KKK wants to adopt a highway

LiLiNY81

This is a debate I've been having with my mother and some friends over the past couple of days. Recently, the KKK was denied when they applied to adopt a highway. Is this right or wrong?

Let me preface this by saying in no way do I advocate any sort of hate group or racially-charged organization. I don't believe in designated groups for any religion/sexual orientation/class/nationality/race. I believe in treating people equally as human beings, regardless of what they might look like/who they want to marry/who they pray to. With that said, I believe the KKK should be able to adopt a highway...and here's why:

Every single organization has their intolerance and their "rogue" members. Every organization has their history of violence in some shape or form. Yes historically, the KKK had their time in history where they projected hate and violence. However, the modern day KKK is just another organization promoting their pride for their race. There are some members that still promote hate, you'll never get rid of them completely. Just like you'll never get rid of leaders of our own country that believe firmly in using violence to obtain what you want/get your point across.

They should absolutely have the same right to promote their pride group as say a gay pride organization would...or an African American organization would. Why is it that someone like Malcom X, who promoted racial violence and hate against whites, is praised and has things named after him? But an organization like the KKK can't promote their group because of their history of hate and violence? It makes no sense to me. I'm sure if the KKK wrote a $30 million check to cancer research, it wouldn't be denied.

Maybe I'm the one being ignorant here, but I dunno...it just aggravates me that we're a country filled with double standards.

mookeywrench

But the KKK isn't white pride...it's white supremecy.

They're not just proud of their race...they think it is the superior race and anyone not part of their race are second rate humans.

mickeyrat

LiLiNY81 wrote:

This is a debate I've been having with my mother and some friends over the past couple of days. Recently, the KKK was denied when they applied to adopt a highway. Is this right or wrong?

Let me preface this by saying in no way do I advocate any sort of hate group or racially-charged organization. I don't believe in designated groups for any religion/sexual orientation/class/nationality/race. I believe in treating people equally as human beings, regardless of what they might look like/who they want to marry/who they pray to. With that said, I believe the KKK should be able to adopt a highway...and here's why:

Every single organization has their intolerance and their "rogue" members. Every organization has their history of violence in some shape or form. Yes historically, the KKK had their time in history where they projected hate and violence. However, the modern day KKK is just another organization promoting their pride for their race. There are some members that still promote hate, you'll never get rid of them completely. Just like you'll never get rid of leaders of our own country that believe firmly in using violence to obtain what you want/get your point across.

They should absolutely have the same right to promote their pride group as say a gay pride organization would...or an African American organization would. Why is it that someone like Malcom X, who promoted racial violence and hate against whites, is praised and has things named after him? But an organization like the KKK can't promote their group because of their history of hate and violence? It makes no sense to me. I'm sure if the KKK wrote a $30 million check to cancer research, it wouldn't be denied.

Maybe I'm the one being ignorant here, but I dunno...it just aggravates me that we're a country filled with double standards.

Well, Malcolm X changed his tune after his pilgrimage, so theres that. Second, he advocated defending themselves when he was with the Nation Of Islam.


KKK on the other hand has a rich history of killing, burning homes, etc. Too much baggage associated with them in my opinion to have their name on a sign . So here is my solution. They adopt it anyway, but get no "credit" for doing so.

Cosmo

LiLiNY81 wrote:

This is a debate I've been having with my mother and some friends over the past couple of days. Recently, the KKK was denied when they applied to adopt a highway. Is this right or wrong?

Let me preface this by saying in no way do I advocate any sort of hate group or racially-charged organization. I don't believe in designated groups for any religion/sexual orientation/class/nationality/race. I believe in treating people equally as human beings, regardless of what they might look like/who they want to marry/who they pray to. With that said, I believe the KKK should be able to adopt a highway...and here's why:

Every single organization has their intolerance and their "rogue" members. Every organization has their history of violence in some shape or form. Yes historically, the KKK had their time in history where they projected hate and violence. However, the modern day KKK is just another organization promoting their pride for their race. There are some members that still promote hate, you'll never get rid of them completely. Just like you'll never get rid of leaders of our own country that believe firmly in using violence to obtain what you want/get your point across.

