Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Aug 23rd, 2017: Under Water

Recent Images

Aug 21st, 2017: Extra Time
August 21st, 2017: Another Rejected Princess
Aug 20th, 2017: Jurassic Gliders
Aug 19th, 2017: Airglow
Aug 18th, 2017: Kimís Bicycle
Aug 17th, 2017: Susquehanna Ice Bridge
Aug 15th, 2017: Trailer Park

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Dec 9 12:57 AM

Dec 9, 2010: KKK Wedding

A KKK wedding in TN, not 100 years ago, 5 days ago.



I didn't know the Klan performed marriages.



I guess the tea party doesn't have the authority yet.

link



freshnesschronic  Thursday Dec 9 02:13 AM

tangent: Why do the KKK burn crosses again?



Gravdigr  Thursday Dec 9 02:29 AM

You'd think they'd try to bolster their public image by going green with those new flickering CFL or LED crosses, they're much more eco-friendly...



nil_orally  Thursday Dec 9 06:14 AM

That's because the green-tech ones need a battery and a switch, which is way beyond the capabilities of these people



SPUCK  Thursday Dec 9 06:20 AM

What wonderful people..


NOT!

The definition of pathetic.



DanaC  Thursday Dec 9 06:23 AM




Undertoad  Thursday Dec 9 08:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by freshnesschronic View Post
tangent: Why do the KKK burn crosses again?
A Star of David is too much lumber.


mizzie  Thursday Dec 9 08:12 AM

The saddest part of that is the little girl in the second picture. She's going to grow up being taught that crap and won't know any better.



glatt  Thursday Dec 9 08:23 AM

If you can successfully remove the burning crosses from the symbolism associated with them, and the hatred and intolerance of the assholes doing it, that's actually a pretty cool picture with those three crosses burning.

Like if you were traveling to a foreign country and there was some local village that celebrated the harvest with a big bonfire of these crosses, or other simple symbols, it would be pretty cool.



DanaC  Thursday Dec 9 08:39 AM

yeah. It doesn't look disimilar in tone to some of the solstice photos you see taken around Stone Henge.

Primal.



Spexxvet  Thursday Dec 9 08:43 AM

I'm surprised to see white-costumed and black-costumed members integrated.



DanaC  Thursday Dec 9 08:47 AM

Yeah. They're trying to widen their appeal.



Trilby  Thursday Dec 9 08:51 AM

How is it again that the KKK is legal?

I thought they were a hate group - but they've gotten around that somehow? Does anyone know?

ETA: the bride and groom - they deserve one another.



Shawnee123  Thursday Dec 9 08:56 AM

I see why they wear those thingys over their heads: those rednecks iz UGLY. Ugly inside, mostly. Being a good person trumps a whole lot of ugly, and they lose on both accounts.



Lamplighter  Thursday Dec 9 09:39 AM

Brianna has got it... otherwise they would infest two more people's lives.



BrianR  Thursday Dec 9 10:06 AM

Oh, THAT Klan...never mind..



Lamplighter  Thursday Dec 9 10:09 AM

Brian, very good !



newtimer  Thursday Dec 9 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianna View Post
How is it again that the KKK is legal?
On the same grounds that any other racially-oriented group is legal. (Nation of Islam, NAACP, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Black Panthers...)

They're all permitted to assemble, but we're only allowed to call them names and accuse them of bigotry if their members are white.


Spexxvet  Thursday Dec 9 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtimer View Post
On the same grounds that any other racially-oriented group is legal. (Nation of Islam, NAACP, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Black Panthers...)

They're all permitted to assemble, but we're only allowed to call them names and accuse them of bigotry if their members are white.
Poor, persecuted caucazoids.


Flint  Thursday Dec 9 11:33 AM




DanaC  Thursday Dec 9 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
Poor, persecuted caucazoids.
I am still laughing as I type this:

haggis


wolf  Thursday Dec 9 12:46 PM



(I do not know why the image is reversed)



k012957  Thursday Dec 9 03:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
I guess the tea party doesn't have the authority yet.link
Sheesh! Gratuitous tea party bashing. It'd be better to keep your politics out of it.

