Janelle Gray's Blog, page 6

Botham Shem Jean: Finding Our Footing in Another Tragedy

In this episode of Echoes on air!, Janelle is joined by Liz Nichols, Chris Silverberg, and Christian Watkins as they discuss the local tragic killing of Botham Shem Jean. They try to drill down on to the root of their anger, their concerns with the police force and how investigations are conducted, and if the officer should be charged with murder or manslaughter.*Please note that this 2-part episode was recorded on Sunday, September 9 — just three days after the tragedy. Since that time, more details have been released that may conflict with details discussed in this episode.Check out the following links as mentioned in this episode:Texas Penal CodeDallas Citizens' AcademyGarland Citizen Police AcademyMesquite Citizen's Police AcademyCitizens Police Academy - There are various Citizen's Acadamies. They can be found for many cities. The following blurb is found on the site for the Dallas Citizen's Academy:The Dallas Citizen’s Police Academy meets once a week for 8 weeks at the Dallas Police Academy. Classes consist of an overview of the Dallas Police Department, patrol functions, a tour of the Communications Division, demonstration and ride on the vehicle training course, internal affairs, family violence, DWI enforcement procedures, explanation of the use of deadly force, pursuit policies, crime prevention, personal safety and investigation techniques.iTunes - Click Here Google Play - Click Here Don't forget to RATE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE!Create hope. Forge a path. Change the world.

