Thursday, May 19, 2011

In Honor of Lorraine Hansberry (1930-1965)





In honor of the 81st anniversary of the birth of playwright Lorraine Hansberry, on May 19th, 2011, above is the audio of a May 8, 1959 interview of Lorraine Hansberry by Mike Wallace who asks her some very socially relevant questions about aspirations of the Negro middle class and Black Nationalism. This interview is available on the LORRAINE HANSBERRY AUDIO COLLECTION (cover photo available from amazon.com) produced by Caedmon, an imprint of HarperCollins. An incredibly important collection. -RF.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

A Dialogue About Bradley Manning






It was my pleasure this past Thursday, May 12, 2011 to talk about Bradley Manning with Emma Cape, of COURAGE TO RESIST. We discussed Ellen Nakashima's recent article about Bradley Manning in this month's Washington Post Magazine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/who-is-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning/2011/04/16/AFMwBmrF_print.html

I first heard Ellen on Michel Martin's Tell Me More, and became interested in how Nakashima presented Bradley Manning. I read Nakashima's article and was grateful to learn so much about Manning, including his time in Oklahoma, to his time with his Aunt Debbie, to his time in Wales. It was interesting to learn how he was initially pursuing a Ph.D in Physics, and how he learned a lot in computer programming from his father. However there were two mainly troubling points in this article to me, each of which frame Manning as though what he did was 'unpatriotic' when, assuming he in fact is guilty of what he's accused of, this act is nothing short of patriotic. It forces us to look exactly at what our taxpayer monies are used for in U.S. foreign policy. First, is a statement by Nakashima that Manning tells his boyfriend that he's gotten his hands on sensitive material that he's considering passing to WikiLeaks. There is no evidence that Nakashima provides for this claim. Second, Nakashima writes that based on "a second source," the chat logs on Adrian Lamo's hard drive matched those on Bradley Manning's hard drive, but Nakashima does not identify this source. This to me seems to be the whole article's attempt to declare Manning guilty before his trial and it is denies him his right to a fair trial that, also Troy Davis never got as he faces execution. My dialogue here with Emma Cape of COURAGE TO RESIST (www.bradleymanning.org) mentions the latter point as well as President Obama's reaction to Manning case.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

My interview with Paul Street


It was my pleasure to talk with independent journalist, policy adviser, and historian Paul Street about his book BARACK OBAMA AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POLITICS. I read this book because I am very very interested in the role of Barack Obama in U.S. history. I think he is meant to continue the growing divide between rich and poor and I am frankly fascinated with how his skin color is a scapegoat that allows him to do this. The richest 1% in this country profits immensely from the social construction of race which arguably tempers or stifles a lot of meaningful progressive criticism about the policies of the Obama administration. This aired on Thursday, April 21st on my show Freedom Readers, a book talk show that airs on 88.1 FM WPEB, West Philadelphia Community Radio. This was a delightful interview because Paul's scholarship is not only extremely dense and important to know, but his conversation in these approximate two hours was extremely dense and contained more information that is important to know. It is honor to have this conversation. Check out his website at PaulStreet.org. I told him I plan on reading his latter two books, THE EMPIRE'S NEW CLOTHES and his upcoming CRASHING THE TEA PARTY with Paul Di Maggio very soon. What he writes in his book is information we should all be aware of. To hear this interview, click PLAY below. -RF.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Reflections on Bradley Manning



