“If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.” -Emma Goldman
That was one of my favorite slogans, back in my organizing days. I met plenty of campus activists who were permanently serious. The stakes were dire, and nothing was ever a laughing matter. I couldn’t stand those activists. I always felt their personal severity made them a lot less effective in their work. They existed in an echo chamber of constant agreement, and drove away anyone who failed to tow the party line. And their tactics always adopted the form of “let’s make our peers feel uncomfortable! Then they’ll all realize…”
I was reminded of all this last night, when I briefly logged on to twitter and saw the #CancelColbert trending hashtag.
Here’s what happened: Dan Snyder (owner of the Washington Redskins) has faced increasing pressure over the racist name of his team. He decided to defuse that pressure through a PR maneuver, launching the “Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation.” He’ll give a little money to Native American communities, so long as they’ll agree to be photographed in Redskins gear. (If he’s polite, maybe he’ll leave the money on the bedside table…)
Colbert ran a segment on Snyder, pointing out the absurdity of it. He ended by announcing that, in the spirit of Snyder, he’d be launching the “Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.” It was, in my opinion, an appropriate skewering of a desperate and offensive PR move.
Comedy Central’s @ColbertReport account tweeted the punchline to the joke. Losing the context made the joke completely unfunny. As Erin Gloria Ryan points out at Jezebel, “The bit only works as a whole; it doesn’t work in parts. Colbert’s character is saying here that naming a charity “Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation” is just as offensive as naming a charity the “Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.” That’s the joke.”
From there, it appears the professional “twitter activists” took over. Tweeter Suey Park announced her outrage at Colbert’s “racist joke” and launched a #CancelColbert hashtag.
Now, Colbert isn’t in any actual danger of cancellation. And Park explained on Huffington Post Live that she used this language because “unfortunately people don’t usually listen to us when we’re being reasonable.” So that’s fine, make an unreasonable demand, start a conversation. Park will gain some more twitter followers out of the exchange, Colbert will tape his next segment, and we’ll all move on to another outrage in time for dinner.
But I can’t help being reminded of those far-too-severe environmental activists. The #CancelColbert “conversation” hasn’t been much of a conversation. When invited onto Huffington Post Live to explain “why Cancel Colbert,” Park’s immediate response was “well that’s a loaded question.” She then went on to accuse the host (who was giving her airtime) of “silencing” her.
Episodes like this one don’t build your movement. They concentrate your movement. They foster an umbrage mentality and more-serious-than-thou sensibility. It isn’t fun for anyone, and it isn’t appealing to anyone.
This hashtag activism is the digital version of an old, severe strain of activism. Unfortunately, it’s a strain that gives activists, as a whole, a bad name.
If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.