A few days ago, prolific actor and Black America’s favorite uncle, Samuel L. Jackson made headlines for comments regarding Hollywood’s apparent infatuation with Black British actors. Referencing Peele’s seminal Get Out, Jackson questioned whether a Black American actor might have brought a different sense of authenticity to the lead role, played by Britain-born Daniel Kaluuya. As Jackson notes, as it goes without saying, blackness in America and Britain are different experiences. Certainly, they’re not disparate but they contain their respective nuances. At least, that should go without saying.
Since those remarks, Jackson has been labeled as divisive and scapegoating. Some have even gone so far as to imply Jackson questions the blackness of Black Brits. In a follow-up statement, Jackson clarifies what should have been apparent in his first statement: his critiques were an indictment of Hollywood, not of these fine British actors themselves. For many Black American readers (though, not all) his statements were clear the first time and rang true. But the backlash from the Afro-British acting community was swift and invalidating. And it's not surprising anybody, especially not an oppressed group who wants to believe they might have an unfair advantage.
The gasps at that last line are all but audible. “But how could these people, these Black people, some of them very dark-skinned have an advantage? Aren’t they all Black? They, too, bleed red.” Light-skinned black folk are also just as black as dark-skinned black folk. But, historically, we’ve come to notice they can navigate society a bit differently because of how white people perceive them. If you have lighter skin or straighter hair, you may still be black, but you’re not “as black” as your darker counterpart which will often work in your favor. This is called colorism, and although we still debate the topic in 2017, it still very much exists.
You may wonder what that has to do with someone like Daniel Kaluuya, whose dark skin drew a comparison to a Sambo doll, from a Black American critic, no less. That’s a fair question. If spotted down the street, Kaluuya’s dark skin and height would put him in the exact same position as any Black man in America. He would be labeled intimidating or suspicious. But if he spoke and revealed his British accent, would that make a difference? Would he be separated from the Black Americans who speak AAVE, which is considered the international language of thuggery? (If you don’t believe me on that, check the people across the globe using AAVE to convey “hardness” or “attitude” on their otherwise boring social media profiles.)
No one can say whether Kaluuya’s Britishness might make him seem like less of a threat in a life-or-death situation involving a racist American cop. I'd argue that's unlikely. But what can be said is Americans have always associated Britishness with class and dignity. Black British actors like Idris Elba and Chiwetel Ejiofor are often described with such elegant language. And it’s well-deserved, as both men are extremely charming, attractive and fashionable. But there are American-born Black actors who share the exact same qualities and are not described in the same genteel ways.
Jackson is right to bring up the cultural differences between Black Brits and Black Americans regarding race relations. As he asserts, interracial dating and mixed-race individuals have been a lot more common in British media than American media historically. Though that surely doesn’t mean they’ve smoothed out all the kinks that racial issues can put in an otherwise healthy romantic relationship, they’ve had a bit more time to work at it than we have. Especially considering the last segregated American high school prom took place in 2012. Part of the reason so many Black Americans fall in love with British media is their racial progressiveness compared to our own media. Up until the last few years, Black American actors were mostly pigeonholed into roles specifically about Black pain. Whereas, we could go British TV and watch Antonia Thomas in a role that Billie Piper could have played. If that doesn’t speak to a significant cultural difference, what does? Of course, that's not to say every nuance of a character has to resonate with an actor's real life experience. That's what acting is for. But to pretend Jackson has pulled the notion of our cultural differences out of the sky, as many have, is ludicrous.
Jackson also cites issues like training and rate-of-pay as a reasoning for the recent influx of Black British actors in American roles. In these observations, race is hardly even a factor– which begs the question of how “Why don’t you think I’m Black enough?” became the response. But let’s take it a step further and play the game that disgruntled responders have turned it into. Yes, you as a Black Brit are “Back enough” for Black Americans. We joyously sing your praises and pour our coins into your box office releases specifically because you have top billing. Otherwise, if your role went to Generic White Dude #3, we might have waited for it on demand– if we bothered at all. So don’t imply you’re not “black enough” for us when we are your biggest cheerleaders stateside. Interrogate why you may be considered “just Black enough” for the white American people casting you. (Yes, I’m aware that Kaluuya was cast by Peele, a Black man. But Jackson addresses a larger pattern, as do I.)
There’s a such thing as the Model Minority Myth. Largely, it’s a tool of white supremacy used to encourage in-fighting among oppressed classes. It's typically used to describe the pitting of Asian-Americans against Black and Latinx Americans. It could also mean pitting upper-middle-class Black folk against the black working class. That could mean pitting immigrants against American-born. The idea is that one is labeled as more respectable than the other, and the group that gets that label is given slightly more crumbs than their “less respectable” counterpart. This keeps these groups divided and encourages the “lesser” group to aspire to be more like the other group. So, why might black Brits be considered the “more respectable” group in the eyes of the powers that be?
Black slave-descended Americans are globally misrepresented as trouble-makers. Much of that has to do with our hyper-visibility, and therefore, the hyper-visibility of our liberation fronts. Of course, Europe and the West Indies and countless other countries have had their Black liberation movements, but because the world has their eyes on us, we bear the reputation of perpetual contentiousness– at least to those who see Back liberation as more of a nuisance than an imperative for global human rights. Here’s a secret– some of those people might be cutting checks at studios. Some of those ignorant people might not be able to tell your Brixton accent from Brighton. Some of them can. But they may also decide it still sounds more palatable and less intimidating than that guy from Compton who read for the role. They may decide it makes you sound more trustworthy and like you have a better work ethic because it’s a step up from the Black people they deal with daily and secretly dislike.
Contrary to actress Cynthia Erivo’s assertion, pointing this out doesn’t discredit the work of Black Brits. When a Black Brit is cast over a Black American, they very well could have been the best person for the part. Just as that light-skinned actor who always gets the part over the performers who are darker than a paper bag could have been the best person. But there’s enough historical context that a Black American should not be demonized for raising the question. Inherent bias is real, y’all. It comes at us in the most pervasive and unexpected ways, even when it's used to split hairs. Patterns are never coincidental; unless you’re the beneficiary.
