How do we decide in our own lives who belongs and who doesn’t? How do cliques operate?

What potential violence is there in drawing lines between who belongs and who doesn’t?

More broadly, who constitutes “we,” especially when it’s so difficult to arrive at and locate a common voice, stance, or attitude on a given issue?

How does this relate to Home Fire or the poetry of Langston Hughes?

Through our lives, we get to decide who we get to keep and who should no longer have a part in. Though this is easier said than done, it is the courage and strength we permit that breaks those cliques that seem to form where ever we go. If we don’t, we are at the risk of putting ourselves in potential danger. This is the line between who should stay and who shouldn’t. If someone is making a positive impact on your life, if they make you happy and help you through struggles, oppose to someone who will leave you to fend for yourself.

I have found most times that when one expresses ‘we’ in an opinion, it is partly assumption that the other agrees or feels the same way as you, as it is hard to come to a common understanding. If they express ‘we’ or ‘our’ in an opinionated claim, even if others are not fully behind the claim, it is easier than they follow the attitude towards a given issue if you suggest their opinion.

This text related to other texts such as Home Fire and the poetry of Langston Hughes I have studied as I exploring other written techniques and played to the idea of vulnerability, refugees, struggle and pain but in different contexts. and provides more interest are we are seeing similar issues from a different background, written from a different time period so we can determine the contrasting outcome the play concludes to.