,

Culture Clash: Royal Wedding

Of all the movies in theaters, plays on stage, and weddings all over the world, none drew attention to match that of the royal wedding on Saturday. People set alarms and woke up early to spot celebrities, critique the wedding dress, give meaning to Queen Elizabeth II’s expressions, and see the way Prince Harry and Meghan Markle looked at each other during the ceremony at St. George’s Castle.

Markle arrived by car with her mother, Doria Ragland, and stepped out in a silk dress by British designer Clare Waight Keller for Givenchy. The palace described it as “timeless minimal elegance.” With a boat neckline, long sleeves, and no embellishments, the soft matte dress drew attention to her shoulders and waist. It stayed true to Markle’s minimalist sophistication and preference for an understated aesthetic. Her hair was styled in a low chignon bun and she wore the diamond bandeau tiara from Queen Elizabeth II’s collection. The trim of her 16-foot silk tulle veil, also designed by Waight Keller, was a composition of distinctive flora from each of the 53 Commonwealth countries, hand-embroidered in silk threads and organza. The yellow elder was representative of The Bahamas.

Celebrities in attendance included Amal Clooney, Victoria Beckham and, Serena Williams and their husbands, Oprah Winfrey, Gina Torres, and Idris Elba.

To enjoy, or not to enjoy?

On Saturday, everyone was talking about the royal wedding. Even those who claimed they did not care about it made statements to assure everyone that they, in fact, did not have any interest in the event. Some even took time to berate or subtly shame people who watched the ceremony or commented on any aspect of the event. There seemed to be two camps — the completely enthused and the utterly uninterested (who still needed to be involved in the conversations of the completely enthused). The first camp was seen as mentally enslaved, foolishly addicted to colonialism, and the reason we are not in a better position today. The second camp, through its most vocal members, became the thief of joy. Because of slavery, colonialism, and the continued effects of white supremacy, they said there should be no black person with an ounce of interest in the royal wedding.

Let’s face it. Most of us are interested in the weddings, funerals, birthday parties, baby showers, and vacations of complete strangers. No? How many days has it been since you looked through pictures of someone else’s event because someone you know (or sort of know) was tagged in one of the photos and you just kept going, because why not?

We can — and should — be angry about slavery and colonialism. We should be a part of the movement for reparations. It should bother us to see people continue to benefit from kidnapping, slavery, murdering, cultural genocide, and crimes and injustices that go unacknowledged by perpetrators and beneficiaries. This, however, does not mean we cannot seek and find joy in the pomp and pageantry of a royal wedding, the supposed discomfort of the queen, the possibility of royal children with afros, the imagination of the monarchy being taken down, or spirited arguments with friends and family members about aspects of the ceremony and its guests.

We can love Wakanda and still sip tea throughout the ceremony, celebrating every drop of blackness we find, real or imagined. We deserve that much. A little bit of joy goes a long way and, for some people, that wedding was the beginning of something else.

Since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement, the discussion about the royal family and race has been endless. Many seem to expect Markle’s presence, as a biracial person in the British royal family, to revolutionize it.

What does Meghan Markle represent?

Meghan Markle is an American woman with a white father and black mother. She has worked as an actress, best known for her role as Rachel Zane in Suits. She is divorced. She is not a typical “royal.” She has had a career, public persona, and demonstrable interests. The Tig — her now defunct lifestyle blog — gave insight into her love for food, wanderlust, and engagement in sociopolitical issues. She comes across as both a dreamer and a practical person and, overall, quite low-key.

Markle has been the kind of black woman it is easiest to like. To love. To respect. To idolize. She is not only light-skinned, but has a biological proximity to whiteness. She has been what most consider to be modest. She has been likable; not controversial in her statements or actions. She is “respectable.”

To the optimistic among us, she signals the acceptance of black people and blackness by the royal family. Maybe she will breathe new life into the family, relax the formalities, and expose personalities. Maybe.

