![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesI'm nervous about this topic, because I really feel that I should do like 100000 years worth of listening and learning before I speak, but I felt that I needed to be sure that I stood up and said that I'm not quitting this topic, because I don't want anyone to think I'm participating in Elizabeth Bear's Two Months of Useless Silence or that I agree with it.
Let me be clear:
Yes, I'm talking about this post from Elizabeth Bear and a lot of the events surrounding it. And I do not agree with her at all. I think she was wrong in what she said.
Her post really saddens me and saddens me deeply. It saddens me that she thinks not talking about it, that all of us just "shutting up a bit" will somehow solve anything. I remember her saying something a while back: "entropy requires no maintenance". I wonder if she was thinking about that when she called for ceasefires and silences.
It saddens me that she either didn't consider or doesn't care that while for the white, established people in the SF/F, shutting up for two months is just fine, but for the people who have been hurt, who have been marginalized, saying we should shut up for a couple of months is like telling them to put up with being slapped in the face for another couple of months.
What's worse? I get that sometimes everyone needs to disengage from something going for personal reasons. And I'm wondering why she didn't just silently disengage and let the internet debating go on with out her. After all, it seems like things were better off when she just said nothing at all and continued posting pictures of her feet.
I'm reminded of the old adage: Better to keep quiet and let people think you're stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
All the best and most important social leaps towards equality were made because people refused ceasefires and calls for silence, because people kept digging in and pushing forward until they got what they needed.
What if MLK had decided that he would retire from the cause of civil rights for a while because it got hard? I'm sure a lot of white people, not just virulent racists, but even ones who considered themselves progressive and liberal, would've loved to say, "Hey, Martin, can we just stop all this protesting and troublemaking for a couple of months, it's giving me an ulcer" and probably did say things like that.
And if anyone had reasons to want to just go home and give up, it was him. You think you got it hard because some people said unkind words about you on the internet?
Try getting sprayed with a firehose, or chased by dogs, or arrested for just marching down the street with a sign. Try having the Klan breathing down your neck. Try being beaten up and assaulted. Try having activists on your side murdered and their murders completely ignored by the police.
That's what it really means to get assaulted. That's what it really means when somebody attacks you for your views. That's the kind of history that people of color in America have been living with. And it's not something that's far distant in the past for them, either. This is not a long distant memory that they can discount as part of the past. Just like rape and sexual violence and sexual harassment are not something women can say is part of the past, not while 1 in 4 women in America is still the victim of a sexual assault in her lifetime.
So when a person of color speaks out and a white person tells them to shut up, there's always that awareness that white people are willing to back up their demands for silence with police dogs and batons. There's an awareness that white people, because of their privilege, have power and means to enforce their desires, means that people of color do not have access to.
That's why racism = POWER + prejudice and not just prejudice. Let's say prejudice is a gun. Everyone has a gun. But some people have BB guns and some people have fucking automatic weapons with a ton of ammo for reloading and a high powered scope and a laser sight. The person who handed out the weapons was, apparently, a lunatic with a bad sense of fairness - but that's a whole other post.
Sure, people of color have their prejudices, but they don't have the caliber to enforce them. Because they have the BB guns. They can shoot pellets, and pellets can put out an individual eye, but they can't mow down entire groups of people in one fell swoop the way white privilege can.
Which is why you need to be so careful with white privilege if you're a white person. Because not only is it a powerful, horrible weapon, but it's a got a hair trigger. You can accidentally set it off just by goofing around.
The only wise course of action to prevent people from getting shot is to step away from the gun entirely and not to touch it or use it. Because it's a gun. It's not like a knife that might be used for carving or cutting meat. No, it has only one use. To hurt people.
And if that weren't enough for you, this metaphor is also useful for understand why it is so abysmally stupid to assert that PoC's can be racist, or that there's reverse racism. You just cannot do the widespread, profound damage with BB guns (no matter how many you have) that you can do with automatic assault rifles.
Nor does it make sense to act like you're in as much danger from a bunch of people with BB guns as they are from you when you've got a goddamn Howitzer at your disposal. Oww, you got shot in the ass with the BB gun. It's a bee-sting. Try being on the business end of what you're holding and see how getting gut shot feels.
See how getting gut shot repeatedly feels.
Which, coincidentally, is why outing someone's identity is so heinous. Because it's like taking away their helmet, or their bulletproof vest when you have that high powered weaponry. The only reason you'd do that is so you have a better chance at shooting them fatally. In situation where you really honestly want peace and progress, you may ask people to disarm, but you don't ask them to give up all defenses.
And if your point is so valid, you don't need to know anyone's name. You just need to know their words.
The sad thing is? I don't mean the whole "getting shot" thing all that metaphorically. You don't out someone because you want to reveal their face to the world, you out somebody because you want to paint a target on them. Because you want them to have less security, because you know that if they have to choose between protecting themselves and arguing with you that they'll, very logically, protect themselves. You out them because you want to make it easier for them to get hurt.
It's a very vicious, horrible tactic, and it's a good way to stop arguments when you're losing because you're wrong or because you can't take the heat.
I think I've milked the gun metaphor for all it's worth, don't you?
Anonymity and cowardice aren't actually all that interrelated. If you stayed awake for sixth grade history, you'll remember that most of the people who participated in the Boston Tea Party remained anonymous (or at least tried to, and tried to frame Native Americans for it, BTW). Tank Man, also, is anonymous, but I'd hardly call him a coward because he didn't wear a name tag while standing in front of a tank.
You can be a coward while telling everyone your name.
This long ramble is all to say that the post EBear made is just made not wise and just not right, and I wonder who wrote it. It is not the Bear who's books I once loved, who I once admired. It's not the Bear who reinvigorated my love for SF/F at time when I wondered if I was still into the genre. It's not the Bear I once fan girled over.
I hate looking at my shelf and wondering if I can keep those books there or if it would be too adverse to my beliefs, to the good of PoC's everywhere who have been hurt, to do so. I hate thinking that maybe I supported someone who wasn't as good as I thought they were. I bought all her books new, because I liked her that much once upon a time, and I was once proud of that.
It's kind of a sickening feeling now.
I feel like I'm writing an elegy for a good writer.
What's worse, is that my feelings are nothing. My little white girl crocodile tears are just not even the point or even important. Wah, wah, poor me. What-frakkin-ever.
However bad I feel about this, I can't imagine what the fans, bloggers, and writers of color must feel in this discussion. I'm trying to imagine the frustration, anger, hurt, betrayal, sadness, depression, and utter despair this whole mess is generating for them and it's sort of colossal. Because they are the ones who matter. This is about THEM.
It's not about me or my feelings, because I'm a white, privileged person. I got mine and I got it up front with all the advantages that got handed to me for NO GOOD REASON. I repeat: no good reason. It's time to make sure that they get theirs.
Which is why not talking about this topic is just inviting entropy, it's inviting regression. We either fight for every step forward or we fall back. There is no standing still, because, essentially, we're on a really fast moving treadmill.
The thing that disappoints me most is just how unproductive her entire post was. Nobody was helped, not even herself, certainly not her friends. The things that need to get done, the creating of diversity by encouraging authors of color, the making of safer spaces for fans of color and people of color to talk, the encouraging of people to come together and make things better? That was not done at all.
No practical good was had.
I have very real if not terribly specific goals for what I want for my genre.
I want, one day, to look at a list of the newest SF/F releases and see that at least half, if not more, of the books coming out in a month are by and/or about people of color. Preferably by. Because I know that not only would that be the right thing, but it would mean that the width, depth, and scope of the stories would be better than they are right now. Let's face it, some tropes and subgenres are just tapped out and we need fresh blood. There's always been fresh blood available, but SF/F just doesn't want to tap into that vein, and that's really depressing.
More than that, I want to see that these authors of colors are trendsetters and power players in the genre. I want to see that their words carry as much weight as anyone else's. I want to see them getting the masses of fans and the devoted followings from fans of ALL colors.
I want to see presses and publishing imprints that are dedicated to people of color, and are commercially successful. In Meg's Dream World they're wildly successful and somebody writes something spectacular with a lot of Vampires of Color and a whole other world I hadn't thought of and it sells like hotcakes and I solve two problems in my life at once and finally find The Perfect Vampire Novel and can die happy.
I want to go to a convention where the demographics of the attendees looks a lot like the actual demographics of the place where I live, the place where white folks are quickly becoming a numerical minority (though not a social, economic, or legal one, let me make that clear) and there's so much color it's like a frickin' rose garden of humanity and nobody has to feel unsafe or watch themselves or feel like they're the representative of everyone who is like them. I want to go to a convention where the Open Source Boob Project would never happen, where things like Racefail are unthinkable, because people have changed their thinking, finally.
