WBEZ | prejudice http://www.wbez.org/tags/prejudice Latest from WBEZ Chicago Public Radio en Anger in America Has a Long History http://www.wbez.org/programs/here-and-now/2016-01-14/anger-america-has-long-history-114473 <img typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://llnw.wbez.org//main-images/ANGER-Douglas GrundyThree LionsGetty Images.jpg" alt="" /><p><div id="attachment_99592"><img alt="In this image, people faint and cause disorder in a courtroom during the 1692 trial of suspected witch, George Jacobs. (Douglas Grundy/Three Lions/Getty Images)" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/11/files/2016/01/0111_witch-trial-624x458.jpg" style="height: 455px; width: 620px;" title="In this image, people faint and cause disorder in a courtroom during the 1692 trial of suspected witch, George Jacobs. (Douglas Grundy/Three Lions/Getty Images)" /><p>Amid the heated political rhetoric of 2016, the author of a book about the Salem witch trials of the 17th-century says hatred of the so-called &ldquo;other&rdquo; dates back to the Puritans.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Witches-Salem-Stacy-Schiff/dp/0316200603?tag=wburorg-20" target="_blank">The Witches: Salem 1692</a>.&rdquo;<a name="excerpt" style="color: rgb(44, 149, 199); outline: none; transition: opacity 0.3s ease 0s;"></a></p></div><p><em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/opinion/sunday/anger-an-american-history.html" target="_blank">Read Stacy Schiff&rsquo;s New York Times op-ed &ldquo;Anger: An American History&rdquo;</a></em></p><p>&nbsp;</p><hr /><p><strong><span style="font-size:18px;">Book Excerpt: &lsquo;The Witches: Salem, 1692&rsquo; By Stacy Schiff</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: center;"><strong>The Diseases of Astonishment</strong></p><blockquote><p><em>We&nbsp;will declare frankly that nothing is clear&nbsp;in this world. Only fools and charlatans know and understand everything.</em></p><p>&mdash;&nbsp;Anton Chekhov</p><p>&nbsp;</p></blockquote><p>In 1692 the Massachusetts Bay Colony executed fourteen women, five men, and two dogs for witchcraft. The sorcery materialized in January. The first hanging took place in June, the last in September; a stark, stunned silence followed. What discomfited those who survived the ordeal was not the cunning practice of witchcraft but the clumsy administration of justice. Innocents indeed appeared to have hanged. But guilty parties had escaped. There was no vow never to forget; consigning nine months to oblivion seemed a more appropriate response. It worked, for a generation. We have been conjuring with Salem &mdash; our national nightmare, the undercooked, overripe tabloid episode, the dystopian chapter in our past &mdash; ever since. It crackles, flickers, and jolts its way through American history and literature.</p><p>No one burned at the stake. No midwives died. The voodoo arrived later, with a nineteenth‑century historian; the half‑black slave with Longfellow; the casting of spells in the forest with Arthur Miller. (A movie delivered the chicken blood and the boiling cauldron.) Erudition&nbsp;plays a greater role in the story than ignorance. It is however true that fifty‑five people confessed to witchcraft. A minister was hanged. And while we will never know the exact number of those formally charged with having &ldquo;wickedly, maliciously, and feloniously&rdquo; engaged in sorcery, somewhere between 144 and 185 witches and wizards were named in twenty‑five villages and towns before the crisis passed. Reports had it that more than seven hundred witches flew about Massachusetts. So many stood accused that witnesses confused their witches. Even a careful chronicler afterward sent the wrong woman flying through the air on a singularly inauspicious flight.</p><p>The youngest of the witches was five, the eldest nearly eighty. A daughter accused her mother, who in turn accused her mother, who accused a neighbor and a minister. A wife and daughter denounced their husband and father. Husbands implicated wives; nephews their aunts; sons‑in‑law their mothers‑in‑law; siblings each other. Only fathers and sons weathered the crisis unscathed. A woman who traveled to Salem to clear her name wound up shackled before the afternoon was out. In Andover &mdash; the community most severely affected &mdash; one of every fifteen people was accused. The town&rsquo;s senior minister discovered he was related to no fewer than twenty witches. Ghosts escaped their graves to flit in and out of the courtroom, unnerving more than did the witches themselves. Through the episode surge several questions that touch the third rail of our fears: Who was conspiring against you? Might you be a witch and not know it? Can an innocent person be guilty? Could anyone, wondered a group of men late in the summer, think himself safe?