ugg saor

Ku Klux Klan: demônios de branco

18:21

Colocado com jeitinho por Banguelo

Compartilhar Tweet

A Ku Klux Klan (KKK) foi uma organização racista secreta que nasceu no final do século 19 nos Estados Unidos. Ela foi fundada em 1866, no Tennessee, como um clube social que reunia veteranos confederados, ou seja, soldados que haviam lutado pelos estados do Sul, o lado derrotado, na Guerra Civil Americana (1861-1865). As duas palavras iniciais do nome da organização, "Ku Klux", aparentemente vêm da palavra grega kyklos, que significa "círculo". Já o termo "Klan" teria sido acrescentado para dar melhor sonoridade à expressão, além de fazer uma referência aos velhos clãs, grupos familiares tradicionais. Muito mais do que um clube, a KKK se transformou numa entidade de resistência à política liberal imposta pelos estados do Norte após a Guerra Civil, que assegurava, entre outras coisas, que a abolição da escravatura fosse mesmo cumprida. Na defesa da manutenção da supremacia branca no país, o grupo promovia atos de violência e intimidação contra os negros libertados.
Seus militantes adotaram capuzes brancos e roupões fantasmagóricos para esconder a identidade e assustar as vítimas. O que começou como uma brincadeira logo mudou de natureza. Os desfiles mascarados, realizados pelos seis amigos, tinham como objetivo aterrorizar os negros, sem instrução e supersticiosos, que acreditavam cruzar com os fantasmas dos confederados mortos em combate. Instrumentalizavam, portanto, o medo do além. Os sulistas empobrecidos viram nisso uma oportunidade de trazer de volta para o trabalho nas plantações os 4 milhões de negros que Abraham Lincoln tinha liberado com a Proclamação da Emancipação de 1º de janeiro de 1863. Não precisava de mais nada para os encapuzados seguirem com sua perseguição. Sob o pretexto de manter a ordem, divertiam-se em aterrorizar os negros, utilizando diversos dispositivos para dar credibilidade a seus poderes sobrenaturais: ossos de esqueletos escondidos sob os tecidos com que se cobriam, para apertar a mão dos antigos escravos alforriados, abóboras habilmente recortadas, que colocavam e retiravam rapidamente, para evocar a lenda do cavaleiro sem cabeça etc.

A partir de 1870, o governo americano decidiu enfrentar a organização e, em 1882, a Suprema Corte do país declarou inconstitucional a existência da KKK. "Ela parecia ter desaparecido durante os últimos anos da década de 1880, mas foi revivida em meados do século 20", diz a historiadora e jornalista americana Patsy Sims, da Universidade de Pittsburgh. A nova KKK foi criada em 1915, no estado da Geórgia, e não era mais movida apenas pelo ódio contra os negros. Sua doutrina misturava agora nacionalismo e xenofobia a um sentimento romântico de nostalgia pelo "velho Sul". "Durante essa reencarnação, a KKK tinha como alvos de sua violência os imigrantes, além de católicos, judeus e negros", afirma Patsy. Uma cruz em chamas se tornou o símbolo da nova organização, que chegou a ter 4 milhões de membros.
Após a Grande Depressão dos anos 30, porém, ela perdeu força novamente, apesar de ter voltado à ativa na década de 60, durante os movimentos pelos direitos civis, que defendiam a igualdade racial nos Estados Unidos. No fim dos anos 70, grupos anti-Klan deram o golpe final na organização ao atingir o bolso dos líderes racistas, exigindo nos tribunais grandes indenizações para vítimas de seus atos violentos. "Embora a Ku Klux Klan ainda exista, sua força hoje é pequena. A maioria dos militantes radicais aderiu a grupos ainda mais violentos de defesa da supremacia branca, como a Nação Ariana e outras organizações ligadas ao neonazismo", afirma Patsy.


Antes de postarem mais comentários racistas, cliquem aqui e olhem esse post. Algum negro?


assine o nosso feed, nos siga no twitter e curta o blog no facebook!
fontes: história viva e mundo estranho
Reações:   This entry was posted on October 4, 2009 at 12:14 pm, and is filed under Curiosidades . Follow any responses to this post through RSS. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
ugg saor

ugg bailey -painiketta
handtassen
uggレディースブーツ
malha de malha
flickor

Among the Non-Believers

The tedium of dogmatic atheism.

