Award Winning Playwright Almost Slaps a Theatre Patron (and what that apparently says about our theatre) — Page 14

Wait, so now accepting free tickets is akin to being a whore?

I don't believe this event ever happened. There was no Jane - and if there was, the author lost every ounce of sympathy I might ever have had when she brought violence into the picture.

...

It's amazing how not a single person sided with the playwright. Then again, this board and thread is comprised of almost entirely white people....

What do you say to audience members who enjoy other enthusiastic audience behavior? Are they in the wrong? Actors will make it known to stage management if an audience member is being rowdy or disruptive. It seems as if all of the additional comments to this thread have not attempted to consider the side of Ms. Morisseau whatsoever....

"

A. The first person in an argument to threaten violence loses, IMO. Full stop. (ETA I'm aware the playwright does NOT say she threatened out loud to slap the other woman; but we are talking about posters' reactions here and I'm saying she lost my sympathy at that moment in her tale.)

B. It isn't true that NOBODY defended any part of the playwright's view. A few have defended her categorically. I acknowledged in one of the earliest posts that audience participation and call-and-response are ancient and perfectly valid phenomena in African theater and in theater descended from that tradition.

But that isn't something everyone--white or black--knows. The production itself could and should have made it clear what was expected from the spectators; there are numerous ways to do so.

Ms. Morrisseau could have calmly said as much to her hostess, either at the time of the request for quiet or at the next break in the action. Instead, by her own account, she immediately shifted into--RED ALERT!--righteous indignation, told the older lady off and gave her "the hand". Any chance for a productive exchange of information was probably lost at that moment. No, I wasn't there, but I am relying on the playwright's own account.

I am continually shocked at how many people have decided it is okay to engage in open displays of racism since we elected a black president. The last gasp of the desperate, I hope. But it doesn't mean we have to immediately "go to the mattresses" every time there is a disagreement between two people of different racial backgrounds.

Updated On: 1/11/16 at 12:27 AM

broadwaybelter said: "It's amazing how not a single person sided with the playwright. Then again, this board and thread is comprised of almost entirely white people..."

I am actually not against the playwright and personally would have found the gum chewing comment objectionable as I've stated previously. But I don't think it's useful to spend time on who was right or wrong because even when people observe these events themselves, many people have a tough time attributing rude behavior to subtle discrimination. But folks on this board seem less inclined to want to engage the issue beyond what might possibly have happened between these two individuals, which to me is unfortunate.

divaprof, by my count only a few posters have dismissed the idea that the exchange was racially charged on both sides. I suspect many of the rest of us just don't know how to address the "larger issue", much less solve them.

GavestonPS said: "Charley Kringas Inc said: "The point isn't this isolated incident but her feelings as being backed by a long line of similar incidents, and why that might provoke her to have such a reaction, and why those incidents happen, it seems, mostly to people who aren't white and comfortable.

"

Gee, Charley, I guess this thread will go on forever. I will readily agree that any person of color's perceived slight occurs in the context of a lifetime as the target of "microagressions" (new word to me; I hope I'm using it correctly). I don't blame Ms. Morrisseau for her feelings, nor do most posters in this thread. It is almost entirely her actions that have been questioned.

You seem to be concerned with a different dichotomy where we are to be concerned with the black woman's feelings, but with the white woman's actions. (No one cares how the latter felt when her generosity was met with rudeness.) Isn't this exactly the sort of allowance we usually reserve for children?

Who decided that racism--micro or macro--was an automatic excuse for violence or threats of violence? I am thinking of at least two instances where black football players assaulted a referee and then later claimed the victim had called them the "N word". I could only think "I doubt that" but "So what?" (Not because the word isn't terrible, but because hate speech is not an excuse for violence.) To be fair, Ms. M didn't engage in violence, she merely felt like doing so; but you are the one who says her feelings are at issue.

I'm not for a moment trying to minimize the difficulties faced by any minority. But the right to "not be offended" isn't enshrined in the Constitution. Not quite yet.

"

Well, she didn't commit or threaten violence, merely had the thought of it, which I think we've all experienced at some point or another. I just figure if we're going to try to settle on one point as an outcome of this article, it shouldn't be an argument about Morisseau's actions (and non-actions), but a hopefully productive discussion about how to integrate cultures in a space that is, let's admit it, dominated by white people. We don't have to come to an actual conclusion, but I think it's an interesting topic, and it's frustrating to see it sidelined by debate over whether Morisseau is right or wrong.

