« Poor David Maynor, can't get a break | Main | Sadly predictable »
Read this post from the American Repertory Theatre Blog.
Now, tell me another story about how making it harder to be anonymous on the intarweb will stop rudeness or even slow it down. Specifically, Tim O'Reilly and all the rest. Tell me how this happened in a face to face context. Right there. Let's reiterate what happened:
Last night’s performance of INVINCIBLE SUMMER was disrupted when eighty seven members of a Christian group walked out of the show en masse, and chose to physically attack my work by pouring water on and destroying the original of the show outline.Now, you want to leave en masse to show displeasure, hey, that's fine. But trying to destroy the art you dislike? Even if it was a token gesture? Da Fuck?
I sat behind the table, looking up in his face with shock. My job onstage is to be as open as possible, to weave the show without a script as it comes, and this leaves me very emotionally available–and vulnerable, if an audience chooses to abuse that trust. I doubt I will ever forget the look in his face as he defaced the only original of the handwritten show outline–it was a look of hatred, and disgust, and utter and consuming pride.I'll tell you what I see here. I see the modus of the new fundamentalism. It's not enough to disagree with something, or decide it's not for you because it violates the tenets of your belief. Now, they work, via book banning, lawsuits, and shit like this, to prevent anyone from being able to see, hear, or in any way have contact with things they dislike. It is not enough to say "that is not for me or my family". It is now required that anything they dislike is purged from human awareness.
It is a face I have seen in Riefenstahl’s work, and in my dreams, but never on another human face, never an arm’s length from me–never directed at me, hating me, hating my words and the story that I’ve chosen to tell. That face is not Christian, by any definition Christ would be proud to call his own–its naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst.That's all this is. Pride and ego. "I cannot tolerate disagreement, because that would mean that I must tolerate disbelief, and to do that, I must admit that my beliefs are not perfect for all." The idea of agreeing to disagree, to allow others to think or believe differently is counter to what the fundamentalists live by. All must believe as they do, in lock step. No disagreement.
But I'll give them this. They did it in public, right in the guy's face.
So much for anonymity being the problem.
Technorati Tags: Religion, TEH STOOPUD, TEH SUCK, WTF?
Posted by John C. Welch at 16:35 | Permalink
Comments
Hey, if anybody wants to protest my work by PAYING me first, and then walking out, by all means, c'mon over a protest! ;)
--chuck
Posted by: chuck goolsbee | April 23, 2007 4:55 PM
Actually, John, I feel like this backs up Tim O'Reilly's argument, rather than refutes it.
See, even though this was a face-to-face confrontation, the people involved -- the crazies -- still maintained anonymity by not actually interacting with the victim (and that's what he is; a victim of hate). He writes,
I tried to engage with the group as they fled, but they ran out like cowards, and not one of them would stand and discuss with me what they’d done.
We can look at each other right in the face, but still not see the real person standing there. That's what I believe is happening here, and on the internet. You and I are using our real names, and so we're real people. I'm Nima. You're John. Hi, nice to meet you. But those people who attacked theatre guy were just nameless people, and I'm sure to them theatre guy was just some theatre guy. They didn't actually know each other, and that's the problem.
I'm usually not this touchy-feely, but I think this issue of anonymity is very real, and it extends far beyond the internet. We, as a society, are closing ourselves off from others, and I think it's what's increasing mistrust, dislike, prejudice, and even violence.
Posted by: Nima | April 23, 2007 5:02 PM
Knowing people stops it? Hardly. You can find a rich selection of rude shit perpetrated by people who know each other. Or where only one side is anonymous.
People are pack animals, and even within the pack, create lame hierarchies and cliques, so they can more easily justify our inherent suckiness by putting it on group dynamics rather than sucking it up and accepting blame squarely.
Posted by: John C. Welch | April 23, 2007 6:26 PM
We, as a society, are closing ourselves off from others, and I think it's what's increasing mistrust, dislike, prejudice, and even violence.
I wanted to address this separately. I understand why you'd think this, but look at the rich history of race, gay-straight, and religious relations in this and every other country, and tell me that today is that much different. People in this country, even fifty years ago, would lynch black people they knew, and had known for years. They'd do it out in public and in front of a crowd.
Anonymity has little to do with any of it.
Posted by: John C. Welch | April 23, 2007 6:35 PM
People in this country, even fifty years ago, would lynch black people they knew, and had known for years.I've never partaken in a lynching, so I'm not really sure how exactly that works, but I'm not quite sure this is really what was happening (could be wrong, though). I think it hinges on what we mean by "knowing" people. There's a difference between knowing someone and knowing of someone, and I think that's where the line is. I sure the lynchers knew of Jim living on the farm down the way, but I'm not sure they really Knew Jim or had built a relationship with him. I think that's the problem.
Just to personalize for a moment, I'm Persian, and I've had occasions where people will start talking about Iranians, or middle easterners in general, in very negative ways, but will make a point of differentiating me from "them". Not literally, "you're one of the good ones", but close enough to be clear. This came up just recently, actually, with the movie 300 and the fact that the entire nation of Iran threw a hissy-fit about it. People were very easily able to say some really horrible things about the fact that Iranians had a problem with the movie, but when I voiced similar concerns they were like, "oh well, yeah, ok, I hear you."