I want to see a meteoric rise in the amount of fans of color and the safety they feel to discuss things that affect them in their fandom and their lives. I want to attract fans of color who previously dismissed the SF/F genre.
I'd love to recruit as many new fans of color to SF/F as I can, but I realize that I have so little to entice them with. What can I promise them for coming to conventions, for trying to publish books, for writing, for blogging, for taking place in discussions and panels where the opposition and difficulties are legion? I can't say that this an especially safe or open genre just yet, I can't promise them they'll be rewarded or even respected.
I can't promise that if they go under a pseudonym that they won't be outed. I can't promise that they won't spend most of the time on a panel defending themselves when they say they've been hurt instead of getting people to listen to what hurts them and how it can be stopped. I can't promise there will be a big community of others like them. I can't promise they won't be harassed.
How do you convince someone that this really is a good genre when you can't convince them that the people in it are good people? A genre is only as good as it's creators. What kind of message do you think is being sent, especially to the younger folks who are watching this all go down?
Because right now, I'm getting the message that talking about a little bit of diversity and race is fine, as long as everyone is nice and agrees that the white folks are doing a good job. If we make nice little gestures and talk about Octavia Butler every once and a while and maybe invite a few people of color to a panel or a workshop to make ourselves feel better, then we'll play ball with you.
But if you get angry, if you point to something that's been a thorn in your side for a long time say that you want it to come out, if you refuse to be gentle about it, if you refuse to back down or give out cookies or congratulate people on bare due diligence, if you expect more than politeness from people calling themselves allies, if you demand the respect and fair treatment you've deserved all along, if you expect people to come to the party with their pants on or not come at all, well, then things get nasty. Then there are the rants and the outings and the people flouncing off in a spectacular fashion.
What am I supposed to say to someone who sees Elizabeth Bear's post or any of the others which have been so troublesome, when people look at the white editors and writers who are such big deals and have said these things and then looks to me any asks, "This is who you want me to be in the same genre with? This is what you want me to deal with?"
What am I supposed to say to a PoC who's a potential SF/F fan when one of the writers I once thought was one of our best just said that she wishes we'd stop talking about race and racism for two months because she's so uncomfortable?
More than that, what am I supposed to say to make it better for them, to make it hurt less? Because this isn't about whether I look good or bad, it's whether PoC's in SF/F feel safe or unsafe.
And I think the message is clear: PoC's don't feel safe, and there's a group of white editors and writers who are more concerned with staying friends with each other than addressing that.
That, friends and Romans, is the real problem. When you defend a friend or acquaintence who has said and done deliberately and repeatedly racist things, you're not standing up for your friend, not really. It's actually saying: "Look, this subject is not important enough for me to sacrifice the benefit I get from being this person's friend (or at least friendly with them). The benefits of their friendship are more valuable to me than (insert issue). So could you please fuck off now, because you and (insert issue) are less important than this person is to me."
I just want to make sure that people know, above all else, that I won't tolerate racism here or in myself. I want people to know that I'm going to listen, and that I'm going to try my best. I want people to know that they can come to me and say if something is hurting them that I'm doing or saying, and that I will do everything in my power to make it right.
As with this same topic posted about in other journals I have, I would ask three favors:
1) If you're coming to disagree with me about something I've made it perfectly clear that I'm not backing down from, do us both a favor and just don't waste my time. Questions are fine, and even debate on the smaller issues or debate on how best to achieve the goals I want achieved are fine.
2) If you're going to comment, debate, or discuss with other people, please don't just be polite. Be thoughtful. REALLY think about what they're saying and what you're going to say. Consider what it is you want and why you're making that comment in the first place and whether it has any potential to be productive.
3) No cookies. Please. I'm on a cookie free diet. If you want to say you agree with me, I guess that's okay - but honestly? If you want to go give someone kudoes and brownies and goodies, go find the people who have been enduring harassment and ugliness to speak out and give them your support.
Let me be clear:
Yes, I'm talking about this post from Elizabeth Bear and a lot of the events surrounding it. And I do not agree with her at all. I think she was wrong in what she said.
Her post really saddens me and saddens me deeply. It saddens me that she thinks not talking about it, that all of us just "shutting up a bit" will somehow solve anything. I remember her saying something a while back: "entropy requires no maintenance". I wonder if she was thinking about that when she called for ceasefires and silences.
It saddens me that she either didn't consider or doesn't care that while for the white, established people in the SF/F, shutting up for two months is just fine, but for the people who have been hurt, who have been marginalized, saying we should shut up for a couple of months is like telling them to put up with being slapped in the face for another couple of months.
What's worse? I get that sometimes everyone needs to disengage from something going for personal reasons. And I'm wondering why she didn't just silently disengage and let the internet debating go on with out her. After all, it seems like things were better off when she just said nothing at all and continued posting pictures of her feet.
I'm reminded of the old adage: Better to keep quiet and let people think you're stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
All the best and most important social leaps towards equality were made because people refused ceasefires and calls for silence, because people kept digging in and pushing forward until they got what they needed.
What if MLK had decided that he would retire from the cause of civil rights for a while because it got hard? I'm sure a lot of white people, not just virulent racists, but even ones who considered themselves progressive and liberal, would've loved to say, "Hey, Martin, can we just stop all this protesting and troublemaking for a couple of months, it's giving me an ulcer" and probably did say things like that.
And if anyone had reasons to want to just go home and give up, it was him. You think you got it hard because some people said unkind words about you on the internet?
Try getting sprayed with a firehose, or chased by dogs, or arrested for just marching down the street with a sign. Try having the Klan breathing down your neck. Try being beaten up and assaulted. Try having activists on your side murdered and their murders completely ignored by the police.
That's what it really means to get assaulted. That's what it really means when somebody attacks you for your views. That's the kind of history that people of color in America have been living with. And it's not something that's far distant in the past for them, either. This is not a long distant memory that they can discount as part of the past. Just like rape and sexual violence and sexual harassment are not something women can say is part of the past, not while 1 in 4 women in America is still the victim of a sexual assault in her lifetime.
So when a person of color speaks out and a white person tells them to shut up, there's always that awareness that white people are willing to back up their demands for silence with police dogs and batons. There's an awareness that white people, because of their privilege, have power and means to enforce their desires, means that people of color do not have access to.
That's why racism = POWER + prejudice and not just prejudice. Let's say prejudice is a gun. Everyone has a gun. But some people have BB guns and some people have fucking automatic weapons with a ton of ammo for reloading and a high powered scope and a laser sight. The person who handed out the weapons was, apparently, a lunatic with a bad sense of fairness - but that's a whole other post.
Sure, people of color have their prejudices, but they don't have the caliber to enforce them. Because they have the BB guns. They can shoot pellets, and pellets can put out an individual eye, but they can't mow down entire groups of people in one fell swoop the way white privilege can.
Which is why you need to be so careful with white privilege if you're a white person. Because not only is it a powerful, horrible weapon, but it's a got a hair trigger. You can accidentally set it off just by goofing around.
The only wise course of action to prevent people from getting shot is to step away from the gun entirely and not to touch it or use it. Because it's a gun. It's not like a knife that might be used for carving or cutting meat. No, it has only one use. To hurt people.
And if that weren't enough for you, this metaphor is also useful for understand why it is so abysmally stupid to assert that PoC's can be racist, or that there's reverse racism. You just cannot do the widespread, profound damage with BB guns (no matter how many you have) that you can do with automatic assault rifles.
Nor does it make sense to act like you're in as much danger from a bunch of people with BB guns as they are from you when you've got a goddamn Howitzer at your disposal. Oww, you got shot in the ass with the BB gun. It's a bee-sting. Try being on the business end of what you're holding and see how getting gut shot feels.
See how getting gut shot repeatedly feels.
Which, coincidentally, is why outing someone's identity is so heinous. Because it's like taking away their helmet, or their bulletproof vest when you have that high powered weaponry. The only reason you'd do that is so you have a better chance at shooting them fatally. In situation where you really honestly want peace and progress, you may ask people to disarm, but you don't ask them to give up all defenses.
And if your point is so valid, you don't need to know anyone's name. You just need to know their words.
The sad thing is? I don't mean the whole "getting shot" thing all that metaphorically. You don't out someone because you want to reveal their face to the world, you out somebody because you want to paint a target on them. Because you want them to have less security, because you know that if they have to choose between protecting themselves and arguing with you that they'll, very logically, protect themselves. You out them because you want to make it easier for them to get hurt.
It's a very vicious, horrible tactic, and it's a good way to stop arguments when you're losing because you're wrong or because you can't take the heat.
I think I've milked the gun metaphor for all it's worth, don't you?
Anonymity and cowardice aren't actually all that interrelated. If you stayed awake for sixth grade history, you'll remember that most of the people who participated in the Boston Tea Party remained anonymous (or at least tried to, and tried to frame Native Americans for it, BTW). Tank Man, also, is anonymous, but I'd hardly call him a coward because he didn't wear a name tag while standing in front of a tank.