They should absolutely have the same right to promote their pride group as say a gay pride organization would...or an African American organization would. Why is it that someone like Malcom X, who promoted racial violence and hate against whites, is praised and has things named after him? But an organization like the KKK can't promote their group because of their history of hate and violence? It makes no sense to me. I'm sure if the KKK wrote a $30 million check to cancer research, it wouldn't be denied.

Maybe I'm the one being ignorant here, but I dunno...it just aggravates me that we're a country filled with double standards.

...
I think a fairer comparison would be if the Black Panthers or Al Qaeda wanted to adopt a highway... would they also be denied?
I'm thinkin'... yeah, they would.

LiLiNY81

mookeywrench wrote:

But the KKK isn't white pride...it's white supremecy.

They're not just proud of their race...they think it is the superior race and anyone not part of their race are second rate humans.

Not so much anymore. They're more for just wanting to be around other white people. I think Neo-Nazi's are more for white supremecy, no?

JOEJOEJOE

Malcom X may have preached hate, but he did it at a time when African-Americans had to use "colored" drinking fountains and "colored" restrooms.

Based on their reputation and previous actions, the KKK will never ever get the benefit of any doubts.

There is a huge difference between promoting pride vs. burning crosses on people's lawns.

LiLiNY81

Cosmo wrote:

LiLiNY81 wrote:

This is a debate I've been having with my mother and some friends over the past couple of days. Recently, the KKK was denied when they applied to adopt a highway. Is this right or wrong?

Let me preface this by saying in no way do I advocate any sort of hate group or racially-charged organization. I don't believe in designated groups for any religion/sexual orientation/class/nationality/race. I believe in treating people equally as human beings, regardless of what they might look like/who they want to marry/who they pray to. With that said, I believe the KKK should be able to adopt a highway...and here's why:

Every single organization has their intolerance and their "rogue" members. Every organization has their history of violence in some shape or form. Yes historically, the KKK had their time in history where they projected hate and violence. However, the modern day KKK is just another organization promoting their pride for their race. There are some members that still promote hate, you'll never get rid of them completely. Just like you'll never get rid of leaders of our own country that believe firmly in using violence to obtain what you want/get your point across.

They should absolutely have the same right to promote their pride group as say a gay pride organization would...or an African American organization would. Why is it that someone like Malcom X, who promoted racial violence and hate against whites, is praised and has things named after him? But an organization like the KKK can't promote their group because of their history of hate and violence? It makes no sense to me. I'm sure if the KKK wrote a $30 million check to cancer research, it wouldn't be denied.

Maybe I'm the one being ignorant here, but I dunno...it just aggravates me that we're a country filled with double standards.

...
I think a fairer comparison would be is the Black Panthers or Al Qaeda wanted to adopt a highway... would they also be denied?
I'm thinkin'... yeah, they would.

Fair enough, but Al Qaeda isn't an American organization. And I honestly think the Black Panthers...and we'll throw in the Hells Angels too....would get recognition.

PETA is another organization I can't stand. They get praise, donations and recognition and they promote violence to get their point across. Granted, they don't KILL people, but they still use violence. Unacceptable in my book.

Cosmo

LiLiNY81 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
I think a fairer comparison would be is the Black Panthers or Al Qaeda wanted to adopt a highway... would they also be denied?
I'm thinkin'... yeah, they would.

Fair enough, but Al Qaeda isn't an American organization. And I honestly think the Black Panthers...and we'll throw in the Hells Angels too....would get recognition.

PETA is another organization I can't stand. They get praise, donations and recognition and they promote violence to get their point across. Granted, they don't KILL people, but they still use violence. Unacceptable in my book.

