You are browsing the archive for 2019 January 08.

Avatar of admin

by admin

'Ku Klux Kiddies': The KKK's Little-Known Youth Movement

January 8, 2019 in History

By Erin Blakemore

In 1924, a group of ten children and hundreds of spectators gathered for a mass baptism. This was no mere religious rite. As the children and their parents moved toward the clergyman, they were enveloped by 50 men in white robes.

They were the children of the Ku Klux Klan, and their baptism included more than a promise to God. Along with their vows to raise religious children, their parents dedicated their children to “the principles and ideals of Americanism.” To an outsider, that promise might sound like a patriotic one. But to the KKK, it meant dedicating the children to a lifetime upholding segregation, bigotry, and the violent suppression of anyone who was not a white Protestant.

A 7-month-old baby being baptized into the Ku Klux Klan in Long Island, NY in 1927.

The children who were christened that day were just a few of the thousands who participated in the KKK and its auxiliary organizations: the Junior Ku Klux Klan for teenage boys, the Tri-K-Klub for teenage girls, and “Ku Klux Kiddies” and “cradle clubs” for children and infants beginning in the 1920s. As the “Invisible Empire” of the KKK reached its pinnacle of national influence and membership during that era, children became part of the secretive society, and entire families dedicated themselves to promoting and sustaining the group’s white supremacist ideology.

Unlike many fraternal organizations, the KKK invited, and encouraged, the involvement of women and children as part of its attempt to create a core of true believers who would ensure the supposed purity of the white race. After the release of the film Birth of a Nation in 1915, the Ku Klux Klan movement was revived and grew to encompass up to 8 million Klansmen by the 1920s. Members wanted to keep American society “pure” and free of the supposed taint of anyone who was not white and Protestant—and they believed the best way to achieve that goal was to involve the entire family.

READ MORE: How ‘The Birth of a Nation’ Revived the Ku Klux Klan

Women played an important role in the KKK, which formed around a mission of “protecting” white women from sexual relationships and contact with black men, Catholics and Jews. Elizabeth Tyler and Edward Young Clarke, PR professionals who took over the day-to-day operations of the KKK in the early 1920s, saw the potential of Klansmen’s …read more

Source: HISTORY

Avatar of admin

by admin

Valentine’s Day Facts

January 8, 2019 in History

By History.com Editors

Learn the stats on love, from the number of married men and women in the United States, to how much is spent on flowers and chocolate.

Did you know that 144 million cards are exchanged each Valentine’s Day? Or that some 300 coupes get married every day in Nevada? Explore these and dozens more Valentine’s Day facts.

Looking for Love

One of the simplest gestures on Valentine’s Day is giving a card—and 144 million Valentine’s Day cards are exchanged annually, making …read more

Source: HISTORY

Avatar of admin

by admin

Wilson announces his 14 Points

January 8, 2019 in History

By History.com Editors

In an address before a joint meeting of Congress, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson discusses the aims of the United States in World War I and outlines his “14 Points” for achieving a lasting peace in Europe. The peace proposal called for unselfish peace terms from the victorious Allies, the restoration of territories conquered during the war, the right to national self-determination, and the establishment of a postwar world body to resolve future conflict. The speech was translated and distributed to the soldiers and citizens of Germany and Austria-Hungary and contributed significantly to their agreeing to an armistice in November 1918.

After the war ended, Wilson traveled to France, where he headed the American delegation to the conference at Versailles. Functioning as the moral leader of the Allies, Wilson struggled to orchestrate a just peace, though the other victorious Allies opposed most of his 14 Points. The final treaty called for stiff reparations payments from the former Central Powers and other demanding peace terms that would contribute to the outbreak of World War II two decades later. However, Wilson’s ideas on national self-determination and a postwar world body were embodied in the treaty. In 1920, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Price for his efforts.

…read more

Source: HISTORY

Avatar of admin

by admin

The Battle of New Orleans

January 8, 2019 in History

By History.com Editors

Two weeks after the War of 1812 officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, U.S. General Andrew Jackson achieves the greatest American victory of the war at the Battle of New Orleans.

In September 1814, an impressive American naval victory on Lake Champlain forced invading British forces back into Canada and led to the conclusion of peace negotiations in Ghent, Belgium. Although the peace agreement was signed on December 24, word did not reach the British forces assailing the Gulf coast in time to halt a major attack.

On January 8, 1815, the British marched against New Orleans, hoping that by capturing the city they could separate Louisiana from the rest of the United States. Pirate Jean Lafitte, however, had warned the Americans of the attack, and the arriving British found militiamen under General Andrew Jackson strongly entrenched at the Rodriquez Canal. In two separate assaults, the 7,500 British soldiers under Sir Edward Pakenham were unable to penetrate the U.S. defenses, and Jackson’s 4,500 troops, many of them expert marksmen from Kentucky and Tennessee, decimated the British lines. In half an hour, the British had retreated, General Pakenham was dead, and nearly 2,000 of his men were killed, wounded, or missing. U.S. forces suffered only eight killed and 13 wounded.

Although the battle had no bearing on the outcome of the war, Jackson’s overwhelming victory elevated national pride, which had suffered a number of setbacks during the War of 1812. The Battle of New Orleans was also the last armed engagement between the United States and Britain.

