February 17, 2021
My so-called Valentine,
misguided valentine…
you hurt me deep,
to the heart.
My looks are…laughable?
Those words aren’t…affable,
you hurt me deep,
to the heart…
No, my figure sure ain’t Greek
and you should think, before you speak,
have a heart!
Don’t
say another word,
if, you want room and board.
Shush! Little Valentine,
please….
Val en tine’s had
his day.
Haha. My contribution to ‘cancel culture’. I am half-way off the fence on the current scene, being not quite certain what to make of tearing statues down. The tearing down happens in the lively arts as well and I am a little conflicted. My heart knows it is right to stop singing ‘Mammy’, even though I love that song for it’s sense of home and it’s rhythmic, melodic structure. Well, the song uses terms that evoke an unkind, disrespectful way to speak about black folk. It was written by a white person – from a white attitude of innocent? ignorance. It is also, a work of art reflecting the time of it’s creation. It is valuable as an artifact and valuable as entertainment but the social attitudes it regurgitates are abominable. How do we get around that, do we want to? Should we just shut it down and try to hide it away? Maybe, maybe not. I just don’t know.
What to do about and how to treat the unpleasant, sometimes dangerous attitudes reflected in works of art or in public speech is a real good question. Should we tear down the statues, the way Pharaoh did, and assert our modern notions on history? Should we shout down the band when they play ‘Mammy’? There is a movement afoot by hard people of all political persuasions to force art and culture, history, government to adapt to each specific worldview. What I think is worst about that is a direct challenge to the current social climate of acceptance of other colours, of other genders, of otherness than the straight, white, historically powerful. On another side, folks are trying to bury the past and restrict art, literature, culture, government to assuage particular offended groups. That isn’t good, either but has (In My Opinion) a more noble, misguided aim. In the so-called democratic societies, all sides are attempting to redefine free speech by stretching the bounds of what is free and what should be quashed. Which statues should go up, which be thrown away.
The smell surrounding Trump and his followers/mimics world-wide is a thick cloud. They argue at every attempt to educate about the abuse ‘heroes’ inflicted on their cultures, at every attempt to take down a statue. The rainbow crowd smells a little sweeter but is trying to tear down and remove history in a perhaps overzealous attempt to educate. All of these folks have abused freedom of speech in outrageous fashion. We are forced to deal with: When is a statement hateful and inciting to violence, when is just an opinion? When is a statue a symbol of hate, when does it honour useful achievement?
There is a Canadian stand-up comic who was sued by a young man (I believe he was 13 at the time of the incident at question) for ‘jokes’ that were definitely a harm to dignity and hurtful. The young lad had a chronic condition that left him deaf and disfigured. There was a procedure done that implanted a hearing aid and the fellow was able to speak and to learn to sing. Apparently, he doesn’t sing so well but in spite of that became something of a celebrity in Quebec. The comedian tore the kid apart in a most vicious manner, making jokes by calling him “…the kid with the subwoofer on his head.” Wow. Now, the comedian has been sued by the kid. The comedian lost in the lower courts and has taken the matter up with the Supreme Court of Canada. He is calling it an issue of ‘free speech’. Free speech? Really? Now, we have to draw a line. I hope the courts are able to do this well by not restricting speech but protecting human dignity at the same time. Maybe they will chicken out and refuse to hear the case?
In London, an actress was hired to play ‘Celie’ in a stage production of ‘The Colour Purple’. Celie is of course, a person with ambiguous sexuality that is at times homosexual, at times heterosexual. The character, as written, finds love and sensuality in a lesbian relationship with the singer, Shug Avery. The actress hired to play Celie spoke strongly against homosexuality on Facebook, in part saying she would not play Celie as gay at all. There was an uproar, of course…everyone weighing in. The theatre company fired the actress and she is suing with a focus on denial of ‘free speech’, denial of ‘freedom of religion’. Hmmm
So, If I am hearing this right, both the comedian and the actress are suing for damages or counter-suing because they believe their right to speak was restricted. They believe they have a right to speak, to say anything they like and not be sued or fired. You know what? I think both of them are way off base. You have to wonder when ‘freedom of speech’ became ‘freedom to speak without consequences? Would Mom let you call a kid a wicked name? If you bring infamy on your employer and refuse to perform your duties, usually…you get fired. Isn’t that perfectly correct? Mom would tell you to go say sorry and you would accept that, she is the moral authority, right? Your employer is correct to let you go if you don’t fulfill the contract and become more expensive than was agreed, right? That could be the easy discussion, the easy resolution. The hard discussion follows.
My Funny Valentine and ‘Baby, it’s cold outside’ always did bother me, lyrically. I couldn’t get away from the idea of the fella trying to persuade the young lady not to follow her better judgement. Also, I couldn’t understand how a back-handed compliment that denigrates, belittles a person could be considered a message for a ‘Valentine’. Further, you have Wagner’s magnificent music and abysmal anti-semitism. Woody Allen pulled a despicable trick by engaging in a romantic relationship with his spouse’s adopted daughter. I have to consider that when I see his films. What is a fella to do about separating art from the creator of, separating art from it’s content?
When does and when should speech stop being free?
The statues we put up as a society are to honour persons who performed well in some way for society in the time they lived. The music we revere reflects the times it was created. Are we to destroy those works when we change our mind about social mores? I am sorta thinking yes but leaning hard toward no. Maybe it’s best to just let things stand as they are. Go ahead, play My Funny Valentine, Baby, it’s Cold Outside, Mammy and Gotterdammerung. Leave Robert E. Lee’s statue up… If you do that, you gonna have to clean up the red paint (which is protected free speech) and try to press through the protestors outside the theatre (who don’t like the themes of certain songs – that is protected, too). If you viciously attack a kid and are paid for doing that, then you have to go to court and pay the kid. If you diss and refuse to create the character you are paid to play, then expect to get fired. Simple, but not simple.
Robert On The Air 