</p><p><img alt="Cover of &quot;The Witches&quot; by Stacy Schiff" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/11/files/2016/01/0111_the-witches-198x300.jpg" style="height: 303px; width: 200px; float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" /></p><p>How did the idealistic Bay Colony arrive &mdash; three generations after its founding &mdash; in such a dark place? Nearly as many theories have been advanced to explain the Salem witch trials as the Kennedy assassination. Our first true‑crime story has been attributed to generational, sexual, economic, ecclesiastical, and class tensions; regional hostilities imported from England; food poisoning; a hothouse religion in a cold climate; teenage hysteria; fraud, taxes, conspiracy; political instability; trauma&nbsp;induced by Indian attacks; and to witchcraft itself, among the more reasonable theories.</p><p>America&rsquo;s tiny reign of terror, Salem represents one of the rare moments in our enlightened past when the candles are knocked out and everyone seems to be groping about in the dark, the place where all good stories begin. Easy to caricature &mdash; it is the only tragedy that has acquired its own annual, unrelated holiday &mdash; it is more difficult to comprehend. The irresistible locked‑room mystery of the matter is what keeps us coming back to it. In three hundred years, we have not adequately penetrated nine months of Massachusetts history. If we knew more about Salem, we might attend to it less, a conundrum that touches on something of what propelled the witch panic in the first place. Things disturb us in the night. Sometimes they are our consciences. Sometimes they are our secrets. Sometimes they are our fears, translated from one idiom to another. Often what pinches and pricks, gnaws, claws, stabs, and suffocates, like a seventeenth‑century witch, is the irritatingly unsolved puzzle in the next room.</p><p>The population of New England in 1692 would fit into Yankee Stadium&nbsp;today. Nearly to a person, they were Puritans. Having suffered for their faith, those families had sailed to North America to worship &ldquo;with more purity and less peril than they could do in the country where they were,&rdquo; as a minister at the heart of the crisis put it. They believed the Reformation incomplete, the Church of England insufficiently pure. They intended in North America to complete the task. On a providential mission, they hoped to begin history anew; they had the advantage of building a civilization &mdash; a &ldquo;New English Israel,&rdquo; as one clergyman termed it in</p><p>1689 &mdash; from scratch. Nonconforming Protestants, they were double dissenters, twice in revolt. That did not make them popular people. They tended toward fissions and factions, strong opinions, righteous indignation. Like any oppressed people, they defined themselves by what offended them, which would give New England its gritty flavor and, it has been argued, America its independence. Rigorous Calvinists, they had come a great distance to worship as they pleased; they were intolerant of those who did so differently. They were ardent, anxious, unbashful, incurably logical, not quite Americans, of as homogeneous a culture as has ever existed on this continent.</p><p>A visitor exaggerated when he reported that New Englanders could &ldquo;neither drive a bargain, nor make a jest, without a text of Scripture at the end on it,&rdquo; but he was not far off. If there was a book in the house &mdash; as almost inevitably there was &mdash; it was the Bible. The early modern American thought, breathed, dreamed, disciplined, bartered, and hallucinated in biblical texts and imagery. Witchcraft judge Samuel Sewall would court an attractive widow with published sermons; she held him off with the Apostle Paul.</p><p>The New World constituted a plagiarism of the old with a few crucial differences. Stretching from Martha&rsquo;s Vineyard to Nova Scotia and incorporating parts of present‑day Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine, the Bible commonwealth perched on the edge of a wilderness. From the start it tangled with another American staple: the devilish savage, the swarthy terrorist in the backyard. Even the colony&rsquo;s less isolated outposts felt their fragility. A tempest blew the roof off one of the finest houses in Salem as its ten occupants slept. A church went flying with its congregation inside. The early American lived not only on a frontier but in many ways out of time. A foreign monarch could be dead one minute and alive the next, so unreliable was the news. The residents of Massachusetts Bay did not always know who sat on the throne to which they owed allegiance. In 1692 they did not know the terms of their government. They had endured without one for three years; finalized at the end of 1691, a new charter was only just sailing their way. For three months of the year they could not be certain what year they were living in. Because the pope approved the Gregorian calendar, New England rejected it, stubbornly continuing to date the start of the new year to March 25. (When witches assaulted their first victims in Salem village, it was 1691 in North America, 1692 in Europe.)