Abolishing Humor and Dissent in Today’s America

The above is a jelly bean rendition of the Beatles that appears in Liverpool, UK. When you see it up close, it is at once remarkable and funny. Who knew jelly beans could be so “artistic.” I assume the Beatles did not complain about this “jokey” rendition of them. And note the remarkable quasi humor/criticism some British folk exhibited on T’s travels there, largely showing his links to pedophile Epstein. (True, there were a few arrests!)

Now, humor is a complex topic as is laughter as are jokes. And, yes, sometimes jokes are mean-spirited and nasty, disguised ways to discriminate or harm another person. Racial and gender discrimination are oft-times found within jokes that the teller thinks are “funny” but they are anything but funny. Sometimes, when you hear a racist or sexist joke in a group, you want to get up and remove yourself. Have you left a group or commented on a not-so-funny effort at humor?

Kimmel

But, I have listened to late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue several times, the one that ostensibly led to his being removed from the air (apparently, his departure was in the works before this), and it was certainly NOT racist or gendered. It was an effort to show, in the form of “jokes” and satire, the absurd ways in which the current president has responded to the death of Charlie Kirk. And, it was funny and clever and yes, pointed.

The idea of eliminating anyone who utters satire or who jokes about a government and its leaders is itself an utter disregard of free speech. And, it is a not-so-funny thing when a leader cannot take a joke or satire and instead, seeks revenge. Remember, Kimmel was (is) not racist or sexist. Instead, he was riffing on politics and a presidential set of behaviors.

As an added note, after the Kimmel debacle, other hosts mocked T differently and supported Kimmel; they did it by satire and provided faux honorifics with respect to the current US leader, wearing clothing similar to his and adorning the stage sets with gold. In other words, they provided sharp attacks in the guise of acquiescence and admiration, akin to the Marrano authors who wrote Golden Age drama and reversed the Christian and Jewish symbols. Brilliant bold strategy. And the leader T could have been bamboozled.

An Adage to Consider

I have always worried about the phrase: s/he can’t take a joke. It is an adage often spoken by the joke teller when the joke falls flat or is racist or sexist. It is a way of suggesting a flaw in the listener, not a flaw in the joke or its teller. Note: Kimmel’s monolgue was not flat.

But, I feel myself saying repeatedly: The US President can’t take a joke, unless he is the joke-teller. He is thin-skinned (and that’s being kind) and seeks to sanitize speech with the leadership equivalent of bleach (in the form of threats by his FCC chair.). He wants people to show adoration (think King) and acquiescence (think Dictator) and obedience (think punitive narcissistic father). Basically, he wants to eradicate dissent.

Seems to me that history is telling. When leaders can’t take a joke and seek to wipe out joke tellers and can’t tolerate dissent, there is something rotten in their government: they seek to get approval by force and by fear. And, look at how T is gloating over the capitulation of the last night show hosts, calling for still others to be cast aside. Zero remorse; only glee. (He gloats when universities and law firms crater too.)

If one were to read a dictator/fascist’s playbook, that person would go after youth education (check), universities (check), museums/history (check), the military (check), the judiciary (check) and satirists (check). Yup. We are witnessing fascism /dictatorship in the “free world.” Too many “check marks.”

And this isn’t a joke and this isn’t funny. This is real.

Now, there seems to be large scale disapproval on many fronts with respect to T’s efforts to quash dissent and views that are not aligned with his. But, best as I can tell, there are many who approve of T’s efforts, lauding his efforts to create a party of T, a party of a dictator. Start with Carr and JD, among others.

Don’t get me started on the idea that Kimmel has to apologize to return to the ABC network.

History and Literature

America went through the McCarthy era. It went through the Civil Rights era. It went through the Vietnam era. It went through the Nixon era. These weren’t easy times and yet, America’s democracy stood firm at the end of the day. And, until now, we have allowed that history, even a despicable history, to be told.

But, when the Department of Education and President ask conservative organizations, including the Heritage Foundation, to craft civics education for America’s students, I worry. I worry that we are damaging generations to come and skewing their understanding of discourse and debate and Constitutional freedoms. When you tell bleached history, you miss the whole point of history.

Yes, we have already skewed history by leaving out the many accomplishments of women and people of color and Native Americans and immigrants, among others. And, we have recently (until T) been trying to rewrite the names of those who benefited our world and our culture and our people back into history.

I just finished Jodi Picoult’s newest book, By Any Other Name. It is historical fiction but “light” on fiction as I see it. The thesis: Shakespeare did not write the bulk of what has been published in his name; a stable of writers including women (one Emilia Bassano who is featured in Picoult’s narrative) were the actual authors.

What a heretical thought for some scholars and readers. The vaulted Shakespeare may not be the playwright/poet we assume(d) him to be. How many educators have taught Shakespearean works without so much as mentioning the possibility that he was not the author of the collected oeuvres attributed to him?

All of this effort to eradicate voice and dissent feels very personal to me. And I leave you with this story, that stays with me still and might account at least in part for the fervor by which I support the import of voice, including that of dissenters.

When I was in a mandatory class in college (this might be why my affection for my alma mater is deeply muted) on Chaucer, we were asked to write an essay on one of the Canterbury Tales. I wrote an essay of The Wife of Bath’s Tale and proffered a feminist take on the tale. Yes, this was in the early 1970’s before feminist critique of literature quasi found its way into academic discourse. I got a “D” on the paper, one of the lowest grades I had ever received on any academic work (apart from quizzes in Biology 101).

My roommate (and still a friend lo these decades since) had gotten an A from this professor the previous semester and suggested that instead of being creative, I spit back to him what he spit out to us: a conventional reading of Chaucer (and one deeply held by this Chaucer scholar who made us recite the prologue to Canterbury Tales in his office in MIDDLE ENGLISH…no joke there).

So, I went to the professor and asked if I could redo the paper. He said, “yes,” but even if the revision deserved an “A,” I would get a “B.” Undaunted, I redid the paper exactly as my roommate suggested. It was pablum. It went by the norms. It reiterated the professor’s presentations. It toed the mark.

I got a “B” on the revised paper (an “A” lowered), and I have never forgotten how dissent and creativity and novel approaches were downgraded and conformity was upgraded.

America’s leader is like my Chaucer professor, although less well read and less scholarly but equally pompous and narcissistic and self-important. Both want to be fed their own words and have no tolerance for different voices.

Speaking of different voices, I wonder what Carol Gilligan has to say about America now.