The "You need to shut the fuck up about Daryl Davis" thread
Greetings! You have been linked here because at some point, you gave a really shitty take on Daryl Davis by suggesting something along the lines of the idea that pacifism and dialogue are more effective tools in fighting racism than direct action, and using Davis as proof. This thread exists to explain why your take is so shitty.
To be clear, nobody thinks Daryl Davis has bad intents. But he does more harm than good. Let's look at a number of reasons why...
Daryl Davis isn't as effective at defrocking Klansmen as you think he is
Davis claims he defrocked 200 Klansmen. This has some truth to it but is misleading. Numerous individuals who left the Klan after conversations with Davis noted that they were already questioning their racist beliefs. Davis gave them a push over the edge - a good thing, for sure, but not remotely the revolutionary transformation that you're crediting him with.
In other instances, people who spoke to Davis left the Klan but remained active in racist politics. Or, in a few instances, Davis was just incorrect about them having left (whether he lied or was mistaken, I don't know). For example, Davis claimed that he convinced Richard Preston to leave, but Preston was arrested for firing a gun at Charlottesville. He has claimed that he "dismantled the entire KKK in Maryland," but the KKK is active in Maryland.
Side note: Davis posted Preston's bail. If Davis were an anti-incarceration activist, noting that the carcereal state targets certain groups, that would be praiseworthy. But I know of no examples of Davis posting the bail of any young black man targeted by the white supremacist police. Instead, he got an actively violent racist out of jail. That's who he chose to bail out and put back in society. This is what you call an anti-racist activist?
Which leads into the next point...
Davis looks at racism as an individual problem, not a systemic one
All the great civil rights activists understood that racism wasn't simply a matter of opinions amongst individuals, but structural power issues. To quote Stokely Carmichael:
“If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you're anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.”
There's nothing wrong with changing individual minds - it's a noble task - but it isn't a means of dismantling systems.
Punching racists treats fascism and racism as political, not interpersonal, problems, as it seeks to minimize the presence of racial politics in society by breaking up rallies and the like. Of course, it is not anti-capitalist activism in its entirety, but nobody claims it is. Real anti-racism requires we look at systemic racism, and neither Davis, nor you, have done this.
Besides ... 200 racists (if even that many) since 1983? Great, but hate group membership is skyrocketing, and to try to take these groups apart piece-by-piece, and not in more direct manners, is a waste of time and energy that people targeted by hate groups just can't afford. And that's especially problematic because...
Your reasoning puts the burden of anti-racism on the shoulders of its victims
Let's start by quoting Malcolm X:
"I don’t favor violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully. But I’m also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are black people."
You are asking people who literally just want to exist to bear the burden of changing society, and not the people who commit or advocate for atrocious acts. Why do you have this condescending pacifist tone towards us, and not the Nazis themselves?
Davis has been physically attacked more than once when interacting with Klansmen. He's willing to risk his physical safety, and good and well if he chooses to, but why should anyone have to? Why do we have to bear the violence of people who want to commit it against us just for existing, instead of defending ourselves? Why should we have to put ourselves in danger in the search for an end to that danger?
Further, Davis himself has noted that his privilege in other areas has aided in his task: He said, “Sure, you’re in some uncomfortable environments with people who may not like you or share your views or who think you’re inferior to them because of the color of your skin — or that you have a smaller brain than they do, you’re prone to crime and welfare and selling drugs. You name the stereotype, I’ve heard it. But I know who I am. I don’t have a criminal record. I’ve never sold drugs. I’ve never been on welfare. I have more education than most of them put together.”
Does that mean that black folks who have criminal records, or are on welfare, cannot achieve his ends? Because to me, it sounds like Davis is only successful because he conforms to white expectations of black behavior. Forced assimilation is racist. Black people shouldn't have to meet white racist standards in order to have the right to exist. This, again, puts the burden on the oppressed: Sure, you can be accepted in our society; just behave like us!
In conclusion...
Davis is really just the Klan's token black friend. He enables racists to look reasonable and gaslight the rest of us by suggesting that maybe if we were nicer to the racists, they wouldn't be racists - even though never in history has a white supremacist uprising been quelled without violence. There's no appreciable evidence that he's meaningfully converted anyone, despite all his robes, and he has actively aided the well-being of those who would kill the rest of us. The Nazi Party had "honorary Aryans" - Jews who weren't so bad - and they used these individuals to legitimize their movement by suggesting that, hey, even Jews support the Nazis when those Jews are civilized enough! Davis fits that mold precisely. And by promoting him, you're promoting the idea that we have to risk our lives to serve your pacifist morals. Screw that.