The (old) Licquia Family Blog
This is the old blog site, powered by a simple blogging system called Blosxom. It's here to keep old links from breaking, and for whatever historic interest might remain.
Here's the current site.
This is the old blog site, powered by a simple blogging system called Blosxom. It's here to keep old links from breaking, and for whatever historic interest might remain.
Here's the current site.
It's odd how debates get started on the Web. One that's going on now involves a post by Clubbeaux about his encounter with the Ku Klux Klan, and the surprising realization that some Klan people don't seem to match the common conception of what a Klan person should be. From what I can tell, the most interesting posts on the subject are from cut on the bias, Frozen in Montreal, Meryl Yourish, Clubbeaux himself, and the ever-eloquent Dean Esmay, which brought it to my attention and which is the main focus of my observations.
Executive summary: the tone of the whole debate leaves me uneasy.
First, the necessary disclaimers: I think the KKK is an evil organization, along the lines of Al-Qaeda or Hamas. I believe the world would be a much better place if it were to go away. Unlike Clubbeaux, I can fault people who join criminal organizations no matter the rationale. The only excuse I accept on that score is ignorance, and even then, I would still fault the person for not doing his/her homework, and for not immediately withdrawing once no longer ignorant. Anyone doubting my sincerity or veracity is invited to ask polite questions in the comments.
All that having been said, isn't it telling that we have a subject we can't seem to talk about without a quick bow to the received orthodoxy? Indeed, Clubbeaux seems to have done everything but present himself as a human sacrifice on the altar of the received orthodoxy, and yet several people (Meryl comes to mind) seem to continue to flail at him for his thought crime.
At one time, scientists had to make quick genuflections in the direction of the Church in their scientific papers. Scientists who didn't do so, or scientists who actually used reason to critically analyze the received wisdom, often met with persecution for it. (Read the story of Galileo for a well-known example in science, or read the story of Wycliffe for a church history example.) We like to talk about our Enlightenment values, but are we really that enlightened when we rail against people trying to deal with the evidence life drops into their laps, even if they are wrong about some parts of their analysis?
(I'll fully grant that Clubbeaux can be, well, difficult when people don't agree with him, and am perfectly willing to grant grace to Meryl for reacting to him in the way she did.)
In particular, I wonder if people aren't really thinking about the question Clubbeaux raised: why are people joining the Klan today? I'd love to be contradicted with links to studies on this question, though I haven't seen any yet. Dean did grant that Clubbeaux had a point on that score, which is good, but I'm not comfortable about him lining up with Meryl's "flog the blogger" rhetoric.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I have to point out that the Nazis were considered an undesireable group in the Germany of the 1920s. Remember that Hitler was jailed for a time for his part in the Beer Hall Putsch, and wrote Mein Kampf while in prison. But they had a message for the "regular German" of the day. This enabled them to acquire the political power they needed to gain control of the Weimar Republic, power they then used to topple it and erect the Third Reich in its place.
So if Clubbeaux is right, and the Klan is the only organization addressing real problems real people have, is it right to shut our eyes to that because of their sordid past? Isn't it, rather, our duty as free-thinking liberal Americans to swallow our horror and look the problem in the eye?
Some people point to the existence of organizations that do address the concerns of poor whites as counterevidence; why don't poor whites join those groups? It's a good question. But before we can answer, I have to ask in return: which of those groups are really down in the trenches with poor whites, as Clubbeaux wrote:
The Klan was the only organization who gave a damn that a guy's kids were bused to a dangerous part of town to go to school? I could believe that. The Klan was the only organization to sit down beside a white construction worker who'd just gotten laid off because they needed to hire more blacks at the site, throw an arm around the guy and say "Hey, you really got screwed?" I believe that. The Klan's the only organization speaking up for a lot of low-income people, the kind of people who can't insulate themselves against the consequences of social engineering? I believe that.
Now if those things aren't true, then his critics have a valid point. I don't know if it is or not. But what if it is true? What do his critics, especially Meryl, have to say about it? Why, indeed, will no one get down and dirty and help these people except the Klan?
I admit that I'm mostly speaking from ignorance here. I've certainly not had a life like that Dean describes, or like the people Clubbeaux interviewed. But if I'm too ignorant to have answers, I can at least think clearly well enough, and remember enough of history, to ask questions. At least I'll come out of it less ignorant, and possibly, some others of us might as well.
Jun 11, 2003 | Comments are no longer available