Diffusing the Straw Man (pt 1 of 2)

Diffusing the Straw Man (pt 1 of 2)

Maybe before we start, we can introduce some vocabulary.  True to the title, this post is all about the straw man and diffusing it.  Of particular interest, I focus on the ones concerning race relations in America (although there are certainly other kinds of straw men).

A straw man argument is simply a technique where you distort or misrepresent an argument, in order to reduce its legitimacy, make it easier to attack, or maybe some combination of the two.  In other words, when I use a strawman, I dissolve an argument that my opponent never even made, misrepresenting their initial position.

IMPORTANT: This may be done intentionally, OR it could be done unintentionally.  It’s entirely possible that someone misunderstands an argument, misses the key points, or overlooks important elements, producing a straw man as a result.  And it could be completely unintentional.  In such a case, the other person in the conversation, of course, will be unhappy that their point is being misrepresented by the person(s) they’re conversing with.

On the flip side, there are occasions where people produce a straw man and it’s completely intentional.  Sometimes, even when we can’t support an argument, we feel emotionally invested in it.  Or maybe we don’t want to be wrong, because a lot of our other arguments fall apart, too (“if I was wrong about the sky being blue, what else have I been wrong about for all these years?”).  In such cases, rather than acknowledge the merit of someone’s position, we may misrepresent their comments instead, producing a straw man.  The result, again, will be a person (or persons) unhappy that their perspective is being misrepresented.

My impression is this happens quite often concerning discussions of race relations in America.  Whether it be comments along the lines of All Lives Matter, interest in a White Entertainment Television network, Historically White Colleges & Universities, White History Month, and the like, I can’t help but feel that all of these are straw men that misrepresent important positions concerning the plight of the black community.

Once upon a time (PAST tense), I used to think this was very much intentional.  ALL of it.  After all, from where I’m standing, all of this seems to be very, very reactive.  Nobody was interested in having a White History Month until they heard about a Black History Month.  Nobody was interested in having a White Entertainment Television until they heard about Black Entertainment Television.  Nobody was saying anything about All Lives Matter until there was a hashtag for Black Lives Matter.  Honestly, it doesn’t come off as very genuine.  So yes, I used to very much be of the school of thought that this was an intentional misrepresentation.

It’s kind of like that friend you had growing up… and you tell them you have a crush on someone in the class, and coincidentally, they would have a crush on the exact same person (and it happened like 3 times in a row).  Or your sibling who wants to play with a toy but only because they see that you want to play with the toy (and it would happen, like, every week).  Again, those situations just seem to lack a certain genuineness.  They seem very… reactive.  It’s almost like, if you weren’t interested, they wouldn’t be interested, either.

But today, after a number of interactions, conversations, and discussions, I’m of the school of thought people don’t always produce a straw man to intentionally misrepresent an argument.  Some people legitimately have difficulty understanding.  Their intentions aren’t malicious, and it’s not a childish interest in simply being right… some people just have difficulty understanding.  And nobody should be penalized simply because they have difficulty understanding.

So, here we are.  My interest in this post is to diffuse some of the common strawmen and explain why they are just that, strawmen.  For you, if this seems trivial, or like I’m stating the obvious, please forgive me.  I suspect everyone won’t.

I’m just picking a few of my favorites.

“Why do we need a ‘Black Entertainment Television’?  If we had a White Entertainment Television, it would be racist.”

Well, for starters, we don’t need a Black Entertainment Television.  We live in America.  Most of the things we have we don’t need. So, no, we don’t need a Black Entertainment Television.  But maybe at this point, a brief review of American history would help.

1776 America received its independence from Great Britain

1863 Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, abolishing slavery

1895 The radio was invented

1927 The television was invented

1964 The Civil Rights Act was signed

1979 Black Entertainment Television was founded

2019 today

So, a few things, right?  America is 242 years old.  For 190 years of its history (effectively, 80% of America’s existence), there was a race of people explicitly treated and recognized as 2^nd class citizens (even that’s generous; during slavery, they were considered property, not citizens).  Beyond that, the radio (1895) and television (1927), both forms of mass media, were created prior to the close of the Civil Rights Movement (1967).  If we assume that signing something into law changes the way millions of people across the country feel and think about black people (which is unrealistic anyway), how do you think black people were represented in media prior to the close of the Civil Rights Movement?

