Category: Politics

Greater Freedoms

I wrote the following while on vacation a few years ago.

The backstory is: I was watching a movie about the holocaust, and the friend I was watching it with fell asleep. For some reason that triggered some thoughts that I like.

National Security Reform
July, 2006

In the Nineteen-Thirties and Fourties tens of thousands of Europeans moved to the United States (including my fathers parents.) In the late Fourties and Fifties those same immigrants worked to build secure lives, with money, influence, and power. As these individuals matured in accomplishment and age – and as their progeny followed in their footsteps – they never shed the drive planted in them by their emmigration.

In the Nineteen-Thirties and Fourties, whiles thousands of immigrants came to the United States, millions were killed, brutally and systematically. Many of those killed have relatives who survived them in the United States. I witnessed the guilt my grandfather felt for surviving. The only thing that we as survivors could and can do is to work every day to make sure history does not repeat itself.

Jewish support of a strong national security must be understood in this context. For decades, the conservative foreign policies of the United States have been heralded by otherwise liberal Jews out of determination to never again have to rely on other nations to save us. The cold war of the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies was supported not simply from a “fear of communism.” The similarity between “the people” of the communist system and “the people” of the Reich (which excluded and exterminated Jews) was not overlooked by politicians in motivating immigrant leadership to support military build-up and intervention.

Strength over freedom equals ?
Our current true national security threats, and our response to them, deserve to be analyzed in light of this history. Our country has developed a strategic position – out of our strength – that we need not rely on the good will of any other nation. This is the logical conclusion of our forbearers desires to never again be reliant on the kindness of strangers. However, we live in an age where our security threats are diverse.

Last week North Korea tested long range ballistic missiles. The United States and others protested. But when the United States models for the world that one can only rely on ones own country, it is folly not to expect other countries to follow our example. We have created a world in which the ability to rely on only ourselves has become not a security strength, but a weakness. We set a bad example.

In honor of my grandparents, and also in honor of the relatives I never knew, we must consider a policy that relies on collective over individual strength. It is admirable, and understandable, to want to never be weak, ever again. But it is time we realize that our strength is measured not just by power, but by wisdom. Our wisdom is measured – unilaterally – by our ability to convince other nations to work with us on our security needs. For better or worse, perhaps if they do not understand, we are better off if we lack the power to act.

There is no power in the world that can not be vandalized by terrorism. There is also no single power in the world that will eliminate evil, or death. It is time we measure our strength by our power to spread freedom, not only our ability to enforce it.

For those unfamiliar with Jewish History, or Holocaust History, the mantra of the Holocaust education movement is ‘Never Again.”

That simple pledge can become perverted. Or rather, must be correctly interpreted by each generation to prevent abuse in its own name.

Here is a piece written in 1984 by Secretary of State Schultz about this. It includes the lines:

These brave men showed that the evil ever-present in mankind can be confronted and eventually defeated by an even more powerful devotion to justice and the will to sacrifice for a greater good.

We must never forget that lesson.

The principles that the rescuers upheld, and for whic many gave their lives, continue to animate heroic idealists of our own day, whose consciences will not permit them to acquiesce in injustice.

In preserving freedom, and security, it is critical – and unfortunate – that we not acquiesce to injustices. Who’s pumped for the inauguration?

It’s a new dawn, it’s a new day

[suggested usage: press play, read post]

This is excerpted from the Nina Simone wikipedia page.

Youth (1933-1954)
Simone was born Eunice Kathleen Waymon in Tryon, North Carolina, one of eight children. She began playing piano at her local church and showed prodigious talent on this instrument. Her concert debut, a classical piano recital, was made at the age of ten. During her performance, her parents, who had taken seats in the front row, were forced to move to the back of the hall to make way for white people. Simone refused to play until her parents were moved back. This incident contributed to her later involvement in the civil rights movement.

