[Cody Dawg]

Seriously, black Republicans say that Democrats started the KKK. Link

Gotta love it!

Because if you think about it, it's probably true. The image of the ignorant pork-eating bigot surely belongs to most white Democrats, the kind that like to ride around at night with their white hoods on, the kind that nowadays ride around with "Dixie" flags in the backs of their confederate pickup trucks. I live here in the South and I can tell you that severe racism still exists; in fact, the other at a local service station we ran into a cop who stopped to talk casually with my husband and used the "******" word casually in a conversation as though it's acceptable to everyone, even casual acquaintances. He said, "Hopefully the niggers will be moving out of here soon. I'd rather have towel-heads working at gas stations than niggers." He's got a "Kerry Edwards" sticker still on his pickup truck also. He's a prime example of an ignorant Southern white bigot - alive and well in 2006.

I think that black Republicans are wising up - good for them.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- A national black Republican group is running a radio ad accusing Democrats of starting the Ku Klux Klan.

The ad also claims the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, a claim challenged by civil-rights researchers.

The ad features one woman telling another: "Dr. King was a real man. You know he was a Republican."

The ad goes on to say Democrats helped pass and enforce Jim Crow laws that kept blacks and whites in the South separate.

In the ad, the woman goes on to say, "Democrats passed those black codes and Jim Crow laws. Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan." Her companion replies, "The Klan? White hoods and sheets?"

Maryland is the scene of a sharp political battle for the state's open U.S. Senate seat. It pits Lt. Gov. Michael Steele against his Democratic opponent, Representative Ben Cardin.

Steele, a black Republican and the party's nominee for Maryland's open Senate seat, has disavowed the ad as "insulting to Marylanders." He said his campaign has asked the Washington-based National Black Republican Association to stop running it. The group, founded a year ago, promotes the GOP to black voters.

Steve Klein, a senior researcher with the Atlanta-based King Center, said that King never endorsed candidates from either party.

The KKK, never a political party, was a racist group of white men that started in the South after the Civil War, when Republicans were almost unheard of in former Confederate states. The mainstream Democratic Party never endorsed the Klan nor claimed to have founded it.

[Dakar]

Would the first post be to early to play the "Democrats & Republicans switched places long ago" card?

[Montezuma58]

Because if you think about it, it's probably true. The image of the ignorant pork-eating bigot surely belongs to most white Democrats, the kind that like to ride around at night with their white hoods on, the kind that nowadays ride around with "Dixie" flags in the backs of their confederate pickup trucks

Well I've seen plenty of the hard core people that are still pissed about the "war of northern aggression" with W stickers on their cars (and pick up trucks). Sure there are still a significant number of hard core racist around. But its a bit ridiculous to suggest those people reflect any official position or even general attitudes of either modern version of the party.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Would the first post be to early to play the "Democrats & Republicans switched places long ago" card?

No, you still have Robert Byrd.

And Zell Miller is still a True Deomcrat™.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

No, you still have Robert Byrd.

No one said being in the KKK and being Republican was absolute.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

And Zell Miller is still a True Deomcrat™.

Yeah, and McCain is a True Republican™

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Would the first post be to early to play the "Democrats & Republicans switched places long ago" card?

You could try. It wouldn't be too effective for the first, second or 60th post regardless.

The Republicans have been consistent. The Democrats on the other hand - post 1960's always seeming to take whatever they do to extremes, realized their anti-minority positions were losers after the civil rights revolution. While losing ground in the 70's and 80's (eventually to turn into a true "minority party" in the early 90's) they where overtaken by the far left (mostly) did a 180 and decided that they would not only support the reasonable moderate stance that the Republicans had offered regarding civil rights, they'd one up them by going to crazy town and supporting stuff like quotas, class warfare and race repartations.

So, it wouldn't be unusual if some who did support an extreme anti-minority position be more inclined to align themselves with a party who had reasonable and fair racial equity goals as opposed to a party that went batsh@t crazy toward the other end of the fairness spectrum. I'm sure they weren't going to go on the same ride to kookoo town as those who decided it was a good idea to judge men based on his color (in order to unfairly and artificially equal the playing field), and not the content of his character as some in the Democrat party now do.