The History of Racial Exploitation in Theater

The beginnings of musical theatre were rife with exploiting minority races and cultures for the sake of entertainment. Variety shows and Vaudeville ensemble productions contained racially offensive and stereotypical characters, songs, and dialogue. Minority actors and technicians had to assimilate in order to be successful and to have a job to support their families during the economic trials of society in the 1920s and 1930s. Assimilation meant playing these stereotypical characters and encountering racism from producers, directors, and audience members. This time period in history directly influenced future films, plays, and our current climate of people of color in musical productions and color-conscious casting in twenty-first century America. Variety shows called minstrel shows contained white actors that performed in blackface and used black stereotypes to create characters— like “Sambo” and “Zip Coon” — who were slaves, servants, or steamboat workers that were dumb, happy, and eager to please the white man. Black actors, singers, and dancers who were hired for minstrel shows and vaudeville productions were required to perform these offensive roles in blackface, as well. They often had to wear rude costumes and perform next to prejudiced set pieces. Productions of minstrel shows began in the 1840s after Thomas Darmouth Rice made his “Jim Crow” character sketches popular with audiences in the 1830s. Full-length ensemble shows, created by Dan Emmett and E.P. Christy, soon followed with troupes called the Virginia Minstrels and Christy’s Minstrels. Dan Emmett composed the song “Dixie” which still conjures distasteful images even when played today. E.P. Christy created a three-part format which included mocking comedy sketches and repulsive satires of literature. After the Civil War, J.H Haverly took four minstrel troupes and merged them into a large production company called “Haverly’s United Mastodon Minstrels” that put on spectacular extravaganzas that paved the way for vaudeville shows that began in the 1880s. Haverly’s displays contained excessive set pieces and large song and dance numbers that completely changed the composition of the minstrel show. Vaudeville ensemble shows were diverse acts that often contained minstrel show type acts: songs, comedy scenes, and dances. Bert A. Williams and George W. Walker were a popular comedic duo that had to perform in blackface even though they were black actors. Their characters they played were a dumb men always down on their luck and a con artist. Even though Williams was the first black man to be cast into an all-white Florence Ziegfield production, he was still subject to extreme racism. Despite his struggles, he held his head high and simply stated “I have never been able to discover that there was anything disgraceful in being a colored man, but I have often found it inconvenient-in America”. There were no complete black theaters or troupes during this time period in American history. However, the incredible talent of Bert A. Williams paved the way for future black performers. The treatment of black and other minority performers was even worse in the southern states. Owners, producers, and directors at those theaters subjected them to horrible working conditions, less pay, and required them to stay at different hotels from white actors in their touring companies. Much of the same treatment was also encountered by American Indians, and Greek, Italian, Polish, Jewish, Irish, Hispanic, Arabian, and Asian immigrants. White actors and actresses, like Fanny Brice and Van and Schenck sang offensive, racially charged songs and used stereotypical facial expressions and makeup. The desire to assimilate and hide personal cultural heritage due to the need for success was also faced by actors of these ethnicities. Polish Jews Joseph Weber and Lew Fields were a comedy team that created an act where they played German immigrants Mike Weber and Meyer Fields in their very popular revues. They downplayed their birth heritage for fear of losing their careers in America. They also put on blackface and performed songs that they called “coon songs.” Billy Barty was a child actor in Vaudeville shows whose parents changed his birth name because they were trying to avoid discrimination against their Italian migrant ancestry.The subjugation of outnumbered cultures caused actors to play roles that they were uncomfortable with in order to make a living. White actors who were sympathizers to the plight of the horrible laws in place at this time in American history often wore blackface, shamefully, in order to support their families. Bert A. Williams, and his flawless, comedic timing, was a pioneer for future performers of color. The dancing talent of the Nicholas Brothers was phenomenal and they had a very popular following of supportive audiences. Yet, for the next thirty years, it was often still difficult for actors of color to land roles — on stage and in movies — that were not servants or slaves. In 1939, Hattie McDaniel played the role of Mammy in the epic movie Gone With The Wind and received the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her incredible performance; but even then she wasn’t able to attend one of the movie’s premieres due to Jim Crow laws. Furthermore, on the Gone With The Wind movie set, McDaniel was subjected to restrooms for “blacks only” and transported to locations in separate vehicles from the white actors. The white actors and actresses in the film, like Vivien Leigh and Evelyn Keyes, found the conditions for black actors on set to be “appalling” and for the first time, an actual genuine camaraderie was created between black and white actors despite the segregated aspects that the producers and studio heads were demanding. David O. Selznick, the film’s producer, was pleasantly surprised by Hattie McDaniel’s performance in the final cut and signed her immediately to a long-term contract. Activist Martin LutherKing, Jr. and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 caused a push toward more integrated theatre and film and allowed for the expression and production of more musicals that depicted real characters of color. More minority performers finally were being cast and Broadway musicals like The Wiz, Jelly’s Last Jam, Miss Saigon, Evita and In The Heights were groundbreaking. Lin-Manuel Miranda took color-conscious casting to an entirely new level with his creation of the musical Hamilton, in 2015. Miranda created a story based upon the life of Alexander Hamilton and America’s founding fathers and cast himself, a Puerto Rican-born immigrant, in the title role and cast all the other roles in the musical with non-white actors. Still, in 2017, there are many negative critics who do not agree with this casting flip. But it is completely understandable how America arrived at this revolutionary statement given the horrendous history of exploiting people of color on stages for roughly a hundred and eighty-five years (much longer if you count American Indian discrimination on stages). The awards and accolades that Miranda and everyone involved with the first Broadway production of Hamilton have received prove that this musical was much needed in our current climate. Hamilton is two-fold history: the story of the Founding Fathers and a depiction of years of racial prejudice. The songs and dance styles in Hamilton represent a wide variety of fashionable music trends that appeal to many people of different cultures and backgrounds. The musical contains rap, hip-hop, pop, love ballads, and blues. The art of theatre was created to bring entertainment to the masses. Even William Shakespeare who wrote large sections of his plays to appeal to the common man and all classes of people, understood the importance of allowing people to see themselves on stage. To this day, it is important for children of color to see themselves represented in the arts and Miranda, a consummate modern day Shakespeare, has single-handedly helped theatre educators reach kids in new ways with his creation of the hip-hop genre American musical.As a country, we still have a long way to go to full acceptance of all cultures but it is uplifting to see that theatre arts are still continuously trying to bridge that gap. People of color do not have to assimilate to work on the stage like they used to. Color-blind casting has enabled the majority of people to be cast based on talent and physical ability to play the roles in musicals, and to allow musicals to be created for social change.

