Dave Chappelle and "The Closer" (II): Terrestrial Demographics

 

I set out to write some comments on Dave Chappelle's "The Closer" focusing on his two jokes about "Space Jews". Originally I thought I would send it as an Op-Ed to the Times; as usual with such thoughts, the piece got too long, so I cut a lot of the material below. Then I changed my mind and decided to post it to The Parrot's Lamppost, so this post is partly the material I cut from the previous one, and partly some additional thoughts.

Meanwhile Chappelle has responded to his transgender critics, or rather, to the perceived judgment that he is being held to account for what he said about them in "The Closer". He is not backing down on anything and clearly still trying to drum up support - in this case, with a story about a special he did in a cornfield which is now meeting resistance in the distribution channel. "So am I cancelled or not?" he asks before casually tossing the microphone over his shoulder.

"Cancelling", that effluence of unregulated social media, stands in an awkward gap between free speech and bullying. I have nothing to do with it, and like Chappelle my main reaction is that Twitter is not a real place. But that doesn't mean we all have to sit down, shut up and laugh at whatever Chappelle takes to be amusing. Anyway, after The New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate, Vox and so many others have weighed in, what are the chances that a squawking parrot can "cancel" Dave? We'll probably have less impact than intellectually feeble adulatory rants like this. Be that as it may, your bird will sing, be the impact what it may.

It is a notable fact, of Chappelle's own making, that of the thousands of possible subjects for comedy, he has chosen things like the claims of the transgender, gay rights and women's movements, as well as Jews, Asians and other vulnerable populations. Nobody forced this on him, so it is a bit disingenuous when he gets the criticism that might be expected, and pushes back as if he is the one who has been injured. "I'm the only one who can't go to the office", he says. Well - is the point that there are trans comedians making jokes about black folks, and they can "go to the office"? If so, that's wrong, of course; but since he chose his subjects and got paid $20 million per special to talk about them it's not like he was in a corner or something. I have to say that I admire both Netflix for not caving in to criticism and removing the shows, and the communities for not backing down in light of Chappelle's defensive gestures.

By chance I happened on a NY Times Magazine article from a year ago - the title in print was "The Last Laugh", by Dan Brooks, but online it is called "How President Trump Ruined Political  Comedy". It contains some telling analysis on conservative comedy, including this:

...any statement that gets too much blowback can become someone else's failure to take a joke.

            This approach lets irony serve as a stalking horse for ideas that decency prevents the ironist from advancing seriously.

Referring to conservative comedians Steven Crowder, Jesse Watters and Milo Yiannopoulos, Brooks says,

All three men construct jokes that operate in a gray area between tweaking political correctness and simply repeating the prejudices it forbids.

In his estimation, "ambiguous irony has allowed both political comedians and pundits to say what cannot be said."

Much of that could be applied with equal accuracy to the recent comedy of Dave Chappelle. No one will accuse him of being a conservative, but the thrust of "The Closer" and some of his other recent work has an eerie similarity to the methods of conservative "blowback" that Brooks put his finger on. Chappelle wants us to sit back and relax as he throws "forbidden" barbs at various communities, and then demands the space to say "but it's comedy, give me a break!" when people object. If that doesn't do it, he insists that we listen more closely to see that his jokes are not really aimed at these various marginalized groups. And if we are still not willing to follow him down that path he insists we don't have a grip on reality ("gender is a fact" he states informatively) or reminds us that white activists are always willing to jump across the racial barricades when push comes to shove. It's a lot of moves to defend jokes that, prima facie, seem offensive.

Apart from the "Space Jews" routines, "The Closer" includes obvious, raunchy bathroom and bedroom humor, a critique of racial myopia in the women's movement and a true story about his supportive relationship with a trans woman who was an aspiring stand-up comedian. The most common word in the show is either "bitches" or "niggas" (which I shall reproduce in this form only insofar as I am quoting Chappelle). Both words lose their shock value by repetition.

Actually I'm not sure if any shock value still remained in the "n-word" after Richard Pryor famously introduced, and later abandoned, the use of it in his routines. Lenny Bruce once repeatedly ran through a long list of ethnic insult words with the goal of something like what psychologists call "semantic satiation" - where words temporarily lose meaning due to repetition. Here the words seem in line with a delivery style derived from ghetto talk and hip hop culture. In his Ohio show on 6/6/20 he also says "I use the word 'bitch' all the time because it's black." That seems to be another version of "it's all in the delivery", and Chappelle lacks nothing in terms of delivery. He gets plenty of women laughing at what he says about "bitches", and I'm not going to get on a pulpit and say they shouldn't, it's demeaning, etc. So I'll focus on other aspects of his humor.

Chappelle minces no words about racism; he delivered a lengthy monologue on the George Floyd murder at that 6/6/20 show, and he was clearly not looking for laughs or even applause, he was saying how it affected him and how he appreciated the protests. But he is not always heavy, and delivers some self-deprecating humor as well. He actually opens "The Closer" with a routine on COVID-19 in which he describes getting the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as "the most nigga-ish thing I've done in a long time". But anyone who follows him knows that such self-deprecation comes wrapped in a lot of context. So for contrast we have one of the funniest lines in "Sticks and Stones", where Chappelle relates an interaction with a television producer who told him he cannot say "fag---" on tv. He asked why not, when he says "nigga" all the time? "Because you're not one of them," she tells him. "That's true," he replies, "but I'm not a nigga either!" Zap!

But notice something: here we forgive the way he skirts the logic that is really behind the producer's remark, because the sentiment seems genuine. What the producer meant is that we reserve to each ethnic or national group the right to use common insults about themselves, but rarely give such license to others. Jews can call one another "Yids" or joke about our schnozzolas, but it's a rare situation where someone else can do it with impunity. So Chappelle doesn't really have a license to talk about "fag---s", but he can go ahead and mock Martin Luther King's speech patterns and use the n-word as he pleases. His response to the producer is brilliant but slightly off-target; and we let it go because we want it to be right.

But when he discusses other communities things get dicier. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine may deserve some ribbing, but, "I'll have what the homeless people are having"? There's a sense of "the homeless get screwed" there, but it comes with a very rough edge, a distancing that suggests he is really better than them. Another joke reifies Trump's reference to COVID-19 as the "Chinese virus": referring to news media coverage of attacks on Asians by black people he says that he failed to get sick from COVID because the same thing was happening inside his body. Is Trump the target here? If so that's pretty subtle for stand-up, where the impact has to be immediate if you want a laugh. Maybe Chappelle was just satirizing the trope about black-Asian antipathy. He's not above using just about anyone as the butt of a joke (the Amish take it on the chin pretty squarely in one of his routines) but it is usually possible to read it as a humorously hyperbolic reaction to some existing prejudice rather than an exercise in prejudice itself.

As I said above, though, that ambiguity can be a dangerous tool, should it fall into the wrong hands. You might say that the entire support for the limb Chappelle is out on is our willingness to treat him as everyone's friend, underneath it all, whether that assumption is earned or not. It takes a lot of courage to walk that line, putting your audience in that position and hoping they give you the benefit of the doubt. With the "Space Jews" jokes he definitely crossed the line for me: clever, not particularly funny, and no underlying truth to them either. I wonder how Asians took the COVID joke. If that moral ambiguity fails too often it's not a good sign.

Another one of his routines has a laugh at the expense of both trans women and veterans, a bit of crude bathroom humor that involves a reference to the kind of wound that male veterans might find least amusing. So you might say to yourself: "No one could be that heartless about a wounded veteran, so it must be rooted in empathy." Well, someone very prominent in American politics made some of the most repulsive comments ever aired in public about veterans and still got elected, so we can't just assume that everyone on a stage cares much about veterans, or everyone listening to them either.

Yet another routine involves Chappelle's alleged sexual abuse by a preacher: "Don't feel bad for me - I liked it", he says, and then attempts to make the preacher sound like the loser in the transaction. I don't know if Chappelle was really a victim of such abuse, but even if he was, and this way of dealing with it works for him, I wonder if other victims wouldn't feel more like it was a fresh assault. A longer discussion of pedophilia in "Sticks and Stones" was better prepared and somewhat less graphic, but this quickie gets crammed into the act as if he needed to make up time. Child sexual abuse is one of the few subjects where the demand for trigger warnings is arguably justified. Since trigger warnings in stand-up comedy are all but guaranteed to ruin the jokes, maybe the standard should be that if you can't ease into it, don't do it at all?

Chappelle insists he is not a misogynist; in fact, he is a "feminist", if that means believing women should have equal rights. Good; welcome to the mid-20^th century, at least. "Equal rights" is extremely vague, though; depending on where and who you are it can mean anything from equal pay and employment opportunity to the right to work at all. He has stated clearly enough (in "Sticks and Stones") that he is pro-choice; the routine involves a sort of giveback to men, but it is a funny quip and he's probably not holding us to it. He directs some barbs at the women's movement, mainly for what he takes to be its whiteness. But as for women, once again there is that ambiguity in some of his jokes that lets him say things with a note attached: "Of course I don't mean to offend anyone personally by calling them a 'cunt'; it's comedy, after all." Actually in his 6/6/20 show it seems that he does want to offend someone that way. I don't know what attraction this holds for him. You get more bang for your buck calling someone an "ignorant cretin" or "pathetic jerk" or hundreds of other nice putdowns than with the commonplace, non-specific "cunt", which seems to say little more than that "I hate women like that".

He also has nothing against gay people, he just envies the progress they have made, by comparison with people of color. He is upset that DaBaby was taken to task when he "made a very egregious mistake" with repeated, vile remarks about gays and people with AIDS. Chappelle's delivery often starts with a factual back story that shades into pure setup, so it is not really clear whether characterizing DaBaby's remarks as a "mistake" is something he sincerely believes or just part of the setup for the next gag. "Can't do that... can't do that," he says - is this "can't" as in shouldn't, or as in there will be consequences for your career? (See what I mean about ambiguity?) Regardless, it was certainly not a "mistake", it was intentional homophobic bigotry. Does Chappelle believe it was wrong, or not? He doesn't really say.

The gag that follows is way off base too. This involves (spoiler alert) an ironic reference to the fact that DaBaby's career didn't suffer after he shot and killed a man, but it did when he made homophobic remarks: "In our country you can shoot and kill a nigga, but you better not hurt a gay person's feelings!" Chappelle's effort to focus on the contrast between racism and homophobia, or black liberation and gay liberation, shows once again how a funny quip can mask very faulty reasoning. DaBaby was not charged with a crime (other than carrying a concealed weapon), because he convinced the police that he fired in self-defense; he also posted on Instagram to the effect that he was protecting his family. So the incident hardly shows that nobody cares as much about killing a black person as they do about insulting gay people. What it shows is that his constitutional right to be held innocent unless proven guilty was respected; while his crude and explicit hate speech was rejected. (Just to be clear, I am not taking sides over the morality of the shooting; but the evidence available to the public was not sufficient to say "he got away with murder, so let's not let him play on this Dua Lipa single" or whatever.)

Chappelle clearly has nothing against transgender people, for some of his best friends are trans - or at least Daphne Dorman was, until she was driven to suicide after trans advocates dragged her for defending him. That may be on the trans community, but he seems to think that because she indulged his humor transgender activists ought to take a lesson from her. That's really up to them, and I can see how some of his jokes might set them off. One that could trigger the transphobia alarm is the statement that so-called TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) see trans women the way black folks see white people in blackface. The joke seems to imply not only that trans women are not women in the true sense, but that their "impersonation" of women is offensive, because blackface is offensive. (Cf. the recent case of composer Bright Sheng and the Othello video.) By itself, the line pins the comparison on others. But then he claims to be "team TERF" and repeatedly admonishes his audience that "gender is a fact". That is a lot to swallow, even if there is room for discussion of how trans women are and are not like cis women. Moreover, to define yourself in terms of the exclusion of certain types of people is just bigotry; in this sense, TERFs stand with Trump and his coterie of Christian fundamentalists.

Stepping outside the theater for a minute, I'm not sure J.K. Rowling, whose conflicts with trans activists are the kickoff for Chappelle's routine, counts as a TERF at all, because "radical feminist" does not seem to describe her. Anyone can be a feminist in some lightweight sense, including Dave Chappelle, as he pointedly reminds us. A "radical feminist" is usually understood as one who takes one or more positions that is more antagonistic to traditional sex roles than merely arguing for women's equality - e.g., one who advocates female or lesbian separatism, wants to criminalize pornography, or finds women's oppression to be inherent in the nature of capitalism. I don't think Rowling or several other women who have been labelled "TERFs" are radical feminists. In fact, their belief that biology is in some sense destiny is a position that used to be taken by anti-feminists, with different implications. The ideas that trans women don't stand in the same relationship to the women's movement as cis women does not make someone a "radical feminist", or transphobic, for that matter; but to self-define as "trans-exclusionary" makes someone a bigot no matter what comes after it.

Chappelle's repeated comment that "gender is a fact" seems directed against the claim that gender is socially constructed. This is a rabbit hole he probably should not go down, because arguments grounded on the claim that "race is a fact" are almost always attempts to justify racism in one form or another. Of course, just as "biology is destiny" has suddenly been stood on its head by some feminists, so has this: whereas it was once considered scientifically false and racist to assert that there are basic biological differences between races (because "there's only one race - the human race"), both the scientific facts and their social implications have been reconsidered, with some in the scientific and intellectual community (including critical race theorists) embracing the reality of race in the context of a struggle against racism. Which aspects of race or gender are socially constructed and which are genetically given? There are some obvious facts and falsehoods, and a lot of gray areas. The appeal to common sense in the statement "gender is a fact" is dangerous in that it may be a way of pushing through some of the falsehoods under the guise of obvious truths. But what is surely not a fact of biology is that trans and cis women cannot be equal participants in the women's movement, or shouldn't use the same bathrooms. That is a socially constructed platform of feminists who only deserve the name "radical" for their narrowmindedness.

Chappelle's contrast between the effectiveness of black liberation initiatives and those of movements he needles for being "white" when they need to be seems to me exaggerated. The civil rights movement and Black Lives Matter, among others, have certainly not lacked for achievements, while the biggest victory for women in the last 50 years may be about to evaporate, and gains for transgender people have been mostly at the local level here and there. What is true, though, is that what you might call the "arc of liberation" for a people whose history in this country began with chattel slavery is much longer and steeper than it is for any other social group; so even very significant gains may still leave them much further from true equality than others were before they even began to fight. But, as has been said before, liberation is not - certainly not always - a zero sum game. Women's and LGBTQ liberation in particular do not come at the expense of black liberation.

In any case, there are few if any strictly "white" liberation movements, even though there are inner tensions over the proper thrust of some movements and the role of people of color within them. Not to excuse the racial myopia they sometimes exhibit, but depicting them as expressions of white privilege is not constructive. Even a women's or LGBTQ movement that plays primarily by a white playbook will have benefits for women and gay/trans people of color; the point is to nudge them in the direction of more conscious appreciation of the specific issues of black and brown people. Would Chappelle welcome a really powerful women's or LGBTQ movement within the black community, one that could not be called on the carpet for white privilege? I'm really not sure, for I suspect such a movement might have little truck with his current brand of humor.

Chappelle is not just a comedian but an orator, and for all his dependence on old Anglo-Saxon words, quite a brilliant one. His 6/20/20 show had virtually no jokes, and it is hard to imagine a more intense speech on police violence. But I am not always persuaded that he uses this talent fairly. There is a theme to some of his remarks in which he assumes the role of the injured party, implying that we are obligated to grant him a license to say whatever he wants just because he is a comedian plying his trade. I will say one thing in favor of this, and it has to do with the comedic voice. There is a "voice" to every utterance, be it straight, sarcastic, pedantic, tongue-in-cheek or whatever. The comedic voice can often be taken to be prefaced by something like this: "Here is the natural reaction to this sort of thing, though I'm not saying it is right: ..." As I said in the previous post, you play to your audience's underlying assumptions in order to get a laugh, and it doesn't always mean justifying those assumptions. But Chappelle sometimes undermines his ability to use position as a defense. Sometimes, as with "Space Jews", his convoluted setup for the joke betrays his own interest in making a point, not the receptivity of the audience; while in other cases he turns to straight lecturing to tell us what he thinks ("gender is a fact").

In any case, comedy has a long history - Aristophanes, Chaucer, Twain, Chaplin, the Marx Brothers, Mel Brooks, Richard Pryor, Jon Stewart - and raising painful issues for people facing various forms of injustice is hardly the only way to make a living at it. Certainly he doesn't always do this; but "The Closer" had a few too many instances of it.

I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of stand-up, and I would not be shocked if someone pointed to an example of a white comedian who made remarks no less offensive than Chappelle's and was never called on the carpet for it. But Andrew Dice Clay was excoriated for homophobia and more in Dice Rules, and Louis CK (along with numerous other white male celebrities) was not spared a #MeToo shaming, though it was not for making offensive jokes. (If only he had done it underneath the bed instead of on top he could have passed it off as serious performance art.) Chappelle seems bent on not merely questioning today's high expectations of sensitivity but at least occasionally flying in the face of them. It's as if he painted himself into a corner and is now mad at people for pointing out he's in it.

In a moment one has to acknowledge as touching, he refers to LGBTQ activists asking him not to "punch down" on them, and he similarly asks people not to "punch down" on him for pursuing his art. But you can't compare someone offended by a stand-up comedian who may have crossed a line and caused pain with a stand-up comedian offended by someone who doesn't appreciate the joke. The former is punching up, not down; the latter has a bully pulpit and a $20 million contract. It's just not a fair comparison.

Chappelle has a problem now, and as one of the top comedians in the world I assume he will find a way to get through it. He took a break earlier as he questioned whether he was happy with what he was doing on The Chappelle Show with regard to depictions of black characters, and for some reason decided his new direction would be taking the anti-discrimination struggles of others as a subject for comedy. But he did this at a time when their issues are being taken very seriously in the entertainment world, as is the movement to confront structural racism. You could say there was a problem of judgment there.

Well, you do have to take risks, right? Lenny Bruce took risks; Dick Gregory took risks; Andy Kaufman, Richard Pryor, Cheech and Chong and many others refused to be limited by convention. But they didn't take these risks at the expense of other vulnerable people. It would feel much better to have him in the ring punching up, down or sideways at the many actors on the world stage who truly deserve to be on the receiving end of his wit.

Chappelle says he will not do another special for a while, though in his Instagram post he complains that he has been trying unsuccessfully to distribute a special he recently did in a cornfield. Maybe he could use another timeout; he took a rather long one before, an opportunity for introspection. "The Closer" doesn't have to be anything more than a slightly fraught step on the way to finding his new voice.

Should Museums Show Their Johnsons? (Part 2)

Philip Johnson's Glass House (1947-49), which he said was inspired by the denuded chimney of a house that was destroyed by the Nazis. (Photo credit: Staib, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

I suppose Part 1 should have been enough about the underside of our Johnsons. Yet, hard on the heels of the Seward folly comes another riposte from the cancel culture of modern arts activism. "Erasing Philip Johnson's Name" was the original title of the NY Times article that describes the open letter of the "Johnson Study Group" (okay... hereafter "JSG") calling on MOMA and other institutions "to remove the name of Philip Johnson from every leadership title, public space and honorific of any form" due to Johnson's "widely documented white supremacist views and activities". A week later Harvard University responded by changing the title of a building to eliminate the reference to Johnson. MOMA, as of this writing, has said only that they are "taking this issue very seriously and extensively researching all available information".

El Papgayo thinks he can help MOMA out. What is "widely documented" is that this Johnson's support for fascism, as well as his anti-Semitism, went far beyond mere words. Johnson, born into a very wealthy Cleveland family, began working as MOMA's first curator of architecture and design in 1929; hardly surprising that he fell out of college directly into this cushy position given his family's upper class social connections. After co-curating the 1932 exhibition on "The International Style" which introduced architectural modernism to the U.S., he went to Germany, attended a Hitler youth rally, and was highly impressed. As the naive Johnson recalled later, "You simply could not fail to be caught up in the excitement of it". (One can imagine his opinion of a Trump rally. He worked with the Donald at least twice, on Riverside South and Trump Tower, both pretty dismal works of architecture.) 

In 1934 Johnson announced that he was leaving MOMA to help Huey Long's campaign in Louisiana and to found a right-wing party. From then until the U.S. entered the war at the end of 1941 he was an ultraright political operative. After Long was assassinated he went on to work with Father Coughlin and tried to found a fascist political party. Both Long and Coughlin were favorites of the fascist agitator Lawrence Dennis, whose writings Johnson had begun to follow. He made several more trips to Germany, and to Poland, where he lauded the Nazi invasion. He wrote extensively in support of fascism, opposed French and British resistance to the Nazis and U.S. entry into the war, expressed sympathy for the annexation of Poland, and even applauded the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto and Modlin as a "stirring spectacle". He unleashed an endless stream of hate-filled invective about the Jews, perpetuating and adding to the most idiotic Jewish conspiracy theories in both Europe and America. According to Mark Lamster, he also contributed financially to an anti-Semitic organization called the Christian Mobilizers. (Some quotes from Lamster and Johnson are reprinted in The Architect's Newspaper on November 6, 2018.)

A gay man, Johnson seemed little disturbed by the Nazi atrocities against gay people, even issuing a variety of remarks about his homoerotic fascination with blond boys in uniforms. This glib attitude towards one of the most homophobic regimes in history was typical of Johnson's overall narcissism. As long as he himself was feted and solicited by the Nazis, who asked him to help identify fellow travelers in the U.S., he demonstrated little sensitivity to the plight of gay people in Germany, some of whom were arrested, tortured and murdered.

After the U.S. entry into the war it became politically impossible for Johnson to continue his open support of fascism; he was investigated by the FBI under the Smith Act, but never tried, unlike some other equally perfidious American fascists. (One reason for that is that being so rich himself he did not need to take money from the Nazis, as some others had done.) He entered military service, remaining in the U.S., then took a degree in architecture at Harvard, and was accepted back to a leadership position at MOMA in 1946. 

To my knowledge, there was no public statement from the MOMA Board of Trustees regarding his Naziism when they invited him back as curator of architecture; he was simply welcomed back to the fold like a lost sheep. According to one source, when Johnson was up for election to the Board in 1957 and someone raised the question of his background, John D. Rockefeller's wife Blanchette responded: "Every young man should be allowed to make one large mistake." Decent of her, no? And of MOMA to "research" the issue almost 75 years after they re-instated the anti-Semitic American fascist in an influential position in American architecture.

Philip Johnson in 1933, a year after his first visit to Nazi Germany. (Photo credit: Carl van Vechten, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

 

The JSG says that Johnson "used his office and his curatorial work at MOMA as a pretense to collaborate with the German Nazi Party". I don't know what their source is for this claim, but according to most sources he left his post at MOMA to become a full-time political miscreant, and had, at least officially, abandoned politics by the time he returned there. Perhaps his tenure there gained him certain privileges as a "journalist" in Europe, but he was not officially associated with the museum during this time, but rather with Father Coughlin's ultraright newspaper Social Justice. In later interviews he retracted his support for fascism, once calling it "utter stupidity", while at the same time making various self-exculpatory statements about it. As late as 1964 he was quoted as saying that Hitler was "better than Roosevelt".

He never publicly issued any explicit retraction of his rabid anti-Semitism. In 1956 he donated a design for a synagogue in Port Chester, NY, which has been interpreted as a kind of apology; but he also admitted there were pragmatic reasons for doing it (he was advised that he needed to have some credits for larger structures than the houses he had so far designed), and never made the apology explicit. In fact there are serious questions about his intentions. See this article on the building by biographer Mark Lamster, and the comments below it, including the one by Gavriel Rosenfeld, author of this book on Jewish architecture, who states that Johnson first tried to sell the design to a temple in Greenwich, CT, and donated it to the Port Chester synagogue only after it was rejected. It may not be Johnson's fault that the Ibram Lassaw altar backdrop reminded some congregants of barbed wire, but in my opinion the barracks-style form of the building bears an eerie similarity to Nazi concentration camp architecture, and from the outside the narrow vertical windows resemble prison bars.

Johnson's Nazi sympathies may not have been widely known until recently, but they were certainly known, or knowable, to anyone who was interested. They absolutely were known to MOMA, where he was joined in his fascist sympathies by Alan Blackburn, another MOMA official. Here is some of what MOMA officials might include in their "research":

• December 18, 1934: Johnson's leaving MOMA to found a "Nationalist Party" of "Gray Shirts" was reported by both the New York TImes and the Herald Tribune. 
• September 1940: An "article in Harper's listed Johnson as among leading American Nazis." (Wikipedia, "Philip Johnson")
  
• 1941: William Shirer's  Berlin Diary published. He knew what Johnson stood for in 1939 when the two were assigned to be roommates as journalists covering the rise of the Nazis. Johnson was working for Father Coughlin's Social Justice, a publication sympathetic to fascism.
• January 1969: David Harry Bennett's Demagogues in the Depression: American Radicals and the Union Party, 1932-1936 is published by Rutgers University Press. Johnson and Blackburn's activities are noted in relationship to Father Coughlin's short-lived Union Party and their own effort to form a "Nationalist Party".
  
• October 1988: Michael Sorkin publishes "Where Was Philip" in Spy magazine. This revealing article offers a concise overview of Johnson's activities on behalf of fascism and his anti-Semitic writings.
  
• November 1995: Kazys Varnelis, "'We Cannot Not Know History': Philip Johnson's Politics and Cynical Survival", is published in the Journal of Architectural Education, 49:2, 11/1995, pp.92-104. (No link is provided here because access requires a JSTOR account.) An informative essay on Johnson's politics, with many historical and scholarly references, some of which I have utilized here. Varnelis has also published some of Johnson's early writings on his web site.
  
• June 1996: Franz Schulze's Philip Johnson: Life and Work, the first full scale biography, is published. In spite of the author's sympathetic stance, Johnson's wretched politics and hate-mongering are on display. Check out the comments on the Amazon page, none of them particularly sympathetic to Johnson as an architect, much less as a political figure.
• January 31, 2003: Robert Hughes publishes "Of Gods and Monsters" in the Guardian, in which he relates that in a 1978 interview, Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, named Johnson as the person who would be best to replace him if another Hitler came along. Speer sent along a signed copy of a book of his own work as a gift for Johnson. (According to Hughes, Johnson was anything but pleased to receive it, having made a lifelong effort to dodge responsibility for his allegiance to the Nazis.)
  
• January 31, 2005: A week after Johnson dies, Mark Stevens, art critic of New York magazine, publishes an Op-Ed in the NY Times, "Form Follows Fascism", reminding readers of his Nazism as well as his mixed legacy as both an architect.
  
• April 2016: Marc Wortman's 1941: Fighting the Shadow War: A Divided America in a World at War details many of Johnson's fascist activities.
• April 2016: Wortman's book is excerpted in a Vanity Fair article entitled, "Famed Architect Philip Johnson's Hidden Nazi Past".
  
• November 2018: Mark Lamster's The Man in the Glass House: Philip Johnson, Architect of the Modern Century offers more details about Johnson's politics.
• December 2018: Nikil Saval's article "Philip Johnson: The Man Who Made Architecture Amoral", based on Lamster's book, is published in The New Yorker, again documenting Johnson's nefarious activities on behalf of fascism. Lamster is interviewed in Metropolis magazine, and again discusses Johnson's Naziism.
  
• July 2020: Ian Volner's Philip Johnson: A Visual Biography published by Phaidon, again discusses Johnson's Nazi past and adds unsavory details of his personal politics as well.
• July 2020: Volner's book is the lead item in a Bloomberg News summary by James Tarmy entitled "Why Hasn't 'Starchitect' Philip Johnson Been Canceled?". The subheading reads, "A new book shines a light on his enduring architectural legacy, despite a 'flirtation' with Naziism", followed by the comment, "Philip Johnson's Nazi past was probably the worst-kept secret in New York, but it wasn't the only piece of the superstar architect's character that was reprehensible."
  

So, yes, there is some "extensive research" to be done at MOMA: call it a deep dive into what has been known to the world about their Curator of Architecture for some 85 years, with the Greek chorus reaching a dramatic climax in the last five years, including two new biographies and other books and plenty of press. I mean, weren't MOMA's trustees, curators and directors in lockdown for much of this year? Plenty of time to catch up on some reading. 

I mean, seriously, who are they trying to kid with this "research" bullshit? They surely know, and have known for a very long time, that MOMA helped foster the career and influence of this fabulously wealthy man who became even more wealthy under the noses of their filthy-rich benefactors, and that he was a raging anti-Semite and Nazi supporter. What is their supposed research going to turn up? Johnson bragged about having mentored several prominent Jewish architects. He was apparently friends with Shimon Peres. So what does this buy him, after concocting a hit list for the fascist "revolution" that began with his Jewish friend and classmate (and fellow gay man) Lincoln Kirstein?

The JSG has actually taken a mild approach to calling this man's various honors into question; maybe the question should be why does this architect of mixed reputation and despicable morals have his name attached to an AIA Gold Medal and the Pritzker Prize? What is the state of our culture in general when a university, art museum or professional organization cannot figure out that someone like this should not be honored? Why does it take a movement and public prompting from political activists? As we know from the last four years, when you let hate speech and racial scapegoating go it can one day find fertile soil to flourish. A son of privilege who climbed the artworld ladder through social connections, a bitter anti-Semite, a fascist operative, a purveyor of discredited racial theories, an architectural chameleon without a distinctive personal style, and a vocal worshipper of the dollar bill - this was Philip Johnson. Yet MOMA has to do "research" before dropping his name from an exhibition gallery and curator title.

A list of Johnson's commissions - all of them subsequent to his pro-Nazi activities - says just how much America's cultural and political elite cared that this Dutchman of Half Moon ancestry hated Jews and all racial minorities. It includes not just corporate buildings like Seagrams (most of which was done by Mies van der Rohe), the Lipstick Building and Trump Tower, but arts and cultural institutions galore, the JFK Memorial in Dallas, university buildings and labs, the New York State pavilion for the 1964 World's Fair, libraries, religious centers, and more. Sure, he may have suggested that the murder of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto was a glorious thing, but hey, let's give him another million dollar contract and more public monuments to enshrine his name! 

I mean, we still buy Fords, right? No, better than that - even Jews now drive around in Volkswagens and Mercedes Benz's, love their Wagner recordings, and read Heidegger, so why the hell should we care that some American architect made a few stupid remarks?

Is it any wonder why 74 million people voted for a man who calls neo-Nazis "very fine people", tells neo-fascist groups like the Proud Boys to"stand by", and initially expresses little concern about Jews murdered by another anti-Semite in Pittsburgh? This is where our collective amnesia about such haters leads: to a president who wreaks havoc on our political system, tears children away from parents, makes racism and sexism publicly acceptable, denies basic science, and helps cause the deaths of thousands through misguided leadership during a health crisis. Yes, it really does have disastrous practical consequences when we let these kinds of people off the hook, under the lazy assumption that their dumb words are just mistakes that we can ignore and move on from.

Obviously we cannot count on business or institutional leaders to sound the alarm about such cultural self-destruction: to them, Johnson's fascism was just some ineffective and discarded political ideas, with no real impact and in any case protected by the First Amendment. But those who can't see the impact should not be leading anything, much less Lincoln Center (where Johnson designed the NY State Theater) or MOMA (where he designed the roof garden). If not sent to jail for treason he should have at least been a pariah to every decent human being in a leadership position. That was clearly not the case.

So this piece of "cancel culture" is not about the erection of a 26-foot statue with a cinematic rear end shot, it's about the pornographic mark left on the American landscape by a devout admirer of Adolph Hitler. The question about him really is, how did this despicable person ever get a commission, a post, an award or an honor after his perfidious activities in support of the Third Reich? What does it say about the moral fiber of our society in general that he was able to carry on after being a traitor to his country and a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Semite? At minimum, it shows that no decisions about morality, or indeed culture, can be left to the rich and the business interests that fund the construction of large buildings, control cultural institutions, and anoint architects with museum appointments. The Rockefellers have plenty of blood, or at least crud, on their hands for the sponsorship of this Nazi.

The problem is not merely that Johnson's name is attached to some gallery or design institute. Certainly it should not be. The much larger problem is that the nation is now dotted with monuments to a morally corrupt individual for architecture students to gawk at, scholars to write about, critics to hold up as examples of the craft and museums to put on exhibitions about. Take away the institutional honors and titles that the JSG objects to and we are still left with dozens of prominent glass towers and structures. Albert Speer's architecture is mostly a thing of the past; but Johnson's will stand for a very long time. JSG says, "There is a role for Johnson's work in archives and historic preservation." This sounds a bit like wishful thinking, when his "work" moons us from the sidewalks all over New York City and around the country. Billions of footsteps will traverse the shadow of his towers, the careers of many generations will be spent inside his steel and glass structures, before he is committed to the archives. Their point, though, is why add insult to injury by naming things after him? We are just getting around to "canceling" Confederate generals, who rank no higher than fascists on the moral spectrum. Do we have to wait 150 years to consign Johnson's name to the archives, even if we can't get rid of his buildings?

Sure, I anticipate the response: But he created some great buildings, outstanding contributions to American architecture, structures that have helped make the urban landscape what it is. Are you squawcking that you would rather just be without this cornucopia of creativity? Answer: that is a false dichotomy. For every Philip Johnson with his dozens of commissions, there are less well known but highly creative talents who would have been employed to build those structures. The JSG says that Johnson excluded all black architects from his exhibitions, and it could be added that some of those architects might well have given us better buildings than Johnson did had the world consigned Johnson to the dustbin of history with his Nazi idols. We might have benefited more, not less, if Johnson had been limited to building factories for Henry Ford. (Okay, Trump Tower is just as appropriate.) Where a need opens up, whether in architecture or the other arts, there will usually be more than one person capable of filling it. I won't deny the beauty of some of what he created (the MOMA garden has always been an appealing spot), but I could live without it if its absence were to send a message that haters and fascists get what they deserve - in this case, obscurity.

So the objections of the JSG are not just well taken, but an understated approach to what should be said and done about Johnson. We can't very well tear down everything he built - one can wish something never existed but acknowledge it has some merit while it does, like Heidegger's philosophy, and Wagner's music, and the work of too many literary anti-Semites and racists to name. Better those people should have gone to hell after a life of obscurity; but as fate, and human weakness, would have it, they left something behind that deserves recognition, even if they personally deserve scorn. (Quite a few people have commented on Johnson's fondness for Nietzsche, but while I don't have much use for his philosophy, the simplistic association of his "superman" with Naziism is mostly a misunderstanding.)

It was courageous of the JSG to challenge the institutional sainthood of this icon-itect and to focus on his exclusion of architects of color from MOMA exhibitions during his long tenure there as curator of architecture and design. But the letter makes it sound like that is the most reprehensible thing he did, and the very reason he should be dis-honored by the powers that be. To say the least, that needs a lot of refinement, because the record so far made public shows that he was as vile an anti-Semite as there ever was, applauding the earliest forms of genocide and championing the Nazi cause long after Krystallnacht. To make a public statement calling for the removal of Johnson's name from various sites without so much as alluding to his anti-Semitism seems very curious, as if being a political operative and possible spy who colluded with the perpetrators of the Holocaust is on the same plane with a failure to include black architects in museum shows. It is like criticizing the administrator of a Jefferson Davis memorial for making an unkind remark about Jews, without so much as mentioning their primary function in honoring the slave system. It just seems skewed.

The JSG does make explicit the fact that Johnson was a proponent of, and collaborator with, Nazism. But they begin by describing his "white supremacist views", and their discussion of his Nazi activities slides directly into the point about his racist curatorial practices. The logic of removing his name from institutions is based on this. It is hard not to notice the awkward absence of a single reference to his hatred of Jews, as if it were preferable to let people infer that from the words "Nazi" and "fascist" without saying it outright.

But when Johnson ranted, as he often did in his writings, about the need for the "white race" to band together and defend itself, and the like, "white" was not primarily contrasted with "black" but with Jews, and sometimes with people of Japanese heritage. (The Japanese are the only explicit target of Johnson's eugenics-infused essay, "Are We a Dying Race?", though one can infer his other antipathies easily enough.) In every quote I have seen from his racist writings, when he is being explicit about an enemy, it is these two groups he is talking about. Of course, the man was almost certainly as racist towards black people and all other people of color as Hitler himself was. If, as JSG suggests, he consciously excluded all architects of color from his exhibitions, that is further evidence. (I say "consciously" because a curator hardly needs to be a Nazi sympathizer to unconsciously exclude non-white architects from exhibitions; that, I am certain, happens on a daily basis, though perhaps somewhat less after some very recent consciousness-raising within the art world.) But I think it is important, as a matter of historical accuracy, to be clear that the "racist" and "white supremacist" Johnson, though he may well have hated blacks and other people of color just as much, nevertheless directed almost all his venom at the Jews and Japanese.

On the other hand, one can't exactly leave it at this; because, to ask a blunt question, where the devil have all the Jewish spokespeople been on the Johnson issue for the past 20, 50 or 85 years?? Searches on the web sites of the Anti-Defamation League, B'nai Brith, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, Tikkun and Jewish Currents turned up not a single reference to Johnson, nor did numerous kinds of Google searches for Johnson material turn up a single link to any Jewish advocacy organization or web site. Ada Louise (Landman) Huxtable and Paul Goldberger, long time architecture critics for the NY Times, apparently had little to say about Johnson's Nazism. And if you want to see just how important the Jewish Museum thought the past of an American Nazi was, read Michael Wise's article in Forwards describing their purchase of some of the original artifacts from the Port Chester synagogue. A September 2016 essay by Richard Hurowitz in the Jerusalem Post sums up Johnson's anti-Semitic history pretty well. But I can't find anything that explicitly calls into question the bestowal of numerous honors on a man who was a notorious hater of Jews. 

In his later years, Johnson was a mentor to Daniel Liebeskind, Richard Meier and other Jewish architects. Did they know or care that the man had called the bombing of Warsaw "a stirring spectacle"? Or that 20 years or more after the war he said that he prefered Hitler to Roosevelt, that WIlliam Shirer was irresponsible for reporting on his fascist sympathies, and that his biggest complaint about the Nazis was that their architecture was poor? Taking a few Jews under your wing cannot erase that kind of history. Nor helping to create the Rothko Chapel. If the man uttered a peep about the Holocaust before he died it was not recorded. The liberal Jewish establishment seems to have totally dropped the ball on this, or rather, never picked it up.

So, while I find the absence of a reference to anti-Semitism in the JSG's presentation uncomfortable, in the end I want to thank them for doing what has never been done by the people Johnson most explicitly despised. Johnson seems to have danced with agility between his own raindrops; if there is any one consistent feeling among the various authors cited here, it is that due to his wealth, connections, charisma and in some cases inspiration, he continually avoided accountability for his nasty past; as one journalist put it, "his comeuppance never came". Actually getting an institution to take some action regarding the Johnson stain on the artworld, as the JSG has done, is quite an accomplishment, and if what it took was a group of black architects and their supporters raising a cry about his racism, that just shines a spotlight on the utter lack of Jewish leadership on the matter.

Which brings me to a disturbing thought: that today (and perhaps not just today) the charge of anti-Semitism simply doesn't move insitutions enough to even raise it; it doesn't get anybody in the world of education or art institutions all bent out of shape to point out that their institutes or chairs are named for a man who actively supported a regime that murdered 6 million Jews, and who tried to foment the same sort of hatred here. But if the same man unfairly failed to recognize black architects, that moves people to take action. There seems to be both a sickening blindness in this society to the depravity of anti-Semitism, and a disturbing kind of stasis among Jews and their alleged defenders, as if all we need to do to stand our ground is rally around Israel's right to exist, rail about the dangers of BDS, and argue about the latest definition of anti-Semitism. Who cares if lowlifes like Johnson become world famous symbols of American architecture? We have Israel, and a few jerks in the U.S. aren't going to hurt us, so why waste energy on them?

I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion about it here, but I have experienced anti-Semitism in the U.S. so many times I would need to write a book just to describe all the instances. Not too long ago I witnessed a confrontation between a loud but peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstration and a group of white patrons at an outdoor dining area who seemed intent on harrassing them. As tempers flared, an elderly white man shouted at the crowd, "Tell it to George Soros!" The direct object of his enmity was the anti-racist protesters, but the content of the remark was pure anti-Semitism, Soros being the latest stand-in for the kind of garbage about Jewish bankers and their conspiracies that Philip Johnson did much to promote. This took place in New York City. Good luck elsewhere trying to pretend that we can just ignore anti-Semitism and it will go away.

If the JSG is really a "study group" and not just an ad hoc list of people who signed a letter then I assume we can expect more from them than this missive. It would be interesting to find out just what Johnson's level of engagement was with African-Americans and other racial and national minorities. JSG has posted one dismissive comment he allegedly made in 1973 about building "a monument for blacks", but has not documented the source or context of this remark. So far, the picture that emerges of his attitude towards minorities other than Jews is one of not-so-benign neglect. If more can be done to document his racism towards people of color, then that and his anti-Semitism together would make an even stronger case for a general reappraisal of the man's legacy.

We are not going to tear down bridges and highways that Robert Moses built, even if we no longer consider him a godsend to the city, and in fact recognize the racism that was part and parcel of his master plan. Maybe Philip Johnson will be the next colossus to fall, even as his monuments remain standing. 

A bigger question, though, is whether New York City, or anywhere else in the U.S., will ever be known not only for more humanitarian architects, but for a truly humanitarian architecture. In his NY Times columns Michael Kimmelman has often described the potential of architecture to not only beautify spaces but humanize them, bring people together, diminish differences. Just the opposite of Robert Moses, who built low walkways over the expressways to his beaches in order to prevent poor black folks who didn't own cars from getting there on buses. Although architectural humanism goes back almost six centirues, we have yet to establsih a mandate for architecture in the service of humanity. This would require much more than an architect with great humanitarian instincts; it would mean institutions, regulations and cultural priorities that push those values to the forefront. To put it mildly, we're not there yet.

Johnson's aesthetics, to the extent that he had any, seem to have been about him, mainly, a Nietzschean drive to aestheticize his life. The broader critique of what he stood for would start there. For example, the soaring atrium of 550 Madison Avenue was originally sold to the public as a space that would serve some community function; but it quickly became clear that it was all about grandeur and schmaltz and had no particular appeal to anyone as a public area. The self-involvement of a human being like Johnson manifests itself in his works.

The critique of Philip Johnson and what he stood for, both as a person and as a builder, could serve a higher purpose in this respect. It could put on notice the developers - the Trumps, Kushners, Helmsleys, and Ratners - and the architects who serve them that their legacy will be judged not by poured concrete, steel girders and panes of glass, but by their success or failure at making people and communities better by their works.  

Canceling fascists, racists and anti-Semites may help improve the ideological composition of art institutions, and keep future bigots from running them. But that should not be the ultimate goal. To have a real impact it should be no more than a stepping stone to a reorientation of urban architecture towards humanizing urban spaces. We see this happening in dribs and drabs; then we see horror shows like the Atlantic Yards and the Downtown Brooklyn development plan. Once we get rid of rascals like Johnson there is still a lot to be done.