Though the pictures did remind me of Burning Man...


tangiers79  Thursday Dec 9 03:30 PM

The NAACP was chartered in direct response to slavery, the Panthers began in response to racism and Mexicans are a native minority who have every right to be here. The KKK mission statement extols the virtues of hatred for everyone, except the majority..white (anglo), protestant men. To compare those scared little pukes who belong to the huge majority with a strong countering organization of minorities is inconceivable and irresponsible.



tangiers79  Thursday Dec 9 03:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
Poor, persecuted caucazoids.
The NAACP was chartered in direct response to slavery, the Panthers began in response to racism and Mexicans are a native minority who have every right to be here. The KKK mission statement extols the virtues of hatred for everyone, except the majority..white (anglo), protestant men. To compare those scared little pukes who belong to the huge majority with a strong countering organization of minorities is inconceivable and irresponsible.


tangiers79  Thursday Dec 9 03:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtimer View Post
On the same grounds that any other racially-oriented group is legal. (Nation of Islam, NAACP, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Black Panthers...)

They're all permitted to assemble, but we're only allowed to call them names and accuse them of bigotry if their members are white.
The NAACP was chartered in direct response to slavery, the Panthers began in response to racism and Mexicans are a native minority who have every right to be here. The KKK mission statement extols the virtues of hatred for everyone, except the majority..white (anglo), protestant men. To compare those scared little pukes who belong to the huge majority with a strong countering organization of minorities is inconceivable and irresponsible.


tombstone  Thursday Dec 9 04:58 PM

Why, IOD, would you even post this?



Big Sarge  Thursday Dec 9 05:01 PM

Tangiers - The NAACP was formed in 1909 and was not in reponse to slavery. It was a civil rights organization formed to counter state legislation passed in the post-reconstruction era.

The Black Panthers is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group was founded and lead by a violent criminal who later fled to Cuba to avoid prosecution. Read their 10 point program. Pure rascism/hate.



Shawnee123  Thursday Dec 9 09:14 PM

Quote:
WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME.


I think the point the poster was trying to make was that the NAACP was chartered in direct response to slavery, the Panthers began in response to racism and Mexicans are a native minority who have every right to be here. The KKK mission statement extols the virtues of hatred for everyone, except the majority..white (anglo), protestant men. To compare those scared little pukes who belong to the huge majority with a strong countering organization of minorities is inconceivable and irresponsible.

I could be wrong, though.


footfootfoot  Thursday Dec 9 09:18 PM

Hey little sister what have you done
Hey little sister who's the only one
Hey little sister who's your superman
Hey little sister who's the one you want
Hey little sister shot gun!

It's a nice day to start again
It's a nice day for a white wedding
It's a nice day to start again.



Saknussem  Thursday Dec 9 09:19 PM

Why does the Klan burn crosses?

Well, this is actually sort of an involved question, and the real answer follows:

The klan started right after the end of the civil war. The south was beaten down, and some southern gentlemen, and I use that term seriously, decided it would be fun to form a club and have social events, scare their girlfriends, and engage in other truly innocent games. These men were all of Scottish descent, hence the clan. They were all educated men, and one suggested that kuklos be in the name -- kuklos being Greek for "circle", and he thought that this would engender feelings of comradeship in a time of great hardship. Remember, Lincoln had been assassinated, and the comradery that was felt between the winner (North) and the loser (South) had evaporated over night for all intents and purposes. Instead of TONS of Federal aid pouring into the reconstruction, carpet baggers and other shit heels came down south in order to make as much money by as many illegal, indecent, unscrupulous, and downright dirty ways as possible.
Okay, back to the klan. The klan was undergoing a transformation, rapidly -- from a fun-loving bunch of guys who rode around at night dressed in sheets to scare their girlfriends to the vicious racist band of evil things we know today. Unfortunately, they were well aware of their Scottish heritage, and utilized one element of it.
Going back to the 1600s, when Scottish clans would go to war, the clan priest along with the clan elders would take a LARGE wooden cross to the highest point in their lands and set it ablaze. This had a twofold purpose -- one was to summon the whole clan to the keep, the second was to break the pact with God that all men were supposed to hold. This cross burning carried down through the ages to the post-bellum South, and a horrible and evil tradition was born.
I hope that answers your question. I used to teach a class in college about countercultures in America, and believe me, the Klan was WAY up there. If you want to see a GREAT (if dated) video of the modern Klan, try to find "Blood in the Face".

On a better and mentally healthier note -- Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Yule, and Merry Christmas to one and all!



monster  Thursday Dec 9 09:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombstone View Post
Why, IOD, would you even post this?
Because it's interesting. It's not called Lovely Fluffy Happy IOTD.


