Changing the Mind of a Racist

[pogi]

I wonder how much more effective BLM methods would be if they modeled the methods of Daryl Davis - my new hero.  He has convinced over 200 KKK members and other top officials in white supremacist groups to turn in their robes.  Remarkable!  The courage to listen to and even befriend those who profess to hate you (the enemy) is a remarkable trait that is proven to truly heal.  I understand that a multifaceted approach Is needed, but I think if the spirit of civility, openness, vulnerability, and human kindness were at the bedrock of these efforts, then the desired results would be more quickly and effectively obtained.  I know that it is probably unrealistic and is probably asking too much for those who have been the victims of racism to address their anger enough to listen to the other side in the spirit of civility, but wouldn't it be remarkable if such a thing could happen?  I understand that the responsibility lies primarily on the racist to change, and not for the victim of racism to heal the perpetrator of hate - and perhaps it is just as unrealistic to expect the racist to address their anger and listen to the other side in civility, but I hope that Daryl could be an influence for that very cause. He is taking the higher road.  I hope that we all can learn from him. 

   “It all comes down to having civil discourse, and a willingness to listen to one another,” said Davis.

 

https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/7/13/21292134/racism-prejudice-white-supremacist-daryl-davis-conversion-change-conversation

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

Can that work on an institutional level?  I see that as ideal in a one on one situation as in I do believe that is the pathway for changing hearts, but what about situations where people can ignore the conversation if they want. 
 

Should add that is very impressive accomplishment and attitude in my view. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can that work on an institutional level?  I see that as ideal in a one on one situation as in I do believe that is the pathway for changing hearts, but what about situations where people can ignore the conversation if they want. 

I think it can if is built into the mission statement and guiding principles.  When people are inspired by correct principles, it changes the course and actions of the individuals within the institution.  We see it in our own church - teach correct principles, give people a vision and a mission statement, and the institution as a whole tends to follow that course. 

Change happens on a one on one level.  That is how missionary work works.  One individual at a time.  That could be the focus of an institution.  While it may take longer to make change, I think it would be more effective in the long run.  Like I said though, I do believe a multifaceted approach is best. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

I appreciate this. It's not the only approach that is necessary, though. I think multiple ones are important. 

Thanks for the post!

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think it can if is built into the mission statement and guiding principles.  When people are inspired by correct principles, it changes the course and actions of the individuals within the institution.  We see it in our own church - teach correct principles, give people a vision and a mission statement, and the institution as a whole tends to follow that course. 

Change happens on a one on one level.  That is how missionary work works.  One individual at a time.  That could be the focus of an institution.  While it may take longer to make change, I think it would be more effective in the long run.  Like I said though, I do believe a multifaceted approach is best. 

Yes. Change that comes through shaming, bullying, cancel-culture, boycotts, etc. isn’t really change at all. You can force compliance (which sometimes is better than nothing) but if the heart remains the same, or becomes more bitter (which forced change against someone’s will can cause) then the fix is only skin deep and the problems will remain and come out in other ways.

[Calm]

I think there is absolute need for compliance to stop killings and unnecessary violence and certain others things that would trigger political discussions, so that room can be created for the time and effort that forming relationships takes. Otherwise, the repetition of alleged (using this to try and avoid politics) offenses and the anger and grief that follow will interfere in the process.

Forced integration was based in part on this hope from what I heard in my schools. If races were sitting in the same classes, conversations would start and relationships would be formed.  Compliance followed by volunteering for change.

Somehow it didn’t work in my school. Looking back I am trying to figure out how they managed to have such a significant number of kids bussed in and yet my HS classes were almost all white, even PE and home ec.  I am guessing schedules would be forced into limited options due to the speciality courses. AP courses were only offered twice, iirc. Everything else had to fit around those.  I wonder if schedules were Intentionally created to keep the separation with the idea it would be easier to teach that way, with the assumption the bussed in kids were poorer students.

  I loved that my daughter’s class was a third immigrants. She got a great early exposure of friends from so many different backgrounds. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes. Change that comes through shaming, bullying, cancel-culture, boycotts, etc. isn’t really change at all. You can force compliance (which sometimes is better than nothing) but if the heart remains the same, or becomes more bitter (which forced change against someone’s will can cause) then the fix is only skin deep and the problems will remain and come out in other ways.

