Stars and bars and badasses

October 6th, 2007 9:03 am · 22 comments

More on the incident at Warwick in this morning’s Intell. Few new details beyond the fact that the district is apparently going to be searching kids again next week, which is probably wise.

What we’d heard, that no one has really gotten into yet, is the fact that there’s a group of kids at Warwick, some of whom apparently were part of this, who style themselves as “rednecks.” Part of that, apparently, includes the widespread use of Confederate flag regalia - stickers on car/truck windows, possibly more.

There is, as noted in comments here and the news threads on this incident, quite a lot of affection for the confederate flag in this part of Pennsylvania. I tend to think this has to do with the idea of rebellion, or rebelliousness; those who embrace the flag, particularly those who are not from the south, tend to do so specifically because of its past connotations. Racial - though that’s not the only reason. The idea of being a separatist, of thumbing your nose at - what, the government, convention, whatever you might be rebelling against (What’ve you got? asked Brando in “The Wild One.”)

Basically, you display the confederate flag because you think it makes you a badass. And maybe it does; I don’t know.

But my question is, for these kids at Warwick, at what point did being a badass start to bleed over into the sort of overt racism that bubbled up from below last week? Was it always part of it? Or was it just one or two kids - details are pretty vague still - while the others who might cop the “redneck” attitude don’t consider themselves racist, aren’t racist.

One of the strange things about kids’ attitude regarding race is that there seem to be those who embrace both black culture - in the form of hip hop, etc. - as well as racist attitudes. I won’t post links here, but yesterday I went looking for any connection between the Klan or other such groups and Lititz, and found a couple kids - identifying themselves as either recent Warwick grads or current Warwick students - who on their MySpace pages wrote of how they liked both 50 Cent and the Klan.

That’s probably all just talk - and didn’t you talk a good game when you were a kid? - but if not, I’m not sure how you square that circle. But maybe it all goes back to being a badass - in lily-white Warwick, what’s more badass, more rebellious, than embracing “gangsta” culture? If you do that and stick a confederate flag sticker on your truck, you’ll really confuse people.

Maybe none more so than yourself.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  22 comments  Tags: Racism · Lancaster

There are currently 22 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
ctravel
10/6/07
9:21 AM
I'm reminded to the lyrics to the old Rodgers and Hammerstein song.


You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!
ihavehorns
10/6/07
10:32 AM
Maybe you should have dug a little deeper:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=425501

Check out the poster from Lititz, pa

edited to add:

took me about an hour to find this....imagine if someone had the time to dig a little further. wink.gif
mam0412
10/6/07
11:56 AM
One person on that thread had the swastika as his avatar and then quotes Jefferson all the while saying he can't understand how blacks see the Confederate flag as racist. What a warped individual! Then there was someone from London on the thread. There is a growing movement of white supremecy in Europe. Very scary!
ihavehorns
10/6/07
12:06 PM
I think someone should do a little further investigation into the individuals involved in the incident at warwick. I only did a few google searches and was able to find a student from warwick posting on a white supremist site ABOUT the incident. I have a feeling there is more to this than even the police and school district know.
mam0412
10/6/07
12:38 PM
I think you're right Horns. The movement in Europe is a youth movement. There are tons of white supremecy musical bands over there. Then websites like the one you posted are all over the place. In this day of Facebook, etc. Kids will have no problem finding these sites. This problem is becoming widespread among the youth of our country.
Whirlwind
10/6/07
3:55 PM
They could just as easily spend time looking at diversity and tolerance sites. So what you really are concerned about is that if they are given free will to look at whatever they wish, they may look at stuff you don't want them to see.



Maybe their lessons should have focused on their discernment instead of universal tolerance, which you seem ill equipped to accept yourselves.



I have no standing in the matter to make inquiries, but an honest report would include a word from those boys. Were they reacting, or acting out?



Historically, groups such as the Klan have appeared as a reaction.

