San Sargasso

"Black"

The ideological concept of "black":  on the one hand, it allows a group of heterogeneous people to bond and rally together against prejudice and injustice, but on the other hand it creates a pressure towards homogeneity which is a kind of violence against individuals in all their splendid uniqueness and difference.

In Defense of Shirley Q. Liquor

I'm so exasperated to find out that certain so-called activists are trying to shut down Chuck Knipp's upcoming Shirley Q. Liquor show in West Hollywood on February 11, 2007.  Here's a comment I posted to one of the inflammatory blogs I came across:

Holy crap, most of you are SO offbase about Chuck Knipp and his Shirley Q. Liquor character.  It blows my mind. One question, have any of you actually SEEN him perform? No, because he's never performed in L.A.

Well, I HAVE seen him perform, and I have sat down and had dinner with him, and I assure you, he is not a crazy-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth bigot; he does not have a KKK robe hidden in his closet. Believe it or not, he is a very kind-hearted and generous person. He spent much of his childhood surrounded by black people and has many close black friends. Do you know many rabid racists who love to be around black people?

So, you come to this website, have a few clips of his work thrown in your face in an extremely strident and prejudiced way - yes, prejudiced because you haven't actually seen him perform, you don't know where he's coming from, you don't know what his intentions are - and you ASSUME that because he incorporates racial stereotypes in his comedy, that he is racist. Shame on you!

One of you said something like, that sort of thing may fly in the South, but this is L.A. Excuse me, but isn't that a bigoted remark in disrespect of people from the South? Aren't we being a little hypocritical and self-righteous here?

You know, it wasn't long ago that people picketed and ranted against films that portrayed gay characters. That was PREJUDICE. People ASSUMED that all gays were dangerous to society. The same principal is operating here.

You know, call me cynical, but I think this is really about the self-aggrandizement of a few so-called political activists who see easy prey.  Do you REALLY think organizing censorship and whipping up popular hatred against one guy - whose only true desire is to make people laugh and lighten up about themselves and their feelings - is a good use of your energy? It's so easy, isn't it, to rabble rouse against a sitting duck? But it's hard to actually get people together to talk about their fears and prejudices, and to acknowledge that we are all fundamentally and beautifully human.

Censoring Chuck Knipp will be a hollow victory that will only serve the cause of political correctness and reinforce the pretense that if we just censor everything that disturbs us and only allow the communally-approved images to see the light of day, that racism will just "go away." The good old ostrich approach.

What could be more counterproductive than protesting against someone who is not a racist? Don't censor! Get together with your friends and neighbors and talk about racism and whatever else is on your mind.

Did you ever stop to consider what might prompt someone to continue to perform a character even though misunderstood and vilified by so many people, even though he has had to endure the scorn and insult of having his performances picketed by people who have never seen him perform and are only doing so out of ignorance, prejudice and sheep-like willingness to follow the instructions of a bunch of politically correct rabble rousers?

It's because he has courage, and he knows that what he is doing is therapeutic. Trust me, Chuck is talented enough that he doesn't need to rely on whipping up racial prejudice to get people to watch him. But you all will get it sooner or later. I hope.

A First Salvo by Way of Inauguration of the First Collateral Campaign of the Imperial War Against 'Arguably'*

Inarguably, the proliferation of this word "arguably" in our popular writing and speech irks me. I'm not sure what irks me the most:

1. The inarguable fact that the word has cropped up in every journalistic crevice like a little tuft of weeds.

2. The inarguable fact that, for purposes of communication, it is utterly pointless and superfluous. In an era during which whole rafts of people who purport to be sane dispute the big bang in favor of the biblical creation, what statement, opinion, or even fact, is not arguable?

3. The inarguable fact that the term is used by people to signal their supposed intelligence or education, when the only thing it actually displays is pretentiousness or carelessness.

In making an assertion, and inserting that horrid, spineless word, are you not diluting or even negating your statement? If you have no confidence or opinion about what you are saying, why say it at all?

To reiterate: THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS NOT "ARGUABLE"! Which is not to suggest that anyone (other than an attorney who is getting paid for it) should waste his or her time in the futile pastime of argument.

Have I been too harsh? Pedantic? Don't get me started.

Postscript:  on performing some cursory Google research, I find that I am naturally not the first to complain about the infernal word, and that in fact it has been on the lists of usage watchdogs since at least 1993. Since the word is still alive and healthier than ever (appearing in 22,900,000 pages in Google), it is clear, then, that, as usual, I am pissing in the wind.

_______________
* The title of this little rant is intended to be a loving parody of The Man Without Qualities.