Let me begin by saying, I respect what Emmanuel is trying to do here. He's trying to approach a sensitive subject with civility and thoughtfulness. Unfortunately, Emmanuel repeats the same divisive rhetoric that I've heard for years now, only he did it with a gentle voice, a smile, and soft music. In the video linked at the bottom of this blog, "Reverse Racism", Emmanuel gives his perspective on the broken family, cultural appropriation, and reverse racism that I didn't quite expect. So, I'm going to critique his views and give my own perspective.
The Broken Family:
(1:08): Emmanuel begins the conversation by addressing a question from an email he received: what about the broken black family? What about the lack of black fathers? Isn't that the contributing factor to the lack of success for black people?
Emmanuel seems to agree, he rattles off several statistics that show that broken families and/or fatherless homes contribute to poverty, crime, lack of education, early pregnancy, and even mental health issues. Conservative and liberal research seems to agree. The Brookings Institute, a left-leaning organization, even goes as far as to say that those entering adulthood have "three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children". Those who follow those three simple rules, according to Brookings Institute, are 75% more likely to join the middle-class. A 2019 survey of "children in single-parent families by race in the United States" also revealed that 64% of black or African American children are in single-parent families, the highest among every race surveyed. Meaning, those children are at an incredibly high risk of being stuck in poverty, getting involved in criminal activity, dismissing education, getting pregnant early, having mental health concerns, etc. Almost every survey, study, or article that investigates or reports on the effects of broken or fatherless homes comes to the same conclusion: it is detrimental to the family and society. You could consider this a settled science. So, it would seem fair to conclude that broken families and/or fatherless homes are major contributors to poverty, crime, lack of education, early pregnancy, mental health issues, etc., especially within black families.
However, at 1:38, Emmanuel attempts to make a connection between the black broken homes of today and the history of slavery. Saying, "Think about the history, the initial fracture in the broken black family, the initial fracture in the black home. It started with slavery...so this fracture in the broken black family, the reason it exists to a degree is because marriage has only been lawful for black people for five generations". Fortunately, he says that this isn't an excuse, but he explains this as a means of giving "understanding and empathy". I think almost everyone would admit that slavery was a terrible thing, a scar on American history, a history that should be taught, understood, and never repeated, but it's a scar that seems to have had no impact on the black family. A 2019 report by the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) found that "from 1890 to 1950, black women had a higher marriage rate than white women...[and that] just 9% of black children lived without their father". It seems that the black family was admirably resilient almost immediately following the abolition of slavery, outpacing white married families for nearly 60 years. The IFS continues, saying "In other words, despite open racism and widespread poverty, strong black families used to be the norm". So, slavery as a potential causal factor for black broken families seems unjustified.
Many like to point to the welfare system and the government's "war on poverty" as contributing to the sharp increase in fatherless homes. Welfare was only available to mothers if there was no man in the house and it was a very generous system. In effect, it incentivized being a single mother. While this might very well be a key component that drove the deconstruction of the family, and many like to cite this as evidence that "big government" and social programs do more harm than good, I'd like to focus on a cause to broken families that's a little closer to the chest: personal responsibility.
We live in a culture of divorce and broken families. Many regard a first divorce as a mulligan with a cultural expectation that "the first one never works out". I'm very familiar with divorce. Both of my older brothers have divorced (one of them more than once) and at least half of my friends have divorced, my parents are divorced (more than once) and one side of my grandparents are divorced too. My great-grandparents? I don't know and, frankly, I don't care. Why? Because it doesn't matter to me how they handled marital situations. It's up to me and my wife to decide how we're going to handle our family and our marriage. We know how devastating a divorce can be on a family. Your marriage is your responsibility. There's no need to appeal to, "It's only been legal for five generations". The culture of divorce is not genetic. You can be the first generation that says, "we're going to work through this, we're not giving up, it's too important for us and for our children". A failed or successful marriage, then, is up to you. Stop with the blame shifting and the excuses. Stop with the "harmless flirting" at work or the endless drinks at the bar that results in "mistakes" (Eph 5:18). In short, it's time for you to (wo)man up. Be that husband/wife and father/mother that you ought to be (Eph 5:22-30). Continue the pursuit of your husband or wife; flirt with them, show-off for them, compliment them, encourage them, be honest with them. Just...love them (1 Cor 13:4-8). We need to revere marriage again.
I realize I've painted with a broad brush and I understand that not all broken or fatherless homes are the result of selfish or careless decisions. However, for the vast majority, that is the case and a successful marriage requires the cooperation of both husband and wife. We all need to take personal responsibility for our actions in our marriage and raising children with a loving mother and father should be one of our highest priorities.
For what God has brought together, let no man tear apart (Mark 10:9).
Cultural Appropriation/Appreciation:
(2:48): An email to Emmanuel asks: when is it okay for a white woman to wear braids and not be offensive?
This is the question (and Emmanuel's response) that birthed my blog. It's a topic that always bothers me, mainly because how serious everyone takes the issue. If you're not familiar with incidents of alleged cultural appropriation, just look here, here, here, and here. The Cambridge Dictionary defines cultural appropriations as "the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture".
Emmanuel explains that, in the 1800's, certain features of black people were used to mock and humiliate them and he gives the example of people painting big lips on their faces. Today, he says, those same features are celebrated (e.g. lip injections). He continues by equating cultural appropriation with plagiarism and asks us to "know your history and cite your sources". Now, admittedly, I don't know what he means by "cite your sources" in this context, but this requirement to "know your history" seems almost impossible. Everything I or you wear or say or do could (and likely does) have elements of another culture within it and that's probably true for everyone. It would be impossible, or at least impractical, to trace the history of everything I'm wearing, eating, or saying before I walk out the door in the morning and then, somehow, "cite my sources".
