Asian American Ariel Encounters Prejudiced Social Media Comments- Page 2

[binau]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 1:56am

Yes I agree. Hopefully they will attend and realise it's all ok. Let's be clear about my position though: I'm glad people had the opportunity to challenge these ideas rather than suppressing the speech and letting them go unchallenged. I just feel the tone of your post is almost disingenuously suggesting I am glad racism exists, which is not the issue here at all. 

And perfectlymarvelous, I can see how witnessing those events does make it seem like there is a growing uprising that wants to repeat the holocaust. Maybe I'm misguided with the following claim but my intuition is that treating all racist events and behaviours as if they come from a place of neo-nazism and deep hatred might be an overreaction though and counter-productive. My sense is that while there might be a small fraction of politicized white supremacy - the vast majority of the kind of racism we see in our society is the more covert, sometimes unintentional kind - like a casting director not 'seeing' an Asian male in a lead role in their vision rather than necessarily thinking that Asians are subhuman and don't belong on the Broadway stage. Hopefully I am just not naïve. 

Updated On: 8/14/17 at 01:56 AM

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 2:00am

Diana Huey has addressed her critics on Facebook, in part:

''When I auditioned for 'Mermaid,' I was just excited to get to sing 'Part of Your World' with a live accompanist - I didn't think I had a real chance in booking it because I'm Asian. Looking back at that now, that thought makes me so sad. No one should feel like they aren't enough because of the color of their skin or the shape of their eyes or any factor outside of WHO THEY ARE.

''And as I go out on the road city to city as an Asian American playing Ariel, I hope that it will inspire the next person who is out there auditioning for something to believe that THEY can be cast in a role based on their work and their talents. I want to believe in a world where racism and bigotry no longer exists. I want to believe that we can truly have equality in this world - and the arts are a damn good place to start. I am so endlessly grateful to Glenn Casale for believing in me more than I had believed in myself and for continuing to stand beside me with this.

''I am so proud to be a part of this company and I am so proud to be an Asian American artist. I didn't by any means set out to try to be the face or voice of anything - but I am humbled to be fighting for a more loving and equal place in the arts and in this community.''

And here's a clip of Huey singing ''Part of Your World'' beautifully ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvOqFWrW9RE  

Updated On: 8/14/17 at 02:00 AM

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 3:12am

qolbinau said: "So just to clarify are we saying that someone expressing disappointment for non-white casting is 'hate speech'?

 

Yes!

 

You are white and privileged. You don't get to call what someone who is not in your position has said as 'overreaction'.

Updated On: 8/14/17 at 03:12 AM

[binau]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 4:15am

All I care about is the truth and that has little to do with my race or your race. For example, I think we can be pretty confident the Great Comet twitter backlash was an overreaction if we define overreaction to mean get angry about things that weren't true (the twitter backlash suggesting Mandy's casting was racist was not true and therefore an overreaction).

I don't feel strongly about questioning whether someone is overreacting or not in this thread though, I think we all know my rather common-sense view I am trying to express here though -

1. suppression of speech is probably not going to change attitudes (as seems popular in the ultra left-wing groups these days).


2. we're not particularly good at deciding what speech should be suppressed or not (e.g., the ultra left seem to want to suppress criticism of right-wing, false and harmful religious ideas; a view that would be hilariously bipartisan on the right when it comes to Christianity. We also can clearly see from the Mandy incident that we're not always good at detecting racism either).


3. The best way forward is not to suppress speech but to openly criticise and challenge ideas. I'm glad that people had the opportunity to publicly challenge the racist views expressed about this casting. If they did not feel comfortable expressing them then I predict they would still have held them anyway (and behaved in accordance with them, such as in discriminatory ways) but they would have gone uncriticised and unnoticed.

I actually think my post is rather uncontroversial - I just feel it's important to say because in the past couple of years the 'ultra left' is becoming a parody of itself. While the movement always has good intentions, it is becoming a militant, dare I say fascist, screaming mess of dis-ingenuity and confusion. There needs to be critical dialogue both to hopefully convince people to change their beliefs (which is a long, slow and hard process but it can and does happen) rather than try to build walls - and make sure their own beliefs are kept in check and aligned with the truth and their moral values (e.g., so we don't have more Comet incidents, and so that we make sure people are speaking honestly about the atrocities of certain right-wing, false belief systems - even if it's uncomfortable and even if the holders of these beliefs aren't white. There are too many gay muslims suffering because of Islam and if the left are not going to care about this minority group, someone has to).  