[marden]

Attacking Democrats for starting the KKK is the same as attacking all Muslims because of the violent rads.

Beware of those who wish to divide us.

Chavez. Ahmadinejad. Democrats. Republicans. The time has come when we need to look at our opponents and who wants us to suffer.

M.E. funding is going into our best colleges and liberal institutions may become even more so.
Chavez is trying to accentuate class distinction and is turning the heat up on dissatisfaction with our government and institutions in the US. Iran's prez is on his best behavior at the UN and tries to look reasonable.

We don't need vicious fights amongst ourselves.

Be aware of who tries to instigate fights and find out what they have to gain.

There are people (white, black, Christian, Muslim and aethist) who each have their own agenda for causing fights among Americans when the real danger is from without. Not within.

[Sky Captain]

Some want to seperate the DixieCrats™ from the socialists that call themselves Democrats now.
You know, deny their roots.
The original Democrats of the early 20th century were supposed to represent the Working Man™.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The Republicans have been consistent. The Democrats on the other hand - post 1960's always seeming to take whatever they do to extremes, realized their anti-minority positions were losers after the civil rights revolution. While losing ground in the 70's and 80's (eventually to turn into a true "minority party" in the early 90's) they where overtaken by the far left (mostly) did a 180 and decided that they would not only support the reasonable moderate stance that the Republicans had offered regarding civil rights, they'd one up them by going to crazy town and supporting stuff like quotas, class warfare and race repartations.

So, it wouldn't be unusual if some who did support an extreme anti-minority position be more inclined to align themselves with a party who had reasonable and fair racial equity goals as opposed to a party that went batsh@t crazy toward the other end of the fairness spectrum. I'm sure they weren't going to go on the same ride to kookoo town as those who decided it was a good idea to judge men based on his color (in order to unfairly and artificially equal the playing field), and not the content of his character as some in the Democrat party now do.

Its a nice post, but unfortunately reasonable & moderate are subjective terms. It all depends on what you think is 'enough' to make up for 150 years of subjugation. (I speak more in terms of 40 years ago when civil rights was an issue than now).

Edit: To make my point a little clearer, a racist would gravitate to whatever party gave minorities the least rights, regardless of whether those rights were fair or moderate.

[ghporter]

The positions of the two parties on race relations have switched over the years. It was only in the 1960s that the Democratic Party actually moved progressively in this area-and note that there were a number of party schizms over this in the 1950s. There was an offshoot, pseudoparty called the "Dixiecrats" that was for everything progressive-except where people who weren't white (and Protestant Christian) were involved. Lyndon Johnson is generally credited as being the single most important person in the Democrat's policy of inclusion, though there are a lot of other people who made great strides in that area (Elenor Roosevelt for example, resigned from the DAR to protest their refusal to let Marian Anderson sing at Constitution Hall, and was instrumental in getting her concert at the Lincoln Memorial set up).

So sure, the Republicans are right that the people who started the KKK were probably Democrats. But do they actually talk about the ORIGINAL Klan? The organization intended to counter the Republican carpetbaggers who were using pupet black people to opress ALL citizens in the conquered South? The Republicans should be VERY careful about pointing fingers at anyone in discussions about that particular era. If there ever was a time when one could plainly state that a particular political party had a lock on corruption, it is Reconstruction, and the Republicans had the key.

[Cody Dawg]

stupendousman

The Republicans have been consistent. The Democrats on the other hand - post 1960's always seeming to take whatever they do to extremes, realized their anti-minority positions were losers after the civil rights revolution. While losing ground in the 70's and 80's (eventually to turn into a true "minority party" in the early 90's) they where overtaken by the far left (mostly) did a 180 and decided that they would not only support the reasonable moderate stance that the Republicans had offered regarding civil rights, they'd one up them by going to crazy town and supporting stuff like quotas, class warfare and race repartations.