You can be a coward while telling everyone your name.
This long ramble is all to say that the post EBear made is just made not wise and just not right, and I wonder who wrote it. It is not the Bear who's books I once loved, who I once admired. It's not the Bear who reinvigorated my love for SF/F at time when I wondered if I was still into the genre. It's not the Bear I once fan girled over.
I hate looking at my shelf and wondering if I can keep those books there or if it would be too adverse to my beliefs, to the good of PoC's everywhere who have been hurt, to do so. I hate thinking that maybe I supported someone who wasn't as good as I thought they were. I bought all her books new, because I liked her that much once upon a time, and I was once proud of that.
It's kind of a sickening feeling now.
I feel like I'm writing an elegy for a good writer.
What's worse, is that my feelings are nothing. My little white girl crocodile tears are just not even the point or even important. Wah, wah, poor me. What-frakkin-ever.
However bad I feel about this, I can't imagine what the fans, bloggers, and writers of color must feel in this discussion. I'm trying to imagine the frustration, anger, hurt, betrayal, sadness, depression, and utter despair this whole mess is generating for them and it's sort of colossal. Because they are the ones who matter. This is about THEM.
It's not about me or my feelings, because I'm a white, privileged person. I got mine and I got it up front with all the advantages that got handed to me for NO GOOD REASON. I repeat: no good reason. It's time to make sure that they get theirs.
Which is why not talking about this topic is just inviting entropy, it's inviting regression. We either fight for every step forward or we fall back. There is no standing still, because, essentially, we're on a really fast moving treadmill.
The thing that disappoints me most is just how unproductive her entire post was. Nobody was helped, not even herself, certainly not her friends. The things that need to get done, the creating of diversity by encouraging authors of color, the making of safer spaces for fans of color and people of color to talk, the encouraging of people to come together and make things better? That was not done at all.
No practical good was had.
I have very real if not terribly specific goals for what I want for my genre.
I want, one day, to look at a list of the newest SF/F releases and see that at least half, if not more, of the books coming out in a month are by and/or about people of color. Preferably by. Because I know that not only would that be the right thing, but it would mean that the width, depth, and scope of the stories would be better than they are right now. Let's face it, some tropes and subgenres are just tapped out and we need fresh blood. There's always been fresh blood available, but SF/F just doesn't want to tap into that vein, and that's really depressing.
More than that, I want to see that these authors of colors are trendsetters and power players in the genre. I want to see that their words carry as much weight as anyone else's. I want to see them getting the masses of fans and the devoted followings from fans of ALL colors.
I want to see presses and publishing imprints that are dedicated to people of color, and are commercially successful. In Meg's Dream World they're wildly successful and somebody writes something spectacular with a lot of Vampires of Color and a whole other world I hadn't thought of and it sells like hotcakes and I solve two problems in my life at once and finally find The Perfect Vampire Novel and can die happy.
I want to go to a convention where the demographics of the attendees looks a lot like the actual demographics of the place where I live, the place where white folks are quickly becoming a numerical minority (though not a social, economic, or legal one, let me make that clear) and there's so much color it's like a frickin' rose garden of humanity and nobody has to feel unsafe or watch themselves or feel like they're the representative of everyone who is like them. I want to go to a convention where the Open Source Boob Project would never happen, where things like Racefail are unthinkable, because people have changed their thinking, finally.
I want to see a meteoric rise in the amount of fans of color and the safety they feel to discuss things that affect them in their fandom and their lives. I want to attract fans of color who previously dismissed the SF/F genre.
I'd love to recruit as many new fans of color to SF/F as I can, but I realize that I have so little to entice them with. What can I promise them for coming to conventions, for trying to publish books, for writing, for blogging, for taking place in discussions and panels where the opposition and difficulties are legion? I can't say that this an especially safe or open genre just yet, I can't promise them they'll be rewarded or even respected.
I can't promise that if they go under a pseudonym that they won't be outed. I can't promise that they won't spend most of the time on a panel defending themselves when they say they've been hurt instead of getting people to listen to what hurts them and how it can be stopped. I can't promise there will be a big community of others like them. I can't promise they won't be harassed.
How do you convince someone that this really is a good genre when you can't convince them that the people in it are good people? A genre is only as good as it's creators. What kind of message do you think is being sent, especially to the younger folks who are watching this all go down?
Because right now, I'm getting the message that talking about a little bit of diversity and race is fine, as long as everyone is nice and agrees that the white folks are doing a good job. If we make nice little gestures and talk about Octavia Butler every once and a while and maybe invite a few people of color to a panel or a workshop to make ourselves feel better, then we'll play ball with you.
But if you get angry, if you point to something that's been a thorn in your side for a long time say that you want it to come out, if you refuse to be gentle about it, if you refuse to back down or give out cookies or congratulate people on bare due diligence, if you expect more than politeness from people calling themselves allies, if you demand the respect and fair treatment you've deserved all along, if you expect people to come to the party with their pants on or not come at all, well, then things get nasty. Then there are the rants and the outings and the people flouncing off in a spectacular fashion.
What am I supposed to say to someone who sees Elizabeth Bear's post or any of the others which have been so troublesome, when people look at the white editors and writers who are such big deals and have said these things and then looks to me any asks, "This is who you want me to be in the same genre with? This is what you want me to deal with?"
What am I supposed to say to a PoC who's a potential SF/F fan when one of the writers I once thought was one of our best just said that she wishes we'd stop talking about race and racism for two months because she's so uncomfortable?
More than that, what am I supposed to say to make it better for them, to make it hurt less? Because this isn't about whether I look good or bad, it's whether PoC's in SF/F feel safe or unsafe.
And I think the message is clear: PoC's don't feel safe, and there's a group of white editors and writers who are more concerned with staying friends with each other than addressing that.
That, friends and Romans, is the real problem. When you defend a friend or acquaintence who has said and done deliberately and repeatedly racist things, you're not standing up for your friend, not really. It's actually saying: "Look, this subject is not important enough for me to sacrifice the benefit I get from being this person's friend (or at least friendly with them). The benefits of their friendship are more valuable to me than (insert issue). So could you please fuck off now, because you and (insert issue) are less important than this person is to me."
I just want to make sure that people know, above all else, that I won't tolerate racism here or in myself. I want people to know that I'm going to listen, and that I'm going to try my best. I want people to know that they can come to me and say if something is hurting them that I'm doing or saying, and that I will do everything in my power to make it right.
As with this same topic posted about in other journals I have, I would ask three favors:
1) If you're coming to disagree with me about something I've made it perfectly clear that I'm not backing down from, do us both a favor and just don't waste my time. Questions are fine, and even debate on the smaller issues or debate on how best to achieve the goals I want achieved are fine.
2) If you're going to comment, debate, or discuss with other people, please don't just be polite. Be thoughtful. REALLY think about what they're saying and what you're going to say. Consider what it is you want and why you're making that comment in the first place and whether it has any potential to be productive.
3) No cookies. Please. I'm on a cookie free diet. If you want to say you agree with me, I guess that's okay - but honestly? If you want to go give someone kudoes and brownies and goodies, go find the people who have been enduring harassment and ugliness to speak out and give them your support.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 05:11 am (UTC)I want to see presses and publishing imprints that are dedicated to people of color, and are commercially successful. In Meg's Dream World they're wildly successful and somebody writes something spectacular with a lot of Vampires of Color and a whole other world I hadn't thought of and it sells like hotcakes and I solve two problems in my life at once and finally find The Perfect Vampire Novel and can die happy.
I like this post very much; it's thoughtful and reasoned. However, I will disagree with the above bit. I'd much prefer to see a bookstore filled with books that have been written by the best writers, period, regardless of their race, religion, cultural or economic background. I worry that when someone DOES decide to break out a sub-section of any genre, you get the what I call "The Bad Gay Fiction Section" syndrome. You know what I'm talking about: that odd little section of fiction by LGBT writers, published by a lot of LGBT presses. Many of these books contain substandard writing; they're championed by a lot of my fellow LGBT readers simply because they were written by LGBT writers, and NOT because they're good books.
And if that happens to genre fiction, it will break my heart.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 01:29 pm (UTC)So would I, and I'd love to get to a place in our society where race, religion, and economic background and sexuality are no longer minuses, so that we can say, honestly, that it's just about the quality of writing that decides who gets published and who doesn't - and if it works, then we'll see both diverse and delightful things coming out.
But as it stands, I really think that's not true yet. I don't think all things are equal, and I don't think that in the struggle to get from my printer to an editor's desk, that my chances and opportunities are the same or at least equivocal to those of someone who isn't white.
