Robert F. Smith Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 Gibson A. Cima, “The Book of Mormon's African Fantasies,” in Marc E. Shaw and Holly Welker, eds., Singing and Dancing the Book of Mormon: Critical Essays on the Broadway Musical (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Press, 2016), 129-142, online at https://www.academia.edu/37230089/The_Book_of_Mormons_African_Fantasies?email_work_card=view-paper , Quote Abstract Far from satirizing (white) Mormon missionaries’ view of Africa, Trey Parker, Robert Lopez, and Matt Stone arguably underscore the privileged position of their white characters, their predominantly white audiences, and themselves. Through the musical’s Ugandan setting and its black actors’ embodied performances, Parker, Lopez, and Stone deploy whiteness as an othering strategy. The Book of Mormon musical deliberately misrepresents Uganda’s past and present as well as the country’s relationship to North American missionaries. By comparing the musical's portrait of Mormons to its depiction of Africans and exploring its roots in Rodgers and Hammerstein's racialism, I argue that The Book of Mormon musical advances a hip nostalgia for the bad old days, a neo-colonial chic. Among other things, Cima falsely claims that Family Watch International (FWI) is “LDS-affiliated,” and cites https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-watch-international .
longview Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 A few years ago I watched the 65th Tony Awards show which featured skits from the Book of Mormon play. When the cast and directors came on stage to accept their awards and render thanks, the person speaking, gesturing with his index finger for emphasis, closed with giving credit to Joseph Smith for authoring the BoM. It was done with an attitude of mockery and no awareness of the complexities in the book. This play was a continuous stream lampooning the Church and the missionaries. But to misrepresent the history and culture of a country in deep Africa is a whole nuther thing? It is surprising that the liberal culture (New York) would stoop to being so politically incorrect. I suppose "Rodgers and Hammerstein's racialism" is in reference to the play "The King and I" (I admit to some discomfort in seeing the patronizing paternalism exhibited by "white people" that came from the British Empire). 1
The Nehor Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 I saw most of the musical. I was more offended by the portrayal of Uganda than I was of my faith. We can and do punch back and can even use the publicity to our advantage. I have no idea why they used a real nation instead of making up a fictional one so they could more easily exaggerate for comedic effect. Stupid move. 2
Tacenda Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I saw most of the musical. I was more offended by the portrayal of Uganda than I was of my faith. We can and do punch back and can even use the publicity to our advantage. I have no idea why they used a real nation instead of making up a fictional one so they could more easily exaggerate for comedic effect. Stupid move. I don't care to see the musical.
longview Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 54 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I have no idea why they used a real nation instead of making up a fictional one so they could more easily exaggerate for comedic effect. Stupid move. Because the notorious Idi Amin was dictator over Uganda, it is burdened with a certain kind of cultural darkness and brutality? 1
morgan.deane Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 Even worse than having some religious bigotry and animus acceptable to elites is the fact that the paragraph Robert quoted, and likely the book, is full of politicized jargon and buzz words that doesn't say all that much even as it's considered fashionable, scholarly, and academic. Privilege, white (x4), embodied, otherism, racialism, colonial, its all there. The absence of such jargon is one of the major things I liked about the pre purge Maxwell Institute and one of the most annoying from the the new direction. If I want my eyes to roll out of my head I might read the entire book over the holidays but I really don't think I missed anything so I probably won't. 2
Meadowchik Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 23 minutes ago, morgan.deane said: Even worse than having some religious bigotry and animus acceptable to elites is the fact that the paragraph Robert quoted, and likely the book, is full of politicized jargon and buzz words that doesn't say all that much even as it's considered fashionable, scholarly, and academic. Privilege, white (x4), embodied, otherism, racialism, colonial, its all there. The absence of such jargon is one of the major things I liked about the pre purge Maxwell Institute and one of the most annoying from the the new direction. If I want my eyes to roll out of my head I might read the entire book over the holidays but I really don't think I missed anything so I probably won't. A little self-awareness is good. Privileged, white, othering, racialism, and colonialism are each very much part of the American story and Mormonism as an American-born religion very much embodies that. 3
The Nehor Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: A little self-awareness is good. Privileged, white, othering, racialism, and colonialism are each very much part of the American story and Mormonism as an American-born religion very much embodies that. So they were being racist ironically?
Meadowchik Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: So they were being racist ironically? You mean the BOM Musical writers? They were, yes. However, they can be calling out Mormon racism while also exposing their own.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 24, 2019 Author Posted December 24, 2019 13 hours ago, Tacenda said: I don't care to see the musical. I agree, Tacenda. It was hard enough to watch Clint Eastwood's R-rated production of "Richard Jewell" the other day, but it is a true story and had to be told, and I felt obligated to see it.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 24, 2019 Author Posted December 24, 2019 11 hours ago, morgan.deane said: Even worse than having some religious bigotry and animus acceptable to elites is the fact that the paragraph Robert quoted, and likely the book, is full of politicized jargon and buzz words that doesn't say all that much even as it's considered fashionable, scholarly, and academic. Privilege, white (x4), embodied, otherism, racialism, colonial, its all there. The absence of such jargon is one of the major things I liked about the pre purge Maxwell Institute and one of the most annoying from the the new direction. If I want my eyes to roll out of my head I might read the entire book over the holidays but I really don't think I missed anything so I probably won't. Cima gives a well-deserved and brutal review to Parker, Lopez, and Stone. Not that they would care.
Meadowchik Posted December 24, 2019 Posted December 24, 2019 13 hours ago, Tacenda said: I don't care to see the musical. It's extremely vulgar and profane. And it's still a very male-centric story.
The Nehor Posted December 24, 2019 Posted December 24, 2019 18 hours ago, Meadowchik said: You mean the BOM Musical writers? They were, yes. However, they can be calling out Mormon racism while also exposing their own. Ironic considering I find LDS to be less racist speaking generally and not specifically compared to those around them. I attribute a lot of this to going on missions where you experience another culture and not in a shallow touristy way. 4
Navidad Posted December 24, 2019 Posted December 24, 2019 I was deeply offended by any number of the aspects of the musical. In saying that I acknowledge that I have listened to the sound track many times but have never seen the show in its totality. I want to say something about it, but before I do I want to state clearly that I am speaking only for my own reaction. I claim it for no one else. I know almost nothing about South Park except that they don't portray Mennonites very well. I don't think their portrayal is funny if it is meant to be. However, I kept listening to the musical because I felt I was missing something, as is easy to do with a parody, especially one that is so patently offensive to all Christians. On about the twelfth time, I discovered what I had missed. When the missionaries get to Uganda, the Ugandans explain to them about their saying. The Ugandans curse God in their first encounter with the missionaries. The last song in the musical is the same melody but the words are definitely changed. In the last song at the very end of the show, using the same melody the Ugandans are singing "Thank you God." The missionaries have been able to work a huge change in the Ugandan outlook on God; from cursing Him at the beginning to thanking Him at the end. It hit me that this is the very core of the gospel. Whether deliberately or not, the writers of the musical showed through many twists and turns, profanity and terrible images, the essence of the gospel. It is so easy to miss, to tune out before the end. Since I made that discovery in the lyrics I have felt better about the musical. I still won't waste the money God has blessed me with to go and see it, but I see transformation through the faithfulness of the bumbling stumbling missionaries. Transformation (turning around) is what the gospel is all about.
Calm Posted December 24, 2019 Posted December 24, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Navidad said: Whether deliberately or not, the writers of the musical showed through many twists and turns, profanity and terrible images, the essence of the gospel. My problem with this is this change is achieved by an intentional Twinkie approach from what I have read(made up 'scripture' stories combined with Star Wars and Lord of the Rings). The Gospel is accepted as purely metaphor. What eternal power does the Gospel have to change without the reality of the Atonement? Edited December 24, 2019 by Calm
Navidad Posted December 24, 2019 Posted December 24, 2019 48 minutes ago, Calm said: My problem with this is this change is achieved by an intentional Twinkie approach from what I have read(made up 'scripture' stories combined with Star Wars and Lord of the Rings). The Gospel is accepted as purely metaphor. What eternal power does the Gospel have to change without the reality of the Atonement? Again, I will emphasize that I haven't seen the musical in its entirety. Certainly the missionaries used various metaphors in their presentation of the gospel. I don't want to take this too literally because I don't disagree with your point, but we have no idea what was said and taught off-stage. I also would suggest that when folks convert it is often because of the genuineness that they see in the missionary. Elder Price was a metaphor for the arrogant self-absorbed missionary who preferred Orlando. Elder Cunningham was a genuine sort of stumbling, bumbling missionary like I was fifty years ago on my mission. Again, I am not comfortable getting into this too deeply and I am not trying to turn this musical into a "Pilgrim's Progress," or "Narnia" which I believe demonstrate the essentials of the gospel and were full of metaphors. All I am saying is I noticed the change in the Ugandan's songs from cursing God at the beginning to thanking God at the end. I think many have missed that. That is all I am saying. I am in no way advocating for the musical. Have a wonderful and blessed Christmas.
Recommended Posts