So, it wouldn't be unusual if some who did support an extreme anti-minority position be more inclined to align themselves with a party who had reasonable and fair racial equity goals as opposed to a party that went batsh@t crazy toward the other end of the fairness spectrum. I'm sure they weren't going to go on the same ride to kookoo town as those who decided it was a good idea to judge men based on his color (in order to unfairly and artificially equal the playing field), and not the content of his character as some in the Democrat party now do.

Are you a professor or something? I feel like I'm studying when I'm reading your posts or something! (Not criticizing, but actually complimenting.)

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The positions of the two parties on race relations have switched over the years. It was only in the 1960s that the Democratic Party actually moved progressively in this area-and note that there were a number of party schizms over this in the 1950s. There was an offshoot, pseudoparty called the "Dixiecrats" that was for everything progressive-except where people who weren't white (and Protestant Christian) were involved. Lyndon Johnson is generally credited as being the single most important person in the Democrat's policy of inclusion, though there are a lot of other people who made great strides in that area (Elenor Roosevelt for example, resigned from the DAR to protest their refusal to let Marian Anderson sing at Constitution Hall, and was instrumental in getting her concert at the Lincoln Memorial set up).

So sure, the Republicans are right that the people who started the KKK were probably Democrats. But do they actually talk about the ORIGINAL Klan? The organization intended to counter the Republican carpetbaggers who were using pupet black people to opress ALL citizens in the conquered South? The Republicans should be VERY careful about pointing fingers at anyone in discussions about that particular era. If there ever was a time when one could plainly state that a particular political party had a lock on corruption, it is Reconstruction, and the Republicans had the key.

That's what I was trying to say and more.

Also, congrats on 10,000, whenever that happened.

[Cody Dawg]

I respectfully disagree about your version of Reconstruction, ghporter, when you state that Republicans during Reconstruction had a lock on corruption. History shows something much different than your interpretation.

Even the most radical of Republicans wanted more for blacks and punished white officers who were most offensive:

From Wikipedia

Reconstruction was the period in United States history, 1865–1876, that attempted to resolve the issues of the American Civil War when both the Confederacy and its system of slavery were destroyed. The period of Reconstruction addressed the return of the southern states that had seceded, the status of ex-Confederate leaders, and the integration of the African-American Freedmen into the legal, political, economic and social system. Violent controversy arose over how to accomplish those tasks.

Republican leaders agreed that slavery and the Slave Power had to be permanently destroyed, and all forms of Confederate nationalism had to be suppressed. Moderates said this could be easily accomplished as soon as Confederate armies surrendered and the southern states repealed secession and ratified the 13th Amendment — all of which happened by September 1865.

President Abraham Lincoln was the leader of the moderate Republicans and wanted to speed up Reconstruction and reunite the nation as soon as possible. Lincoln supported voting rights for Black Union army veterans.However, the opposing faction of Radical Republicans were much more skeptical of southern intentions and demanded far more stringent federal action. Congressman Thaddeus Stevens and Senator Charles Sumner led the Radical Republicans. Radical Republicans staunchly opposed Lincoln's 10% Plan. After Lincoln's assassination, President Andrew Johnson switched from the Radical to the moderate camp. He too favored voting rights for Black Union army veterans. By 1866, however, Johnson, with no party afficiliation, broke with the moderate Republicans and aligned himself more with the Democrats who opposed equality and opposed the Fourteenth Amendment. Radicals attacked the policies of Johnson, especially his veto of the Civil Rights Bill for the Freedmen.

The election of 1866 decisively changed the balance of power, giving the Radicals control of Congress and enough votes to overcome Johnson's vetoes and even to try to impeach him. Johnson was acquitted by one vote, but remained almost powerless regarding Reconstruction policy. [Republican] Radicals used the Army to take over the South and give the vote to black men, and took the vote away from an estimated 10,000 or 15,000 white men who had been Confederate officials or senior officers.

By the way, Lincoln's 10% plan was:

Lincoln insisted that the states were in rebellion, and thus needed not to be readmitted into the Union. Under his 10% plan, once ten percent of all people took an oath of allegiance, the state would regain its representation in Congress.

[voodoo]

No, *I* started the KKK!!

