Sidewalks by Tom Deignan


Deignan Blog
Sidewalks by Tom Deignan

The good old days? - Anti-Irish, anti-Catholic bigots and the KKK

Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2011 at 08:24 AM

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit

Thomas Nast cartoon
It is always interesting, at this time of year, to remind people that cartoonist Thomas Nast – beloved
for more or less inventing our cherished image of Santa Claus – was also a wildly anti-Irish, anti-Catholic bigot.

For proof, see any of his cartoons from the late 19th Century in which the Irish look like apes and Catholics are depicted as crocodiles or other scheming, rapacious beasts.

Nast has been in the news of late because an entity called the New Jersey Hall of Fame has suggested that he perhaps be enshrined in their institution.

Such a situation can make you think about many things, but one thing that comes to my mind is that what we think of as “the good old days” were pretty damned bad.
------------------
READ MORE:
More news articles Irish politics from IrishCentral

Up to 350 Irish priests were likely accused child abusers

Top Irish carols and hymns to get you in the Christmas spirit - VIDEOS
------------------
Oh, without a doubt, we have our problems today.  This is reflected in polls which show that Americans feel about as bad as you can about everything from the economy to Congress.

Along with that, inevitably, comes a feeling that things were once good but we lost something along the way.

Hardly.

Look at politics for a moment.  You bet we have our problems now.  You can say we have a real problem with these boneheaded Tea Party types or these freeloading Occupy Wall Street types.

But that is baby stuff compared to the rough stuff that emerged from the political scene, say, in the 1920s.

In fact, not one but two new books have recently been published about the power and influence of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 20th Century.  Talk about your fun holiday reading!

The titles are One Hundred Percent American: The Rebirth and Decline of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s by Thomas R. Pegram and Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK’s Appeal to Protestant America, 1915-1930 by Kelly J. Baker.

In his review of the two books in The New York Times this past Sunday, National Book Award-winner and Irish American historian Kevin Boyle blunders a bit by more or less comparing the Tea Party to the 1920s-era KKK.

“Imagine,” Boyle wrote, “a political movement created in a moment of terrible anxiety, its origins shrouded in a peculiar combination of manipulation and grass-roots mobilization, its ranks dominated by Christian conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots, its agenda driven by its members’ fervent embrace of nationalism, nativism and moral regeneration, with more than a whiff of racism wafting through it.”

He’s speaking, of course, of the Klan, but leading readers to think of the Tea Party.

Even if you agree with Boyle’s characterization of the Tea Party, to see them as inheritors of the Klan’s  tradition says more about the Tea Party’s current critics than it does about the group itself.

If anything, even if you believe the Tea Party is the new Klan, this shows you how much better off we are today.  After all, there’s no denying certain, maybe even many, Tea Party members have dabbled in race-baiting, class warfare and religious zealotry.

But those things are not central to the philosophy of the Tea Party, as they proudly were to the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s.

The Irish, Italians, Jews, the Vatican.  The Klan vociferously fought against all of these things and more.

As Ken Burns’ recent documentary on Prohibition showed, the Klan was making a final stand for a rural, Protestant America that saw cities as mongrelized bastions of sin.

And when Roman Catholic Al Smith was roundly beaten in the 1928 presidential election, it might have seemed the Klan was going to win.

Perhaps most interestingly, Republicans sat out this fight.  This was an intra-Democratic clash, with the ethnic Tammany Hall wing of the Dems doing battle with the racist, anti-immigrant rural wing of the party.

Yes, the KKK had members on the Supreme Court and in Congress and in state houses across the country. But the Klan was eventually ushered off the national stage.

Their paranoid impulses, of course, stuck around.  We see vestiges of it today all across the political spectrum.

Vestiges are one thing.  Burning crosses are another.

