View previous topic | View next topic

Ku Klux Klan

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Spud McLaren
930088.  Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:24 pm Reply with quote

It may surprise UK forum members to learn that "the members of the first Klan in the South were exclusively Democrats" - or it may not. Klan membership has declined from 4,000,000 in 1920 to 6,000 in 2009.

Six well-educated Confederate veterans from Pulaski, Tennessee, created the original Ku Klux Klan on December 24, 1865, during Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. The name was formed by combining the Greek kyklos (κύκλος, circle) with clan.

- Wiki

Sounds more plausible than the likening of the name to the sound made by cocking a firearm.

 
CB27
930092.  Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:34 pm Reply with quote

It's often forgotten that the southern states were Democrats, and that those black people who were able to vote would usually vote for the Republican party in the belief it was "created" by Abraham Lincoln and the promise of equal rights. People even referred to the voting record in the south as the "Solid South".

The New Deal created a huge split in the party, and it wasn't until after WWII that the party began to identify itself with the civil rights movement.

Some people wanted to call themselves conservative Democrats, but most just ended up voting for the Republican party instead, which is where we are today.

To give you an example, Texas first voted for a Republican president in 1928, always returning Democrats before then. Even then, Texas has only stayed true Republican since 1980.

If you look at the other southern states they all tended to be Democrats until 1960-1980, before mostly returning Republican votes.

 
Bondee
930287.  Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:58 pm Reply with quote

I suggest a forfeit (loss of points, a sound thrashing, etc) for anyone who calls it the Klu Klux Klan.

 
Posital
930296.  Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:15 pm Reply with quote

Bondee wrote:
I suggest a forfeit (loss of points, a sound thrashing, etc) for anyone who calls it the Klu Klux Klan.
And bonus points for anyone who calls them a bunch of tossers...

 
Spud McLaren
930975.  Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:37 pm Reply with quote

Hardly seems worth it - it'd be bonus points all round, shurely?

 
mickche
953103.  Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:33 am Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
It may surprise UK forum members to learn that "the members of the first Klan in the South were exclusively Democrats" - or it may not. Klan membership has declined from 4,000,000 in 1920 to 6,000 in 2009.

Six well-educated Confederate veterans from Pulaski, Tennessee, created the original Ku Klux Klan on December 24, 1865, during Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. The name was formed by combining the Greek kyklos (κύκλος, circle) with clan.

- Wiki

Sounds more plausible than the likening of the name to the sound made by cocking a firearm.


I think the impact of Birth of a Nation is also very fascinating. Here you have a film acclaimed for its technical achievements, yet the story chronicles the marginalisation of whites by blacks, and being victimised, the whites decide to fight back and the result is the formation of the Ku Klux Klan.
The irony also that all of the main "black" characters in the film were actually "blackened" white males, and even the role of the "mammy" was played by a white male. The film did feature african americans in the cast, however, did not interact on-screen with the white actors.
So, here you have , seven or so years earlier was the first feature film produced, and here is an attempt to re-write history through the new medium of film.
And also,
A ticket to the film cost a record $2 (equal to $45.95 today)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

 
Jenny
953161.  Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:52 am Reply with quote

Welcome to QI mickche :-)

 
djgordy
953185.  Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:44 pm Reply with quote

mickche wrote:


I think the impact of Birth of a Nation is also very fascinating. Here you have a film acclaimed for its technical achievements, yet the story chronicles the marginalisation of whites by blacks, and being victimised, the whites decide to fight back and the result is the formation of the Ku Klux Klan.


The same could be said of Leni Riefenstal's "Triumph of the Will"; pioneering cinematography &c utilised for the purposes of evil progaganda.

 
tetsabb
953187.  Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:47 pm Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
progaganda.


Sounds like a particularly painful medical condition. You'd want your doctor to have a proper gander at it, I guess.

 
nitwit02
953222.  Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:04 pm Reply with quote

Brilliant pun!

 
mickche
954281.  Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:10 am Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
mickche wrote:


I think the impact of Birth of a Nation is also very fascinating. Here you have a film acclaimed for its technical achievements, yet the story chronicles the marginalisation of whites by blacks, and being victimised, the whites decide to fight back and the result is the formation of the Ku Klux Klan.


The same could be said of Leni Riefenstal's "Triumph of the Will"; pioneering cinematography &c utilised for the purposes of evil progaganda.


I have seen Triumph of the Will, and as you suggested, pioneering techniques were used to capture the Nuremberg Conference. However, the term 'propaganda' is interesting in this case, because it was clearly percieved by the non-German public as propaganda. noting Riefenstahl was critised for her next film Olympia for emphasing physical perfection (a typical fascist attribute) which showed up later in her photography in Africa. And to add to Riefenstahl's errors, she used gypsies in her long-delayed follow-up to Olympia, Tiefland, who were taken from isolation camps, and later sent to Auschwitz and other concetration camps. Steven Bach's Leni : the life and work of Leni Riefenstahl is a good read on Leni Riefenstahl.

However, Birth of a Nation occurred relatively early in film history, as indicated, with many believing the first feature film to be The Story of the Kelly Gang. And there was significant backlash against Birth of a Nation after its release such that D.W. Griffith's next film was Intolerance, which looked at 4 stories of intolerance (one of which was Jesus).
The main difference I see is that Birth of a Nation attempts to re-write history, unlike Triumph of the Will which was attempting to position Hitler as a God (The opening scene from Triumph of the Will sees Hitler's plane descend from the clouds) and the opening lines of Triumph of the Will were:

"20 years after the outbreak of World War...
16 years after the beginning of Germany's suffering...
19 months after the beginning of the German Rebirth, Adolph Hitler reviewed his faithful followers"
.

Also, the techniques used by Riefenstahl were used to full-propaganda effect, whereas i believe that techniques utilised by D.W. Griffith were not essential to the story, and he perhaps used his craft to greater effect in Intolerance, more so than Birth of a Nation.

Also, thanks for the welcome.

 
djgordy
954368.  Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:30 pm Reply with quote

tetsabb wrote:
djgordy wrote:
progaganda.


Sounds like a particularly painful medical condition. You'd want your doctor to have a proper gander at it, I guess.


I was actually referring to the news that an endangered black and white mammal has joined the latest line up of Yes: prog a panda.

 
EXE
964527.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:40 am Reply with quote

Another interesting fact about Birth of a Nation (the first film to be screened at the White House) that falls under the category of General Ignorance is President Wilson's supposed quote upon seeing the film: "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." The quote has gone on to become quite famous, but in all likelihood it was fabricated by the author of the source play.

 
clack
964651.  Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:54 pm Reply with quote

There have been 3 separate groups operating in different eras -- each calling themselves the Ku Klux Klan though otherwise having no connection to each other. To simplify:

1) Late 1860's - early 1870's : anti-Republican Party, vigilante and terrorist, based in the South

2) Early to mid-1920's : anti-Catholic, fraternal and mostly non-violent, based mainly in the South, Mid-west, and West

3) 50's and 60's : anti-civil rights, terrorist, based in the South

 
Rasmus
994385.  Tue May 07, 2013 12:59 am Reply with quote

Found this wonderful photo:

[/img]

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group