I agree, but other methods may be more effective depending on the issue and outcome we are seeking though.  If we simply need a superficial quick fix to an acute problem, we slap on a bandaid - whatever works to stop the bleeding and prevent infection quickly (masks in a pandemic).  If we are dealing with more chronic social issues which superficial bandaids won't heal, then we have to rethink our intervention (racism).

One approach gives rapid results with superficial effects to acute problems, the other gives slow results but with more long-term/visceral effects for chronic problems.  Sometimes a combination of both is warranted.

I never support bullying (of course definitions will likely vary).  Shame can be effective in moderation so long is it is not toxic. Even God uses shame as an effective tool for learning and compliance.  Cancel-culture has also been shown to be effective with #me too.  It has given women a sense of power and confidence to come out of the woodworks and hold their perpetrators accountable.  Boycotts can be effective tool depending on the situation.  All these methods can be taken too far, but can be effective within reason.  

I do think that multifaceted approaches are ideal (God has used all of these methods you mention, except for maybe bullying), but at the foundation of all of it, and the primary approach should be love and civility.  We need to scale the intervention to the problem. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by pogi

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes. Change that comes through shaming, bullying, cancel-culture, boycotts, etc. isn’t really change at all. You can force compliance (which sometimes is better than nothing) but if the heart remains the same, or becomes more bitter (which forced change against someone’s will can cause) then the fix is only skin deep and the problems will remain and come out in other ways.

Someone "convinced" against his will is of the same opinion still.

But you're right it's better than nothing.

[USU78]

What're the chances somebody might change the minds of the terrible racists responsible for this?

https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What're the chances somebody might change the minds of the terrible racists responsible for this?

https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

What specifically are you talking about?

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

What specifically are you talking about?

Assumptions. Solely race based. Specifically I see the poster as worthy of 1905 Russia, but hey, that's just me.

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Assumptions. Solely race based. Specifically I see the poster as worthy of 1905 Russia, but hey, that's just me.

Yes, I see some generalizations and stereotypes based on race, which is racism in one sense.  I don't see any reason to automatically judge the author as a "terrible racist" incapable of persuasion however.  When I hear "terrible racist", I think of 1950's Alabama.   Maybe you could clarify the "terrible" offense more.

Also, what causes you to believe that a civil discourse with an outreached arm of friendship with this author wouldn't be enough for them to view your perspective sympathetically?  If it worked for the head of the KKK, I don't see this author as beyond reach. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by pogi

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, I see some generalizations and stereotypes based on race, which is racism in one sense.  I don't see any reason to automatically judge the author as a "terrible racist" incapable of persuasion however.  When I hear "terrible racist", I think of 1950's Alabama.   Maybe you could clarify the "terrible" offense more.

Also, what causes you to believe that a civil discourse with an outreached arm of friendship with this author wouldn't be enough for them to view your perspective sympathetically? 

Sauce for the goose.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Sauce for the goose.

I don't know what you mean by that. 

[esodije]

I do know one thing: if by “racist” one essentially means “anyone I don’t like or with whose views I disagree,” one is not going to change very many minds.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't know what you mean by that. 

Change the players and the cultural oddities and you'd be horrified, or at least highly peaved, at the hit job. 

Sauce for the goose: I'd imagined you knew the proverb. Have you truly never encountered it? The "sauce" here is the racism. 

It's a malicious piece.

And, no, racism targeting black folks in 1950 is no worse than racism targeting white folks in 1959. I experienced the latter myself in Vallejo. I experienced the latter myself again in 1960 in Brigham, though not from black folks. 

Racism is racism. I cannot abide it from any source. And if sauce for the goose doesn't apply to racism, then it doesn't exist in any meaningful way, but is rather a cynical cover.

Edited July 16, 2020 by USU78

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes. Change that comes through shaming, bullying, cancel-culture, boycotts, etc. isn’t really change at all. You can force compliance (which sometimes is better than nothing) but if the heart remains the same, or becomes more bitter (which forced change against someone’s will can cause) then the fix is only skin deep and the problems will remain and come out in other ways.