(Contact Sidewalks at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)


43 comments

Next Page 1 of 3 pages
Jacersagain, so the Irish plagarized our Constitution; then when they had time wrote their own. The US Constitution works for us. This is a federal system; there are many functions left to the states on the assumption that different states will see things differently. in 1787, our Constitution was not written with the assumption it would (or should) work elsewhere.
Jacers, in reply to your criticism: I've given BishopSean the standard American answer to his question, and I've shown that Vatican II offered the same answer. The path of democracy may be slow and fraught with obstacles, but people on that path are patient and vigilant, and they keep their lamps trimmed. When we ask why RCC loses 3 Catholics for every one (usually immigrant) Catholic it gains in the USA, the answer lies not alone in its mishandling of sexual abuse cases, but also in the failure of the hopes of Vatican II- generation Catholics for moral progress, with the Church helping to clear the road of KKK and other institutionalized forms of bigotry. Advent is about "making straight the path," so it's a good time to reflect on the multiple roadblocks placed by the USCCB in the path of moral progress. The USCCB's current lobbying against women's health care (contraceptives), against marriage equality, against stem cell research and AIDS treatments, against justice for victims of child abuse, and more, blocks the road to progress by citizens who follow Vatican II in seeking to use secular government to achieve goals that Christians, in their "freedom of the children of God," ought to embrace wholeheartedly. That's it-- I'm done here (had enough of GD). Others can read the exchange below and decide for themselves whether they prefer your 'theocracy of the 10 Commandments' to my constitutionally- protected liberties.
Your opinion is duly noted, GD. Expect that someone will remind you of your predilection for brevity in comments the next time you go one and on about what you consider the curse of foreigners in Ireland and the USA.
In defense of the American approach~~ 1) Catholics ought to value Constitutionally protected freedom of conscience and resist imposition of any set of religious principles, as John F. Kennedy did, because freedom holds out the best hope of Christian unity in this nation. (Yes, I realize that words like "ecumenism," along with "liberation theology," "gay agenda," and "feminism" have become instruments of demonization by USCCB during past decades. But take a good look at those words and ask whether Christ would have any problem with any of them.) When the moral principles held by Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, etc. are debated in the political forum, we can recognize the values we hold in common, our "common ground," and build consensus around them. But when sectarian interests such as "Right to Life" enter that forum with explicitly religious self-interests to subordinate the freedom of conscience of one part of the population to another's theology, we have serious division-- and that's the situation we now have. From the RCC Catechism: "'That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, ... so that the world may know that you have sent me.' 278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit. 279."
In defense of the American approach~~ 2) It is counter-productive to replace individual freedom of conscience with a theological system of virtue. In its better moments, RCC has understood this point. Paul VI's "Declaration on Religious Freedom" (1965) argues that freedom of conscience is a civil right: "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power. Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.... This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. The right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very *dignity of the human person* as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."
(..more) So, alright, Tom Deignan may be one of the bad journalists we have to put up with in our world but at least he’s not as bad as KKK’s “rantic” anti-God, anti-Catholic driven commanders and followers. Those who seek power use fear to intimidate and always lose out in the end (Saladin, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Berlusconi, Musharaff and soon-to-be-added names Assad, Merkel and Sarkozy). Those who seek and come to know truth never have any fear, especially of un-codified, unwritten constitutions. Instead, they should look to the “written-in-stone-by-the-power-of-God” guide to a happy life, for all of us humans together. It’s dead easy to follow, no need for me to tell you, just go and do it. The proposed EU written Constitution should perhaps look to the mistakes of the American Constitution as us Irish have and listen to its peoples’ cries for justice and equality and not the determinations of a small bunch of people locked in the five world-controlling “families” including the British Royal family or Goldman Sachs clans and their adherents, or the anti-Catholic, un-Christian Ku Klux Klan dying breeds. Someday, eiriamach and her inviolable computer will be ... well, you know the rest. She like me will be another forgettable statistic of the computer world’s entities. I hope not for hernat least; she’s too good and should be listened to in certain of her points but, like her computer, like me, she will be past her sell-by date, unlike the Catholic Church which she, the KKK and other anti-Vatican, anti-Apostle Peter people inveterately and futilely challenge. Bishop Sean was correct to challenge eiriamach... “are the secularists those who insist on Separating Church and State, or those who insist on Separating State and God?” he asks. No one, esp eiriamach, has yet given a satisfactory answer.