Lysol54
10/6/07
4:00 PM
QUOTE(Whirlwind @ Oct 6 2007, 03:55 PM) [snapback]326906[/snapback]


Historically, groups such as the Klan have appeared as a reaction.





Historically this is false. They don't appear as a reaction, they appear because they are acting out. Intimidation. Take the march in lancaster a few years back. There was nothing to react to, they just wanted to march. Now don't get me wrong they have the right to march but they also have the right to be shouted at etc along the route.

twinmom
10/6/07
5:06 PM
QUOTE(Whirlwind @ Oct 6 2007, 03:55 PM) [snapback]326906[/snapback]
They could just as easily spend time looking at diversity and tolerance sites. So what you really are concerned about is that if they are given free will to look at whatever they wish, they may look at stuff you don't want them to see.




I don't care what they look at, within legal limits of course. I take issue with them intimidating and harrassing other people.

justplainjoe
10/6/07
5:41 PM
QUOTE(Whirlwind @ Oct 6 2007, 03:55 PM) [snapback]326906[/snapback]



Historically, groups such as the Klan have appeared as a reaction.



yes they were reacting to the presence of black children at the school.

Woody
10/6/07
8:18 PM
What I find unsettling about this topic is the immediate vilification of the WHITE students. Do ya think there's a possibility that BOTH groups involved might...just might share the responsibility for the animosity?

This, from the web site Ihavehorns directed us to:

"All my friends have Rebel flags mounted on there truck beds now. It's funny as hell seeing them pull in, and hearing the handful of black kids at my school yell at them. You just got to give it right back to them."I wonder, what led to the display of more Rebel flags?I'm not condoning racial intimidation, not by a long shot, but as with all confrontations of this nature it is not always one sided. If you live in the real world you know this, or at least you should. Racial intimidation run both ways.It's one thing to discuss situations of this nature, but to get judgmental without fully knowing all the details is another.
Whirlwind
10/7/07
6:56 AM
Great post, Woody.



"Historically this is false. They don't appear as a reaction, they appear because they are acting out. Intimidation. Take the march in lancaster a few years back. There was nothing to react to, they just wanted to march. Now don't get me wrong they have the right to march but they also have the right to be shouted at etc along the route."Lysol54



You're dead wrong there buddy. The original Klan was formed as a REACTION to Blacks having free reign during reconstruction. During the 1920's, the Klan re-emerged as a REACTION to increased non-European White immigration. Next resurgence was a REACTION to the snivel rights error. The march in Lancaster was a REACTION to the opening of a gay bookstore.



Face it, most of you know jack about the Klan, other than what you've been taught by the boob-tube. The same source that has you convinced the NAACP is just sticking up for Blacks, and is not a racist organization. LaRaza (the race), MECHA, SACA also not racist. Isn't the foundation of racism, promoting only your own race? Someone hints that Whites may have group interests, and you are all aghast, but let those other groups promote their ethnicity, and you get out the checkbook. You are being brainwashed.

Lysol54
10/7/07
7:14 AM
QUOTE(Whirlwind @ Oct 7 2007, 06:56 AM) [snapback]327011[/snapback]
Great post, Woody.



"Historically this is false. They don't appear as a reaction, they appear because they are acting out. Intimidation. Take the march in lancaster a few years back. There was nothing to react to, they just wanted to march. Now don't get me wrong they have the right to march but they also have the right to be shouted at etc along the route."Lysol54



You're dead wrong there buddy. The original Klan was formed as a REACTION to Blacks having free reign during reconstruction. During the 1920's, the Klan re-emerged as a REACTION to increased non-European White immigration. Next resurgence was a REACTION to the snivel rights error. The march in Lancaster was a REACTION to the opening of a gay bookstore.



Face it, most of you know jack about the Klan, other than what you've been taught by the boob-tube. The same source that has you convinced the NAACP is just sticking up for Blacks, and is not a racist organization. LaRaza (the race), MECHA, SACA also not racist. Isn't the foundation of racism, promoting only your own race? Someone hints that Whites may have group interests, and you are all aghast, but let those other groups promote their ethnicity, and you get out the checkbook. You are being brainwashed.