Changed hearts is an admirable ideal, but in the context of institutionalised racism and its resultant harms, reducing the harm itself is still crucial. Sometimes we must apply emergency measures like boycotting and protesting. That said, racism is more insidious than mean people.

A whole lot of harm is perpetuated not by blatant deliberate racism but by implicit bias. Social and cultural norms of the society at large impact our individual perceptions. The juror who is more likely to vote for a guilty verdict for a Black person may not even realize their bias. They may just perceive the person as more dangerous when their surrounding culture paints them as more dangerous. And so the juror may think they're just complying strictly with the law when they're actually harder on the accused person who is Black.

Perhaps implicit bias can be mitigated when you have a personal relationship with the specific individual, but that might not be remedied for the Black persons one does not know. So we need to be aware of unconscious bias, and seek ways to make it more difficult for unconscious bias to prevail.

There are different approaches. In the case of doctors under-prescribing pain meds to Black patients, an automated reminder of hospital prescription rates have helped.

Another direction, in criminal law, can be to eliminate structures that contribute to disproportionate punishment, like minimum sentencing. Also removing incentives as much as possible, like abolishing for-profit prisons.

So, softening the hearts of hostile, ideological racists won't solve institutional racism. We need to be more aware of how our minds are impacted by outside forces and then in turn how we then harm others, even with good intentions.

 

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Changed hearts is an admirable ideal, but in the context of institutionalised racism and its resultant harms, reducing the harm itself is still crucial. Sometimes we must apply emergency measures like boycotting and protesting. That said, racism is more insidious than mean people.

A whole lot of harm is perpetuated not by blatant deliberate racism but by implicit bias. Social and cultural norms of the society at large impact our individual perceptions. The juror who is more likely to vote for a guilty verdict for a Black person may not even realize their bias. They may just perceive the person as more dangerous when their surrounding culture paints them as more dangerous. And so the juror may think they're just complying strictly with the law when they're actually harder on the accused person who is Black.

Perhaps implicit bias can be mitigated when you have a personal relationship with the specific individual, but that might not be remedied for the Black persons one does not know. So we need to be aware of unconscious bias, and seek ways to make it more difficult for unconscious bias to prevail.

There are different approaches. In the case of doctors under-prescribing pain meds to Black patients, an automated reminder of hospital prescription rates have helped.

Another direction, in criminal law, can be to eliminate structures that contribute to disproportionate punishment, like minimum sentencing. Also removing incentives as much as possible, like abolishing for-profit prisons.

So, softening the hearts of hostile, ideological racists won't solve institutional racism. We need to be more aware of how our minds are impacted by outside forces and then in turn how we then harm others, even with good intentions.

 

In regards to racism I agree.

At the same time I think it's worth noting that whether or not 'emergency measures' are warranted largely depends on the person employing them and not so much the issue.  I was speaking more to the general idea of change through changing hearts regardless of the topic, than focusing changing racism specifically.

Being able to force change (or more accurately, compliance) because the mob has the power to make the rules can be a good thing (for all the reasons that you've mentioned).  It can also be worrisome though when some (I'm not talking about anyone here) forget that when a society creates a precedent of supporting, encouraging, and sustaining mob rule, it can go south really quickly when the mob is wrong.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Change the players and the cultural oddities and you'd be horrified, or at least highly peaved, at the hit job. 

Sauce for the goose: I'd imagined you knew the proverb. Have you truly never encountered it? The "sauce" here is the racism. 

It's a malicious piece.

And, no, racism targeting black folks in 1950 is no worse than racism targeting white folks in 1959. I experienced the latter myself in Vallejo. I experienced the latter myself again in 1960 in Brigham, though not from black folks. 

Racism is racism. I cannot abide it from any source. And if sauce for the goose doesn't apply to racism, then it doesn't exist in any meaningful way, but is rather a cynical cover.

I know the proverb, I didn't understand what you meant by it. Was that supposed to be an answer to my question?

Racism is racism.  I never said otherwise.  I don't view this piece as "malicious".  I think if you were to sit down with this author and hear their perspective, you might feel differently.

Edited July 16, 2020 by pogi