Shawnee123  Thursday Dec 9 09:27 PM

Image of the Damned?



footfootfoot  Thursday Dec 9 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster View Post
Because it's interesting. It's not called Lovely Fluffy Happy IOTD.
That's tomorrow's IOTD but you left out Tasty.


monster  Thursday Dec 9 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by footfootfoot View Post
That's tomorrow's IOTD but you left out Tasty.
it's not always fluffy on Friday.

Maybe we should pre-empt and get busy with the KKK recipes? I was going to do that in my first reply, but i thought it might be tasteless...


footfootfoot  Thursday Dec 9 11:25 PM

Smoky, I bet.



xoxoxoBruce  Friday Dec 10 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by k012957 View Post
Sheesh! Gratuitous tea party bashing. It'd be better to keep your politics out of it.
I see, you'd rather I only question the legal authority to marry people, of one inbred racist group per thread.


Adak  Friday Dec 10 01:38 AM

The Southern Poverty Law Center, (and other law centers like it), has caused most of the wealth and property of the KKK, to be taken away with huge lawsuits from their victims.

Sadly, the neo-nazi movement (and several other racial or ethnic gangs), are still popular, especially in the prison system. Every race has it's gang, and you need to belong to a gang or you're an easy target (and they know it, and they are good at targeting loners). You can't choose to join a gang that isn't your color or your ethnicity.

In earlier days, they had several members in Congress, and several more members were sympathizers, of the KKK.

Anybody know whether the KKK has been officially declared a terrorist organization, by Homeland Security?



DanaC  Friday Dec 10 05:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saknussem View Post
Well, this is actually sort of an involved question, and the real answer follows: ...

Nice one Saknussem. That was very interesting.


ZenGum  Friday Dec 10 07:09 AM

... and the bride wore ... well, duh.



Griff  Friday Dec 10 07:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
Nice one Saknussem. That was very interesting.
It really was. I think it is important to remember the broken pacts at the end of the war and how they lead to the development of hate groups. It smells a lot like the post WWI German experience. None of which excuses the inhumanity of the people involved, we just need to remember that the winners have responsibilities...


Jim Spaza  Friday Dec 10 08:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by freshnesschronic View Post
tangent: Why do the KKK burn crosses again?
According to their beliefs, they are not burning the crosses. They are "lighting" them to shine the teachings of Jesus Christ to all the world. That the cross itself is consumed is irrelevant.

Originally, the KKK was not a racist organization. And some KKK organizations today still are not. Some actually have black, hispanic, and asian members.

Originally, the KKK was created as a vigilante group to police their own towns and were used extensively when the real police and courts could do nothing about lawbreakers and criminals.

For example, if a man beat his wife and the police could do nothing, then the KKK would light a cross in the guy's front yard as a warning. If that warning went unheeded, then the KKK would take the guy out into the woods and explain the nature of the problem to him.

It originally was NOT about racism. It was about law and order. The fact that some (most?) KKK groups today are racist doesn't change this historical fact.

(I'm not a KKK member. I just like accurate history to be taught.)


Spexxvet  Friday Dec 10 08:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
Sadly, the neo-nazi movement (and several other racial or ethnic gangs), are still popular, especially in the republican party.
Since classic is not around, I fixed that for you.


Undertoad  Friday Dec 10 09:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Spaza View Post
stuff
Wikipedia doesn't agree with you about any of that


monster  Friday Dec 10 09:18 AM

What a bunch of wimps, though. Real men don't wear anything under their skirts....



freshnesschronic  Friday Dec 10 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
Agreed, and wiki is my online mother, she's never wrong.


Jim Spaza  Friday Dec 10 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
Yeah. And we know that Wiki is never inaccurate about anything as well as know that Wiki has never been purposefully used to spread misinformation fueled by political, economic, religious, and social biases.

Yeah, you're right.


Shawnee123  Friday Dec 10 12:37 PM

Do you have an alternate source to back up your post?



Shawnee123  Friday Dec 10 12:39 PM

Oh, and welcome!



monster  Friday Dec 10 01:02 PM

yup, the KKK manifesto.....



Adak  Friday Dec 10 01:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
Since classic is not around, I fixed that for you.
Sadly, the neo-nazi movement (and several other racial or ethnic gangs), are still popular, especially in the republican party.
You might want to know the history of one of the major political parties in the country. Because the above quote is certainly inaccurate.


