morgan_dhu | On throwing books at the wall and standing on people's feet

Entry tags:

On throwing books at the wall and standing on people's feet

Does it really need to be said that one valid response to reading something that you find profoundly angering in exactly the same way as the last fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand times you read it somewhere else, is throwing the book against the wall and writing about why that thing you read, in the book you threw against the wall, and in all the other books that you didn't throw against the wall because you hadn't reached your limit yet, made you so profoundly angry?

And even if someone comes to you and says, "that book you threw against the wall, it's written by someone who wanted to explore those issues that make you angry and try to expose them as what they are," it's perfectly reasonable to say "Just seeing it makes me angry and I don't want to see it, even in the context of trying to expose it for what it is, BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT IS."

And I say this even though this particular book is one that I enjoyed, and that made me think about some of these things, because I am one of the people who doesn't know enough about those issues and hasn't been hurt by them and I wanted to see how they were dealt with and I had the privilege of knowing that anything that writer wrote about that issue could not hurt me. Plus, it had a lot of other stuff in it that was really interesting to me. So thanks to my privilege on this issue, I could read this book and not want to throw it against the wall.

But, you know, there was once this TV show that I loved. It said some wonderful things about female power, and it was lots of fun to watch. And then this TV show did something that made me profoundly angry in exactly the same way as the last fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand times I read/saw it in other places, and I didn't want to watch that show anymore. Because a lot of people seem to think that rape is such a wonderful dramatic vehicle, and getting raped by a god is even more dramatic, and they can give me all sorts of reasons why this rape was exactly the right thing to have in this TV show. But just because everyone and his metaphorical dog has used rape as a dramatic device, and sometimes they do it to show how nasty rape is and how surviving it can make a woman so strong, that doesn't mean that as a woman who has been raped, I'm not entitled to be profoundly angry and just say no to rape as a character development McGuffin.

And then there was this other TV show that I loved. It said some wonderful things about female power, and it was lots of fun to watch. And then this TV show also did something that made me profoundly angry in exactly the same way as the last fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand times I read/saw it in other places, and I didn't want to watch that show anymore either. Because there's only so many times a queer girl can read/watch things that written by people who think that it's the height of great drama to kill off the lesbians or turn them into insane and evil murderers, until she just doesn't want to see that anymore. Even if some people assure her that it's just because that writer never lets anyone be happy in a relationship, it's not like he's picking on the lesbians. Because lots of stories let straight people have happy endings, but they always kill the lesbians, or drive them mad.

So, yeah, I know something about lacking some kinds of privilege and getting so angry when privileged people use me and people like me in hurtful ways in books and movies and TV shows and cultural stuff in general. And I know that it's the right of anyone in that situation to throw the book against the wall, and write about why it hurt, and be as loud and angry as they want to be, because it is valid to get hurt and angry when someone is standing on your foot and not only won't get off, but tells you that they're standing on your foot so that people will see how bad it is to stand on someone's foot.

And it's the right of anyone in that situation to get even more profoundly angry when people tell you that you can't see that there's a good reason for that person to stand on your foot so people can see what it's like and learn from it because you're too emotional and not a good reader and haven't the critical tools to properly analyse what's happening in this brilliant piece of performance art in which someone is STANDING ON YOUR FOOT AND WON'T GET OFF. Or that you're being manipulative and abusive when you use strong and angry language to tell people that you're tired of people STANDING ON YOUR FOOT AND NOT GETTING OFF and you aren't going to smile, and take it, or maybe ask them politely if they wouldn't mind moving a little further away any more.

And I say this knowing that I may well be standing on someone's foot all unknowing myself, and can only ask that please, if I am, and am so stupid that I don't see it, then I would be grateful if you would tell me so I can try to do better at not standing on people's feet, because I know I don't like having my foot stood on, and I so don't want to stand on anyone else's foot either.

(If you need it, you can find context for this post here.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I have been reading some of the discussion you refer to and feeling kind of overwhelmed. Your post cuts through much wrangling to get at something very basic, and that helps me to put some of the new information into a context I can get a handle on.

Thank you.

It has been overwhelming, and I needed to take it to a basic level myself to get a handle on what I was feeling and why.

