ARCHIVES
EDUCATION | COVID-19 | TECH | SOCIAL | WORK | ENVIRONMENT | POLITICS | CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Don’t forget to subscribe ›
Understand the role of cancel culture.
Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›
It's Friday!
Today's email is canceled, like everything and everyone else this year (kidding). But cancel culture is having a moment in the press this week, and I think it's important to note the role it's played in the movement over the past few weeks – and how it mirrors social movements of the past.
There's been so many thoughtful responses to newsletters this week. I'll be writing a recap and answering some questions in tomorrow's newsletter, so don't forget to send in your thoughts by replying to this email. Separately, if you identify as non-white and have a story to share in an upcoming newsletter, send us a message.
And as always, you can make a one-time contribution on PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or contribute monthly on Patreon to help us grow.
Nicole
TAKE ACTION
1. Consider the steps you would take to hold a public figure accountable for a racist action. How would you gain their attention? How would you measure success?
2. Reflect: How have others held you accountable in the past? How would you prefer to be held accountable in the future? How would you want to be held accountable as a public figure?
GET EDUCATED
Trump said enough this week for a whole spin-off series of the Anti-Racism Daily, but one comment in particular stood out to me. It was when he addressed the nation on Fourth of July weekend about a "growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for". Was it COVID-19? Systemic racism? His consistent bans against immigration? The desecration of Native lands?
No. It was "cancel culture" (NPR).
There's been countless examples of people getting "cancelled" lately because of racist allegations, from racist white women caught on camera, to Youtube personalities, journalists and CEOs, and everyone in between (Fast Company). But cancel culture, or a public call for withdrawing from a public figure (or company) that's doing something harmful (usually via social media) isn't new. It was popularized in the mid 2010's by Black Twitter (Vox).
In a way, canceling someone is akin to a boycott; a public call-to-action not to participate with an individual. Anne Charity Hudley, the chair of linguistics of African America for the University of California Santa Barbara, reflected on this in a fantastic long-form article on cancel culture in Vox from 2019 (Vox). So from that perspective, cancel culture has even deeper roots. Hudley emphasizes that cancel culture is "a survival skill as old as the Southern black use of the boycott". We know that boycotts were not just a comprehensive part of the Civil Rights Movement (Anti-Racism Daily), but persist in other movements, too, including the #MeToo movement (Dictionary), the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in Palestine (Middle East Monitor) and the Delano grape strike (History). And since in today's time, cancel culture is usually fueled online, the boycott becomes actionable from anywhere – allowing a much wider audience to join in, and perhaps a more swift takedown.
Naturally, as tensions rose this past month, instances of canceling did too. In a way, it felt like the digital equivalent of the physical protests. Online canceling likely gained rapid attention for the simple fact that more people are at home and plugged into social media than ever before (Business Insider). Also, in an article for Blavity, writer Anjana Susarla emphasizes that these types of controversy are exactly what social media algorithms love, so they naturally gain traction and visibility (Blavity).
Over the past few years (and especially now), many people have said that cancel culture has "gone too far". In fact, last week an open letter signed by over 150 artists and intellectuals was circulated, warning that cancel culture is eliminating the opportunity for free speech and civil discourse (NYTimes). Last fall, former President Barack Obama encouraged people to get past the idea of always being "politically woke" and remember that all people have flaws (CNN). Another popular argument against cancel culture is around its perceived effectiveness. Although celebrities are often canceled for racist, sexist, ableist, etc. actions, they rarely experience significant setbacks in their careers a result (Vox). Blavity goes so far to say that "canceling is a privilege (among many others) of the rich."
“When they throw around terms like “cancel culture” to silence me instead of reckoning with the reasons I might find certain actions or jokes dehumanizing, I’m led to one conclusion: they’d prefer I was powerless against my own oppression”.
Sarah Hagi, writer for Time
Any tool can also be wielded as a weapon, though, and there's undoubtedly instances of cancel culture out there that don't create actionable change. Oftentimes, cancel culture becomes harmful when it's applied in horizontal power structures, against others that have more complex, intersectional identities, and ask more than the capacity of the individual or company to respond (Vox). It can be used to publicly shame someone or to act out some personal vendetta. Also, you could argue that some do it hoping to boost their followers and voice.