It was the Democrats who set up the Jim Crow laws of the South, and fought so hard against racial equality, negro voter registration, civil right, fair housing, and integration.

"The Republican party was founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the Grand Old Party (GOP). The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the political spectrum, in contrast to the more "liberal" or "progressive" Democrats." -- Wikipedia.

It was a Republican who freed the slaves, (Lincoln), not a Democrat, and the bigots never forgot that.

Of course, the Democrats have turned that fact on it's head, because it fits much better with their liberal left agenda, but you can look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...ited_States%29

And please, check the accuracy of this article!

Check out one of the major Southern Democrats of the 20th century:
Governor of Alabama George C. Wallace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

A real Democrat.


Flint  Friday Dec 10 01:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Spaza View Post
Yeah. And we know that Wiki is never inaccurate about anything...
In fact, when even slightly inaccurate information has been posted on Wikipedia as a test of it's self-correcting ability, errors have been shown to be corrected within three hours at maximum. And this is for innocuous minutia.

Here's a link to the Cellar thread where I posted about this in 2006.


Lamplighter  Friday Dec 10 01:51 PM

A talking head on TV recently attributed the current split between Dems and Repubs
to the civil rights "Voter's Registration" bill of the Johnson administration.

The racially intolerant southern Dems moved to the Republican party,
and the moderate Repubs disappeared or moved into the Democrats

If true, it's an another example of the "law of unintended consequences"



Happy Monkey  Friday Dec 10 01:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
It was a Republican who freed the slaves, (Lincoln), not a Democrat, and the bigots never forgot that.

Of course, the Democrats have turned that fact on it's head,
...
Not the Democrats; Nixon's Southern Strategy turned that fact on its head.


Spexxvet  Friday Dec 10 02:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
A talking head on TV recently attributed the current split between Dems and Repubs
to the civil rights "Voter's Registration" bill of the Johnson administration.

The racially intolerant southern Dems moved to the Republican party,
and the moderate Repubs disappeared or moved into the Democrats

If true, it's an another example of the "law of unintended consequences"
Are you really insinuating that the repubican platform not anti-minority?


richlevy  Friday Dec 10 04:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf View Post
(I do not know why the image is reversed)
I think that it's a legal or technological defense against being accused of copyright infringement. I've seen other reversed videos of TV shows.


footfootfoot  Friday Dec 10 04:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
You might want to know the history of one of the major political parties in the country. Because the above quote is certainly inaccurate.


It was the Democrats who set up the Jim Crow laws of the South, and fought so hard against racial equality, negro voter registration, civil right, fair housing, and integration.

"The Republican party was founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the Grand Old Party (GOP). The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the political spectrum, in contrast to the more "liberal" or "progressive" Democrats." -- Wikipedia.

It was a Republican who freed the slaves, (Lincoln), not a Democrat, and the bigots never forgot that.

Of course, the Democrats have turned that fact on it's head, because it fits much better with their liberal left agenda, but you can look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...ited_States%29

And please, check the accuracy of this article!

Check out one of the major Southern Democrats of the 20th century:
Governor of Alabama George C. Wallace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

A real Democrat.
Good points. Just a point to make about Republicans and Democrats of Yore. The only thing today's Republicans and Democrats have in common with the 1800's Republicans and Democrats is the name of the party. For a while it seemed they'd traded places ideologically, now, I find it rather tough to separate them at all unless I get out my hairsplitter.


Clodfobble  Friday Dec 10 05:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by richlevy
I think that it's a legal or technological defense against being accused of copyright infringement. I've seen other reversed videos of TV shows.
I had been told that YouTube has a scanning algorithm (that of course they will not admit to as it would be proprietary) that can match any uploaded video against a database of copyrighted data, thus weeding out at least a certain number of the copyright violations without the need for a human to view each one. Flip the image, and it no longer matches.


footfootfoot  Friday Dec 10 05:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
I had been told that YouTube has a scanning algorithm (that of course they will not admit to as it would be proprietary) that can match any uploaded video against a database of copyrighted data, thus weeding out at least a certain number of the copyright violations without the need for a human to view each one. Flip the image, and it no longer matches.
Margaret Gould Stewart discusses it here on TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_st...copyright.html