...
I think both the Hell's Angels and the Black Panthers would be denied.
Now, if you want to toss in something that would cause a stir... what would happen to The Westboro Baptist Church (the 'God Hates Fags' crew that protest the funerals of fallen soldiers) applied to adopt a highway?
...

LiLiNY81

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Malcom X may have preached hate, but he did it at a time when African-Americans had to use "colored" drinking fountains and "colored" restrooms.

Based on their reputation and previous actions, the KKK will never ever get the benefit of any doubts.

There is a huge difference between promoting pride vs. burning crosses on people's lawns.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was also around during that time and never promoted violence.

The KKK didn't burn crosses to harm people, believe it or not. They did it in the name of their religion....something to the effect of lighting Christ or whatever they said. What if the KKK is trying to rid themselves of the stigma that history, the media and Hollywood has created? Should they be granted an opportunity to do that? I think so. Otherwise to me, it's like holding the entire German nationality responsible for the Nazi's....or the Italians for the mob. Generations change as the world and it's tolerance does.

LiLiNY81

Cosmo wrote:

LiLiNY81 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
I think a fairer comparison would be is the Black Panthers or Al Qaeda wanted to adopt a highway... would they also be denied?
I'm thinkin'... yeah, they would.

Fair enough, but Al Qaeda isn't an American organization. And I honestly think the Black Panthers...and we'll throw in the Hells Angels too....would get recognition.

PETA is another organization I can't stand. They get praise, donations and recognition and they promote violence to get their point across. Granted, they don't KILL people, but they still use violence. Unacceptable in my book.

...
I think both the Hell's Angels and the Black Panthers would be denied.
Now, if you want to toss in something that would cause a stir... what would happen to The Westboro Baptist Church (the 'God Hates Fags' crew that protest the funerals of fallen soldiers) applied to adopt a highway?
...

Well I'll say it again, everyone has the freedom to promote their group be it by adopting a highway or advertising on a billboard. Otherwise, what's freedom of speech? Something we can only have if it's politically correct?

Cosmo

LiLiNY81 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
I think both the Hell's Angels and the Black Panthers would be denied.
Now, if you want to toss in something that would cause a stir... what would happen to The Westboro Baptist Church (the 'God Hates Fags' crew that protest the funerals of fallen soldiers) applied to adopt a highway?
...

Well I'll say it again, everyone has the freedom to promote their group be it by adopting a highway or advertising on a billboard. Otherwise, what's freedom of speech? Something we can only have if it's politically correct?

...
Hey... I'm just tossing that out there.
The Westboro Baptist Church never commited an act of violence, but, are very vocal. That's why I picked them. They should be allowed to adpot a stretch of highway, right? But, which stretch of highway?
...
And I never said anything against freedom of speech. No one is greater advocate of the First Amendment than me. I'm saying, there is a difference if your speech results in actions. In that case, you should be held responsible, accountable and liable for your words.

Rosdower

i for one agree with you.

But on this site, with this topic. it won't matter what you think. Everyone here thinks they are eddie vedder and therefore feel as though they need to think like him.

JOEJOEJOE

LiLiNY81 wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Malcom X may have preached hate, but he did it at a time when African-Americans had to use "colored" drinking fountains and "colored" restrooms.

Based on their reputation and previous actions, the KKK will never ever get the benefit of any doubts.

There is a huge difference between promoting pride vs. burning crosses on people's lawns.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was also around during that time and never promoted violence.

The KKK didn't burn crosses to harm people, believe it or not. They did it in the name of their religion....something to the effect of lighting Christ or whatever they said. What if the KKK is trying to rid themselves of the stigma that history, the media and Hollywood has created? Should they be granted an opportunity to do that? I think so. Otherwise to me, it's like holding the entire German nationality responsible for the Nazi's....or the Italians for the mob. Generations change as the world and it's tolerance does.

Even if they didn't mean to harm anyone, how do you expect people to feel if they see the klan burning a cross on their lawn? If someone commited a traumatizing act of hate against you, but it wasn't their intention, would you feel any better about the situation?

