Scan barcode
A review by l_nolastname
Driving Miss Daisy by Alfred Uhry
3.0
Driving Miss Daisy is a concise example of passively upholding white supremacist beliefs. I don’t think that’s the story that Alfred Uhry set out to write, but he definitely did an extraordinary job of capturing the nuance of racial oppression between the three characters.
Miss Daisy believes that because she grew up poor and is a member of the Jewish community that she isn’t prejudice nor anti-Black. She uses “they” or “them” when referring to Blacks. Curiously enough it’s her son who points out these microaggressions to her, to which she immediately disregards his observations and replies that she too has known oppression.
There’s a very apropos scene where Boolie, Miss Daisy’s son, is explaining to his mother why he can’t attend the Martin Luther King Jr dinner with her. He claims that while he regards MLK in high esteem, the reason he can not be seen showing support is because it would cause him too lose business, clout, and respect with his peers. That while his peers wouldn’t come right out and voice their displeasure, they’re actions would slowly but surely convey their disdain and he’d eventually be financially ruined*.
It’s a great scene that perfectly sums up white culture; regardless of one’s ethics, it is better to align one’s self with the oppressors rather than the oppressed. It’s what makes America great!(And all capitalist societies! ^insert eye roll here^)
This isn’t a bad nor racist story, in fact it does a good job of highlighting racial, gendered, religious, and ageist microaggressions that are perpetrated throughout the play. My only question is, to what end?
What purpose does this play serve? Are discussions being had over these intersecting oppressions? Are people even recognizing the nuance for what it is? Or is it more often than not viewed as a cute story about a feisty old white lady and her Black chauffeur, who despite their many differences, are able to form a tangible and lasting friendship? Fuck if I know!
*implied
Miss Daisy believes that because she grew up poor and is a member of the Jewish community that she isn’t prejudice nor anti-Black. She uses “they” or “them” when referring to Blacks. Curiously enough it’s her son who points out these microaggressions to her, to which she immediately disregards his observations and replies that she too has known oppression.
There’s a very apropos scene where Boolie, Miss Daisy’s son, is explaining to his mother why he can’t attend the Martin Luther King Jr dinner with her. He claims that while he regards MLK in high esteem, the reason he can not be seen showing support is because it would cause him too lose business, clout, and respect with his peers. That while his peers wouldn’t come right out and voice their displeasure, they’re actions would slowly but surely convey their disdain and he’d eventually be financially ruined*.
It’s a great scene that perfectly sums up white culture; regardless of one’s ethics, it is better to align one’s self with the oppressors rather than the oppressed. It’s what makes America great!(And all capitalist societies! ^insert eye roll here^)
This isn’t a bad nor racist story, in fact it does a good job of highlighting racial, gendered, religious, and ageist microaggressions that are perpetrated throughout the play. My only question is, to what end?
What purpose does this play serve? Are discussions being had over these intersecting oppressions? Are people even recognizing the nuance for what it is? Or is it more often than not viewed as a cute story about a feisty old white lady and her Black chauffeur, who despite their many differences, are able to form a tangible and lasting friendship? Fuck if I know!
*implied