Adak  Saturday Dec 11 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by footfootfoot View Post
Good points. Just a point to make about Republicans and Democrats of Yore. The only thing today's Republicans and Democrats have in common with the 1800's Republicans and Democrats is the name of the party. For a while it seemed they'd traded places ideologically, now, I find it rather tough to separate them at all unless I get out my hairsplitter.
We've had Republicans act like Democrats, but in general:

Republicans want:
============
safer, and more controlled borders. We want immigration, but we want LEGAL immigration.

our government to spend only the money that it has, instead of piling up debt, spending money that it doesn't have.

less taxes, and fewer tax loop-holes (U.S. tax code is now 70,000+ pages, and grows ever longer)

less regulation of private business (fanny mae and freddie mac, overseen by Democrats like Barney Frank), caused a huge portion of this housing bust we're now going through. Gov't regulations on bank loans, and allowing derivatives from those notes, also added to the problem.

less subsidies. We still are paying out subsidies to farmers for obsolete programs started before 1940. Paying a farmer NOT to grow on his land is also, generally a bad idea.

require valid ID when you vote - stop voter fraud

require e-verify for a job, to help eliminate easy identity theft, and help prevent illegal immigration.

It's seems our liberal leaders have found a new hate target -- the well off, dare I say "rich".

I'm not sure what the hell they're thinking of, but if you wait for the welfare supported guy or gal to offer you a good paying job, you'll be waiting for a very long time.

Who else is going to be starting up a business? Hiring new employee's? Buying that $40,000 new tractor/combine to harvest the wheat that you'll be eating later?

Think of what it takes to start up a business of any kind. That's not chump change that makes that happen.

* I spent a few years in the Deep South, when integration was still the law of the land (early 50's). I learned all about Democrats, at that time. I did support Clinton for President, because he was experienced at running things (former Governor), and smart (a former Rhodes Scholar).

Not to speak ill of the dead, but compared to John Kennedy, or FDR, Clinton was a marital saint.


TheMercenary  Saturday Dec 11 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Spaza View Post
According to their beliefs, they are not burning the crosses. They are "lighting" them to shine the teachings of Jesus Christ to all the world. That the cross itself is consumed is irrelevant.

Originally, the KKK was not a racist organization. And some KKK organizations today still are not. Some actually have black, hispanic, and asian members.

Originally, the KKK was created as a vigilante group to police their own towns and were used extensively when the real police and courts could do nothing about lawbreakers and criminals.

For example, if a man beat his wife and the police could do nothing, then the KKK would light a cross in the guy's front yard as a warning. If that warning went unheeded, then the KKK would take the guy out into the woods and explain the nature of the problem to him.

It originally was NOT about racism. It was about law and order. The fact that some (most?) KKK groups today are racist doesn't change this historical fact.

(I'm not a KKK member. I just like accurate history to be taught.)
That is a strange addition to the otherwise know facts about a hate group.


Adak  Saturday Dec 11 11:17 AM

Yes, the KKK was a vigilante group. They didn't JUST lynch blacks, but blacks were their most frequently killed victim. For whites, an obvious warning of a burned cross, or a "trip to the woods" for a bit of "learnin'", was generally quite sufficient.

Their efforts in the 50's and 60's, mirrored the deep loss they felt as the wave of civil rights and integration became more of a reality.



Lamplighter  Saturday Dec 11 11:44 AM

Quote:
<snip>* I spent a few years in the Deep South, when integration was still the law of the land (early 50's).
I learned all about Democrats, at that time.
I did support Clinton for President, because he was experienced at running things (former Governor),
and smart (a former Rhodes Scholar).
Was this a typo/brain fart ?

I don't understand, unless you are exquisitely fine-cutting your words.
Brown vs Board of Education was 1954, just as an example


Adak  Sunday Dec 12 04:01 PM

Integration was the law, but it was not fully integrated into society. We still had "colored" entrances and water fountains and such.

This was before all the rest of the civil rights acts, and activities.

Johnson was not a president I really admired, but in the area of civil rights legislation, he was an amazing champion - he left the Northern liberals with their mouths catching fly's, on this.

All the more amazing, was that he was from a former Confederate state (Texas).



Lamplighter  Sunday Dec 12 04:42 PM

Groan...



tombstone  Monday Dec 13 01:03 PM

To Monster and Foot Foot Foot, who replied to my question of why IOD would even post this picture, and to all of you contributors-- Wow! I understand why now! What an excellent lot of thought-provoking conversation was stimulated by this image! What a great amount of history was recalled by it! I hope school kids will go on this site and read what all of you have to say! It sure points out the importance of knowing history and understanding it! I am impressed with all of the thoughtful, intelligent comments made by a group I am pleased to be a part of!