</p><p>In isolated settlements, in dim, smoky, firelit homes, New Englanders lived very much in the dark, where one listens more acutely, feels most passionately, imagines most vividly, where the sacred and the occult thrive. Their fears and fancies differed little from ours, even if the early&nbsp;American witch had as much in common with our pointy‑hatted crone as Somali pirates do with Captain Hook. Their dark, however, was a very different dark. The sky over New England was crow black, pitch‑black, Bible black, so black it could be difficult at night to keep to the path, so black that a line of trees might freely migrate to another location or that you might find yourself pursued after nightfall by a rabid black hog, leaving you to crawl home, bloody and disoriented, on all fours. Indeed eyeglasses were rare in seventeenth‑century Massachusetts. Hard cider was the drink of choice. Still, the thoughtful, devout, literate New Englander could, in the Salem courtroom, at times sound as if he were on a lowgrade acid trip.</p><p>In all of New England, it would have been difficult to find more than a few souls to whom the supernatural was not eminently real, part and parcel of the culture, as was the devil himself. Most had a story to tell you, as many of us do today. We have all observed the occult in action, even if we do not quite subscribe to it. A year after the witchcraft crisis had passed, Cotton Mather, among the best‑read men in America, visited Salem. He lost his sermon notes, which turned up a month later, scattered through the streets of a neighboring town. He concluded that diabolical agents had stolen them. One no more doubted the reality of sorcery than the literal truth of the Bible; to do so was to question the sun shining at noon. Faith aside, witchcraft served an eminently useful purpose. The aggravating, the confounding, the humiliating all dissolved in its cauldron. It made sense of the unfortunate and the eerie, the sick child and the rancid butter along with the killer cat. What else, shrugged one husband, could have caused the black and blue marks on his wife&rsquo;s arm?</p><p>For some of the things that plagued the seventeenth‑century New Englander we have modern‑day explanations. For others we do not. We have believed in any number of things &mdash; the tooth fairy, cold fusion, the benefits of smoking, the free lunch &mdash; that turn out not to exist. We all subscribe to preposterous beliefs; we just don&rsquo;t know yet which ones&nbsp;they are. We too have been known to prefer plot to truth; to deny the evidence before us in favor of the ideas behind us; to do insane things in the name of reason; to take that satisfying step from the righteous to the self‑righteous; to drown our private guilts in a public well; to indulge in a little delusion. We have all believed that someone had nothing better to do than spend his day plotting against us. The seventeenth‑century world appeared full of inexplicables, not unlike the automated, mindreading, algorithmically enhanced modern one.</p><p>Though we tend not to conclude that specters have stolen our notes, we live with &mdash; and continue to relish &mdash; perplexity every day. We love to hear that when the flash of lightning struck the man at prayer, it carried away the book of Revelation but left the rest of the Bible intact. Even those of us who do not occupy the Puritans&rsquo; high spiritual plane are susceptible to what Mather termed the &ldquo;diseases of astonishment.&rdquo; Our appetite for the miraculous endures; we continue to want there to be something just beyond our ken. We hope to locate the secret powers we didn&rsquo;t know we had, like the ruby slippers Dorothy finds on her feet and that Glinda has to tell her how to work. Where women are concerned, it is preferable that those powers manifest only when crisis strikes; the best heroine is the accidental one. Before and after the trials, New England feasted on sensational tales of female daring, the prowess its women displayed under Indian assault. Those captivity narratives provided something of a template for witchcraft. Everyone has a captivity narrative; today we call it memoir. Sometimes too we turn out to be captives of our ideas. Salem is in part the story of what happens when a set of unanswerable questions meets a set of unquestioned answers.