…read more

Source: HISTORY

Avatar of admin

by admin

Crazy Horse killed

January 8, 2019 in History

By History.com Editors

Oglala Sioux chief Crazy Horse is fatally bayoneted by a U.S. soldier after resisting confinement in a guardhouse at Fort Robinson, Nebraska. A year earlier, Crazy Horse was among the Sioux leaders who defeated George Armstrong Custer’s Seventh Cavalry at the Battle of Little Bighorn in Montana Territory. The battle, in which 265 members of the Seventh Cavalry, including Custer, were killed, was the worst defeat of the U.S. Army in its long history of warfare with the Native Americans.

After the victory at Little Bighorn, U.S. Army forces led by Colonel Nelson Miles pursued Crazy Horse and his followers. His tribe suffered from cold and starvation, and on May 6, 1877, Crazy Horse surrendered to General George Crook at the Red Cloud Indian Agency in Nebraska. He was sent to Fort Robinson, where he was killed in a scuffle with soldiers who were trying to imprison him in a cell.

…read more

Source: HISTORY

Avatar of admin

by admin

A Brexit Negotiated by Trump Would Have Been a Wild Ride

January 8, 2019 in Economics

By Ryan Bourne

Ryan Bourne

How would Donald Trump have approached negotiating Brexit?

A few months ago, several commentators mused over this exact
question.

The current game of chicken between the President and Democrats
in Congress, resulting in a partial US government shutdown, is
perhaps the best insight we’ll get.

And it shows the wild ride that a Prime Minister Trump would
have taken us on.

May — or whoever
comes after her — should be wary of following the lead of the
US President.

Unlike Theresa May, when Trump implies “no deal is better
than a bad deal,” he appears to mean it. The President is
still refusing to sign legislation to fund parts of the government
unless Democrats grant $5.6bn for his desired concrete border wall
with Mexico.

As a result, the shutdown now runs into its third week.

There has been some talk of eventual compromise, trading off
wall funding for protections for immigrants. But the President has
taken a resolute public position, claiming that he’d keep the
government shut for “months, maybe even years” to
deliver the wall.

His team teased commentators last weekend with talk of taking
the concrete wall off the table, only to clarify that they’d
be willing to settle for a steel structure instead.

Should the stalemate continue, Trump has even threatened to
declare a national emergency, using military funds to push ahead
with the project.

My Cato colleagues David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh have ably
demonstrated that such a wall would be costly and ineffective.
There are good reasons for the Democrats to oppose it as a matter
of principle, and they are right to dig in.

But for Trump, this is a rare matter of high principle as well:
meeting an important 2016 campaign promise. “Wall means
wall,” some might say (even if he did claim that Mexico would
pay for it.)

The partial closure may only affect a quarter of government
spending, but that still means that 800,000 employees are impacted,
most of whom are currently sat at home without pay. Having so many
people suddenly finding themselves unclear of when they are about
to be paid is going to delay consumption decisions.

Just one in eight workers employed by America’s tax
collection agency (the Inland Revenue Service) are currently
working too, meaning that taxpayers and businesses won’t be
getting answers to questions that could determine important
financial decisions.

Then there’s the role that (sadly) the government plays in
facilitating other economic decisions.

The Small Business Administration and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development are affected by the closures, and these dish
out a bunch of loans and grants, applications for which are
currently in limbo.

As a result, even …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Avatar of admin

by admin

The Shortchanging of Public Charter School Students: Why Do They Get so Much Less per Pupil Than Students at Traditional Schools?

January 8, 2019 in Economics

By Patrick J. Wolf, Corey A. DeAngelis

Patrick J. Wolf and Corey A. DeAngelis

In December, we released our study Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the
City
.
We meticulously tracked all public school revenue
— including federal, state, local, and nonpublic dollars
— during the 2015-16 school year in 14 cities with high
concentrations of public charter schools. Charter schools in those
cities received on average 27 percent less total revenue per pupil
than traditional public schools, a gap of $5,828 per student. The
cities with the largest gaps were Camden, N.J., at $14,671 per
student, and Washington, D.C., at $10,258 per student. Charter
school students in Atlanta, Georgia, received an average of 49
percent less per pupil in revenue than students in traditional
public schools. In Little Rock, Arkansas, charter students received
39 percent less.

One critical feature of our public school funding studies is that we focus on
revenue. We think it’s important to know how much money is
being provided to the public charter and traditional public school
sectors. It represents the resources committed to educating
students. (School expenditures, while interesting, are a different
topic.)

We think it’s important
to know how much money is being provided to the public charter and
traditional public school sectors.

Second, we count everything. Public schools receive
funds from federal, state, and local governments as well as
philanthropies, parents, and valuable in-kind services such as
student transportation and access to school buildings. We identify
and record every dollar, and the dollar value of in-kind benefits,
directed to the public charter or traditional public schools in
each jurisdiction, regardless of its source. When traditional
public school districts pass through money to charter schools or
receive funds to provide services to charter students, we count
that as charter school revenue. Money passed through traditional
public school districts to charters also is counted on the charter
side of the ledger. We then divide the total revenue received by
the public charter sector by its total per-pupil enrollment and do
the same for traditional public schools. Our method generates a
complete measure of per-pupil revenue in each sector.

Some analysts say our method is flawed because it is too
complete. Certain revenues, they argue, should be excluded from school
funding totals because they come from special sources or are
intended for specific purposes. Only the school revenue that runs
through the official funding formula in a given state should be
counted as “per pupil” revenue, they claim. By
excluding large categories of school funding, researchers adopting
this approach generate smaller per-pupil funding amounts,
especially in the traditional public school sector where much of
the revenue comes in the …read more

Source: OP-EDS