Initial thought on RuPaul Charles: It could have been worse.
On the one hand, he's be applauded for not using some of his cruder language. (He abbreviated M.F. for the audience so as to keep it G-rated.) On the other hand, it seems as if those of us who questioned him being brought to the Ath have been vindicated by the silliness of his presentation.
In the wisdom he supposedly dispensed from the "inside," he seemed to be appealing to a kind of Gnosticism -- a transcendence that culminates in the nonsensical phrase, "that we're all one gender, really."
And he decried materialism. Of course, that's just the kind of thing one is required to say if one lives in Hollywood and is a self-described "star." But then he said that he loves shopping and likes to wear by his own admission three different set of clothes a day. I'm just as confused as you are.
His message of comforting your supposed inner child suggests a level of childishness and impulsiveness. His joy, he said, comes from being good to his inner child and recognizing that inner child in everyone. "We're all really just little kids," he said. No thanks, some of us are adults.
One of the odder moments of the evening came when he showed off pictures of himself in drag. RuPaul, who is black, pointed to a picture of himself in drag wearing a Confederate flag as trousers. "Why you might ask was I wearing a Confederate flag?" he asked the audience, rhetorically, "because the South shall rise again!"
The audience chuckled. The first person to say that said it in Latin -- John Wilkes Booth after he assassinated Lincoln.
Only in America could a black man -- descendant, no doubt, from slaves in Louisiana -- so extol his own personal freedom to dress like a woman, be so ignorant of the sacrifice of a man who risked all to give it to his antecedents.
Later, a student in the audience confessed himself to enjoying dressing up in drag as "Okama Jinja" -- his drag persona to the approving claps of the crowd.
And just like that, the purpose of the Athenaeum, has become supplanted. What was meant to encourage, in the fashion of the famous athenaeum of London, "the life of the mind" has now become a temple to the vulgar.
It seems CMC's "scholars" are more intent to get the marshmallows on the spits and be merry while Rome burns. Let this be a lesson to anyone so considering donating money for a speaker series to the Athenaeum.
16 comments:
Whilst I agree that the evening wasn't exactly invigorating, lets be honest about the fact that you went in there with the intention of hating it. No surprise there really.
It seems, however, that you may have missed the point of what he was saying.
I too wasn't exactly thrilled by the seemingly contradictory and fortune-cookie insights that RP was espousing, but I think his message (if anything) was that people finding a way to be comfortable in their own skin is a good thing and should be celebrated.
Now it seems that the way this man (and the brave student who you mentioned) have found a way to do that, but maybe to some, that is "vulgar."
If we think about your position, you seem to have found a position that works well for you right? I mean you have "found" your existentialist role in life -- but you must acknowledge that to some people, spouting angry negativity and bile is also "vulgar."
To me, what RP was talking about (and what afore mentioned brave student said) wasn't something about sexual depravity in any way, but more about finding a form of expression that is comfortable and natural to them. The difference between what you do on this blog, and what he does on TV, isn't really that far of a stretch if you think about it.
Like I said, I didn't get much from it. It was entertaining at times but for the most part it seemed incoherent and full of Hollywood new age BS, but I left there feeling somewhat happy for the people who can look at someone like RP and not necessarily mimic what he does, but can take some kind of consolation in the fact that maybe it is OK for them to live there lives in the way they want.
Bottom line, live and let live. Plenty of people put up with your incessant douchebaggery and in many people's eyes, your actions are far more vulgar than anything RP did or said.
Ugh, sorry for "there" / "their" typo... in a rush!
Also, not usually anonymous... forgot Google blog password.
@Anonymous,
If it is "douchbaggery" to call A as A, I fear for the Republic.
"The difference between what you do on this blog, and what he does on TV, isn't really that far of a stretch if you think about it."
This is so ridiculous as to be laughable. This blog, indeed all of my writing, is the product of serious study and thought. That your ideology makes that difficult to see is all the more reason I am invigorated to continue the oftentimes taxing mission I have had lain before me.
On the point of toleration, I'm glad you tolerate me. It is, after all, my right to the freedom of the press. Not so sure where the freedom of drag comes into the Bill of Rights, perhaps you could point me to it?
And as for vulgarity, well, really, the sloppiness with which you compare this blog to his draggery speaks for itself.
But considering that your mind was made up before you even went to the event (why did you go anyway?) that it would be sick, vulgar, un-CMC etc. etc. -- that doesn't say very much about "serious study and thought" but it says a great deal about contempt prior to investigation and willful ignorance.
Do tell, what, other than the controlled profanity, did you find POSITIVE about the event?
"Not so sure where the freedom of drag comes into the Bill of Rights, perhaps you could point me to it?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_amendment
Hope that was helpful.
Best,
Brendan
I have to say I'm quite flattered to be mentioned in CJ's blog! I've been reading the Claremont Conservative for nearly a year now, and it's really the only blog I consistently read. I'm often quite impressed with your writing and I find your opinions intriguing. I even agree with some of what you say, as I am somewhat conservative myself (if you can believe that!) Naturally, I never thought I would ever be lucky enough to be mentioned!
