My World is My Stage

I wish I could say that I’m happy about this. I’m not. Not that I felt that someone else should’ve won (I’m actually not familiar with the other plays that got nominated) but more upset that this now gives this play more validity.

Again, don’t take that out of context. I like the play. I really do. I think it is an interesting story about loss. Exactly that, LOSS. It’s not a good play about race-relations or gentrification. While it touches on them, I don’t think that it does a good job discussing those topics (no matter what the critics say). When you pay attention to the beginning and ending of the play, the story about the young man who kills himself and who ultimately is the reason the family decides to move out, you see how loss is the play’s main element. Every character is reacting to the loss of something (home, life, power, community, etc.)

Why will people produce this play? Because it serves their diversity slot. It has more than one Black person and they only have to be subservient for half of the play. It says some shocking things about race that makes us feel like we’ve really tackled and challenged the way we think about race. It’s safe. It doesn’t actually challenge anything but makes it seem like it does. Granted, I’ve seen one production and that company is all about shock and awe and not really about life changing/status-quo pushing conversations about race. This company also does some of the best work around new plays in the area… :-/

What am I saying? I’m saying that this Pulitzer is going to make more companies, especially those who are looking for the safe, diverse play, want to produce this show. We’ll have more half-assed conversations about race and it’s related issues but little change will happen. More talk, less action.

Thanks Pulitzer committee…maybe next year?! Here’s to wishful thinking…

spokenbeats:

I’ve been thinking about some of the events going on right now and it depresses me. It just seems that no one is thinking about the bigger picture.

Such as Chicago losing the Olympic 2016 bid. Good. Because Chicago has bigger problems such as the increase of violence and death among inner city youth. Also, as the country continues to creep towards a depression, Chicago and many other major cities, simply can’t handle the economic setbacks hosting the Olympics would cause.

Another issue is Rio de Janeiro winning. It is a joyous moment to know that this is South America’s first Olympic game but I can’t help but fear how the government will respond to “pretty up” the city. As evident in Beijing, I can only believe that substandard housing will be demolished and hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people will be homeless because of it.

It’s all a facade. We can revel in the beauty and sportsmanship of the Olympic games but what will we do when it fades away? What happens after that flame goes out and the ugliness of reality reappears?

I am not trying to lessen the news of the event, It just worries me that we seem to be so quick in sweeping all the bad news under the rug.

Thanks to blackisbeautiful for igniting the fire for this post (her latest entry on Gentrification in Chicago is posted below).

After reading her article, I immediately starting thinking, in a similar vein as Candance, “what is the impact on the Black community?”  No, I’m not talking about Gentrification, I think we can all answer that, I’m talking about the Olympics coming to Chicago.

Today in the “Express,” a free D.C. paper that is given out to Metro riders, there is a picture of Obama on the White House lawns advocating for the Olympics to move to Chicago.  There is no article attached the photo, just a small caption saying that Obama believes that Obama believes Chicago would “make the world proud” if it was to be the host of the 2016 Olympic games.

When I combine that with Candance’s post, I started wondering what actually will be the outcome of this move.  Like she mentioned, Chicago would try to “clean up” it’s image when the world comes into town to visit.  What exactly does a “cleaner” Chicago look like?  If we want to break down semantics; cleaner = not dirty, dirty = not pristine, pristine and white are often interchanged in literary techniques, so does that lead to the conclusion that a “cleaner” Chicago means an un-Black Chicago (just deal with the made up word for purpose of discussion)?

There are a lot of issues facing the city of Chicago.  many of these issues face many urban centers in the U.S. as well, so Chicago isn’t special, but it does warrant conversation.  The death rate amongst Chicago teens is startling.  The increasing impact of Gentrification is a concern.  The ever-widening gap between the Southside and other communities is scary.  Real conversation needs to happen before a final decision is made about the Olympics.

Chicago can look to Atlanta’s hosting of the games in 1998 as an example for both good and bad.  While the Olympics brought a lot of positive press to Atlanta (minus the bombing; which can’t be easily overlooked) it also further separated the haves and have nots in the city.  It expanded the suburban areas but left the inner city a mess.  Chicago should completely understand the impact of this move before taking it to the next level.

Finally, what does it mean that the President supports the 2016 Olympic plan?  I’m not sure; still trying to reason it out.  I know he sees the economical benefit, and honestly, he would be a fool not to endorse it.  I can only hope that as that time grows near, he and his supporters, can help devise a plan for Chicago that would make the 2016 Olympics a great event for the World, for sports fans, for Chicago, but also one that can benefit his former constituencies; the South side of Chicago.

-Jamil Jude