And yes, I don't want Bad Gay Fiction Syndrome either, and I know exactly what you're talking about. I've seen it with other genres, like women's fiction and ethnic fiction to an extent.
Which is why we need to encourage things that grow the talents of writers of color. The Octavia Butler scholarship, for one thing. Because a) it gets more PoC's writing and b) makes that writing better, sharper, and more competitive.
Because you're right, we don't just need to put out books by authors of color just to fill a quota, we need to make them competitive in quality and standard with the mainstream, because that's how they'll BECOME the mainstream.
In essence, you're right, but I also think we need to make sure we're not pushing away bright talent with all this in fighting and what not.
And if that happens to genre fiction, it will break my heart.
That's where I think we have a chance to make sure it doesn't. Because I would submit there is no lack of really stunning, talented authors of color out there. But we just need to focus on finding the best of the best and making sure they get published. If we try to make the genre safer and more open, then I think we'll find that getting really amazing talent from PoC's easier and that we don't have to just publish anything by PoC that comes along.
But these are the discussion I want to have, and THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for being as awesome as you are and understanding. The discussions about how to help and what is helpful.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 05:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 12:28 pm (UTC)It sounded to me that she was saying "LET'S JUST ALL SHUT UP FOR A BIT". And I'm not sure what else that is supposed to mean besides shut up.
Nor do I understand why people who actually were, in some places, having productive dialogues, and people who have been told not to speak, "now's not the time" should feel obligated to shut up for a couple of months because Elizabeth Bear feels uncomfortable.
Oh noes, somebody stop the internets, EBear wants to get off the ride!
Nor do I see why people who desperately need to have their say, who have been hurt and threatened and outed should feel compelled to take that quietly for the sake of the comforts of people who could, alternately, try being less defensive and more open.
Suggesting that people should stop dialogues about topics which are near and dear and necessary to them just because it makes you and some of your friends feel bad is not cool.
Because if her only intention was to stop this being about certain individuals and make it, once more, about the larger topic of racism and what we can do about it - then she had avenues. She could say, "Let's put a two month hiatus on mentioning specific names and spend those two months BLOGGING FOR SWEET JUSTICE" and that would've been fine. Or she could have said, "I want to redirect this conversation to something more productive for the next two months" and that would've been fine.
She didn't.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 07:50 am (UTC)it is so abysmally stupid to assert that PoC's can be racist
No, it isn't. Because if racism can be defined as taking the view that people aren't, at their core, all human beings equally, all as capable of the entire spectrum of good and evil, intelligence and stupidity, competence and incompetence, avarice and altruism, as each other regardless of the color of their skin or the shape of their eyes or their bodies or the cultural background whence they sprang - if racism is the idea that this group, or that group is somehow more, or less, apt to engage in or subscribe to or be capable of this good or bad thing, and that the qualities and intentions of this person or that person should therefore be judged upon his or her membership in a racial group, then we are ALL, I repeat, ALL equally capable of racism, and the very fact that this discussion has even taken place and done so in the manner in which it has progressed proves it. When you've got people of color castigating whites for not regarding people of color as somehow less capable of erroneous judgment than white people, that's racism, as sure as it is in those egregious situations when whites have insisted that people of color are somehow more given to errors in judgment than whites.
Racism is what it is, and to suggest that it is the particular province of any one race is in itself racist, pure and simple.
That said, I think that until all parties involved can agree to check their rancor at the door and engage in a discussion free of the urge to place blame hither and yon, nothing ever will be done, nor can it be done, to change anything. Quite frankly, I'm not holding out any hope for this to occur anytime soon, as the whole topic appears to have spiraled so far out of control that it has created a morass that is nearly impossible to navigate, let alone make sense of.
We. Are. All. Human.
My experience will be quite different from that of some other person, regardless of what we might share (or not) in terms of our complexion, socioeconomic status, or cultural background. And in other ways, it will be very much the same, again regardless of those same factors. Until and unless we can find a way to move beyond labels and accusations and the constant identification of individuals and groups as "like me" and "other, do not trust", we will remain as mired as ever we were, with little to no progress and much conflict.
And as for how this affects literature, let alone the various genres therein: As writers, how can we not write characters who are different from ourselves, and from our readers? Who wants to read a story in which everyone is exactly alike, or exactly like the author, or exactly like himself/herself, the reader? And as writers, who among us wants to be constrained to writing only characters who share our exact heritage, experience, or beliefs? If I am black, do I want to be required to write only black characters, and no other? If I am white, shall I be required to write only white characters? How about gender? If I am female, shall I write only female characters, or if I am gay, only gay characters?
You see how ridiculously compartmentalized literature and thought could easily become if we went that route. But if every time someone takes the risk of incorporating a character into her work or his work that is of a different background than the author, that author is taken to task for doing so, pretty soon there will be such a reluctance to write such characters that literature could well sink into a veritable apartheid, wherein authors who identify as members of each group write characters only of their group's background, severely curtailing the quality and texture of everything being written.
I certainly don't want to see that happen, and the only answer is for us all to become comfortable with the idea that one need not be of a particular origin to write about someone who is, as long as said writing is done with respect for the character and his or her origins.
Reply, Part 1
Date: 2009-03-06 12:57 pm (UTC)Because if racism can be defined as taking the view that people aren't, at their core, all human beings equally, all as capable of the entire spectrum of good and evil, intelligence and stupidity, competence and incompetence, avarice and altruism, as each other regardless of the color of their skin or the shape of their eyes or their bodies or the cultural background whence they sprang
And if I'd said I was defining racism that way, you'd be right. But I hope I made it abundantly clear that for me racism = prejudice (everything you described) + power. Your definitions are fine, but the problem is this.
People of color are just as capable of white folks of judging whole swaths of people by race. They're just as capable of disliking or hating other folks based on race.
What they do not have the capability to do in any way is to ENFORCE THOSE HATREDS WITH SOCIAL POWER. Sorry to all caps, but that's what I'm talking about.
I'm speaking of racism as a system, because I believe we have moved beyond the stage where trying to define it individually is helpful at all, and where anything will get accomplished by trying to extricate our understanding it of it from the social systems of power that keep it in place, that keep indoctrinating generation after generation with this bad ideas.
The reason we haven't been able to shake the racism in our society is because we're trying to dissemble a house by taking it apart a brick (or a single person) at a time. That won't work, because there are millions of bricks. We have to attack the structures, the foundations.
That's what I mean, that's what I said. If you disagree, then you disagree and that's yours to deal with. I would appreciate if, even in your disagreement, you respect the terms of my argument, and you respect the definitions laid out. I don't ask that you be in accordance with every little thing I say, I do ask that you at least try to think about what I'm saying before you lay down dissent.
I don't disagree that every person in the world should try their best to rid themselves of prejudice, and that we should try not to judge people by the color of their skin, but the contents of their characters. No argument from me.
But I'm also saying we can't ignore that a) race matters and that b) white people prejudices carry more weight in society because we have privilege.
Reply, Part 2
Date: 2009-03-06 01:07 pm (UTC)I never said we shouldn't! Please, point me to the place where you think I said that, because I can promise you, I hold no such views.
Yes, we should write characters different from ourselves, but we've got an obligation to do two things:
1) To be respectful and free of prejudice and racism and whatever else ism and to get it right, to understand that there really are people behind this, people who will be hurt if we get it wrong
2) To be open and graceful about criticism from the people we portray, especially when they come to us and say, "You're reinforcing things we've seen that hurt us deeply, whether you meant it or not". To not automatically go into defensive mode and start swinging when somebody really just wants us to stop slapping them in the face.
Take sexuality as another example, if it helps you grok it better. I'm tired of bisexuals being portrayed as giant sluts or experimenting sorority sisters. If some straight writer portrayed the only bisexual character in a novel as nothing more than a naughty, hypersexed school girl, that hurts me and affects my ability to get people to even recognize my sexuality as existing.
While there are many major differences between sexuality and race, there are some commonalities.
I'd hope if I went that straight writer they'd say, "I'm sorry, you were right. I should have done better, and I will do better in the future."
I know that as a writer who wants to be a positive, productive ally, I'd want for a fan like that to be able to come to me and say that I hurt them and feel like they won't get a defensive reaction. If I did something that made someone feel excluded or unwelcome in my books and my universes? I'd want to be told PRONTO so I could stop doing it.
Because if I do that, if I listen, if I learn, if I check myself, then I can do something good, something right, something better.
I would like to think if I wrote characters of color in my own novels and did it well, that a PoC could read them and feel they were respected and understood, and safe in this genre.
And yes, there is an important value in knowing that even if there isn't someone who looks like you in single book, that the people who are like you aren't so rare as to be oddities and stereotypes.
