This video is sponsored by Curiosity Stream. Sign up today, and youāll also get access
to Nebula, a video platform that is owned and operated by your favorite content creators. Hi, Iām T1J. This video, much like every other video would
not be possible without my Patrons, and now also Members, including people like my first
Member ever, William Dal Porto, and also supporters like Joy F. Sabl, Keegan Anderson, and JustinBailey77. Thanks to all of the Homies who support me,
and if youād like to help out the channel, you can become a Homie yourself by clicking
the Join button below the video, or by checking out my page on Patreon. Hey letās check out the voicemail! [CALLER:] Hey T1J, My name is James. I'm a white male, and I was recently having
a discussion with a friend, and I said I was trying to read more diverse voices, because
I read a lot of books. So I've been trying to read more books by
authors who are women, immigrants, Muslim, African-American, trans, etc. My friend said that if I'm reading an author
because they are a minority, then that's "tokenization." But I was thinking that I was just trying
to make sure at least half the books I read are by women and minorities, so I'm trying
to make sure that I hear more diverse voices. So I just want your opinion on if trying to
read more minority authors is a form of tokenization or if it's a good things to be trying to read
more diverse voices. So, Iām 34 years old, which seems to be
a lot higher than the average age of people who watch YouTube, and people who specifically
watch videos like the ones that I make. So Iām always kind of worried that my takes
and worldview might be unrelatable or out of touch in the eyes of certain segments of
my intended audience. Now according to Google, Iām a millennial,
and so are people who are 10 years younger than me, which seems to imply that we share
certain sensibilities and outlooks because of the generation in which we were born. Which may be true to some extent, but I routinely
look at people who are in their early 20s with utter bewilderment. Much less, people younger than that. This is also true when comparing myself to
black people of a younger age. Especially those who are socially and politically
active. So although Iāve devoted a lot of time on
my channel to discussing race issues, I sometimes wonder if the younger generation of online
minority activists are on a whole 'nother level that I am too far gone to really be
involved with. My thesis is and pretty much always has been
that itās important to find ways to discuss and evaluate solutions to serious issues in
a productive way. And my assertion is that the most productive
way to do so is using civility and compassion. You know, the whole HAKO thing. The problem is that most political discussions
these days are had on social media, which is notable for its distinct shortage of those
two things. Which I think has changed the landscape of
how people think about politics. Now this sounds like a huge digression from
the topic of the voicemail. But I just want to say, I still feel confident
in my thought-process, and if I make a convincing argument for you, thatās great --but I also
donāt want anyone to get into a mindset where they think something is OK or correct,
just because T1J said it. Iām just one guy on the internet. And maybe there are takes out there that are
worth considering, even if my joint-pain-having-ass thinks theyāre weird. Itās something that I want to emphasize
for this topic but also something Iāve been meaning to emphasize in general, so I might
as well go ahead and do it now. .
So, I think that people in marginalized groups have always had a healthy skepticism of people
from privileged groups. But these days, that skepticism seems to be
evolving into widespread mistrust, if not outright antagonism. Some of this may be justified, as weāve
seen over the past decade what seems to be an increase in bigoted political propaganda
coming from the right, and even violence towards groups like black people and LGBTQ people. But this mistrust has evolved and even spread
towards progressives and people on the left. Some of it is the unrealistic expectation
for privileged people to automatically understand the plight of those who are marginalized. The āYou Should Know Betterā mentality. Itās an idea that a person isnāt allowed
to call themselves an ally unless they have total understanding of all the relevant social
justice issues. And if they make wrong assumptions, or use
the wrong terminology, or work with the wrong people, or tweet the wrong thing 10 years
ago, they are susceptible to being #Canceled. This has grown to the extent that even people
who are actively trying to inform themselves are met with suspicion and criticism. So what is ātokenization?ā (Or ātokenism,ā which is the word I will
use because itās easier to say.) My first experience of this idea is I think,
from movies and TV shows that had a supposedly token minority person on it. The argument is that only a superficial or
minimal effort is made to be inclusive to minorities, in order to give the appearance
of diversity. And so a character from one of these minority
groups is shoehorned into the story without any believable reason for them being there. And yes, Iām gonna use this opportunity
to talk about sitcoms again! Maybe I should I just make some videos about
sitcoms outside of the politics involved. Cause I kinda just always want to talk about
sitcoms. Would you guys watch that? Often, these characters are brought on the
show specifically to engage the main characters about topics like race and sexuality. And beyond that, they really serve no purpose. But other times, theyāre brought on very
clearly to address a lack of diversity, often as a response to public criticism. So there are two issues I see with this idea
of the "token minority character": Firstly, itās difficult to determine when
a character is in fact a ātoken.ā I would never suggest we be so cynical that
anytime a minority character is added to a show or movie, we then accuse the creators
of tokenism. Sometimes, characters who represent typically
marginalized people add value to media that would clearly be lost without them. Even if their characters arenāt designed
to start a conversation about social issues. But sometimes of course the token is kind
of a shitty stereotype that reinforces negative sentiments towards already marginalized groups. But sometimes itās hard to say. Maybe, like most things. Itās f**king complicated. Isnāt that right Sir Applesauce? āŖ
[VOICEOVER:] Ikuze! [T1J:] The second problem with this idea is
that it is remarkably similar to complaints of āforced diversityā from the reactionary
right. I donāt want to spend too much time on this
idea because I donāt think itās a very well-thought out argument; but itās essentially
the same concept on the surface. Itās the notion that media creators force
women and minorities into their stories simply to create a superficial image of diversity. The difference is in why they think itās
bad to do that. While ātokenismā causes concern because
of how it might caricature and dehumanize minorities, often reinforcing negative stereotypes,
āforced diversityā is usually cited as a pandering cash grab implemented at the expense
of the quality of the story being told. Never mind that some of the most critically
acclaimed and widely appreciated media gets accused of āforced diversityā like Steven
Universe and Star Wars. Now this is dumb of course, because it implies
that itās okay for able-bodied cis-hetero white men to appear in media by default, but
if a woman or minority is added, there needs to be some explanation for them to be there. And it has to be a good, well-written character,
otherwise thatās evidence that it was forced. Never mind all of the terribly written white
male characters. Itās okay for those to exist. Itās dumb, like I said. The problem is that sometimes these poor arguments
slip into the tokenism conversation as well. The ātoken person of colorā for example
may seem to not have a purpose within the story, but who says they need to have a purpose,
or at least any more purpose than any other character would need in that role? Why canāt they just be another person in
this fictional world? I feel like we donāt demand this level of
complexity and backstory from white male characters. What Iād look for is whether or not the
characters are objectified, otherized or treated differently than the others. An important thing to note is that āotherizingā
can be negative or positive. Sometimes characters in media are negative
stereotypes, but also sometimes creators overcompensate by making minorities unrealistically virtuous,
sometimes literally magical. This can still have the result of tokenizing
characters by illuminating the fact that theyāre really kind of out of place in the world. When people who create media really care about
their minority characters, they usually donāt tokenize them. They treat them like humans, or at the very
least with as much depth and care as they would any other character in that position. I am fortunate enough to have a lot of friends,
and a lot of those friends are white. So depending on the social situation Iām
in, I sometimes find myself the only black person and sometimes the only non-white person
in the room. And sometimes people will joke that Iām
the ātokenā black guy in the group. Now itās a joke, but you can understand
that joke multiple ways. Maybe it implies that white social groups
might befriend a black guy just to demonstrate to the world that theyāre not racist. You know, he āIām not racist, I have a
black friendā thing. It's a meme thatās been around for ages
and is a perfect example of tokenism. Or it could satirize the fact that white friend
groups often donāt include people of color at all. So the fact that Iām there is fairly conspicuous. But again, are we going to argue that if a
group of white people hangs out with a black person, that means theyāre tokenizing them. Tokenism is also an area of concern in the
workplace. Much like what Iāve discussed before, sometimes
companies hire minorities with the primary goal of avoiding criticism and creating a
shallow appearance of diversity. But like with media and friend groups, just
because a minority is added doesnāt necessarily mean that person isnāt actually valued. As a black person, I have been in situations
where I have felt like people are treating me differently both in negative and positive
ways. Iāve been in situations where a person has
told me straight up, 'Iām giving you an opportunity, yes because I value you, but
also in large part because you are a minority, and I understand that diversity is important
and minority voices are often silenced.' Now all you young folks out there, correct
me if I'm wrong, but I feel like some of you might feel tokenized by something like that,
because you are being treated differently than other people. Personally, I usually appreciate things like
that. I think one of ways that allies help marginalized
people is by using their influence to provide opportunities to them that wouldnāt otherwise
exist. And sometimes, as a black person, or LGBTQ
person, or woman, or disabled or neurodivergent person, itās efficient to take advantage
of opportunities to increase your standing in the world, even if the intent of the person
who gave you that opportunity is superficial. So you can then use your expanded resources
to achieve your goals and help others achieve theirs. But as far as tokenism goes, I do think intent
matters. If you get hired somewhere, or get promoted
or signal boosted. Or you get invited into a friend group and
you want to know if youāve been tokenized, or if youāre the tokenizer, there are a
couple things you can look for, according to a great blog I read, which Iāll link
in the description. Those things are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Firstly, if the claim is that diversity is
the goal, you should see an ongoing and earnest pursual of it. If a company hires one gay person and never
hires another one until that person leaves, thatās a good sign of tokenism. If a showrunner creates a show with only a
couple of black people, maybe check how many black people are on their next show. If itās still few and far in between, could
be tokenism. If youāre recommending YouTubers of color,
and youāve been shouting out T1J and Kat Blaque for the past 4 years because youāve
never bothered to find any othersāmaybe itās tokenism. The second thing you need to look for is equity. Equity mean equal access to resources and
other things available to everyone involved. So if a company hires a disabled person, but
makes their salary lower than everyone elseās, thatās evidence of tokenism. If a minority is one of the main characters
of movie but barely gets any lines and dies in the first 20 minutes, probably a token. And finally inclusion, which kind of encompasses
the other two. Tokenism as a whole could arguably be succinctly
described as āDiversity without inclusion.ā People from marginalized groups should feel
just as important and just as valued as anyone else involved, and should be treated as individual
human beings, not representatives of whatever group they happen to be in. If you tell everyone about your awesome good
friend whoās transgender but never actually invite them to hang out like you would your
other friends, that's probably tokenism. This is why minorities can often feel tokenized
even when they are being promoted and given opportunities. So if you want to signal boost or endorse
people from these groups, find a way to do so that is inclusive and not otherizing. Feel free to give special attention to people,
if you think they deserve it, but donāt do it, just because they happen to be a minority. Itās like, are you helping me because you
like me, or just because Iām black. And donāt just stop there, remember the
diversity and equity parts as well. At the end of the day, if youāre not actively
doing something just to avoid criticism and just to give the appearance of diversity,
youāre probably not guilty of tokenism. I think a lot of people just simply donāt
know how to navigate conversations about race and gender and sexuality. Which is fair, because itās complicated. Hyper-awareness of these things leads to stereotyping
and generalizing, while attempts to erase these concepts ignores the fact that they
play a big role in the everyday lives of millions of people. So I think we also have to try to analyze
peopleās intent and meet people where they are. So how can we translate this strategy to political
discussions and informing ourselves with diverse viewpoints? Finally we address the actual question that
