By Nathiel Tejada
“What
the hell are you talking about?
Put that knife away Chili.”
- Chili, Chance of
Swarms by Thomas
Stearns
When should we start caring about those who have a
mental illness? When that person grabs a weapon to harm others or when that
person harms oneself?
The play Chili,
Chance of Swarms by Thomas Stearns deals with two homeless men, Willy who
has diabetes and Chili who has a mental disorder. They have been forgotten by society.
What do we know about the homeless? We don’t necessarily know how they became
homeless, what their pasts are, how they survive, or if they have a mental
illness. What if one of them is suffering from a mental illness? Should we make
sure they receive the medical attention they need and get them off our streets
or should we leave them to defend for themselves?
Unfortunately, sufficient funding for mental illness
hasn’t been a priority to our government; in fact it has emptied many of these
hospitals to save funds. When Roland Reagan became president in 1980, he got
rid of the Mental Health Systems Act entirely. Two months after being in
office, John Hinckley with untreated schizophrenia shot him. Two years later,
Reagan apologized to Hinckley for taking away his treatment. In addition, his
personal tax advisor, Roy Miller had two sons who also suffered from
schizophrenia and because of the lack of treatment, one committed suicide in 1981 and the other
killed his mother in 1983 (Torrey, “Ronald Reagan’s shameful legacy…”). As a result, Reagan decided to continue the
treatment for mental illness because of his personal exposure to it. He never
cared until someone with a mental disorder impacted him. Did he have to get
shot to start caring? Did Roy Miller have to experience such trauma so Reagan
could finally realize that he should have acted differently towards the Mental Health Systems Act?
Dollars and Sense
If people
don’t have money to pay for their medical expenses, they will be released from
the hospitals. If they don’t have proper shelter, they would be forced to live in
the streets without receiving the help they deserve. Back in 1955, in this
country, 558,239 patients were hospitalized but by the end of 1994 only 71,619
remained in the hospitals, meaning that 87 percent of the patients were
released (Kennard, “More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails…”). In a mental
health hospital, patients have the opportunity to receive appropriate clothing,
a sanitary environment, a nutritious diet, and many other benefits. These
hospitals do help their patients, but the treatment is expensive. According to
the National Alliance on Mental Illness, a short stay can cost thousands of dollars.
Unfortunately, patients without proper medical insurance such as private
insurance, Medicare or Medicaid cannot afford to cover medical expenses. In
addition, if this patient doesn’t have any family members to cover their
medical expenses or to provide for them a place to live, this person would most
likely end up homeless.
Isolation
and Detachment
The homeless are lost in their
own world with no one to help them, understand them or align with them. Who is
responsible for them? If the government can’t provide proper funding so that
every person in need of treatment from mental illness can receive it, then
would it be up to us to care for them or to question congress to provide
funding? Many of these people with mental disorders end up in jails and
prisons. In fact the emptying of mental health hospitals has caused this to
happen. In 2002, in New York State, 20 percent of individuals jailed in Onondaga
County had a mental disorder and in Monroe County, the estimate was 30 percent (Kennard,
“More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails…”). Is this a matter of dollars and
sense? Is it cheaper to pay for an inmate with mental illness in prison than it
is to pay for a patient hospitalized in a mental institution? Unfortunately,
prisons are not set up to provide adequate treatment for inmates with mental
illness, so does it make sense to incarcerate people with mental illness?
Until
It Hits Home
Many incidents have happened in
which homeless people with mental health issues have caused harm to others. The
New York Daily News reported that in April
2014, a 61-year-old homeless man Henry Werner in New Jersey stabbed two elderly
men, 67-year-old Paul Baker and 80-year-old Clarence Wispelwey at a shopping center,
killing Paul Baker. It was unclear why this man committed this crime. Another
incident happened on June 1, 2014, in which a homeless man, Daniel St. Hubert stabbed 6-year-old boy
Prince Joshua Avitto and 7-year-old pal Mikayla Capers inside the elevator
where they lived. Hubert is also a suspect for stabbing 18-year-old Tanaya
Grant-Copeland two days earlier, just blocks away. How could we have let this
happen? When Hubert was first incarcerated for attempted murder, he was
diagnosed with mental illness, but since he refused psychiatric treatment, he
was sentenced to five years in prison. After he served his time, he was back on
the streets like a time bomb ready to go off. As a result of these horrific
crimes, these two cases are getting a lot media attention. Both of these men had
a mental disorder, but no one cared until they stabbed someone. When should we
start caring? As a society should we allow tragedies to be the catalyst before
we take action? Not all homeless people with a mental disorder want to cause
trouble. Some of them are even harmless. But could their acts of violence
simply be a desperate cry for help?
