Is the Ku Klux Klan a group with legitimate concerns
October 1, 2008 4:34 AM Subscribe
Is the Ku Klux Klan a group with legitimate concerns, entitled to their views and needed in society for maintaining social balance?
This post was deleted for the following reason: This seems like the sort of thing you could do any independent reading on at all before hitting askme for; a more nuanced and specific version of this might be okay, but this is just silly and vague. -- cortex
Is the Ku Klux Klan a group with legitimate concerns?
Maybe minor ones. Certainly not anything in their visible platform.
Is the Ku Klux Klan entitled to their views?
Sure. What are we going to do, beat it out of them?
Is the Ku Klux Klan needed in society for maintaining social balance?
What's "social balance"? Idiots cannot be balanced out by adding more idiots to a society.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 4:45 AM on October 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Maybe minor ones. Certainly not anything in their visible platform.
Is the Ku Klux Klan entitled to their views?
Sure. What are we going to do, beat it out of them?
Is the Ku Klux Klan needed in society for maintaining social balance?
What's "social balance"? Idiots cannot be balanced out by adding more idiots to a society.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 4:45 AM on October 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
No.
posted by Hildegarde at 4:49 AM on October 1, 2008
posted by Hildegarde at 4:49 AM on October 1, 2008
It depends on whom you ask.
Is the Ku Klux Klan a group with legitimate concerns,
What does legitimate mean? If you are asking whether there is a basis in fact for their beliefs, well, investigate those questions. Research it. I'm just... not going to google around to find out what they're claiming these days. Right now the societal consensus is that racism is wrong, if that helps.
entitled to their views
If you ask the US federal government, then under the First Amendment they might answer:
Inherently (by virtue of their birth), all persons are entitled to express their views. This principle presupposes that they are entitled to have those views in the first place. However, some restrictions are placed on speech, chiefly in situations where that speech creates an immediate danger (shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater). In recent years, we have expanded restrictions on free expression by criminalizing "hate speech." This has been very controversial. It also suggests that for some unpopular views (such as the racist beliefs of the KKK), there is among many a sense that there is no inherent entitlement to hold those views without consequence. There are always those who believe we should silence unpopular speakers, but there remain also defenders of a close-to-absolute right.
and needed in society for maintaining social balance?
Well, on the one hand, it is true that it isn't healthy for everyone to agree (or to be forced to pretend to agree) because then the group begins to adopt increasingly extreme positions. On the other hand, I would not be aghast to see society adopt a more extreme position on racial equality.
posted by prefpara at 5:06 AM on October 1, 2008
Is the Ku Klux Klan a group with legitimate concerns,
What does legitimate mean? If you are asking whether there is a basis in fact for their beliefs, well, investigate those questions. Research it. I'm just... not going to google around to find out what they're claiming these days. Right now the societal consensus is that racism is wrong, if that helps.
entitled to their views
If you ask the US federal government, then under the First Amendment they might answer:
Inherently (by virtue of their birth), all persons are entitled to express their views. This principle presupposes that they are entitled to have those views in the first place. However, some restrictions are placed on speech, chiefly in situations where that speech creates an immediate danger (shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater). In recent years, we have expanded restrictions on free expression by criminalizing "hate speech." This has been very controversial. It also suggests that for some unpopular views (such as the racist beliefs of the KKK), there is among many a sense that there is no inherent entitlement to hold those views without consequence. There are always those who believe we should silence unpopular speakers, but there remain also defenders of a close-to-absolute right.
and needed in society for maintaining social balance?
Well, on the one hand, it is true that it isn't healthy for everyone to agree (or to be forced to pretend to agree) because then the group begins to adopt increasingly extreme positions. On the other hand, I would not be aghast to see society adopt a more extreme position on racial equality.
posted by prefpara at 5:06 AM on October 1, 2008
Legitimate concerns? Probably not, but it would be interesting to actually see a list of those concerns (rather than our immediate mental image of a flaming cross) and study (rather than reject out of hand due to our associations of idiocy with the Klan) to find out if any had a foundation. Entitled? Absolutely, but if you've got a way to change that, you could start with more important and perfidious things first.
The Ku Klux Klan could conceivably serve a few roles for social balance:
1) Function as an embarrassing example of certain views, not unlike Fred Phelps, who has probably done backwoods Christianity more harm than good.
2) Work as a kind of relief valve for those who feel they've been unfairly disenfranchised by liberals/Zion/secret homosexual conspiracies/black people, channeling what could be random, furtive acts of violence by individuals onesie-twosie into more visible, but peaceful, marches. Which would sort of lead to #1.
3) A reminder of our rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, no matter how much we disagree. This can turn lead to important discussions - are we nestling vipers within our collective bosom when we do so? Does the ability to tolerate these things make us stronger, or weaker? At what point do these rights lead to the destruction of those very rights, as they might possibly allow for the formation of a movement (and passage of laws) which would restrict, say, Muslim assembly? After all, we know thems upta no good, amirite? *spits tabbacie to one side*
#2 would be difficult to tell without some kind of data. You'd need to pick out certain types of crime, overlay that with Klan density in the area, and then weigh it against the prevalence of the Klan target membership: impoverished white males seeking an external source for their woes (and the folks who like to manipulate them). I think our sociometrics probably aren't there yet.