Simone’s mother, Mary Kate Waymon (who lived into her late 90s) was a strict Methodist minister; her father, John Divine Waymon, was a handyman and sometime barber who suffered bouts of ill-health. Mrs. Waymon worked as a maid and her employer, hearing of Nina’s talent, provided funds for piano lessons. Subsequently, a local fund was set up to assist in Eunice’s continued education. At 17, Simone moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where she taught piano and accompanied singers to fund her own studying as a classical music pianist at New York City’s Juilliard School of Music.

With the help of a private tutor she studied for an interview to further study piano at the Curtis Institute, but she was rejected. Simone believed that this rejection was directly related to her being black, as well as being a woman. It further fueled her hatred of the widespread and institutionalized racism present in the U.S. during the period.

Early success (1954-1959)

Simone played at the Midtown Bar & Grill on Pacific Avenue in Atlantic City to fund her study. The owner said that she would have to sing as well as play the piano in order to get the job. She took on the stage name “Nina Simone” in 1954 because she did not want her mother to know that she was playing “the devil’s music”. “Nina” (from “niña”, meaning “little girl” in Spanish) was a nickname a boyfriend had given to her and “Simone” was after the French actress Simone Signoret, whom she had seen in the movie Casque d’or. Simone played and sang a mixture of jazz, blues and classical music at the bar, and by doing so she created a small but loyal fan base.

After playing in small clubs she recorded a rendition of George Gershwin’s “I Loves You Porgy” (from Porgy and Bess) in 1958, which was learned from a Billie Holiday album and performed as a favor to a friend. It became her only Billboard top 40 hit in the United States, and her debut album Little Girl Blue soon followed on Bethlehem Records. Simone would never benefit financially from the album; she sold the rights for $3000, missing out on more than $1 million of royalties (mainly because of the successful re-release of “My Baby Just Cares for Me” in the 1980s).

Becoming “popular” (1959-1964)
After the success of Little Girl Blue, Simone signed a contract with the bigger label Colpix Records, followed by a string of studio and live albums. Colpix relinquished all creative control, including the choice of material that would be recorded, to her in exchange for her signing with them. Simone, who at this point only performed pop music to make money to continue her classical music studies, was bold with her demand for control over her music because she was indifferent about having a recording contract. She would keep this attitude towards the record industry for most of her career.

I remember being amazed when I first read that ‘Nina’ had been a classical pianist at Julliard. And that she hadn’t even been a singer till her bar-manager made her sing with her piano-playing. Amazing woman, amazing song. Good day.

On and on, and on and on (race, gender and the arts revisited)

In the last printed issue of Bourgeon, I commissioned a young woman (Heather Risley) to write an article on gender in dance. The article was based on a study that DanceUSA produced in 2003, which found that 86 percent of the countrys 43 ballet companies with budgets of $2 million or more are run by men. In a world so dominated by women, this seemed data worth investigating. Heather contacted a number of local artistic directors, and got a few responses. Here is an excerpt from Heathers piece:

“Gender disparity in leadership is noticed by female artistic directors working in the D.C. area. Gesel Mason, Artistic Director of Gesel Mason Performance Projects, observed the intensity of male-female inequity in the dance world. Ms. Mason stated that in a female dominated industry the existence of a small minority having significant power over the majority resembles “a kind of apartheid.”

Another female artistic director (who asked to remain anonymous) said she has regularly faced challenges because of her gender. She believes that men get preferential treatment when it comes to bookings, grants, and publicity. “I think female directors have to work much harder and be much better than a man to achieve the same respect and admiration,” she wrote.”

Simply considering the data, it’s clear that however it is explained the phenomena experienced by those two artistic directors is real. This business is wickedly tough. And tougher for women.

This has been on my mind – again – because of several articles I read recently. I am a fan of a UK dance magazine named Article 19. They are independently funded, and produce really great work. Love em. I got an update on facebook from them regarding an article on a UK-based funder, which is clearly giving opportunities to women over men. This from the article:

During the week we, here in TheLabâ„¢, received a brochure from Dance East listing their up and coming programmes one of which stemmed from the Rural Retreats project. The grandiosely titled “International Placements for Artistic Leaders of the Future” places seven dance makers with dance companies/organisations around the world so they can learn about running an organisation.