V

[davesimondotcom]

It doesn't matter what Republicans say or do, as evidenced in this thread, they will be painted as the "racist" party, while Democrats get a free ride.

There are racists in both parties.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Because if you think about it, it's probably true.

Old news. I thought that this was common knowledge.

So, if nothing else, Robert "Sheets" Byrd is one of the few remaining "true" Democrats, I guess.

Seriously, though, the Democrat party of my parents and grandparents had big divisions over race relations in the South. See "Dixiecrats".

[goMac]

Apparently someone doesn't know their history. But Dakar already mentioned that.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Some want to seperate the DixieCrats™ from the socialists that call themselves Democrats now.
You know, deny their roots.
The original Democrats of the early 20th century were supposed to represent the Working Man™.

Hey, I'll argue that the Democrat party of the 1950s wasn't infiltrated by socialism, yet. LBJ certainly weren't no socialist. I'll also argue that most of the old school Democrats I've known in my life were staunchly against segregation *while it was happening.* It cost people their livelihoods when they had to take a stand where they lived. To many Democrats in the South, the Civil Rights movement wasn't something they heard about on the evening news.


The Dem party today doesn't represent anyone except the folks who are running it -- the politicians, Leftist and otherwise. Republicans are little better, but at least they try, from time to time, to pragmatize our foreign policy and get govt. out of the way of things. From time to time.

[Millennium]

Define "started".

No, really. The problem is that when it was originally founded, the KKK was nothing more than a social club, little different from any other. Over the course of the next 20-odd years it was taken over by radicals, becoming the organization we know and loathe today. The history of this thing is messed up, to say the least, and it's been like this for so long that few know it was ever anything else.

So, were Democrats the ones who founded an organization very different from its present form? Or were they the ones who corrupted it into the monstrosity we now know? Or perhaps they were both, with different people from the same party founding it and corrupting it? Honestly, I don't know, and I'm kind of creeped out by the idea that I've managed to pick up even this much information about an organization I want nothing to do with.

[red rocket]

CNN article

Steve Klein, a senior researcher with the Atlanta-based King Center, said Thursday that King never endorsed candidates from either party.

"I think it's highly inaccurate to say he was a Republican because there's really no evidence," Klein said.

A King biographer, Taylor Branch, also said Thursday that King was nonpartisan.

Claim 1 proved false.

The KKK, never a political party, was a racist group of white men that started in the South after the Civil War, when Republicans were almost unheard of in former Confederate states. The mainstream Democratic Party never endorsed the Klan nor claimed to have founded it.

Claim 2 proved false.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Because if you think about it, it's probably true.

Because some Republicans said it in an advertisement, it carries more weight for Cody than expert opinion and historical facts. Pitiful, but hardly surprising.

[Cody Dawg]

Millenium:

Want to get really creeped out?

Check out this band - Prussian Blue - two 12-year old singers who are racists and sing about it.

Now they are really creepy.

[Cody Dawg]

red rocket:

Why all the different UserIDs on MacNN? How many do you have?



BTW, I live in this country and in an area where this type of extreme racism is alive and well. In fact, not only do these types of people hate blacks, but they hate Jews, Catholics, and anyone who is not Protestant and white, preferably Baptist, and preferably Democratic, not Republican whom they don't view as working class. The truth is that the Republicans comprise more and more of the working class while the liberal elites, like the Hollywood types, are hardly working class.

[Zeeb]

You are all wrong, the KKK was started by a group of gay black Jewish men.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

You are all wrong, the KKK was started by a group of gay black Jewish men.

[IMG]http://i2.tinypic.com/2u9u4j7.jpg

That's REALLY funny.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Would the first post be to early to play the "Democrats & Republicans switched places long ago" card?

Well okay, but you know the Democrats killed Jesus, right?

[BRussell]

And Hitler was a liberal.

[Monique]

Cody, you did not know that. I thought everyone knew that the democrats of that time were horrible people, and they are the one in the South that pushed for the civil war, the war of secession. Lincoln was Republican and the republicans of the time were liberal and open minded.

Things have changed tremendeously.

