Cheerios and the Case for a More Constructive Rhetoric

Justin Campbell

Let me begin with a bit of full disclosure. I’m black. My wife is white. And we’re going to have our first child this summer. This commercial obviously hits close to home. That being said, the following post about the Cheerios commercial is, surprisingly, not going to be about race or the ensuing “shitstorm” it’s causing online. If you haven’t already heard, the commercial shows a biracial child asking her white mother a question and then the scene cuts to her black father. It’s really cute and I say that with all sincerity. Now, rather then go off about how racist and insensitive people are, I’d like to use this cultural teaching moment to discuss the proliferation of certain rhetorics of hate and disenfranchisement in American society today.

I’ve had people ask me whether or not I approve of the LGBT movement comparing themselves to the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s. Most ask expecting me to be incensed that this group would have the gall to compare their struggle for marriage and equality with African Americans struggle to not get lynched or mauled by police dogs. While there is a sense in which they have a point (the two situations  are not  exactly the same), I think that what they miss when they put this argument forward is all the similarities these two situations actually have in common.

Historically, identity politics issues (the abolitionist movement of the 1850s and 60s, women’s rights, Civil Rights, etc.) all used each other’s methods in their own separate fights for equal rights. Some of the same women fighting to end slavery in the 1800s did so because they believed that their fight for rights for blacks in America would lead to their own ability to own property and vote.

The question then becomes, are these two identity politics issues (i.e. race and gender) exactly the same? I would argue that no, they are not exactly the same. Gender and race are different slices of the identity politics pie. And yet, both movements were able to use similar rhetoric in their fight for rights in their own separate spheres. Why?

I would argue that the process of comparing movements occurs because of th the rhetoric used by conservatives to block progress for these different identity politic groups is virtually the same, with the only difference being the group that’s being blocked in the present moment.

Here’s my example. The comment is in response to the Cheerios YouTube commercial I was referring to earlier. I’ll post the comment in its original form first. After that, I’ll edit it a bit to show the similarities in the rhetoric.

“Throughout all of human history, race-mixing and multiracial/multicultural societies have never, not even once, occurred ‘naturally’. It has always been the result of conquest, group A being forced by group B. The systematic decline of western economies has lead to lower white birth rates. Massive non-white immigration leads to loss of land, resources and opportunities for whites. Encouraging whites to race-mix leads to loss of white genetics. It’s not about one Cheerios commercial.”

Terrible. Not much to say in its defense.

Next, the anti-women’s rights edition:

“Throughout all of human history, societies that encourage gender equality have never, not even once, occurred ‘naturally’. It has always been the result of conquest, group A being forced by group B. The systematic decline of western economies has lead to lower male birth rates. Massive female appropriation of power leads to loss of land, resources and opportunities for men. Encouraging women to see themselves as equal to men leads to loss of human genetics. It’s not about one Cheerios commercial.”

Sound familiar? Probably not. It sounds like something out of a transcript of a turn of the 20th Century secret Mason’s meeting. Not something you’d hear a lot of today. Though, you could point to this as possible proof to the contrary.

On to the LGBT rights edition:

“Throughout all of human history, societies that allow homosexuality have never, not even once, occurred ‘naturally’. It has always been the result of conquest, group A being forced by group B. The systematic decline of western economies has lead to lower heterosexual birth rates. Massive homosexual population rate increases leads to loss of land, resources and opportunities for heterosexuals. Encouraging people to engage in homosexual relationships leads to loss of human genetics. It’s not about one Cheerios commercial.”

Hitting a little closer to home?

With the exception of a few sentences (namely the conquest one), this could have been typed straight off of a Fox News pundit segment or a conservative right wing pulpit in a church somewhere in United States of America.

So what’s my point?

My point is that these ways of thinking and talking (aka rhetoric) are not relegated to crazy Neo-Nazis who spend all their waking hours on nationalist message boards, trolling corporate YouTube channels. Similar rhetoric is being used here in all three of these cases. Perhaps we should start calling this kind of rhetoric what it is in all three cases (hatred, bigotry, disenfranchisement, etc.) instead of reacting with disgust to the use of this rhetoric in one situation, while propagating the same kind of rhetoric in regards to another group in another situation.

2011-11-02 19.52.37Justin Campbell is a Graduate Teaching Fellow studying Creative Writing at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, Ca. He is the recipient of the 2013 Hurston/Wright Foundation Award for his novella, Sitting on the Knees of Gods. His work has been published or is forthcoming in The Conium Review, The Faircloth Review, Margins, The Wide Net Literary Magazine, and Elephant Tree Literary Magazine. He lives with his wife in Whittier, CA.

Justin Campbell
Justin is a freelance writer living and working in Los Angeles, CA.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

You might also enjoy…

3 responses to “Cheerios and the Case for a More Constructive Rhetoric”

  1. Raymond Morehouse

    Hey Justin, thanks for your contribution!

    I think that it is very helpful to note the similarities between the rhetoric used in various contexts, and draw the parallels that you do.

