This debate has produced five different articles on the Republican-American website, each with their own lengthy set of comments, as well as an editorial in Saturday's paper.
There have also been articles and comments in the Hartford Courant, and the New York Times. Furthermore, opinion pieces have been written by the American Theatre Wing and my friend Raechel Guest who runs her own Waterbury blog.
Articles on the Republican-American website:
School superintendent trys to cancel school play over "N-word".
Play's racial slur has school officials at odds.
Board considers need for school play policy.
Censored 'Finn' interests member of school board.
Teens prefer positive spin on slur, but school chief wants play halted.
Several of the articles also broach the topic of censorship in general, adding the latest sanitized version of "Huck Finn" to the mix.
Considering all the controversy that had been created, I decided to head out to the library and find a copy of the play in question. After reading the play, I feel comfortable offering my opinions on the content of the play, the role of language in the play, and whether or not the play is appropriate for high school students to be performing.
"Joe Turner's Come and Gone" focuses on the struggles of several black individuals to find their identity in 1911 Pittsburgh. This struggle reveals, through three characters, several divisions within the African-American community of the time.
The first character that brings these divisions to light is Seth Holly. Seth is in his fifties, and was born in the north. Despite being born in to pre-Civil War America, he shows very little understanding of the Southern way of life. He is not happy with the number of African-Americans coming North, and considers many of them backwards. His character uses the pejorative almost exclusively in the script, and employs the word to demean these Southern blacks.
The counterpoint to Seth is an older character called Bynum. He is an older gentleman from the South. The play refers to him as a "conjure man", and my best guess is that he was raised in the backwoods areas of the South. Though it is not explicitly mentioned, I would assume that he was from the Appalachia region of eastern Tennessee or Kentucky.
Lastly, you have the character of Herald Loomis. Herald is a younger man, in his early thirties, who has been forced to work in a Tennessee chain gang after being kidnapped by the titular Joe Turner. During his seven years of captivity, his wife leaves Tennessee and heads north, depositing their daughter at her mother's house on the way. Harold is extremely disoriented in terms of personality and his place in the world. At the end of the play, through an act of self-mutilation, Herald is able to find himself, and regain his sense of purpose in the world.
By bringing these and the other characters together Mr. Wilson shows the hardships that many in the African-American community had to face a century ago. I found the play very powerful and especially moving, and have come to the conclusion that the play can be a teaching tool for the students of Waterbury.
However, the discussion of content has, sadly, been lost among the concerns over the language in the play. As I mentioned before, the pejorative in question is not used in the text by a Caucasian character to demean an African-American character. It is used by one black character to demean another who the first considers beneath him. If we were to sanitize this play, the best analogy that I can think of would be "hick" or "hill-billy".
That is not to suggest that I feel the word is an appropriate word to use in modern society. I feel, like many who have commented before, that there is no place for such a racially charged pejorative in 2011. However, I am fully aware that among the African-American youth of today, the word is common in their vocabulary. Many of the students involved in this production have no appreciation for the power, the anger, and the hate that this word can evoke. While some may see that as a good thing, if people truly want to erase that word from 21st century vocabulary, they need to ensure that our youth know why it should be struck.
Furthermore, as has also been mentioned before, we have to respect our history, as ugly and unpleasant as it may be. While it might be nice for people to forget things that the United States has done wrong in it's 235 year history, we cannot ignore the phrase, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." There is a time and a place for an intelligent, respectful, and appropriate discussion of where we've been as a culture, where we are, and where we're going.
So, to the crux of the issue, is a production at the Waterbury Arts Magnet School the appropriate venue for such a discussion? After reading the play, and thinking about it over the long weekend, I feel I have to say no.
My reason for not supporting a production of this play is not based on censorship, or even on the language used in the play. I am uncomfortable with the final scene of the play being performed on a High School stage. Despite all of the potential for learning, and all the benefits that could come from this play, I cannot condone a performance where a character cuts himself across the chest with a kitchen knife, and rubs his own blood on his face on a high school stage. If this production was being done at Post University, or any other local college, I would have no problem supporting it. However, I just do not feel that it is age appropriate.
I realize this discussion and debate is far from over, but I wanted to share my concerns. Let me know what you thing, and we'll see how this all plays out at the Board of Education meeting on the 18th.
