Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: rossde 06:27 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| Watching Stars in the House, Lynn Ahrens commented that when Ragtime came out in 1998, it seemed to celebrate how far we have come in race relations. She said that now, she feels that it shows how far we still have to go. Is there a place for it in our current discourse? I wonder if a new revival, maybe done in a different setting (like last year's Oklahoma), might resonate? Ross |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: CanadianRyan 07:57 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: Ragtime... for our time - rossde 06:27 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I worked on an "in concert" production a few years ago - we changed nothing in the script or songs... the number of people who felt "it was very relevant" to the times was massive - so that maybe doesn't answer your question the than it certainly wasn't a "we've come so far" feeling as "how little has changed/we still have a long way to go" feeling from the majority of the audience. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:40 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: Ragtime... for our time - rossde 06:27 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Lynn Ahrens commented that when Ragtime came out in 1998, it seemed to celebrate how far we have come in race relations. She said that now, she feels that it shows how far we still have to go." Ain't Time a kick in the pants? One of the things I always disliked about RAGTIME was its rather smug and comforting message for the white folk (who made up well over 3/4's of its audience in every production I ever saw or was in). The emotional reaction so many white folk had at the curtain call made me think it had touched a very deep and fragile spot for them and their cheering at the end proved that they had passed the test as good people. I don't think that's a reason for not doing it and playing too much against that might result in a very warped production, given that the material is crafted that way. One thing I remember thinking back in 1998 when I first saw it in Toronto was Brian Stokes Mitchell's casting as Coalhouse. By casting a very light-skinned actor with telegenic good looks, it made Coalhouse's "otherness" in relation to The White Family so much less urgent. Not that a person of Mitchell's complexion wouldn't have stood out in turn-of-the-century New Rochelle, but in late 20th century New York, he couldn't have been a more charming, attractive presence for a white audience. That transgression of coming into the house uninvited is a huge thing and with Mitchell it felt perfunctory. (Quentin Earl Darrington in the revival felt like much more of a threat and while his singing isn't quite as calming as Stokes, I thought he told the story more effectively.) It's an ambitious musical and a lot of it works really well. Having three protagonists is a tall order so it's not surprising that some story lines got sacrificed. Ultimately it succeeds in having a different lens for different audience members. Inevitably the whites will see it through Mother's eyes, the blacks through Coalhouse's and the immigrants through Tateh's. (Presumably the magicians will see it through Houdini's eyes.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: huskyital (huskyital@yahoo.com) 02:26 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - portenopete 11:40 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| The term "white folk" or "black folk" I find very demeaning. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: portenopete 03:07 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - huskyital 02:26 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| I loathe it too, but it seems to be the mot juste for the moment. (Its' strained conviviality is preferable to the aural assault of "BIPOC".) Just like avoiding buying green bananas, getting too comfortable with any of these expressions is unwise, as someone will deem them offensive soon enough. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 02:43 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - huskyital 02:26 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Do you find it demeaning in the title of the classic book by W.E.B. DuBois, "The Souls of Black Folk"? If so, you might want to read the book. It's about ... the souls of ...black folk. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: singleticket 10:42 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: Ragtime... for our time - rossde 06:27 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| Is there a place for it in our current discourse? Sure, why not. The material is about the interweaving of black and immigrant experience and ultimately solidarity. It's a political program that started in the 1900's and in many ways continues into the present in the streets with BLM. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It would entirely hinge on the interpretation & direction of "Coalhouse Demands" & "Look What You've Done" in Act 2 | |
| Last Edit: GrumpyMorningBoy 10:34 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 10:33 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: Ragtime... for our time - rossde 06:27 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| There's a lot of room for interpretation within the staging of those songs. But whether we view Coalhouse's actions as righteous and correct or as antagonistic and errant would go a long long way toward provoking the exact issues that are playing out in today's national headlines. I think the original Broadway recording reveals that in 1996/1997, the interpretation of those artists -- surely a collaboration between writers, director and actors -- were okay letting Coalhouse seem like someone who had lost his way until Booker T. Washington convinces him to take a path of peace making. I'm really not sure it would need to be staged or interpreted that way now. But poking all of those ideas is what would make a new production come alive. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 07:41 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: Ragtime... for our time - rossde 06:27 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| as my colleagues of color have told me, Lynn's perspective is classic white privilege. 1998 or now, all the same. No difference. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 10:46 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 10:46 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - manchurch03104 07:41 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| It is certainly a privilege when white liberals mythologize the struggles of black people but that doesn't mean that that mythology can't be useful politically to both white and black people. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:59 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - manchurch03104 07:41 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| And what about Doctorow, who of course, created the story and many of the characters? How about McNally? How about Flaherty's music? ALL summarily dismissed as "classic white privilege?" | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 07:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - Chromolume 08:59 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm talking about Ahren's statement itself, not the show. That statement comes 100% from a place of white privilege. Ask any person of color how much progress this country has made in 400 years. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: huskyital (huskyital@yahoo.com) 02:31 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - manchurch03104 07:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Ridiculous statement......Jackie Robinson was the first African American to make it to major sports. How many now are in baseball, football and basketball? We've come a long way. Obama would not have been elected fifty years ago. Yes there is still much that we can do but we have made a hell of a lot of progress from even 50 years ago. Martin Luther King did not march for nothing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: showtunesoprano 12:17 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - manchurch03104 07:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Is it "white privilege" to be unaware of violence being perpetrated on Black Americans by law enforcement, and vigilantes? I suppose, though I would call it something like "white blindness" or "white ignorance" rather than "white privilege." What Ahrens was saying was that in 1998, white Americans were not aware of this kind of treatment. Therefor, the show depicted a time in the past, with characters/actions that no longer seemed present. In the past 20 years, the advent of cell phones/cameras and social media has shown us that, in fact, "this will happen again, and again, and again" and is still happening. It makes the show more relevant, not less. I was listening to the cast album while driving a few years ago after one of these horrific incidents, and almost had to pull the car over because it was devastating to hear that lyric. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 02:41 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - showtunesoprano 12:17 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| The "blindness" is the privilege. A black person cannot be blind in a similar way without facing danger. A white person faces no danger if he or she is blind--they have the privilege of ignoring certain realities. I think your judgement of Ahrens is much more harsh than calling her comments "classic white privilege." If she indeed "was saying was that in 1998, white Americans were not aware of this kind of treatment. Therefor, the show depicted a time in the past, with characters/actions that no longer seemed present," then she is stating that her work was for white audiences and excluded the perspective of black people. If you really believe that, it is a pretty awful accusation. I am more generous and think it was only classic white privilege and not something more disturbing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: showtunesoprano 04:19 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - whereismikeyfl 02:41 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| I said no such thing, and she said no such thing. Do not put words in our mouths. I was merely trying to understand/interpret how her statement was "classic white privilege" since that accusation did not seem valid to me. But I can agree that blindness=privilege, so I understand it now. And I believe I expanded on her original statement quite accurately, considering I did watch the original source. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Last Edit: whereismikeyfl 07:58 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 07:57 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - showtunesoprano 04:19 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:53 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - manchurch03104 07:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| I've been seeing a LOT of black Republicans at the RNCC this week. I suspect if I asked them they'd say America has made HUGE strides forward. Just because our politics don't align, are their voices unworthy of being unheard? Without for aa second forgetting that there is still so much work to do, it's idiotic to say that Emancipation and the Civil Rights Act did nothing to further the cause of black people in American society. The fact that amongst much of the BIPOC academic mafia and cognoscenti, one of the main topics of discussion is micro aggression. Something tells me that if the brave young people who did the sit-ins at lunch counters and faced off against the goons on the other side of the Edmund Pettus Bridge had the choice, they'd've been just fine with micro aggressions. As a middle-aged gay, I know that my "lifestyle" was criminal until quite recently. I grew up at the tail end of the era where you worried that if you were drinking in a bar you might get raided and arrested. Even more likely if you were at a bath house. If you "read queer" you were open season for bullying and assault. You learned to chuckle at the homophobia you'd encounter on TV and at the movies. To say things haven't improved is just stupid and illogical. America was on the cusp of electing a married, gay president this year. We're collectively learning that the struggle for understanding and accepting one another is an ongoing, probably never-ending one. . |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:02 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - portenopete 11:53 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Something tells me that if the brave young people who did the sit-ins at lunch counters and faced off against the goons on the other side of the Edmund Pettus Bridge had the choice, they'd've been just fine with micro aggressions." But that thought is exactly the problem. White people and politicians hiding behind the illusion that these big strokes of progress are enough, that black people know it's better than it used to be when they couldn't vote or could be hung for looking at a white woman or beaten to death for sitting in the wrong seat or tormented for going to school with white people, etc. This movement isn't only about micro aggressions... but pointing out that freedom fighters of the civil rights movement and prior would prefer micro aggressions IS a micro aggression and just perpetuates the notion that things are fine, and that there are no macro aggressions going on now/still/since, when there are countless. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 08:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - manchurch03104 07:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| To be clear: Ahrens did NOT say that there were no racial problems in 1998. Saying "we've come a long way in the previous century" doesn't mean there isn't still work to do. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| she's literally not wrong... | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:56 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:53 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - MockingbirdGirl 08:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| But she is nonetheless not "right" because she is missing the point, and that is the sign of her filtered understanding due to her white privilege. Yes, a lot of progress *has* been made since the 1906... that doesn't mean that there's isn't still SO much to do, that what has improved didn't come way too slowly, and that any and everything that happens is still happening in a country built on racism and slavery and a system with that as its foundation. What IS tone deaf about her statement is that the very specific incidents of racism and violence that happen to Coalhouse and Sarah and the reaction of the system and the police could and did happen in 1998 and in the early 90s, as well as today obviously. I wish she had said "in 1998 Ragtime was saying how far we have to come because the same story could have taken place today, and in 2020 it is tragically no different." Had she said the same thing about Dessa Rose (a show taking place during slavery) maybe it would have not sounded like she was unaware of the realities of being black in America. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:17 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - MockingbirdGirl 08:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| and she expressly says that, but it is still an assessment borne of white privilege. that does not discredit her work but it does prompt interest in the perspective of the subject community. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You can love and appreciate something and still find it problematic | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 11:37 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - Chromolume 08:59 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| my 2 cents. I’m here for call out culture. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| what is problematic in Ragtime? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:31 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: You can love and appreciate something and still find it problematic - HadriansMall 11:37 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm curious to know the thoughts on this, from anyone. And I don't mean because now looking back people wish a black writer had written it, or the 1/3 of the show show's 3 stories and sets of lead characters that deals with a black experience. I'm curious what, if you didn't know the race of the authors, feels like it shouldn't be there or is a clear result, creatively or in the writing, that not have been written by a black writer. I'm not saying there couldn't be anything... I just want to know what people think there is. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: what is problematic in Ragtime? | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 08:56 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: what is problematic in Ragtime? - Chazwaza 04:31 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| I remember finding the conclusion problematic--the integration of Coalhouse and Sarah's son into the white family. Granted, it was a utopian moment and we need those in our theatre (cf. Jill Dolan's Utopias in Performance), but it range false to me, since it implied that this young boy would be on an equal footing with the Little Boy. I think it would have been more likely that he would be consigned to the kitchen, handed over to another set of "Negroes" (to use the language of the time and the language of the narration) during that time period. That seemed to me to sentimentalize the ongoing racial problems of the US, which were still apparent to the audience in 1988, even if not as focused as they are today. I realize that the future of the adopted son was not spelled out in Doctorow's novel (which I haven't read in 20 years, so if it was spelled out, please correct me), but McNally and Galati, the latter having grown up in the suburbs of Chicago, should have known that this moment, while heart-warming and satisfying for some, was probably not realistic, even in a musical pla, where there is often some "lightening" of the actual conditions for entertainment and artistic effect. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: what is problematic in Ragtime? | |