    However, I think all of this analysis is only relevant after a few serious dilemmas have been resolved:

    First, a preference for a certain set of sexual behaviors has to somehow be equated with “race” or “gender” or, broadly “identity.” This is really the crux of the whole issue, on any level. It seems to me that equating the LGBT movement to the Civil Rights movement is a category mistake, even if the rhetoric involved is very similar.

    Second, because sexual behavior is the defining marker of the alleged “identity” in question there is a significant moral issue on the table. You didn’t raise this issue, nor is it raised in any of the rhetorical examples you gave. In fact, the reasoning you chose for your examples seems to be born out of a value system whose primary concern is not moral but genetic purity. So, of course, I can fully agree with your conclusion that someone advocating “genetic purity” is bigoted, but this really doesn’t have any application to an issue that ought to be basically understood as moral.

    If the LGBT movement demands that a certain set of behaviors be condoned by society, and those behaviors may be immoral, then the whole discussion must proceed along those lines or it will become hopelessly confused.

    Finally, you have built up quite the straw-man for your “fox news pundit” or “right-wing preacher,” and I am pretty skeptical that there are many people out there arguing against LGBT rights because of “loss of land” etc. In fact, even the orignal argument that you modify is so hopelessly confused it seems unfair to extrapolate it the whole of “right-wing” ideology.

    Theres more to say, but then I would be writing my own post! (sorry for typos! typing late into the night…)

    Reply
  2. Justin Campbell

    Hi Raymond.

    Thanks for the response!

    I think it would be hard not to argue that “sexual preference” isn’t an identity marker in the common cultural space. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I appreciate that you don’t think that sexual preference can be related to gender or ethnicity. The bottom line is that I don’t think the large majority of people agree with you( I don’t think you or I do either. How often do I identify as a straight black male? All the time.) Saying that gender and ethnicity are the same is a category mistake in the same way you say my comparing sexual preference to ethnicity is a category mistake in that all three are distinctly different ways of identifying oneself to the world (but related in that they all involve ones way of identifying themselves to the world).

    I’m glad you brought up morality. I think that, conservatives have historically loved to use the Bible (and in turn morality) as a way to defend the use of the kind of rhetoric I’m talking about. They frame their arguments in terms like, “The man is the head of the household,” and “Slaves obey your masters,” turning social issues into moral issues, therefore closing the door on discussion on the changing nuances of these volatile identity issues. In other words, by saying an issue “basically ought to be viewed as moral”, you’re making the same rhetorical turn by turning a social issue into a moral one in order to change the tenor of the conversation. I agree though, that I should have stated/brought that up, because I think it’s another example of similar rhetorical tactics being used to try and stymie equal rights movements.

    And yes, the initial YouTube comment is completely muddled. That’s part of the problem with this kind of us/them rhetoric to begin with. I still do think that taking out some of the sentences (as I suggested doing), would put it as a quote for one of the outlets I said before. So while you refer to “loss of land” as being evidence of a straw man argument, I cite “Throughout all of human history, societies that allow homosexuality have never, not even once, occurred ‘naturally’” as evidence for my initial point about those outlets (which wasn’t supposed to be the crux of my argument to begin with). So I could live with the general disregarding of the Fox News/Conservative reference if that feels a bit unfair.

    Thanks for commenting!

    Justin

    Reply
    1. Raymond Morehouse

      Thanks, Justin, your response is quite clear. There are a couple of things that I should clarify about my own position.

      First, I don’t believe that sexual preference isn’t an identity marker in the common cultural space. In other words, I do believe that it would be easy to find a strong majority, in the US at least, who strongly believe that sexual preference is an identity issue in the same way that gender or race are. But this is of little concern. If history has taught us anything it is that the majority is very often in the wrong. In this case, I think that we need to question whether or not this majority position is valid.

      That being said, second, I argue that it is a category mistake to compare the current LBGT movement to the civil rights movement because the first is based on behavioral preference and the second is physical appearance. I agree that they are BOTH ways in which popular society identifies people, but I think that because they are based on totally different criteria we need to be open to different modes of evaluation. For example, even though “smoker” is undeniably a way that people identify themselves, it does not give them access to the same set of rights that “non-smokers” have. It would offensive in the extreme to talk about California’s “Jim Crow” laws against “smokers” in public places. However, I have no doubt that if you spent enough time on the internet you could find people making exactly that complaint! The argument is invalid, however, because “smoker” is NOT the same kind of identity marker as “African-American” because one is based on the inclination towards a certain behavior (and the behavior itself) and the other is not.

      Third, “social” and “moral” issues are not mutually exclusive categories. An issue can be both. You are absolutely correct: it would be a mistake to think that because something is a “moral” issue it is not longer a “social” issue. The same, however, is true of the opposite argument.

      Fourth, I see now your focus on the first aspect of the argument, namely whether or not homosexuality occurs “naturally.” That’s a big subject, that I would want to add more qualifications to than are wise here. But for the time being, I would simply point out that just because something can be conceived of as “natural” it doesn’t make that behavior moral, healthy, or beneficial to society. For instance, imagine a world where we took our moral norms from other higher primates!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *