war, and she has apologized, saying she was fooled by George W. Bush, and again apologized that she didn’t realize what she had been voting for — even though she and Monica Lewinsky’s boyfriend and Al Gore had just spent two decades first demanding military action against Iraq and then defending their military attacks against Iraq — but now that things are going so well in Iraq she’s trying to distance herself from her previous distancing of herself from her own vote.
“Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. ”
- Because he’s a fool.
“Obama brings us hope–and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience.”
- His ideas? “Black Christianity”? Permanent revolution? 100% liberal voting recordrd? Support for “Partial-Birth Abortion” (i.e. Murder)?
- Experience? You’re kidding, right? Two insincere years in the Senate, as a stepping stone to the presidency, with not one single accomplishment to his name?
“Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.”
- Condoleeza Rice?
And what on Earth do this woman’s comments have to do with the history of the Democratic Party’s KKK?
* * * * *
DAVID WARREN:
“To anyone who thinks a “kinder, gentler” America would be good for the world, I can only reply, get your head examined. For as I’ve argued endlessly, the alternatives to the American hyperpower — the powers that advance when America retreats — are uniformly unspeakable.
“It is in this sense that a vote for Obama is a vote for Osama.
“This has nothing to do with Barack Obama’s race, creed, or ideology. I do not doubt for a moment that Mr Obama is a sincere Christian and patriotic American, and that he truly believes himself the New Man for the New Age.
“I fear him rather on two accounts. The first is that he has no policies. He offers vague “feelgood” on every domestic issue, and magic in foreign policy. Simply by his being Obama, and not Bush, the conflicts will go away. He will withdraw from Iraq. He will ignore Iran. And he will invade Pakistan (to get at Osama). People who say things like this, whether or not in a dream-like trance, are not eligible to be Commander-in-Chief. Or rather, should not be.
“For the second problem with Mr Obama is that he is eminently electable. Republicans do not seem to realize just how electable, and that is where they should listen to advice from Borealis. For while Barack Hussein Obama does not entirely resemble the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau (who had his policy wonk side, and more native malice), he has that mystical androgynous quality that comes across hypnotically on TV.
“It was the women who put Trudeau in power, and kept him there: the women’s vote in English Canada, plus the Liberal fiefdom in Quebec. It is the ditzier range of women in the borderline Red States that could elect President Obama: lonely women, and to some extent, their weak, “sensitive” men.
“The ditz vote will never go gooey for Hillary Rodham Clinton: for a nasty woman puts women on their guard. But my gut, and innumerable female correspondents, tell me Obama is the man. The very sort of women who sustained Trudeau, up here, think he has some Philosophy, or something. They think he is speaking to their Inner Selves. They think he Wants them, he Needs them, Secretly. They think, He’s Not Like Other Men. “
June 8, 2008 at 2:02 pm
[...] as saying they’ll never vote for a Negro, Senator Byrd’s seal of approval may convince the KKK-wing of the party that there might be something to be gained by making an exception for [...]
July 31, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Excellent information that far too few know, or care, about. The leftists live and breathe denial and lies, as evidenced by sad little Diana who, besides being rather obtuse, employs the cloying “sisters” –
“Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.”
- as if having genitalia in common predetermines the existence of a bond between women. As far as I can see, today’s women have far more to be shamed by than proud of and I ain’t sisters with none of them…but that’s just me.
October 18, 2008 at 11:48 am
[...] In reality, it is the white Democrats who started the fire — literally — as the Ku Klux Klan’s roots run long and deep into the Democrat Party. [...]
December 10, 2008 at 9:57 pm
The Only difference between us whites and blacks is our physical appearance. So what? No one judges the colour of animals, oh… Humans are animals.. hmmmmm doesn’t that tell you something? People are only only discriminating black people to make themselves seem even more superior. Guess what, it’s not working!! Everyone who is a part of the KKK, should really take an effort to get to know blacks better (I’m not saying all blacks are good, just as whites aren’t). Honestly, it’s as silly as saying “we should all put great hatred upon brunettes”. Anyone who agrees with me please comment, and if you disagree please explain why.. I really want to hear your opinion, I’m fairly open minded…
Thank you for taking the time to hear my concern of the situation…
July 1, 2009 at 12:35 am
i agree with you completeli. not becaus i am african american, but because your points are valid and have great moral meaning behind them. i am a strong believer in equality, i judge no person by the mere color of their skin, but by the content of their character. not because dr. king said it, but becaus i feel that it is morally correct. since when did determining a person’s worth and character lie within their skin..?? if people would only take the time to really get to know one another they would soon realiz that the pigment of one’s skin has no place in the determining of one’s character. i love all people, and believ that each individual has something to offer to the next.
December 10, 2008 at 10:01 pm
“Are you honestly supporting th kkk?”
Where on Earth did you get the idea that anybody besides Senator Byrd [4th in line for the presidency] and other Democrats support the KKK?