  • PRINT

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, by Sam Harris, New York: Norton, 336 pages, $24.95

For nearly as long as there have been villages, there have been village atheists, the hypervigilant debunkers who lovingly detail the many contradictions, fallacies, and absurdities that flow from belief in holy writ. As a strictly intellectual proposition, atheism would seem, on the face of things, to have wiped the floor with the believing opposition.

Still, village atheists are as numerous, and as shrill, as they've ever been, for the simple reason that the successive revolutions in thought that have furthered their cause--the Enlightenment and Darwinism--have been popular busts. As the secular mind loses mass allegiance, it becomes skittish and reclusive, succumbing to the seductive fancy that its special brand of wisdom is too nuanced, too unblinkingly harsh for the weak-minded Christer, ultraorthodox scold, or wooly pagan.

The faithful, meanwhile, take some understandable offense at this broad caricature of their mental capacity and ability to face life's harder truths. So each side retreats to its corner, more convinced than ever that the other is trafficking in pure, self-infatuated delusion for the basest of reasons: Believers accuse skeptics and unbelievers of thoughtless hedonism and nihilism; the secular set accuses the believoisie of superstition and antiscientific senselessness.

Still, the vast majority of people comfortably tolerate the huge paradoxes that so exercise the super-faithful and their no-less-righteous secular pursuers. Americans are, after all, heir to the greatest Enlightenment traditions in self-government and tolerance, while also forming one of the most religion-mad polities in the industrialized West.

Polls regularly show that at least 90 percent of Americans believe in God; more than 80 percent agree that the deity is regularly performing miracles in today's world; more than 80 percent also believe in an afterlife and Heaven as an actual physical site for same. Even Jews, who traditionally have not had any scriptural basis for believing in an afterlife, have begun acquiring it as a sort of contact high. The General Social Survey conducted annually by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found in the 1970s that a mere 19 percent of American Jews confessed a belief in the afterlife; in the 1990s, that proportion rose to an astonishing 56 percent.

In The End of Faith, Sam Harris, a UCLA philosophy grad student, has seized on the all-too-real specter of Islamist terror as the occasion to revisit the village atheist waterfront, compulsively itemizing all the irrational, surly, atavistic features of faith. Never mind that, among the world's one billion Islamic believers, the vast majority of clerics and lay Muslims renounce the politicized brand of Islamist dogma that extremists seek to inflict on Muslim and non-Muslim populations alike. Identifying all Islamic beliefs with extreme Islamist terror, as Harris does throughout the book, is a little like saying that the Maoist guerrillas of Peru's Shining Path are cognate with the Democratic Leadership Council.

Never mind, as well, that militantly atheist movements like Soviet and Khmer Rouge communism--as well as volkish pagan ones like Nazism and Tutsi supremacy--stand behind some of the worst mass violence of the past century. Harris believes religious belief is the single greatest threat to the survival of the human species. Religious faith is not merely a maladaptive superstition, Harris writes; it is the "common enemy" for all reasonable people concerned with the preservation of the world as we know it. All extant religious traditions, to him, are without exception "intellectually defunct and politically ruinous."

Harris' stolid--dare one say dogmatic?--failure to see anything in contemporary religion other than the exclusive, world-conquering fantasizing of monotheism at its worst keeps his book mired squarely in a painfully anachronistic atheist's bill of indictments, cribbed in most particulars from the heyday of Enlightenment skepticism. Like Voltaire, Harris marvels that ardent believers actually worship words when they think they profess fealty to God: "How can any person presume that [theism] is the way the universe works?" Harris writes in typical sputtering indignation. "Because it says so in our holy books." Then, zeroing in for the kill, he asks, "How do we know our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so."

And even though the language from those books sounds occasionally sonorous or beguiling, fueling that oceanic longing for repose within the universe that religion is supposed to fulfill, we should not forget for an instant that these words have been used to justify mass murder: "Words of wisdom and consolation and beauty abound in the pages of Shakespeare, Virgil, and Homer as well, and no one ever murdered strangers by the thousands because of the inspiration he found there."

