Just when I think I was out - that I said I would no longer talk about the black vs. lgbt divide - they pull me back in.
The controversy in regards to comedian Tracey Morgan's nasty and ill-timed "comedic" routine - in which he used shockingly ugly homophobic terms to talk about lgbts and even talked about murdering his son if the boy turned out to be gay - has caused a lot of suitable controversy.
And now it has gotten worse. CNN journalist Roland Martin and comedian Chris Rock have chosen to defend Martin - both asserting the idea that Morgan is a comedian who thrives on being shocking so maybe there is too much made out of what he said.
Of course both of these individuals did not give Michael Richards the same courtesy for his infamous nasty tirade against African-Americans during his comedy routine. Martin gave a weak defense that Richards was out of line because he attacked members of the audience, whereas Morgan's vile comments came as a part of his comedy routine.
To me, that says Morgan's comments are worse than Richards because it means that they were planned, thus premeditated.
Naturally Martin and Rock's defense has unleashed rude comments from some white lgbts who feel that they are defending Morgan because he is a fellow African-American. Of course these folks are omitting the fact that other African-Americans - lgbt African-Americans - comedian Wanda Sykes, former Clinton White House employee and prominent speaker Keith Boykin, as well as prominent blogger Rod McCollum have been vocal, either on twitter or in public statements, castigating Morgan for his words and Martin and Rock for defending Morgan.
This fact brings up the crucial point which is lost because of the eagerness of some to vent prospective anti-lgbt or anti-African-American prejudices.
And it is a point which can be best described by remembering the Clarence Thomas hearings of the early 90s.
Remember when Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of sexual harassment, testified in front of a predominantly white male Congressional hearing who berated her, belittled her, and came so very close to calling her a liar? Remember the reaction it garnered from women across the country that this all-male Congressional body just "didn't get it" when it came to what a woman has to deal with in terms of sexual harassment in the workplace or sexual harassment in general?
It's the same situation in terms of Morgan and Rock and Martin's defenses of Morgan.
To lgbts, potentially being harmed as lgbt children is a reality of not just now, but what a vast majority of us faced as youngsters.
Nasty inferences made about how we engage in sexual intercourse is also an unfunny reality to us.
Being bullied to the point of being fearful of making assertive actions to benefit our lives is not trivial but another unfunny reality to us.
But all of these things were belittled by Morgan.
Morgan infringed upon the dignity of our lives. He impugned the painful process that many of us had to go through (and are still going through) in order to embrace ourselves with self-love and self-worth in the face of a world which at times tells us to hate ourselves. He took our history and spit on it for the sake of laughs
As much as I hate to use the term, Morgan - and Rock and Martin for that matter - just "don't get it," not because of race, but because of "heterosexual privilege."
"Heterosexual privilege" is the same as "racial privilege" or "gender privilege," when those in the majority have no inkling that words and actions which have no affect on them can be devastating to those who don't have nearly as much population numbers, influence, or visibility.
It's a sad reality which gets omitted a lot. And as the Tracey Morgan controversy proves, that's a real shame.
The controversy in regards to comedian Tracey Morgan's nasty and ill-timed "comedic" routine - in which he used shockingly ugly homophobic terms to talk about lgbts and even talked about murdering his son if the boy turned out to be gay - has caused a lot of suitable controversy.
And now it has gotten worse. CNN journalist Roland Martin and comedian Chris Rock have chosen to defend Martin - both asserting the idea that Morgan is a comedian who thrives on being shocking so maybe there is too much made out of what he said.
Of course both of these individuals did not give Michael Richards the same courtesy for his infamous nasty tirade against African-Americans during his comedy routine. Martin gave a weak defense that Richards was out of line because he attacked members of the audience, whereas Morgan's vile comments came as a part of his comedy routine.
To me, that says Morgan's comments are worse than Richards because it means that they were planned, thus premeditated.
Naturally Martin and Rock's defense has unleashed rude comments from some white lgbts who feel that they are defending Morgan because he is a fellow African-American. Of course these folks are omitting the fact that other African-Americans - lgbt African-Americans - comedian Wanda Sykes, former Clinton White House employee and prominent speaker Keith Boykin, as well as prominent blogger Rod McCollum have been vocal, either on twitter or in public statements, castigating Morgan for his words and Martin and Rock for defending Morgan.
This fact brings up the crucial point which is lost because of the eagerness of some to vent prospective anti-lgbt or anti-African-American prejudices.
And it is a point which can be best described by remembering the Clarence Thomas hearings of the early 90s.
Remember when Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of sexual harassment, testified in front of a predominantly white male Congressional hearing who berated her, belittled her, and came so very close to calling her a liar? Remember the reaction it garnered from women across the country that this all-male Congressional body just "didn't get it" when it came to what a woman has to deal with in terms of sexual harassment in the workplace or sexual harassment in general?
It's the same situation in terms of Morgan and Rock and Martin's defenses of Morgan.
