It's A Great Time to Speak Up

Sometimes, I look at my timeline on Twitter, and see authors, myself included, squeeing about new book covers, pleading with readers to buy/help promote books, discussing ways to hone one's skills and increase chances of getting published, etc. Usually, this is in the midst of tweets from other parts of the world where people are tweeting about the very real climate crisis, the very real revolutions going on in different parts of the planet, and the very real movements for social justice during one of the most critical times our collective human brain has witnessed to date. In case you missed it, we're teetering on a cusp right now. The decisions we make as a collective can really affect whether we survive. Seriously.

As I've written before, many, many voices and expressions are routinely muted while others are lifted in this society of ours. That's what the Occupy movement is all about. A handful of people make decisions about who gets to sit in the spotlight and how many thousands hold audience in the dark. A limited few perspectives get held up to the light, receive financial support, or are aggressively marketed and amplified. But you know what? We're not living in times where we can afford to wait for someone to give us the nod before we express our thoughts and opinions. One voice can and does make a difference. We've seen it time and again throughout history.

Things are changing--fast. There is access to new technology. Anyone can record and broadcast human rights violations and police brutality as they are happening. Thousands tweeted the eviction of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, despite Mayor Bloomberg's "media blackout." In fact, Occupy Wall Street has morphed into Occupy Our Homes -- taking back hundreds of thousands of empty, foreclosed homes in one of the highest periods of homelessness in this country, ever. Ebooks are widely accepted and read, and are available globally to anyone who has access to a reader, computer, or cell phone. Thoughts, ideas, and information are exchanged with lightning speed over the internet. The balance of power is totally shifting.

If ever there was a time it was more important for people to speak up, to not wait for someone else to provide validation, to throw their contribution into the ring to help shape the future of this little planet under siege, now is it.

Some of my friends have said to me, "Come on. It's not that bad. There are some really great publishers/filmmakers/singers, etc., doing great stuff, no?"

Yes, there are. But they're not the most visible or as widely publicized. And there are not enough of us to compensate for the tremendous imbalance in access and representation. I tell my friends, "If you think things are not 'really that bad,' you haven't been paying attention. Or you've been paying attention to the loudest, not necessarily the truest. Turn off mainstream media for a week and seek out other sources of news and information, then let's talk." Because guess what? We're not supposed to know how bad things are. If we did, we'd all be dropping everything to make it right. We'd unplug from the buying machine, and demand something different -- create something different.

Things are that bad. But the good news is that there is time for change. The U.N. Summit for Climate Change just took place in Durban, South Africa. There are scientists pleading with nations to take responsibility, to implement policies that will reverse some of the damage we've done to the planet, to reduce greenhouse emissions and help steer us toward another path -- a less destructive path. But the most powerful nations on the planet are, at best, not listening. At worse, they are flat out denying that climate change is even real, or even worser, putting the blame/responsibility squarely on the shoulders of poorer nations.

The message is: We don't have to change anything. Things are working fine the way they are. Don't worry your pretty little heads, we got this.

The problem is that things are not working fine for a huge majority of the planet. And that huge majority just happens to be mostly PoC, mostly women and children, and mostly working class.

So, yeah. Now is the time to speak up. Artists/writers/storytellers/musicians have, historically, helped shape the cultures and societies they've lived in. They've served as a voice and mirror for the people. They've entertained, educated, and enlightened.

Folks in positions of power are not about to give their power up. But the rest of us are not completely power-less. If someone won't help you put your book out, you can put it out yourself. These days, the production quality of independently published books is right on par with corporate publishers. Just make your book the very best piece of art you've ever created. Put your expression as an artist, a world citizen, as someone with something valuable to contribute, out there. Release your voice into the world, so that more and more perspectives are heard. Until there is a strong chorus, challenging the same tunes we keep hearing over and over again. Art that supports the status quo is akin to propaganda. Art that challenges and throws the status quo into a new light is creativity. It's dynamic love.

The audience always outnumbers the performers. Participate. And totally squee about books and promote them and buy them. But let's help get more voices out in the mix. It'll completely change the landscape. More people speaking up and putting their perspectives out there is the only thing that will create the kind of change we need right now.


"I write for those women who do not speak, for those who do not have a voice because they were so terrified, because we are taught to respect fear more than ourselves. We've been taught that silence would save us, but it won't." -- Audre Lorde

"Life is very short and what we have to do must be done in the now." -- Audre Lorde

"Say something!" -- Bob Marley

Still On Representation

From BBC.co.uk

This past weekend, I saw Stick Fly, a play produced by Alicia Keys, featuring Dule Hill, Mekhi Phifer, and Tracie Thoms. I can't say that I loved it, or that I even thought it was *good*, but I am absolutely glad I got to see it. Out of the literally hundreds of shows on Broadway, there are about *three* featuring (or written by) PoC.

As I mentioned, I wasn't crazy about some of the things in this play (for a show about family, I would have included mothers on the stage, and I would not have silenced a woman for speaking truth, but that's just me), but I truly appreciated this writer's humor, characterization, psychological depth, and frank dialogue on race dynamics, class, and colorism among the African-American elite. It's her perspective, her contribution, and I can respect that.

