Chameleons have the unique ability to blend into their environments and backgrounds to avoid detection by predators. It’s a mechanism of survival. They can change colors at will and go unnoticed so as not to stand out and draw attention to themselves by those who mean them harm.  

Under the right circumstances, human beings have learned such adaptive behaviors. One such circumstance came in the form of America’s chattel slavery, and some slaves chose to “change colors” so to speak, to avoid harm and gain certain advantages over their enslaved peers on the plantation. 

Since those early days of slavery, there has been a divide and conquer strategy in place; much like what is described in the controversial (1712) “Willie Lynch letter,” which specifies how to control the enslaved population. Whether the letter is real or not, the strategy has been extremely effective by pitting one group against another. In this way, it allowed for greater control of the enslaved as it fostered an atmosphere of distrust within the ranks of the group. 

“I have a full proof method for controlling your Black slaves,” writes the author. “I guarantee every one of you that, if installed correctly, it will control the slaves for at least 300 years.”

“I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes… I shall assure you that distrust is stronger than trust and envy stronger than adulation, respect, or admiration. The Black slaves after receiving this  indoctrination shall carry on and will become self-refueling and self-generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands.”

The Lynch letter cites the effectiveness of using everything from age, gender, height, size of the plantation, intelligence, hair texture, skin tones, etc. as various methods of creating dissension among the masses.   

Those slaves who were trusted by their slave “masters” were often given special privileges such as scraps from the master’s table, hand-me-down clothing, and opportunities to work inside the house with less stressful labor. This “privileged” position came with expectations. The house slave was expected to be the eyes and ears of the slave master. If a plot was being hatched for escape, it was the house slave who was expected to inform his/her master. If a threat of violence was being considered as an act of retribution or part of a broader plan to overthrow the plantation as part of a massive uprising, it was the role of the houseslave to make it known prior to its implementation.

With greater “rewards” came a better way of life for the enslaved, who learned how to “play the game” for promotion and a more comfortable lifestyle, and survival.

Malcolm X referred to this unfortunate arrangement in his 1963 speech entitled, “The Race Problem in America.”  

He referenced the contrast between the mentality of the “House Negro” and the “Field Negro.” Malcolm spoke about how the House Negro identified more with his slave master than he did his fellow slaves, and would even issue out punishments when the Field Negros got “out of hand.”

While the Field Negro had nothing to lose, the House Negro felt that he/she had everything to gain. Such thinking affected their perspective regarding integration versus separation and Malcolm pointed out that this difference in perspective was still very much present in our current climate.

African Americans, as well as other minority groups, have learned over the years how to “play the game” by “code switching.”

“Sorry to Bother You,” a movie starring Danny Glover in 2018, also humorously addressed this reality, as the character portrayed by Glover, attempts to educate his younger Black co-worker on how to become a better salesperson over the phone, by using his “white voice.”

“If you want to make some money here, then read your script with a white voice,” says Glover to his co-worker.

It is not surprising that those who know how to emulate “white culture” are seen as less threatening than “stereotyped Blacks.” The more they can make their Anglo counterparts feel comfortable around them the more likely they are to be trusted when opportunities become available for diversity in representation in mainstream corporate America.

In so doing, knowingly or unknowingly, we cater to the myth of white supremacy. We reinforce this demonic fused mentality by rejecting the legitimacy of other cultural values.

It is no secret that the more one dresses like, talks like, embraces similar political views, and pursues similar interests, the greater the opportunities are for advancement and admittance into various clubs, either actual or symbolic.

These promotions also send a message to the broader group that there are rewards found in assimilation, thereby encouraging them to follow suit.

America has become a melting pot where every non-white culture must melt into the homogenous culture, as opposed to a tossed salad, where each ingredient maintains its own identity contributing to the overall flavor.

How many men and women have traded in their natural hairstyles for a more “acceptable” business style? How many prefer not to wear African garb, no matter how nice, to any work-related event for fear of standing out too much and possibly receiving a negative backlash in some form or fashion?

It’s how the Crown Act came into effect.  “The CROWN Act is a law that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, which is the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture or protective hairstyles including braids, locs, twists or Bantu knots.”

So, when we talk about the “Model Minority Myth,” which has been a part of American culture from day one, we are forced into a decision: do we compromise who we are in order to gain something similar to “white privilege” or do we maintain our unique identities?

OR do we simply create our own environments and spaces where we can unapologetically be ourselves?