Hi Vidhi,

Thanks so much for reading and responding to the article! I'll respond to each of your points in order below:

1) I absolutely don't want to be presumptuous, but I am wondering if you were raised in America? I raise this point only because it can be more difficult to fully comprehend this point without fully understanding how anti-Black racism works in America (but there's plenty of anti-Black racism and really racism of all kinds... but especially against Black and Indigenous people to go around any Western/predominantly white country).

Regardless of your nationality, the best explanation I can give for your point about Ronnie is that yes, there are "so many other WHITE supporting characters in the show as well who got just as many lines" but this is precisely how a phenomenon called tokenizing works in the media. I hope you'll forgive me if I'm over-explaining any concepts that you are already intimately familiar with, but I just want to make sure I fully convey what I'm alluding to here.

I think your profile says that you're a teenager, but this phenomenon is still alive and well in Western media, so you'll likely have some familiarity with the "token Black friend" trope. It refers to the usually somewhat arbitrary inclusion of a single or a small number of Black (or other minorities) characters in a TV show or movie in order to meet a minimal "diversity" threshold, without giving them any meaningful dialogue or storylines. The reason they are referred to as tokens is that they are invoked as evidence of the "inclusivity" of the work, without there having to be any deeper attempts at meaningful representation. The result of this is that the vast majority of Western media focuses on white protagonists--especially white males. And unfortunately, it also means that a lot of villains or conniving side-characters or people whose presence simply provides comic relief are people of color.

So as you say, yes, there are many white people represented in the show, and almost every character on Schitt's Creek is "goofy" to some extent. But the choice to write in a Black lesbian character is inherently meaningful in a Western media lens. What I mean by this is that while many, especially white people in America (or any Commonwealth countries) would prefer to take a "color-blind" approach to media consumption--meaning, if you're unfamiliar, that they "don't see race" and that they simply see characters-- there is no such thing as colorblindness for Black people in America (or Canada or other white/Western countries). To be a Black person in any of these places is to be a minority that is fundamentally oppressed and threatened. To be a queer Black person compounds the risk of simply being alive. In America, where we have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners--most of whom are people of color locked up for nonviolent crimes--"colorblindness" is invoked to deliberately and selectively ignore how racism factors into the mass incarceration, disenfranchisement, redlining, impoverishment and general oppression that is thrust onto Black people (and many other people of color) simply for existing.

Media reinforces almost all aspects of culture, wherever you are, which is why I am holding Schitt's Creek, as I would any popular show or movie, to a high standard. When the news, or TV or movies pretend that colorblindness is an appropriate approach to combating racism or to simply existing, I will call it out. It doesn't matter whether it's done unintentionally or with extremely pure intentions (such as, we wanted to imagine what it would be like for a Black lesbian to feel totally safe and comfortable in a predominantly white rural town!). It's not a decision that white people should be able to make to essentially erase the ethnic identity of marginalized people in their television shows when the reality is still that those people are constantly at risk of death or multiple levels of serious harm because of that precise tendency in real life to "pretend" not to "see" someone's race even though these white people are living in countries literally built on the backs of the very people they pretend they don't see the identities of. Black people don't have a choice to erase their Blackness or pretend it's not there; they can try, but as even many of the wealthiest and most famous/successful Black people will attest, white people won't stop calling the cops on you, you still might get shot at a routine traffic stop where you're perceived as a threat, and people will still clutch their bags as you walk by.

The point is, yes, it'd be lovely to have some utopia where everyone simply loves everyone unconditionally, but that's not the reality we live in. And it's not wrong for Black people to be vocal about the prejudice they routinely experience (which, I can guarantee you, every single Black person in America or Canada or Western/white countries has an experience of); in fact, it's crucial and healthy and productive to recognize those differences so that we can learn to destigmatize them and stop fearing them. The solution to fearing our differences is not to pretend they aren't there (as in "we're all just human!"-- of course we are), it is to recognize, accept and embrace those differences. To work *through* them, not around them.

And if a Black person wants to create this kind of utopia, great. Or if another person of color wants to create a utopia where their specific racial identity doesn't suffer racism, great. But it's never an appropriate choice for white writers to make that choice on behalf of Black people. Ever.

