January 19th, 2002


The play's the thing with which to catch the conscience of the patriarchaly oppressive racist and culturally insensative king

I read an article about theatres being afraid to show Shakespeare plays because they are not racially or gender sensative. The Mind Boggles. I mean Othello was, in my opinion, not an indictment of black men but rather a subtle commentary on the alienation and fear it can bring. Iago is able to drive Othello to his insanity partially because he is isolated and has nagging feelings of inferiority due to his race. Or at least that's how I read it. The taming of the shrew is definitly not a feminist play, but so what? One theatre said they "got around the cotreversy" by switching the genders of the characters. Not only is that untrue to Shakespeare's writing but I find it OFFENSIVE. I mean to put forth the ideological argument that being pussy whipped is acceptable but having it go the other way around is not? I swear that sometimes the leftists seem more fanatical than most religious folk (There's not much outrage about Jesus Christ, Superstar)

It makes no sense to me that people see fit to tamper with the work of the greatest dramatist EVER simply because he was a white man, and at times displayed the natural prejudice for his own kind that EVERY fucking human being on the planet has. How long until we take Shakespeare's name off the plays and attribute them to a woman? Or do the same for Bach Beethoven and Mozart. Heck perhaps we could even advance the notion that Mozart was probably black. And disabelled just to add to the image. White men did great things, as well as horrible things, and they deserve to be noted for each. If we aren't going to candy coat imperliasim or the crusades then there is NO reason to fail to recognize shakespeare's brilliance or the fact that the U.S. constitution was written by religious men. History is not an amorphous shadowy web of bullshit to be used to placate the whiny people who feel oppressed cause Shakespeare didn't write a play glorifying them. And great literature should not be subject to censorship.

Also on a similar note the fire department statue which is representative of an event involving three white men but is going to replace two of them with a black and a hispanic is REDICULOUS. There is no particular reason to stress that the men were white, but the solution in my opinion is to quietly give them universal features, make the faces indistinct enough that you can't really tell what race they had. A statue commemorating an event doesn't have to be literal or exact. Instead by publicly stating that you are changing the races of the participants you basically tell the ACTUAL MEN who did this that their contribution and action will not be recognized because they are not the right race. Isn't that discrimination? I mean if three WOMEN had lifted the flag you wouldn't see any of them changed to men. So white male accomplishments of the past AND present have to be changed to include other peoples? BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. Doesn't that just tell non-whites that they don't NEED to accomplish anything since they WILL be getting credit for what the white men do? What kind of fucked up logic is at PLAY here. I'm all for diversity and recognizing the accomplishments of minorities, but since when did diversity mean everyone BUT white men? Aren't we included?
  • Current Music
    Lifehouse No Name Face