Understanding the Klan

Daryl Davis, a Black musician. has taken it into his head to meet and argue with leading figures of the Ku Klux Klan. His book, Klan-destine Relationships, is a fairly amazing read. He meets with Roger Kelly, the Grand Dragon of one of the largest Klan factions, without revealing beforehand that he is Black. Kelly, though startled, invites him into his home, but there’s an armed man standing guard. They argue. Kelly explains his segregationist views; Davis attacks his assumptions. Though there is no epiphany, for some reason they agree to meet again, and then again. Eventually they form a sort of bond, still without any essential change in views. Davis talks Kelly into coming with him to apologize to a Black woman who has had a cross burned on her lawn. By the end of the book, the two are “close friends”, and Davis is godfather to Kelly’s child. But Kelly is still a Klan leader -- indeed has progressed to the title of  Imperial Wizard of the Invincible Empire Knights of the KKK. And Davis has befriended a dozen or so other Klansmen -- some in jail, some retired; none are fundamentally transformed.

What do we make of this? Many are horrified. A reviewer for Kirkus on Amazon writes:

“What never occurs to Davis is that he may be being used by these people.... Davis seems oblivious to Kelly's smooth way of talking out of both sides of his mouth.... Nowhere during these scenes does the author consider that his book might be the perfect vehicle by which Kelly can gain new members.

“The dual dangers of this book are that some readers will find tacit support for their beliefs that blacks are easily led and others will view the Klan as ‘not all that bad’ and perhaps join where they otherwise might not have.”

This reviewer believes you shouldn’t deal with bad people, those outside your moral circle -- you need to maintain a clear line between good and bad. This belief has animated most of human history. Its result is endless warfare. Since it fears and shuts off dialogue, its only practical conclusion is that the others must be destroyed, the stain of their evil wiped from the earth. But since that is rarely possible, and since they probably have the same attitude towards you, it produces cycles of merciless conflict.

Davis started from a more “enlightened” view, thinking he could use universal rationality to convince the other of the truth. But that didn’t work, either. Again and again -- and the book reports many conversations in detail -- he showed Klansmen that their views were logically inconsistent, incompatible with evidence, and generally failed all tests of rationality. They remained unmoved.

Yet both sides -- both Davis and the Klansmen -- apparently found it worthwhile to keep meeting, to keep talking, to deepen their relationship, despite the differences. Why?

Here’s Davis’ perspective, as expressed in a radio interview:

““The most important thing I learned is that when you are actively learning about someone else you are passively teaching them about yourself.”

This was a shift from where he started. He wasn’t trying to convince them any more. He was simply trying to understand, and to be understood. There is value in that. There is value, first, in that they don’t kill each other; some of the Klansmen, at least, did move towards less violent stances in their organizations, softened the rhetoric. They wanted to protect Davis, to keep him from being hurt as he attended Klan rallies and meetings. There is value, too, in that they do consider more deeply the views of their opponents -- not changing their deep philosophy, but much less willing to demonize and dehumanize. There is value in that they can sometimes walk together, as in the apology for the cross-burning.

And there’s some reciprocity: though Davis does not grow any less fierce in his defense of doctrines and people the Klan hates, he does tend to demonize the KKK members less, to see some good aspects. He agrees with them on some limited points such as a common opposition to drugs.

This infuriates the Kirkus reviewer: Davis, he rages, “endlessly makes excuses for Klan members who are no longer violent, as if this somehow mitigates their continued membership in such a terrorist organization.” He feels that any break in the wall is a threat.

But what’s the alternative? To kill Kelly? (He does have an armed guard, it should be noted.) Is it really likely that anyone is going to decide to join the Klan because Davis doesn’t ceaselessly attack them? Can one really imagine the Klan leader parading this book around as a recruiting tool? It would be much more likely that his members would attack him for befriending this Black guy, and that some might feel their simple black-and-white paradigm cracking a bit.

Davis suggests:

“...if you have an adversary with an opposing point of view, give that person a platform. Allow them to air that point of view, regardless of how extreme it may be. And believe me, I've heard things so extreme at these rallies they'll cut you to the bone.

“Give them a platform. ... And when you do things that way chances are they will reciprocate and give you a platform.”

People seem to want to be understood; they will put a lot of time and energy into it. At some level they find it valuable. It’s something to work from.

Christians and multiculturalists

Tim Tebow is a football player who openly expresses his Christian beliefs, and has thus become a polarizing figure -- beloved by Christians, often attacked by progressives, quite apart from his achievements on the field.

**************

Many people who identify themselves as Christians feel under siege. This poster is an expression of their sense that multicultural “political correctness” has become a cudgel to beat them into silence. Justice Alito, in the recent Supreme Court case on gay marriage, expresses the same basic fear that “Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” will be “vilified”,  driven to “whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes.”

I do not agree with the opponents of the Court's decision, but I think they have a point. On one hand, the public recognition of gay unions is, from the perspective of community and trust, a great step forward. It opens a new realm of relations, and makes it possible for more people to develop their full capacities as contributing members of society. This is part of broadening relations, essential in an increasingly complex society.

But many “progressives” in the cosmopolitan centers -- and I am one of them -- are not consistent in our embrace of multiculturalism: we don't include those with whom we disagree. We too easily associate Christianity with ignorance and  intolerance; we denigrate it, laugh at it. We celebrate the Supreme Court decision as a victory -- not just an advance, but a triumph over opponents who are (we think) stupid and out-of-date. stereotyping, Within our own circle, we unthinkingly lump all Tebow-supporters as a caricatural  bunch of intolerant boors. We engage in smirking exchanges with our own tribe - “See how foolish they are? See how wise we are?”

In that sense we do indeed preach a “new orthodoxy.” And to the extent that multiculturalism becomes orthodoxy, it perpetuates what it is trying to overcome.

The Court's decision is not a victory over regressive opponents, a win for our side: it is a chance to expand the dialogue and the range of human expression. When we treat it as a triumph in a battle, we diminish the whole process.

We should state clearly how a consistent multiculturalist point of view applies here:

1. Tebow, and those who support him, should not be expected to keep their beliefs to themselves, or to “whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes.”

2. If I see their beliefs as intolerant, we should talk about it.

3. If they see my beliefs as a new orthodoxy, we should talk about that.

4. We all need to accept both sides of the problem implied in the poster. If Jenner supporters should try to understand Tebow, then Tebow supporters should try to understand Jenner. Christians and multiculturalists, in their own circles, can be challenged to listen.

It’s not that this approach will lead magically to agreement. Some people believe at a very deep level in marriage as a union of male and female; a smaller number believe deeply that homosexuality is inherently sinful. They do not see themselves as bad, and they will fight with fury -- as would any of us -- against those who laugh at them or tell them they are morally wrong. They will not change their essential point of view, which is embedded in a complex web of philosophical, creedal, and historical perspectives.

We can, however, expect that consistent respect, true conversation, may enable us to better live together despite the divide, to work together, to walk together; to have some sympathy with each other even though we disagree; to have some care for each other despite the differences. That would help a great deal in healing our fractured society.