Blacks having free reign during reconstruction? You mean actually able to have rights as human beings as being free reign? Oh yeah in the 20's as a reaction to non white immagrents? WTF. They show'd up down South, most immigrants were coming from New York and the North. And you accuse us of getting false info? Give me a break Whirl, your diluted. Yeah i guess most of us know nothing about the klan because we arent members. Your whole diatrabe makes it sound like your a card carrying member. I'm all for freedom of speech, but your equating a hate group for showing up because of a reaction is just not historically accurate.





QUOTE


Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, racism, homophobia, anti-Communism and nativism. These organizations have often used terrorism, violence, and acts of intimidation, such as cross burning and lynching, to oppress African Americans and other social or ethnic groups.

The Klan's first incarnation was in 1866. Founded by veterans of the Confederate Army, its main purpose was to resist Reconstruction, and it focused as much on intimidating "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" as on putting down the freed slaves. The KKK quickly adopted violent methods.

Wikipdia







Maybe if they wouldn't resort to violent or terroristic threats it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But I'm sorry if a group is known for violence they have no protection under the first Amendment, sorry there buddy boy.
Whirlwind
10/7/07
7:38 PM
"name of several past and present organizations " from your wiki.

Now, what does my post say? What does your post say? Who is right, even by your evidence? It has not been one continuous organization, no matter how many times the History Channel has a show on about "The Klan", like it's been a seemless string of hate and violence since reconstruction. First off, the Klan was formed as a social club, that decided that White women were going to need escorted around the newly freed Blacks, many in Army uniform, and full of themselves. Once they saw the effect on the Blacks, they went with it. Eventually evolving into the night-riders you've all been thoroughly schooled about. What you weren't told was of the many copycat attacks attributed to the Klan. Remember I previously posted about "waving the bloody shirt" as a political ploy involving grossly exaggerating or even fabricating a story about how the Blacks were being horribly mistreated in the south, in order that the North could more easily demand harsh justice on the southern states. Many of those stories have gone down in history as fact, when an examination often shows they were made of whole cloth.

Are you even aware of the term "waving the bloody shirt"? Who knows what?

Lysol54
10/8/07
8:47 AM
QUOTE(Whirlwind @ Oct 7 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]327084[/snapback]
"name of several past and present organizations " from your wiki.

Now, what does my post say? What does your post say? Who is right, even by your evidence? It has not been one continuous organization, no matter how many times the History Channel has a show on about "The Klan", like it's been a seemless string of hate and violence since reconstruction. First off, the Klan was formed as a social club, that decided that White women were going to need escorted around the newly freed Blacks, many in Army uniform, and full of themselves. Once they saw the effect on the Blacks, they went with it. Eventually evolving into the night-riders you've all been thoroughly schooled about. What you weren't told was of the many copycat attacks attributed to the Klan. Remember I previously posted about "waving the bloody shirt" as a political ploy involving grossly exaggerating or even fabricating a story about how the Blacks were being horribly mistreated in the south, in order that the North could more easily demand harsh justice on the southern states. Many of those stories have gone down in history as fact, when an examination often shows they were made of whole cloth.

Are you even aware of the term "waving the bloody shirt"? Who knows what?





Even if it was "formed" as a social club, it quickly resorted to terrorism and violence, so i don't really care what reason it was formed for, that obviously didn't last that long now did it? And uppity black people? Hum so after being slaves for a 100 plus years they actually have some freedom but now they are "uppity" And by effect you mean beating and tourting them? You can spin it however ya want there Whirl, and i can do the same. when it comes right down to it its a hate organization. Plain and simple, maybe it had nobel beginnings but honestly when they started terrorizing blacks and sympathizers that all went out the window. And even if its not the same organization from the 1800's they still use the same tactics so it really doesn't matter. Its a hate organization plain and simple. Do they have the right to speak there minds sure, its America but what they don't have the right to do is terrorize and assult other people.

