According to the article, after all this publicity and the spending of thousands of dollars, only 100 people attended. We should rejoice. A "community" with influence hugely disproportionate to its actual size failed dramatically to show affinity or gain converts. And, something else to cheer about, the "Salient" has maintained its glorious tradition of always requiring footnotes, trivial as they might be. Let us not speak of "sterile academicism."
Then again, take a look at the "Crimson" website. No mention of this event. Try Google for "Draganza." You'll find something in Las Vegas. Only that. The "Salient" reported on the alleged event 3 months after they said it happened. Draw your own conclusion.
I’m not sure the author focused on any part of the artistry of drag culture, art form or gender identity. Is it accurate to say that the entire event focused on promoting sex, sexual tension and objectification? Because that is what this editorial seems to suggest.
According to the article, after all this publicity and the spending of thousands of dollars, only 100 people attended. We should rejoice. A "community" with influence hugely disproportionate to its actual size failed dramatically to show affinity or gain converts. And, something else to cheer about, the "Salient" has maintained its glorious tradition of always requiring footnotes, trivial as they might be. Let us not speak of "sterile academicism."
Draganza sounded like the same old drag thing - it’s getting to be banal. Sorry to hear that Harvard keeps on falling into the woke pit.
Thank you for your voice.
Then again, take a look at the "Crimson" website. No mention of this event. Try Google for "Draganza." You'll find something in Las Vegas. Only that. The "Salient" reported on the alleged event 3 months after they said it happened. Draw your own conclusion.
I’m not sure the author focused on any part of the artistry of drag culture, art form or gender identity. Is it accurate to say that the entire event focused on promoting sex, sexual tension and objectification? Because that is what this editorial seems to suggest.