Skip to main content

Angels in America: Rethinking the AIDS epidemic, by Tania Garia

Sexuality and politics, some of the most universal yet polarizing aspects of the human experience were integrated into Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, in a remarkable and provocative way. Not only does he present these themes in an interesting and confusing play, but challenges his audience, us, to think about these human conditions differently. He connects these human conditions (politics and sexuality) in relation to the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 90’s but also embeds an important component of justice: compassion. 
The HIV/AIDS epidemic marks a time of widespread indifference/blame, civil unrest and polarizing distrust; it was a time in which our differences made more sense than our similarities. One of the most appalling and disturbing instances of indifference and polarization lies within the political scene. President Ronald Reagan and his administration, are notorious and infamously known for a lack of action concerning the epidemic. Scott Calonico’s, documentary short, When AIDS was Funny, reveals the Reagan administration’s initial response to the outbreak. Larry Speakes, the White House Press Secretary was first posed with questions concerning AIDS by reporter Lester Kinsolving in 1982. His response was one filled with laughter and mockery, claiming that he’d never heard about it and that he didn’t have it. As Lester continues to ask questions, drawing and urging the seriousness of the situation, both Speakes and the press pool continue with laughter. President Ronald Reagan didn’t address AIDS until 1985 when about 5,600 people had died. The Reagan administration and later on the Republican Party and supporters, became a symbolic and discriminatory enemy to the gay community. 
Such differences between politics and sexuality is deeply embedded in the play, especially between Roy, Joe, Louis and Belize. Roy and Joe’s political decisions are appalling to Louis and Belize, some in which there is no justice to individuals simply based on their sexuality. Roy Cohn is notorious for his homophobic remarks and insults and is sure to communicate his thoughts with Belize. Belize and Louis find themselves deeply offended and disgusted by Roy; a man who has not only dehumanized and degraded gay men, but does not have the courage to admit his own reality. In John Brown’s Body, Act 4, Scene 7, Louis confronts Joe on his 1981-1984 decisions, highlighting them to be the Reagan years. He accuses him of making a decision based on a “technicality, not because it is unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals” (pg. 240). Kushner made sure to address the Reagan years, supporter’s indifference and blatant violation of human rights in the play, which remains a central, historical aspect of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. 

The HIV/AIDs epidemic was a time in which people not only needed policy change and people to act, but needed people who cared, people who had compassion. The polarization and controversy sparked people to distrust, offend and neglect one another. Yet, there were individuals, who despite it all, remained kind and compassionate towards others. Belize embodies this compassion. Despite his experiences, he remains considerate of others; one of the most perplexing yet beautiful demonstrations of compassion is when Belize not only advises Roy with his medication proceedings but when Belize asks Louis to say the Kaddish for Roy. Despite all that Roy did and said to him, Belize thought that he was worthy of forgiveness; considering it to may be “the place were love and justice finally meet” (pg. 255-56). As Belize suggests, forgiveness cannot stem from compassion; realizing that Roy had a hard death and also acknowledging a point of comradeship. Kushner, makes an important point with Belize; despite circumstance and experience, everyone remains human and is deserving of acknowledgment, respect and forgiveness. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog Post for Thursday, August 30—Welcome to “Justice, Gender, Sexuality”

Welcome to our course blog—“Justice, Gender, Sexuality”!  In this space, you’ll have the chance to reflect on our course reading, ask questions, interact with each other and build a virtual community to complement our classroom space. For this first post, I’d like to invite you to do two things:  First, tell us more about yourself.  What do you think we should know about you as we begin this semester together?  You might consider these questions:  Who are you?  How do you identify?  Where are you from?  To whom do you belong?  What communities are you a part of?  What values or beliefs do you hold dear?  Or, share some other facet about yourself that you think is significant.  You might also consider telling us more about why you decided to take this course, and what you hope to learn from it. Then, please reflect on the reading assigned for class.  Given what you’ve read, what do you think queer theories can do for us?  Or, put another way, what does Donald Hall mean by this word,

Blog Post for Tuesday, October 30: The Criminalization of Queer Folks

After reading the first two chapters of Queer Injustice (for class on Tuesday, October 30), use evidence from the reading to answer this question:  How have LGBTQIA+ folks been criminalized in the United States? (Put another way, how has U.S. culture, society, and law defined "queers as intrinsically criminal" (23)?) To help you get started, you might want to review briefly how our authors explain what they mean by the criminalization of queers (see p. 23, for a starting point). Then, please discuss two concrete examples of how queers have been criminalized in the U.S. Aim for at least 250 words in your comment.

Blog Post for Tuesday, November 27: Trans Feminism

After completing the reading for today, which comes from Julia Serano's book Excluded , take some time to reflect on her arguments about gender, feminism, and transgender identities and experiences.  For Serano, what is the role for trans women (and/or other trans people for that matter) in feminism? How does she understand and think through sex and gender as terms of analysis? Ultimately, how should feminists and/or other queer folks work to be more inclusive of transgender women? Aim for 250 words and make sure to integrate examples and citations from the text to anchor your analysis.