Actually I was taught that there were never any blacks in the KKK nor were there any blacks belonging to the red-shirts. Today, I find out not only were there blacks in the KKK but in Rock Hill there were over 800 blacks who marched as red-shirts in a parade of only 2000 marchers. 800 is a far cry from none. Especially when you take into account that Rock Hill had a black population of only 1500 at the time.
I know that one should not use absolutes in making a statement, but I did not learn that in school. And it seems the schools did not learn this lesson of absolutes, when they state that there were never any blacks in the KKK.
(everything you learned in school was a lie)
I never said that. Much of history taught is a lie though.
You read a sappy story written only because it is exceptional and turn that exception into a rule
Actually, the history you and I have been taught makes the exception the rule, and not I. For instance, you mentioned the blacks that had been lynched. These 2,518 blacks lynched by white mobs in 10 southern states are well documented and widely published in the history books. But have you ever heard of the 20,000+ blacks killed by whites in the more than 300 race riots that took place outside of the southern states? Surely you have. If the deaths of 2,518 blacks in the south is important enough to have whole chapters dedicated to the subject in history books, then the death of 20,000+ blacks outside of the south during the same period would be of even greater importance. Yet this fact in history is blatantly missing from the history books. Found only in a footnote here and there. For you see, it cannot be known that the great northern people who fought to free the slaves and to give them equal protection under the law, has a just as hateful and bigoted history as the south.
My education must have been really bad. I never learned a thing about Rock Hill. ;~))
If the deaths of 2,518 blacks in the south is important enough to have whole chapters dedicated to the subject in history books, then the death of 20,000+ blacks outside of the south during the same period would be of even greater importance. Yet this fact in history is blatantly missing from the history books.
20,000? I'd like to see that source. That number seems wildly inflated to me. But your point is taken that the lynchings have generated more history. Partly, however, that is justifiable. First of all, not all lynchings were in the "south" although the majority were. Secondly, lynchings, unlike "race riots" (which occurred in both the north and south) typically required the cooperation of state and local law enforcement. They were typically not simple mob actions but a form of organized and tacitly sanctioned actions designed specifically to intimidate a class of citizens. Local and state law enforcement usually protected instead of prosecuting the offenders. That makes them a more serious violation of rights than drunken mobs clashing in the streets.
I also see that you immediately reverted to the poor picked on south defense by saying that the north is just as bad. You don't have an argument from me, but pointing to the historical sins of one side does nothing to lesson the sins of the other. Be as proud as you like of your state or region, but learn to accept that not all of the history is honorable.