Mr. Knipp claims no harm is intended and “we’re all scared to death of offending each other.” A sentiment apparently held by one of his supporters, RuPaul. Mr. Knipp claims his act is no different than David Chappelle’s white face or Eddie Murphy’s depiction of a fat woman. However, the education director for the Civil Rights Memorial in Alabama doesn’t see it that way - “I have witnessed every vile, demeaning stereotype he draws on to create his caricature.”
Is this subject matter out of bounds, the position apparently now taken in New York, Boston, Atlanta, and Los Angeles? Where are the bounds? Would his act be more acceptable if he changed the gender and/or the sexual orientation of the character?
The queer part might add to the insult for some more homophobic folks, but I don’t think it matters much overall. Any white comic doing blackface would be rightly challenged on it.
I chose my words carefully. I think there is definitely a limit to what reaction could be considered reasonable, as with all things. If you mean the police shutting down the show, they weren’t acting as government censors, they were presumably preserving the peace. Regardless of what we think of it, if there was gonna be a riot over it they had an obligation to stop that.
Those forms of humor are considered much more acceptable than white people making fun of black people, especially blackface, which is connected not just to racism in general but to slavery and the Jim Crow-era South.
I do think people who want to see this performance should get the chance to, and for that matter people who hate it should see it before deciding they hate it enough to protest. I don’t like it at all when politicians get involved in disputes like this. If you want to see a city government going WAY over the line in that regard, read up on what Rudy Giuliani did during the 'Virgin Mary/elephant dung/ controversy. I thought he was wrong to voice offense at the thing, but then he threatened to cut funding to the gallery displaying the piece.
I have a ‘where is this going to stop feeling’ after reading the second linked article. Judging from that article, it appears that the decisions to shut down the shows were, in significant part, political decisions based on political pressures - along with assumptions that there ‘might’ be some public safety concerns IF the shows were allowed. The negative reactions, leading to the barring of the shows, appears to be based on description and not viewing the content of the shows. It appears to me, at least from the added information regarding this situation, that this was a misuse of police power and amounts government censorship.
I’ve never heard of this comedian and don’t know the circumstances of this incident, but I would note that this sort of reasoning can be used to justify quelling any sort of public speech, display, or protest.
Good you mention reason, which can also be used to discern between cases where a riot was actually a danger and those in which it wasn’t. If it wasn’t in this case then I agree the police acted improperly.
The “public safety” concerns appear to be a ruse used to do ‘legally’ what the cities wanted to do ‘illegally.’ That is, enough voters don’t what him there so city officials decided to keep this guy from performing in a public. The New York protest appears to be the only chance that folks had to actually get out physically and picket - and that protest was described as “peaceful.” That said, I don’t agree that ‘public safety’ should always be the test. There’s always a danger that unpopular speech will never get it’s chance. But it doesn’t even stop with speech that’s generally unpopular. With the ease of communication and the ability to organize groups almost anywhere, a pure ‘public safety test,’ by itself, might encourage folks to ‘act up’ whenever their form of ethics / entertainment, or politics, or religion doesn’t show-up.
All costumes seem to offend someone. Halloween is even taken to task for promoting satanism. But just because the critics are loud doesn’t mean they are right, nor that they are taken seriously,
The good news is, for Knipp anyway, that the more protesting there is, the more folks will come to see his shows.
Edit: If people are rioting, or threatening to riot, they should shut down the rioters, not somebody who’s doing what he’s legally entitled to do.
Where will all of this lead? Will we reach a point at which performers will only be able to portray themselves? The whole point of things that fall under the category of “acting” is that you’re portraying a character that is not yourself. When Charlize Theron did “Monster,” were there homely people rioting because they were being portrayed by a beautiful woman?
The cops should have been protecting him, not stopping him.