I hate to interrupt your period of reflection.  We don’t have to leave it to imagination though.

Google “Minstrel shows”.  Throughout the early 1800’s to mid 1900’s, white actors would mock and deride both slaves and free blacks in this form of pioneering entertainment.  It was an early form of cultural appropriation, combining a romanticized fondness of black culture with supremacist propaganda that spared no joke at the expense of black people.  Worth noting, black characters in minstrel shows were actually portrayed by white actors.  It’s one of the reasons why modern-day ‘black face’ is still highly politicized and incredibly contentious.  That, and the fact that minstrel shows blurred the lines between entertainment for white viewers and white supremacist propaganda.

In case you were wondering, Jim Crow was actually a character from a minstrel show: a clumsy, stupid slave.  Later in the 1800’s, Jim Crow would become a popular derogatory term for black people, both slaves and free.  And by the 1900’s, with the emergence of black codes, Jim Crow would become the general term for the full spectrum of laws the US government would use the oppress black people.  There’s a lot to unpack here, but we’re already getting off track.

Suffice to say white audiences greatly enjoyed minstrel shows, although they were to the detriment of the black community.

But there was good news.  As the Civil Rights Movement gained traction, minstrel shows became less and less popular.  And, of course, the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964.  But here’s the thing… in the entertainment industry, we have this pesky thing called typecasting.  In other words, there’s a phenomenon in the industry where we assign people over and over again to roles that have some type of underlying similarity.  In most cases, it’s usually minor: if you’re usually the killer in the movie, you’ll be recruited for other movies where they’re looking for a killer.  And you may, legitimately, play that role really well. That’s not so bad.  In fact, you could make a career on that, in theory.  You’re still in Hollywood, after all.

But it can be a lot more insidious, particularly for minorities.

Here’s a crazy thought: stereotypes (exaggerated beliefs about those in a particular group), and social stratification (informal, socioeconomic hierarchy in society), can and do influence roles people are casted for in movies.

While we may pride ourselves on how progressive we are in 2019, just imagine what this was like in the early 1970’s, directly following the Civil Rights Act.  If you were a Russian actor (with an obvious ascent), you were probably more likely to get casted for movies that involve US security, and you’d almost certainly be the bad guy (remember the Cold War?).  If you were a woman, you were probably more likely to be casted in a minor role, and your character in the film was more likely to have a clerical occupation (ie. secretary).  And if you’re black, oh, God help you… a few years ago, people likened you to a monkey, so you weren’t even considered human.  What type of role is fitting for a negro?

Ball player?

Slave?

Prostitute?

Drug dealer?

Custodial worker?

Rapist?

Nanny?

Homeless person?

Again, it’s the 1970’s… don’t be so optimistic.

If you have an entire race of people who have been historically attacked for being unattractive (even though, ironically, you raped their women), unintelligent, and dangerous, among other things, for 190 years, why on earth would you put them on television for any reason other than to validate exactly that?  And that’s assuming you put them on television at all.  What, just because they have equal rights, that means stereotypes disappear and discrimination disintegrates?  It’s not a crime to think an entire race of people are unattractive, unintelligent, and dangerous.  In fact, many people, still, do just that.  And it’s not illegal.  You can’t, and won’t, be thrown in prison for that.

That is completely within the confines of the law.  Prejudice is still very much legal.  You can’t force people to change the way they think.

I imagine producers in 1970’s probably had thoughts along the lines of,

“Those coloreds have big lips, enormous ears, really pronounced cheekbones, and that awful, dark skin.  I don’t want to put those coons on my set.  Who’s going to watch it?  The negroes?  Why would I want to make a television show or movie for them, anyway?” 