As I thought about it later, I wondered again, what it would be like to see more representations of PoC, in all our myriad expressions, on center screen, on the main stage, in the spotlight. How differently would we navigate life? What new possibilities would we conjure up? What new opportunities would we see that now elude us?

Even after multiple shining reviews in other cities, Stick Fly took almost six years to make it to Broadway for lack of funding and support. I thought about how many wonderful, brilliant stories there are out there that will never see the light of day because there is no financial backing for them. This story was not how I would have written a story about family, but it was a good story that deserved to be on stage -- on Broadway -- nonetheless. How many others are out there just like it, waiting for a producer's approval, an editor's nod, a bookstore's/reviewer's stamp? And how many will never get that nod because the person reading/viewing the story doesn't relate to it, or simply can't see themselves in it?

And then, this morning, I read this post on Zoetrope, about the "dead girl" look on some YA book covers, and I was reminded, once again, that the struggle for representation continues on all fronts.

But I was heartened by this BBC article about Indian youth wanting to see their own faces on stage. Whereas before, the preference was for white faces on the stage, young Indians now want to see their own images and values reflected back to them, in all their unique beauty and complexity. And the result is a uniquely Indian sound, exploding onto the Indie music scene.

History has shown us that independent thinkers/musicians/artists have paved the way for sweeping social and cultural change. I think we're in the midst of some of that same sweeping change here, too, with the balance of power shifting. It's exciting...like we're on the cusp of something very significant, very important. It's slow going, yes, but I'm in it for the long haul.

change it she said

my mother used to tell me
there was an energy that destroyed
and an energy that created
these energies exist
in all of us
she said

later i learned of yin and yang
of the masculine principle
            and the feminine principle

later i learned
of single mothers prostitution pornography no childcare violence against women rape weapon of war fgm female feticide bride burnings dowry deaths beauty industries body shame
shame

later i learned
of heads of state presidents prime ministers CEOs heads of corporations oil billionaires bankers profits money makers progress industry conquests occupations empire invasions
domination

later i learned
of earth
     mother earth
and nature
     mother nature

there is a crisis
we have a crisis
we are in a crisis
                  it is now

there are some who see

nature
        mother nature is
     wailing
spinning
          wildly
       out of balance

earth
      mother earth is
dying

destructive energy run amok
creative energy on its knees
sexuality
          the life force
                       tethered
                  the captive unicorn

everyone knows creation
requires a mother
                 and a father
a masculine principle
        and a feminine principle
a destructive energy
                    for new life to grow
and a creative energy
                    the womb, the cocoon
a feminine energy to birth
                                        nurture
                                  sustain
a masculine energy to curb
                                         weed
                                   prune . . .

still

almost every religion
    in the world
             hails

THE FATHER OF CREATION

the greatest story ever told
our myths
of creation
shaping psyche
creating reality

erasing feminine
worshiping masculine

the mother
            is dying
bleeding oil
her children crying
                     starving

the feminine principle
    life
        creativity
             arts
                sexuality
                    spirituality
            crumbling
wildly
    spinning
out of balance
               bleeding
in the jaws of her captor

my mother told me
when i was young
there is a creative energy
and a destructive energy
these energies exist in all of us
she said

they are
out of balance
      in our minds
            our bodies
                 our stories
                      our psyches
                            our planet

change it
she said

first
in your mind
         your body
              your story
                    your psyche

tell everyone
she said

there is a crisis
we have a crisis
we are in a crisis
                   it is now

Picking From Many Battles

Last week, my ten-year-old came home from camp upset. She said that during a team game, one of her teammates didn't want to hold her hand because "she's a black girl". This was not in the sixties, it was not in the "pre-racial, pre-Obama era" - this was last week.

Normally, I would go to the parents of the child in this situation, just to inform them of what's been said, and hope that they deal with the issue in the best possible way. But I don't know these parents, so I went to management. My daughter will be in this camp for the rest of the summer and deserves to be in a safe, comfortable, non-toxic environment. Not to mention the arm and leg we're paying to have her there.

But this post is about picking your battles - and there are so many to choose from. This morning I learned that, at this same camp (a gymnastics camp), girls are required to wear leotards under their T-shirts and shorts while boys have no clothing restrictions at all. I asked my girls what they've been told the reasoning is behind this rule and they said it's because "when girls do flips and cartwheels, their shirts go up and it's distracting."

None of the girls at this camp are over the age of thirteen. If there are counselors who are "distracted" by a little girl's bellybutton or midriff, those counselors should not be at a camp for children. This is all about accountability. Grown men are responsible for their own actions. What a novel concept!

I grew up in a culture that hammered home the need for "modesty" in girls' and women's dress. God forbid a man should happen to see a naked elbow or ankle and be sent into a mad frenzy of lust at the sight of it. It would be the girl's or woman's fault of course, because, hey, she was told to dress properly. A man shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for how a woman dresses, or his response to her naked parts! And here I am again, in another culture that is hammering home the same message to my girls. As many times as I've encountered this line of logic, it still never ceases to amaze me.

So I'm struggling now with whether I complain again and become That person - the one who complains of everything and has a problem - the one you can discredit and shrug off because, well, next week she'll be complaining of something else - or whether I say nothing and let this one go.

