Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talking to racists, versus shutting them out

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Talking to racists, versus shutting them out

    I've read an interesting article about a black musician who managed to dismantle the Maryland chapter of the KKK - by talking to the members.

    He has a podcast, too for those who are interested. And there's a documentary about him. Fairly amazing stuff.

    From the article:

    He credits his approach for helping to dismantle the local Klan. "The three Klan leaders here in Maryland, Roger Kelly, Robert White, and Chester Doles—I became friends with each one of them—when the three Klan leaders left the Klan and became friends of mine, that ended the Ku Klux Klan in the state of Maryland," he asserted. "Today there is no more Ku Klux Klan in the state. They've tried to revive it every now and then but it immediately falls apart. Groups from neighboring states might come in and hold a rally ... but it's never taken off."

    The visionary behind Love+Radio, Nick van der Kolk, interjected at this point in the story. "Do you think there's a danger that when you're up on stage with a Klan member there's some sort of tacit approval happening? That he can point to you and say, 'This black guy, we're cool, so therefore my separatist beliefs are right?'"

    He also asked, "Have you ever gotten criticism from black folks?"

    "Of course," Davis replied. "Absolutely. Not black people who are friends of mine, who know me and understand where I'm coming from. Some black people who have not heard me interviewed or read my book jump to conclusions and prejudge me ... I've been called Uncle Tom. I've been called an Oreo." It doesn't sway him:


    I had one guy from an NAACP branch chew me up one side and down the other, saying, you know, we've worked hard to get ten steps forward. Here you are sitting down with the enemy having dinner, you're putting us twenty steps back."

    I pull out my robes and hoods and say, "look, this is what I've done to put a dent in racism. I've got robes and hoods hanging in my closet by people who've given up that belief because of my conversations sitting down to dinner. They gave it up. How many robes and hoods have you collected?" And then they shut up.

    What Davis did makes a lot of people uneasy even when they fully grasp his intentions. I'm a relatively radical proponent of public discourse who respects his motives, his ingenuity, and his results ... and it still makes me uneasy. But one needn't agree with the decision to engage literal Klansmen (or minimize the good work done by the NAACP) to conclude that if conversation has changed the minds of multiple leaders of what is arguably the most hateful group in American history, it could probably do a lot of good in various less-extreme cases.

    Interestingly, Davis argues that conversing about race is most useful in extreme cases. "There are a lot of well meaning white liberals. And a lot of well meaning black liberals," he says. "But you know what? When all they do is sit around and preach to the choir it does absolutely no good. If you're not a racist it doesn't do any good for me to meet with you and sit around and talk about how bad racism is." I have some disagreements with Davis. This isn't the place for them. He should have us convinced, beyond any doubt, that conversation has a place in the anti-racism tool kit. And as he'd note, he's struck more blows against racism than I ever have.
    "You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
    "You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good

  • #2
    I'm not familiar with him, but your post makes perfect sense. I'm gonna have to check out what he says. He's doing a great thing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Talking, to try to eliminate racial hate, no matter who is spewing it, is always a good thing.

      Comment


      • #4
        it depends, but I agree that it is often more useful than sitting around talking about it. Having said that, there's two things to bear in mind:
        1) it doesn't mean you have to allow them a platform to spread their hate ( one example I can think of is that somewhat regularly, you get controversy because a fundamentalist/extremist is banned from speaking at a university. The ban is legitimate in that the university can regulate who can speakon uni property- what they can't do is do something like scheduling a lecture specifically so students can't go ( that is, if the lecture is scheduled specifically to prevent students going, it's unacceptable, but they don't have to rearrange lectures to facilitate student attendance.

        Comment

        Working...
        X