Reflections on Bradley Manning

Today Bradley Manning has been detained for two hundred and seventy nine days. He is a government whistleblower now held in solitary confinement at the Marine Base in Quantico for leaking documents that supposedly “threaten” national security. It is reported that he is forced to stand naked for hours in solitary confinement. Daily. For over two hundred days now. If Bradley Manning could be detained for over two hundred days standing up for truth and justice; if he can get arrested for demanding that the American empire not manufacture any more traitors of foreign cultures via torture, then I can endure a simple forty day Daniel fast. This is what I have been doing to seek clarity and direction from the Lord. I already see events happening in my life that are pointing me in the direction I should go in. A direction that is closer to the Lord Jesus. For me, this is a direction that is increasingly in support of Bradley Manning. Yet this is a direction that is, in some ways, farther and farther away from the parents I love yet still respecting and cherishing the culture in which they raised me. I made a commitment today on Sunday, March 20th, one day after my mother’s birthday to show my support for Bradley Manning. To show my support for truth and the degree to which one will lose their personal freedoms for telling the truth. So I joined the protest just outside barricades at Quantico to tell Bradley Manning THANK YOU. It is the least I could do since Manning’s decision to defy empire has rendered him in solitary confinement. I also went to Quantico today to tell President Obama that he has ample time to fulfill two campaign promises of stopping torture and protecting government whistleblowers. Bradley Manning willingly and bravely leaked thousands of documents to WikiLeaks who then distributed it to the New York Times, Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Paix. I think its only a matter of time before history reveals how this leak inspired the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and other very important events that arguably inspired the protests in Wisconsin among other things. The documents detailed America’s sordid plans to grow their empire through military conquest. They detailed this country’s expansive spy network through its embassies. They detailed the enormous corruption in the Afghanistan government funded by the U.S. They exposed corrupt Arab leaders wrestling each other for the trinkets of this empire, to the peril of their nation’s majority. We can only hope that more Bradley Mannings in this world can help expose and calm the destructiveness of our hypermilitarism. According to Daniel Ellsberg in a November 2010 Democracy Now! interview, Manning was formerly responsible for administrating the arrests of people who issued “scholarly critiques” against the current administration. As an Army soldier, Manning was part of the U.S. military empire that helped to torture people who would not accommodate its demands in the hopes they would do what they empire wanted. Ellsberg describes Manning who, like Daniel before Nebuchadnezzar, resisted empire. Of Manning vis-à-vis the U.S. empire, Ellsberg says he “chose to say no to it, to expose it, to resist it, to do what he actually should have done. One person out of hundreds of thousands who did that.” This reminds me of Daniel’s refusal to bow down to the King that Nebuchadnezzar demand he worship. The U.S. empire in its hunger for control through militarism is very much like Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel. I am grateful to live to see brave young twenty three year old Bradley Manning bravely resist this empire by refusing to participate in these arrests of people that do not cooperate with this corrupt American empire. Bradley Manning’s commitment to truth and justice is so strong and has rung such a strong chord within me, especially during this Daniel fast I’m on now, that I think of the verse in Mark chapter 10 verse “Can you drink this cup with me?” I have been asking this question about myself and potential friends and partners in my life. Can you endure this cross with me? Can you endure suffering for the cause of truth and justice with me? After joining and hearing the protests in support of Bradley Manning, I believe I can imagine Manning in his confinement asking me, ‘can you endure a suffering for the cause of peace and justice? Can you endure torture when deep down you know you did the right thing to undermine the aggressive over-militarized American empire?’ Manning is answering this question in the affirmative, and if he can answer in the affirmative, then so can I. Manning makes me think directly of Jesus. Not in any sort of Mormon way at all. Just the way of Jesus. When I think about what Manning is going through, I think about what Jesus went through on the cross. Turning over the tables of the money changers. Declaring that the peacemakers are called the children of God. Demanding that the wealthy give up their riches and follow him. I don’t know if Bradley Manning is Christian, but I do know that he has done the most Christian act I’ve seen in my thirty one years so far on this earth. Manning makes me think of Jesus who asks: “Can you drink this cup with me?” Manning has said yes. This reminds me of the fact that some people want the crown but not the cross. They want to reap the benefits of heroism but don’t want to sow the hard work it takes for many to become a hero or heroine. As he is being tortured and forced to stay naked in solitary confinement in a military prison in Quantico, Bradley Manning is enduring the cross right now. Manning leaked the information to WikiLeaks in order to show the inhumane machinations of the American empire that, if not checked, will lead to its downfall. And I applaud him one hundred percent for it. We need to check our excessive ballooning military spending. We need to create more jobs. And stop cutting programs that helping people contribute to a healthy economy. Manning has inspired me to challenge empire in my own way. While Manning challenged empire by releasing documents to WikiLeaks, I choose to challenge empire by lobbying my elected officials as a citizen. Mainly by attending a lobbying conference this weekend. I have to do something. So I choose to lobby my elected officials to NOT support our increasing militarism, among other things. I am sad to say that my U.S. Representative, Chaka Fattah, has supported two supplemental bills for war funding. I am here in the DC area not only to learn from Manning but also to learn from the Quakers. They constitute what I think is the most important religious citizen lobby or, a citizen lobby of faith in their organization, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). Although my father taught me very hard not to think in racial terms, I can’t help but look at Bradley Manning, and ask why can’t African American soldiers be arrested for crimes like this? A crime that reflects this extraordinary level of political consciousness? And as I look at the FCNL, I ask why can’t African American churches create a strong religious lobby like the FCNL? Why can’t they work like Dr. King in a concerted, coordinated effort to fight militarism by lobbying elected officials in Washington, the way the FCNL does? The FCNL was founded during the protest of World War II and have continued to speak truth to power in Washington against our increasing militarism. They have a powerful lobbying conference this weekend and I’ve learned so much, particularly from Ruth Flower, their Associate Executive Secretary. She says that in Quaker teachings, we are called to “answer to that of God in everyone…and so we talk with—and listen to—everyone, including people with whom we don’t expect to agree. We converse, trade ideas, share experiences, and leave ourselves open to the possibility that we ourselves will be changed by each encounter.” This is something that I have to practice when I tend to get very angry talking with elected officials or their staff who justify their support of war funding. The Word of God tells us we should be slow to anger. My being here at this conference has given me so much insight about HOW to lobby and that includes NOT dismissing or judging people who seem GIVEN OVER to supporting military intervention but to listen then as soon as I can get my point in and, as Ruth Flower suggested, to leave myself open to the possibility that I might be changed by each encounter. I do not work in the military and do not have the capability to challenge empire the way that Manning did, but I can do what I can and arm myself with information, try and live as the Lord would have me to live and challenge empire the way Jesus did. The way Daniel did. His fasting helped him hear from the Lord and cleared a path between him and God and on today, day #279 of Bradley Manning’s detention who is being denied the niceties of seeing the sun and clouds and conversing with friends and family, I can feel just a portion of what Bradley Manning feels. Manning is being persecuted for telling the truth the way Jesus was persecuted. When I think about Manning’s sacrifice and how such a well-meaning person can be detained, then I can take my life a little more seriously. And so do something. So I choose to ask how I can reduce military oppression and advance work for the kingdom of God. I can support him in this very trying time for him. I continue to pray for his health and sanity, and that he reaches a fair trial where he will expose the inhumane and illegal practices of U.S. empire. In an effort that will ultimately shed light on our unhealthy, increasing militarism in order to put an end to it. Manning is challenging empire. Daniel’s deliverance and the Lord’s ascension shows us the supernatural rewards from God for challenging empire. We don’t do this for the reward, though. The Lord says we have to give without expecting anything in return. We have do right because it is right. Thank you, Bradley Manning, for doing what is right.

