I’m able to see sides to this argument. I weighed and discussed my draft of this piece before I published it. I still give Griffin no points. As history shows, he wasn’t the first. You can’t really be ahead of your time if someone else did the same thing 10 years earlier. This was a ploy. It was unnecessary. Why didn’t he amplify the efforts of the first journalist or even mention that work? He eclipsed other voices and faces — even still. The title of his book is from Langston Hughes. Plus, “the discussion” didn’t stop church bombings or future assassinations. Persuasion only goes so far. We need policy. Not more evidence. There were certainly other ways he could have been an ally as were others who didn’t dye their faces. That does not mean getting lost in the crowd. I read the book again a few days ago, and as I read it — it is disingenuous and calculated. Additionally, Griffin did have some questionable conclusions that he aired with “authority” about how Black people were resisting racism. No points here. None. This is an example of bad allyship. There is an insidious message with his efforts. I have no issue judging the past or the present. But! Even during the Black Power Movement, there were Black people who said white people shouldn’t be in the primary roles. That applies to Griffin. So, I’m not just reading back in time out of sync with every thought in the day.