I feel like that's what the current overall cultural debate is moving towards - what's too far, what's not enough, who should have what kind of say? It's very messy and difficult, particularly with the witch-burning potential of social media, and I'm curious what direction it's going to go in. It's a difficult atmosphere to stay non-political in.

With regards to black feelings vs white actions, this is also something I've seen debate on, and the concept is that a person in a position of power has the freedom to be above the feelings of the people below them, because society backs them up. It's like when my cousin took a job and a bunch of people asked her how her husband felt about her being away from home, which isn't a question men get asked and is a kind of unintentional put-down that's backed by a social expectation that women aren't needed outside of the home, and these social expectations are harmful in powerful, real ways that go beyond microaggressions on Facebook.

So, you know, I dunno, it's that kind of thing. The question of how to get over that, what actions can be taken, by whom, and how far to take it? I'd rather discuss that than go on a kangaroo court goose chase over Morisseau's credibility and fallibility.

I don't think we do minorities any favor if we assume...

Don't write like that.

Charley Kringas Inc said: "I guess the question is about deciding how to approach the integration of cultures, which is deeply messy and complex. Even if I don't disagree that maybe Morisseau should have realized this isn't exactly the hill to die on, I can certainly imagine the frustration of being in her position. Seeing a play that calls to my culture with an audience who is not of my culture and doesn't appreciate (or, potentially, even want) my culture would be discomforting.... If theater is overwhelmingly white, or old, or conservative, that's not going to be very inviting to people who are younger, or of other cultures, which is going to inhibit cohabitation."

This is what I meant about the larger issues. I suppose theater has for some time been considered a "white space," and perhaps people are tired of talking/thinking about how to change that. But continued dialogue may be needed...I read recently that LaChanze was detained at her stage door because someone couldn't find her name on the call list. Which could be totally innocent, I know, but could also be because theater is considered to be a white space.

Namo, you have been very much a man of your word since I asked you to give me a break.

I blocked you. Obviously there is something you do that reminds me of something I absolutely HATE about myself, or something in myself that I have worked through and moved past but that you do in your writing that triggers a rage response from me. I mean, it's obvious to me after looking inside. So I blocked you. I don't recall you asking me to give you a break, but then again I never once read one of your long screeds all the way to the end. Once you infuriated me, I just responded, about 25% of the times it happened. I blocked you for me, not for you, but I'm glad you got relief from my word that I never gave you.

White people, progressive thinkers, those who think deeply about issues should stop writing the general "we" and then referring to others as "minorities." Also, maybe phase out "minorities" all together. There are better, more nuanced constructions rather than falling into the trap of the old language.

You can see posts by poster's that you've blocked when scrolling through a thread to reply to someone else.

Updated On: 1/16/16 at 07:13 AM

FindingNamo said: "I blocked you. Obviously there is something you do that reminds me of something I absolutely HATE about myself, or something in myself that I have worked through and moved past but that you do in your writing that triggers a rage response from me. I mean, it's obvious to me after looking inside. So I blocked you. I don't recall you asking me to give you a break, but then again I never once read one of your long screeds all the way to the end. Once you infuriated me, I just responded, about 25% of the times it happened. I blocked you for me, not for you, but I'm glad you got relief from my word that I never gave you.

White people, progressive thinkers, those who think deeply about issues should stop writing the general "we" and then referring to others as "minorities." Also, maybe phase out "minorities" all together. There are better, more nuanced constructions rather than falling into the trap of the old language.

"

You've forgotten the exchange, which is not surprising since it's been about a year.. I accused you of dogging my every post and asked you to stop. You swore you would do so. And you did. Yes, I assumed you had blocked me, but I still thought your keeping your word should be acknowledged; I just couldn't figure out how to do so while being blocked. When you posted to me here, I seized the opportunity.

You prefer a style of posting that relies largely on (often very clever) quips and snarks. I enjoy your posts very much. But I don't think all issues can be clearly addressed in 164 characters or less. As you point out, my shorthand use of the term "minorities" (a term which in my usage always includes myself) is misleading and really archaic.

Since we have no true "majority" any more, just a collection of minorities, I'll find another way to express the concept. Thank you for the correction.