Sincerely,
Rhone Fraser

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

my review of JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK



I am grateful to have had the opportunity to see the original play that helped motivate Lorraine Hansberry to write A RAISIN IN THE SUN. It is Sean O'Casey's 1923 play JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK and I recently saw an awesome production of it Friday at the Washington Shakespeare Company, hosted by the Artisphere in Arlington, Virginia. My hats off to the director of this production, Shirley Serotsky. And a phenomenal cast which included Joe Palka (Jack Boyle), Cam Magee (Juno), Jay Hardee (Johnny), Melissa Marie Hmelnicky (Mary), Christopher Henley (Joxer), Kathleen Akerley (Mrs. Madigan), Slice Hicks (Needle/Furniture Removal Men), Rebecca Herron (Mrs. Tancred), Sam McMenamin (Jerry Devine), Colin Smith (Bentham), Evan Crump (Irregular/Vendor/Furniture Removal Men/Neighbour/Policeman), Daniel Corey (Sewing Machine Man/Vendor/Furniture Removal Men/Neighbour).

To buy tickets go to: https://robot.boxofficetickets.com/800-494-TIXS/WebObjects/BOTx2005.woa/wa/inspectProgram?id=132285&passKey=242ff77658

Juno and the Paycock by Sean O’Casey is a play that explores the struggle of one’s fidelity to principle within an environment designed to kill that fidelity. Its set in a 1922 Dublin tenement and its main characters, the Boyle family, each had their personal principles affected in some way by Ireland’s fiery civil war. The war was fundamentally about independence of Ireland from Britain but, by 1922, was specifically over the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a controversial treaty signed between Britain and Ireland. The treaty caused a split between within the Irish Republican Army (IRA) between those who supported it and those who didn’t because of what they saw as it falling short of Ireland’s complete independence. The treaty did not concede an all-Ireland Republic, as many demanded, but instead established a “free state” with near sovereign powers for Ireland. The powers were near sovereign because they required parliament members in Ireland to swear an oath of allegiance to the British crown to the disgust of many in the IRA. Supporters of this “free state” clashed with those in the IRA who opposed the treaty and adopted guerilla tactics and were known as the “Irregulars.” This civil war has created a hostile environment outside the Dublin tenement in which this play takes place and the strong feelings on either side of the war, for or against the Anglo-Irish Treaty, threaten to ravage anything in its path, especially the fidelity of this play’s characters to their own principles. In O’Casey’s play, the son of the family, Johnny Boyle, was fighting for the Irregulars and by the play’s start is in infirm at home, after losing an arm in battle with them. Johnny’s fidelity to principle is one that uncompromisingly fights for an independent Ireland without any concession to the British crown whatsoever. At the same time, however, Johnny has very understandable reservations about his own level of commitment when one of his own comrades, Tancred, is killed and he subconsciously feels responsible for it. We see him needing consolation from his mother after he is haunted by an image of a bloodied Tancred. In Johnny we see the cerebral commitment to principle at odds with an emotional commitment to self-preservation. After losing his arm, he questions the need for the killing and maiming in the civil war. His sister Mary also begins the play with her own fidelity to principle. She is striking, as part of her labor union, to protest a fellow female worker’s victimization on the job. Her extra time at home concerns her mother who herself challenges the decision of her daughter’s labor union to strike: “Wan victim wasn’t enough. When the employers sacrifice wan victim, the Trades Unions go wan betther be sacrificin’ a hundred.” She questions the morals and principles of the Trade Union’s strike especially when it makes it more difficult for striking families to make a living. This matriarch of the family, Juno Boyle, is dedicated to the principle of keeping her family together yet is in charge of a Dublin tenement whose environment makes every effort to weaken her family. This environment either threatens the life or the livelihood of her loved ones: from her son’s struggle with the Irregulars, to her daughter’s solidarity with her Trade Union, to her husband’s struggle with his alcoholism. Keeping this family together requires caring for her injured son who suffers from some post-traumatic disorder; it requires minding her daughter which becomes a growing task as the play closes; and it requires keeping her husband, Jack ‘Captain’ Boyle, out of the pubs where he drowns his sorrows in the spirits of the local snug. Juno tries to get Jack to take more responsibility as a father and provider of the family. This includes challenging the role that Jack’s friend, Joxer, plays in his life, which seems to be nothing but dead weight. A kind that makes no effort to break Jack out of the alcoholic stupor long enough to help maintain fidelity to a principle or help Juno maintain her fidelity to principle. By the end of the first act Mary’s suitor, Bentham, informs Jack that according to the will of his descendant, he is entitled to a large sum of money. By the beginning of the second act, we see materially where that large sum of money goes: for more extravagant furniture including a new couch and new gramophone. His friend Joxer indulges in these niceties with him however when their neighbor Mrs. Madigan and tailor, ‘Needle’ Nugent, demand that Jack pay them and he doesn’t, we see the real issue of Jack’s alcoholism that masks a deeper issue caused by their environmental poverty. Johnny worked for a principle that on some level tried to alleviate the poverty and alcoholism that his own father was slave to. His principle however was hindered by his father’s own alcoholism which Johnny laments, when he berates his own father for not handling his newfound money responsibly. Jack assumes every thing that Bentham says is true and gains material items with the assumption that his inheritance will replace his expenses he incurred getting these material items. Jack later discloses that the money he was promised by the will according to Bentham was essentially gobbled up by other competing families, presumably part of the British empire, who also claimed their lineage to Jack’s descendant. If we are to believe what Jack says about why the family could not claim their money they inherited, then we see that the Boyle family’s loss of money represents a greater loss of autonomy by Ireland vis-à-vis Great Britain. The fate of their inheritance is like the fate of many soon-to-be colonies of the British: its gobbled up too quickly by the British to be enjoyed by anybody else. Like British colonies, the Boyle family is relegated to an inferior place by other British in order to allow