Chet Hanks in Black Friend: Code-Switching, Blaccent, and the Performance of Blackness

Overview

Chet Hanks appears in the tenth chapter of Ziwe's Black Friend as a real-world specimen of linguistic appropriation. His interview—conducted for the Showtime series—becomes a central exhibit in Ziwe's broader examination of who gets to perform Blackness without penalty. Unlike other figures in the chapter (the anonymous Blaccent Guy, Macklemore, Peloton instructor Cody Rigsby), Chet Hanks offers a live demonstration of a celebrity who adopts African American Vernacular English (AAVE) as a stylistic choice while disclaiming any intent to harm. Ziwe’s interaction with him lays bare a core tension in the book: the unequal privilege that allows some identities to treat Black language as a costume while Black people remain locked in double consciousness.

Plot Role

In the narrative arc of Black Friend, Chet Hanks functions as a case study. He is not a recurring character but a cameo that crystallizes the chapter’s thesis. Ziwe introduces his interview after recounting her experience with a white actor at an audition who code-switched between a blaccent for rappers and a formal tone for her. That actor “would never use that tone on her,” Ziwe writes, because he assumed she, as a Black woman, did not warrant the performance. Chet Hanks, by contrast, brings the blaccent directly to Ziwe herself, unapologetically. His role is to embody the “I am just doing an impression” defense, which Ziwe dismantles through the chapter’s analysis of power and ownership over Black speech.

Motivations and Traits Shown Through Actions

Explicit evidence from the interview transcript reveals that Chet Hanks does not believe he is “desecrating black people” when he uses a blaccent. When asked, he replies, “Not at all,” and elaborates that he feels like he is “just doing an impression.” This answer, delivered with theatrical bravado (he compares himself to the Joker and quote Heath Ledger), suggests a motivation rooted in entertainment and self-amusement rather than malice. However, his refusal to acknowledge the cultural weight of his impression—contrasted with Ziwe’s pointed follow-up—indicates a trait of obliviousness or deliberate avoidance. He never grapples with the double standard that Ziwe later articulates in the chapter: that Black people are shamed for using AAVE while white celebrities profit from it.

His actions also reveal performative confidence. He dismisses the question about honoring versus desecrating Black people with a casual “I don’t feel like I’m doing anything.” This stance aligns with what Ziwe calls the “middle ground of awareness” that she critiques in Macklemore: knowing just enough to feel entitled to the performance but not enough to change.

Chronological Arc

Chet Hanks does not experience a character arc within Black Friend. He appears only in the excerpt of the interview, and Ziwe does not revisit him later. His presence is static—a snapshot of a celebrity who remains unchanged by the exchange. This lack of progression serves the book’s purpose: he is a representative type, not a developing individual. The chapter’s real arc belongs to Ziwe, who moves from personal anecdote (the Blaccent Guy) to broader analysis (Macklemore, Cody Rigsby) and finally to her own family history of code-switching. Chet Hanks is the first live example of the phenomenon in action.

Relationships

The only on-page relationship is host-guest. Ziwe asks pointed questions: “Do you ever feel like you’re desecrating black people when you do that?” and “Don’t impersonate black men.” Chet Hanks responds with deflection and self-deprecating humor, defusing the tension by shouting out John David Washington and avoiding direct engagement. The dynamic mirrors the larger pattern Ziwe describes in the chapter: the power imbalance between the appropriator and the person whose language is being appropriated. Ziwe, as the host, owns the frame, but Chet Hanks controls the performance—he can choose to leave the interview unchanged, which he does.

Key Decisions and Consequences

Chet Hanks’s key decision is to use a blaccent during a nationally televised interview with a Black comedian known for confronting uncomfortable topics. The consequence, as captured in the book, is that he becomes a permanent symbol of the “I’m just doing an impression” attitude. While Ziwe does not describe any real-world backlash, the narrative consequence is that his interview is preserved as evidence in a chapter that argues against such performances. His decision to double down rather than reflect reinforces the pattern of celebrities who “shut up and take the money” without self-interrogation—a pattern Ziwe criticizes in Macklemore a few pages later.

Theme and Symbol Connections

Chet Hanks is a symbol of performative allyship and tokenism. His blaccent, like the couple in Chapter 2 who claim a “black friend in the back,” reduces Black identity to a surface-level tool. He also illustrates racial microaggressions and erasure: by performing Blackness, he erases the lived experience of those for whom AAVE is not a choice but a marker of identity under constant scrutiny. His refusal to see harm connects to imposter syndrome and self-doubt in an inverted way—he feels no doubt at all, which is precisely the privilege Ziwe lacks. And his casual adoption of a blaccent ties directly to code-switching and authenticity, as the chapter argues that only some people get to “present any version of themselves” while Black people are policed for speaking “too properly or not properly enough.”

Book-Specific Questions and Answers

1. Why does Ziwe ask Chet Hanks if he feels he is “desecrating black people”?
   Ziwe’s question is a direct challenge to the idea that using a blaccent is merely an “impression.” Because Chet Hanks is a white celebrity who profits from a style rooted in Black culture, Ziwe wants him to confront the power dynamic. Her earlier anecdote about the Blaccent Guy at the audition sets up the framing: white performers borrow AAVE for coolness while Black people are criticized for using it. Chet Hanks’s answer—“not at all”—becomes evidence of the entitlement she critiques.

2. How does Chet Hanks’s interview connect to the chapter’s discussion of Macklemore?
   Both figures are white performers who engage with Black music and language without fully reckoning with the systemic context. Macklemore’s Instagram apology to Kendrick Lamar is, in Ziwe’s words, “an insult wrapped in a bow.” Chet Hanks’s refusal to acknowledge harm places him in the same category: aware enough to know the issue exists, but not enough to change. His answer mirrors Macklemore’s performance of guilt without substance.

3. What does Chet Hanks mean when he says he is “like the Joker … a dog chasing cars”?
   This is a quote from The Dark Knight, and Chet Hanks uses it to deflect responsibility. By aligning himself with a fictional character, he avoids answering Ziwe’s substantive question about his intentions. The line signals that he treats the interview as a performance rather than a meaningful conversation—a consistent theme in Black Friend where guests use humor and pop culture references to sidestep accountability.

4. Does Chet Hanks appear anywhere else in the book?
   No. He is confined to the interview excerpt in Chapter 10. His function is symbolic rather than narrative. Ziwe uses him as one of several examples—alongside the Blaccent Guy, Macklemore, Cody Rigsby, and her own father—to build a case for how linguistic appropriation operates across different contexts. He is not mentioned in the index or other chapters.

5. What does Chet Hanks’s response reveal about the theme of “double consciousness” in this chapter?
   Ziwe invokes W. E. B. Du Bois’s concept to explain that Black people must constantly navigate the gap between their true selves and how they are perceived by a white gaze. Chet Hanks’s response—that he feels nothing—illustrates the opposite: a person who does not have to experience double consciousness. He can perform Blackness without second-guessing how it will be received because his whiteness shields him from the judgement Black people face. This asymmetry is the chapter’s central argument.