I know, quite clearly, that the issue is not just with this particular camp. The problem is that most of the world is immersed in unchallenged, unexamined racism, sexism, homophobia, and all kinds of other abuses of power - with no accountability at all on the part of the person in the position of power. When you're someone who is not only aware, but actively challenging such power abuses, you become the complainer. Or the trouble-maker. Or the conspiracy theorist. Or the [insert other silencing descriptor here].

I like being happy. I like having joy in my life. I like to laugh and joke around. I HATE having to confront things like racist bullshit and misogyny. Truly - nothing bums me out more than having to go at it with someone wielding unearned power and privilege. A someone who is almost always ignorant of said power and privilege. All I want to do in the morning is drop my kids off at a safe place where they can learn and have fun. And I want to go home, have a nice breakfast and some tea, and get on with my day. Seriously. That's ALL I want to do. I hate complaining. But when you have kids, speaking up or staying silent takes on a whole new significance. Because now I am modeling how to deal (or not deal) with abuses of power. My children are watching what I do and learning from it. Either way, I will have to explain to them why I spoke up, or why I did not, in the face of clear inequality or injustice.

I'm not going to change the current system single-handedly and overnight. But I can at least challenge and question things *in the home*. If I don't, my children think the way things are is they way they ought to be. If the people they trust to protect them and guide them are not challenging "small", everyday infractions like the ones above, then everything is as it should be and the children are simply over-sensitive - they should swallow their pain/anger/fear and move on as if no violation has taken place. In other words, the entire emotional, psychological, and spiritual impact on their psyche becomes their responsibility. And the violator gets away with his/her actions, words, and behaviour, without ever examining it or being accountable in any way.

I haven't yet decided how I will proceed, but at the very least, the girls know there is something to be questioned - something not quite right about the scenario - and that their mother is mulling over how to deal with it.

The Politics of Story

I have a post up at Hunger Mountain, an arts journal put out by the Vermont College of Fine Arts. In The Politics of Story, I address the idea that only some stories are political and only some stories are message-driven. I argue that ALL stories are political and ALL stories put forth messages.

Here is a brief excerpt:

"Author and poet Suheir Hammad once said, “Writing must always have intention because words have power.” I know well the power of words. I know how a single slur can reduce a person to shame and humiliation . . . and fear. Some words—like racial epithets—have long and brutal histories of violence behind them. They carry with them the power to dehumanize and the inherent threat of attack. In an interview with Al-Jazeera English, Hammad stated, “I think it’s a political decision to leave politics out of your work.” Within a cultural, social and economic structure that advantages and privileges some over others, there is no way to make writing the “other” a non-political act. The very fact that there are “others” means that some perspectives are put forward more frequently and more consistently to create a norm, or dominant narrative. [...]

"As soon as voices of the marginalized are brought front and center, out of the fringes of the dominant narrative and into the center, our stories are automatically politicized. Because “othering” certain segments of the population is a social, political and cultural act. In the same way that leaving certain voices out of a narrative, or certain faces out of a film, book cover, magazine, television show, etc. is a political act, bringing those voices into the spotlight and giving them a platform, assigning them equal value and importance and weight, and listening to what they have to say is also a political act, intentional or not."

You can read the full post at Hunger Mountain. Let me know what you think!

I'm Baaaaack

Back from L.A. and Toronto and happy that the weather has taken a turn for the warmer. It was a pleasure to see the trees in bloom and daffodils beaming in their full glory on the drive in from JFK airport.

The Toronto events were lovely and I had a wonderful time with friends and family. Here are pictures from the Toronto Women's Bookstore event, featuring Zetta Elliott on the left, myself in the center, and Vivek Shraya next to our moderator, Annmarie Shrouder:

Blogger Niranjana Iyer has a great post on the panel and her thoughts on self-publishing here.

One of the more interesting conversations I had at the Saturday book-signing at Chapters/Indigo-Yordale was with a teen. We got onto the topic of bullying and harassment in school and she said that the worse type of "bullying" she ever experienced (her school is predominantly people of colour) was in the form of verbal and sometimes physical harassment from male peers. The terms most often used to denigrate young women are the same ones that were used when I was in high school - "slut", "bitch", "whore", etc.

And just today, Teen Voices posted this article about teenage domestic violence which points to the same type of harassment targeting young women. Here's an excerpt:

Ask a group of teenage girls how many terms of abuse are directed at them in school on a regular basis and they struggle to answer. Every week, they say, boys and young men in their peer group add a new phrase to their lexicon of disrespect.

"At my school we hear three words, slut, sket and slag, every day. It's got so it's not worth challenging it, it is not worth arguing about because it just doesn't change anything," said Bea Larby, 15 [... ] 

"Sket" sites, where pictures of girls are posted by vengeful ex-boyfriends, often in compromising situations, are set up on Facebook and other networking sites, or the images are circulated on smart phone messaging systems, along with a request to give marks out of 10 for the "sket" or "bitch".

'One girl, her ex posted naked pictures of her and sent them around the school,' said Larby. "She left school because everyone thought she was a sket, she used to get bullied in corridors. People would say, look there she goes that sket, but no one did anything to stop it."

The one thing that struck me from my recent visit to a high school in L.A., the conversation in Canada, and the above-linked article was that many things--like this sort of bullying and harassment--have held strong since my days in high school. And as long as power imbalances remain the same in the larger world--with media images depicting young women as racialized and sexualized objects, this type of bullying will keep a stronghold on each new generation of young people.