There has been a lot of talk about what Meghan Markle represents for us, but far less about what she represents for the royal family. Might they have an agenda of their own? The family has always been known as stuffy and uptight. Princess Diana brought a new energy that does not seem to have stuck around since her death. They may have realized that, at this point, a change in brand could be helpful. This is not to say that her relationship with Prince Harry is not real, but that the unexpected acceptance — or the illusion of acceptance — could be strategic.

Think about what Princess Diana brought to the family. Recall the reactions to her death. Look at the conversations taking place everywhere, everyday, about gender, race, class, and migration. Markle’s place in the family is no more the end of racism or an erasure of slavery than Obama’s presidency. It looks good, it feels good, and it encourages optimism, but it might not be all we think or dare to hope.

What can we expect from the Duchess of Sussex?

She is certainly different from what we might expect of a “royal.” On the wedding day alone, she made this clear. She was intentional about including black people such as  The Most Rev Michael Bruce Curry of the Episcopal Church, Karen Gibson and the Kingdom Choir, and cellist Sheku Kanneh-Mason. She went unescorted until the Quire where main guests were seated, accompanied by Prince Charles the rest of the way. Her Cartier earrings were worn for at least the third time on that day. Still, she entered the British royal family. She was baptized and confirmed in a private ceremony, becoming a member of the Church of England. She wore jewels from the queen’s collection. How much will she change, and how much will she be changed?

In her blog post titled “How to Be Both,” Markle explained the bridge between her two worlds — one where she was a successful actress, and another where she did humanitarian work.

“I’ve never wanted to be a lady who lunches – I’ve always wanted to be a woman who works. And this type of work is what feeds my soul, and fuels my purpose. The degree to which I can do that both on and off camera is a direct perk of my job.”

It will be interesting to see how life as a duchess will suit her, or how she will suit it. We will soon see how she balances that new life with existing interests, and whether or not she will find a way to share it with the world, similar to the way she shared her lifestyle on The Tig.

Published in The Tribune on May 23, 2018.

, ,

Culture Clash: Don’t Be Blind to Cosby

Most of us know Bill Cosby as Heathcliff Huxtable. He is a doctor married to lawyer Clair Huxtable and father of five children. He is a funny, playful character with endearing eccentricity. Everyone loves Cliff, and wishes he could be their father. The Cosby family was aspirational, and The Cosby Show gave us somewhere to be when our own lives, homes and families did not quite manage to bring us joy. Young black people got to see themselves on television in a positive light. Doctors and lawyers, split-level homes, families they could support and the ability to work through anything that came along. Bill Cosby had come to represent all of this. Positive representation of fathers and husbands, visibility of black families, years of family-friendly entertainment and hope for a successful, happy future.

Now we see someone else.

Accusations of rape and other forms of sexual violence against Bill Cosby did not just start in the past few years. This has been happening — and largely ignored — for decades. One of the most recent events was the lawsuit brought by Andrea Constand in 2005 who alleged Cosby had drugged and molested her in 2004. During the process, 12 women made similar allegations and Cosby denied them all. In November 2006, the lawsuit was settled out of court.

In October 2014, the conversation picked up quickly, increasing in volume and reach, after a clip of Hannibal Buress’ stand-up went viral. Buress takes exception to Cosby’s touting of respectability politics. Buress said, “Yeah, but you raped women, Bill Cosby.” Likely due to the wildfire spread of the clip, the Daily Mail ran Barbara Bowman’s rape accusation wherein she called Cosby a monster. From then on, women have been coming forward to share their stories. Cosby’s colleagues have done their best to cast doubt on those claims, swearing his innocence.

Cosby admitted in a 2005 deposition that he put quaaludes in women’s drinks. There is no mystery around the use of drugs and drinks in sexual violence and it corroborates stories that scores of women have shared about their experiences with Bill Cosby. He drugged and raped women. Some remember parts of what happened to them at his hands while others do not.

Last week, Cosby was found guilty of aggravated indecent assault and could face up to ten years in prison. Not yet sentenced, he is free — though confined to his Pennsylvania home — on $1m bail. His legal team is likely to appeal and almost a dozen women have civil suits pending against him. Responses to the verdict vary greatly. Some are celebrating and recognise the #MeToo movement for its role in calling for justice in high-profile cases of sexual violence. Some express their certainty that 60 women lied, and Cosby is innocent. Others pretend to be on a line between the two, claiming they want women to be safe and access just justice, but do not think it is right to send Cosby to jail for a crime white men have committed and evaded prison.

“They are trying to ruin a black man’s legacy,” they say.

“Those women were lying. Their stories are too similar,” they say.

“They definitely lied. Their stories don’t match,” they say.

“Woody Allen and Harvey Weinstein are still free, so why does Cosby go to jail?” they say.

We can talk about race. We can talk about how much the US justice system hates black men. We need to talk about the systems — white supremacist and otherwise — that have allowed white men to terrorise women and never have to face the public disgrace and consequences they deserve. We simply cannot have that conversation as a way of excusing or protecting other criminals. We cannot use that conversation to detract from the ongoing conversation about sexual violence, particularly perpetrated by men in positions of power.

We cannot have a conversation about race at the expense of women. It has always been far too easy to forget the black community includes women.

People look at Bill Cosby through Heathcliff Huxtable-coloured glasses. They see the loving husband and father he played on The Cosby Show. They see the weird sweaters, hear the funny jokes and feel the sparks of hope and pride at seeing a happy black family on television. They confuse the character with the actor — the real person, Bill Cosby. They ignore the power dynamic that emboldened Cosby and allowed him to sexually violate women and get away with it for a long time. They see a cultural icon.

Compare the rhetoric of the pro-black anti-woman rape apologists in support of Cosby with his respectability politics campaign that registered high on the self-hatred scale. He framed the issue of racism in the US as a black people problem — one AfricanAmericans created for themselves and can solve for themselves. How? By wearing their pants differently, of course. By changing the way they speak. By giving their children more Anglo names. A few changes in behaviour would be all it took to end racism forever, right?

If you have never heard Bill Cosby’s speeches denigrating black people — especially young black men and parents — start with the “pound cake” speech he made on the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court decision. Apply his logic to his situation. He says a black man did not have to get shot if he did not have pound cake in his hand. He did not have to go through these trials if he did not always have quaaludes in his pocket.

Maybe Cosby only got to court because he is black. Maybe the system is rigged. Maybe there is something to be angry about. If so, we need to carefully think about what should make us angry.

Is it that a black man is charged and convicted of a crime of he committed, or that a white man is not charged and convicted of a crime he committed? Do we want to fight for the freedom of black sexual predators, or do we want to fight for justice to be served, regardless of the identity of the predator? We need to deal with our inability or unwillingness to separate people from their work.

R Kelly is not even a discussion in most spaces. He has been known to violate young women and girls for years. Story after story reveals his predation. We are horrified by the accounts of those who get away, but many of are not bothered enough to stop supporting him.

By now, we should all understand that we do not have to take money out of our pockets for him to make it, but just playing a song on YouTube helps to finance his den where the women are cut off from family and friends, must ask to go to the bathroom, are completely subject to his abuse and control. Does this disgust you? Is it changing the way you consume?

How far have we come since the OJ Simpson trial? Think about all you consider before coming to a decision on high-profile cases. Race, gender, age and popularity tend to heavily impact judgment. There are stories we immediately dismiss and positions we feel obligated to take.

It is not easy to consider multiple identities, but we must. We need to find ways to be honest with ourselves about our own biases, learn to value justice, and resist the call to automatic solidarity. People are not always as they seem. They are not their work and they are not what they pretend to be. We have to look at what they do. When it comes to justice, our favourites cannot be exempt.

 

This was published in The Tribune on May 2, 2018.