Predator characteristics and prey acceptance

Torn between a Halloween-themed article and one that would appease some readers' desire for something more in line with what they would expect from me as a columnist, I chose the latter, which means I am obliged to present more controversy. Here it is, ladies and gentlemen.

The Hunt is heavily influenced by power relations between two people. The Predator and Prey are influenced by the amount of control they allow the other to have in the situation, and this flow of power is constantly in flux. That is not the point of this article. We will act like Plato and take this fact for granted. Given this premise, we must discuss the way in which the Predator's choice of Prey is not merely personal choice.

In fact, the Prey selects the Predator just as much as the Predator selects the Prey. This logic would seem to diffuse the Hunt metaphor, but this is too shallow a thought. Remember that there is a perpetual ebb and flow of power during the Hunt that doesn't change the role of the Predator because it is his or her job to be the pursuer even when out of complete control of the situation.

But more importantly, this article is about a prime example in which the Prey dictates his or her role as such. The Prey does not merely scamper off and require the Predator to "switch his style up." The Prey articulates a reason by which the Predator has no ability to hunt him or her. The example I propose is the categorization of Prey as "down with the brown" or not.

I'm not sure if you, dear readers, are aware of what this phrase means. "Down with the brown" is a classification of Prey that darker-skinned Hunters and Huntresses use to determine whether the Prey would be hunted. Is this unclear?

In plain terms, a white woman is discussed in my apartment as "down with the brown" if my racial characteristics as a black male are not a hindrance in my ability to pursue her. As Predator, my opportunity is cut short by a young lady who is not "down with the brown" because I could change the manner with which I approach her, but I cannot change the pigment of my skin. Get it?

That being said, I get to the point of controversy. On a predominantly white campus, there is a fundamental communication gap between Predator and Prey when there is a racial difference between the two. This is not true in all cases, but in those cases where it does not apply, the lighter of the two is "down with the brown."

That should stir two very important questions in your mind. The first is, "Am I down with the brown?" If you are, Facebook me. If not, then here is where the second question arises. Ask yourself, "Does that make me racist?" Long story short, no.

You thought you knew where I was going, didn't you? There is no implication of racial inferiority in the lack of attraction to certain physical characteristics that are associated with certain races. No, what makes you racist is the purely temporary status of "down with the brown" because we're in college and now is the time to do things that are exotic and unacceptable in the "real world." What makes you racist is the rebellious desire to upset Daddy. What could make you racist is the colonizer's impulse to conquer that savage beauty. It is not a question of whom you do and do not hunt, but why.

What now? What conclusion does this come to? I suppose there are some on this campus who just aren't "down with the brown." Fine. But where does this leave us in terms of a communication gap? Because that is the summarized point of this column. What I suggest is a new perspective on what it is about the "the brown" that you are "down" with.

The implications of your motive and intention are heavily indicted here, but there is more than just a recommendation to "expand your mind." I put this example forward to exhibit the power dynamics of the Hunt as a fluctuation between Predator and Prey with no effect on the role of each. Communication is thus directed between the two based on the role, but shaped by other factors (i.e. race).