But personally, I always come back to the structural inequities that fostered the culture that we live in. It's easier for people in positions of power to discredit cancel culture, perhaps because they are worried about what they could lose (Time). An instance of cancel culture may seem "new," but it's more likely the culmination of calls for accountability that went left unheard – like by HR professionals who didn't properly address toxic work environments, a board of directors who looked the other way when a CEO repeatedly caused harm, or media platforms that give public figures more exposure despite recent harmful statements. To escalate recent conversations on racial discrimination in the workplace, brave people of color had to break NDAs, navigate unemployment, and carry the stress of 2020 while also holding these brave and difficult conversations. Not all instances of cancel culture are good, but the practice itself is sometimes the only way marginalized folk can ensure their voice won't get lost in a system that was designed to silence.
Remember – usually cancel culture creates consequences for people with incredible privilege and power when they wouldn't have received it otherwise. No only do we need to hear marginalized voices, we need to set better examples for how we actively dismantle white supremacy.
In a way, Trump is right. We do have a growing danger in America when it comes to cancel culture. But that's how our system operates at default: it cancels the culture of systemically marginalized communities and limits their right to be heard. Some argue Trump is leading that charge (Washington Post). We can't tip the scales too far in the opposite direction and lose sight of our goals. But we must be nuanced with how we brand cancel culture. Otherwise, we could discredit both this form of protest and the invaluable stories that need it to be heard.
“Holding someone accountable isn’t the same thing as “cancel culture.” There’s too many people out here who haven’t acknowledged their mistakes, apologized for them, nor have they gone on to make amends; that are using “cancel culture” to shield them from accountability—do better”.
Ashlee Marie Preston, media personality, activist and journalist, on Twitter.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Cancel culture is akin to a digital boycott of a person, usually a powerful public figure
Canceling someone is an attempt to hold them accountable
Although aspects of cancel culture are being used in harmful ways, the practice of accountability is necessary for creating change, and minimizing future harm
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza
Boycott as a form of protest.
Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›
Happy Tuesday!
Thanks to all the fervor yesterday around the action for the day. If you're reading this, you didn't unsubscribe! Grateful to have you here in this work.
Many of you asked about the responsibilities of Twitter and Facebook for moderating the rhetoric Trump shares online, perhaps because of the recent Boycott Facebook movement. It's fascinating to see this unfold, especially because of how important boycotting has been as a form of protest during the civil rights movement. As boycotting goes digital, and many of us are forced to protest from inside, there's an interesting relationship between social media, boycotting, and holding brands accountable.
So we're diving in to understand the historical context, and how we can use our dollars and voice to demand change. If these newsletters are supporting you, considering giving one-time on PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/month on Patreon.
Nicole
TAKE ACTION
Sign the petition to #StopHateforProfit to join the Facebook boycott.
Choose a harmful brand you've financially supported in 2020. Decide to stop buying from them. Invest into a more equitable company – preferably a BIPOC and/or LGBTQIA+ owned business.
GET EDUCATED
Major brands – like Starbucks, Unilever, Ford, and Coca-Cola – are pulling their advertising revenue from Facebook as part of a coordinated boycott (more via NYTimes). The #StopHateforProfit boycott, organized by the Anti-Defamation League (which I pointed to as a resource in yesterday's newsletter), encourages brands to pause their ad spend for the month of July, and lists ten actions for Facebook to take to improve how they handle racism on their platform (learn more, including a list of all participating brands, on the official website.
The major tech companies, including Facebook, have often cited "free speech" regarding hateful rhetoric. But things changed when Trump tweeted a series of incendiary tweets in late May in response to the George Floyd protests including the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," a term popularized by a chief of police in Miami referring to how to treat protestors in the midst of civil unrest in 1967, and considered to incite racial violence for years to come. Walter E. Headley was known for his "bigotry" and also said "we don't mind being accused of police brutality" (NPR).
“There is only one way to handle looters and arsonists during a riot and that is to shoot them on sight. I've let the word filter down — when the looting starts, the shooting starts”.
