"Is He the Threat (Or Are You?)"- Stereotypes, pt 3
Unlike the last lesson, which was very personal for me: I am not a Black man. So I decided to go to my peers that are Black men and ask them what are things that they’ve experienced, to help me direct this lesson with some of the stereotypes they've seen most that concern them. And what we’ve gathered is that many of these stereotypes all trail back to that classic stereotype that affects Black men from the moment they are born: that Black men are a threat, that they’re not human. As such, keep in mind that all of these stereotypes are all "sub-categories" of that idea, because that concept bleeds into every single one of them.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: mention of sexual assault, assault
Linked above is an informative PDF (you should read this on a desktop; I had to zoom in, I cannot see it otherwise) written by Rachel D. Godsil & Alexis McGill Johnson discussing the perception of Black men and boys. It’s only 24 pages, and in my opinion it’s HIGHLY simplified for understanding.
Essentially, it comes down to the bias that we have all been socialized under since the creation of racism: that Black people, and Black men in particular, are not human. Are savages, beasts, unable to conduct themselves. Even now, as racism manifests in our society as more implicit than explicit, it’s still something that affects how nonblack people respond to Black men- and that includes in our media!
These are literal porn categories and fantasies, and I named the category this because I want to drive a line between thinking Black men are sexually attractive (they are!) and oversexualizing and fetishizing them. To be frank, if your first thought upon seeing what you deem a sexually attractive Black man is that he must be ‘hung like a horse’, or that he innately has sexual intentions on you or another character... this is a bias you need to check, swiftly.
This stereotype comes from the idea of the oversexualized Black man who might rape and defile the purity of the white woman because they “can't control” their sexual urges. There have been numerous historical and contemporary situations where the false or misattributed harm of a white woman ALONE leads to the potential destruction of a Black man’s life (because who would believe him over the voice of whiteness), and maybe even the destruction of the Black community around him. Prolific examples include Emmett Till, The Exonerated Five, the Greenwood/Tulsa Race Massacre, and Oscarville (now Lake Lanier).
What you must understand is, this stereotype is not ‘a compliment’; it’s not ‘sexually fun’ or ‘titillating’; it has killed Black men and boys, and many Black people in general.
A quote from my friend @cer-rata, whom I thank for his perspective as a Black queer man:
“I think it was worse when I was younger? That might have been because I was in my twink era and young enough to be attractive to predators, but using Grindr was so frustrating? Because most people, many white, but a startling number not, were just obsessed with the idea that I would be hung like a horse. Like. Like suffocatingly so. I've never had sex with a white man, not because of a lack of attraction, I'm pretty equal opportunity really, I like people. But just…the consistent lack of respect and objectification was a lot to deal with. And make no mistake, hookup apps are all about objectification. But I do think there is a specific indignity in being reduced to your genitalia. Like at least if you think I'm hot, that I have a nice face or body I feel seen? But if you see dark skin and just assume I can be used as a fantasy sized human dildo…it just hits different. It was worse when you could filter for race, but that's a whole other bag of grenades.”
Another real-world example is of when Lena Dunham imagined that Odell Beckham Jr. was looking at her sexually and then rejecting her for being ugly, and it made her upset…. when he wasn't even looking at her! And he was expected to apologize for her racist fantasy, for upsetting her when he’d done nothing at all. He was expected to apologize for something that was all in her head!
Not to mention, think about it- when's the last time you even considered the existence of an asexual Black man? We don’t. Oversexuality has been woven into the negative perception of Black people from the beginning!
A footnote here on interracial relationships, particularly with white partners:
There’s the idea that the White Woman is the ideal partner to achieve. There's a lot in this one, much of it again, intracommunity issues PLUS the existence of the white patriarchy that it would be hard for me to explain in one blurb. But there's an idea that white women are what all Black men yearn for, to show that they are ‘moving up’. It's disrespectful to everyone involved- to the idea of Black men for being ‘sexually insatiable for white women’, to white women for being simultaneously objectified yet cemented in the power of whiteness, and Black women for being of ‘lesser value’. I say this to say, there’s nothing wrong with interracial relationships! But make sure that you're not choosing one because you think the white/nonblack partner is automatically ‘better suited’ or ‘more deserving’. The Black body is not to be won at the discretion of anybody! Black men are not automatically going to go for you!
“It's racist not to let Black men be feminine”/Gender Expression
Okay so I've heard this argument used often in fandom spaces, and as the sentence it is, it's true! Black men should be allowed to express their gender however they see fit! HOWEVER! The usual context I see behind this statement is STILL racist. Let me explain.
Whenever I see (usually white) people argue for Black men to be feminine, it's not just for wearing ‘feminine’ clothing or something like that. It's usually for allowing them to feel emotions. Emotions like softness, gentleness, sweetness, kindness. And what I want us to understand is that:
THESE EMOTIONS ARE NOT “FEMININE”!
Masculine Black men can feel these emotions as well! It's interesting to me, in the determination to “avoid stereotypes and gender roles”, people will u-turn right back into those things thinking they’re doing better. You're not. If anything, you're reinforcing the original idea that 1) softness/emotion is naturally feminine and 2) that Black men are angry, harsh threats that need to be neutralized. Those emotions are human emotions. Feminine Black men can wear a dress and be catty ASF. Masculine Black men can wear pants and be gentle. The emotions themselves have nothing to do with gender, but it's the way Black men are ALLOWED and EXPECTED to express them in our society, that has to do with gender roles!
It's an intersectional conversation, from race to gender to sexuality. And while part of that conversation has nothing to do with nonblack opinions, y’all certainly aren't going to help with that by saying “oh well you’re racist if you don’t let your Black men wear dresses because why can’t they be soft too”. Stop it. That too, is racist. Put that man in a beautiful dress if you’d like, but stop acting like they can only be sweet or loving if they’re expressing femininity. Let your masculine Black men feel the range, too- it would be healthier.
Also: LET BLACK MEN FEEL ANGER! Once again, there's a lot to be angry at! Anger is a human emotion! Just because they are a Black man experiencing anger, does not make them an Angry Black Man!
It's not untrue that there are Black men in gangs. But not only is it far overrepresented in media, it is often it is overlooked as to WHY many Black men are in gangs. There’s a sense of community gained when you feel the rest of the world is not listening, that the rest of the world won't help you because it doesn't care about you and may even want you dead, and here's a community that is willing to bring you into the fold and offer you the power you lack. A lot of why NWA was criticized by white listeners in the 90s is because they thought they were pushing ‘gang violence against the police', but NWA was simply discussing the unjust world around them. And they were rightfully angry about it!
Nonetheless, it’s never been because Black men are bloodthirsty “superpredators” (quoth Hillary Clinton) that are more inclined to inflict violence upon others than any other race. (Funding community programs and helping to eradicate poverty would help solve these things, but that doesn't contribute to the school to prison pipeline and fill private prisons and let me stop that’s once again otros veinte pesos-)
Cer-rata had another good point about this one, backed up by my partner:
“The gangster/thug stereotype is maybe a more modern evolution of the monster framing, with some more overt classism thrown in. That's always fun. The idea that black people, especially the poor ones, are inherently more violent than other groups is a widely perpetuated stereotype and creates a culture and an environment where “I felt threatened” is at times a viable legal defense for people who commit violence against us. The idea that by existing you might be giving people an excuse to kill you is…hard to deal with. Harder to ignore. It creates this sensation that you have to be clearly notably good just so fewer people immediately wonder what you did to provoke that officer, or that random, self-appointed, suspiciously armed neighborhood watch guy. It's easier to accept that they were forced into their actions if you assume we are culturally (perhaps biologically) dangerous. And this is just something you learn growing up. No one has to tell you, the rules become clear quickly.”
This is a classic one; the savage that is unable to control their urges, a base creature that cannot think logically like a white man and is thus a threat to white women because he is nothing but a monster that pleasures in the pain of others. Essentially, white supremacists needed a reason to lynch and murder Black men, and that meant that there needed to be a reason for no one to humanize the victims of their torture. It had to be like ‘hunting down beasts’. It’s not as overt in modern media, but it does reveal itself. My partner mentioned that “Even when we're “strong” it's overamplified, like a gorilla or something.” His example was of Classroom of the Elite, where one of the antagonists is a Black man that everyone's afraid of.
This is why Black fans often go 'HMM' when Black characters are depicted as monkeys or gorillas, or really when any sort of animal comparison or animalistic tendencies are brought up. It’s something that you need to watch for when you’re writing, to make sure you’re not consistently making your Black character seem… like animals. This often includes depictions of the "pale white vampire and the hulking werewolf Black/Brown character". After a while it's like… why is that always what it is? Why them? Why not switch it up? Why is the darker skinned character always the beast? Do you even notice it?
“The Butt of the Joke”/The Minstrel
The phrase “Jim Crow” itself is the name of a minstrel blackface character created by Thomas Dartmouth Rice.
There’s nothing wrong with being the funny guy, but it is noticeable when it seems like all the wisecracks and usually-unacceptable-if-said-by-white-character jokes ALL go to the Black guy. Yes, there's a such thing as comic relief, but... when you thought about this, did you think the Black guy was the most laughable one to deliver these lines?
My partner mentioned the early writing of Usopp as a joke character (and that while his writing became better, the art is still incredibly racist with the Jim Crow lips):
“It extends from the idea that we're supposed to be entertaining the white audience, that we can't be taken seriously. Your only value is worth being laughed at.”
Another friend of ours concurred, and to be honest, I think nothing else needs to be said:
“We’re always dancing or the entertainment. It’s okay to be funny, to be the class clown, but do they have more depth? Do you really not take us seriously, are we only worth being laughed at in your eyes? If they show other, more serious emotions, do you lose interest?”
The Magical Negro/The Uncle Tom
These are two different tropes, but I grouped them together because I believe they serve a similar purpose in the time periods they're set in, which I will get to later in my explanation.
This is the “solid number two” character that only exists in service of the white main character and his goals. He has no agency of his own. A comparable example would be the Mammy. This character gets no limelight, but is also usually a ‘look! Black person!’ check in the box while serving as a plot device. This is not necessarily the same as being a side character. Yes, side characters aren’t meant to be in the limelight. But there’s a difference between being a side character, and this where somehow everything the Black character does is essential to the plot, like the story could not exist without them, they’re supposed to be a main character… and they don’t do anything else but serve.
The thing about the original character 'Uncle Tom' is that he’s actually not the vile suck up the way Samuel L Jackson’s character in Django Unchained is. He’s just… the idealized, noble, Christian negro that holds no ill will against his oppressors. While he’s willing to support his community (the slaves) he is endearing and kind to the very people enslaving him. And that’s not how most people would respond to their oppressors! But he’s not a threat, which is why he’s allowed to serve as someone worth feeling sorry for.
The Magical Negro trope is specifically how a Black character is meant to fix everything for the white character- either with the power of actual divinity, or just by sweeping in and saying ‘I’ll help you with this problem even though it would not benefit me whatsoever’. Spike Lee spoke of The Green Mile this way, given the type of character that John Coffey was versus the environment that he was in (the ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ cops). Their purpose is often to sacrifice of themselves so that the white character can either see the light, or better themselves. Again, they are not a threat, they’re even giving selflessly, and that's why we value them!
Do you see the comparison I'm making here? They’re “allowed” to be because they are not a threat to the main character, and therefore the white audience. Uncle Tom wouldn't be acceptable if he were actively duplicitous to the slave owner beating him to death. If John Coffey used his godlike powers to kill the cops and the actual murderer in the next cell over, and escape, he wouldn't be the magical negro that was worth awe (in the eyes of white audiences)!
One good example of NOT doing this is Isaac from Castlevania. My friend (who expressly brought his hatred of these stereotypes up) explains how Isaac grew from this trope to an independent character via the incredibly well-written narrative. For a Black Muslim, even!
This can include either a lack of emotional availability, especially with boy children, or a lack of presence altogether. It's a common racist 'gotcha' to suggest that Black children don't have fathers. Meanwhile, the CDC had a study that showed Black fathers are more present and active in their children’s lives than white fathers. The idea that good Black fathers or father-figures are nonexistent or rare is a lie!
This is not to say that bad Black fathers cannot be depicted- some of us did not have great fathers, and we work through that via writing (@ myself)! But it shouldn’t be laughed off or normalized in a narrative. The issue is that they are a bad parent and that it has a negative effect on the child, one that should be noticed as ‘this is not okay’. You shouldn’t walk away from seeing a bad Black father and go ‘well yeah that’s about the norm’. It is not.
So when you’re writing your Black fathers… how are they? Are they loving? Are they present? If they’re not, do we understand that that’s not because they are Black, but because they’re not a good parent? Are we treating any of the other fathers/father figures in the story as a bad parent if they do those same things? Do we hold equal accountability?
Same as Black girls, adultification of Black boys begins early in life, as Black boys are seen as aggressive and sexual threats early in childhood. They’re not given the chance to be kids. I once interned at a children's museum, where a white dad was angry because a 4-year-old Black boy was ‘flirting with’ and ‘inappropriately touching’ his daughter. They were babies. Babies!!!
My partner mentions “being ‘the man of the house’; having to be mature, to be tough and over-masculine to make up for your youth and insecurities to survive. Eventually you start buying into your own hype.”
Part of this, similar to what I mentioned in the last lesson, is how Black boys are held to higher standards. More likely to be charged as adults, because ‘they knew what they were doing’. More likely to be punished, because ‘they knew what they were doing’. The grace our society offers white boys for things (ranging from legitimate mistakes to fucking sexual assault) does not apply. When society always sees you as a threat, there is no nuance for what you do- you must have meant to be harmful!
When you are consuming a media or creating one, I want you to think about how you are treating your Black boy character. Do you expect that he should know better? Know better than who? Why? Do you hold grace for him when he makes mistakes/decisions? Why is he the one you chose to have this narrative? Do you recognize the effect him being Black will have on the perception of this action? Do you understand that he is a child? Do you hold him to the standard you would have held yourself at that age? Do you think that he is automatically a danger in comparison to your other characters? Why? Do the other characters in the narrative understand this? If they don’t, are you writing that to send a message, or do you agree?
To be honest, these are things you should think about your Black men and characters in general.
This is a heavy topic, and an often present one due to an increase in public awareness of race and racism. I’m sure many people who read these past few lessons felt like it had nothing to do with their media, but… that’s why you need to check yourself. It does. The people who write stories also have racist biases. They might write a story and then go falsely accuse a Black man of “imagining her incorrectly” (again… Lena Dunham). There is a long history of the dehumanization of Black men in media, and we have to be willing to look inside ourselves and question our own intent when we write them. That will help us write better Black male characters, without the fear of leaning into racism.
And as always, and especially true on this topic: it's the thought that counts, but the action that delivers!