And so, I imagine for years, black people had great difficulty getting into Hollywood (still do… remember #OscarsSoWhite?).  Consequentially, they consumed entertainment where they rarely ever got to see people like them represented.  Or if they did, it would be in a marginal role (ie. a minor character) or perhaps a stereotypical role (nanny, maid, slave, criminal, etc.).

It wasn’t until the 70’s and 80’s that we started seeing more shows that featured black main characters, black families, or predominantly black cast.  Soul Train (1971), Fat Albert (1972), Good Times (1974), The Jeffersons (1975), Roots (1977), The Cosby Show (1984), A Different World (1987), Family Matters (1989), The Fresh Prince (1990), In Living Color (1990), Martin (1992), Living Single (1993), The Jamie Foxx Show (1996), and the Wayans Bros (1999).

But the reality is, given the sociohistorical context of black people in America, we are highly unlikely to be represented in the movie or television broadcasting industry, and if we are, we may not be cast in prominent roles or represented in the best light.  Typecasting is a real thing (although I’ll mention typecasting that isn’t socially motivated may be fine).  We don’t even have time to mention the pronounced biased towards black men and women that possess more European features, like straighter hair or lighter skin tone.  I think when you couple that with being 13% of the US population, it makes a case for Black Entertainment Television.

Black people can consume media where they see people who look like them, and they’ll be featured in more prominent roles.  Further, BET supports artists who haven’t made a name for themselves yet, both film writers and actors, and would probably have more difficulty doing so as an underrepresented minority in the entertainment industry. Finally, the cultural references in this media will appeal more to a black viewership.  I could go on, but I think that will have to suffice.

***All this, by the way, is from someone who hasn’t watched BET in almost 10 years.  Personally, I’m not really a fan, albeit I don’t really watch TV in general.  But whether or not I’m a fan of something actually has very little to do with its merit… it’s a matter of taste.*** 

My opinion: White Entertainment Television is a straw man.  It’s a misrepresentation of Black Entertainment Television.

Moving on.  Here’s another straw man…

“I don’t understand why we have a Black History Month.  Why don’t we have a White History Month?”

So, before I proceed, I’ll make a quick point.

The British Empire colonized close to 60 nations.

The French Empire colonized over 40 nations.

The Spanish Empire colonized about 20 nations.

There are only 190 countries in the world, and about 120 of them cannot tell their history without mentioning one of these 3 countries in Europe.  Mind you, we haven’t included Portugal, Italy, or the Netherlands.  We’re only mentioning the most prominent European empires.

All that to say, you can’t really talk about global history without talking about white history.

White history is part of history curriculums around the world.  It’s not really possible to discuss the past 600 years of global history without talking about white people.  I’m not saying that’s bad.  I’m not saying it’s good.  I’m simply stating a fact.  That’s not an opinion.  It’s a fact.  It’s not possible to talk about the past 600 years of global history without discussing, in length, these 3 nations in Europe.

Now, in the case of black people in the US, note that many of them are here today because their ancestors were kidnapped from a foreign country.  They weren’t immigrants, as some suggests.  That is a gross misrepresentation of history.  They were kidnapped from their home.  Beyond the fact that you have a disenfranchised group that has absolutely no idea what nation their ancestors are from, you have 300+ years of history that was lost.

Language: Slaves were expected to speak English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese, depending on who their colonizer was.

Family Ties: Slaves took on the last name of their slave master, because they were the property of the person who bought them.

Culture and Heritage: They couldn’t practice their customs in the nation they were enslaved in.

Identity: After a few generations, most slaves didn’t even know what country they were from, much less the customs or language of their people.

Religion: Most slaves were converted to Roman Catholicism, as advancing the church was a core element of colonialism (or at least an advantageous consequence).

