Texas Senate Bill - Can’t teach KKK is morally wrong

Post Reply New Topic

Yes they are harmful to "others". Abortionists are harmful "to embryos", meat eaters are harmful "to animals". Both embryos and animals fit the bill of others. It just doesn't count as much in a lot of people's minds since a lot of people hold beliefs that embryos or animals don't feel as much, or aren't as worthy, as the humans that walk the earth. This belief might or might not be true. Similarly, racists believe that black people don't feel as much, or aren't as worthy, as white people. This, too, is a belief, quite similar to the other belief I just stated if you put them side by side. So the only way to say that one of these groups harm others more than the other group does is if you held a belief of your own in terms of who feel more than whom. Which again would be a belief.

On a different note, at least in past few decades or so, some branches of the klan are non-violent. For example, David Duke mentioned that the particular branch of the klan he was the part of was non-violent. I have no idea about the times of lynchings though, whether there were non-violent branches back then or not. Although I did hear how klan used to be quite fashionable at some point in history and very well known people (including some of the US presidents I believe) were part of it. So I would guess said famous people were probably in the non-violent branches, its just hard to imagine them participating in lynchings and such; but I don't know its just a guess.

In any case, here is an interesting moral question to consider. Lets take one of the non-violent branches of the KKK today. If you would call that branch immroal, it would be due to the combination of the following reasons:

1. The Klan had violent history, so they are endorsing past violence by identifying with it

2. There are violent branches of the Klan in the present, so again they are endorsing what they are doing by identifying with it

3. The ideas that they promote are racist

If you take "1", then you would also have to say that it is immoral to live in America because by doing so you are identifying with the murder of Indians as well as slavery. If you take "2" then it would be immoral to be a muslim because you are identifying with muslim terrorists. If you take "3", then it has nothing to do with "hurting other people"; yet "hurting other people" is what your point seemed to be. In fact you said "hurting other people" as opposed to "offending someone else's prejudice". Yet "3" is all about "offending someone else's prejudice".

Now, you might well come up with an argument how what I said is nonesense and how the Klan is a level worse than abortionists/meat eaters, and I can come up with an argument to refute it and you can come up with another argument, etc. Well, that just means that it is an excellent topic to ask the students to write "critical thinking" essay on. Instead of "telling" them what is more morally wrong than what, make them think about it on their own in their essay.

^^^
In a word: no.

The KKK wasn't thrilled with Russians, actually......

You do realise that legislators in Texas would claim to have no connection to the KKK and (yes) they are very aware of their continued influence in Texas,

I am talking about Once upon a time in Texas when the white population, the Klan, police, the judiciary, legislators and governor would have all openly worked closely together. We are talking about the 1960s.

Why is that? I thought Russians are White, why wouldn't they be?

I DID hear that they believe Jews are non-white though, and that is where I disagree with them. Although there are other movements, such as American Renaissance, that views Jews as White.

But as far as Russians that is a very good question actually. When I lived in Mississippi, someone slipped a phrase or two that seemed to "assume" Russians weren't White, but when I called them out on it they said "yes Russians are White". In case of Jews thats not the case though. There is a "Stormfront Russia" section of the Stormfront forum, which implies that they DO regard Russians as White. But then again, what about those slip-up phrases. AND what about what you just said?

With Jews its a lot clearer though. As much as I think Jews are White, at least I know where everyone stands, and everyone is explicit about it. But as far as Russians, it feels more ambigous.

So its good that you actually stated it out loud. Now that you did, what is it about Russians that would make them any less White? If anything, Russia is a northern country that has colder winters than most other countries. So if anything they would be MORE white, not less.

Last edited by QFT on 22 Jul 2021, 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You are kidding right? There is nothing/zero/zilch that the Klan does that warrants any form of critical thinking. How they arose and what they did/do is worth teaching. Even a non-academic can clearly see the intention behind the Texas republicans is to block the teaching of the Klan to students to hide/conceal their past/current activities. It actually borders on a form of sedition.

I think it can be easily checked one way or the other. Were their ancestors members of the klan? That sounds like a yes or no question. With sites such as ancestry.com one can find who their ancestors are, and then use some other sites to find their biographies.

First of all, I remember writing critical thinking essays regarding the topics where the answer "seems" obvious yet it is not so obvious. That is what philosophy classes are all about. In particular I took a Philosophy class on Descartes where I wrote critical thinking essays on how do I know that everything I see isn't just a dream. In the English classes they didn't go THAT far, but still a lot of critical thinking essays were along the alley of challenging the common wisdom.

As far as "nothing/zero/zilch", have you ever considered that maybe "a lot" of what they do is wrong yet "some other parts" of what they do is okay. For example one thing they do is oppose Affirmative Action. That part by itself is okay since there are people taking both sides. Of course the other thing they do is lynching, that is obviosuly wrong. But again, what about non-violent branches of a klan? What are they doing, just sitting around drinking beer? They are probably involved in politics of some sort. I am sure a lot of what they are promoting is extreme. But the affirmative action bit would be an example of somethign that isn't. So its not "nothing/zero/zilch". Maybe "very little" but not "nothing".

But in any case, I wouldn't have suggested the critical thinking about the klan if the other topic -- namely, teaching that it is immoral -- didn't come up. From the way I read it, it sounded like schools were REQUIRED to teach that klans are immoral and they decided to lift that requirenment. Well, duh. When I attended my classes, I haven't been taught that being on drugs is immoral. So why would teaching klan is immoral should be any different? I mean if we had a religious school where there are classes devoted to teaching the moral stands of a given religion, then yes they could teach klans are immoral in *those* classes (along many other things they teach to be immoral throughout the semester). But I don't see a reason why should a secular public school be involved in the business of teaching morals, much less be *required* to teach them.

Different white supremacist groups have different definitions of who's white. This doesn't make the term white supremacist any less useful for describing them.

The Klan originally hated Russians, because they were "Godless" communists, and our Cold War enemies. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Klan has embraced Russia, since they've embraced homophobia, authoritarian nationalism, and since Trump's been promoting them. Russian intelligence, realizing this, has been courting the Klan and other white nationalist terrorist organizations.

They hated catholic Irish and Italians as well.

Yep.

I've watched enough documentaries and read enough books on the far right to know that being a member of a "white supremacist group" means there is no advocating non-violence. Have you ever seen or heard of a skinhead or fellow with a swastika tattoo are a robed klansman get in front of their fellow goons and preach love and tolerance for non-white people?

If you are referring to the odd Nazi who is cornered on camera then of course, they are snivelling cowards who don't want to attract police attention. A few might have jobs and don't want their employer to give them the sack so they make up stories.

Being a member of a far right group requires a demonstration of loyalty/fielty/obedience. Like gang initiation.

Correct; there is no such thing as nonviolent white supremacists. I could care less what David Duke claims about the Klan renouncing violence.

David Duke is non-violent white supremacist right there. If you disagree, give me a specific incident of violence involving David Duke as a perpetrator.

Forgot Jasper and Vidor.