Actually, all three of those authors routinely celebrated all manner of grisly nonreligious state violence. And determined mass murderers can find a rationale for killing in any handy text that comes along--say, The Rights of Man or Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung. But the larger, painfully obvious objection to this argument is a structural one: Reasoning backward under the impression that the destructive results of this or that piece of writing invalidates its purchase on our serious attention could make "E=mc squared" the most taboo phrase in the language.

But Harris' central message is the peril inherent in faith, especially in today's world. As he is fond of reiterating, Islamist terror means religious faith has crossed the line, become simply too dangerous to dally with. The September 11 attacks, for Harris, effectively refute all religious schemes of knowledge. Indeed, he launches The End of Faith with a sensational account of a hypothetical suicide bombing and segues promptly to the key object lesson: "Why is it so easy--you-could-almost-bet-your-life-on-it easy--to guess the [attacker's] religion?"

And should this be too subtle an exercise, Harris concludes his litany of Enlightenment-era objections to medieval models of piety with this rhetorical wallop: "All pretensions to theological knowledge should now be seen from the perspective of a man just beginning his day on the one hundredth floor of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, only to find his meandering thoughts--of family and friends, of errands run and unrun, of coffee in need of sweetener--inexplicably interrupted by a choice of terrible starkness and simplicity: between being burned alive by jet fuel or leaping one thousand feet to the concrete below." Thus again are we instructed that the perpetrators of this most heinous act were "men of faith--perfect faith, as it turns out--and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be."

Yet Harris, who is otherwise so singularly obsessed with the single-bullet religious origins of every sort of human infamy, from forced castration to child labor, makes no mention here that suicide bombings were in fact originally the handiwork not of the Islamist faithful but of the Sri Lankan communist guerillas known as the Tamil Tigers. None of this, of course, is to downplay the grave and horrific nature of the Islamist terror threat; it is, however, to suggest that if this sort of historical causation is more complicated than Harris asserts it to be, so it might just be the case that faith is not always and everywhere "so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a perverse, cultural singularity--a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible."

Nor is it the case, to take Harris' emotional (and rather crassly manipulative) example of the hideously sacrificed World Trade Center worker, that 9/11 unambiguously demonstrates the pure irreducible lethality of religious belief. If those opinion polls are any reliable indication, most of the victims of the terrors that day proclaimed faith in warlike, atavistic deities too. As many as 800 of them were adherents of Islam, a religion that Harris flatly asserts is not "compatible with civil society" (rather a cold comfort, one supposes, as they too laid aside their early morning coffee to ponder their sudden mortal doom).

How can it be that the 9/11 suicide bomber, whose spiritual principles and hateful political practices are denounced in the highest reaches of mainstream Islamic observance, is "a man of perfect faith," and that the innocent victims of those attacks, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Jain, or Hindu, are automatically symbols of defiled secularism? Harris' protracted 9/11 set piece isn't even a credible account of how the religious world was affected by the terror attacks (let alone responded to them); so much the less is it the hard and fast measure of "all pretensions to theological knowledge."

It's obvious, of course, that a certain derangement of Muslim dogma prompted these men into terrible action, but there are also, again, more complicated forces in play, involving (just for starters) the ruinous course of Israeli-Palestinian relations, the deeply antidemocratic and dissent-resistant political traditions of the Middle East, and a Saudi monarchy and gerontocracy propelling many middle-class young men to the religious fringe. None of these by itself is an explanation of any of the hijackers' behavior, but neither is something that is--in the actually existing real world, if not in Harris' imagination--as broad and variegated as "faith."

It's necessary to insist upon this point in some detail because Harris, as it happens, is only getting warmed up with the 9/11 scaremongering. He's ready to roll up his sleeves and endorse pre-emptive assaults on both individual bad believers and dangerous Islamist regimes by any means necessary. In a world-class show of "this hurts me more than it hurts you" disingenuousness, Harris makes it clear that the fault for this state of affairs resides entirely with the believers he thinks we may have to kill. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.

Media Contact Reprint Requests

  • PRINT

Please Support Reason’s 2017 Webathon Today!

VIEW COMMENTS (9) | LEAVE A COMMENT

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||#

    "Never mind that, among the world's one billion Islamic believers, the vast majority of clerics and lay Muslims renounce the politicized brand of Islamist dogma that extremists seek to inflict on Muslim and non-Muslim populations alike."

    evidence?

    report spam
  • ||#

    Reason Magazine? How about Rationalization magazine?