Perhaps you need to walk a mile in the shoes of those who have been terrorized by the KKK or the Nazis before you think everyone should "forgive and forget".

gimmesometruth27

no group with a history such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan should be allowed to have a sign on a highway that would become a permanent recruiting tool for them.... and further, recruiting for a hate group such as this under the guise of civic pride and community service should never be allowed or tolerated.

the klan's terrorist and murderous actions were tolerated in the south for about 100 years. it was tolerated up until the 1960s. that is, until we stopped tolerating it....

bgivens33

I'm just not entirely sure the "right to adopt a highway" exists... for me this is cut and dry 10th amendment at the state should be able to limit the people adopting highways as they see fit (as long as they aren't discriminating on the basis of a federally protected class).

gimmesometruth27

LiLiNY81 wrote:

Martin Luther King, Jr. was also around during that time and never promoted violence.

The KKK didn't burn crosses to harm people, believe it or not. They did it in the name of their religion....something to the effect of lighting Christ or whatever they said. What if the KKK is trying to rid themselves of the stigma that history, the media and Hollywood has created? Should they be granted an opportunity to do that? I think so. Otherwise to me, it's like holding the entire German nationality responsible for the Nazi's....or the Italians for the mob. Generations change as the world and it's tolerance does.

they burned crosses out of intimidation. period. they murdered african americans and civil rights workers. and little african american kids in a chruch bombing. google their history if you do not agree with the link i just posted.

if you are going to excuse the klan i would like you to try telling the family of medger evers how misunderstood they are and how they are not violent and how we should all just move on...

mickeyrat

Cosmo wrote:

LiLiNY81 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
I think a fairer comparison would be is the Black Panthers or Al Qaeda wanted to adopt a highway... would they also be denied?
I'm thinkin'... yeah, they would.

Fair enough, but Al Qaeda isn't an American organization. And I honestly think the Black Panthers...and we'll throw in the Hells Angels too....would get recognition.

PETA is another organization I can't stand. They get praise, donations and recognition and they promote violence to get their point across. Granted, they don't KILL people, but they still use violence. Unacceptable in my book.

...
I think both the Hell's Angels and the Black Panthers would be denied.
Now, if you want to toss in something that would cause a stir... what would happen to The Westboro Baptist Church (the 'God Hates Fags' crew that protest the funerals of fallen soldiers) applied to adopt a highway?
...

that I'd be cool with. cuz then we could trash that section royally and they would be too busy cleaning it up constantly to do anymore demonstrations.

whygohome

LiLiNY81 wrote:

PETA is another organization I can't stand. They get praise, donations and recognition and they promote violence to get their point across. Granted, they don't KILL people, but they still use violence. Unacceptable in my book.

What the HELL are you talking about?

Go Beavers

Rosdower wrote:

i for one agree with you.

But on this site, with this topic. it won't matter what you think. Everyone here thinks they are eddie vedder and therefore feel as though they need to think like him.

Eddie is always giving long winded diatribes against the KKK.

brianlux

LiLiNY81 wrote:

Every single organization has their intolerance and their "rogue" members. Every organization has their history of violence in some shape or form. Yes historically, the KKK had their time in history where they projected hate and violence. However, the modern day KKK is just another organization promoting their pride for their race. There are some members that still promote hate, you'll never get rid of them completely. Just like you'll never get rid of leaders of our own country that believe firmly in using violence to obtain what you want/get your point across.

Pride for their race? First of all, I don't get that. Is that like being proud because you are left or right handed? Proud because you have freckles or blue eyes? Pride is about what you do, not what you are born with. What the KKK has done is nothing to be proud of. If they really were about NOT being racist any more they would acknowledge their history and change their name.

And no, Rosdower, I do not think I am Eddie Vedder.

No way- no adopt-a-highway for KKK.

Jason P

I keep picturing the KKK's representative in the interviews as that klan guy from Reno 911.