British citizens first dibs or first helpings on their inheritance. This is especially true of Bentham who impregnates Mary then disappears to England to escape responsibility of raising the child. Mary’s sexuality becomes an object of colonization for Bentham who can enjoy the pleasure of conception and escape the responsibility that comes with conception, the way a colonist can escape the responsibility that comes with helping maintain a colony. By the start of the third act, one by one, members of the cast including Nugent and Mrs. Madigan reclaim their material items that Jack felt he needed to have to be the ‘paycock’ that Juno knows him as. He loses them because of his belief that they indicated his elevation in social status, which is definitely a result of British colonization, where Victorian values that make strong distinctions by class, are taught and solidified in its colonial subjects. The material items would suggest that the Boyle family is in a higher class than they are, but they are an illusion as O’Casey shows us very clearly. What enhances the living room in the second act is gone by the third act and certainly dramatizes the deep level of poverty that the Boyle family and many others are truly in, essentially as a British colony, in the eyes of the anti-Treaty Irish. The family we see is undone by the illusion of wealth that the American habit of speculation is based on. Paycock gets these material things, including the chairs, couch and gramophone based on the idea that he would have money that he never really had, much less earned. O’Casey suggests that it took people like Paycock, whose materialism fuels the civil war between free-staters and anti-Treaty Republicans, to prevent the Irregulars from recruiting more members. His materialism is a distraction for die-hard Republican cause because it buys material items that only strengthen the pro-free-state economy instead of supporting the Irregular cause that his son Johnny is part of. Johnny Boyle represents the strife of Ireland’s civil war. On one side he fights the Irregulars, after losing his arm, and denies his role in Tancred’s death. On the other side he fights the shiftlessness and alcoholism of his father who waits and exploits others’ labor for material gain. John O’Riordan writes that Johnny is a test of real acting strength: his political guilt lies behind the whole momentum of the play.
The younger members of the Boyle family, Johnny and Mary, represent not only the younger generation, but a newer opportunity to break the sexist, oppressive colonial norms that the older generation is still crippled by. Johnny battles with the Irregulars yet at the same time battles against them when two of their soldiers in the play’s third act accuse him of setting Tancred up and ultimately kill him. Mary befriends an Englishman Bentham who impregnates then abandons her. Juno vows that despite his flight, the two of them will raise the baby and thereby breaks an oppressive colonial norm of Dublin that tended to shun unwed mothers by sending them off to a convent to have the baby without their involvement, putting an unfair onus on the women to handle the responsibility of childbearing. The play ends with Johnny’s death, Juno’s commitment to help Mary raise her baby, and at the very last scene is Jack and Joxer in a drunken stupor. Most of all, it ends with the Irish civil war that remains unresolved; a war that has taken a toll on each and every member, especially Johnny, whose fellow Irregular fighters kill him, presumably out of a belief that he betrayed his fellow comrade. In reality O’Casey shows how Johnny gave more than anybody in his family for the anti-Treaty cause, his limb and his life, which included his fight against his father’s materialism caused by his alcoholism. This ailment distracted his son and his family from addressing the main cause of the anti-Treaty Republicans that Johnny fought for: the cause of full sovereignty from the British. These Republicans no doubt attributed their poverty to their status as a colonial subject of England and fought against every ailment that stood between them and their fidelity to unconditional independence, including the ailment of alcoholism, which we see in Jack. O’Casey shows the fidelity of the Irregulars who in the third act demand that Johnny go with them. In their presence he denies their request, yet by the play’s end is killed by these same forces. Juno delivers a searing monologue, lamenting the death of her son, asking God to replace our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh. Despite his mother’s care, he is not able to escape the demands of an all consuming civil war that demands sacrifices from those who’ve sacrificed the most.
This play has been credited as the piece of creative art that helped inspire Lorraine Hansberry to leave the University of Wisconsin and become a full time playwright. In her biographical play To Be Young, Gifted, and Black, Hansberry writes:
I remember sitting there stunned with a melody that I thought might have been sung in a different meter. The play was Juno, the writer Sean O’Casey—but the melody was one I had known for a very long while. I was seventeen and I did not think then of writing the melody as I knew it—in a different key; but I believed it entered my consciousness and stayed there…(65)
The melody that stayed in Hansberry’s consciousness is the tragedy of the Boyle family, which she relates to members of her fictional Younger family in A Raisin in the Sun. The tragedy of the Boyle family is the loss of their son to an unforgiving civil war that demanded uncompromising, unconditional love of country. The tragedy of the Younger family is the loss of their inheritance to a son who trusted an unforgiving friend with a ten thousand dollar inheritance because of his belief in the American business model. The melody that O’Casey shows us is the enormous sacrifice that one mother makes, to bolster her husband, her son and her daughter despite a world that is prepared to shatter that family. The melody that Hansberry shows us is the enormous sacrifice one mother makes to bolster her son, her daughter, and her daughter in law despite a world that prepared to shatter that family. Both playwrights are obviously concerned with the role of a mother within a family of an oppressed culture: O’Casey shows how Juno fights ultimately against British colonization which is a force formidable enough to demand supreme loyalty from her son that is enough to kill him. Hansberry shows how Lena Younger fights against American individualism, when she laments Willy Harris’ selfish theft of her husband’s money. These playwrights are making profound comments on the importance of fidelity to one’s own principle and the cold environments that try desperately to kill that fidelity. They both suggest that the role of the caring, loving mother is crucial, and her fidelity to keep that family together is perhaps the most important role that there is in a family within an oppressed culture.