    When, as an Atheist, one faces repeated attempts by "The Faithful" to pass of Creationism as Science, and insist that Social Engineering from them such as "Abstinence Only" programs actually work, when all they accomplish (from every study) is more pregnancies and STDs; one faces a certain amount of frustration and angst against a group who has a disproportionate amount of power and no evidence in which to back up any of their claims.

    There is also the passing of "Christian Laws" laws based on a rather badly written Holy book, such as forbidding Gays to marry, anti sodomy laws.

    Would not Libertarianism also state that it is none of the Governments business who marries who?

    First you mention the percentage of Americans that believe in a Deity, without mentioning the percentage of Americans who believe in Ghosts and Alien visitors. Or even mention the percentage of Americans who actually make it too church, or the youth who are not believing this nonsense.

    You then play the old card of Communism killing people in the name of Atheism when, in fact, they killed people in the name of Communism. They just happened to be atheist also. You'll find Atheists in America and more Atheistic countries worldwide to be comparatively crime free.

    Then there's the "Nazi Card" forgetting to mention the Hitler often used "God" in his speeches Germany was/is a Christian Nation, and on the belt buckle of every German soldier was the statement "Gott Mitt Uns."

    As for number of people killed, one may look at a growing technology and perhaps look at (a somewhat grim) of kills per Capita, in which I suspect that Christianity comes out ahead. Though I would have to check the numbers I would also believe that the head count from Christianity far exceeds any from Islam.

    You do not look at the current Islamic situation in any sort of Historical context, and seem to forget that not that long ago Christianity was not that different.

    Since when has Darwin been a Bust? It is one of the best supported Facts in science.

    The Enlightenment brought on thinkers such as Voltaire and Hume whose ideas and word led to Democracy!

    I also believe I read in one of your articles that Atheism was a belief system in itself, which it is not.

    Does not believing in Ghosts even have a name?

    Does not believing in Zeus constitute a belief system?

    Believe what you wish, for that I do not care, however keep your Christian "morality" too yourself, and quit trying to pass of the book of Genesis as an equivalent to Science.

    As with all Conservative "thinkers" now a days all I see from this magazine is unsupported claims, and "facts" without a reference to back them up.

    report spam
  • ||#

    they didn't just happen to be atheistic. communism for the soviets and maoists was atheistic. the article's larger point was that you can't do what Sam Harris did, write a scathing indictment of religion, without simplifying it to the point that it is no longer recognizable as such.

    can you explain what you mean by "current islamic situation?" You seem to have an eerie deterministic view of history.

    report spam
  • nfl jerseys||#

    gsfrgf

    report spam
  • CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS||#

    grasped in Chestnut Ugg Boots Online Store aces to draw power from the winter. Apparently, these Ugg Boots Outlet boots can be achieved with their adversity quiet in winter

    report spam
  • CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS||#

    market abound Sheepskin Boots Sale boots . Whether you are the man appeared or not, and you assume in exact detail the use of fashion or not, there is no accountability to the women as capable as men who are embarrassed by the winter or not. Our ambition is to validate the Cheap women Uggs margin we might not be an architecture today

    report spam
  • CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS||#

    and anniversary, it has the color, and the achievements arising from the appearance is enough effort itself accoutrement. Ugg Boots Online Store issues in this affectionate big crave this winter that the acceptance of Ugg Sheepskin Boots is extremely remote a bit

    report spam
  • ||#

    Whether or not most religious people are violent and fundamentalist really is not the issue. Religion encourages violence and mistrust of science. The fact that most of their adherents ignore the worst parts of their texts (like the part of the Hadith that says apostasy should be punishable by death) does not speak to how good religion is; these people are good IN SPITE of their religion, NOT BECAUSE OF IT.

    Any good thing a religious person can do, an atheist/secular person can do just as well. In fact, it's arguably MORE moral when an atheist is doing it, because they don't need an invisible sky dictator forcing them.

    report spam
  • Mná Saor in Aisce Nike díol||#

    Abair go maith

    report spam

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • "One sane voice fighting tons of nonsense."

  • Subscribe Now