I only discovered this internet explosion last night (I've been at a convention all weekend) and skimmed through some of it, including your post on Mac's blog. It's so very strange to see people I know (Mac, Patrick, Elizabeth) in such hot seats. It makes it difficult for me to see the issues clearly. But I thought your post on Mac's blog was excellent and really got to an important issue that I think she needed to hear. Having said that, I don't think it's a problem that she posted what she did to her blog -- I think it's a problem that she didn't friends-lock it. It's clearly something that she needed to discuss and explore, but doing so publicly didn't look good.

It's been strange for me, too, because I have so much respect for Bear as a writer, and I loved the duology in question.

But what really got to me was the demonisation of Avalon's Willow for saying that she just can't stand to read another portrayal of a black person as a savage cannibal and a slave, even if the writer was intending to take that image and subvert it. Because she has a right to feel that way.

I suspect that kind of thing is easier to see in retrospect. If I'd gotten a letter like that for something I'd written, I could easily see how I'd completely miss that part of the equation until it was far too late and the discussion had gotten far too heated.

...and it might not even be precisely to the issue you stated here, but these are my impressions. Bear with me.

I think intent in anything we write has a lot to do with it, at least for me. I'm not one of those people who believe in writing only what you know...but rather, know what you write and if it's a sensitive subject to do it with respect, conscientiousness, and for the right reasons. After that, you can't control how other people react to things, you are just left with if your own conscience is clear.

I've had people claim they threw my books against the wall because they found how I handled things to be profoundly disgusting. That's fine. I didn't write my books to please everybody, surprise surprise, and I took what I wrote very seriously and gave it much, much thought...likely more thought than most people in this genre give to those issues, if I can go out on a limb. And considering the people who have responded to me in a positive manner are/were people with experience in some of the issues I wrote about (I have never gotten a negative response from anyone who has even a passing experience with violent trauma), I'm more willing to accept their criticism than that of someone who is going at it from a different (purely academic) angle.

Then there are the other issues, like that of sexuality in my work. I've had one, maybe two, negative responses about it, and an overwhelming positive. I'm not one that thinks the majority rules all the time either, but I looked to the reasons people said they liked or didn't like what I did. I can be pretty detached from my work, so the reasons people stated were always interesting... because the ones who tended to be offended were people who took a rather narrow view of the issue and it came down to people's individual experiences and it was less about my work and more about their lives. Which isn't to say they didn't have valid emotions or reactions...they were just reactions that actually had very little to do with the work itself.

Over time I have found that some readers believe that if they were in my character's situation, they would react differently and therefore their reaction would be more realistic (and my characters are not). This, of course, isn't reality...as people are different and respond to things differently depending on their psychological makeup. But we do identify or not identify with characters (whether in books or dramatic works) and the great test as an audience is to put yourself in someone else's shoes and try to understand someone who may or may not be vastly different from you. That's where a lot of controversy comes in when those issues involve sensitive subject matter.

I've experienced pretty blatant racism in my life, from a very young age. Naturally if I was reading about a character experiencing racism I would have a strong gut reaction to it, but the test for me, as the reader/audience, would be to set aside my personal experience as much as possible and read the book in the context of the character. This is the great gift and communication of books and films, I think. It's how I approach my work, at any rate. They are supposed to test our points of view and allow us to question them in a safe environment, and hopefully give us something new and worthwhile to consider.

I do agree with you that intent is important. In the two examples from my own experience, I returned to watching one of the shows after some cooling-down time because I decided that while the show's creators had done something that looked very much like what everyone else did, they had at least been trying to present a positive lesbian relationship that ended tragically (as did every other relationship on that show) and they were continuing to say other things that I did think were important. The other show continued to move in directions that did not make me happy - but I did look in from time to time to see where that text was going and if it was likely to re-engage me.

I don't know how closely, if at all, you've been following the series of posts and the comments on them that provoked this from me, but my intent here is to say that a person has a right to throw a book against the wall if it ventures into territory that is, in their experience, likely to be painful, if not hateful, and that even if it is done with good intent, is going to be grating at a time when they just can't take that any more.