lanzate
10/8/07
9:41 AM
I'm curious as to how a Klan member or Klan sympathizer would vote today. I could see them being republican in how they dislike government control but I'm sure the republican support of Israel would be hard for them to stomach. Historically, the southern democrats started the Klan but that was hardly the Democratic Party we have today.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Black_Re...cuses_0921.html

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2.../5/1349403.html


mam0412
10/8/07
10:45 AM
You're exactly right Lanzate. It was Nixon's plan to court these Southerners to the Republican party and it worked. Then, the Southern Republicans converted to Democrat-about the time of Watergate. So ironically, if you think about it, the Southern Democrats are really original Republicans and the Southen Republicans are a "stain" on the current Republican party. Example: George "Macaca" Allen.
twinmom
10/8/07
3:38 PM
QUOTE(lanzate @ Oct 8 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]327145[/snapback]
I'm curious as to how a Klan member or Klan sympathizer would vote today. I could see them being republican in how they dislike government control but I'm sure the republican support of Israel would be hard for them to stomach. Historically, the southern democrats started the Klan but that was hardly the Democratic Party we have today.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Black_Re...cuses_0921.html

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2.../5/1349403.html





From the link that Horns posted in another thread to the stormfront forum, I got the impression Ron Paul was liked.

justplainjoe
10/8/07
4:47 PM
QUOTE(lanzate @ Oct 8 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]327145[/snapback]
I'm curious as to how a Klan member or Klan sympathizer would vote today. I could see them being republican in how they dislike government control but I'm sure the republican support of Israel would be hard for them to stomach. Historically, the southern democrats started the Klan but that was hardly the Democratic Party we have today.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Black_Re...cuses_0921.html

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2.../5/1349403.html




didn't the southern white men leave the democrat party because of the civil rights act and the voting rights act enacted by lbj and the dems?

erstwhile
10/8/07
4:48 PM
QUOTE(lanzate @ Oct 8 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]327145[/snapback]
I'm curious as to how a Klan member or Klan sympathizer would vote today. I could see them being republican in how they dislike government control but I'm sure the republican support of Israel would be hard for them to stomach. Historically, the southern democrats started the Klan but that was hardly the Democratic Party we have today.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Black_Re...cuses_0921.html

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2.../5/1349403.html




There are at least two of them here you can ask personally. Fellas?

Whirlwind
10/8/07
5:13 PM
"republican support of Israel would be hard for them to stomach."



No more so than the Democrat support.

BeingReal
10/8/07
11:39 PM
QUOTE(twinmom @ Oct 8 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]327262[/snapback]

From the link that Horns posted in another thread to the stormfront forum, I got the impression Ron Paul was liked.


Early on, when Ron Paul's name surfaced, I read up on him a bit. Apparently, a while back, a letter or something went out to his constituents that included some racist-like remarks. When this surfaced, Mr. Paul apparently apologized and claimed the letter was written by one of his staffers and he (Paul) didn't really think that way himself. I've not seen the letter, but I did find it interesting...especially when people of certain views on Jews and immigrants started championing his cause. I'm not saying that I believe or disbelieve Mr. Paul's assertions regarding the letter, but I believe others might think he'd meant what was written. wink.gif

Whirlwind
10/9/07
7:19 AM
"racist-like remarks"



Good grief, that covers some territory, doesn't it? Search "racist" on ebay to get an idea of what some consider racist.



For myself, my support of Ron Paul is based on his plan for America. Bringing the troops home, dismantling the Federal Reserve, protecting our borders, and expelling illegals. His goal is to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, which is an oath he will have to take as President. The current one swore such an oath, can you believe it? Can you believe the opposition party let him get away with abusing it, with the weakest of rebukes? Two sides of the same coin, who no longer heed our wishes.



Why won't the mainstream media even mention Ron Paul's name? Honesty? Is it honesty that keeps them from reporting the OK anti-illegal immigrant initiative, just signed by their Governor? Who selects what you see, and by extension, know?

View Topic | Comment on this blog