I don't think the relationship necessarily has to be as close as "friends", but I think that when there is a relationship there to speak of, as opposed to just knowing that another person exists, that it becomes hard to justify irrational hatred towards them. As those relationships become stronger I think one's ability to justify irrational hatred towards a group diminishes as well.
Now, that's not to say there aren't evil a-holes around who'll get right into your face and start crap, because Lord knows they exist, but I think those are the exceptions, not the norm. I think those people who mistreated theatre guy would fall into the category of simply ignorant, rather than truly evil, and if they actually Knew the guy that they wouldn't have done that (I could be wrong, though).
I tend to be pretty pessimistic when it comes to humans and human nature, but this is one of those cases where I hope I'm right, even though I may very well not be. I know mobs can be pretty insane, but I hope there's at least some hope for us to stop the madness.
Posted by: Nima | April 23, 2007 8:11 PM
Both lynching and the example John blogged about are the activity of mobs. People get swept up by the mob and do things they would not expect of themselves. It's not that easy to prevent getting carried away with the crowd, whether it's a picket line or lynching or a sports game.
But how does that mob mentality travel down the internet? I mean, in large groups of people, you can feel the physical energy. So I think something different is going on with online attacks, lacking that physical energy.
Posted by: Dance | April 23, 2007 8:29 PM
I've never partaken in a lynching, so I'm not really sure how exactly that works, but I'm not quite sure this is really what was happening (could be wrong, though). I think it hinges on what we mean by "knowing" people. There's a difference between knowing someone and knowing of someone, and I think that's where the line is. I sure the lynchers knew of Jim living on the farm down the way, but I'm not sure they really Knew Jim or had built a relationship with him. I think that's the problem.
No, they all lived in the same small town together. Their families knew each other. But one was black. One was white. That was all that counted in the end.
Posted by: John C. Welch | April 23, 2007 10:03 PM
Anonymity, or in this case the relative anonymity of groups, does help enable such behavior for the bulk of the people in the group.
I'm sure this group has a front-man, who IS willing to take all the heat (and the spotlight, as for some people it is the publicity that attracts) on behalf of the group. This helps enable the group further. So anonymity may be factor in such matters, but less so in groups.
Posted by: Shawn Levasseur | April 24, 2007 12:22 PM
Hey John,
I know you like to live in a fact-based world, so I'd like to bring up the following point: The only person(so far as I can tell) who claims it was a Christian group is Mr. Daisey. The Boston Globe claims they were students from Norco Hight School, a public (i.e secular) school in So. California.
As far as I know, he hs no way to ascertain the religious bent of any of the particiapants. None of them would talk to him (as shown on the posted video, IIRC) so how he divined the religion and intentions of the group has not been revealed.
Statements about "the new fundamentalism" and trying to "what the fundamentalists live by" as far as I can tell (and I am open to evidence to the contrary) are not founded in real evidence, but are based out of the speculation on the part of Mr. Daisey.
One final point: even if the group were self-identified as a Christian group, and they deciced to leave the monologue, only 1 of the 87 was disruptive, rude, and totally wrong, and no one knows how that 1 individual was received afterward by the others; he may have been reprimanded for his behavior. You, and certainly Mr. Daisey, don't know. 86/87 choose to leave silently, and not participate in the art (such that it is). I've seen louder and more oboxious Skeptics meetings.Posted by: N. | April 24, 2007 12:51 PM
So far, none of the people who were involved have come forward to state why they left beyond an inane claim of "security", because after having inquired as to the content of the show, they went anyway just to pull a stunt like this.
So far, neither the person who spilled the water, nor anyone associated with that group has come forward to state why they pulled what they did. So the only information we have to go on would be Mr. Daisey's. There are in fact, tons of fundies in the public school system. I hung with rather a lot when I was in High School, trying to wrap my head around their worldview.
The actions and tactics of the group are classic fundie protest tactics. Find something you know will offend you, go, then get angry because it's offensive. I will say that at least they listened to the play. Usually, they don't even bother with knowing what they're protesting, they just do whatever their pastor says. So in that respect, they're a bit above the rest.
Should the facts change, then I will of course, point that out. But until someone from that group decides to come forth and state their side of the story, then that's what we have.
Posted by: John C. Welch | April 25, 2007 10:10 AM
From the comments in the original post, there is at least one report that the students were part of a Christian Group at the school and that the vandalism may have been done by a chaperone:
Since the incident occurred, we’ve learned that the group actually is from a public high school in northern California, a member of which identified the group as having come from a Christian community.
However, the group’s religious faith, whatever it might be, is irrelevant, as is their decision to leave a performance they determined to be inappropriate for the students. What is relevant is one chaperone’s decision to vandalize Mike Daisey’s work.
As well, more comments from Mike:
The group responsible for the incident is from a public high school, though they identified themselves to me as a Christian group as they fled the theater–it’s barely audible on the YouTube clip, as an adult tells me they are a Christian group, then flees for the door, refusing to engage with me. Then in the lobby of the theater and on the phone to the box office they identified themselves again and again as a Christian group–I don’t know what that says about the division of church and state in Norco, California. As a group, the people in charge freely identified themselves as a Christian group, until reporters call and they remember they are from a public high school.
Mike's definitely pissed, but the audio's too poor to make it out.
However, again, this is easily solved. Have the members of the group, or the adults who were with them answer back as to what was going on. Provide better, countering facts. I'm fine with that.
Posted by: John C. Welch | April 25, 2007 10:29 AM