What happens tomorrow is another story. Some people might pick the book up again and, as you say, set aside personal experience and see what the book has to offer. Some might decide that for them, there is no interior space safe enough to explore that particular issue in that particular way with that particular book.

What galvanized me was the way that so many (white) people decided that the person (of colour) who had this reaction was, variously, attention-seeking, manipulative, not intelligent enough to engage with the text rationally or critically, just another loud-mouthed person of colour, exaggerating and over-emotional, and a host of other things that I've heard said over and over again, to people of marginalised and Othered groups, who protest against cultural representations that continue to marginalise or Other them. When as far as I could see, the person was saying "Oh, no, not again!" and going on to explain just what it was they did not want to see again.

One of the sad things here is that, given different responses, the person who threw the book in the first place might have decided to pick it up later and see what the text has to offer - but it is, I suspect, highly unlikely that they would ever want to do so now. And one of the (to me) most angering things is that a lot of other (white) people are patting themselves on the back for defending a book (that is good enough to stand on its own) and a writer (who has dealt with the issues raised in a far more sensitive manner than many of her defenders have) from an overwrought and not very bright or well-mannered person (of colour) who was making a nasty scene.

Which detracts from the importance of making safe spaces where we can both enjoy and share, again as you so well described it, the great gift of communication in books and films. And that is a tragedy.

The first time I tried to read Virginia Woolf's To The Whitehouse, I was bored stiff and tossed it aside before turning the first page.

Years later, when I picked it up because it was assigned in a class, I read it all the way through and adored it (writing my paper on it! greatest novel ever written!).

Reading experiences can be varied over our lifetimes (works I once loved, I no longer read--in a few cases CAN no longer read--Heinlein, I'm looking at YOU--works that I could not read the first time I tried, I now love).

So it's sad that this round of debates has set up not only the original author but a number of her published friends as people that a number of people (fans of color and white allies) do not want to read, and will recommend against reading: it's sad not because of any economic issues, but just what you say here--the lack of communication.

Reading experiences can be varied over our lifetimes (works I once loved, I no longer read--in a few cases CAN no longer read--Heinlein, I'm looking at YOU--works that I could not read the first time I tried, I now love).

Yes, this. Both in general, and in the particular instance you mention. ;-)

It can even change with my mood. There are texts I can't engage with when I am in some moods - I just know that they won;t work for me at that time and place, so I don't bother. Change the circumstances, and the books magically become readable.

So I'm not the only one who can no longer stand Heinlein?

The worst part is, when I was 16, one of my teachers tried to explain to me some of the issues in his work and I just didn't want to hear. Then a few years later, when I was on a rereading binge, I saw those and a million more besides. These days I'm rather sad that this guy's still considered one of the founding fathers of SF (that term really says it all!)

There are a lot of sf writers whose works I really loved when I was young, but who I now find really problematical. (Oh yes, Heinlein, I'm looking at you, and also Asimov, one of the other founding fathers.)

What's also interesting is which writers don't now strike me as so problematical that I really don't feel like reading them.

For instance, I've been re-reading a lot of John Wyndham novels lately, and it's really quite interesting to see how much individual agency he gave his female characters.

*friends you immediately on the strength of this rant, because yes, yes, yes, yes!*

(Although I am pretty sure I've seen some very good comments from you in various threads the last week!).

And I don't think intent matters (and to keep repeating, I'm sorry but it needs to be repeated, but Bear knew that, and she acknowledged Avalon Willow was right, and her dipthong friends'n'fans just kept waving their white asses around....)

In my mind, intent matters in some ways and at some levels, and it doesn't at others.

Intent doesn't matter when someone is being hurt, especially to the person being hurt. Which Bear acknowledges.

But because Bear's intent was to make (probably mostly white, even if that wasn't her conscious intent) people think in new and different ways about the issues of freedom and slavery/servitude, she did fail better, if you will, than lots of other people who have used the same kinds of imagery without having an intent to examine/question/subvert that imagery.

You can learn from books that fail in certain areas, I think, especially if the writer was trying to do something good.

Communication, even communication about what went wrong, is easier if the person's intent was to communicate with sensitivity.