</p><p>Rich in shape‑shifting humans, fantastical flights, rash wishes, beleaguered servants, evil stepmothers, bewitched hay, and enchanted apples, the crisis in Salem resembles another seventeenth‑century genre as well: the fairy tale. It took place in the wilderness, the address to which the hunter transports you when instructed to cut out your lungs and liver, where wolves follow you home. Salem touches on what is unreal but by&nbsp;no means untrue; at its heart are unfulfilled wishes and unexpressed anxieties, rippling sexual undercurrents and raw terror. It unspools in that fertile, dreamlike expanse between the uncanny and the absurd. There had been New England witch trials before, but none precipitated by a cohort of bewitched adolescent and preadolescent girls. Also like a fairy tale, Salem is a story in which women &mdash; strong‑minded women and trembling, subservient women, upright matrons and wayward teenagers &mdash; play decisive roles. It includes a tacit salute to unsettling female power in the sheer number of women accused. A group of young, disenfranchised girls unleashed the crisis, displaying forces no one could contain and that disturb still today. Which may or may not have something to do with why we have turned a story of women in peril into one about perilous women.</p><p>Women play the villains in fairy tales &mdash; what are you saying when you place the very emblem of lowly domestic duty between your legs and ride off, defying the bounds of community and laws of gravity? &mdash; but those tales are as well the province of youth. Salem is bound up on every level with adolescence, that immoderate age when, vulnerable and invincible, we skip blithely along the border between the rational and the irrational, when interest surges both in the spiritual and the supernatural. The crisis began with two prepubescent girls and came quickly to involve a group of teenagers, understood to be enchanted by individuals most of them had never met. The girls hailed from a village clamoring for its autonomy and from a colony itself in the throes of a painful adolescence. For years the Crown had attempted to impose royal authorities on New England, the most recent of which the leading citizens of Massachusetts &mdash; including nearly all the future witchcraft judges &mdash; had overthrown. They had every reason to demand English protection against marauding Indians and designing Frenchmen. But while bemoaning their vulnerability &mdash; they were an &ldquo;orphan plantation&rdquo; &mdash; the settlers simultaneously resented oversight. They braced from the start for interference, vowing to reject it when it came and finding themselves humiliated when it did. The relationship with the mother country&nbsp;had devolved into a running quarrel; for some time the people who were meant to protect the colonists seemed rather as if they persecuted them. (By contrast, London found New Englanders to be of &ldquo;peevish and touchy humor.&rdquo;) The Massachusetts authorities suffered too from another anxiety that would play a role in 1692. Every time they looked back in admiration at the men who had founded their godly commonwealth, every time they lauded that greatest of generations, they grew just a little bit smaller themselves.</p><p>Historical truths emerge only with time. With Salem they have crept out haltingly at best and with some deformation. Avid record keepers, Puritans did not like for things to go forgotten. Yet mid‑1692 is a period when, if you take the extant archives at face value, no one in Massachusetts kept a regular diary, including even the most fanatical of diarists. Reverend Samuel Willard&rsquo;s&nbsp;</p><p>No trace of a single session of the witchcraft court survives. We have accounts of the trials but no records; we are left with preparatory papers &mdash; depositions, indictments, confessions, petitions &mdash; and two death warrants. The Salem village record book has been expunged. No newspaper yet circulated in a North American colony. While the bewitched commanded a rapt audience for much of a year, their voices are lost to us. Their words come to us exclusively from men who were far from thorough, seldom impartial, and not always transcribing in the room in which they heard those statements. They mangle and strangle the voices of the accused; they are equally inattentive to the accusers, not all of whose statements they committed to paper. We have few full transcripts of preliminary hearings. The testimony came too fast; the pandemonium in the courtroom made it impossible to hear. It is difficult to say with any certainty whose lines are whose. The recorders quickly gave up on faithful transcribing, summarizing instead, adding flavor as they went. One simply noted that a defendant adopted &ldquo;a very wicked, spiteful manner.&rdquo; Another interrupted his work to call the suspect a liar. After a certain date, the keepers of the accounts did not dwell on denials, understood to crumble soon enough into confessions. Which poses another problem: The testimony is sworn, on oath. It is also full of tall tales, unless you happen to believe &mdash; as one woman confessed, having vowed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth &mdash; that she flew on a stick with her church deacon and two others to a satanic baptism, and that she had, the previous Monday, carried her minister&rsquo;s specter through the air along with her, having earlier conferred in her orchard with a satanic cat. Over one hundred reporters took down testimony. Few were trained to do so. They were maddeningly inconsistent. Even when they recorded an answer, they did not always bother to note the question, although it is fairly easy to extrapolate what that was when a nineteen‑year‑old standing before three of the most imposing men she would meet in her lifetime cried, &ldquo;I will tell! I will tell!