Andrew,
You engaged with the actual incident briefly, yes, though only about how it might have been avoided. Not with any of the more interesting questions it raises about art and censorship, or about whether these ideas below, detailed in the apology, have merit enough to have justified the cancellation of Leach's evening performance:
"Following Leach’s presentation, Nivie began unpacking some of the complications inherent in Leach’s research and her position as a white person telling the story of a queer, black person’s life. Through pointed questions by the facilitator and feedback from several attendees, Leach’s use of language and handling of Eastman’s life and legacy were called into question and identified as problematic and an example of colonial oppression."
About whether what happened to Leach was right in other words, irrespective of what the festival could have done differently in preparation.
Your first paragraph struck me as a prelude to what seemed to be your main point, which was to question the source of the article and my suggestion that it seemed fairly evenhanded. I still think it is. I'd never heard of 'Quillette'; I've checked out more and yes, they clearly have a thing about what they see as the excesses of 'identity politics'. It does seem like they have an agenda and it's all pretty 'one-note'. Some of what I read I could agree with (and much I didn't). Does this make me part of their 'readership' now? Have I planted my flag in the Culture War? Or am I allowed to continue to form opinions about things on an individual basis?
I'd be happy to read another take on what happened here but there seems to be surprisingly little coverage of it. I can't imagine it would change my distaste at the idea of art being received in such a petty, ideologically based, unimaginative way.
|