More than that, I'd like it if it made a white fan more interested in other characters of color, and maybe it means they'd be more willing to pick up a book by an author of color and read it, and read about people that aren't like them at all. Because PoC have been doing that all along.
pretty soon there will be such a reluctance to write such characters that literature could well sink into a veritable apartheid,
Only if authors persist in being cowards. Because only a coward would take that route. Fear of criticism is, frankly, a crap excuse.
I don't find anyone else giving me "but people will criticize me!" excuse for other things. I don't see people saying they're unwilling to ALTER AN ENTIRE HISTORICAL PERIOD because people will criticize them for accuracy, and trust me, historians can be brutal. I know, I'm one of 'em :)
So not wanting to face criticism or subject yourself to the mental rigors of understanding another group's struggles and identity with respect and compassion is not an excuse. And the burden of that is not on the people who just want you to stop portraying them badly and/or erasing them.
I hope this clarifies or helps you understand what I said. But again, I believe in this wholeheartedly, and I'd rather have spent these two replies with us discussing positive action we can take to make the SF/F genre, and maybe the world, better for us ALL.
Re: Reply, Part 2
Date: 2009-03-06 07:08 pm (UTC)First off, I want to begin by making it clear that I've never said that you said that anyone should not write characters of a different race from themselves. Harking back to your posted poll on what constitutes cultural appropriation and the discussion resulting from it here on your journal, I think you and I are in complete accord on that topic. But in all this ongoing metadiscussion across LJ and a sizeable chunk of the f/sf/h literary blogosphere, there have been plenty of insinuations and even one or two outright statements on the part of multiple people that white authors are guilty of cultural appropriation when they write about non-white characters or cultural concepts, and that they probably should refrain from attempting to do so. And plenty of other people involved in the discussion have jumped on board to agree, leading to a lot of hurt feelings on all sides and a distinct chilling effect on the discourse as a whole. That's a bad thing.
Now as to definitions. I'm sorry, but words are of paramount importance in discussions like this, and in the interests of precise language, I have to say that racism isn't generally defined the way you're defining it. The combination of power or force with prejudice isn't something I'd call plain racism, because it needs a stronger word than that, and racism is only a part of the picture. To me, what you've described is oppression or bigotry. What little I've waded through on this whole metaconversation over the past weeks and months (because, really, it's pervaded the entire internet so much as to be completely unavoidable if you've any interest in the world of f/sf/h genre fiction) is that racism is being ascribed by some people of color to pretty much all whites, and certainly to all white writers, period, full stop. And I just don't see that as true. Merely being white, or even being a white writer, does NOT automatically make one an oppressor, or give one any individual real-world power over non-white people.
Racism =/= oppression. It can lead to oppression, it is certainly a factor in oppression, and because of this, it ought to be watched very closely when it crops up. It also ought to be educated against, discouraged from taking root, dug out and thrown on the fire whenever it is found growing like the noxious weed that it is in the garden of human thought and attitudes. But it is not, in and of itself, oppression. This is so intimately about words and their effects, that if you take the word that means defining and labeling others by their ethnicity, and reassign it to mean the oppression of others on the basis of those labels and definitions, then what word remains for the concept you've stripped of its name? (Now if you want to talk about institutional racism on the other hand, that's a different kettle of fish, and your definition becomes completely appropriate. But in that instance, it must be given its full name, and not the shorthand of simply calling it by a word that already has a meaning of its own.)
We already have words for bigotry and oppression. We call them bigotry and oppression. Racism is something else, less overt, more insidious, more often overlooked and in the long run often just as harmful. But it is what it is, and there is no more apt name for judging another on the basis of race. That is its precise meaning (just ask the Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) and American Heritage (http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/R0007100.html) dictionaries sitting on my desk).
Nor is it limited only to whites. I've seen, heard and read more than one instance of racist behavior and remarks on the part of non-white individuals, both toward whites and toward other non-white individuals or groups. Sorry, but when someone makes a statement like "all white folks [fill in the blank]," or "----ing Arabs are [fitb]," or even "you Chinese folks, you're all too smart," (yes, I really heard this said by a black college classmate to an Asian one, my sophomore year), I don't know what else to call it BUT racist, no matter what the speaker's own ethnicity happens to be.
Re: Reply, Part 2
Date: 2009-03-06 07:14 pm (UTC)I'm a straight white middle-aged woman, lower middle-class, and not a member of the dominant faith. I'm also short, fat, childless, and at the moment, unemployed (damned economy). I honestly don't have all that much power on a personal level, and at the moment I'm not garnering any perceivable benefit from being white. On more than one occasion in my life, I've been in work situations where I either was the only, or one of the only few, white employees. Where my boss was black, and her boss - the head of the department - was black. (Guess who held the power there?) I've been in social situations like that, too. Being white was not of any advantage in either. Note that I am not claiming that I have never had any benefit from being white, because I am sure that on some level I may well have done so. But my upbringing and my personal experiences have taught me to look beyond race to the character and qualities of the individual. And I fervently wish EVERYONE would do that, because the world would be a far better place in which to live.
In my writing, I have characters across the spectrum. Black, white, brown. Male, female, rich, poor, and everything in between. I haven't tackled gay or bisexual characters yet, admittedly, but if I did, I'd probably go at some point to my good friend and fellow writing-group member T who happens to be openly bisexual and ask, "In your opinion, am I doing this right?" Because I'd want to be careful, you know? But I sincerely hope that just because I don't include a gay or bisexual character in every story, or a black or brown character in every story, that doesn't mean any potential reader of my work who identifes as a member of one or more of those groups has to feel excluded by my writing. (Disclaimer: All this is assuming I get published. I haven't really tried yet, so I could be just making meaningless noise, and I'll admit that.)
Re: Reply, Part 2
Date: 2009-03-06 07:58 pm (UTC)First, I actually haven't seen anyone accusing others of being racist just for being white. I've seen LOTS of white people saying they FEEL accused, but I haven't seen any accusing. If you have a post, a comment thread, something you can link me to, please do.
I've seen a lot of white people responding with precisely the things you're saying to me, and it seems like this is kind of a merry-go-round that happens in the racism discussion.
The "well, the dictionary says..." response to the definition of racism is very common. I think this makes the dozenth time I've seen it. The dictionary is not useful in this discussion. This is not an academic, clinical discussion. This is an organic, people-oriented discussion. Words need to be redefined, and not just when the suits at the MW company decide it should be.
People just aren't getting that we are NOT working on an individual basis with this. This is not about individuals, this is about groups.
When I talk about racism, I'm thinking in terms of group dynamics and groups themselves. I think a lot of white people are personalizing this argument when they ought not to be.
I'm not sure how to metaphorize this. You can be a good individual and still part of a group that's doing wrong. You can be the least racist, most open minded, good hearted white person, but it doesn't mean White People As A Group are not racist.
I struggled a lot with this when I first really began reading about antiracism. I got ANGRY. I felt like, "Fuck that, I'm not racist just for being white! I can't believe they're accusing me of that, they don't know me!"
I will admit to rage and resentment. I just wanted to never talk about race again and ignore it.
I'm not sure what specific moment changed my mind, I don't think there was one. I do know that slowly, things built. I read accounts where people told me their stories of how this collective hurt worked, and how this group-based racism was affecting them and their group and what it's consequences for them were.
I also know that it helped when friends I respected made it clear they weren't accusing me individually of anything, and that there was a solution to these problems, that it's NOT an endless chasing of our tails.
It's like that scene at the end of Finding Nemo, where all the fish are in the net and panicked and about to get hauled up and eaten by the fishermen. They all want to get out of the net, but the fish are just making it worse for themselves and being generally stupid until Nemo and Dori start telling all the fish to swim down together.
The thing is? Each individual fish was not, in and of itself, being all that stupid. They were trying to escape, but there was a big clusterfuck around them. Collectively however, that group was FAILING at their goal, even though they all had the same goal. Because they weren't paying attention to each other, and were acting in self interest without thinking of the larger picture.
As K said in Men In Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
So yes, you as an individual are smart and probably not racist. But white people AS A GROUP are, and we need to make that change by getting OUR GROUP ON A GROUP LEVEL to stop the racism.
Our group is failing. We as individuals need to own that and need to start the call to stop the clusterfucking and stop the emphasis on our individual feelings and start getting each other to swim in the right direction, so that way things can be better for all of us.
Re: Reply, Part 2
Date: 2009-03-06 08:52 pm (UTC)I'm not a group. I'm a person. I can only be responsible for what I, as an individual, do. "White People" are no more a monolithic, homogenous hivemind than are Black People, Brown People, or any other group of people. Perhaps if humans were a group-mind species, addressing this as solely a group issue would be sufficient, but we aren't, and so it is not. The only way to thoroughly and permanently alter the behavior of a group of human beings is by cumulatively altering the behavior of the individuals making up that group, because we are all individuals with free will. When you tell one of us that, "no, it doesn't matter what you do, because the rest of the group to which you belong is still Doing It Wrong, and therefore you too are Wrong by association," pretty soon what happens is that you discourage that person from even bothering to try, because after all, what good will it do? Now make that cumulative across all members of the group, and the result is a never-ending continuation of Doing It Wrong because unless/until Everyone changes their behavior en masse, it matters not what each individual member does or does not do.