Of those seven placements just one, Tamara Rojo, is a woman, the rest, predictably, are all men. When asked why there was such a disparity in the numbers considering women outnumber men in dance by a considerable percentage (80% estimated by DanceUK) Assis Carreiro, Dance East’s Artistic Director/CEO told us;

“Because only two women applied for the placements, so we took one of those two women. We couldn’t take both because we had to go on the strength of the applications and we had concerns too but we can’t, for the retreats we had seventy five people apply and very few were women from around the globe to attend the retreat and for the placements only two of the twenty seven who took part in the retreat applied so we took one of them.”

According to Dance East’s own report of the 2008 retreat, which took place in January this year, just 8 of the participants were women compared to 19 men. Applications to the retreats are not open, you have to be invited to apply by the NDA.

When asked why Dance East could not open the leadership programme to more people Ms Carreiro responded;

“… that was the criteria for which we put it out and we had the funding for it. We can’t just open it up to everyone and these are the people we thought would be appropriate because they attended the retreat and there was quite a rigorous selection process to attend the retreat so it wouldn’t be appropriate to open it up around the world. The people who attended the retreat and we thought had the potential to go on so from them we selected the ones going on [to the leadership programme].”

When Article19 stated that the retreats were heavily focused on Ballet (nearly all ballet companies are run by male directors), Ms Carreiro responded bluntly;

“No they are not!”

Clearly that program director is lying. The only question is whether or not she knows it.

I was just reading on ArtsJournal (another personal favorite) and saw this recent piece from the New York Times, by Patricia Cohen, about women in theater. Here is an excerpt:

Frustrated by what they describe as difficulty in getting their work produced, enough female playwrights to make a standing-room-only crowd are planning to attend a town hall meeting on Monday night to air their grievances with representatives of New Yorks leading Off Broadway and nonprofit theaters……

Its harder for women playwrights and directors,” said Oskar Eustis, artistic director at the nonprofit Public Theater, because “its harder for professional women in the United States.”

This season the Public is putting on six new plays by men and one by a woman. Since Mr. Eustis arrived in 2005, the count of new plays has been 19 plays by men and 9 by women (with one by a male/female team). It is a record that Mr. Eustis labeled as “pretty good but not great.”

“The issue is best dealt with by consistent consciousness-raising rather than a specific program,” he added, saying the same approach applies to minority playwrights.

Now, Im a guy, but not a jerk. So I don’t want unfair advantages. I believe in open competition. Perhaps thats cause Im arrogant. Perhaps its something nobler. But for whatever reason, I know it’s just not cricket to pick leaders from only a certain sect of people.

Interesting how our society – how we, how I – change our minds about these things over time. I grew up with Affirmative Action, which is now looking more and more dubious. Is it? When I was growing up I was totally convinced that because of all the unfair practices today and in the past, if we are really interested in fairness for people of all colors, we need to do extra things to ‘encourage’ their success (which was affirmative action.)

I reallllly need support. For making dances, and for editing/writing (Bourgeon.) Bourgeon stopped being printed for lack of funding, and I’m wondering how long I’ll be able to keep investing in it online. Anyway — I want the support, and I’m a guy. So why bring this stuff up? My experience is only a tiny sliver of the experience had by thousands across this country. I believe that process (in art and politics) is as important as product.

I hope that we’re about to elect a black president. Somehow that didn’t hit me as a big thing until someone pointed it out to me recently – how important examples are. I really appreciate what Mr. Eustis said in the Times piece. That the issue is best dealt with by consistent consciousness-raising rather than a specific program.” Whether it’s support of a ‘leadership program’, funding, awards, fellowships, contracts, or jobs, these issues are so complex, and so personal that the only good way to deal with them may be as individuals. Which is what the whole fight is about anyway.

And by the way – if you like this kind of thing being available: do feel free to hop on over to the day eight website and donate. It would be deeply appreciated.