| Posted by: CanadianRyan 07:56 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: what is problematic in Ragtime? - Chazwaza 04:31 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I think an argument could be made that the fact that both prominent black characters in the show (Sarah and Coalhouse) both have to die for any sort of "change" is problematic. There could also be an argument that Mother taking Sarah and Coalhouse Jr. in its "white saviour syndrome" - of course if I recall correctly both of those things happen in the novel, so not necessarily conducive to the play. Although in the book of Wicked Elphaba dies, and they "greenwashed" that for the musical (that's meant to be a joke). Why does the story have to be built around the beating and shooting deaths of black bodies? A similar argument could be made for the fact that in a lot of queer/gay stories the gay character dies. I think there's a term maybe trauma porn that addresses this, and I'm sure I've done not a great job at explaining it... but after reading that's what pinged in my brain. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: what is problematic in Ragtime? | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:47 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:40 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: what is problematic in Ragtime? - CanadianRyan 07:56 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm sorry... i can't get behind this. You want to erase the very issue being taken on by the show so that audiences don't have it in mind? Do you think Ragtime normalizes beating and killing black bodies? You are really comparing Ragtime to trauma porn? I'm really lost on how to respond to this. But i appreciate your response. I think there's merit in introducing the potential issue I really think if that's how we are going to look at all past plays, movies and literature, or anything yet to come, we are in trouble. But for what it's worth, Coalhouse blowing himself up in the building is my least favorite part of the story. But i think it makes a very big statement and that statement isn't "let's watch a black man's body explode for change". It's a culmination of the white world coming full force against a black man who wants justice for a crime done and a life lost, and the unraveling of the lie of the American dream and American promise fed to all of us but especially to black people when he and Sarah need to system to work for them just once, and the extent of his rage and need to make his voice heard, to impact SOMETHING in the system set up to drown and ignore and abuse him, vs what's waiting for him if he walks out of the building to the police. It's not glorifying the situation and it's not like we have to watch him murdered by police. Are you implying we cannot have any plays, even ones from before, that do not include racism and abuse of minorities? This is a tricky line. But I don't think the answer is to rewrite the story of Ragtime so that Sarah doesn't die and Coalhouse isn't in a position to take his own life rather than to give it to the police. I also do not see Mother as a "savior" but rather someone coming into her own newly found decency and lack of selfishness, and reflection on the class divide and racial divide. I don't think Mother looks like a hero here, and her first realization that "the help" have lives outside her house and her decision to not let a baby die in a hole does not paint her as some hero either, it paints her as a very stunted woman who is seeing the world a bit more and realizing her own prison as a woman in the patriarchal society she subscribed to fully. I understand why in the optics department it can be seen as "white savior"... but I don't think it's written that way. But perhaps my world view as a white person has kept me from understanding how it is that. I don't know. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: what is problematic in Ragtime? | |
| Posted by: CanadianRyan 07:55 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: what is problematic in Ragtime? - Chazwaza 08:40 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Again, I’m not saying I agree with those, I’m saying I think that could be people’s complaints... similar to the complaint of white saviourism/whitewashing of the American response in Vietnam that you see in Miss Saigon... I’m not saying that these shows should be rewritten... but if every sincere concern with a show is met with a “that’s silly” argument then really are we listening to the BIPOC voices that we should be right now? Not every opinion needs a devil’s advocate. I’m thinking also of the recent discussion regarding Randy Rainbow’s tweets. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: what is problematic in Ragtime? | |
| Posted by: showtunesoprano 08:56 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: what is problematic in Ragtime? - Chazwaza 08:40 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe this is something that has changed in subsequent stagings, but my memory from the 3 times I saw the original production is that Coalhouse IS killed by the police. He does not blow himself up, as your post says. He makes sure that everyone else has left, and is safe, and then opens the doors and the police open fire. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| ha oh dear! | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:07 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: what is problematic in Ragtime? - showtunesoprano 08:56 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| My memory is off then, and I saw the show recently! You're right. So I take that part back. However, police murdering an unarmed black man who is surrendering even is a very real thing... I think there's an argument to be made for not rewriting that either. Especially when the majority of the audience is going to be white, and Coalhouse is a character we love and understand and side with and root for. I could easily see that moment happening with projections flashing of articles about black men in our day being murdered by the police to tie it into the idea that nothing has changed and connect 1904 to today, as the show should do in our minds if not literally. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| This is exactly what I said in one of my posts below. | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 05:30 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: what is problematic in Ragtime? - Chazwaza 04:31 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, The King and I would have been a different (and/or “less problematic”) show had it been written by Eurasians, or The Drowsy Chaperone has it been written by single gay men, or the TV show Northern Exposure if it were written by Indigenous members of the Tingit tribe of Canada. But just because 10 to even 50% of something’s core cast is made up of one group does not Krane that only that group should be allowed to tell that story. (Was anyone really offended that an Asian-American woman wrote what many thought was a cutting and hilarious Broadway play a few seasons back about straight white men?) But just to stick to Ragtime: what specifically are any black people apparently offended by, or what do they think should have been left out or written differently? Not one answer has been given in this thread. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: claploudly 08:32 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - manchurch03104 07:41 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think you and your friends comments that Lynn is "classic white privilege" is totally off and uncalled for. Every time I have seen Ragtime I have loved the way she and Mr. Flaherty and Mr. McNally wrote and wove together a show that depicts the greatness and the shortcomings of each group of Americans. It was not judgmental against any one of the groups. Just because a writer of music or plays or novels or poetry is born in one race doesn't mean they are not capable of presenting a universal story or song or even classical music that reaches many different races. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 10:34 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - claploudly 08:32 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think this is being a bit unfair. If Ahrens really did say what rossde quotes, it is hard to see what is "off and uncalled for." That anyone who could believe in1998, that we had come so far in race relations was clearly out of touch. And that someone in 2020, says that was the perspective of 1998 demonstrates that they do not recognize they were out of touch. POC did not have the option to be out of touch. I personally like Ahrens as a person and as an artist. The quality of her work on Ragtime is not at issue. But making comments like that demonstrate an obliviousness that is hard to characterize as anything other than white privilege. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 08:04 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - whereismikeyfl 10:34 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| EXACTLY! THANK YOU. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:41 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - claploudly 08:32 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| white privilege calling comments by POC about white privilege "totally off and uncalled for." is it any wonder that POC are so frustrated with "classic white privilege"? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:50 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: Irony incarnate - ryhog 09:41 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| The phrase "classic white privilege" can be tossed around all over this thread, but I would like for someone to directly address it in terms of Ragtime. All we have so far is someone telling us that their black colleagues would peg Lynn Ahrens' work that way. But with no explanation as to what that perception is based on, aside from what sounds like an outright blind dismissal of a white writer's work simply because she is white, which isn't helpful to ANYONE. Maybe we could actually have a discussion about this instead of attacking each other out of hand? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 08:01 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chromolume 09:50 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| as I wrote above, my comment had nothing to do with the show itself; it has to do with Lynn Ahrens, a white person, making a statement that 1998's ragtime demonstrated how far we had come in race relations. That is a racist statement. And the fact that she made the statement recently shows how little she knows about race relations in America. read White Fragility. You're getting upset because I am pushing back against your white privilege. I understand. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: joerialto 09:59 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - manchurch03104 08:01 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Aren’t white people part of ‘race relations’ too? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:16 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - joerialto 09:59 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| They are, and by and large they (we) need to be better at it. I recommend picking up "Me and White Supremacy" and doing the exercises. It's rather like "The Artist's Way" for dismantling racism. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:37 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - manchurch03104 08:01 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| read White Fragility. You're getting upset because I am pushing back against your white privilege. I understand What an inane and hurtful assumption. You don't know anything about me. The only thing you're right about is that I did misunderstand your original point - that you were referring to Ahrens' statement, not about Ragtime itself. I can apologize for misreading you. Will you apologize in return? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:46 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chromolume 09:50 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I can only speak for myself (obviously) but I took the comment to be related to what Lynn said about her perception of what the work celebrated then and now, not to the work itself. In other words, I took it to mean that she was describing the show from a white perspective that did not (and could not) articulate how it was perceived by POC. That, to me, is what the notion of white privilege is all about: assuming that one can say what "we" celebrate etc. (And I think the same thing can and does happen with other groups that are not racially described.) Now to the broader point, I think a writer writes what they want to say, and puts it out there. Others can then react to it from whatever experience they bring to the table and that reaction, by definition, will evolve over time. I think some could have a discussion about the substance you are looking for, which would not necessarily exclude some who don't think that a white person can write about the POC experience (or a straight person about gays, or a gentile person about Jews, or Danes about the Portuguese, etc etc). But I also don't think a white person can dismiss a POC's comments as "totally off and uncalled for" in that discussion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:52 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 10:46 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| But I also don't think a white person can dismiss a POC's comments as "totally off and uncalled for" in that discussion. But I never said that. Just to clarify. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:17 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chromolume 10:52 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| Oh you absolutely did not. I was quoting an earlier post in this thread just to make the point that your idea of a "discussion" can't happen if some people are just going to say things like that. I'm not sure I am equipped to participate in the discussion, and I am not sure it can happen here unless you recruit more persons of color, but I am very supportive of conversations from which everyone can actually learn something. I have always been fond of the show, although I have my issues (mostly dramaturgical). I am also intrigued by the idea of seeing what a 2020 Coalhouse might look like. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 08:02 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 11:17 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| Coalhouse would die in the first 5 minutes of the show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:26 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 11:17 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| Sure but on an anonymous chat board where we don't know each other's race and "recruiting" someone for a specific thread conversations doesn't seem like an option, you don't think that white and presumably white chatters can have a thoughtful discussion and dissection of a musical's racial elements and the white writers of it while also keeping in mind the context that they are white people discussing it and won't be able to come to any conclusion? I think regardless of how many people in this chat identify their race for us as non-white, intelligent people can endeavor to have a crack and discussing it. Not making a decision about the racial issues, but a discussion. That's better to me than just avoiding it unless we have a chatter involved who tells us they are black. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:04 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chazwaza 04:26 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| the recruiting "suggestion" was just a bit of semi-humor. The point, which remains, is that (based on some presumptions that I would be happy to have corrected) this board is overwhelmingly white (not surprising since that would align with theatre audience demographics in general and especially on Broadway). Now to your question, yes we can and should have such discussions and, as you also say, we should also be mindful of how white privilege permeates our efforts to "crack" it. Logically, if we are to learn (and this is the essence of the #weseeyouWAT movement) we need to expand that discussion, not here but more broadly. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:31 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 09:04 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yeah, we of course need to expand it but since we don't advertise for new members, by race or otherwise, or identify our own race in our names (usually), it's quite hard to even know if you're discussing something with a white person or not. (And while it's definitely accurate to say that the theater audience especially on Bway is overwhelmingly white... so is the population of our country, so you could also say it's fair to assume most internet chat boards have a majority of white users, if we're going off statistics). I'm all for being aware of how white privilege permeates and filters our views, experiences and opinions. I'm sorry if I jumped to the assumption about what you were suggesting. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:00 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chazwaza 04:31 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| no worries, you're allowed. :-) btw I think "overwhelming" is in the rear view mirror and fading. Currently under 60%, with the majority projected to change in 2045 which is not that far away. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:04 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 07:00 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| It can't come soon enough! (and i'll bet if the census were complete it might be here). But caucasian will still be, and i'm sure at least for the rest of our lifetimes, the largest racial group in America, even if the combining of the numbers of all non-white peoples overtake as the combined majority. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:34 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chazwaza 07:04 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| definitely plus we have non-white and white hispanics factoring in so we have people identifying as POC who are caucasian. What really can't come soon enough (but won't during our lifetimes) is when we (collectively) only notice the way we notice redheads and blonds. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:57 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 07:34 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| ha, as a person who is one of those (of course i can't say which!), i can't wait. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 09:37 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:36 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chazwaza 07:57 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| as a person who is one of those (of course i can't say which!) Your screenname is a giveaway lol - at least I think...;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:17 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chromolume 09:36 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| I am lost here. The only thing I am confident about is that chazwaza on twitter is someone else. someone very else. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:44 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 11:17 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Ha, no no, my twitter name is not and has nothing to do with my profile name here. I couldn't possibly be so obvious, otherwise you'd know I'm actually Dave Malloy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:08 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chazwaza 11:44 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| have you looked at chazwaza on twitter? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 01:48 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 09:08 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. Not a single broadway meme, video, or reference joke! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:20 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - ryhog 11:17 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| It's the "waza" part of the screenname. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:33 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chromolume 11:20 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| World Association of Zoos and Aquariums? Actually one of my nephews (who is Latino -- Mexican-American) goes by the nickname "Chaz" rather than "Chuck" or "Charlie". Just sayin'. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 01:55 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - BroadwayTonyJ 08:33 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| Not quite, lol. But I've always wondered if one were to substitute "Queenie" from "Chaz" if that led somewhere. (Obvious hint - it's a lyric in TWO shows.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:01 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chromolume 01:55 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| Chazwaza is actually a reference from The Simpsons. It's what an Australian guy says he'd call a bullfrog. Marge: We have them in America, they're called bullfrogs. Aussie: What?! That's an odd name. I'd have called them chazwazas. However the internet (and maybe the simpsons) seems to favor a zz spelling of it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:09 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chazwaza 02:01 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| Ha! Well, I'm glad I know the real reference now. ;-) Of course, why you'd want to be called a bullfrog I don't know, lol. ;-) It's funny, though - because all these years I've been thinking "waza" as in "was a (blond)." Maybe I'm TOO much of a musical theatre geek? ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Irony incarnate | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:34 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chromolume 02:09 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| Nothing makes me happier than the assumption that my profile name is a reference to LaChiusa's masterpiece. But alas, the name does not give any clues to my hair color. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I agree, and... | |
| Last Edit: ShowGoer 10:38 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 10:26 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Irony incarnate - Chromolume 09:50 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| There are flaws in Ragtime, as there are in everything from Macbeth to West Side Story, but I would like someone of color to either point out specifically what about Ahrens’s work on the show troubles them so much, or to point to a song or stanza that they would have been embarrassed to have written and/or think that a black writer would never have written that way. (Let us not forget that not only was the book writer of Ragtime white, Terrence McNally, but so was the original author of the novel it’s based on, EL Doctorow, as well as the playwright/screenwriter who wrote the film adaptation, Michael Weller.... so not only is Ahrens in solid company dramatizing this work, but with dozens of white characters on the stage and only 3, arguably 4, main black characters - admittedly very crucial - it’s not like this is an August Wilson milieu, and there’s an argument to be made that it seems no more imperative for Ragtime to be written by black writers than it would for, say, South Pacific to be written by Tonkinese women.) We can’t begin to learn where other groups or individuals are coming from if they toss off colloquial catch-phrases that seem to lump all people of a different group under the burden of a different monolith, and without educating us or being specific as to why they feel that way about them. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 09:21 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - claploudly 08:32 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I always thought the novel was centrally about the Mother. (Not a racist thing, I don't think. Just that's how it seemed to me. Her freeing herself. Including the Emma Goldman subplot...it was kinda more feminist than about Coalhouse.) I think the movie is about Coalhouse. Partly because Mary Steenburgen isn't right enough to locate herself in the world, and to travel from the imprisonment of her time to full-on consciousness. And by omitting the Emma Goldman plot line, we don't get the feminism. And the actor who played Coalhouse was great, and Jimmy Cagney was right in the middle of the Coalhouse storyline. I think it needs to be about Coalhouse or Mother or both. But not about everybody. But I don't think the problem with any of the versions is some kind of racist thing. It's just an aesthetic thing. There's leeway but you need to make it work. Is INTO THE WOODS about the Baker's Wife or Cinderella? Or the Baker? I think the director helps in shaping that kind of thing. I think the musical play doesn't know who it's about (although it leans a little bit toward Mother) and that's part of the problem. It's not enough about either Coalhouse or Mother. To me. It becomes a sort of a tapestry, and I can't find my way in. (But I only have seen it twice, the two times on Broadway, and the first time I saw it from way too far away in that big house.). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:09 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - lordofspeech 09:21 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| And I think the musical terribly shortchanges Younger Brother, Evelyn Nesbitt and Emma Goldman, a major reason why I don't like it much. It needed to do more, not less. It terribly oversimplifies things, while making ridiculous some things that are extraordinarily rich in the novel. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ragtime... for our time | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:05 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - AlanScott 05:09 am EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| I seem to recall someone using the term "cardboard cutouts" to describe them (and others). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You also need to remember... | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 05:21 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - lordofspeech 09:21 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| .... that Younger Brother, player by Brad Dourif, makes a much bigger impression in the film, to say nothing of Evelyn Nesbit. It’s not for nothing that the film’s other Oscar nomination for acting, aside from Rollins as Coalhouss, is Elizabeth McGovern) - which, since Nesbit sings one music-hall number early in the stage version and is basically never heard from again. sort of says all that needs to be said regarding how much the focus with this piece (and others) can vary widely not just from viewer to viewer, but from adaptation to adaptation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| i think it's quite clear who it's about | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:19 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Ragtime... for our time - lordofspeech 09:21 pm EDT 08/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| On one level it is EASILY about Mother, Coalhouse and Tateh - all 3. The way the show is structured and what each scene focuses on and how the stories are laid out makes that very clear to me. Yes there are a lot of supporting characters which help tell one of those 3 stories and/or the time and place. But how do you tell the stories of the 3 main characters, who are the primary focus and representatives of the 3 communities representing the American landscape at the time, without all the plot points/meetings/and motivations of these supporting and side characters? On another more ultimate level it is about Mother, and Coalhouse's story and Tateh's story, and all the characters within them, come to mingle in her world as her world, her world view, and her view of herself changes based on her interactions with these people/stories. I think it's an amazingly structured musical that accomplishes A LOT in its running time. And like ITW, who Ragtime is "about" will change from viewer to viewer. (but dramatically speaking I stand by that it's "about" Mother's journey