But I need to correct you (as I often want to, but rarely do). I did not "confess" to enjoying dressing up in drag. To confess something has connotations of shame or embarrassment. I am neither ashamed nor embarrassed of performing every now and then. As Ru said, playing with toys is fun. Beyond that though, and what you clearly are unaware of, is that drag is more than just fun for many performers; it is political. It can be subversive (do you know that word?). It can make people squirm. You use your blog as a vehicle for change, others use drag. I imagine you would be uncomfortable at a drag show, it would make you squirm. But nothing makes me squirm like reading your blog.
Now, as for the talk, I agree, it was nothing to write home about. Ru is so full of himself that the name of the talk could have been "The Ru Story; Staying Thin in a McDonald's World" or something like that. He was pretty much a classist, egotistical asshole who doesn't know crap about the politics of drag. But. His suit was amazing, his laugh is fierce, and he knows how to work heels better than a supermodel. So I still had fun.
I'll let you know when my next show is, Charles.
Brendan,
I'm still looking for the right to drag. Still can't find it in the first Amendment...
Okama Jinja,
I meant the word "confess" on the third definition -- to profess. I agree you were not at all apologetic. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confess
Now that anonymous comments are back people are sharing their ideas again. The Claremont Conservative: A Perfect Example of the Effects of Censorship.
@Goldwater,
Perhaps you are too much of a fool to realize that I shall delete those comments that attack me personally. It's property rights, not censorship, chief.
Regarding the First Amendment, I don't see either blogs or drag mentioned. Interpreting the First Amendment as preventing restriction of freedom of expression, interpreted widely, is best for everyone. It allows you, CJ, to publish your vulgar thoughts for all the world to see, and it allows RuPaul to dress as he pleases.
You are incorrect when you say that John Wilkes Booth shouted "The South will rise again" (in Latin or English) when he shot Lincoln. (Serious study? Even Wikipedia would tell you that you're wrong.) In fact, Booth shouted "Sic Semper Tyrannis", meaning "Always thus to tyrants." (Timothy McVeigh wore that quote on his shirt, but it's also the motto of the State of Virginia. Nice try at an associative fallacy.)
Perhaps along with a CompSci GE, you ought to advocate a Latin GE. It might keep the egg off your face.
@Lincoln,
On the first point, the words "freedom of expression" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It is freedom of speech and of the press, which this blog is, that is protected. (Tomorrow I shall be an officially published journalists and so the distinction holds.) The freedom to drag is not listed. Perhaps it is time for a constitutional convention?
I confess to knowing that that is what Wilkes Booth actually said -- perhaps compounding my associative fallacy, but I know that it is common in the lexicon of the South to think that's what he actually said and I suspect that that was the sense in which Mr.(?) RuPaul meant it.
regardless of whether the constitution can be interpreted to protect the right to dress in drag (and the freedom of speech/expression qualifies drag imo), why should dressing in drag be considered lewd or vulgar? What is the difference between wearing a speedo and a thong, or between a wifebeater and a tanktop, or a kilt and a skirt?
Once again, this is just another post which assumes certain things are inherently wrong. You fail to prove how these things are wrong and instead you just make assumptions and you know what they say about that, it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Please try and have some minimal burden of proof in your posts as otherwise, you come as sounding like a close minded fool.
And on the "black man can't dress up in a conservative flag" without being ignorant argument, I assume RuPaul has heard of the civil war and that he chose to dress that way to make a statement. Fashionistas do this all the time and while I don't expect you to know much about fashion, I do expect you to know enough to not assume that every black person who uses a confederate flag is ignorant. Penn & Teller did an interview with an ex mayor who raises the flag everyday as it is part of his heritage as a southerner.
Black person + confederate flag =/= ignorance.
(disclaimer: no attacks in this post were personal so there is no reason to delete it. All attacks which could be interpreted as such had some evidence behind them, unlike CJs various claims)
"I confess to knowing that that is what Wilkes Booth actually said -- perhaps compounding my associative fallacy, but I know that it is common in the lexicon of the South to think that's what he actually said and I suspect that that was the sense in which Mr.(?) RuPaul meant it."
So you made a mistake and automatically assume RuPaul made the same mistake? I smell egg. copyeed
"This blog, indeed all of my writing, is the product of serious study and thought."
In your own words, "This is so ridiculous as to be laughable."
You are a prolific and knowledgeable writer but what was the point in your even posting this piece? I'd say if you have something valid to criticize, then so be it -- but really, it's just posting vulgar bile for the sake of posting vulgar bile.
Use your skills for good and not for evil -- seriously. Think before you type and if you have nothing good to say, or can't find a constructive way to criticize, then just pass on the topic.
Remember, we are all one body, one person, one gender -- one spiritual entity having a human experience and a salad for lunch followed by shopping.
P.S. Kudos to you for allowing anonymous posting again. It might get heated at times but it's far more entertaining -- and even useful.
Why would someone who grew up in Massachusetts know anything about the "lexicon of the South"?
And regarding the First Amendment, your blog isn't created on a press. Ergo, a literal reading of the Constitution protects neither your blog nor RuPaul's style of dress. Clearly, some degree of interpretation of the text is necessary to protect either form of expression. Indeed, only by reading the "penumbras and emanations" can we apply a 200-year-old text to our modern life.
My family is from Oklahoma...
First amendment protects speech as well as press. Speech is quite clear. Drag is not. Good try.
Post a Comment