Raising awareness among young people is important, but equally important is working for change on a larger, systemic level. I think that's why the publishing panel at the Toronto Women's Bookstore was so important to me. What Zetta, Vivek and I were talking about was exactly that - grassroots change, putting power back into the hands of creators, and offering different depictions of young people for young people. All three of us spoke of wanting to create the type of work we needed to see when we were young readers. It is the work of offering alternative visions and representations for young women, queer teens, working class folks, differently-abled teens . . . doors and windows into new possibilities.

If you missed the livestream of that event, you can watch it here. But I don't know how long it will be up, so catch it while you can...

Changing the Face of Publishing from Facing Out on Vimeo.

Why I do What I Do

Last night, my fourth-grade daughter stayed up later than usual, finishing up her "A Woman I Admire" essay. She went on the computer and searched for images of Raven Symone, her inspiration, and printed them out. My daughter loves Raven because Raven acts, sings and designs clothing. She is not skinny and she is not afraid to be brown. And she is one of the only young women on mainstream television that look like my daughter.

This morning, as I was driving my girls to school, the fourth-grader looked at the picture of Raven Symone in her hands, crumpled it up and put it in her pocket. In a soft voice, she said, "Sometimes people say Raven is ugly." Then she looked up at me and I could see the sheen of tears in her eyes. "I don't think I'm going to talk about Raven, Mommy."

Even as my heart was breaking and I was doing all I could to remind my daughter of her beauty in the minutes before she headed off to school, I knew I had lost this battle. So much of this is bigger than I am. But I was reminded, with a surge of remembered pain, why I write what I write -- to counter some of what my girls see in the world, every minute of every day.

It will wear at them and they will not come out unscathed. But I can do my best to teach them how to fight. And part of that, I can do through my stories.

Ahmed, on Killjoys

I saw this excerpt on Leonineclaire's tumblr and wanted to share. It's an extract from Sara Ahmed's "Feminist Killjoys (and Other Willful Subjects)". I could see great classroom discussion/debate emerging around this one excerpt:

“Take the example of racism. It can be willful even to name racism: as if the talk about divisions is what is divisive. Given that racism recedes from social consciousness, it appears as if the ones who “bring it up” are bringing it into existence . . . . To recede is to go back or withdraw. To concede is to give way, to yield. People of color are often asked to concede to the recession of racism: we are asked to “give way” by letting it “go back.” Not only that: more than that. We are often asked to embody a commitment to diversity. We are asked to smile in their brochures. The smile of diversity is a way of not allowing racism to surface; it is a form of political recession.

Racism is very difficult to talk about as racism can operate to censor the very evidence of its existence. Those who talk about racism are thus heard as creating rather than describing a problem. The stakes are indeed very high: to talk about racism is to occupy a space that is saturated with tension. History is saturation. One of the findings of a research project I was involved with on diversity was that because racism saturates everyday and institutional spaces, people of color often make strategic decisions not to use the language of racism.[18] If you already pose a problem, or appear “out of place” in the institutions of whiteness, there can be “good reasons” not to exercise what is heard as a threatening vocabulary.[19] Not speaking about racism can be a way of inhabiting the spaces of racism. You minimize the threat you already are by softening your language and appearance, by keeping as much distance as you can from the figure of the angry person of color. Of course, as we know, just to walk into a room can be to lose that distance, because that figure gets there before you do.

When you use the very language of racism you are heard as “going on about it,” as “not letting it go.” It is as if talking about racism is what keeps it going. Racism thus often enters contemporary forms of representation as a representation of a past experience.”

You can read the rest of the article here.

Favourite Quotes

A couple of *great* quotes this week . . .

This has to be one of my absolute most favouritest quotes of all time:

"The lack of regard for YA fiction in the mainstream isn't an altogether bad thing. There's something to be said for living in a disreputable, ghettoized bohemia . . . . There's a lot of room for artistic, political and commercial expectation over here in low-stakes land, the same way that there was so much room for experimentation in other ghettos, from hip-hop to roleplaying games to dime-novels. Sure, we're vulnerable to moral panics about corrupting youth (a phenomenon as old as Socrates, and a charge that has been leveled at everything from the waltz to the jukebox), but if you're upsetting that kind of person, you're probably doing something right.

Risk-taking behavior — including ill-advised social, sexual, and substance adventures — are characteristic of youth itself . . . . However, the frightened and easily offended are doing a better job than they ever have of collapsing the horizons of young people, denying them the pleasures of gathering in public or online for fear of meteor-strike-rare lurid pedophile bogeymen, or on the pretense of fighting gangs or school shootings or some other tabloid horror. Literature may be the last escape available to young people today. It's an honor to be writing for them. " -- Cory Doctorow

And this is one I swiped off CrazyQuilts, the blog of one of our favourite blogging librarians:

"I'm tired of YA books that stereotype teens of color and continually cast them as victims. Too often, whether the teen be Asian or Middle Eastern they are first or second generation with immigrant issues or retelling traditional stories. Blacks and Latino/as are urban dwellers with violent anger issues and Natives are silently stereotyped, too. No doubt we need to meet students where they are and validate their existence, however not all teens of any one ethnic group have the exact same experience. Even those who live marginalized lives deserve to see other possibilities for themselves and White readers need to see people of color in equitable situations." -- Edi Campbell

Links

If you haven't checked out John Scalzi's "Things I Don't Have To Think About Today" post, do that now. He totally gets it.