To lgbts, potentially being harmed as lgbt children is a reality of not just now, but what a vast majority of us faced as youngsters.
Nasty inferences made about how we engage in sexual intercourse is also an unfunny reality to us.
Being bullied to the point of being fearful of making assertive actions to benefit our lives is not trivial but another unfunny reality to us.
But all of these things were belittled by Morgan.
Morgan infringed upon the dignity of our lives. He impugned the painful process that many of us had to go through (and are still going through) in order to embrace ourselves with self-love and self-worth in the face of a world which at times tells us to hate ourselves. He took our history and spit on it for the sake of laughs
As much as I hate to use the term, Morgan - and Rock and Martin for that matter - just "don't get it," not because of race, but because of "heterosexual privilege."
"Heterosexual privilege" is the same as "racial privilege" or "gender privilege," when those in the majority have no inkling that words and actions which have no affect on them can be devastating to those who don't have nearly as much population numbers, influence, or visibility.
It's a sad reality which gets omitted a lot. And as the Tracey Morgan controversy proves, that's a real shame.
10 comments:
Good article as usual. I know it's been gnawed at forever, and people won't drop the race angle, but I think you nailed it. It's heterosexual privilege, and race is irrelevant.
Excellent column as usual. Martin and Rock's defenses of Morgan are so lame and hypocritical that only homophobia, or as you refine it "heterosexual privilege," can explain it. I am glad that Wanda Sykes and Keith Boykin have been outspoken about Morgan's tirade. Thank you.
I think your post is excellent. I think your point, that this is about heterosexual "privilege" is
spot on.
And I think all that's irrelevant, because I fear this will be turned into something with very nasty racist elements. And the outcome will do harm to everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else.
I liked very much what you had to say here and how I believe you have a grasp on some of the more subtle aspects of this hot mess Tracy Morgan has ignited. I wrote a piece on my blog earlier today taking yet another look at this from a totally different perspective. I would be interested in what your thoughts might be on what I put forth in my article if you feel so inclined to read it. At the time I composed my piece I was unaware of Chris Rock and Martin's statements. Their comments add yet another level of madness to this hot mess that contains so many sordid pieces already. Here is the link to my piece: http://ravenanda.blogspot.com/2011/06/tracy-morgans-recent-anti-gay-rant.html
Thanks!
I just learned about this ugliness on the part of Tracey Morgan.
How sickening.
Then, too, if anybody thinks there were no GLB or T people in his audience, they're dreaming. That only makes it worse.
I'm a straight white woman, but you've just spoken more truth for the universal experience of non-straight-white maleness than I've ever seen from anyone. Thank you so much for this. I'm sure the day will come in which homophobia, racism, and misogyny will be seen as equally repugnant. Eventually. :)
Well said! I would also add that far too often, "it was a joke" is used as a cover for bigotry, whether you're talking about bigotry towards women, LGBT people, or racial minorities. Something offensive and horrible gets said, people react, and the speaker tries to cover his ass by crying out, "I was joking! Can't you take a joke?" The thing is, the speaker wasn't joking. They were serious. And rather than owning the consequences of their hatred, said person tries to turn it on the target of their hatred, adding injury upon injury. That Morgan and his defenders do not see or care about this pattern is troubling at the very least.
Of course, that brings me to a favorite saying from another community I'm involved in: "Intent is not Magic." Even if I were to accept that Morgan did not mean his comments to be taken for the hatefulness they portray -- and I admit that it would stretch my credulity to believe that -- his words were clearly hurtful for all of the reasons you list. And Morgan is responsible for the consequences of his actions, even if some of those consequences were unintended.
Roland Martin is a sure-as-sh*t homophobe. I could read his contempt for LGBT folk in the man's face the first time I saw him on CNN. When anchor Don Lemon talks about supportive colleagues, you can bet Mr. Martin isn't among them.
I stumbled on your blog via another website.
You are full of shit!
Tracy Morgan is NOT funny to me personally but why is it that gay people are immune to jokes?
Tracy also used the "N" word and nobody saying a damn thing about that. That was wrong to me.
During that same comedy routine, Tracy also said something about making a woman or his wife CHOKE DURING ORAL SEX on his penis! That was wrong also.
Listen, I'm straight, African American GREW UP IN AND STILL LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO.
I realize that no everyone is going to like or acccept me because I am a Black woman. That's life. Get a thicker skin because we live in a society where people are always going to talk about people and dislike them and no "gay marriage" laws or anything else is going to change that.
Grow up please!
Anonymous, perhaps you should follow your own advice in terms of growing up. Didn't your mother teach you not to come on blogs and attack people with profanity?
Also, you are very hypocritical. How can you whine about lgbts not having a thick skin to take insults AFTER you voice your disapproval with Morgan's use of the n-word and the awful joke about his wife and oral sex.
If you aren't "getting over" those comments, then why should lgbts have to "get over" the comments made about us?
Post a Comment