Does that make sense? (This is an issue I struggle with, and it's particularly hard in this case because I really enjoyed the books, mostly for some of the other themes Bear was playing with (my field of specialisation in university was Arthurian literature and there's lots of that in the books), but I totally understand the criticisms being made and the hurt being felt.

It does make sense: I'm a bit too tired to develop my ideas/agreement right now, but I did want to clarify the meaning of a term I use, one that's tossed around a lot, and means different things.

I teach the fallacy of authorial intention: by that, I don't mean that authors don't have intentions (many, conscious and un-), but that a statement of an author's intent (in a letter, diary, published or unpublished essay, at a reading) is not sufficient evidence to base a claim of a correct/privileged reading on in an academic essay. (Of course as I've said elsewhere tonight, AW was not writing an academic essay!)

So it's great to read published letters of authors who are dead (remembering that the publications are never complete) or talk to writers who are alive and read interviews--but saying "the author says X and that's the only correct thing to say about the book" (which I saw some of Bear's friends doing--and she herself did not do that--she understood she had failed a reader--no book is perfect nor is there a single book I know of or any other text that everybody responds to the same way) is just wrong. (So is saying that there are books that are better than their readers! I just could not believe that!).

Getting even more improper: it's perfectly valid academic work to do a resistant reading of a text these days: I have an essay on Éowyn in which I argue that Tolkien's intent was NOT feminist in any way, citing several pieces of textual evidence (his various revisions of her story--in one version, she was going to die for being a "strong Amazon,"--his letter expressing his dislike of American feminism--the scene in which all the men stand around her unconsciouis form and decide exactly what she felt and thought and what was wrong with her--unhappiness with her life not just the black breah--and his marrying her off to Faramir--because all women want to get married). So I think I can argue fairly well Tolkien did not intend this character as a feminist role model.

However that did not stop me, nor women I know, from taking her as just that (and in my case, as a object of queer adoration and crossdressing)!

The author's intent does not trump the reader's interpretation: Tolkien cannot take my reading of this character away. Um, sorry, this topic is one of my hobbyhorses!

And really, if all one has is the published text, there's no valid way to "judge" authorial intent (you can make some guesses based on the text, but still, it's dicey). As I keep telling my students: we have SOME chance at analyzing a text. We have NO chance whatsoever of analyzing the author!

Right. I completely agree with you on the issue of the fallacy of authorial intent in the context of interpreting the text. To say nothing of resistant reading. (I once wrote an essay on Romeo and Juliet as a caution against the glorification of romantic love that made my high school English teacher very upset). After all, that's where slash comes from (I use the term as a generic to include femslash/saffic).

I was thinking of the importance of the intent of an author in discussions such as this, which has become not so much about a reading of this particular text, as it is about white writers who try to write about non-white characters (and other unprivileged characters) and how and why they do it and what the issues are surrounding that.

And yes on the Tolkien. Now I love Tolkien's work with a deep and abiding passion, but there is no indication in the text anywhere that I've ever found that supports a view of Eowyn (or Galadriel, for that matter) being intended as a feminist role model. Which doesn't stop me from deciding that that in my own little alternate Tolkien-based universe, Eowyn became commander-in-chief of the forces that she and Faramir maintained in support of the throne of Gondor and ended up training Aragorn and Arwen's daughter (alas, a Mary Sue character), who became the head of the new and revitalised Rangers....

Ahem.

Ignoring all the Important Theory to say:

that that in my own little alternate Tolkien-based universe, Eowyn became commander-in-chief of the forces that she and Faramir maintained in support of the throne of Gondor and ended up training Aragorn and Arwen's daughter (alas, a Mary Sue character), who became the head of the new and revitalised Rangers....

OMG LINKS? Did you actually write it? I wants to read it!

(I have one in which Boromir and Éowyn's daughter Morwen is leading Rohirrim fight against Aragorn who has the ring......)

PLIZ!

Alas, that, and many other pieces of fanfic, were written many years ago (before I even owned a computer) and have been lost in the confusions of life. As I remember, the main story line involved Arwen and Aragorn's daughter Silmarien going off with Legolas to look for lost colonies of elves in the East.

I had a long history of writing fanfic before I even knew anyone else was doing it. My first attempts go all the way back to 1967, and Star Trek, when I started writing K/S long before I knew anyone else was writing it.