"Today I don't have to think about men who don't believe no means no . . . Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m married, depending on what state I’m in . . . Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m being pulled over for anything other than speeding . . . Today I don’t have to think about the people who’d consider torching my house of prayer a patriotic act . . ."

And this article, by Will Neville of Amplifyyourvoice.org, a project of Advocates for Youth, gives us a good idea of just how deeply ingrained misogyny is in contemporary US/North American culture. There is video footage of frat boys at Yale shouting "No means yes, yes means anal..." as part of an induction exercize for new pledges.

Statement Worth Reading

Here is a link to the Carl Brandon Society's official statement on the Elizabeth Moon controversy. I particularly like these two paragraphs:

"Regarding “tolerance”: “Tolerance” is often considered one of our primary duties as citizens. “Tolerance” does not mean agreement, consensus, likeness, or even understanding. It does not mean assimilation. It does not require friendship, nor even dialogue. It is simple. It means refraining from expressing negativity towards things that are different from or alien to you. Tolerance is part of our social contract: you tolerate me, and I tolerate you; we both refrain from attacking one another; we live and let live. On the other hand, tolerance doesn’t deserve reward, either. As a social responsibility, it doesn’t change, lessen, or end; you never cease to be responsible for tolerating others. 

Regarding “teachable moments”: It is not the responsibility of members of marginalized groups to educate others about their group’s reality, history, or oppression. In situations like the current one, where someone has made bigoted statements against members of a particular group, members of that group have the right to be outraged and hurt without being forced into a false “teaching” position . . . " 

What Happens If

The South Asia Solidarity Initiative has put forward a response to this TIME Magazine article titled, "What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan." With the strong emotional response an image like that of Aisha on the cover of TIME elicits, it's especially important to read other takes on the issue. Sometimes we get so overwhelmed by strong emotional responses (and the image of Aisha certainly draws justified rage and sheer devastation), that we don't take the time to see the full picture.

Certainly read TIME's post, if you feel so inclined. But then go and read the response to it -- here is an excerpt:

The August 9, 2010 issue of TIME magazine featured a striking cover photograph of an 18-year-old Afghan woman, Aisha, who was disfigured by the Taliban last year.  The cover title read, “What happens if we leave Afghanistan.”  While Aisha’s story and the stories of many other women like her may depict some part of the reality of women’s lives under the Taliban, TIME’s conclusion that continuing the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is necessary, is highly misleading and troubling. [. . .]

For the last decade, the occupying forces of the U.S. and its NATO allies have nourished warlords and supported a corrupt government, leading many to join the Taliban and increasing their influence across Afghanistan. Increased civilian deaths, a fundamentalist resurgence, and deadly bombing raids have led to a devastated country and a Taliban stronger than ever before. TIME’s claim to “illuminate what is actually happening on the ground” falsely equates the last decade of occupation with progress. The occupation has not and will not bring democracy to Afghanistan, nor will it bring liberation to Afghan women. Instead, it has exacerbated deep-seated corruption in the government, the widespread abuse of women’s rights and human rights by fundamentalists, including Karzai’s allies, and stymied critical infrastructure development in the country. The question should not be “what happens if we leave Afghanistan,” the question should be “what happened when we invaded Afghanistan” and “what happens if we stay in Afghanistan.”

Racism and Misogyny are often used against one another, to justify the existence of one over the other. In this case, "protecting the women" seems to be the guise under which US racism and imperialism justify their presence. The truth is that both racism and misogyny go hand in hand. Where there is one, the other always lurks nearby.

Read the rest of SASI's response here.

On Terminology

I've seen the word "Caucasian" used to describe white people often enough that I feel compelled to do a post on it.

First off, here is the term as defined by dictionary.reference.com:

"Anthropology. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India: no longer in technical use."

The above definition, and this one on wiki which corroborates it, would mean that I would, technically, be considered Caucasian. As would Morrocans, Algerians, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Indians, and many other peoples of colour. It's obvious to me that most of the references I've seen to "Caucasian" are not intended to include myself, or any other people of colour. My guess is that in these instances, the writer actually means to say "white folks". This seems to be a very North American usage of the term. If you read the above-linked wiki entry, and any other info on the topic, really, you'll get a sense for why the term "Caucasian" is problematic, and how it has been rooted in racist and racially-motivated designations (that have nothing to do with reality).

The term irks me, in particular, because I am always reminded of the United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind case whenever I see/hear it. As anyone who has ever taken an Asian Studies class probably knows, this was the case of Bhagat Singh Thind, a Punjabi Sikh man, who argued with the US courts that, because he was technically Caucasian and Aryan, he was entitled to become a naturalized citizen of the US, according to the 1790 statute governing naturalization.*

As you might imagine, this threw the courts in a tizzy and all kinds of new findings were brought about, and stuff was re-worded to make it abundantly clear that when the word "Caucasian" was used in the 1790 statute, the writers WERE NOT referring to brown people. According to wiki, "The Court found that the authors of the 1790 statute probably ascribed to 'the Adamite theory of creation' and understood 'white people' in its popular, and not scientific, sense."