By the way, the South started the war by no obeying the law to free the slaves.

It is not very different from now the South still think they are not a part of the union and they can make their own laws and not obey federal laws.

[itai195]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Democrats were 'horrible' and Republicans were 'open minded.' Prior to the war, the abolitionists were roughly aligned with the Republican party but it's not the case that all Republicans or the party in general endorsed the abolitionist message. It's not unlike gay marriage advocates and the Democratic party today. Also the Emancipation Proclamation is misunderstood today, it did not free slaves in border states such as Maryland. And it wasn't a law as such, it was a presidential proclamation. It was more of a strategic war act than anything, as it ruined the southern economy and increased the union army's manpower.

[olePigeon]

There are two key points in history where the values (liberal and conservative) of the Republican and Democratic parties completely switched:

Pre and post Civil War
Pre and post Civil Rights Movement

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by itai195

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Democrats were 'horrible' and Republicans were 'open minded.' Prior to the war, the abolitionists were roughly aligned with the Republican party but it's not the case that all Republicans or the party in general endorsed the abolitionist message. It's not unlike gay marriage advocates and the Democratic party today. Also the Emancipation Proclamation is misunderstood today, it did not free slaves in border states such as Maryland. And it wasn't a law as such, it was a presidential proclamation. It was more of a strategic war act than anything, as it ruined the southern economy and increased the union army's manpower.

[OAW]

The ad is silly and misleading and Michael Steele is wise to disavow it. The man is no dummy and he knows something like this is likely to backfire big time. The reality is that the Republican party and the Democratic party are and have always been national parties comprised of various factions. Some of these factions have actually switched party affiliation. Some have not. At one time there were Northern Republican abolitionists and Southern Democratic slaveowners. At another time there were Northern Republican Reconstructionists and Southern Democratic segregationists. And at still another time we had Southern Democratic segregationists who became Southern Republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by LBJ.

The point is to show that all of this was more a factor of region and culture than it was of party affiliation. IOW, it was more of a North vs. South thing rather than a Republican vs. Democrat thing. One can even argue that it was more of a Liberal vs. Conservative thing. Regardless, the political allegiances of various factions shift over time as has been well documented.

OAW

[Spliff]

I don't believe that the KKK exists today. Why? O.J. Simpson. If there was one black man in America that they could lynch and be praised for doing it, it would be O.J. Simpson. He murdered an Aryan-looking white woman and a white man.

Where was the KKK? Not one peep from them. Where are the supposed murderous racists in America?

[Cody Dawg]

Spliff, you're too much.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd suggest the Democrats are still oppressing black folks. Their view seems to be that only white people can succeed on their own merits. Other races need help from the government in order to succeed.

Republicans believe that all people are equal.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliff

I don't believe that the KKK exists today. Why? O.J. Simpson. If there was one black man in America that they could lynch and be praised for doing it, it would be O.J. Simpson. He murdered an Aryan-looking white woman and a white man.

Where was the KKK? Not one peep from them. Where are the supposed murderous racists in America?

The clan definitely does exist. A relative of mine is a cop and has to secure clan rallies quite frequently. The KKK was started in Martinsville, IN, from what I've been told, for those curious.

[Spliffdaddy]

Indiana?

That's a yankee state.

[Sky Captain]

The North was just as racist as the South.
The "media" just enjoyed concentrating on the South.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The clan definitely does exist. A relative of mine is a cop and has to secure clan rallies quite frequently. The KKK was started in Martinsville, IN, from what I've been told, for those curious.

Actually it was started in Pulaski, TN. Though it was extremely prominent in Indiana politics during the 20's.

from Ku Klux Klan -- Extremism in America

Six college students founded the Ku Klux Klan between December 1865 and the summer of 1866 in the town of Pulaski, Tennessee. Former Confederate officers, the six young men organized as a social club or fraternity and spent their time in horseplay of various types, including wearing disguises and galloping about town after dark. They were surprised to learn that their nightly appearances were causing fear, particularly among former slaves in the area. They quickly took advantage of this effect and the group began a rapid expansion. Various factions formed in different towns, which led to a meeting in April 1867 to codify rules and organizational structure.