In any case, you aren't going to get rid of the Klan by anything short of a serious erosion of the Constitution. If you suddenly develop the ability to wish people into the cornfield, well, I have a hard time figuring out why you'd start with them. We have legions of hate-mongering, mind-warping organizations which believe in the patently untrue; hit up a revivalist congregation sometime.
posted by adipocere at 5:10 AM on October 1, 2008
The Ku Klux Klan could conceivably serve a few roles for social balance:
1) Function as an embarrassing example of certain views, not unlike Fred Phelps, who has probably done backwoods Christianity more harm than good.
2) Work as a kind of relief valve for those who feel they've been unfairly disenfranchised by liberals/Zion/secret homosexual conspiracies/black people, channeling what could be random, furtive acts of violence by individuals onesie-twosie into more visible, but peaceful, marches. Which would sort of lead to #1.
3) A reminder of our rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, no matter how much we disagree. This can turn lead to important discussions - are we nestling vipers within our collective bosom when we do so? Does the ability to tolerate these things make us stronger, or weaker? At what point do these rights lead to the destruction of those very rights, as they might possibly allow for the formation of a movement (and passage of laws) which would restrict, say, Muslim assembly? After all, we know thems upta no good, amirite? *spits tabbacie to one side*
#2 would be difficult to tell without some kind of data. You'd need to pick out certain types of crime, overlay that with Klan density in the area, and then weigh it against the prevalence of the Klan target membership: impoverished white males seeking an external source for their woes (and the folks who like to manipulate them). I think our sociometrics probably aren't there yet.
In any case, you aren't going to get rid of the Klan by anything short of a serious erosion of the Constitution. If you suddenly develop the ability to wish people into the cornfield, well, I have a hard time figuring out why you'd start with them. We have legions of hate-mongering, mind-warping organizations which believe in the patently untrue; hit up a revivalist congregation sometime.
posted by adipocere at 5:10 AM on October 1, 2008
I can't answer for the first two, not being an American.
For the third, extremists by definition act against social and political balance. Every group unwilling to politically compromise to achieve its ends works against any sense of social order or political legitimacy.
And as emd3737 says, in the context of right-wing radical racists, your point of view on order and legitimacy rather depend on whether you're a bigot or not.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:14 AM on October 1, 2008
For the third, extremists by definition act against social and political balance. Every group unwilling to politically compromise to achieve its ends works against any sense of social order or political legitimacy.
And as emd3737 says, in the context of right-wing radical racists, your point of view on order and legitimacy rather depend on whether you're a bigot or not.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:14 AM on October 1, 2008
They're just jackasses. Sometimes jackasses form clubs to create a self-validating universe, i.e., surround themselves with views like their own. In a closed system, there are few challenges, so if you're an idiot, one of the most fulfilling things you can do for yourself is swim in a pool of like minded idiots.
This applies to a lot of things.
Are they necessary? No. But they're inevitable. If it weren't race, it would be something else. They are mainly a concern because of a history of violence. I'm not under the impression they have much power.
You're gonna get some jackasses in this world. Price of doing business.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:17 AM on October 1, 2008
This applies to a lot of things.
Are they necessary? No. But they're inevitable. If it weren't race, it would be something else. They are mainly a concern because of a history of violence. I'm not under the impression they have much power.
You're gonna get some jackasses in this world. Price of doing business.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:17 AM on October 1, 2008
What is important is that we have a society which will legally grant and proect the right to allow the widest possible range of viewpoints and beliefs. It's important not to conflate the need to respect the right to free speech with the need to respect the actual opinions expressed. An arsehole is still an arsehole.
posted by biffa at 5:21 AM on October 1, 2008
posted by biffa at 5:21 AM on October 1, 2008
The KKK is a distraction. It is a place for a very few cynical men to manipulate poor, uneducated whites. One KKK leader told my HS English teacher that the Klan was his way of making sure he personally had enough cannon fodder to protect his power, food and women once the government collapsed (which he was convinced was going to happen any week now).
There are much more dangerous groups out there. The Klan also distracts attention from them.
posted by QIbHom at 5:30 AM on October 1, 2008
There are much more dangerous groups out there. The Klan also distracts attention from them.
posted by QIbHom at 5:30 AM on October 1, 2008
clueless22 posted "Is the Ku Klux Klan a group with legitimate concerns, entitled to their views and needed in society for maintaining social balance?"
Klan members believe they have legitimate concerns.
What leads people to the modern Klan is generally fear, the fear that granting rights to blacks and Jews and Catholics diminishes the rights of Klan members, or white Protestants in general.
This is true: they no longer have the right to, for instance, expect submission from, degrade, humiliate, exploit, rape and lynch black people.