Freedom of speech is an absolutely necessary condition for progress. To get the benefits from it we need to take the bad. When someone expresses their genuine disappointing in casting a non-white person it is a great opportunity to criticise this, show them why they are wrong and hope they (or others like it) will slowly change their attitudes over time. Calling them a racist bigot (even if true) and questioning whether they should be allowed to express these views is definitely not going to help this situation. It is the holding of these attitudes rather than the expression of these attitudes that impacts behaviour. I am afraid the way the ultra left are dealing with their foes just pushes people further and further away and motivates them to vote for people like Donald Trump. Because we live in a free, democratic society and not a dictatorship trying to find ways to convince others to shift their views really is important.

Updated On: 8/14/17 at 04:15 AM

[TrChSpHa]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 8:25am

It has PLENTY to do with your racist, because you have the

And you think people of color haven't tried any of that? Having "conversations" with their oppressors, marching, protesting, sitting, rioting, boycotting, etc.? The problem is, none of these white supremecists are willing to listen and have no intention of changing their minds.

Since we're on the subject of Great Comet, maybe if the playing field within the theatre-industry (any business where it's supposedly about "talent" and not skin color) were level in the first place, no one would have to question the replacement of a black actor in favor of a white one and maybe there wouldn't be any backlash.

Plenty of "nice" people can be racist or have racist and ignorant views, not just Hicksville, Middle America.

Someone on my newsfeed shared this:

"Dear theater friends, if you're looking over at Charlottesville and thinking "they" are white supremacists, I urge you to take a closer look at the ways you support and perpetuate their ideology and reinforce their narrative through your storytelling practices.

Every time you hire a predominantly/all white creative team because they were the best "fit," every time you cast an all white cast because you "don't think a person of color makes sense in this world," you are unwittingly reinforcing white supremacy and systemic racism. When your mainstage season is all white and your artists of color are relegated to second stages, workshops, pipelines, emerging artist groups, etc, because "they're not ready," make no mistake about it - you are feeding white supremacy.

Charlottesville is an extreme manifestation of the ass backwards mythology we all perpetuate in small acts every day. You say you want to fight it? Then fight it in your everyday practice. Make different choices. Hire different people to animate your stories. Program different people to tell those stories."

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 9:47am

qolbinau said: "It is and should be totally acceptable for people to say whatever they want"

I don't quite agree with this. We private citizens only have to accept it in so far as we don't answer their words with force. It doesn't mean we can't fire, divorce, or shun them for their awful beliefs.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 9:53am

perfectlymarvelous and GeorgeandDot, you've both expressed something along the lines that "hate speech isn't free speech." It's hard for me to tell exactly what you mean by this. Do you think it would be fair game for the government to punish people for expressing hatred towards members of a certain group? If so, I absolutely, passionately disagree. Free speech protections are all about protecting the kind of speech that we find offensive, repugnant, and even dangerous, because these are the kinds of speech that are in jeopardy of being stifled

Updated On: 8/14/17 at 09:53 AM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 10:25am

Before clicking through, I should've realized this thread was so long because of people I'd wisely blocked.

You all can do the same!

[Babe_Williams]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 11:40am

Last I checked, noone is preventing any of the deplorables from making those statements on social media. Just like they can post their disappointment with the casting choice, the rest of us can judge them for making such an asinine and xenophobic criticism. See how that works! I am sorry that the actor saw those statements, it must have been so disheartening.

[ukpuppetboy]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 12:46pm

Wayman_Wong said: "Diana Huey has addressed her critics on Facebook, in part:

''I am so proud to be a part of this company and I am so proud to be an Asian American artist. I didn't by any means set out to try to be the face or voice of anything - but I am humbled to be fighting for a more loving and equal place in the arts and in this community.''

And here's a clip of Huey singing ''Part of Your World'' beautifully ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvOqFWrW9RE  

"

It would seem that anyone questioning her casting has not heard her sing - live or otherwise. That clip was pretty much perfect and I couldn't help but picture the AV of Howard Ashman - both the demos and 'coaching' Jodie Benson originally and how Diana absoluely nails it: both in the innonce of her acting and power of her vocals. Her performance is obviously wasted on a narrow mind. What more is there to say?

[Lot666]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 12:56pm

perfectlymarvelous said: "America is built on the concept of white people taking things that were never theirs to take from the people who were here first, and constructing their own society on the backs of people they stole from elsewhere."