Seeking Diversity

In episode four of Echoes on air!, Janelle is joined by Olivia de Guzman, Denise Lee, Christie Vela and Wendy Welch as they discuss diversity in the arts and the ways to seek and achieve it. Check out the following links as mentioned in this episode:Change the Perception's Community Conversation:http://changetheperception.today Revolt. She Said. Revolt Again. : http://secondthoughttheatre.com/season/revolt-she-said-revolt-again/Room with a clue: http://www.aroomwithacluedallas.comiTunes - Click Here Google Play - Click Here Don't forget to RATE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE!Create hope. Forge a path. Change the world.

Encore Performance of "What Can We Do?"

It's not often I do an encore of an article. As a matter of fact, this is my first time. But I have been having some conversations about how to seek and achieve diversity and it reminded me of this article.Click here to read Lauren's article from 2017. Here she opens up by telling you her background and then genuinely ask what she, as a young white woman, can do to fight against injustice. Read what facts she found and experiences she had that lead her to ask this question.Then, I invite you to ask yourself and others what you can do to fight injustice. Then, in two weeks, listen to Echoes on air! podcast and maybe we can give a few suggestions.j

Money and the Movement

In episode four of Echoes on air!, Janelle is joined by Key Barkins, Chris Silverberg, and Justin Willis as they discuss how money impacts social movements. Check out the following links as mentioned in this episode: The Tulsa Real Estate: https://www.instagram.com/tulsarealestatefund Natural for Naturals: https://www.instagram.com/naturals4naturals iTunes - Here Google Play - Click Here Don't forget to RATE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE!Create hope. Forge a path. Change the world.

The Declaration

It’s the Fourth of July! Fireworks; BBQ; and Red, White, & Blue.I, personally, do not celebrate the Fourth. The short answer to why is that people who looked like me didn’t get the freedom we celebrate until 1865. I know why celebrations are happening and as an (U.S.) American, I can respect them.That said, I’ve been spending a lot of time reading and analyzing literature. This morning I happened to open up the Declaration of Independence and read it; I analyzed it in the way I’ve been taught to. And the following is what I came up with:A majority of the declaration is simply pointing out why we don’t wanna play with the British anymore, essentially indicting King George.The introduction is really the only part that talks about our philosophy of government and the justifiable reasons we, the people, have to revolt. And that’s the only part we’re talking about in this post.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —Let’s take a break here. The words “self-evident” mean that it’s obvious! We don’t have to explain or prove that we have these rights. Yet so many groups of people have to do so. We’re also gonna assume that the meaning of “all men” here is mankind. But, I can see where assumptions can get messy. Carrying on.The words “their creator” really stand out. We don’t get to decide which creator. Based on these lines, all men are obviously equal and whoever created them made them so. It’s interesting that it doesn’t say “our creator” here. For a group of men so dedicated to the written word, I have a hard time thinking that was an oversight – especially since the reason for their arrival in the new land was due to a dispute over higher beings and requirements of religion.I love the word “unalienable.” It means it cannot be taken away or denied. Essentially what the creator has given the man cannot take away.When speaking of these unalienable rights, the Declaration says, “among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That means while they’re only mentioning three, there are more! We gotta find out the others on our own! BUT the undeniable three that top their list are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — whereas liberty is defined as freedom from arbitrary or despotic (autocratic/tyrannical) government or control.So let’s just deal with that for a second.It’s enough to say that at the time of this writing, it is said that approximately 1/3 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence at the time of this signing, owned slaves. One could further that argument by noting that they did not contradict themselves here as slaves were considered property (which is telling about them). But one can also note that nowhere does it say “all men who were white and or born in the U.S.” It says, “all men…endowed by their Creator.”That leads me to ask: If we’re celebrating, is it not an affront to these words if we currently have children being separated from their families when their parents are endowed the right to pursue happiness and life by their creator (not yours, not the declarers, but the creator who created them)? Since many are fleeing countries that would deny them the very three things with which this statement says they are endowed, should we not be an example? John Adams said, “The decree is gone forth, and it cannot be recalled, that a more equal liberty than has prevailed in other parts of the earth must be established in America." Now, granted, that doesn’t say accept all immigrants. But again, looking specifically at text should we not uphold their rights to pursue happiness (note that I am not saying without limits and boundaries)? I continue with my questions by asking, why, then, are people of the Islamic faith facing vandalized mosques if they were endowed by their creator (not yours, not the declarer, but theirs) with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Returning back the to the text:That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Another pauseThe government was instituted specifically, for the purpose of securing and ensuring that the rights already guaranteed by our creators were protected.Yikes. Mankind is more apt to suffer while evil can withstand. Essentially, evil will continue in its evilness unlikely to change to good because it’s become accustomed to evil! We often say we shouldn’t do this because…but is it because it’s wrong? Or is it because we’re so accustomed to doing the wrong thing….let me not preach. Next thing…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.This in particular spoke to me. When applying these words to any group of oppressed people — be they oppressed on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, etc. —it gives them the power to undo the very thing that recognized their rights. Not only does it give the power, it says it is the duty of the people to get rid of it and find new ways to secure and protectors of those rights. Toward the end of the Declaration of Independence, it says the following:In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.At this, I think of every protest, march, picket line, any rage-against-the-machine moment. Let’s also be clear that this is talking about the oppressed. So before we go back and forth about everyone’s right to protest and free speech, this is not talking about anyone who disagrees with a lifestyle or a law. This is simply talking about people who, by definition, are kept in subservience or hardship by the unjust exercise of authority. And one can argue that unjust is the denial of the three rights that are mentioned at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Again, I ain’t saying don’t celebrate. By all means, light your fireworks, eat your barbecue, and celebrate your day off. Do you, boo boo. I ain’t mad.All I’m saying is, if we do want to celebrate what independence was purported to have meant at the start of our great nation, once we’ve looked at Declaration of Independence and the day we celebrate its approval, perhaps today requires a little more of us than simply having a few drinks by the pool.Click here to read the full Declaration of Independence