Unfortunately, all that exists now is an unfinished fan novel set in the Xena: Warrior Princess universe and a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine parody play that I wrote to be performed a a con some years back.

I haven't the time to write fanfic anymore, between work and the time constraints of managing multiple disabilities.

Oh, and friends you right back.

I bounce with delight at meeting you.

Thank you for posting this.

This is excellent.

I love the foot-standing metaphor. Great!

Thank you, but it's not my metaphor - although I don't know exactly where it originated and so can't credit the source.

I have seen it used in a number of discussions on privilege, particularly in situations where an unprivileged person has been castigated for being too loud, angry, insistent or generally not well-behaved when pointing out someone else's privilege.

It seemed to fit this situation perfectly.

This. Is a PoV that I think gets missed too often in discussions of this type. Because it's just so true - just because someone thinks they treated a given issue in a respectful manner, doesn't mean people aren't entitled to be sick of seeing it. And quite aside from the incredible condescension of dismissing someone's point of view because they're "too angry" - who says someone is obliged to be all calm and unruffled when they've just been offended?

And quite aside from the incredible condescension of dismissing someone's point of view because they're "too angry" - who says someone is obliged to be all calm and unruffled when they've just been offended?

*nods*

This is a basic tool in the "shut up and go away" box. As a feminist, I've seen a lot of women being accused of being "emotional wimmin" when calling men out for various statements and behaviors. I'd like to think that women who identify as feminists would be a little more sensitive when it came to perpetrating of this kind of thing, but ... *sigh*

As a feminist, I've seen a lot of women being accused of being "emotional wimmin" when calling men out for various statements and behaviors. I'd like to think that women who identify as feminists would be a little more sensitive when it came to perpetrating of this kind of thing, but ...

Yes, exactly. These are standard tactics.

There have been many people quoting Martin Luther King lately, but this excerpt from the Letter from Birmingham Jail seems appropriate to this issue:

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

Thanks for this post!

Wow. This post just helped clue-by-four me on an issue I was stuck on in previous fandom race/sex discussions. Something I *just* *didn't* *get* until now. Thank you.

It took me some time to get it myself, and it was thanks to other people that I finally clued in on this bit.

So I'm glad to be able to pass it on.

Way behind on the linkspam. Thanks for this, I thought it made its point clearly, and hopefully you are not Angry! Enough! that some clueless white people can't get a bit of clue this way.

Thank you. This whole issue of "tone" that some white people keep raising when people of colour call privilege on us really needs to be dealt with somehow.

And yet it's funny how some white people don't think it's a problem when they and their friends get angry when people of colour (or other underprivileged people) hurt their widdle feelings.

(If you have the fortitude to read through all the linkspam that describes the totally off-the-wall responses of people like

mac_stone and

tnh, who have naturally flocked their posts or even in some cases deleted their journals to avoid owning up to their racists comments and responses - note I am not calling them racist, just saying that like all us white folk, they have done racist things, often without knowing - you will understand exactly what I mean.)

Oh, I had (still have, probably - I'll review that once this dies down)

matociquala and

truepenny on my flist, so I got to see a lot of the crazy-in-comments right at the beginning, although I have only read

mac_stone in extracts (she locked before I found out about it).

I did get the special experience (via links, I think

coffeeandink) of reading

tnh's threat that apparently wasn't, in her blog, within 24 hours of posting, and I was utterly horrified at how high school her and pnh's behaviour were, particularly considering that the worst thing anyone had said to them was "you do realise how offensive these comments are in full context, right?" (or perhaps the followup when that wasn't acknowledged, "RIGHT?"). I'm also, of course, bothered by her manipulation and mendacity with language.

I'm mainly catching up with all the fairly sane people and making a few friends in the process -

alias_sqbr and

vassilissa - also because they're fellow Aussies, and one's a crafty mathematician and the other has overlapping anxiety issues with mine. Ain't the innertubes great?

I was utterly horrified at how high school her and pnh's behaviour were, particularly considering that the worst thing anyone had said to them was "you do realise how offensive these comments are in full context, right?"