But there's something more fundamental about this claim of cultural appropriation that just doesn't make sense: can a culture own a style or food or language? Are lip injections cultural appropriation? If I learn Spanish, is that cultural appropriation? Can only white girls have straight blonde hair, is that forbidden for a black girl? Does white culture own "the wearing of suits"? Does black culture own “the wearing of braids"? Do I have to ask permission to make or sell pizza, tacos, egg rolls, boba tea, etc. from their respective cultural representatives? This seems silly that a culture can own such things and it seems even sillier to suggest it's wrong for others to enjoy or take part in the diversity of culture without "knowing your history and citing your sources". Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist, gives an interesting perspective and good reasons to think the concept of cultural appropriation is a terrible thing and that, instead, we should embrace and celebrate our cultural differences without prejudice. Granted, there are those that go to an extreme and turn enjoyment of a culture into mockery, but, even then, that can be pretty subjective.
Some have suggested an alternative proposal: cultural appreciation. While this might come across as more moderate, it's just as ridiculous. According to the article, "if you learn, explore, and understand a different culture and then show that in a style that you've developed over time, that's appreciation." First, read those requirements for "appreciation" again. You must learn, explore, understand and develop a style over time. Not complicated, right? No. Petty? Yes. Think about what we're talking about. We're talking about how a person styles their hair or wears their clothes, how they talk or walk, their mannerisms or demeanor, the food they eat or sell, the music they sing or listen to, etc. It's so petty, I'm embarrassed for anyone who elevates the seriousness of the topic beyond an SNL skit.
Suppose, however, we were to admit that cultural appropriation is wrong. At what point, then, within the genetics of an individual would it become okay to take part in a particular cultural style, food, or language? Must I be 100% Italian to make and sell spaghetti? How much melanin is required to wear braids or dreadlocks? Can you be .09765625% Native American to claim that ancestry on your college application? Where is the line drawn? At this point, you would be getting into the "one-drop rule" extremes of racism that we're all trying to fight against. But, honestly, none of this is worth the headache or the arguing. From a Christian perspective this is trivial, pitiful, bickering. I suppose that's what bothered me most about Emmanuel's position, he doesn't even bring the gospel into the conversation. From a Christian perspective, the purpose of life is to know God and make Him known. So, these bickering's of trivial things seems inappropriate for a Christian. I guess I was hoping Emmanuel would say something to the effect of "these things don't matter, what matters is that I love you (Mark 12:31), that God loves you (John 3:16), and that God and I are concerned about the eternity of your soul, that's what matters".
Reverse Racism:
(4:20): Finally, Emmanuel addresses his last email. The questioner asks, what about black history month? There's no white history month.
Honestly, I think it's a silly question. Still, Emmanuel does address it in a roundabout way. First, he comments that, "me as a black man, I navigate America as a visitor, whereas for white people, it's home". My heart goes out to Emmanuel if this is really how he feels, but I find it hard to believe that an NFL celebrity like Emmanuel has to "navigate America". It's more likely he's celebrated almost everywhere he goes. Make no mistake, Emmanuel, if I were to find myself in certain areas of Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, Atlanta, etc., I would be considered an unwelcomed visitor. But it's strange that Emmanuel somehow knows how white people feel in America too. One thing is for certain, the current political and social climate works hard to make sure that being a white person in America carries with it a certain level of shame. The burden of "white guilt", the awareness of "white privilege" and "white fragility", unconscious bias, that "all white people are racist", corporate requests to be "less white", the dangers of "white freedom", and this new "white allergies" thing, it's all apparently white people's shame to bear. It is literally the opposite of MLK's dream that a person "would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". It's a sad, shameful state of our culture.
Emmanuel continues by giving an analogy of a former teammate of his that constantly bullied him until he finally stood up against him. Emmanuel asks, "that wouldn't make me a 'reverse-bully', would it?" I'm assuming white America is the bully in that analogy. If so, it would be more accurate in the analogy if the bully were giving Emmanuel millions of dollars to play a game, celebrated his every word, and lauded his platform to voice his opinions and sell his book. But, then he wouldn't be much of a bully, would he? I'm not saying Emmanuel has always had it easy, but, as a Christian, it's important to remember that all of the good things we receive are completely undeserved. In response, you live a life of gratitude. That's not to say we shouldn't pursue justice (Deut 16:20), but, at least, recognize the underserving gifts we've been given.
Still, it would have been nice if Emmanuel would have at least acknowledged actual cases of "reverse racism", but that didn't happen. I say all of this simply to highlight the fact that these discussions need to be two-way streets. The unfortunate reality, however, is that in a country with a population of 300M+, it's very likely there will always be those few racist monsters who expose themselves to the world and the media will highlight their crimes and tout it as evidence of a racist epidemic. As Thomas Sowell remarks, "Racism is not dead, but it is on life support--kept alive by politicians, race hustlers, and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as racist".
I long for people to find their identity in Christ. According to Gal 3:28, "There is no Jew nor gentile, neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." You want a cure for racism and other social ills? Gal 3:28 is the recipe. Our identity in Christ should be enough, the other details are of little significance. That's what Christian's should embrace and that's the example we should be setting. Priscilla Shirer (below) gives a great explanation as to why she does not describe herself as a black woman. You should give it a listen.