And I don't think that's really the result you're going for, is it?
And, well, it isn't as if I can stop being white. So I have to be branded for life as one of those Evil White People, no matter what I do? How is that really any different from branding someone else as an [Insert Pejorative Descriptor Here] Black Person for life, merely on the basis of a group membership that cannot be changed?
Here's the thing: groups are made up of individuals. There's no getting away from that. And frankly, the biggest problem is that we *are* judging people more by the skin than by the content of their character, every time we say to them, "It doesn't matter what you do; you're still white/black/whatever and therefore you're still responsible for any wrongs committed by whites/blacks/whatevers AS A WHOLE." And you know what? No. I'm. Not. And neither are you, or anybody else.
The idea that one individual member of a group, especially if s/he is not the group leader, can be guilty of everything that the group as a whole has ever Done Wrong is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter grade-A BS. If you really want to make things better for people of color, if you really want to create a better world for the adults of today and the children of the future to live in, you have to begin with individuals taking responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. Instructing each individual to take on some sort of group guilt or group penance or whatever else is actually counterproductive, because it also creates the potential for a massive cop-out in which each person can say, "It doesn't matter what I do because my group will drown out my efforts, so why even expend the energy to try?" Inertia is NOT our friend here.
No, it HAS to be individual efforts, naturally accumulating, that will create the change we all agree has to come.
Re: Reply, Part 2
Date: 2009-03-08 09:39 pm (UTC)"White People" are no more a monolithic, homogenous hivemind than are Black People, Brown People, or any other group of people.
We're not a hivemind, we are a group. And one group of people can still hurt another group of people. White People as a group, with their privilege and their collective, cumulative efforts are still hurting other peoples. The group you're part of can be a group that's doing bad without you yourself being bad, or even doing bad.
I'm white. White and pasty as snow. And I own that white people as a group right now are doing oppressive things, and exercising privilege daily and hurtfully, and that being white means that I am part of that. I own it. It ain't pretty, and boy does the shame go down like vinegar, but in owning that, I can also own that white people can change.
Going back to the Finding Nemo metaphor, if enough white people start the call for other white people to stop doing the things that are hurtful, to stop running around half-cocked and blind and privileged to the detriment of others, we can change things for the better.
I still keep going back to that net metaphor. Because right now, the thing your suggesting is EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. And it's getting people hurt. Thinking that it's okay to be a great person individually and ignore what your group as a whole is doing is the very thinking that has put us in the position of having a genre that is so unwelcoming to fans and people of color.
I posit that until a whole bunch of white people as a group get together and say, "Wow, this is a bad situation. We need to stop doing UNHELPFUL THINGS AS A GROUP" and then get other white folks to do it, we're just going to get more of the same.
Because right now? The people doing the hurting are acting (or at least imagining they are) as individuals and they're all going off in whatever direction is best for them personally, and that's what's created this big fat mess.
We can make it so that white people as a group are no longer doing the racist things they're doing, but it means that individuals ARE going to have to own what the group is doing, even if they disagree with it and aren't INDIVIDUALLY participating in it.
Also, I haven't really seen any calls for "penance" or "group guilt" on the anti-racist side. I've just seen calls for people to change behaviors that are hurtful, and to encourage members of their group to do the same.
So, I disagree with you heartily, though I appreciate the politeness with which you've spoken.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 12:47 pm (UTC)Her book should not have been made a banner for all this anyway, and she's handled this whole situation with grace and patience, but, yes, enough already. Move on, you know? It's been, what, a month? since she's been under this particular fire? Could you imagine? I really feel for her.
I wish that what she would do is be an other-blog reader for a while, and get out of her own little spot and expand her joy in the medium again. Which, I'm sure she does read certain blogs, but you need to move around and mingle, I think, too.
Regarding her books that you have, no, maybe pack them up and store them somewhere, but in time you'll miss them, I think. It's just that she's an author who has suddenly become human in your eyes and you need a little time to achieve balance regarding this.
I read a short story a few months ago--in F & SF, or maybe Asimovs, in which there were a plethora of races, and this fact kept being brought up, like, "See, see, aren't I a multicultural, many-racial story, aren't I, aren't I?!" but the only women in the story was a whore. It was a mess, because while the story was pretty good, I don't *care* about a person's race and all that seriously got in the way of the story and highlighted the problem of no women, but how much room is there for all of what you need to truly make a story reflect the crowd you're in?
....beside her stood Hwal, who, incidentally, was late on his mortgage. (representing forgetful guys), and across the way was J'waa, who always gave Hwal an extra cupcake with his coffee (unrequited love sufferer), and ...
:-D. I mean, where does it stop? where are the over-50's characters? the athlete foot sufferers, the chains his dog out in the yard guy, the staples in the hems teenager, the...well, who do you leave out for balance in these crowds and once you start adding in, where is the line, there, too?
And then, how can the story wedge in with all this, too?
I don't care about character race because in a book we're all the same font anyway :-D.
Oh, but all that aside, it's her blog, she can block out whoever she wants for whatever reason she wants to, anytime she wants to, too. It's one of the things I think that really make blogs better than bulletin-board communities. But again, where she makes a small mistake, is not getting out into others' blogs, where she's running the risk of being blocked out, too :-). That's where the balance is, I think. Oh, I'm not explaining this right. We're in a community, not a fan-club/my point of view or no point of view/here, let me show you my feet/yes, it's all about me sort of place.
We are in a this is what I think right now, what do you think?/I hope I can manage.../...and what's up with you these days, too!? sort of place--oh, sorry, I'm a mess, not explaining anything right :-D
Anyway, wonderful post, thanks for talking :-)
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 01:18 pm (UTC)With all due respect, I think it's clear that I feel exactly the opposite. I think she's handled this really badly. Yes, the firestorm probably did get intense, but she could have just silently moved on, or said something better.
I don't think she's been gracious at all. I feel she's been condescending and hurtful to people, and she's allowed her friends to be hurtful without so much as a "Hey, I don't support them doing this".
And actually, most of the fire was not directed personally at her at all. In fact, after most of the flurry in January, discussion moved on, but it moved on to people who were friends of hers.
If she'd just said nothing and kept posting foot pictures, she would've been a lot better off and hurt a lot less people.
I mean, where does it stop? where are the over-50's characters? the athlete foot sufferers...
I would submit that trying to turn race into a trivial, non-important category is VERY HURTFUL to others. Because a category which has meant that people get less opportunities, worse treatment, less justice in the system is not something that can be equated to being an athlete's foot sufferer.
You spoke earlier of a multicultural story where there were no women. Think about how that made you feel. It made you feel excluded, didn't it? It made you feel hurt, made you resent the story?
Because let's face it, women haven't always gotten their fair share in SF/F.
Well, there are lot of similarities between that and how PoC's have been feelings.
It works the other way around. Imagine a story chock full of strong women, but they're all white women. Imagine being a female PoC who realizes that even though she's a woman, she's still not represented in that story because she isn't white.
I don't care about character race because in a book we're all the same font anyway :-D.
Yeah, but the thing is? I can say that too, because I don't need to go searching high and low for white characters and white authors.
But as a bisexual, as a woman? I do care deeply about gender and sexuality. Doesn't mean I won't read straight or male characters, but it does mean that I want to seek out characters like me, and that I care when it seems like I can't find any.
Imagine if a man, who writes few and very weak female characters, said, "Well, I just don't care what gender a character is". That would seem fishy to you, wouldn't it? Because funny how when he doesn't care about gender, all the good characters are men, just like he is.
Oh, but all that aside, it's her blog, she can block out whoever she wants for whatever reason she wants to, anytime she wants to, too.
You're right, we're all free to say what we want on our blogs, and she can do what she pleases. Free country (mostly). But I'm also free to stand up and say that I heartily disagree with her.
I'm also free to say that I think it's not helping. Because all these comments, and none of them have focused on POSITIVE ACTION THAT HELPS PEOPLE. And we need positive action.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 05:05 pm (UTC)Hang in there, run for office if you can, make a difference more and more--however it works out, society needs this.