&rdquo; &mdash; and proceeded to confess to witchcraft.</p><p>Accusers confused suspects; later chroniclers conflated them further. Several had the same name. In many cases all we can glimpse of an individual is what emerged under withering interrogation as transcribed by court reporters antipathetic to her and who in some cases testified against her. We know little about most of them except that they were accused of witchcraft or confessed to it. They are like fairy‑tale figures too in that we recognize them by a sole detail &mdash; a quirk of dress, a turn of phrase, an inner tremor. This leaves us to make much of a single characteristic: Mary Warren was fair‑faced. Abigail Hobbs was shameless. George Jacobs had a rollicking sense of humor; Samuel Parris had none. What do we want those implicated in the trials to tell us? What were they thinking when they confessed to flying through the air or smothering the neighbor; deposing a perfectly lucid woman who insisted she knew nothing of witchcraft; sharing a cell with a convicted wizard; standing at the gallows as the man they accused of sorcery insisted, with his last breath, on his innocence? Where was the devil in Salem and what was he really up to? How did those who withstood the vicious accusations find the strength to do so? All went to their graves believing still in witches. At what point did it occur to them that though the sorcery might be real, the trials were a sham? Theirs is a little story that becomes a big one, much more than our national campfire story, the gothic, genre releasing crack‑up on the way to the Constitution. The witch hunt stands as a cobwebbed, crowd‑sourced cautionary tale, a reminder that &mdash; as a minister at odds with the crisis noted &mdash; extreme right can blunder into extreme wrong.</p><p>There is a very great deal we cannot know: How did two people who had accused each other of witchcraft fare together for months on end in a tiny cell? What if they were mother and daughter? How did a ghost differ from an apparition? Which terror was worse, that the next knock would be at your door, that the witchcraft would skid next into your home, or that the man you were sentencing to hang might not be a wizard after all? We go back to their words again and again to wring answers from&nbsp;parched Puritan prose and pursed Puritan lips, to unlock the meaning of an episode that originated in allegory and that burst &mdash; an electrifying pop‑up book &mdash; into incandescent history, only to settle back into allegory. A prayer, a spell, a book; the hope is the same: if we can just fix the words in the right order, the horizon will brighten, our vision improve, and &mdash; uncertainty relaxing its hold &mdash; all will fall wondrously into place.</p><blockquote><p>1: to prepare his seventeen-year-old for a suitor, Sewall read her the story of adam and eve. it proved less soothing than expected; she hid from her caller in the stable.</p><p>2: most accomplish only part of the job. as a proponent of the witchcraft theory conceded: &ldquo;there are departments in twentieth-century american universities with as long and as vicious a history of factional hatreds as any to be found in Salem, and the parties to these hatreds accuse each other of all sorts of absurdities, but witchcraft is not one of them.&rdquo;</p><p>&nbsp;</p></blockquote><p><em>Excerpted from the book THE WITCHES by Stacy Schiff. Copyright &copy; 2015 by Stacy Schiff. Reprinted with permission of Little, Brown and Company.</em></p><p><a href="http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2016/01/11/history-anger-in-america" target="_blank"><em>&mdash; via Here &amp; Now</em></a></p></p> Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:40:00 -0600 http://www.wbez.org/programs/here-and-now/2016-01-14/anger-america-has-long-history-114473 Usman Ally on identity politics in ATC's 'Disgraced' http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2012-02-08/usman-ally-identity-politics-atcs-disgraced-96199 <img typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://llnw.wbez.org//blog/photo/2012-February/2012-02-08/disgraced_ATC.jpg" alt="" /><p><p><img alt="" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/insert-image/2012-February/2012-02-08/usman ally.jpg" style="margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; float: left; width: 300px; height: 275px;" title="">“Being Muslim these days is like being public enemy number one,” says actor Usman Ally. “Our voices are not being heard.”</p><p>“In a way, it’s a dangerous play,” he says of Ayad Akhtar’s <a href="http://www.atcweb.org/"><em>Disgraced</em>, which had its world premiere at American Theater Company</a> last month. At a dinner party, every imaginable prejudice gets laid on the table by corporate lawyer Amir (played by Ally), his blond American wife, a Jewish gallery owner, and his African-American wife, also a lawyer. But that danger, Ally says, “has brought us as a cast together.”