Question: What time is it in North Carolina?
Answer: About 1820!
It’s official. Other countries are recognizing that the United States of America is a dangerous travel destination for their LGBT citizens. In a recent travel advisory, the United Kingdom warned members of the LGBT community:
The U.S. is an extremely diverse society and attitudes towards LGBT people differ hugely across the country,” the advisory says. “LGBT travelers may be affected by legislation passed recently in the states of North Carolina and Mississippi. Before traveling please read our general travel advice for the LGBT community.
Along with the corporate fallout, a lot of musicians have also taken a stand against the law. Bruce Springsteen canceled his show in Greensboro stating:
- Pearl Jam cancelled their show in Raleigh and posted:
- Cirque du Soleil cancelled two dates, one in Greensboro and one in Charlotte.
- Ringo Starr canceled his show in Cary.
- Boston called off its concerts in Greensboro, Charlotte and Raleigh.
- Composer Stephen Schwartz will not allow his musicals (such as Wicked) to be performed in North Carolina.
Cyndi Lauper, on the other hand, decided to continue with her show, but announced that all proceeds will go to Equality North Carolina, a group working to repeal HB 2.
- Mumford and Sons went ahead with their show, but set its profits to a Charlotte charity.
- Duran Duran played Charlotte, but then went on to host Equality NC volunteers who passed out petitions at the venue.
This has sparked a rather fierce debate among fans: Should artists play their concerts and then use that position to speak out against the law, or should they cancel these venues and “stick-it-to” the bigots who enacted the law. Many believe that by cancelling, the artists hurt their fans, not the legislatures of North Carolina and Mississippi, while others argue that by performing, they are abetting the extremists in the governor’s offices and the state’s legislatures.
Of course we can show empirically that both are true. Bands like Pearl Jam and artists like Springsteen do bring in a lot of revenue. Promotors rent large auditoriums for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. The promoters then make a profit by filling up that venue. Local hospitality establishments such as hotels and restaurants also benefit from the influx of people. Cities and governments benefit from the taxes on the tickets and concession sales. So yes, these boycotts to have a financial cost to the state government, and the added benefit of garnering worldwide press—bringing more embarrassment upon the governors and their fellow hypocrites.
We can also show first-hand that it hurts the fans at the exact same time. The tickets themselves can cost hundreds of dollars, and it’s up to the purchaser to try to get that money back when their band doesn’t show. It also means that they may have to cancel dinner plans, try to cancel hotel reservations, or whatever else they had planned for that evening. Even more than that, though, it means that their planned evening with someone they love enough to spend hundreds of dollars on, isn’t going to happen. These fans could even take it a little further: because they live in North Carolina or Mississippi, THEY are singled out. That can seem a little personal.
Yet these decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. As you read the statements from the various artists, they reference their fans frequently. They’re aware of the effect this is going to have on their supporters, and they try really hard to show that their decisions aren’t personal. The artists themselves are losing significantly in this decision.
It makes sense that these bands know their fans—and that it was their fans that played a huge role in their decisions.
I was in Seattle when Nirvana and Pearl Jam were coming into their own. I witnessed first-hand the birth of grunge. I partied with members of Alice and Chains (though they were just a garage band at the time). While this is all anecdotal, I did pick up on (and had the same) a mentality among the fans of grunge: “fuck the system!” Especially when it’s oppressive and unfair. So a fan of Pearl Jam is probably going to stick their fists in the air and shout, “Yah, Fuck You North Carolina.”
Bruce Springsteen’s music has been about disaffected Americans, workers, every day people embattled by their government which aligns itself with the wealthy oppressors who use money and power to hold them down. Springsteen fans embrace his stance on social justice, so a move like this probably empowers them as well. They see that someone is standing with them against this heinous conduct by those in power.
So what about the bands that DO perform?
This is also probably based on their fans. For Cindi Lauper, for example, this is an example of subversion at its best. She goes into North Carolina where, thanks to her fans, she is able to raise large amounts of money right under the noses of the bigots. She can then take that money and use it to directly undermine the extremists in that state. And then those supporters can take that money and counter the lucre that created the law in the first place.
So the bottom line is that both approaches are right, and both approaches—when used together—have a powerful effect on these maniacal laws. It’s good that both are happening because it adds pressure upon the governors and legislatures, while adding funding to those organizations trying to bring fairness and tolerance to a group of people who adamantly refuse to accept science over mythology.
The stance that North Carolina and Mississippi have taken hearken to recent rules in Russia and their vitriolic anti-gay laws. Though not as “severe,” the intent is still the same—to bring harm to those that they don’t understand. And there’s no excuse for that. We’re now living in the twenty-first century. We can see into the body. We can watch the mind at work. We can even understand—to some degree—why nature may have made some of these decisions over the period of human evolution.
With any luck, the combination of these two approaches will finally wear down these bigots and force a change in the laws. There’s no reason that in the United States of America, in the twenty-first century any country should have to issue a travel advisory to its citizens traveling to America.