Dear everything,

It is almost comical how often oppressed narratives are turned into stories of cross-cultural/racial allyship.

Although I certainly sympathized with Maiesha's efforts to remind us that minorities shouldn't keep their "rage inside" and should focus on connecting with others, even across racial boundaries, I still couldn't be convinced to love the fact that Ethel Waters's final song had to be about Billy Graham and his success in helping her find God. Though I don't want to completely reiterate what's already been said, I still wonder at this tension often debated in the art world between allowing one's audience to leave the theater content and "satisfied" with the work or alienating them, so that either feelings of guilt or the realization that things still need to change are invoked. It's the ultimate Brechtian vs. Stanislavskian question -- do happy endings create the very attitudes (more specifically, a blithe indifference to social matters) that we hope to subvert?

Well maybe the case is different for when working to paint a picture of Ethel Waters. Maybe the emphasis should not be so much on her struggle, but on her success. Did she (in the play) really need to centralize Graham as the vessel for her deliverance to God though???

I am still working out the answer in my head -- however, it seems, for now, there isn't an answer. What is so bad about emphasizing ally-ship? Larry Page certainly didn't see an issue there.

Sincerely,
Still in a state of confusion