While our industry is no doubt making progress from a long past of virtual whitewash (it is promising for example to hear about the increase in racial representation at Shaw this season), it is still not true inclusion to put a couple of "diverse" shows on your stage in a season while failing to integrate artists of colour into the rest of your programming in any meaningful way. It is far too easy to do that and become self-satisfied, thereby ceasing to remain diligently self-reflective.
The self-congratulations are most definitely happening and in some instances they are hard to stomach. While companies should take pride in their progress, that pride should be accompanied by a humble awareness of how much progress is still to be made.
The self-congratulations are most definitely happening and in some instances they are hard to stomach. While companies should take pride in their progress, that pride should be accompanied by a humble awareness of how much progress is still to be made.
ALL of our stories are worthy, and I commend any theatre company that commits to telling the range of them. It is important to affirm - without fanfare - that a great cast need not include a single Caucasian person, just as we've been shown in no uncertain terms for time immemorial that a great show need not include a single person of colour.
As artists, we must amplify the powerful and deeply human lives of every race of people. But it is critical that we not fall into the trap of serving the goal of diversity by having "POC shows". These plays and productions themselves can be absolutely beautiful, and the decision to program them is the right one. However, if having the African-American play and the Asian play and the insert-other-culture-here play is the ONLY way you qualify as diverse, you are rowing your boat several miles away from shore.
"Mainstream" theatre companies believe sometimes, with expressed good intentions but a woefully misguided idea of how to put them into action, that they have been inclusive merely by producing non-white shows.
They are wrong.
Yes, those narratives are important. But just as important is making it clear that there are stories that involve us all, not a few 'diverse' shows that tell specifically POC-centered stories, while everything else in the season features nary a non-white person in a role of significance.
They are wrong.
Yes, those narratives are important. But just as important is making it clear that there are stories that involve us all, not a few 'diverse' shows that tell specifically POC-centered stories, while everything else in the season features nary a non-white person in a role of significance.
Here is what so many still need to understand: DIVERSITY CAN BE SEGREGATED. INCLUSION CANNOT.
America and South Africa were diverse societies in 1965. I don't think anyone would call them inclusive. Diversity is a state. Inclusion is a decision.
Putting wonderful shows featuring entire casts of colour on stage is a significant step forward; I am by no means downplaying it. That does not change the fact that until the MAJORITY of any company's programming features more than just tokenistic representation of races other than Caucasian both on and off stage, any claim of true inclusiveness is incorrect.
I'm not telling any company what they HAVE to do. I can't. It is their art, that is the decision of the ADs and the directors, and I don't have that influence anyway. I am simply saying that to be diverse and to be inclusive are two different things. Know which one you are.
TT