A Different Side of Pride

In episode three of Echoes on air!, Janelle is joined by DR Hanson, Cheryl Allison, and Carlos Brumfield as they discuss the corporatization of Pride, how Pride has changed, and where to go from here. Check out the following links as mentioned in this episode: Queer Bomb: https://www.facebook.com/qbdallas/ Cine Wilde: https://www.facebook.com/cinewildedallas/ Shatter the Silence: http://www.shatterthesilencefilm.com/ iTunes - Click Here Google Play - Click Here Don't forget to RATE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE!Create hope. Forge a path. Change the world.

I'm Still Me

I came out, publicly, a few years ago. Prior to my grand Facebook announcement, most of the people in my life already knew. Of the people that I interacted with on a regular basis, the people who were the last to know were my very Mormon parents. Although my mother had asked me point blank before if I was gay, I just wasn’t ready for a response that she wanted nothing to do with me.But, I lucked out. My very Mormon parents still love me no matter what and just want me to be happy.When I came out, I was still a Brigham Young University student. Since BYU is owned by the Mormon church, I was scared of coming out and what other people would think of me. I was surprised that when I came out to more and more people, it didn’t phase them. My good friends took it in stride. It was just another part of who I was. They didn’t see it as my defining characteristic. To them, I was still the same person who was going to make really stupid puns. I was still going to quote Gilmore Girls on a regular basis. I was still going to sing showtunes at you — and probably very loudly. Nothing about who I was had changed. The only thing that changed after I came out was the way I was perceived by others.There were those who, when I came out to them, stopped talking to me. People I had known for years actively avoided me. They started saying horrible things about me to other people behind my back. And for what? Because a piece of information they didn’t know about me previously was now shared?Multiple women I knew told me they were now afraid that I was interested in them. I asked them if they were automatically interested in every man they see? They always told me that wasn’t the case. So why did they assume that because I like women I had the hots for them? Had I ever done anything to make them uncomfortable before? No. They were my friends. I told them that the same rules applied; plus, they were flattering themselves.I am now 33 years old. I came out for the first time to my best friend when I was 20. In the past 13 years, a lot of things have changed; but who I am fundamentally has not. That’s why it still surprises me when I lose friends because of it — that, in 2018, people still choose to no longer associate with me when they learn that I’m gay. I won’t change who I am for anyone. I’m not ashamed of who I am. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. I’m damn proud of where I’ve come from and how much I’ve grown.