After the Thind decision, not only was he not allowed to become a naturalized citizen, all Indian-Americans who had become citizens before that point had their status retroactively revoked. They were stripped of their land, rights, and citizenship. More than half of the Indian-Americans, who had settled on US soil as land-owning citizens, at that point left the US.

So, the term is a loaded one, and dotted with racial/racist history. I know many folks use the term "Caucasian" to mean white people, particularly here in the US. I don't know if it's supposed to be more polite than saying "white" or if it somehow sounds more like a technical (therefore, more valid?) term, akin to "African-American" or "Asian-American" (but then why not "European-American"?), but it is one that I, personally, cringe at every single time I read it or hear it.

*The complexities of why he should choose to argue this at all is for another post.

Harlem Book Fair Panel on C-Span

Definitely check out this video of a panel during the Harlem Book Fair, on C-Span. The panel features Jerry Craft, Cheryl Willis Hudson, Venesse Lloyd-Sgambati, Nick Burd and Zetta Elliott . . .

There Goes the Neighborhood

In case you missed it, this article by Joel Stein in Time magazine, called "My Own Private India", has pissed off many Indian-Americans. Here's an excerpt:

"For a while, we assumed all Indians were geniuses. Then, in the 1980s, the doctors and engineers brought over their merchant cousins, and we were no longer so sure about the genius thing. In the 1990s, the not-as-brilliant merchants brought their even-less-bright cousins, and we started to understand why India is so damn poor.

Eventually, there were enough Indians in Edison to change the culture. At which point my townsfolk started calling the new Edisonians "dot heads." One kid I knew in high school drove down an Indian-dense street yelling for its residents to "go home to India." In retrospect, I question just how good our schools were if "dot heads" was the best racist insult we could come up with for a group of people whose gods have multiple arms and an elephant nose."

Lovely, no? In response to some of the outrage, Mr. Stein had this to say on his Facebook page: "Didn't mean to insult Indians with my column this week. Also stupidly assumed their emails would follow that Gandhi non-violence thing."

Can we squeeze any more stereotypes in there? Way to satire, Mr. Stein! Clearly, Indian-Americans were not the target readership for this essay. Perhaps he thought PoC don't read?

Sandip Roy wrote a great response in the Huffington Post. Here's an excerpt from that:

"Dotbusters, for those who missed the 80s, were street gangs who attacked South Asians in places like Jersey City where many immigrants had moved . . . One of those immigrants, Navroze Mody, died after being bashed with bricks. Another, Kaushal Saran, a doctor, was beaten and left unconscious on a busy street corner. Homes were robbed. Women were harassed. [...]

The problem was the smart ones brought in their less smart cousins ("merchants") and the merchants brought in "their even-less-bright cousins, and we started to understand why India is so damn poor." This is immigration reform in a nutshell. Give us your engineers, but not your cabbies and Dunkin Donut-wallas. Except those cabbies and 7/11 owners and motel proprietors work damn hard for their little piece of the American dream.

I think in a way the Indian community is also so obsessed with its presidential scholars and spelling bee champs, with its Indra Nooyis (Pepsico head) and Dr. Sanjay Guptas, it gives short shrift to the little guys, the ones that run gas stations on baking highways in the middle of nowhere, take classes during the day and work graveyard shift at the 7/11. They are the muscle and sinew of our community. But to Joel Stein, they are just so much litter strewn all over his old hometown. That's his problem -- too many Indians."

Satire is only good when it is funny. Stein's essay may be funny to folks in support of bills like Arizona's SB 1070 (also known as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act"), but it's not funny for most Indian-Americans and other immigrants, particularly those who've been on the receiving end of name-calling, harassment, bullying, or violence stemming from views much like the ones expressed in Stein's piece. He may chuckle over his own wit, but there are some who will take essays like this as evidence to bolster an already simmering rage over the "brown hordes flooding" America's borders. Stories are powerful, indeed.

Honouring June Jordan

In honour of the re-release of HIS OWN WHERE, which I reviewed here, I'm going to put up quotes from the inimitable June Jordan. These are quotes that meant a great deal to me when I first read them. I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Jordan in the early 1990's, when she visited Toronto and did a reading for Sister Vision Press - a feminist press started and run by women of colour for "challenging and provocative" works written by women of colour. I was young and learning and seeing so many things for the first time. Jordan awed me and blew me away. Her passion, her sense of rhythm, and her absolute, radiating love was what drew me in. I'll never forget that reading. The call for action and change that rose through her depths and made it's impact in that room full of women and men, white and PoC, het and LGBTQ was critical for me during my formative years as a writer and activist. You are greatly missed, Ms. Jordan, but your legacy lives on.

