Stories

The Revolution eats a few more of its own

C2C Journal
June 13, 2017
In 1972 Lou Reed offended conservatives with his hit Walk on the Wild Side, an admiring ode to his transgendered friend Holly, who left Miami as a he and became a she on the way to New York. In 2017 the song has offended progressives as a transphobic example of cultural appropriation. In this article by C2C Staff, the Journal explains what a long, strange trip it’s been from conservative censorship to progressive censorship.
Stories

The Revolution eats a few more of its own

C2C Journal
June 13, 2017
In 1972 Lou Reed offended conservatives with his hit Walk on the Wild Side, an admiring ode to his transgendered friend Holly, who left Miami as a he and became a she on the way to New York. In 2017 the song has offended progressives as a transphobic example of cultural appropriation. In this article by C2C Staff, the Journal explains what a long, strange trip it’s been from conservative censorship to progressive censorship.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

There’s a new witch hunt against artists – and progressives are wielding the torches and pitchforks.

In May, Lou Reed’s 1972 hit “Walk on the Wild Side” caused a stir at Guelph University. In an attempt to liven up bus pass distribution at a students’ union event, the song was added to a 70s-themed playlist, but some students were apparently irked by the opening lyrics:

“Holly came from Miami, FLA / Hitchhiked her way across the USA / Plucked her eyebrows on the way / Shaved her legs and then he was a she.”

Interestingly, it wasn’t social conservative moralists who took issue with the transgressive song, but progressives who deemed it “transphobic.”

“We now know the lyrics to this song are hurtful to our friends in the trans community and we’d like to unreservedly apologize for this error in judgement,” the University of Guelph Central Student Association stated on Facebook.

It struck many as strange that Lou Reed, of all people, would be accused of such an offence. Reed was prominent in New York’s queer community, part of Andy Warhol’s avant garde arts and music clique, and “Walk on the Wild Side” was a deliberate attempt to expose the gender-bending scene to the wider public.

The real-life subject of the song, the late actress and Warhol protégé Holly Woodlawn, told The Guardian in 2008 that the song accurately reflected her experiences as a young transgender woman, and that hearing the song on the radio for the first time marked the beginning of a lifelong friendship with Reed.

So what transformed Walk on the Wild Side from a trans anthem into a trans insult?

The answer lies in a role reversal has occurred between conservatives and progressives over freedom of expression. Forty-five years ago, conservative censors routinely tried to muzzle sexual revolutionaries like Reed. Today, after losing almost every battle, they have pretty much surrendered the field, and progressives have taken over censorship. For them, like the conservatives of old, there is no tolerance for the suggestion that one person’s art may be another’s insult. Because censorship is inherently collectivist (prioritizing a nebulously-defined “collective good” over the individual right to free expression), the principle of individual interpretation is roundly rejected.

There is at least one key difference, though, between conservative and progressive censorship. The former typically couched their objections to offensive art in religious belief or alleged social pathologies. And while both use censorship as a weapon to enforce political and ideological conformity, the latter claim the moral high ground mostly in the name of preventing hurt feelings among their favoured racial and gender minority constituencies.

This may explain a new phenomenon in the publishing world known as “sensitivity readers.” Defined by Slate’s Katy Waldman as “members of a minority group tasked specifically with examining manuscripts for hurtful, inaccurate, or inappropriate depictions of that group,” sensitivity readers are paid to call out literary microaggressions.

These “advising angels” may also crack down on problematic statements by fictional characters. Waldman’s article profiles Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda author Becky Albertalli, who came under fire for having her title character, a naïve gay teen from the south, express some questionable ideas about lesbians. Albertalli was accused of contributing to the “fetishization of queer girls.” The controversy spooked the author so much that she subjected her follow-up novel to twelve sensitivity look-overs.

In Canada, a sensitivity read might have saved the career of former Write magazine editor Hal Niedzviecki. He stepped down last month after penning an opinion piece critical of those who would ban “cultural appropriation” (writing from the perspective of someone not of an author’s race or gender) in literature. Niedzviecki sarcastically proposed an “appropriation prize” to encourage writers to include diverse characters in their works. His central argument was that fiction writers must be allowed to “explore the lives of people who aren’t like you.”

Niedzviecki apologized profusely but still lost his job. Other prominent Canadian writers and journalists rose to his defence, including Jonathan Kay, who then quit as editor of The Walrus magazine, hinting broadly that he did so because he was fed up with similar PC censorship by his employers. And after CBC news managing editor Steve Ladurantaye impulsively tweeted that he would contribute $100 to the hypothetical appropriation prize, he too offered a groveling apology – which didn’t save him from a demotion.

It seems no one is safe from progressive censorship, not even progressives.

In 2013, British pop singer and self-described feminist Lily Allen found herself under attack for her music video “Hard Out There,” a satire of sexism and cultural appropriation which was itself accused of…sexism and cultural appropriation. Initially defiant, she finally apologized in 2016, saying, “I was guilty of assuming that there was a one-size-fits-all where feminism is concerned.”

With all due respect to Ms. Allen, it seems to me that it’s the politically correct progressives who enforce a one-size-fits-all approach.

Despite its postmodern origins, progressivism is strangely dogmatic and reactionary when it comes to identity politics. If something is deemed offensive, there is no room for debate on whether the offence is reasonable (and don’t even try to argue that anyone has a right to be offensive).

Authorial intent doesn’t matter, because these censors are dealing with subconscious biases so small you need a microscope and a liberal arts degree just to view them. There is no consideration of context – what matters is the imagined effect of problematic language. Creative works must be tailored to the lowest common denominator, as audiences cannot be expected to think critically.

This is the discredited, out-of-date “hypodermic needle” theory of media effect, updated for the modern age. It’s an artless approach, one that eschews ambiguity, subtlety, provocation, and all the other hallmarks of great art.

The modern politically correct censors don’t fear social breakdown or immorality or any of the other boogeymen of old; their greatest fear is dissent. They know their ideas won’t hold up to scrutiny, which is why their arguments are cloaked in impossible-to-disprove claims and academic jargon. They would rather retreat to a safe space than take a walk on the wild side.

They’ve succeeded in stigmatizing conservatives in many spaces, and now they’re purging their own movement. This could be why they’re turning on people who should be on their side – namely, progressive artists who think too freely for their own good.

Conservatives may be tempted to laugh at these latest examples of the left cannibalizing itself – but we shouldn’t. We also suffer when artists are afraid to create, when free thinkers are afraid to express their thoughts, and when activists are afraid to defend free speech.

We’re in the midst of a new culture war, and everyone who believes in freedom of expression should be on the same side.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Future with Zero-Emission Electric Vehicles

It’s hard not to like electric vehicles. Or rather, it is becoming hard to express open dislike of them. They’re green, clean, quiet, fast, subsidized – and “free” to operate. And if the Liberal government has its way, EVs will soon be the only cars you can buy. It’s all settled! But perhaps it shouldn’t be. James Coggins parts the curtain of EV virtue-signalling and poses some basic questions that should have been answered by now if Canada is to cruise smoothly into its battery-operated future. Car owners and families, brace yourselves for a severe jolt, for Coggins uncovers a yawning vacuum of answers regarding the very fundamentals of building, financing and powering Canada’s soon-to-proliferate EV fleet.

Va-t’en/Bye-bye:
Quebec’s 60-Year War Against English

In western Canada some large corporations now voluntarily provide services not only in English and French but Chinese. In cities across English-speaking Canada one can find shops and services emblazoned with virtually any language and form of writing known around the world – often without an English version alongside. Hardly anyone seemingly gives such practices a second thought. They certainly don’t spark bitter public debate. So why is one Canadian province so fixated on elevating one language above all and stamping out one other in particular? Drawing on his lived experience while applying the detachment of a historian, John Weissenberger chronicles the obsessive, ahistorical, unnecessary – and ongoing – campaign by Quebec’s francophone nationalists against the province’s English-speaking minority.

The Sticky Facts on Soda Taxes: Why They Don’t Work (And No One Likes Them)

Taxes in Western countries were traditionally meant to raise money for necessary government expenditures. They weren’t supposed to shape individual behaviour, let alone attempt to turn taxpayers into better human beings. Free-market economists later added the principle that taxes should seek to minimize damage and distortion to both the economy and taxpayers. So what should we make of a new tax that is essentially moralistic in purpose, damaging to those least able to afford it and likely doomed to failure? Peter Shawn Taylor delves into debt-ridden Newfoundland and Labrador’s plan for a new tax on sugary beverages, and the formidable array of international evidence that argues against it.

More from this author

Letter from the Editors:
Happy Canada Day!

Celebrating the fact of one’s country’s existence, its survival through the adversities of history and its positive or uplifting attributes is a fact of life the world over, even in tyrannies and oligarchies. Nearly everyone can find something to love about the place they call home. Yet this is apparently not the case for many inhabitants of present-day Canada, who claim that what was once the self-described “greatest country in the world” has suddenly become a systemically racist hell-hole. Despite such pressure from the woke mob and their elite enablers, however, the editors of C2C Journal find much that is not merely defensible about Canada, but praiseworthy and downright glorious.

Volume 10: Issue 4: The New Campus Rebels

  C2C Journal has just released its latest issue: The New Campus Rebels – The University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson. Please download the Issue PDF here.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.