Being Revolutionary

In episode two of Echoes on air!, Emilia Cedercreutz, Justin Willis, and Janelle Gray talk about Assata Shakur and what it means to be a revolutionary and/or an activist — and what it doesn't mean.Click HereDon't forget to RATE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE!

The Life of a Revolutionary

With the much-needed resurgence of acknowledging exceptional women from our past and present throughout the month of March, I wonder if there is an easier, simpler, and more accessible way to become a revolutionary. Clearly, there is no such thing. But revisiting the life of Assata Shakur would probably be one of the closest attempts to an easy path. In the current times of persistent racial injustice, the world could benefit from black women who are, indeed, revolutionary — meaning women whose tireless efforts contributed to progressive change that would benefit not only herself and others who were disenfranchised, but also those who have not yet realized that they may be plagued by victimhood. I believe that Assata Shakur would attest to dealing with adversaries, transforming from a product of her circumstances to an exceptional woman, and embracing freedom as the key essentials to becoming a revolutionary.The early stages of the life of Assata Shakur (formerly known as JoAnne Chesimard) proves that, in order to be a revolutionary, one must learn how to deal with adversaries. On July 16, 1947, the young JoAnne Chesimard was born into a world that hated her ethnicity, her gender, and essentially every fiber of her being. Growing up, she quickly realised that systemic racism was her adversary. It was systemic racism that allowed white Americans to advance economically while at the same time criminalizing black Americans and other ethnic groups by plaguing their neighborhoods with poor living conditions, drugs, and unwarranted police brutality. However, how did she ever know what her true adversary was if laws are set in place to justify the treatment, or in her case, mistreatment of blacks in America? Knowing her enemy was half the battle.The other half of the battle lied in the fact that she refused to remain a victim of injustice. She sought change. JoAnne would utilize weapons that every human being is given to level the playing field. As a result of delving into literature by James Baldwin, JoAnne was reminded that she was compelled to find solutions to living in a nation that, at the time, did not have the best interests of her people at hand. Baldwin’s literature was reaffirming for her. The reaffirmation ignited yet another weapon to use to fight injustice. This weapon was self expression.Throughout Assata: an Autobiography, she graces the chapters with stanzas that illustrate her emotions during pivotal moments throughout her life. Lastly, acquiring a completely new name was probably the most notable change that she underwent. For some, changing your legal name may simply be seen as a new label; but she had come to the conclusion that her name did not resemble the current state of mind — her black consciousness. After joining the Black Panther Party, she would then be known as Assata Olugbala Shakur. This name would resemble her new African life. Assata meaning “She who struggles,” Olugbala meaning “for the people,” and finally Shakur meaning “the thankful” (Shakur, 186).What is probably most notable about her experiences is her becoming part of the Black Panther Party, an organization that used their resources, knowledge, and like-minded vision to provide for their people. Assata’s vision and the Black Panther Party’s vision became one and the same. To be a revolutionary, one must understand what the endgame ise. To Assata and many other Black Panthers, economic freedom was the goal — not only for them, but for their children’s children.The theme of freedom it has forced me to reconsider what freedom is exactly. In my own recollection of American History, I am reminded that black Americans were not free following the Emancipation Proclamation. Were black Americans slaves afterwards? No. However, there were little to no resources set in place for former slaves to build new lives. As a matter of fact, Assata revisits the words of Abraham Lincoln during his three-year struggle of how to deal with blacks in America from 1862 to 1865. I won’t give it all away, but Abraham Lincoln was not all for black American equality. However, that’s the beauty of what freedom meant to Assata Shakur. Freedom was not simply having the physical chains removed. It was not even about the chains. Freedom came when you were able to walk in your purpose in spite of those who work tirelessly to keep you from it. Based on this idea of freedom, she was free even in prison. And believe me, she was locked up for a minute in this book.I love this quote that she wrote. Its says “Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.”Ultimately, her life is a quintessential example of what it means to face your adversaries, embrace internal growth and change, and finally strive for freedom to pursue life in ways that had never been considered, witnessed, or dreamt about. Her life and legacy continues to inspire us to be revolutionaries.To keep up with Justin, subscribe to his youtube channel, The Black Curriculum, .