[Spliffdaddy]

Apparently the Klan was formed by southerners who had been subjected to endless injustices perpetrated by yankees.

The story of the south is a sad one. And still, today, we are belittled and ridiculed for simply being southern. Few people in this world have tolerated so much for so long - yet remained steadfast in their reluctance to retaliate.

The finest people in the world live in the southern states. And we will, indeed, rise again.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliff

I don't believe that the KKK exists today. Why? O.J. Simpson. If there was one black man in America that they could lynch and be praised for doing it, it would be O.J. Simpson. He murdered an Aryan-looking white woman and a white man.

Where was the KKK? Not one peep from them. Where are the supposed murderous racists in America?

Ron Goldman was Jewish. Nicole Simpson was a "****** lover." Maybe the Klan believed they both got what they deserved and O.J. will be hounded and the subject of contempt and financially imprisoned the rest of his life. The final accounting from their point of view might have been considered a net gain.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by marden

Ron Goldman was Jewish. Nicole Simpson was a "****** lover." Maybe the Klan believed they both got what they deserved and O.J. will be hounded and the subject of contempt and financially imprisoned the rest of his life. The final accounting from their point of view might have been considered a net gain.

Wow, a hounding. That's some wicked punishment. The KKK are fierce dudes.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Its a nice post, but unfortunately reasonable & moderate are subjective terms. It all depends on what you think is 'enough' to make up for 150 years of subjugation. (I speak more in terms of 40 years ago when civil rights was an issue than now).

Edit: To make my point a little clearer, a racist would gravitate to whatever party gave minorities the least rights, regardless of whether those rights were fair or moderate.

Unfortunately, "least rights" is a subjective standard. It all depends on whether or not you believe a man should be judged based on the color of their skin, not the content of their character. The idea that we have to make up for the actions of others by reverse subjugation most likely can reasonably be seen as taking away the rights of some in order to give more rights to others

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The positions of the two parties on race relations have switched over the years.

Uh..no. The position of the Republican party has been pretty much consistent. It's the democrats who have been all over the map trying to find something that sells.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliff

Wow, a hounding. That's some wicked punishment. The KKK are fierce dudes.

Is it worth their getting caught when all eyes are on that SOB? Hey, if your so smart you tell me why they haven't done anything to him.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Are you a professor or something? I feel like I'm studying when I'm reading your posts or something! (Not criticizing, but actually complimenting.)

What pegged me as an intellectual? My using the phrase "koo koo town"?



Seriously...just a regular "joe" here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden

Is it worth their getting caught when all eyes are on that SOB? Hey, if your so smart you tell me why they haven't done anything to him.

It's "you're" in this context, not "your".

I guess you're not Abe/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2 after all.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's "you're" in this context, not "your".

I guess you're not Abe/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2 after all.

Don't be so sure.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden

Don't be so sure.

Well, you have a long ways to go to catch up to Rob in his legendary ban evasion.

[invisibleX]

KKK > Democrats > EEEEVVVILLLL. By extension Rupublicans > All that is good and pure.

Some folks around here really need to get a grip. Fairly pathetic when you essentially have to start calling the other "side" racists for some sick reason. American is becoming so polarized its scary. It almost would make me agree with marden's message of unity. His seems to be the only idea here that isn't laced with bias, hatred, and a general ignorance of reality. Time to take off the political blinders folks and realize it isn't all about throwing eggs at each other.

[marden]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

KKK > Democrats > EEEEVVVILLLL. By extension Rupublicans > All that is good and pure.

Some folks around here really need to get a grip. Fairly pathetic when you essentially have to start calling the other "side" racists for some sick reason. American is becoming so polarized its scary. It almost would make me agree with marden's message of unity. His seems to be the only idea here that isn't laced with bias, hatred, and a general ignorance of reality. Time to take off the political blinders folks and realize it isn't all about throwing eggs at each other.

Indeed!

The time for spirited fun and games has given way to a new realization. When we look in the mirror we HAVE to realize that the devel is often seen wearing a red shirt and he stands behind us.