was asked in the voicemail! But by now, hopefully you have some idea of
what my answer is. The mere act of including, endorsing, or learning
about marginalized people is not tokenism. In fact, James, what you are doing is the
opposite of tokenism. The problem with tokenism is that it ignores
the whole purpose of diversity. Diversity is meant to bring together ideas,
cultures, backgrounds, strengths and talents from a wide variety of people. Tokenism focuses on quotas and group designation. But by making an effort to stay informed and
expose yourself to a variety of viewpoints, you take advantage of the very strength of
diversity. The only thing that sounds a little weird
to me is that you seem to have a very specific number that youāre trying to reach, like
I think you said at least half of the books you read. When we start thinking in terms of quotas
thatās when we get into tokenism territory, in my opinion. I think you should feel free to make a special
effort to seek out books by people from underrepresented groups. But if it gets to a point where youāre just
doing it out of a sense of obligation rather than a genuine desire to explore diverse ideas,
thatās when it starts to sound a little iffy. Now I donāt know you James, maybe youāre
reading all this stuff just so you can say you did, and just so you can go on Twitter
and brag about how many books by woman authors youāve read. Maybe you spend money on most on your books
but all the books by minorities and marginalized people, you check out at the library and donāt
support the authors. But I get the impression that youāre probably
alright and your friends just being a little overzealous. Maybe tell em to take a break from social
media for a while. S*it f*cks with your mental. DAS JUS ME DOE. What do you think? Thanks for watching, and thanks to CuriosityStream
for sponsoring this video. CuriosityStream is a streaming service with
thousands of documentaries and non-fiction titles on pretty much every subject you can
imagine: science, history, nature, technology, theyāve got all of that, which also includes
exclusive originals you canāt find anywhere else. In honor of Martin Luther King Day which was
a few days ago, consider checking out King: A Filmed Recordā¦Montgomery to Memphis; an
amazing compilation of videos which document many of the major events from the life and
work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Itās presented largely without commentary;
itās just an authentic look at how those events really went down. It's very cool. The best part is that a CuriosityStream subscription
is only $2.99 a month, not bad. But if youād like to try it out, you can
get your first month for free by going to curiositystream.com/t1j and using the promo
code āt1jā. An additional perk is that by signing up with
CuriosityStream, youāll get access to Nebula, a new streaming service that was built by
and for independent creators, many of whom you may have heard of like CGPGrey, Lindsay
Ellis, and hbomberguy. Oh and hey look its me! Imagine YouTube, but like, only the good videos. That's kind of what Nebula is. Nebula features all of the educational and
video essay content that you know and love from YouTube (with no preroll ads by the way),
but also includes Nebula Originals, exclusive content that you can only find on Nebula. In fact thatās part of the reason Nebula
was established. To give creators a space to experiment with
new content without having to worry about whether or not itās gonna get demonetized
or noticed by the almighty YouTube algorithm. So click the link in the description below
to check out CuriosityStream AND Nebula. Now this is when Iād normally say that by
subscribing to CuriosityStream you also support me and help me take my content to the next
level, and thatās still true, but in this case youāre also supporting an entire community
of thoughtful, talented creators.
. . . . . . I didn't say anything about this on the clip where philosophy tube mentioned nebula, but since I'm hearing about it again, it really has me worried :c It seems like The Reason YouTube became a reactionary crap hole was because a majority of online clip politics was happening on YouTube, but ALL the major progressive/left-leaning content creators were on blip. You're not going to make any positive change if ur making exclusive content behind a paywall on a site no one uses š it seems like major breadtubers moving to a different platform (that no one outside of their fan base will pay for ), effectively means that they're forfeiting YouTube back to the far right or whatever š I could be wrong maybe that's a simplistic view of things and maybe my prehiduce against Subscription services because i think they're exclusionary and elitist is clouding my judgment or somethingš
This is something that I hate about fundamentalist conservative Christians, they will say I have gay friends to their gay son, but then they'll reject their gay son for being gay. Or studios and production companies that still use post Hays code stereotypes of the LGBT community or of other minorities when were no longer in the postcode era and trans visibility is a lot higher than what it was 40 years ago. The problem of not correctly representing the LGBT community in today's movies is the issue, And the problem with conservative families and religious families is not accepting that their son is gay, or that they have a transgender daughter not a son.
Watched the whole video. Nebula sponsorship aside, I agree with T1Jās points overall, and Iāll definitely be looking at this Youtuber for the future.