America hasn't actually been "great" since the first European settlers arrived on its shores.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 1:02pm

What a great clip of her singing! And what an apropos song that parallels an Asian-American wanting to play a traditionally white role.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 10:16am

Nothing irks me more than having someone explain to POC how they should best address racist discourse in the United States. So many assumptions are made about what they have and haven't done on individual levels and the classic avoidance of acknowledging history and the current climate. I also notice certain people feel so confident to chime in when they want to talk about race, but then can easily peace out or go on with their lives acting like this whole thing is an intellectual exercise rather than a dominating, continued lived experience that it is for others.

I get the idea that people should say what they want and when they want because it's better to recognize the racists as they are and allow the subject to be put in the forefront. However, every time that happens, the push back to responses to the racism (the part where advocates for totally unchecked free speech says is the perfect opportunity to educate) can be vitriolic and violent. The burden is also always on the people who are victims of such speech and hate. This always creates a severely unequal dynamic, and there's a reason why people are tired. Plus, lived experience shows that there's a difference between being able to speak to someone on issues like diversity casting who is interested in having a rational, reasonable discussion and will actually listen rather than speak past the other person....even if the result is still differences of opinion and trying to have polite "educational" discussions with people who are the type to openly display their hatred and bigotry without a care of how their words affect the people they're talking about.

Many people deal with that every day and has shaped their life experiences and how they see the world, so there's a reason why they'd rather avoid it as much as possible because they know there's nothing they can really do to change those people's minds. Any type of social change that will lead people to be more accepting of different races can still happen without calls for people to openly confront OTT hate and bigotry all day everyday. Once in a while is just enough while doing things like casting more people of color in roles that aren't race-specific and having more representation even without a controversy like this one will do the trick.

Also, in the United States, First Amendment protections of free speech DOES have limitations. I won't go into it more, but it's a complicated subject with various tests created by the Court to balance free speech protection (from government intrusion) that avoids content-based censorship and protecting the public (incitement of violence; time, place, manner for obscenity; and even hate speech).

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 6:05pm

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "Also, in the United States, First Amendment protections of free speech DOES have limitations. I won't go into it more, but it's a complicated subject with various tests created by the Court to balance free speech protection (from government intrusion) that avoids content-based censorship and protecting the public (incitement of violence; time, place, manner for obscenity; and even hate speech)."

These exceptions have been interpreted in a very narrow fashion by the courts in recent decades. And that's a good thing, because if the government starts punishing speech in the current political climate, I can guarantee you it's not going to be the speech you'd like them to punish.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 6:07pm

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "Nothing irks me more than having someone explain to POC how they should best address racist discourse in the United States. "

^^^^^

[binau]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 6:41pm

I really like your post ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 but I still don't quite get the idea that you have to belong to a certain group to discuss issues they face. The Great Comet incident alone shows us that people are fallible and can make mistakes on this very issue regardless of whether they are a POC or not. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 8:06pm

kdogg36 said: "ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "Also, in the United States, First Amendment protections of free speech DOES have limitations. I won't go into it more, but it's a complicated subject with various tests created by the Court to balance free speech protection (from government intrusion) that avoids content-based censorship and protecting the public (incitement of violence; time, place, manner for obscenity; and even hate speech)."

These exceptions have been interpreted in a very narrow fashion by the courts in recent decades. And that's a good thing, because if the government starts punishing speech in the current political climate, I can guarantee you it's not going to be the speech you'd like them to punish.

 

"

Oh definitely. If it's something that is seen as "content-based" censorship, then the government has a HUGE hurdle to get over in order to prove that the law or government action serves a compelling government interest and that it is narrowly-tailored to serve that interest and isn't over inclusive to needlessly censor or even chill speech that doesn't serve that interest. It is narrowly-fashioned. My point is just that there are times in which courts recognized the constitutionality of limitations on speech and that it's complicated. I remember taking a First Amendment class in law school and our professor said in our opening lecture that if the First Amendment was simple, there would be no need for this class and the incredible case law behind the First Amendment. Of course, there's more to the First Amendment than the freedom speech clause, but that was a major part.

 

qolbinau said: "I really like your post ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 but I still don't quite get the idea that you have to belong to a certain group to discuss issues they face. The Great Comet incident alone shows us that people are fallible and can make mistakes on this very issue regardless of whether they are a POC or not. 

 

"

Thank you for your post. Sorry if I came off like a jerk. I agree with you that we all can do better when we discuss this issue and there are a lot of things we need to navigate and figure out when moving forward.

Updated On: 8/16/17 at 08:06 PM