Trilby  Monday Dec 13 01:20 PM

(stage whisper) I think tombstone is effing with someone (stage whisper)



John  Tuesday Dec 14 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombstone View Post
What a great amount of history was recalled by it invented in response to it!
FTFY.

I mean, seriously, you had the tone *almost* perfect, but I would have given you a couple of extra points if you'd properly classified KKK New Guy and Adak as engaging in creative, not historical, writing.


footfootfoot  Tuesday Dec 14 12:49 PM

Holy shit, I think that is the first post I've seen of yours with words, John.



xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Dec 15 01:13 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
I mean, seriously, you had the tone *almost* perfect, but I would have given you a couple of extra points if you'd properly classified KKK New Guy and Adak as engaging in creative, not historical, writing.
Not creative writing, like everyone relating first person experiences, it's perspective. What the writer took away from what they saw, which is not history... unless they're a pro on the winning side.


Adak  Wednesday Dec 15 08:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
FTFY.

I mean, seriously, you had the tone *almost* perfect, but I would have given you a couple of extra points if you'd properly classified KKK New Guy and Adak as engaging in creative, not historical, writing.
What?

You think the KKK was violent ONLY to blacks? Guess again. If you doubt what i said about the Southern Poverty Law Center, winning big in legal suits against the KKK, it's a matter of public record. They won *big*, including substantial real estate.

If you think for one minute that segregation was broken right after the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling was made, you're way off.

Why did president Eisenhower send in the 101st Airborne into Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce it? Why was the Governor of Alabama making speeches about "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"?

If you didn't live in the South during those times, you probably have no idea what it was like back in the days before desegregation. America was a *very* different place, back then.


morethanpretty  Wednesday Dec 15 09:21 AM

Yeah, they were violent to white people who dared to sympathize with black people!

Overwhelmingly they were/are violent to black people. Any white people who were targeted were targeted for sympathizing or helping the civil right cause.
Don't try to pretend that everything they do is not about racial hate. It is.



Lamplighter  Wednesday Dec 15 09:45 AM

It was not only the violence and intimidation of Blacks.
The KKK were/are politically active against Catholics and Jews,
and essentially anyone else that was not white and Protestant.

Oregon has a significant legal and social history with the KKK.
Essentially, the basis for private schools in the US was established
by the US Supreme Court in ruling in 1925 against the KKK
and in favor of St Mary's Academy here in Portland, OR.



morethanpretty  Wednesday Dec 15 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
It was not only the violence and intimidation of Blacks.
The KKK were/are politically active against Catholics and Jews,
and essentially anyone else that was not white and Protestant.

Oregon has a significant legal and social history with the KKK.
Essentially, the basis for private schools in the US was established
by the US Supreme Court in ruling in 1925 against the KKK
and in favor of St Mary's Academy here in Portland, OR.
I actually realize that, just Adak's continuous arguments that the KKK is somehow not all about racial/prejudicial hate is really really annoying me. Somehow the fact that they sometimes target non-blacks makes them, what? Less awful? I don't understand what Adak's point is TBH. They are a hate group, their main focus is blacks.


Lamplighter  Wednesday Dec 15 11:27 AM

MTP, yes, point taken.

Oregon just didn't have enough Blacks to keep the KKK's busy.
The original State Constitution prohibited Blacks from owning real estate anywhere in the State. It wasn't until after WWII that significant numbers of Blacks settled in the PDX area.

Southern Oregon had KKK activity against the Native Americans, based on land and water rights, and the Chinese laborers who worked in mines and on the railroads. A history that still has lingering effects.

KKK...Oregon's "equal-opportunity" hate group.



TheMercenary  Wednesday Dec 15 02:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by morethanpretty View Post
They are a hate group, their main focus is blacks.
And Jews.


HungLikeJesus  Wednesday Dec 15 07:47 PM

And black Jews.



Shawnee123  Wednesday Dec 15 08:42 PM

native american jew catholic monks!



TheMercenary  Wednesday Dec 15 09:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus View Post
And black Jews.
And Jews who act in black-face. Those must be the worst.


SPUCK  Thursday Dec 16 06:17 AM

Mimes?