</p><p>An ATC ensemble member, Ally has experienced some irrational reactions to earlier performances as a Muslim. He played an Indian-American character, VP, in <a href="http://www.victorygardens.org/onstage/chad-deity-reviews.php">Victory Gardens’ <em>The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity</em></a>—another “incendiary” show, he says, that toured to New York and L.A.</p><p>“Audience members would come up to me afterwards and call me a terrorist—even though I was playing a spoof of a terrorist! Because my character was multilingual, they’d tell me, ‘I think everyone in this country should be speaking English.’ They directed their political outrage at me.”</p><p>Muslims’ reactions after seeing <em>Disgraced</em>, Ally says, have varied a lot. “Some were like, ‘This is so important that this play is being done, because Muslims need to think about this sort of stuff, too.’ Others were just outraged because they thought it would fuel more of the negative stereotyping of Muslims in this country.”</p><p>A violent scene between Amir and his wife sparked a lot of conversation among the cast, playwright Akhtar, and director Kimberly Senior--Ally says it went through 17 iterations. Though originally scripted to take place onstage, it’s now a noisy offstage altercation, a decision Ally approves of partly because it’s “more gut-wrenching to imagine what’s going on.”&nbsp;</p><p>“My biggest fear, to be honest,” he says, “was that if the audience sees a large, dark-skinned man beating a small white woman, they will turn on him.” Everyone involved in <em>Disgraced</em> has had to tread a fine line between acknowledging the validity of ethnic stereotypes—and reinforcing them.&nbsp;</p><p>“There is anti-Semitism in the Muslim community,” says Ally. “Everything that Amir says—whether it’s about his mother, who tells him he’ll end up with a Jewish girl ‘over my dead body,’ or whether he’s saying white women are whores—those ideas are not pervasive, but it’s there. I heard it growing up, not from my parents but from people in the community. [Playwright] Ayad heard it as well.”</p><p style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="caption" src="http://www.wbez.org/sites/default/files/blog/insert-image/2012-February/2012-02-08/disgraced%20Ally%2C%20Arenas%2C%20Stark%2C%20Foster%20-%20V.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 432px;" title="A scene from American Theater Company's 'Disgraced.' (Courtesy of ATC)"></p><p>Ally, 29, was raised in a Muslim family originally from Pakistan, where he lived for about a year when he was 10. But he was born in Swaziland and grew up in Botswana, Kenya and Tanzania. After living in Africa for 18 years, Ally moved to the States to attend college, then got an MFA in theater. “Especially in our culture and community,” he says, “it was like, ‘You’re going all the way to America so you can sing and dance?’”</p><p>Ally says his parents come from “a very, very humble background.” His mother’s family “had to leave everything behind when they were forced from their homes” after the India/Pakistan partition. His father was raised in a small, impoverished village outside Islamabad but eventually got a master’s degree in economics and became, Ally says, “involved in trade between African countries—textiles and things of that sort.”</p><p>Like his character, Ally is married to a white American. “It was neither of our intentions to fall in love,” he says. “But we did. And people will project certain ideas onto us—we have to battle that quite a bit.”</p><p>“I always identified as a Muslim as a child and as a young adult. But practicing the dogma of religion was never something that my parents enforced on us. They said, ‘You are Muslim—that means that you should be good to people.’” He learned Arabic well enough to read the Koran but never understood what he was saying. During Ramadan, he’d sometimes fast, sometimes not.</p><p>Also like his character, Ally has clearly learned to negotiate cultures of all kinds. “I believe that my identity is porous,” he says. “I should be willing to allow my identity to shift and change based on what I experience in my life. But it’s all rooted in who I was. I start off from where I was, and I work from there.”</p><p>“But Amir has literally divorced himself from who he was, and it’s all brand-new. It’s based in nothing. He’s not rooted in anything. He has to whitewash himself in a way. Ayad very succinctly says that the play is about a man identifying with a false sense of self.”</p><p>“Identity is a very American issue—understanding who you are and where you fit in this massive jigsaw puzzle.”</p></p> Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:44:00 -0600 http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2012-02-08/usman-ally-identity-politics-atcs-disgraced-96199