**Imagine if a man, who writes few and very weak female characters, said, "Well, I just don't care what gender a character is". That would seem fishy to you, wouldn't it? Because funny how when he doesn't care about gender, all the good characters are men, just like he is.**
You're talking about most of my favorite stories, 70s-style. Well, this is what was offered, you know, back then--not exclusively, but quite a lot, and the women were men-appealing, which, imo, was even worse, but we (I) didn't know that. Men had the adventures and women didn't, except for very rare and usually embarrassing cases (I thought so, anyway :)
Anyway, I"m all for positive action and speaking out and uniting, I mean, it's what people do--it just worries me when the spit and bottles start flying, which is generally what starts in when the flamers appear, you know? When is it no longer over fairness and equality and justice, and more about I'm going to beat you up (or whatever) because I can and you can't stop me?
I believe that Ms. Bear is seeing such a line and doesn't want part of that, but I could be wrong. I just, I don't know, I feel sorry for anyone in the middle of a storm of any stripe. No matter what she does, she's in trouble, you know? Either with friends or with f-list readers or drop-by readers. It's just, I don't know, rough. I feel for her, is all.
I'm perfectly fine with our disagreeing, and always feel fine with hearing another pov; well, it's what it's all about, really :)
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 06:46 pm (UTC)One hopes. Because I'd really love to get to a day when race issues are not issues anymore. When people can have their identities and their safe spaces, as well as having safe and SHARED spaces, and where people are all getting their fair share of things.
I get that radical things are being said, and some things are getting radically misunderstood. I'm not about "kill all the white people!" - because, um, I'm sort of a white person, too. But I do think there are fundamental problems, and we need to address them.
it just worries me when the spit and bottles start flying, which is generally what starts in when the flamers appear, you know?
I do, too. And I think most people that I consider to be positive anti-racists do as well. I won't deny there are some people looking to be incendiary and start fights. But I think, on the whole, most people blogging about this topic want positive change.
I also won't deny that I'm more than a little irritated that it seems like a handful of individuals have pre-empted a topic that affects us all. And honestly, I'd love if, instead of calling a ceasefire on the topic of racism, we said, "we're going to stop talking about these individuals and redirect the topic back to where it belongs, on how to MAKE THINGS RIGHT."
Either with friends or with f-list readers or drop-by readers. It's just, I don't know, rough. I feel for her, is all.
I can't say I feel 100% unsympathetic to her. Because I know that it's kind of hard when you have to ask yourself "do I stand by my friend or my beliefs, and am I a big old hypocrite if I don't defriend someone and ban them and call them ugly names when we disagree on a topic?"
But there's also a part of me that really thinks there IS a line and you do have to say, "Cross it at your own peril", even to your friends. It sucks, and it hurts, but I think it's better to lose a friend than lose part of your own conscience.
And I know, lately, I've had to ask myself very serious questions about what will happen if someone I care about deeply starts doing something really offensive.
Actually, I've had to all my life because - not to get too personal - but I have people in my family who aren't just the "oops I said something bad on the internet" kind of racists, but are the "I'll give you a thirty minute lecture over the dinner table of why the N-----rs are an inferior race" kind of racists. And trust me, trying to shove taters into your piehole while listening to a relative say those kinds and know that they're wrong and evil things to say is really painful. Do you disown your relative for that?
I can't say I've come up with a perfect solution. I do believe in trying to find compromises and diplomatic solutions.
I also can say that I think it is worthwhile to disengage from certain individuals while not disengaging from the topic at large. Which is what I wish Elizabeth Bear would have said. I also recognize that, while I disagree 1000000% with her, that she was probably really emotional and angry and defensive when she wrote that. Not her best hour ever.
I'm perfectly fine with our disagreeing, and always feel fine with hearing another pov; well, it's what it's all about, really :)
I want you to know that I'm fine, too. Because you're no where close to the line. :) You're obviously a very good person who does try to consider everyone's views and tries to be kind and compassionate to others, and I respect and enjoy that in you. So I want that to be said, and I appreciate the very respectful and polite tone you've kept with me here, because this is a discussion I'm still rather nervous and emotional about, but feel compelled not to keep quiet on.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 05:25 pm (UTC)You spoke earlier of a multicultural story where there were no women. Think about how that made you feel. It made you feel excluded, didn't it? It made you feel hurt, made you resent the story?
No. No, it didn't. I've read plenty of stories where they were no or no significant women; likewise I've seen plenty of films and TV shows like that. And, frankly, I had no response except to enjoy or not enjoy the media on its own merits. I've also read stories that were very heavily female dominate and, except for one story in which every character ran around screaming about how much better matriarchies are, I didn't give much thought to the gender disparity there either. In the last case, I thought the "yeah women" attitude was so heavy handed as to detract from the story.
So, where you've been deeply hurt by what you perceive as deliberate exclusions, and you're projecting that hurt on everyone else who has been deliberately excluded, and now you're seeking to rectify things in the way you see best, I wasn't and therefore not only have no idea where you're coming from, but also know that a person can be deliberately excluded and not let it define their worldview. And while I can say the last from a position of white privilege, I have been deliberately excluded, silenced, attacked, and discriminated against for my membership (or lack thereof) in a number of categories--and I still don't feel the hurt and pain you describe, nor do I read the causes for it in my media.
Which means that at a very fundamental level, we have no basis for communicating with each other. And what one perceives as helping, the other perceives as either missing the point entirely or as attacking.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 06:32 pm (UTC)Which means that at a very fundamental level, we have no basis for communicating with each other.
If you realized that, if you've realized that all along, what is the point of coming here and commenting? I don't expect that you and I will agree totally with each other on this point. If it's something that you don't agree with, fine. Your conscience is yours and I respect that. I respect that you act out of what you think is right.
I don't expect all my friends to fall in line with everything I think or say. But I do expect for there to come a time when my friends recognize that if something is important to me and we don't agree on it, to allow me the space for us to be friends and to disagree.
There have been a lot of friends of mine in this who have said things I don't agree with, but I also recognize that I'm not going to change their minds, so I post what I believe in my LJ, I make sure that I make it clear what I do and do not agree with, and I try not to be unhelpful.
But at the same time? I'm not sure what you're hoping to do, or what your purpose is here in this response. If you feel that between the two of us as individuals, that there can be no constructive dialogue on this top, when why try? Why not just let this topic go, especially if it seems like it doesn't bother you so much. I'll do my blogging, you can ignore the posts on race I make, and we can - between the two of us individually - talk about things we agree on.
You know, this isn't just some idle discussion I'm having, or something I'm putting up because I want to make some waves, or something I'm doing because it's all the cool new thing. This is something I have thought deeply and a long time about, something I've fought with and thought about and read about and read counterpoints to. This is something I'm still in the process of learning about, and it's something that is deeply important to me.
And I know this much: I've seen racism, I've seen how pervasive it is. I've lived in a veritable hotbed of it, and I've seen some disgusting things. And I know that in the things I do and the things I enjoy, I just cannot participate in racism, and if there is any way to make sure that I'm fighting against it, I want to do that thing, even if it ticks off my friends and makes people stare at me like I'm a crazy person. Even if it means personal sacrifice.
Because the thought of racism is just that appalling to me, because it's wrong, because I believe that I have an obligation as a human being to act better than that and to make sure my fellow human beings get treated better than that.
If that's projecting, maybe it is. But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm not pointing a gun at anyone. I'm not even saying "you disagreed with me, I'm banning you!".
I am saying that I want to take whatever steps I can to make sure my fellow human beings are not being treated badly on account of their race.
And if we can't have any further dialogue on this topic, so be it. Every person's conscience is their own, and if you're satisfied with yours, so am I.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 07:43 pm (UTC)First, I didn't realize that all along. I didn't realize it until just about the moment I started to type the words.
Second, Why do I come here and comment? Because that's what a dialogue is. For a dialogue to be productive, it needs to include the parts that you don't agree with. Having a conversation in which everyone sits around and agrees with you (or worse, ignores you) isn't going to lead anywhere useful. And this topic needs, absolutely needs to be lead to places that are useful.
Also, a lot of what I've said, I don't agree with. But someone somewhere does because the ideas have been introduced to me in other branches of the conversation. So I'm making sure they stay in the conversation.
But I do expect for there to come a time when my friends recognize that if something is important to me and we don't agree on it, to allow me the space for us to be friends and to disagree.
Of course.
I fully respect your right to say what's important for you. However, you're the one out there entreating everyone to listen to viewpoints that aren't their own; from trying to forever seeking to understand viewpoints that aren't their own. Does this preclude you from doing the same?
To make a truly persuasive argument, first you need to understand where the other side is coming from. If you can't or won't understand them, then you're not going to be able to develop your points in a way that will convince them.
Since you have flat out said that there are positions you refuse to understand or explore, this undermines your own position. It's digging trenches on an argument, instead of doing anything to resolve it.
Why not just let this topic go, especially if it seems like it doesn't bother you so much.
I will, to the best of my ability. But, I too much enjoy good arguments to let all of them rest.
This is something I have thought deeply and a long time about, something I've fought with and thought about and read about and read counterpoints to. This is something I'm still in the process of learning about, and it's something that is deeply important to me.