But they're as entitled to their beliefs as any other minority viewpoint. Let's keep in mind that at one time, minority viewpoints included beliefs in the freedom of religious conscience, abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the right to contraception and to abortion. Had these beliefs not been "entitled", we wouldn't live in the more enlightened times we now live in.
And historically, in cases where the right to believe has been abridged, we've seen conflict and bloodshed, not increased comity and social homogeneity. Cases in point: the near open warfare over oppressing the Mormon religion, which ended with US Federal troops occupying Utah; Bloody Kansas and the Civil War; police and mob violence against the Civil Rights Movement.
By suggesting that members of the Klan may not be "entitled to their views", you legitimize their fear that their rights are being taken away, and in their minds justify their hate. By attempting to suppress dissent as "illegitimate", you (like the Southern Poverty Law Center) fuel the Klan.
posted by orthogonality at 5:30 AM on October 1, 2008
Klan members believe they have legitimate concerns.
What leads people to the modern Klan is generally fear, the fear that granting rights to blacks and Jews and Catholics diminishes the rights of Klan members, or white Protestants in general.
This is true: they no longer have the right to, for instance, expect submission from, degrade, humiliate, exploit, rape and lynch black people.
But they're as entitled to their beliefs as any other minority viewpoint. Let's keep in mind that at one time, minority viewpoints included beliefs in the freedom of religious conscience, abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the right to contraception and to abortion. Had these beliefs not been "entitled", we wouldn't live in the more enlightened times we now live in.
And historically, in cases where the right to believe has been abridged, we've seen conflict and bloodshed, not increased comity and social homogeneity. Cases in point: the near open warfare over oppressing the Mormon religion, which ended with US Federal troops occupying Utah; Bloody Kansas and the Civil War; police and mob violence against the Civil Rights Movement.
By suggesting that members of the Klan may not be "entitled to their views", you legitimize their fear that their rights are being taken away, and in their minds justify their hate. By attempting to suppress dissent as "illegitimate", you (like the Southern Poverty Law Center) fuel the Klan.
posted by orthogonality at 5:30 AM on October 1, 2008
I like to think that the human species is having a transition, in the past few hundred years, from a small-group social structure where xenophobia is adaptive to a large-group structure where family-blind meritocracy does better. The Klan and similar groups seem to want to slow or reverse this transition.
I'm not prepared to pass judgment on whether this desire is "legitimate." People are certainly entitled to believe whatever silly woo they want, and to get together in groups and agree with each other. The groups that expend all their energy tilting at windmills will fade away with time, but there is no reason to expect them to go quietly.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 5:33 AM on October 1, 2008
I'm not prepared to pass judgment on whether this desire is "legitimate." People are certainly entitled to believe whatever silly woo they want, and to get together in groups and agree with each other. The groups that expend all their energy tilting at windmills will fade away with time, but there is no reason to expect them to go quietly.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 5:33 AM on October 1, 2008
Historically the KKK is a terrorist organization. You can't look past their history when the current organization still has the same platform and beliefs. I guess if you think that groups like al Qaeda serve a need in modern society then we can view the KKK as also filling that need. Otherwise, no.
posted by JJ86 at 5:39 AM on October 1, 2008
posted by JJ86 at 5:39 AM on October 1, 2008
When I was a kid and just awakening to the existence of racism, my mother gave me the most succinct, accurate explanation I've ever heard: "Bigots are poor, sad souls who just need someone they can feel superior to."
Therein lies the answer to your question, and many others.
posted by dinger at 5:44 AM on October 1, 2008
Therein lies the answer to your question, and many others.
posted by dinger at 5:44 AM on October 1, 2008
Is the Ku Klux Klan a group
Worth noting that there isn't a single "Klan", at least not today. There are several small groups. The SPLC has an interactive map where you can explore and compare.
posted by gimonca at 5:44 AM on October 1, 2008
Worth noting that there isn't a single "Klan", at least not today. There are several small groups. The SPLC has an interactive map where you can explore and compare.
posted by gimonca at 5:44 AM on October 1, 2008
Is the Ku Klux Klan a group with legitimate concerns, entitled to their views and needed in society for maintaining social balance?
Legitimate according to the current status quo.. no. Legitimate otherwise? You can't define it. It depends on your set of morals and beliefs.
There's nothing to say the status quo is any more legitimate than any other system of morals and beliefs, but we tend to define terrorist organizations / dictators and the like as being non legitimate as they are not compatible with the status quo.
posted by wackybrit at 5:58 AM on October 1, 2008
Legitimate according to the current status quo.. no. Legitimate otherwise? You can't define it. It depends on your set of morals and beliefs.
There's nothing to say the status quo is any more legitimate than any other system of morals and beliefs, but we tend to define terrorist organizations / dictators and the like as being non legitimate as they are not compatible with the status quo.
posted by wackybrit at 5:58 AM on October 1, 2008
Why are we doing people's homework for them?
posted by fire&wings at 6:08 AM on October 1, 2008
posted by fire&wings at 6:08 AM on October 1, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
No, if you believe that there's no societal benefit to hate, racism, violence, and white supremacy.
posted by emd3737 at 4:42 AM on October 1, 2008