Ilecirc; Aiyecirc;s unifying identity politics through Afro-Carnival performance; is embedded in its dialectical relationship with the rest of Brazil as it takes ownership of its oppressed status by striving for racial equality and economic empowerment. Against this complex background; performative theory offers significant new meanings. In ritualistically integrating Bakhtinian categories of free interaction; eccentric behavior; carnivalistic misalliances; and the sacrilegious; Ilecirc; Aiyecirc; anchors its social discourse on showcasing the black race as a critical agency of beauty; pride; wisdom; subversion; and negotiation. Ilecirc; Aiyecirc; carnival is not only racially conscious; it heightens the conflicts by dislocating the very establishment that invests in its cultural politics. In fusing the sacred; the profane; the performative; the musical; with the political; Ilecirc; Aiyecirc; succeeds in indicting racism; ironically sacrificing the very power it pursues. Despite these limitations; Ilecirc; Aiyecirc; creatively engages alternative dialogues on Brazilian politics through sponsored performances across transnational borders.
#1928977 in eBooks 2016-01-19 2016-08-22File Name: B01FWLIS9G
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Bring Pink Mist to Army Recruitment OfficesBy David SwansonBring spray bottles of pink liquid to military recruitment offices and displays.Spray them.Tell potential recruits: Be all that you can be. And this could be you.ldquo;Pink mist. Thatrsquo;s what they call it.ldquo;When one of your mates hasnrsquo;t just bought it.ldquo;but goes in a flash. from being there to not.ldquo;A direct hit. An I.E.D. An R.P.G. stuck in the gut.rdquo;Those are lines from a play called Pink Mist written in verse by Owen Sheers about three young lads from Bristol who sign up for war in Afghanistan.Read it. Perform it. It begins like this:ldquo;Three boys went to Catterick.ldquo;It was January.ldquo;snow pitchen on the Severn.ldquo;turning the brown mud white.ldquo;fishermen blowing on their fingerless gloves.ldquo;the current pulling their fishing lines tight.ldquo;Thatrsquo;s how it was the morning whenldquo;the three of us did what boys always haveldquo;And left our homes for war.rdquo;Itrsquo;s a lie. of course. Boys havenrsquo;t always. Most boys donrsquo;t now in the most war mad nations on earth. And boys in many nations donrsquo;t at all. And that has always been so. especially before there were nations.The boys are recruited by more lies:ldquo;I wanted something else mdash; him.ldquo;The man looking back at me.ldquo;the one with the uniform. the gun.ldquo;The one going somewhere. getting something done.rdquo;What about staying somewhere and getting something done? What about going somewhere and getting something other than killing people done?They joined also for pay and a better future. the chance to support a family. A society in which you cannot support a family without signing up to go and kill people in a distant land is clearly the least civilized sort of society imaginable. and yet it motivates itself to kill those people in large part from its sense of superiority.They joined for the same reason some people join the groups Westerners go off to fight against: nobody respected them until a recruiter did.Off at war in Afghanistan. the first time one of their buddies is killed. they become motivated by revenge:ldquo;It wasnrsquo;t just doing a job any more.ldquo;It was about killing them.rdquo;Think about a culture in which killing large numbers of people you know nothing about. people who barely even show up in your antiwar plays based on the remembrances of your troops. is ldquo;just a job.rdquo; Itrsquo;s society-wide sociopathy. The boys in this book speak of the pride of doing the ldquo;job you trained for.rdquo; They also speak of it as a game. as the realization of their childhood playing at war.These three end up. respectively. dead. legless. and traumatized. Their horrors are the story. Their victims. the people of Afghanistan. barely register. and never achieve the level of names or speaking roles. That they are being killed is clear. but they are only specified at all in one incident that involves killing a man. his wife. and a two-year-old girl.Of course the pain that war brings to the aggressors and their loved ones back home is more than enough to end this monstrosity called war. The stupidity of friendly-fire deaths is prominent in the play. The notion of any higher purpose or of any purpose at all for the war is missing.One of the soldiers hopes for an end to war:ldquo;and well. I guess I hope itrsquo;ll change. somehow.ldquo;Till then. if people knew what it is.ldquo;that would be enough.ldquo;How the loss becomes the reason.ldquo;and how the reasonrsquo;s an abuse of love.rdquo;0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy Gail ChristieSad and engaging. Reality at its worst.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy CustomerBeautifully read.