And Ronnie was up there accepting Emmy's with the rest of the cast. She was one of very few characters outside of the small, core cast that was up there. Her use in their marketing and in their photoshoots and promotional materials is outsize and disproportionate compared to how much of a role she plays in the show. This is tokenism at its best. They want to feel noble for having a Black lesbian portrayed in the show, without ever providing any meaningful context of what it's like to be that person. They just like the idea of her as a stand-in to fulfill Black stereotypes and a diversity quota.

And for the record, I absolutely think there's a way to still be extremely goofy and lighthearted without making this kind of violation.

2) I definitely respect that your experience in a small town aligns to the show (again, I'm still wondering where you are located, but it also doesn't necessarily matter). In a place like America--or Canada, although probably not quite to the same degree--where there is a disappearing middle class and a startling wealth disparity between people who live in cities versus people who live in small towns. The wealth gap is so wide, not only does it fuel much of the partisan rage that separates political parties in America, but it also creates devastating poverty and food deserts in rural areas while there are many cities with dozens of billionaires (and often thousands or even tens of thousands of millionaires).

In the context of how brutal the wealth gap is in America (and Canada to a degree as well)--and this wealth gap is also highly correlated to race, hence my passion in statement number 1-- the mockery of small towns and small-town people feels a bit like the Hunger Games. In American culture, it's common to refer to the large coastal cities as having all of the power, resources and attention, and it's common in those coastal cities to hear the rest of the country referred to as "flyover states." It reflects a disdain for and condescension towards people who are perceived to be "simple" -- or in other words, poor and uneducated. There's a lot of justification in leaving these people out of important resourcing, political, economic and cultural decisions on these deeply classist grounds.

I'm not sure whether your small town is especially poor or how small it is or how racially diverse, etc. There are infinite different permutations that small town life can resemble, but there are a few stereotypes that happen in Americanized media about small towns that are particularly common and toxic. These include allusions to "white trash" type people--the kinds of bumbling idiotic folks like Roland who have big beer bellies-- and boring, run-down, unambitious people and surroundings. Not only does it mock, but it reinforces a narrative of the inferiority of a life that isn't conventionally seen as "good" or aspirational in the mainstream. And the mainstream in the West loves frenetic, hyperambitious (think of the "grind"), trendy, thin, college-educated, ironic, heteronormative prototypes. Everything else is seen as regressive, in spite of the fact that it is precisely this culture in the West that perpetuates mass dissociation from community, from our bodies, our selves, and the earth. It's yet another capitalist expression of competition as reigning supreme, painting the goofy small-town people as "losers" for the rest of society to laugh and gawk at. And despite this commonality, people wonder why many folx from small towns would vote for someone like Donald Trump... He's horrible but at least he wears his classism on his sleeve and doesn't pretend to be anything other than the lying greedy miscreant that he is.

I can understand that for your cousin, a small town might feel like a punishment. But even India has classism. I don't mean to suggest that we can't ever mock each other or ourselves, but why don't we mock the incessant need for many people in cities to be stimulated and feel charged up by activity and initiatives to become part of something "better" or "bigger?" Small towns and people who don't meet the criteria of "good enough" for urban elitists are deliberately and disproportionately derided because it reinforces capitalist narratives that encourage people to denigrate themselves and continuously aspire to more/bigger/better in order to keep the competitive system functioning and growing. It grows on human insecurity and animosity.

And even if the Rose family liked the town in the end, they still left. Actions speak louder than words. And for a 23-minute show where the actions of characters breed subliminal aspiration and approval in viewers, the message was loud and clear: small towns may be endearing after all, but they're still meant to be left behind for those who are too smart/cool/ambitious/funny to stay in them. It still favors the "growth" mindset of violent capitalism, and that gets internalized in viewers as something cutesy and "tolerant" and fun.

3) Twyla being rich doesn't invalidate the general trend of the show. Having one plot twist doesn't negate the vast majority of characters who would still have to splurge to shop at Blouse Barn. And like I said, there are many shades of small towns, but the vast majority of small towns will never possess the kind of wealth that is found in large cities. One person being unexpectedly wealthy in the small town doesn't undermine the fact that they deliberately tried to paint most of the town and the townspeople as trashy and poor based on every known stereotype about "white trash" that exists in the common Western lexicon.

Let me know if this makes sense! Thanks again for reading and discussing.