CENTURIES of history were lost, and the reality is, it’s pretty unlikely they’ll be educated on that history in the American education system (at least K-12).  For most curriculums, Black history is one or two sections of the textbook, if that.  But the remaining 85% of the textbook probably speaks very little to the history of this group that was kidnapped and brought here against their will.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a month where people commit to exploring some of those topics.  After all, America had their part in creating this situation.  True, some Africans sold one another into slavery, but to use that to absolve oneself of responsibility is reprehensible.  It’s not particularly likely this ‘shadow history’ will be given much attention in the limelight the remaining 11 months of the year.  Remember, America is 13% black, so this isn’t a topic that pertains to most Americans, by definition.

Why would you spend 11 months talking about Kunta Kinte, when you could be talking about Benjamin Franklin? 

*Scoffs*

But let’s get back to the straw man, White History Month.

Given that America’s most prominent figures are white men, and the country is 61% white (that number is probably as low as it’s ever been since the Native Americans were systematically extinguished), there really isn’t much merit in a White History Month.  You think they have Black History Month in Nigeria?  Did you read that with a straight face?  Like, come on, you can’t be serious.  Nigeria is, like, 90% African.  Black History Month would, literally, make zero sense.  How would that month be any different from any other month?  Similarly, in a country that’s 61% White, White History Month has very, very little merit.

White History Month would consist of all of the same things that we learn during history class.  American history is about old, influential white men (sorry ladies; you’re somewhat marginalized in the narrative of history).  And that shouldn’t be a surprise, really, given you dehumanized a group of people for over 80+ years, and you made them 2^nd class citizens for another 100 years after that.

I can’t really matriculate through K-12 educational institutions in America without knowing about Washington, Lincoln, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, etc.  On the flipside, I CAN matriculate through the educational system without reading a single page on what Africans were doing prior to slavery, or even colonialism.  If such a course even exists, it’s optional.  It’s an elective.  You have the privilege of choosing not to take it, if you’d prefer to limit your reading to the mainstream narrative of slavery instead.  While I’ll be required to read about MLK, Malcolm X, and WEB Du Bois, the only reason those people were here is because their ancestors were kidnapped and brought from a foreign country.

That’s why those individuals are so noteworthy to begin with… because of what they stood for and accomplished in the country they lived in that they could barely even call a home at the time (See W.E.B. Dubois commentary on double consciousness).

In essence, we read about the end of the story (ie. the Civil Rights Act), but we don’t hear very much about the start of the story.  It’s like catching a movie halfway through and then wondering why people are unsatisfied with it.  Great film!  But I only saw the last 30 minutes of a 2 hour flick.  I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how damaging it can be to tell someone their story, every year, for 12 years straight, starting with them being a slave, when we both know that story is incomplete and it’s not historically accurate.

What exactly were African people doing before the Transatlantic Slave Trade got in full swing?  Uno.  Probably playing Uno.    

To be fair, America got most of its slaves from West/Central Africa, a region consisting of upwards of 10 countries, so it’s definitely a stretch to call ALL of that American history … but when you kidnap people, bring them to your country, and force them to work as slaves, you’ve now made their history your history, too.

It’s not a stretch that people are unhappy that they don’t know about where they’re from, and they feel like their history is marginalized in a country that [explicitly] oppressed them for 80% of it’s existence, and, debatably, may still do so today.

It’s unlikely to include the history of 10 different African nations in a history textbook at the K-12 level (or any level, really), because that’s an ambitious undertaking, but maybe Black History Month is a compromise.  For 28 days, let’s explore some of those topics, at every level of institutionalized education: K-12, as well as higher education, too, even at predominantly white institutions.  This is the one time of year the dialogue is expected and encouraged (I mean, you can do it all year, but then people assume you’re ‘radical’ or something, whatever that means).  Together, we can figure this thing out, and we’ll all be smarter at the end of it.

After all, Black History is American History.  Even if we only get 1 month.

My opinion: White History Month is a straw man.  I think it misrepresents the case for Black History Month.

I know that’s a lot for one post.  Maybe I’ll pause here and share part 2 later this month.  Feedback welcome.

Nnamdi