Walter E. Headley, the police chief of Miami, Florida in 1967 (Source)
Twitter – after years of calls to address Trump's tweets (example on Vox) – had just started to take action, marking tweets about mail-in voting during coronavirus as "potentially misleading" just days before (The Verge). In this case, they decided to shield the public from Trump's tweet's contents, warning that it invokes violence, but allowing users to click through and read it (The Verge). Trump posted this message on Facebook, too, but Facebook chose to do nothing, angering staff and causing walk-outs internally before tensions bubbled to today (MSNBC).
As a result, other tech companies have followed suit. After a public letter from over 650 subreddit leaders (The Atlantic), Reddit removed 2,000 hateful communities, including r/The_Donald, which promotes racism, anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, and violent memes (The Atlantic). After encouraging racial profiling on its platform, neighborhood social media app Nextdoor removed a feature that allowed users to forward crime and safety posts from within the app to the police (NYTimes). YouTube banned white supremacists David Duke, Stefan Molyneux, and Richard Spencer – along with 25,000+ channels that violate hate speech policies (NY Post).
Facebook makes an estimated $70B each year on advertising – 98% of its annual revenue – particularly from small and medium-sized businesses, so it's unlikely this boycott will bankrupt them. But the lost revenue, especially during COVID-19, where many smaller businesses are cutting marketing budgets, caused Facebook stock to drop by 8% Friday (Bloomberg News) which caused Mark Zuckerberg to release a short statement and changes on Friday, June 26 (which wasn't well-received) (Slate).
It's important to note here that boycotts against corporation send a moral and financial message. Most businesses can tune out questions on morality. But money? Feelings on current events can be discarded as subjective, but cash is objective. And boycotts harm brand reputations, which have a much more lasting impact than short-term revenue loss. According to research by Brayden King at Northwestern University, most companies are worried enough about their reputations that they’ll change their behavior, even if the number of people partaking in the boycott is rather small (The Atlantic).
“It takes years and years to build a reputation, it takes one bad event to completely destroy that reputation”.
– Brayden King, Professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management
Boycotts have deep roots in our fight for justice. Many people remember the story of Rosa Parks, who was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, to a white male passenger. But the Montgomery Bus Boycott that followed was key to creating lasting reform. The Women’s Political Council, a group of black women working for civil rights, circulated flyers calling for a boycott of the bus system on December 5, the day Parks would be tried in municipal court. This, followed by a front-page article from the local paper, rallied 40,000 people to boycott the bus system that day (History).
And for 381 days following, thousands of African Americans continued to boycott the buses, organizing carpools and relying on African American taxi cab drivers who'd charge the same bus fare for rides (History). Initially designed to convince the bus system – whose passengers were 75% Black – to create more equitable rules, the movement led to five women bringing the case to court. By June 5,1956, the Montgomery federal court ruled that any law requiring racially segregated seating on buses violated the 14th Amendment (History). The bus company lost 30,000 and 40,000 bus fares each day of the boycott and was desperate for it to end (more via nps.gov).
Local and national boycotts of the past decade have thrived because of social media (take the #BoycottNike situation in 2018, and #DeleteUber in 2017). So it's unprecedented to see social media being boycotted. But necessary. Because social media has become our digital neighborhood during this global pandemic. Most Americans get their news from social media (Quartz) and that news is more likely to be inaccurate (Pew Research Center). If social media is the soil of this generation's revolution, it needs to be a space where true change can grow. And that takes accountability for how people can use social media to spread racist and hateful messaging.
“Many Americans have spent months inside, on the internet, thinking about what it means to live online. Now many of them are in the streets, thinking about how to tackle racism. More than ever, it’s obvious that the internet is the real world. What happens here matters. What happens here happens out there”.
Kaitlyn Tiffany, staff writer at The Atlantic
So the question remains – should I be boycotting Facebook right now? Deactivating your account is unlikely to move this boycott forward. In fact, it may disconnect you from information and actions you can take in your local community, and the people you should be having conversations with. I'd recommend using it to stay in this work.
Instead, think about how you can boycott brands that are causing harm with your own dollars (like by supporting these Amazon warehouse workers calling for change). And remember that 99.7% of businesses in America are small businesses (via sba.gov). How can you put your money to work in your own community? And not just by divesting from harmful brands – but re-investing in the brands that work for you and the rights of all people. Lastly, make your reasons known by sharing publicly on social media, or sending a private message to the company (or both).
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza