Leave it to Michael Eric Dyson to say what some black leader should have said long ago. "Some of the critics complaining most loudly about the film ("Barbershop") are not interested in straight talk," Dyson wrote in today's New York Times.

Dyson, a professor of religious studies and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania, responds to Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and other professional black leaders who claim to be outraged by critical comments in the film about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. Despite the comments about King and Parks, I enjoyed the film and wrote a review of it on Tuesday, September 17 (see Diary Archives below).

But is that the end of the story? Is this simply a question of whether or not the audience likes it? I don't think so. Dyson points out that politics are always at work in art on the screen. "When it comes to black folk, films take on added weight. They bear what James Baldwin called 'the burden of representation.' A film is never just a film. It is seen as a political statement or a social document."

Is this a fair burden? No, it's not, but it's a reality that requires sensitivity. If a white film depicted a white character making the same comments that Cedric the Entertainer made in "Barbershop," more African Americans would be outraged. But like it or not, black comedians are given some leeway in criticizing black people. That's the issue I struggled with in comparing "Barbershop" to say, Shirley Q. Liquor's drag minstrel show.

Shirley Q. Liquor's comedy is different because it's played by Charles Knipp, a white gay man. But I'm not sure that's enough of a difference. Shirley Q. Liquor is also different because her routine simply reinforces negative and inaccurate stereotypes about black people. "Barbershop," on the other hand, shows a range of positive and negative characters in the community. And unlike "Barbershop" — where the other characters jump on Cedric's character — no one is there at Liquor's performances to challenge the misinformation put out by Knipp.

But perhaps the real reason why I approve of "Barbershop" and disapprove of Shirley Q. Liquor is because "Barbershop" is telling the truth. "OJ did it," Cedric says. "Rosa Parks ain't do nothing but sit her black ass down," he tells us. And the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was a "ho." Put aside the inelegant language, and everything he says is true. Most of America knows O.J. killed his wife. Most of America knows Dr. King slept around. And nobody even claims that Rosa Parks did anything more than sit down. So what? What's the big deal? O.J. is still free. Dr. King was still a great leader. And Rosa Parks is still a hero.

"Good movies can throw in our face truths we would rather dismiss or beliefs we would rather overlook or avoid," Dyson explains in his op-ed today. "I think such truth telling, and the discomfort it provokes, is behind the furor raised over 'Barbershop.'" He's right. Even when Dr. King's well known "infidelity is discussed more delicately and with scholarly authority, drama inevitably ensues," he says.

Even in our civil rights organizations, free speech is "increasingly rare," Dyson writes. "At their best, these organizations change lives by advocating progressive social policy and arguing for democratic politics. At their worst, they are antidemocratic institutions, headed by gifted but authoritarian leaders. The voices of ordinary people do not ring in the halls of our organizations as frequently as they should. Nor has any figure from the civil rights establishment come out to endorse Cedric the Entertainer's right to free speech."

All artists, including Shirley Q. Liquor, have the right to speak freely and produce controversial, even offensive, material. But that's not the issue. Just as artists have the right to perform, so too do consumers have the right to complain, even if the complaints only make the artists more popular. That's why drag diva RuPaul is completely off base with her criticism of demonstrators who protested Shirley Q. Liquor's New York performance a few weeks ago.

RuPaul called the demonstrators "a group of unsophisticated barbarians with misguided rage [who] are protesting and calling for the boycott of one of my favorite entertainers, SHIRLEY Q. LIQUOR." Although he wasn't there at the demonstration, RuPaul labels the group a "self-righteous lynch mob" and goes on to say that as "a black homosexual man . . . I am no stranger to racism and sexism."

Maybe so, but if he knew anything about black history, he would know better than to compare a group of peaceful anti-racist demonstrators with the violent and hateful racists who strung up black folk on trees. Ironically, RuPaul plays the race card similarly to the way that Clarence Thomas used it to repel his critics during his Senate confirmation hearings. Thomas said he was a victim of a "hi-tech lynching for an uppity negro."

What we're talking about here is the right to disagree with someone who is disagreeable. But conservatives and white-washed blacks have artfully manipulated the race debate so that no one can use the race card except those who make racially insensitive remarks. When liberals cry racism, it's said they're just complaining too much. When conservatives claim racism, it's supposed to be legitimate.

For all my support of Dyson's comments today, I did take issue with one or two lines in his op-ed. "At their healthiest," Dyson wrote, "barbershop conversations are politically incorrect and plainspoken." I'm not quite sure that political incorrectness makes barbershop conversations healthy. Having seen far too many examples of barbershop misogyny and homophobia, I think there should be some limits on appropriate barbershop decorum.

Dyson's claim that barbershops are a "ghetto platform" for free speech misunderstands how the culture of barbershops often silences gay men and excludes women. You can't have a free-ranging discussion when everyone is not free to participate. Still, the film "Barbershop" is a fair, accurate, and funny depiction of true life in our community. Jesse and Al should see it again.

© Copyright 2002 by Keith Boykin.