ultimately) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| At least based on the original B'way staging... | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 10:23 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: i think it's quite clear who it's about - Chazwaza 04:19 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Anyone who's seen the staging of the original Broadway production sees that they attempted to present three very distinct stories with three distinct groups of people, and Mother, Coalhouse and Tateh become the protagonists of each of those stories. But having seen the original cast in NYC, I have to say that it certainly felt like it was Coalhouse's musical. This may have been because Brian Stokes Mitchell gave such a breakout performance, but it's also aided by the fact that he and Sarah get the most music. -- feel free to go look at the track list of the show. Coalhouse and Sarah's plot gets the most music. --- Not that Marin Mazzie or Peter Friedman weren't also terrific. Ms. Mazzie's "Back to Before" is an undeniable highlight. But I don't think Tateh's quiet moments can begin to compete with Coalhouse's loud ones, and by the time we're midway through the second act, it's certainly Coalhouse's story to drive toward a climax and resolution. Chazwaza I so often agree with you, but I don't in this one. I do love Mother's journey, and I have a sister who was most moved by Mother's story above all, but I really think the writers threw their spotlight on Coalhouse. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: At least based on the original B'way staging... | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:00 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:57 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: At least based on the original B'way staging... - GrumpyMorningBoy 10:23 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| And I, so often, with you! I think the way the super-focus of the story (super meaning above the other focuses) switches, it a lot of act two does feel devoted to Coalhouse but i think that's also because his story is more urgent, emotional and exciting by its nature, and has more bold things to say about America and has more plot points. But a LOT of act two is about Mother and Father fading away from each other and Mother's budding connection to Tateh. But I think if you look at the writing - the type of writing more than the amount - the character development is top heavy on the side of Mother. One "Back to Before" is worth 3 "Make Them Hear You"'s. Outside of "Sarah Brown Eyes" (a personal favorite), there's very little in the way of emotional development for Coalhouse in act 2. It's all anger and justified righteousness... and plot. His songs are plot sequences and stating bold anthemic thoughts about life and America... but they aren't so much about HIM. Mother's songs have more depth and are about her. Sadly "Our Children" is one of my least favorite of the full out songs of the score (i.e. i'm not counting the musical sequences and musicalized plot advancing narrations). Tateh clearly has the weakest material and least impactful material in act 2 (i don't think they meant for that to be, i just think his songs are weaker and his story is rooted in a bit too much lucky coincidence, however i know he is also representing an America experience of the time), but he has a ton of amazing stuff in Act 1, more than Mother if you add it up. But also the story begins with Mother's situation and conflict and feelings, and it ends on the evolution of her personal story as a legit story and as a metaphor for America's evolution. Unlike Coalhouse and Tateh who are spending the better parts of the show reacting to things happening to them (good or bad), Mother is making more choices. And as showtunesoprano pointed out, technically Mother/Father story only has 1 more track than Coalhouse/Sarah... though I would agree that stuff like "Nothing Like the City" almost doesn't count toward what we are debating. But again, "Back to Before" is a huge piece for the play and character, in a way that the rousing and memorable and effectively placed "Make Them Hear You" isn't. But I think a strength of this show and its incredible book is that every Lead Character's story is every other Lead Character's story. They all mix and none of the plot points or character development would be possible without the other leads/communities. But I do also think the strength of the actors and the way the show is directed has a lot to do with who any given viewer sees as who the show is "about", besides what that viewer brings to it personally. I have no doubt many thought it was about Coalhouse and many thought it was about Mother. I doubt anyone thinks the show as a whole is "about" Tateh more than Mother or Coalhouse, but that's why I say it is clearly "about" all 3 on a specific level and a community/symbolic level. (I saw it twice on Broadway in the original run and I was a teen so I didn't specifically relate to any of the 3 leads more, I just took in the entire show and felt it was pretty evenly about them all while ultimately being about Mother's journey from guarded wealthy housewife who questions nothing to independent modern woman owning her life and place in society). And all three have amazing material and story and character development in Act 1. I think a weakness of the show (which I find to be one of the strongest original musicals of the last 50 years) is that Act 2 just isn't as interesting or strong in its pay off of the stories/scenes set up in Act 1. But I think they generally do a remarkable job of keeping the show afloat and the score impressive. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: At least based on the original B'way staging... | |
| Posted by: showtunesoprano 01:11 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: At least based on the original B'way staging... - GrumpyMorningBoy 10:23 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| I took your advice and looked at the track list. I think that Mother/Father's story gets about the same amount of music as Coalhouse/Sarah's story. Tateh gets a little shafted, actually. This is how I figured it. I didn't include most of the "celebrity" parts, and I didn't include Younger Brother's story. And sometimes 2 tracks were part of the same "scene." Mother/Father (9 total) "Goodbye, My Love" "Journey On" "What Kind of Woman" "Nothing Like the City" "New Music" "What a Game" "New Music (Reprise)" "Our Children" "Back to Before" Coalhouse/Sarah (10 total) "His Name Was Coalhouse Walker" / "Gettin' Ready Rag" "Your Daddy's Son" – Sarah "New Music" "Wheels of a Dream" "Justice"/"President"/"Till We Reach That Day" "Coalhouse's Soliloquy"/"Coalhouse Demands" "Sarah Brown Eyes" "He Wanted to Say" "Look What You've Done" "Make Them Hear You" Tateh (6 total) "Journey On" "Success" "Nothing Like the City" "Gliding" "Buffalo Nickel Photoplay, Inc." "Our Children" Not that this has anything to do with the original post, or the ensuing discussion, but it seemed like something fun to do. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: At least based on the original B'way staging... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:50 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: At least based on the original B'way staging... - showtunesoprano 01:11 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| There are also some musical scenes not listed here that involve these characters - if I have time later I'll throw them in as well. ;-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i think it's quite clear who it's about | |
| Posted by: huskyital (huskyital@yahoo.com) 07:44 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: i think it's quite clear who it's about - Chazwaza 04:19 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| All I know is that I loved RAGTIME better than THE LION KINH and I felt it showed the problems of both white and black America at the time. I have never felt privileged. As an educator black or white we had to meet the standards. My first supervisor was black and a great guy and he had no problem rising in the ranks. Do Blacks have black privilege in basketball and football? Let's stop with this privilege crap. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i think it's quite clear who it's about | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:41 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i think it's quite clear who it's about - huskyital 07:44 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| "I have never felt privileged." You're not supposed to. It is not about you. "As an educator black or white we had to meet the standards." Seriously? If you are educated (much less an educator) you have surely read studies about the disparities. "My first supervisor was black and a great guy and he had no problem rising in the ranks." Did he tell you that or do you just assume that? Or was he a great guy because he didn't confront you with his truth? Blacks who have no problems rising in the ranks have generally mastered the fine art of knowing what to say and what not to say. Cf. the next question. "Do Blacks have black privilege in basketball and football?" Ask Colin Kaepernick. "Let's stop with this privilege crap." OK. You go first. I don't know what you point was here, but if you had set out to illuminate the worst of white privilege, you couldn't have done a better job. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i think it's quite clear who it's about | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 10:07 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 10:05 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i think it's quite clear who it's about - ryhog 09:41 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Also, while surely people of color who are not in the "great guy" category have risen in ranks, there are countless white men who have, and they didn't have to be "great guys" to do so. To say this also implies that if a black person hasn't risen it might be due to them just not being someone their coworkers consider a "great guy" rather than other reasons often at play that have nothing to do with them. (I'm not saying that POC, like any person, can't be unpleasant to work with or not good at their job, I'm saying that white people do not have to work against the issue of their skin and hundreds of years of racism passed down and a system designed to put them at a disadvantage.) There's a similar seed in the idea that we shouldn't be saying that a black man murdered by police wasn't doing anything "wrong" to make it seem unfair... doing something "suspicious" or even committing a crime does not make you eligible for cold blooded murder by police, just as it doesn't in almost all cases for white people. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i think it's quite clear who it's about | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:55 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i think it's quite clear who it's about - huskyital 07:44 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| While we agree that Ragtime is a wonderful musical... I can't get on board with the rest of what you're saying. Individual experiences do not invalidate the truth of a systemic problem that is the foundation of the entire system. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i think it's quite clear who it's about | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 02:45 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i think it's quite clear who it's about - huskyital 07:44 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Your sports analogy shows how inane your logic is. If black people are over-represented (in terms of the proportion of the general population), it is a combination of talent and which areas of work they have traditionally been permitted to rise in. And if you paid attention to the history of sport in the US, you would know that it is only in the last fifty years that non-white people have been permitted to compete in professional sports. Were you really an educator? Pity, if so. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i think it's quite clear who it's about | |
| Posted by: huskyital (huskyital@yahoo.com) 12:10 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i think it's quite clear who it's about - BruceinIthaca 02:45 pm EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| That's just what I said.....Yes and I taught the book RAGTIME.....I pity you for your lack of understanding. Calling out white privilege will do nothing to help racial equality. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i think it's quite clear who it's about | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 10:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i think it's quite clear who it's about - huskyital 07:44 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| Not anything about RAGTIME, but just to clarify the meaning of privilege in this context. White Privilege doesn't mean that a person never had any issues or challenges in life and didn't have to work hard or meet standards or struggle or was able to coast through everything with ease. It means that a person's life wasn't made harder or more challenging simply because of the color of their skin. By discussing white privilege, no one is saying that white people all had it easy and never had to struggle. It's saying that the struggles of white people, generally, didn't have any basis in their race. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: Gustave 01:03 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i think it's quite clear who it's about - JereNYC 10:56 am EDT 08/27/20 | |
|
|
|
| JereNYC has offered a thoughtful and balanced view of the phrase "white privilege" but, in my experience, that's not how it's usually interpreted. By law, a privilege is an entitlement. The word "privilege" itself derives from "special law." Are there special laws for White people? I find the phrase racist. Why is it OK to make specific attributions to all White people as if we're a monolithic group? Surely it would be offensive to do that to Black or Asian people. I thought the goal of our "new-found knowledge" was to treat people as individuals, not by using group labels. (All right, blast away.) Gustave | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 05:30 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Gustave 01:03 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| It sounds like you do not have a lot of experience with the term "white privilege" and that is okay. JereNYC's very clear statement is pretty much the standard definition of the term. You will find it defined that way in almost every article, podcast, textbook, etc. I remember hearing an educator say that she does an exercise where she asks people to speak for two minutes about how their race has impacted their life. She said that white people tend to find this difficult, because they have not really thought about it. They just assume their race as a neutral factor. But what happens when you actually think about how being white has helped (and harmed) you? I have heard groups of Catholics, Jews, Southerners, and Canadians have such conversations---without losing individuality. It is not about people having a "monolithic" similar experience. But there are some experiences that groups share. Pregnant women may be individuals, but they have many experiences in common. Lawyers may be individuals, but get them talking about law school and you will find they have a lot of experiences in common. People who grew up in Park Slope have many shared experiences. That does not make them "monolithic." It makes them part of a group. Sure there are variations, but there are shared experiences. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:51 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:46 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - whereismikeyfl 05:30 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| And of course the real basic point is that it's not about if being white has notably helped your life, i.e. provided a tangible leg up that you are aware of, it's about A) not being aware or needing to be aware or even question if it's there, B) that your skin color didn't put you at a disadvantage in this life/country/world. Poor white people with all the struggles of their poor black neighbors still have white privilege in this country if for no other reason because if they get pulled over or look "suspicious" or even if they commit a crime, they are less likely (or unlikely) to be profiled or murdered or seen as an aggressive and fatal threat to the cop just because of their skin color, and when looking for a job they are more likely to be favored by a white employer than the black person. And countless other reasons. This doesn't mean a black person who is richer or has family money or better connected or more educated or hotter or more able-bodied or hetero-presenting (etc) than you doesn't have advantages you don't have... it means that you don't have the disadvantage built into living in this society that comes from hundreds of years of racism and a system built on exploiting and suppressing and fearing you. I understand fully the frustration of an assumption that you are "privileged" merely by being white -- I am surrounded by white people and non-white people who are massively more privileged than I am in all senses- *except* in the sense that "white privilege" address: that i get to go through the world being visibly a white person. I can't ignore that I have that no matter what else is going on for me or the people (white and non white) around me. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:45 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Chazwaza 06:46 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| I don't necessarily disagree with anything you are saying. However, it's more complicated than the way you are describing it. First of all, there is no universally accepted exact definition of either "white privilege" or even the concept of "whiteness". The definition espoused by esteemed journalist Fareed Zakaria (who hosted a CNN series on race last year) is far more nuanced and complex than what is being stated on this thread. Even the Wikipedia "White Privilege" article states "the concept of white privilege ignores important differences between white subpopulations and individuals" and also "the notion of whiteness cannot be inclusive of all white people." Not all people who consider themselves to be "white" are able to benefit from "white privilege" because of factors like social status, economic circumstances, lack of education, and other things. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Have we learned nothing from all the British imports? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 09:14 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - BroadwayTonyJ 07:45 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| It is interesting how hard it is for Americans to recognize class differences. When we see British drama it is easy for us to recognize a world where class and economic status do not always align. A world were you can be rich but of a lower class or where you can be upper class but poor. However, in America we want to tie class strictly to economics. So we are confused by the idea that a poor white person can be of a higher class than a middle-class black person. We are affected by class (which in our country is usually tied to race) but blind to its existence separate from wealth. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:25 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - BroadwayTonyJ 07:45 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| It's weirdly as if you specifically ignored me addressing that and saying that the 1 uniting "privilege" is how the world treats people with white skin, besides all the other stuff. Being "lower class" or under education or any of these other things is not specifically about race. The way black people in America are treated is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:01 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - BroadwayTonyJ 07:45 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| you are of course correct that these things are more complicated than single sentences can describe, but let's cut to the chase: no person who appears to be white walks around in the same fear of being hit on the head with a club, shot, beaten up, et al by a cop as any black man routinely does. And that's why we are talking about this. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 08:35 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:34 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - ryhog 08:01 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not arguing with you. However, some of the things stated on this thread are over-simplifications and the word "racist" is being tossed around much too causally (not by you). I just thought I should add some clarifications that really do need to be said. I was very careful to make sure every word in my previous post was accurate. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:04 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - BroadwayTonyJ 08:34 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| there are things that have been said in this thread that don't please me, but I was not arguing with you either. I do think we have to be careful with "racist" which, to me (and I think this was discussed previously here), is an "active" word that represents evil, and I think a lot of what's discussed has to do with "racism" especially of the systemic variety and that's something we can and must crawl our way out of. Let me also mention the other post about "class." I think it is confounding to use that term in the US as if the UK sense has any application. We don't have those sorts of class distinctions, and it is a terrible mistake to think race in America is a class. I don't think it moves our enormous race challenges forward an angstrom. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:09 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Gustave 01:03 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| Learned Hand once cautioned "not to make a fortress out of a dictionary." I'd like to suggest a definition by example for "white privilege," in a slightly less charged context. Two men in their 20s, one white and one black, are standing about 10 feet apart on 8th Avenue and 46th Street. Both are hailing a cab. It is a well-documented fact that the cab will, most of the time, pick up the white dude, even if he is farther up the street. That's white privilege. It's also white privilege that the white guy had no idea why he got the cab (because he had not given it a thought). Every black man in America knew. {You can extrapolate to a police encounter if you want.} |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 01:57 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Gustave 01:03 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| I get that, but at the same time I think the point of the term is to make it a personal awareness and accountability thing. We could say "black disadvantage" but the point is to make people aware of the benefit their lives have due to whiteness rather than just the hardship black and brown people have due to their skin color. Also I think in some ways that is the opposite of the goal... treating people as individuals rather than a group, with regard to oppression, puts the onus on the individual to have overcome or deserved or not deserved some kind of oppression or discriminatory behavior against them in their life. It also allows white people to say "I am friends with this black person so is doing fine, so things are fine" rather than saying "all black people are living in a country with deep rooted and systemic racism." It also also people to think or behave as if "the lives of the black people *I know* matter, but it's not my problem if the black people I don't know are killed or oppression or turned in a slave of the prison industrial complex" etc. It's also why we say "ALL Black Lives Matter", to stop allowing non-blacks and blacks alike from cherry picking what type of black people matter, i.e. leaving out LGBTQ+ (especially trans) lives that don't fit into the vision of humans or America or blackness that a lot of people (non-black and black) seem to have. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: Gustave 05:19 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Chazwaza 01:57 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm aware of the incredible hardships that Black people have gone through in this country. And I believe that "All Black Lives Matter." But the constant use of phrases like "white privilege" makes it seem that White people shoulder all the blame. Here's a statistic I can't get past. Roughly 7500 Black people are murdered in this country every year -- and 95% of the murderers are other Black people. Why don't we ever talk about these figures? Gustave | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 09:24 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Gustave 05:19 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| What would we say about the black on black murders? Are you saying that blacks by black cops? Somehow I do not think that is the case? And if we are going to talk about black-on-black murder, we have also to talk about whites murdering whites, which has consistently outnumbers black on black murders. Are you going to talk about those figures? I am having fun with you, because you are grasping at straws here. How you get from "white privilege" to black on black murder is a leap over logic that pretty much speaks for itself. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:33 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Gustave 05:19 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| "the constant use of phrases like "white privilege" makes it seem that White people shoulder all the blame" 1. no it doesn't. 2. if you want to focus on history, yes a lot of "blame" is properly assigned to white people. economic disparity based on race was not a black idea. mass incarceration of black men was not a black idea. etc. etc. these are bitter pills to swallow even for a white person who thinks all black lives matter. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Last Edit: Ann 05:58 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| Posted by: Ann 05:56 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Gustave 05:19 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| Racism is not "hardships." And who should shoulder the blame for racism? It's really a topic for another forum, but I find your comments mindboggling. Examples of white privilege have been provided elsewhere; I hope you see what the phrase means. Most murders involve people of the same race. Most murder victims are killed by someone they knew or a family member. Most whites who are murdered are murdered by whites. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:38 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Ann 05:56 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| Also, "black on black crime" is CONSTANTLY talked about and pushed in the media, and has been since I was a kid in the 90s, and i'm assuming before that. I don't know where Gustave gets the idea that no one was talking about it. What we are talking about now is that those stats do not mean what white people want them to mean. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: Gustave 08:07 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Chazwaza 06:38 pm EDT 08/28/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not aware that black-on-black crime is constantly talked about in the media. I mean that sincerely. The fact that most murders are intra-racial is not in dispute. My point was that the number of black-on-black murders is strongly disproportionate to the number of Blacks in the population. I thought the issue was worth noting. As Ann pointed out, this topic probably belongs on another site -- although I thought ryhog cleverly brought it back to the theatre domain when he placed the cab on 8th Ave. and 46th St! Gustave | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.400328 seconds.