(...more) Does it not strike anyone that most of the referenda that Irish people passed were corrections to those parts of the Irish Constitution that were based on America’s written Constitution influence? I think American citizens need to wake up and look at their own very antiquated, controlling and (by these days standards) very un-liberating Constitutional laws. The premise on which the American founding fathers wrote their constitution for their country of their day is so far removed from the reality of today that I think it needs to be looked at again, to look at the God-given Christian model (for example, those God-given Ten Commandments, or His Son’s two compacted Commandments: a standard, a flag if you like, to look up to with a fiercely dedicated clenched fisted-hand on heart - to Love God, to Love your Neighbour) of behaviour for a good family, a good society, a good country and a good world, not a Mammon-driven, war mongering American capitalist company model that is destroying human values, never mind Irish values, American values and those of other countries in Europe and elsewhere on our globe. The dream of one American citizen, Martin Luther King, had nothing to do with the dream of America as seen today. (...more)
(...more) Since reaching voting age, I voted in most referenda to change our Constitution (not in all of them; I was out of Ireland at the times I missed; my right to vote is one of the most precious rights I have and I always make it my own and my children’s business to cast our votes) and am glad to see my vote (or would-have vote) was equally approved (mark that) by my fellow Irish citizens on all but second-chance EU referenda that I voted on or missed voting. By making comparisons of these Irish and American constitutional change referenda figures, one could suppose that the writers of the Irish Constitution got it wrong the first time and it has needed so many referenda over 70 yrs to change it while Americans only needed 25-odd changes in 300yrs. But hang on a minute... (...more)
you know, it may seem out of context for me to post the following under Tom’s article above...but... you know, I hope it’s seen relevant to this discussion. According to the red pen markings-up I’ve made in the tattering copy of the Irish Republic’s Constitution that I have from my school days, in its short (70 yrs) history, the Republic of Ireland’s Constitution has had about 30 amendments proposed. The people of Ireland rejected about 9 or 10 of them and passed the rest (some EU stuff at a second, arm-twisting persuasion, let’s not us Irish forget). By contrast, the American Constitution (which I don’t have a copy of) has been amended some 25 times or so in its 300 yrs of history. Not many may know this - but the Irish Constitution, adopted by plebiscite (i.e. passed as acceptable by the Irish people in 1937), was originally based on the written USA Constitution and the unwritten, un-codified British Constitution - a mix of both.( More... ah, sorry but yes I’m on a roll of verbiage)
Jacers writes of "the Church’s teachings on sexuality, family and end of life." Yes, there are very, very, very many of these. But what about Christ's teachings, in his own words, about "sexuality, family, and the end of life"? Not so many words from him! About social gender roles? Apparently, he disdained them and praised the brazen women who interacted with him rather than minding the kitchen when he was visiting, women, in other words, who used their freedom to think for themselves. Yet Vatican males issue reams of paper and hypertext about "the Church’s teachings on sexuality, family and end of life" and what they as males think natural law dictates about women's roles. Human beings pretending to 'know better than God' are more likely to be found in their offices than at my computer any hour of the day. I do have one disadvantage vis a vis those men-- unlike them, I make mistakes. But then, I also have one advantage-- I've not forever bound by a doctrine of infallibility or Magisterial continuity to my mistakes; I can learn from them and do better next time. (I think that learning process is part of God's Plan for humanity.)
Jacers, what you call "dangerous, disturbing reasoning concerning the moral law" just IS the political thinking embodied in the founding documents of the USA. Thomas Jefferson suggested that we are "created equal" and "endowed by the Creator" with "unalienable" (meaning it's always wrong to deprive us of them) rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." To become fully human is to exercise these rights well and not to interfere with others' doing so; to be deprived of them is oppression, wretchedness, and cause for revolution against a tyrannical gov't, or for changing any laws that fail to protect rights and liberties (as Civil Rights, Women's, and gay rights, etc. movements did here). You may think such a view bold or even arrogant, but it derives from our heritage of natural law. The 10 commandments are a fine set of constitutional principles for living a free and virtuous life, but without some thinking about what they mean, one can go far astray in limiting freedom unjustly with them. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Why not divorce? Because children need a stable environment in which to flourish and because disloyalty in intimate relationships causes suffering and encourages selfishness rather than love and responsibility. If my view smacks of ‘I (or we) know better than God,’" yours smacks of puppet people with God (or the Catholic Church) as the Great puppeteer that cares nothing about the human personality or character but only about obedience for the sake of obedience. That's what Americans call a tyrant.