Adak  Thursday Dec 16 06:48 AM

Quote:
I actually realize that, just Adak's continuous arguments that the KKK is somehow not all about racial/prejudicial hate is really really annoying me. Somehow the fact that they sometimes target non-blacks makes them, what? Less awful? I don't understand what Adak's point is TBH. They are a hate group, their main focus is blacks.
I believe most of you weren't in the South during those years, but now, are posting like you were.

Of course the most frequent victims of the KKK were the colored's, and by far, they regularly received the most brutal treatment. In Florida, they wiped out a whole colored town. The lucky survivors being too afraid to return. Just a rumor of a black on white crime could set them off no end.

I apologize if I didn't emphasize that this kind of behavior was not motivated by their loving kindness.


John  Monday Dec 20 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by footfootfoot View Post
Holy shit, I think that is the first post I've seen of yours with words, John.
Lots of my posts have words! They just also usually have pictures because I'm posting in the "weird-ass fucking pictures" threads.

Adak: Not only did you miss my point completely, but now you've trotted out the phrase "the coloreds".

Wow.

(Hint: The historical revisionism I was talking about was your conflation of the political parties of the Slaver's Rebellion and Jim Crow eras with the current ones that have similar names, but drastically different agendas. Well, that and your amazingingly misinformed description of what you think the Republican platform is, and why.)


Adak  Monday Dec 20 05:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
Lots of my posts have words! They just also usually have pictures because I'm posting in the "weird-ass fucking pictures" threads.

Adak: Not only did you miss my point completely, but now you've trotted out the phrase "the coloreds".

Wow.

(Hint: The historical revisionism I was talking about was your conflation of the political parties of the Slaver's Rebellion and Jim Crow eras with the current ones that have similar names, but drastically different agendas. Well, that and your amazingingly misinformed description of what you think the Republican platform is, and why.)
Political parties are dynamic; changing over time. The current Democratic party leadership is quite far to the left on the political spectrum, and desperately trying to spend us out of our economic problems, while continuing to massively increase the size of government. Like that works.

"I don't have enough money -- so I'll spend like crazy!"

Every government employee will have yet another paycheck the private sector (you and I), must support with our taxes.

The liberal to conservative slant of our political parties, is the major division I see between them. I do get riled when I hear some liberal ranting on about the racism they perceive, in the Republican party. As if the Democrats didn't have the most extensive racist history of any political party in the USA, by far. I remember Gov. Wallace and his ilk, all too well.

The word "coloreds" was not uncommon during the late 40's and 50's. It was not an offensive word, (all racist terms are offensive, but "colored" is only mildly so), being mostly descriptive, and used by more than just white folk. America was a racist place in those days. If you were around in those days, in the South particularly, you couldn't miss it. Words like this were needed, to describe the reality of the law, and the world we lived in.


TheMercenary  Friday Dec 24 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
The word "coloreds" was not uncommon during the late 40's and 50's. It was not an offensive word, (all racist terms are offensive, but "colored" is only mildly so), being mostly descriptive, and used by more than just white folk.
It certainly is a more accurate description today than African American is currently used for the people living in the United States who are of color other than white.


xoxoxoBruce  Friday Dec 24 01:34 PM

That's for sure, African American is a term which properly applied refers to very few people in this country, who hold dual citizenship with an African country and the US.



Gravdigr  Friday Dec 24 01:50 PM

Hey!! HEY!!!HEY!!!!

Don't leave out the Canadians. Dirty fucking Canadians...



Gravdigr  Friday Dec 24 01:51 PM

I meant Kanadians. Yeah. Dirty fukking Kanadians...



Lamplighter  Friday Dec 24 02:47 PM

And what happens in just a few more steps ...

Kanadians -> Kanukians -> Kenukians -> Kentukians



xoxoxoBruce  Friday Dec 24 06:37 PM

But it's Canuckians.



DanaC  Friday Dec 24 09:11 PM

So...a deboned canary, stuffed inside a deboned duck, stuffed inside a deboned dalmation?

Tasty.



Gravdigr  Saturday Dec 25 01:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
So...a deboned canary, stuffed inside a deboned duck, stuffed inside a deboned dalmation?



Gravdigr  Saturday Dec 25 01:49 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
And what happens in just a few more steps ...

Kanadians -> Kanukians -> Kenukians -> Kentukians
That shoulda included Kenudians...


Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.