"My life seems to be an increasing revelation of the intimate face of universal struggle. You begin with your family and the kids on the block, and next you open your eyes to what you call your people, and that leads you into land reform into Black English into Angola leads you back to your own bed where you lie by yourself, wondering if you deserve to be peaceful, or trusted or desired or left to the freedom of your own unfaltering heart. And the scale shrinks to the size of a skull: your own interior cage. And then if you’re lucky, and I have been lucky, everything comes back to you. And then you know why one of the freedom fighters in the sixties, a young Black woman interviewed shortly after she was beaten up for riding near the front of the interstate bus––you know why she said, ‘We are all so very happy’? It’s because it’s on. All of us and me by myself: we’re on."
-- from the foreword to Civil Wars, 1980, by June Jordan

"Our own shadows disappear as the feet of thousands
by the tens of thousands pound the fallow land
into new dust that
rising like a marvelous pollen will be
fertile
even as the first woman whispering
imagination to the trees around her made
for righteous fruit
from such deliberate defense of life
as no other still
will claim inferior to any other safety
in the world
[. . .]
And who will join this standing up
and the ones who stood without sweet company
will sing and sing
back into the mountains and
if necessary
even under the sea:

we are the ones we have been waiting for."

Go to JuneJordan.com for more info on Ms. Jordan and her work. Also, look for posts this week by Ari of Reading in Color and on The Rejectionist blog featuring quotes and reviews of HIS OWN WHERE.

Music Videos: Whose Fantasy Is It?

ETA: I seem to be experiencing #bloggerfail. Some people are not able to view the trailer for some reason, so here's a link to where you can watch it. It's definitely worth watching. If you're feeling squeamish, please keep in mind that these are mass media images. Music videos are the common language of young people, and children as young as nine and ten years old are watching these images, digesting them, and incorporating them into their ideas of who they are and how relationships are constructed.

Okay, EVERYONE WATCH THIS TRAILER. Then get every high school/college/university teacher you know to purchase a copy and screen it for their students. I had to watch the whole thing on Youtube because the price was a bit steep for me, but if your school or organization can purchase it, it's WELL worth it to get young people thinking critically about what they're consuming - and how those images/messages shape their ideas of who they are . . . If you're having trouble seeing it here, go to this link. The video was written and directed by Sut Jhally, Ph.D. Dr. Jhally is a professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation.

Since I'm having trouble embedding the trailer, here is part one (of seven) of the video . . .

More on Race

There's a thoughtful post on race in children's publishing here. I really am glad these discussions are now taking place on blogs and forums where folks with decision-making power might pay careful attention. I also love that more and more editors are looking for work by authors of colour. It's certainly a step in the right direction.

However, I've heard more than one editor say that, while they've thrown their doors wide to submissions by PoC, the work they're receiving seems to be sub-par, not polished, or in need of more work than they have time for in this highly competitive business.

I have a couple of thoughts on that. PoC have not had the same opportunities and privileges that white folks have had for hundreds of years in many parts of the world. To expect equal results from white writers and writers of colour when there has never been a level playing field in terms of economics, social and political power, representation and privilege, is to set oneself up for disappointment and to perpetuate the dynamics already in place.

When I was a more idealistic version of who I am today, I went to work at a women's shelter. I felt strongly about domestic violence and I was a young feminist and I wanted to help. I had never grown up around domestic violence so I was unprepared for what I'd encounter. And it wasn't pretty. I had to learn a whole lot, FAST. It was eye-opening, it was brutal, and it was excruciatingly painful to see just how deep misogyny and patriarchy run in our world. But it was necessary. It showed me the Truth. And the Truth is one of the most solid tools you can have in navigating through life.

If you are a publishing decision-maker who wants to do the right thing by publishing or selling more titles by authors of colour, brava!! But you have to know that there is work to be done. The way the system is currently set up, writers of colour must bend and distort our work so that it is recognizable and appealing to white editors. Editors are not required to bend their reality or lens so that they can understand and relate to the styles, traditions, and aesthetics of PoC. So our work is always judged through a white lens. And the work is read and judged based on whether it will appeal to a white readership. The default assumption is that only brown folks will want to read work written by brown folks. And that white readership is the goal. This is problematic on so many levels.

If you want to create true, lasting change, you can't go in thinking you can keep doing what you've always done, only now it will be with brown faces. Dr. Phil (sorry) says the definition of insanity is to keep doing what you've always done and hope for different results each time (what can I say - my mom is a devoted watcher). It's not the same. There are very real differences between white writers and writers of colour, heterosexual writers and LGBTQ writers, writers who've grown up with lots of money and those who've grown up with without - differences that have painful histories behind them, and sometimes the results are not pretty.

This is the same discussion feminists were having years ago when men ran and owned all publishing houses, and women's writing was not taken seriously. It was too "emotional", it was too "flowery", women didn't write about "serious" things, and women weren't getting published. Men were viewing women's writing through a very male lens and never had to bend or shift their perspective. It was out of this that feminist presses and women's presses began sprouting and taking root. They showed that women could write and there was a market for that work and that it sold. Eventually, these small presses began dying out because the larger publishers began publishing more work by women. AND because there were now spaces for women to write, to nurture and cultivate their careers, there were grants and financial support for women who wanted to take writing seriously. In other words, there were larger, societal changes *in addition to* well-meaning editors. AND, here's the key, there were more women editors.

The children's/teen publishing biz has a whole LOT of women editors now. And two of them are women of colour. Ha, just kidding. It might be five. But the same needs to happen now. This is a subjective business. Editors and booksellers can like whatever they like. Let's just get more - including those who understand and value different aesthetics and traditions, and those who aren't necessarily looking for a polished, refined, brown version of Twilight or Harry Potter or Gossip Girl. Let's think outside of the publishing box we've all been shoved into. Let's get representation of ALL children and their histories/stories. Even if it means taking a little more time to nurture a new writer or new voice, or reading everything you can in a particular genre by authors from different backgrounds and literary traditions.