I'm well aware of that. I applaud you for that.
So, don't you want your argument to be as well thought out as it possibly can be? I do. If that means deliberately stirring the pot ... well, you wouldn't be the first person to accuse me of doing that.
I think that's what makes me a good teacher.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 08:09 pm (UTC)Okay, this MAYBE is where we need to clear up some confusion. I think I may have wrongly been making the assumption that when you comment or question something, that you're doing so because you agree with the thing you're positing to me, rather than proposing it as a devil's advocate type question, or seeking to make sure my arguments are solid.
I should maybe have learned better by now, but you know me. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
And it might help, if in future, because I am nothing if not thick as a brick, clarified which points of view you're arguing FOR and which points of view you're just putting forth to place against mine as a way to test the strength of what I'm saying, as sort of a thought exercise, because that would help. Especially since this is a really emotional topic for me, one that I'm nervous about, one that I'm determined to get as right as I can.
When people come to me and say they have this objection or that objection, even if it's something I immediately disagree with, I also realize that a) I have to weigh what my chances of persuading them are and b) that I have to weight the consequences of digging in and getting in a fight with them against what is to be gained, even if I somehow win.
BTW, I don't know if I ever seen someone clearly win an internet argument. Hmm.
Since you have flat out said that there are positions you refuse to understand or explore, this undermines your own position. It's digging trenches on an argument, instead of doing anything to resolve it.
Well, here's the thing. There are some positions you HAVE to dig into or there's no point in any of it. Now, those positions should be few, well secured, and well tested - but there does come a point when you have to, as Ami in the New Series said, "Make a decision and stick to it."
I've made the decision that racism is wrong and that I have a moral obligation to do something about it. And yes, I do need to make it clear that I won't be backing down from that, and I don't see why I should.
I'm willing to talk turkey on a mountain of other issues, but there does come a point where I have to say that there are certain things I cannot and must not surrender or concede. That human beings deserve anything but respectful and humane and compassionate and intelligent treatment and that denying them this due to race is wrong is one of those things.
I also think part of me may actually be too cautious about this, because I do not want to start a mess, because I agree absolutely that messes get us nowhere.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-07 12:19 am (UTC)Fair enough. But, remember, that all testing runs multiple ways. It's not just about finding out if your arguments are solid, but if all the arguments are solid. So introducing a topic as a thought exercise may be because I believe it, may be because I don't and want to know how to refute it, or may be just because it's intereresting. In any case, I'm learning from it, too.
There are some positions you HAVE to dig into or there's no point in any of it.
Firmly believing that racisim isn't bad isn't a trench. It's a position. The trenches I was talking about include your statement (paraphrased) "The damned-if-you-do argument is wrong and I'll never understand it or even try to." Because now you're saying that there's no possible validity to people feeling that way, which means you're no longer open to helping people who do feel that way resolve the dilemna; instead you're just going to scream at them about how they're wrong, which isn't a productive dialogue.
There is too much at stake here to fall in to those kinds of emotional traps, especially since the topic is already so emotionally charged.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 06:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 07:21 pm (UTC)Because that's what I'd like to see. A world of books where everyone is equally welcome, be they black, brown, white, male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, whatever, and where everyone participates as fully as everyone else, so that there *is* no expectation that an author is probably this or that and a resulting surprise when it turns out that she or he is not.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 08:28 pm (UTC)And it's a genuinely good question. I hope I do a good job of explaining this. And I hope I don't fuck up. And I hope you'll try to seek out other sources, because honestly? I'm just one not-that-bright, trying-her-best pasty white chick on the internet who's knowledge is so far from complete we can't even see it from orbit.
That said: this is where I believe a lot of the stuff us liberal white types were taught as children kind of bites us in the ass, collectively as a group. There's a good post on why colorblindness isn't so great, actually (http://hth-the-first.livejournal.com/53171.html) by
I was, as I imagine lots of people were, raised to believe that when it comes to race, ignoring it and acting like you don't see it is somehow enlightened. That not paying attention to people's race is a positive thing.
And this is why I came to understand, in myself, that it's not. First, because I've never actually succeeded in not noticing someone's race once I knew it (this discounts situations where, say, on the internet you're talking to someone named InternetGuy44 and you know jack about the person), and second, because it presupposes that race is something so ugly, that it is such a deformity of whiteness, that it is like a burn scar on someone's face that you should ignore because while it's hideous, it's something they can't help.
Color is not hideous to me, it's beautiful. It's okay to see it, note it, celebrate it, think about it, talk about it, notice it. It's not okay to treat someone worse because of it. It's not okay to use it as a means for exclusion. But it's okay. It's not racist to acknowledge who someone is and to be aware of that changes the landscape, because race is a reality in our world. And the fact that things are different for Black people than for White people than for Latino/Hispanic people and so on and so forth, that there are different cultural and collective issues is a reality. It's okay to acknowledge it.
But like I said, treating people WORSE because of race? Not okay. But I figure this is old news to you and not something you needed to be reminded of. :)
I can't answer for authors/people of color on this issue, so know that I am answering as a white person trying to be an ally.
As a bisexual writer, I know that someone's sexuality is also one of those things you don't know when you're just browsing the spines of books and all you see are titles, covers, and names which could mean anything. Someone named J. Smith could be ANY race, ANY gender, ANY orientation.
So when someone says "I don't care what the race/orientation/gender of the author is", I think it's important that you make sure you're not saying that you're ignoring it all together, and that you're not using that as a cover to not read authors of color.
Because if you're reading the way you do, selecting books the way you are, and you're getting a pretty steady and diverse diet (again, relative to available selection, because I realize that some Barnes & Noble type places aren't exactly chock full o' choices) and you're finding that you read as many AoC's as white authors, or as many women as men, then you know what, you're fine.
But maybe if find that you're reading a vast majority of white, straight, male writers over female, AoC's, and queer writers - the suggestion I have for you is to be a little MORE concerned with the author's gender/race/sexuality. If you find your literary diet a little on the pasty side, may I suggest some Nalo Hopkinson, some classic Octavia Butler, some Michelle Sagara West, some Karen Lowachee?
Again, this all depends on your situation. You need to have balance and common sense in this. I don't know what your library and reading habits look like.
Nor can I speak for the PoC's in this case, but that's my thoughts and suggestions on that matter. That's the answer I'm giving you, and I hope it helps.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 09:19 pm (UTC)If I don't know because I don't really care, and therefore haven't even bothered to find out, then I don't see how I could use it as a cover to not read authors of color, do you? If I don't know that an author is a POC in the first place, I'm hardly going to decide to not read that person because s/he is a POC, you know? So I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel over your assumption (you know what they say about those) that not only am I probably not reading authors of color, but that the alleged omission is deliberate. In point of fact, you'd be wrong on both counts.
And yes, I was raised to be "colorblind" in the sense of not letting someone's race or ethnicity be any basis upon which to judge their value as a person. NOT, however, in the sense of trying not to notice their race or ethnicity because it implies something wrong with them, or something that makes them somehow "nonstandard". (Side note, apropos of nothing: how could merely being darker-skinned or curly-haired or whatever be "bad"? I always found dark skin and dark hair to be beautiful, even from earliest childhood, perhaps because they're something I've never had and never will. Well, I suppose I could dye my hair black if I wanted to, but it would look awful on me. I tried once, when I was in college.)
But as for people, I treat them all as individuals. My black friends and my brown friends and my white friends are my friends, plain and simple, and whatever their individual ethnic backgrounds happen to be, those are as individual as they are, in my mind. Same for people who are not my friends, people whom I don't know, people I just pass on the street or sit next to on the bus or stand in line behind in the grocery store. They're just people to me, and I see them as individuals, each different from the rest. I see their races, sure, as a factor in who they are just as everything else is a factor, but their value to me is based on their humanity, which is independent of race. I'm actually not someone who thinks of white as being standard and everything else as being some sort of abberation from or variation on whiteness. Again, some of that may also come from having been in a number of situations in which whiteness certainly was *not* the standard, and it was people who looked like me who were in the minority.
I hope this makes some sort of sense. Heaven knows we could all use more sense and understanding these days.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-08 09:23 pm (UTC)First, I want to make it clear I was not making *any* assumptions about your reading habits. You asked a VERY valid question, I gave you the best answer I could come up with as a totally NON-expert white-person-trying-to-be-an-ally type.
I assume nothing about your reading habits. My answer was more along the lines of:
If you do a, then I suggest b. But if you do c, then keep doing c. I don't know which you do. Like I said: I don't know what your library and reading habits look like.
As for the rest, as I've said before. A lot of this is not about the individual level, but about a group level, a societal level, an institutional level of thinking which requires individuals to understand that they are not divorced from the groups they are apart of or the things those groups do, with or without their consent/approval.