Special thanks to Melissa Hmelnicky who invited me to see this important play; John O’Riordan for his book A Guide to O’Casey’s Plays; and to Jane Horwitz for background on Dublin in 1922. –RF.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

My interview with Norman Marshall on John Brown






Despite all the sudden technical difficulties that arose, it is my pleasure to present my February 10, 2011 interview with actor Norman Marshall about his play JOHN BROWN: TRUMPET OF FREEDOM running at the Moonstone Arts Center this Thursday, Friday and Saturday at 7PM. To buy tickets go to:
http://www.moonstoneartscenter.org/moonstone-arts-center-events/john-brown-trumpet-of-freedom/

This excerpt did not include a lot of what Marshall said because of technical difficulties however he begins here talking about how Brown's abolitionist cause attracted different people from very different walks of life. At top is a photo of Norman Marshall as John Brown courtesy of his website http://www.wbworks.com/johnbrown/play.html. Below is a famous rendition of John Brown by John Steuart Curry called "Tragic Prelude" referring to his hanging at Harper's Ferry after his raiding a Confederate arsenal. Special thanks to DJ Champe for clearing up major technical difficulties in the studio, that made my conversation with Norman Marshall possible.


my interview with Loretta Vasile & Davon Williams

The following is an interview I conducted Thursday, February 10, 2011 with dramaturg LORETTA VASILE about the STRENGTH poetry night on Friday, February 25th at 7PM. Joining this conversation is playwright Davon Williams about his two plays OUR FATHER and THE BOY WHO SEES.