These are important and necessary changes. Painful, eye-opening ones, too. They might show some of us just how deep the roots of racism run in this country. But they may also show us something more important: the Truth. And that is invaluable in all of our journeys.

Not-Reviews

Lately, I've had several conversations about reviewing books. How one should review a book, whether one should review a book, and if one does happen to review a book, how balanced should it be, etc.

I do not review books. I offer my thoughts and impressions about books primarily by and about PoC (Debs Blog tour notwithstanding). I do this because it is important to me to shine the spotlight on writing by and about PoC (especially by). I do this because PoC do not get published in the numbers that white writers do, we usually don't get lead title status, we are lucky to be picked up by large chain bookstores, and we struggle to get second, third, and fourth books published far more often than our white contemporaries because we first must prove that people other than those who look like us actually want to read what we write.

For that reason, I tend to look for what I like in books written by PoC. A famous person (I don't remember who) once said, "when new shoots poke through, you must shelter them so they can become strong." Or something to that effect.

Authors of colour generally don't get editors and publishing houses saying (or exhibiting behaviour to the effect of), "that's okay - you grow. I'll shelter you until you are strong." If you look at the histories of some of the white authors we celebrate today, a significant chunk were nurtured until they found their readership and built a following. Here are a couple of quotes from this post, by children's author Maurice Sendak (WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE):

About Where The Wild Things Are, "I knew, I knew, I knew it would cause a lot of trouble. And my editor knew it and all she did was encourage me. 'Go for it, go for it. Don't worry about anything or anybody'."

About his editor, "Her name was Ursula Nordstrom. She made me who I am. She gave me a book every year. She kept me working. I mean, can you imagine mentorship from a publishing house? She intended that I should be an important illustrator. She knew I could be. I had bad habits, I never went to art school, I drew in a clumsy fashion, but she could see beneath that."  [Emphasis mine]

As a new author, it's important to be allowed to find your audience, to be able to build a following, to find your style and voice and unique contribution. Most publishing professionals are quick to tell authors of colour that there is no audience or market for our work. And it becomes almost impossible simply to begin that journey.

So, if you come here to read my thoughts on books by authors of colour, you're going to find a whole lot of support for them - those young shoots breaking through the earth and doing their best to survive. That doesn't mean there isn't work to be done, or that the books are without flaws. And I will, without hesitation, call out PoC on homophobia, class and race issues, gender, etc. But it doesn't mean I have to cut them down just as they're (we're) beginning to grow.

Besides, somebody had to love Twilight despite its (numerous) flaws. If you read a book wanting to love it, you find a way to forgive its shortcomings (see aforementioned Twilight reference).

When I see new works (or reprints) by authors of colour, I read them knowing something about the journey of the author on the other end. And I offer whatever kindness and generosity I can. This path, I know, has not been an easy one for any of us.

If you want "critiques" of these works, you'll no doubt find them in abundance elsewhere on the internet. Especially if these works break new ground, are experimental in any way, or simply offer a perspective not often seen. But here, on my blog and in my space, you will find me with my hands around the new shoots, saying, "Grow."

The "White Mind"

ETA: the link to O'brien's article should work now - sorry about that.

Here's an interesting post on the concept of "White Mind" (as relates to children's writing/publishing) by Anne Sibley O'brien. The article is in the current issue of the Bulletin of the Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators.

Here's a quote:

"We belong to a field full of well-meaning people who care about children. If asked, most would surely agree with poet Lucille Clifton (Some of the Days of Everett Anderson) that “the literature of America should reflect the children of America.” I have never met an aficionado of children’s books who I can imagine wanting those books to misrepresent, marginalize or render invisible whole groups of our nation’s children.

So how can it be that in 2010, this is where we find ourselves:

• The percentage of published children’s books featuring characters of color is far smaller than - perhaps less than half - the percentage of people of color in the U.S. population, and the majority of these books are still created by white writers and illustrators.
• Many of the most popular book series, particularly in fantasy, have no significant characters of color at all.
• Cases of “whitewashing” book jackets, of editors requesting that an author erase a character’s ethnicity so that a book “can reach a larger audience,” of booksellers or librarians passing on certain titles because “our community doesn’t respond to those kinds of books,” suggest an assumption that white readers won’t respond to characters of color."

 And then this:

"[White Mind is] part of the explanation for how scores of thoughtful white writers could create so many books with no significant characters of color, or how so few manuscripts by and about people of color get accepted. It’s one of the reasons why our children’s book conferences and conventions are overwhelmingly white, and why I might walk out of a bookstore or library with a stack of picture books, not even noticing that not a single one of them starred children of color.

From writing and illustrating to hiring publishing staff, editing and marketing to selling, buying and reviewing, White Mind affects children’s books today. Unless we become aware of and develop strategies to directly challenge these patterns, white norms will continue to prevail." [Emphasis hers.]

The article reminds me just a bit of Peggy McIntosh's brilliant essay, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" but is specific to children's publishing. Worth a read.