Mental illness needs to be taken
seriously. Society shouldn’t wait until someone is depressed, suicidal or
violent to start caring. Willy and Chili were best friends, which is why Willy
never imagined Chili would act so violently towards him. Sometimes we know the
diagnosis, we know that there are signs of mental illness, but should we wait
until our loved ones are harmed or some violent act hits close to home before
we make mental illness and homelessness a priority?
Give us your comments
@RiantTheatre
What began as just an issue with
the homosexual community, HIV/AIDS is now an epidemic that exists in every part
of the globe in every sexual orientation, race, gender, and culture. Not only is HIV/AIDS an incredibly important
topic to have in the media, but very relevant thanks to the recent airing of
The Normal Heart on HBO. The new
adaption of the 1985 play by Larry Kramer, sheds light on the earliest cases of HIV/AIDS in the gay
community. A silent killer, no one really knew what it was; just that it was
mainly in the homosexual community. Some guessed it was sexually transmitted,
but many thought you could get it just in the air. After a while, the disease
was nicknamed the “gay cancer.” Gays at the time had just found their sexual
freedom, and they were now losing it to some invisible force picking them off one
by one. The epidemic made them afraid of the government, the medical system,
and each other.
The 1980's were a terrifying time for the community. And some are still scarred. Recently I saw TONY Nominated Mothers and Sons, a beautiful play by acclaimed playwright, Terrence McNally. The story follows a mother (Katherine) surprising her late son's (Andre) old lover (Cal) with a visit. Cal now has a husband and kids, but is still obviously haunted with thoughts of his old partner, who died of AIDS. Though many themes (such as LGBT acceptance) run rampant through the play, I did not expect McNally to touch on HIV/AIDS when I sat down in that theatre. McNally examines 3 different generations and how they dealt-or didn't deal with-the AIDS crisis. Katherine, of whom rejected her son's sexuality and didn't know how to deal; Andre, who was older and experienced the crisis of the 80's; and Cal, who was younger and didn't really experience the crisis until the 90's, when people had an idea of what they were facing. The different experiences each of the three characters faced beautifully defines different generations dealing with the disease..jpg)
THE OUTING, like many plays in the LGBTQ genre, deals with the AIDS epidemic, but on a more modern timeline, somewhere around the late 90s early 2000s. Salome, one of Jizelle's best friends, is infected by her ex, who left her and told her by writing it on her bedroom wall. Salome announces she's going to retire for a bit to take care of her health, and then, theoretically, she's going to be okay. At the time the play takes place, AIDS is no longer a death sentence, but it still blacklists a person. There is still that rejection. But in her community, Salome finds acceptance and support. New plays about HIV/AIDS are just as important as the old ones, because they are documenting the experiences we have with the disease now as well as further educating those who know too little about the epidemic. 
In today's world there are documented cases of patients being cured of this disease. Though nothing is set in stone and there is no set vaccination, we are progressing in ridding of this plague. Unfortunately, not enough people are talking about this. If there was a vaccine that cured cancer, it would make world headlines for a month. Why do you think so many people talk so little of the HIV/AIDS crisis? Yes, President Kennedy ignored using the word like Voldemort for quite some time, but it's 2014, why is this still an issue? AIDS will continue to be a problem until it's just as heavily funded as breast cancer or leukemia. So why don't people care? Is it because it's primarily an STD or attained by drug use? Do you think that's fair? Comment below or @RiantTheatre.
THE OUTING by Afrika Brown will be performed in the Riant Theatre's Strawberry One-Act Festival in Series E on August 24th at 2pm at the Theatre at St. Clement's, 423 West 46th Street, NYC. For tickets go to www.therianttheatre.com