My last post crossed eiriamach’s latest one. I think eiriamach has been up too early with the birds in the USA this morning. Her latest seems to me to run around in circles vis-a-vis her earlier ones. Let me try to put it simply... Since God is absolute, the Supreme Being, He is neither secular nor religiously sectarian. His Commandments therefore are non-religious and effectively are a statement of the moral law for all mankind. The Jews from the time of Moses made a religion praisig God and of being custodians of the Ten Commandments. From the time of Christ, the Messiah of the Jews and us Gentiles, the Christian Church has become the custodian of Christ’s Commandments which fully encompass the Ten Commandments. Thus the Holy Roman Catholic Church (as the only church directly descended from the one person to whom Christ entrusted its guardianship) is the custodian of the Moral Law and it does its human best to elucidate it. Yes, I know many of its members - ordained and lay people, including myself - have consistently broken the Commandments (and thereby, the Moral Law) and many have abused its role as custodians. But that does not mean the Catholic Church itself is intrinsically wrong in what it preaches on these Commandments later compacted by Christ. If one looks deeply enough at the Church’s teachings on sexuality, family and end of life, one sees total undeniable truth in them, much as they may intrude on our own modern-day consumerist-driven selfish values. (btw - Lest anyone, especially eiriamach, thinks I’m being sexist in my use of ‘He’ in describing God in the male gender... that is only because Christ referred to God as His Father in Heaven). Only then do we see how galling are our modern values in propounding abortion, euthanasia, let-live sexual mores and even divorce.
Jeeze eiriamach, that last post positively smacks of ‘I (or we) know better than God’. It contains very dangerous, disturbing reasoning concerning the moral law and Commandments of God, particularly your use of X in examples to support your case. Since God is absolute and He has given laws through Moses, that’s all we need to keep for maintaining moral order. One could argue that there was a moral law before God wrote the Commandments in stone (no less) for Moses to teach all humankind. Christ’s Commandments are but the Ten Commandments embodied in two simple ones. I’d suggest any moral law before Moses was instinctive, such as preservation of human life and all that goes with that. To restore proper moral order and law, one needs to read every single one of the Ten Commandments on their own and ask oneself “Well, am I or am I not doing that?” Any breach of any one commandment leads to moral breakdown – of one's self, in families, society at large and in the business world.
Why does the idea of "secular" politics trouble anyone? To quote Franzoni, "The concept of secularism is completely alien to the hierarchy, or rather, it invokes it, specifying ... that secularism should be 'healthy' ... should accept the Vatican’s theses." RCC "is convinced that only the Catholic Magisterium can speak words of truth about 'natural law' and 'sensitive issues' and therefore it tasks Catholics with making civil laws stress the perspective of official Catholic doctrine on every issue." ("Vatican II Lost & Betrayed," ACPI Sept.) The opposite of "secular" government is "sectarian": Church-controlled. A glance at Irish history ought to warn us away from that. Secular law is compatible with believing in God. Even the current pope, getting it half right as usual, began his Bundestag speech by quoting St. Paul (Romans 2:14ff): "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires ... they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness.” It's time to send the USCCB back to "think again" about what Franzioni calls "sensitive issues" of "sexuality, the family, the end of life." When a church dictates such laws, it makes infants of the laity and usurps rights that even the Vatican's own Second Council reserved to the people: "all the faithful, whether clerics or laity, possess a lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and freedom of expressing their mind with humility and fortitude” ("Church in the Modern World," 52).
Bishop Sean asks, "are the secularists those who insist on Separating Church and State, or those who insist on Separating State and God?" "One nation under God" we call ourselves in the USA, and I have no objection to that description. I point out to atheists and agnostics who object to it that "under God" is a universally understood way of saying that our laws follow objective moral values and sound principles of ethics rather than appeals to religious authority or "relativism" or mere political expediency. Religious doctrines and dogmas AS SUCH do not belong in the political forum. IF a particular religion's moral doctrine can defend itself as any ethical precept should be able to do, it may well prevail, but if its advocates cannot provide any better reasons than "God commands it," then it fails in competition with other moral precepts whose advocates can give MORAL reasons in support of them. Question: is it right to do X because God commands it, or does God command it BECAUSE X IS RIGHT? And if God commands us to do X because X is right and good, then we as rational, thinking human beings should be able to say what is right and good about doing X. The moral law-- that system of unwritten principles developed over the ages and in many different cultures and called in Western civilization Natural Law-- is a good objective guide for legislators trying to enact civil laws. My reading of the Natural Law tends to agree others', such as the Rev. Martin Luther King's, rather than the USCCB's! That's a problem: some religious advocates misread and reason poorly, and lately, the USCCB has been making some obvious mistakes but still claims the authority to impose their narrow readings on those of us who prefer to think our way through a moral problem.
Next Page 1 of 3 pages




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail