Cancel Culture vs Consequence Culture

Am I just wishful thinking?

Recently someone at Rolling Stone “bravely” put forth the following opinion:

If you haven’t heard about this article already, you’ve probably been hiding under a rock. (That’s okay. Hiding under rocks is highly underrated.) So I’ll just cut to my favorite part:

Some suggest a rebranding. “In terms of cancel culture, I think it’s misnamed,” said famed host and actor LeVar Burton during an April 2021 interview 6 on The View. “That’s a misnomer. I think we have a consequence culture, and that consequences are finally encompassing everybody in the society, whereas they haven’t been ever in this country.” Burton was right in his assessment of what society is currently doing in this wave of cancel culture and how it’s showing “good signs that are happening in the culture right now.” He further argued, “I think it has everything to do with a new awareness on people who were simply unaware of the real nature of life in this country for people who have been othered since this nation began.”

We’ll just add this to a long list of why actors should not feel compelled to offer their opinions in polite society. I loved Reading Rainbow. Now it’s ruined.

So is Burton and (by extension) Owens right? Are we misnaming “cancel culture”? Should we instead that it is simply about “consequences”?

The word “consequences” suggests a proportionate and consistent outcome to the action. Is that what “cancel culture” is? Joe Biden says while he’s running that “you ain’t black” if you don’t know whether to vote for him or Trump. The media doesn’t bat an eye and even goes along with the sentiment that black people aren’t really black if they aren’t voting for Democrats. (This is how Larry Elder ends up being the “black face of white supremacy” according to the LA Times and Clarence Thomas becomes “Uncle Clarence.”) On the other hand, Trump notes that there are “fine people” on both sides of the debate about taking down statues dedicated to leaders and generals in the Confederacy, and not only does the media not report on exactly what he said, but they spin into his suggesting that “white supremacists” are “fine people.”

Joe Biden says something incredibly racist, and if you don’t vote for him, you’re a Nazi, according to our “betters.” Trump says something that the media has to spin into racism, and if you vote for him, you’re a Nazi, according to our “betters.” There is nothing consistent nor proportionate in the reaction, so the real sin here was that Trump was running on the wrong ticket, and the people who voted for him are not forgoing their own judgment and acceding to the wisdom of their “betters.” Therefore everything that happens to them is justified, including being ignored when a train derails outside their town and poisons the place they live, and not only does the president not visit or send help but he flies to a war zone (a safe, performative war zone) and gives the so-called democracy that is that war zone so much money that a fraction of it would have solved virtually every problem the town had now and for the next ten years.

That is not “consequence” culture unless you want to admit that we’re in a “squishy totalitarian” state where people can be guilty of “wrong-think” and “wrong-vote” and “wrong-DNA” and “wrong-didn’t-give-my-son-$80K-a-month.”

But Earnest Owens and LaVar Burton are right in that there is a real “consequence culture.” But it is a quiet one that involves a hard reality running up against a pretend reality. I’ll use myself as an example.

I joined the Book of the Month club in June of 2020 when the library closed and I couldn’t get my fix that way. (The other half calls it the “book of the week” club because they allow you to pick three and I always do.) Lately I have found myself “duped.” I look for good stories. I don’t mind learning about others’ viewpoints and experiences. But lately . . .

So my first mistake came with Thistlefoot by GennaRose Nethercott. In this book, not only are you faced with a surfeit of “PC” themes (but of course we have gay characters and “non-binary” characters and America is a horrid place not to be a WASP, even though somehow all these people chose to come here, but I guess it doesn’t have to make sense), but the author “appropriates” the Russian legend of Baba Yaga and her house to use in a story about Jewish pogroms. Never mind that Jewish mythology has plenty of its own legends she could have used. She steals a pre-Judeo-Christian Russian legend and pretends it was Jewish all along.

My second mistake came with a book I’m still struggling to finish: Babel by R. F. Kuang. You can tell the author put a lot of work into the book, and I’m no great defender of British colonialism, but when you can’t make it past the first fifty pages of a 550 page book without this nugget, you know this is going to be a long slog: “Here Mr Hallows forgets that chattel slavery, wherein slaves were treated as property and not persons, is a wholly European invention.”

For a book about the power of language, the lack of awareness in this statement is breathtaking. “Slavery” is defined by turning people into property. There is no “slavery” without being in a state of “chattel.” So if a society had “slaves,” they were treating people as property. I don’t care what continent they come from and how you redefine it to make you feel better about the culture you come from as opposed to “those white devils.” The meaning of “slavery” does not change to keep your feelings from being hurt.

But the three students in this book that are meant to represent the beleaguered and oppressed cultures are a young black woman, a young Chinese man, and a young Muslim Indian man. The absolutely irony in making the later two the face of anti-colonialism cannot be let go without comment. The Han Chinese are infamous for their colonization of all the Asian countries around them (historically and today) and for their naked racism toward all those who are not Han Chinese. What the British did to China was horrible, but China has done the same in its sphere.

As for a Muslim Indian complaining about colonialism, the author definitely didn’t take time to read about the Muslim conquest of India. Islam is a religion dedicated to conquest and conversion. If the author wanted sympathy, she could have picked a Hindu or Buddhist from India, but instead she choose a Muslim. Talk about being tone deaf to actual Indian history.

As for the young black woman, I find it funny how no one ever stops to ask how exactly all those black people got from the interior of Africa to the slave ships bound for the Americas?

Anyway, I’m down to the last seventy-five pages, but I’m tired of paying for and then feeling compelled to read (because I paid for) “woke” books that attempt to create a black-and-white narrative rather than deal with a rather messy reality and in the process lecture and scold.

So this month one of the options was a book called Lone Women by Victor LaValle. I already had two books in my cart, so I could only pick one more. I read the synopsis and it looked really good:

Adelaide Henry carries an enormous steamer trunk with her wherever she goes. It’s locked at all times. Because when the trunk is opened, people around her start to disappear . . .

The year is 1914, and Adelaide is in trouble. Her secret sin killed her parents, and forced her to flee her hometown of Redondo, California, in a hellfire rush, ready to make her way to Montana as a homesteader. Dragging the trunk with her at every stop, she will be one of the “lone women” taking advantage of the government’s offer of free land for those who can cultivate it—except that Adelaide isn’t alone. And the secret she’s tried so desperately to lock away might be the only thing keeping her alive.

I scanned the recommendation from one of BOTM’s editors and I groaned:

I was utterly hooked from the opening pages of Lone Women, which breathes fresh air into a time period and setting that has long been painted with a monochromatic brush. Adelaide is unlike any historical fiction heroine I have ever encountered—flinty, canny, and honest—and on her journey she makes alliances with Black, Chinese-American, Métis, Mexican, and queer characters, highlighting the diversity of the frontier. But as the mysteries of Victor LaValle’s masterfully spun tale unfolded, I was pinioned to the spot by writing that was at once crisply lyrical and so chilling it had me gasping aloud.

“On her journey she makes alliances with Black, Chinese-American, Métis, Mexican, and queer characters, highlighting the diversity of the frontier.”

You could hear the mental airbrakes. This was billed as a horror novel that just happened to feature a black character in the “homesteader era” west, something I’m totally up for. I knew that the West wasn’t all “white.” My grandparents homesteaded next to a black family in North Dakota. I’m great learning about that, but was that really supposed to be the point of the book, rather than the strange trunk?

I sigh and move on to see what my other options are.

The next book, Soulmate, is a Lifetime movie between two covers, the synopsis to which goes like this:

There’s a cottage on a cliff. Gabe and Pippa’s dream home in a sleepy coastal town. But their perfect house hides something sinister. The tall cliffs have become a popular spot for people to end their lives. Night after night Gabe comes to their rescue, literally talking them off the ledge. Until he doesn’t.

When Pippa discovers Gabe knew the victim, the questions spiral . . . Did the victim jump? Was she pushed?

And would Gabe, the love of Pippa’s life, her soulmate . . . lie? As the perfect facade of their marriage begins to crack, the deepest and darkest secrets begin to unravel.

I like a good guessing game . . . but it’s probably predictable . . .

What do I do?

What are the odds that I will regret spending money on Lone Women, because I’d really rather try something new?

Now here is where Twitter comes in handy. I find Victor LaValle’s account and start scrolling. It’s mostly just promotions for his and other people’s books, but I come across three tweets:

Victor LaValle @victorlavalle

Scott Adams invented the Underground Railroad and this is how we repay him?

Okay . . . not sure what I’m supposed to take from that. I mean, I get the general point, but it’s just stupid.

Victor LaValle @victorlavalle

“Why is it so hard to relate to the work of your Black peers?” A question that must be asked at the Oscars and the Grammys, and, so many other damn arenas.

V3rbal @malcolmbarrett

"The Academy made a very loud statement, and for me to stay quiet is to accept that statement." https://t.co/78kDXL5nNS

Here is the tweet in full he’s referring to:

V3rbal @malcolmbarrett

"The Academy made a very loud statement, and for me to stay quiet is to accept that statement."

hollywoodreporter.comGina Prince-Bythewood on the Oscars Shutout of ‘The Woman King’: “This Awards Season Was an Eye-Opener”With Black female-led films including ‘Till’ and ‘Saint Omer’ left out of the Oscar nominations, the ‘Woman King’ director tells THR that “the Academy made a very loud statement, and for me to stay quiet is to accept that statement.”

The Woman King is an action-packed movie that rewrote history to “black wash” it.

From History vs. Hollywood,¹

Depicting the Dahomey as heroes or the “good guys” is quite a stretch, especially given their lucrative role in the slave trade and King Ghezo's reluctance to put an end to it. The Dahomey were brutal conquerors who enslaved their enemies and sold most of them for profit. They thrived on slavery, and it was the source of most of the kingdom's wealth. In fact, many slaves that they sold or traded were sent to America in the transatlantic slave trade. While the film acknowledges this troubling part of Dahomey's history, it creates the fictional Nanisca (Viola Davis) to stand against it, a character that didn't exist in real life.

In other words, the movie doesn’t want to answer the really, really difficult question I asked above: How did all those black people end up on all those boats?

However, the problem isn’t that the people who made this movie twisted history, but that the Oscars didn’t reward them for it, at least according to Victor LaValle.

But this is the nail in the coffin:

Victor LaValle @victorlavalle

Whether they’re black cops, white cops, Asian or Latino cops, they all know who they can kill with impunity. That’s why it’s white supremacy.

No comment other than to put Soulmate into my cart and wait for the reviews on Lone Women because I’m not wasting another $11.

And that is “consequence culture.” I don’t care if you want to read and buy Victor LaValle’s book. In fact, I may do it myself at some point if the reviews are good enough because the book sounds great, in principle. But I’m weary of literature as propaganda to push a narrative rather than explorations of reality and commonality or just good old-fashioned fun. And if it’s not that, it’s not worth my money.

The death of “cancel culture” will be real “consequence culture.”

The article is short and interesting in full, but here is a heartening summation:

Identity politics is another perverse fruit of success. The movement grew during the decade of economic expansion and peace that followed the 2008 crash. As those benign conditions fell away, so did the movement. It is hard to care that Augustus Gloop is called “fat” at a time of double-digit inflation. It is hard to deplore microaggressions while Ukraine is enduring a rather macro one. The cultural left hasn’t been defeated so much as demoted: in salience, in moral urgency. Grievances that once had force now seem beside the point.

And finally this . . .

The worst fate that can befall a movement — short of outright defeat, which it often precedes — is to become a joke. . . .

The cultural left isn’t there yet. It retains huge sway over thought and speech. . . . There is a change in the air, though. It is not just conservative eyes that roll at the latest progressive edict now. It is not just conservatives tongues that cluck. If it continues to over-reach, the cultural left will endure a much worse fate than being hated. It will be teased.

So am I right that the tide is starting to turn, or is this just wishful thinking?

(Sorry this is longer than usual. If you made it to this point, thank you so much for sticking with me.)

1. As an aside, in between looking up whether or not the Dahomey owned slaves and writing this article, they went and rewrote the article. They initially subtitled the section this paragraph comes from as something along the lines of “Did the Dahomey engage in slavery?” Eye catching, no? Now it’s entitled “Is The Woman King Historically Accurate?” Seems a little like attempting to distract from the issue.