L.C., I like and appreciate your post. I'm not sure if you were referring to me and my post or just talking in general when you said that talking to one or two friends from whatever culture you're writing about won't cut it in terms of research. I agree and hope I didn't give anyone that impression.

I'm really grappling with what you say about the use of blackface and all that implies. The show is trying to make the point that minstrel shows and their inherent racism is bad, but I can see how you would still not want to see it. It makes me wonder about a project that was degrading toward women…would I want to see it degrade women even though the ultimate point was to say that degrading women is bad? I don't know. I don't know if this makes sense, but I want you to know I appreciate you and everyone here taking the time to post, to share their thoughts and feelings.

Michelle, I also think you make some good points. But when you say "it's disrespectful not to have a black writer on board because there has to be a basis for the truth," that's assuming that ANY black writer could fit the bill, would be better than a white writer when writing the truth of this historical time, and I just don't believe that's true.

Do I believe that African-American writers should have been involved in the play and could bring a different–and critically important perspective? Yes, especially if you get the right African-American writers. And the right white writers, of course. What I'm trying to say is that we are not interchangeable cogs. We are distinct individuals with distinct knowledge and characteristics, we are the sum of our parts.

We need to be respectful of each other. How can we bridge the gap if white Americans continue to profit on the muse of the African American? In the past we stole their music and inventions without giving credit or royalties, and now we steal the stories too.

It is disrespectful not have a black writer on board because there has to be a basis for the truth. Otherwise by playing blind angles the benefit is to those white writers alone.

Brent Hartinger elaborates here, and on page 2 you will find comments of various opinions.
http://www.afterelton.com/print/200998/lambda-award-should-you-be-gay

Interesting discussion!

Having had more time to reflect on the show, I still find the idea of it really disturbing, but the actuality of it is potent–it's ultimately about the rejection of minstrelsy and all that it stood for. I still have questions about the writers' qualifications for the piece, but I believe the play was thoughtful and powerful.

While I don't believe any stories "belong" to any group of people, I do believe that certain races are, in general, MORE QUALIFIED to tell stories than others. I don't agree with the colorblind mentality that says we are all the same and race does not matter. It does. Without question. There are things I just flat-out know about my race because I have experienced them firsthand.

The problem with telling stories from a perspective that's not your own is that you run the risk of stifling your characters. Unless you're very careful, you either fall into racist stereotypes unconsciously, or you can create characters that seem too squeaky clean to be real.

Is it possible to do it and do it well? Of course! As some have said, the alternative would be segregated writing. In my own WiP, the two main characters are Black and Japanese.

However, I maintain that writing outside of your race/gender/religion requires much more preparation and research than usual to get all the little things right. Simply asking one or two of your friends about their culture doesn't cut it.

And IMHO, if you're not willing to do the extra work, don't try.

In relation to the question–society's walls continue to be reinforced by the very people who are trying to knock them down. If I can't buy into a concept that a straight person can 'understand me', then clearly I must believe that a straight person has never been persecuted, ostracised or felt just plain alone. And such a world view is as narrow as the world view of a racist, for eg.

What I think is key is that the opening of minds go both ways. For every time there is a gut reaction that someone has blundered in how they have portrayed you, there must be an examination of whether it is a genuine misstep or whether the individual has simply hit on something deeply personal to you. A good example for me is the "It Gets Better" campaign. Logically–I understand it is done only with the best of intentions. Personally–I find it pointless to have a successful straight person tell me that my life will get better because they have never, nor ever will, walk in my shoes. But I've acknowledged that as not a viewpoint of the LGBT community, but as my own. We are have personal triggers–they key is remembering that they are, indeed, just that.

Not very long ago, I was reading a blog written by an American journalist living in Russia, married to a Russian–and writing comedy articles about Russia. And by her own admission, she's made a lot of Russian people very angry.

Her response: Shouldn't I have the right to my own viewpoint? Do you mean I can't write about what I see?

The trouble was that she missed the whole point of the uproar. Somehow, with I don't know how many years of living in Russia, she failed to grasp basic Russian cultural ideas and values. Instead of getting readers on both sides to laugh, she got one side laughing and the other deeply hurt. The gap didn't close. It's wider than ever.

Writers who go across the culture line are bridge builders, and they take heavy risks. There's always the chance that when you set the last span, it won't land where you hope it will. That's not to say you shouldn't try. Just know that failure can cost you, personally and professionally.

As an author I can say that on a personal level the attempt to portray someone I'm not always teaches me something.

Controversy sells, so perhaps this is what the writers and producers were banking on. And it's easier to look far and away to Germany at the Holocaust, or South African where Apartheid happened instead of looking at the toil segregation played in destroying lives, families and dreams in America.

American writers and movie producers have a long history of creating black characters who perform with a smile. That seems to be the only way to make US audiences comfortable with the material dealing with black/white relations.

So yes, I'm sure it made for riveting theater.