That was truly disturbing. From my perspective, when someone who freelances as an editor with one of the major publishers of science fiction in North America, who is the partner of someone who is an editor at the same publishing house, and who runs one of the more highly regarded SFF writing workshops with said partner, says to people who include current and hopeful SFF writers "I'm taking names and telling my partner and I will not forget this," there is no way to interpret it as other than a threat along the lines of "you'll never work in this town again."

And of course, there's the endless categorisation of her critics as hordes, nithings, sock-puppets, and anything else that she can possibly think of to try to handwave the critiques away.

It's a pity that she flocked that post, in some ways - I think it must by now contain every possible variation on how privileged people ignore, marginalise, suppress and oppress and otherwise try to make people who call them on their privilege just go away. It's textbook material.

By the way, Have you or either of the Aussies you mention written on any of this? I'm sort of trying to think about how, in a non-stupid way, to look at possible differences in how some of the original issues of cultural appropriation play out in countries that, while certainly full of institutionalised racism, have different histories of it. And so I'm looking for discussions and comments from people who are not in the U.S.

For example, in both Canada and Australia, there's no history of institutionalised slavery, and perhaps some of the most blatant race issues (certainly in Canada, and as far as I know in Australia) have been those associated with attempts to force the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples.

In Canada, the cultural metaphor for being a country where people of many different races and cultures live has been, at least since the 60s, one that at least pays lip service to the idea of celebrating multiculturalism and starting from the idea that most people have more than one cultural perspective/experience.

On the other hand,the U.S. has adopted and still to at least some degree maintains the metaphor of the melting pot, in which people are expected to merge into the mainstream culture.

I don't know if that means anything in the discussion of cultural appropriation and writing the other, which is where this all started, but I do know that when I hear people talking about writing characters of colour as people who "just happen to be Korean, or Nigerian, or Tamil, or..." something in me thinks this is very wrong even before I get to thinking about it from a cultural appropriation standpoint.

And I think a part of this is because I "know" that there are and should be cultural differences between me as a Canadian whose native culture is Scottish and my fellow Canadians whose native culture is Korean or Nigerian or Tamil (even before we talk about the differences that come from privilege status) because I'm surrounded with the idea that it is a good thing to be both a Canadian and Scottish, or Tamil, or Korean, or Nigerian.

On the other hand, it may be a difference that makes no difference, because there are plenty of ways to use the multicultural society concept in racist ways, just as there are to use the melting pot metaphor in racist ways.

For example, in both Canada and Australia, there's no history of institutionalised slavery

If only that was true in Australia. But alas, not so much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbirding).

I went to school with descendents of indentured pacific island workers. It's still a matter of dispute as if it was slavery, I mean, it wasn't anything like Gone with the Wind, plantation style, in numbers or trade. But it happened.

I had not known of that. And there is sometimes a very fine line between indentured servitude and slavery.

Canada does have a history of indentured servitude, primarily of Aboriginal peoples and Scottish victims of the Highland clearances, but not as widespread and not as well integrated into the economic system. And there was a period of time where slavery was legal in Canada (up until the 1790) but it was not institutionalised and the numbers were very few - even now, only 2.5% of Canadians identify themselves as black, and most are or are descended from people who arrived in Canada after slavery was abolished, primarily from Caribbean and African Commonwealth countries.

I should perhaps note that I can't compare the condition of being white and having white ancestors who were indentured servants forcibly removed from their homeland and shipped across the ocean on ships where many of them died (which is part of my family history) with the condition of being a person of colour and having ancestors, also persons of colour, who were indentured servants forcibly removed from their homeland and shipped across the ocean on ships where many of them died, because I have white privilege no matter what happened to my ancestors, and a person of colour does not.

And there is sometimes a very fine line between indentured servitude and slavery.

I wasn't taught it at school. It was something I was told by my Grandfather, it was passed down along with other family stories, I grew up in that area, in sugar cane country and his father's family were cane cutters and well, they worked alongside kanakas.

Then when I went to school in Mackay, half the kids in my class were pacific islander, and one day we had to tell the teacher about where our ancestors came from, and this one girl told us that her great-great...whatever was taken from the Solomon Islands and forced into work as a slave.

It wasn't until a few years ago that I thought to look it up.

The thing about Australia, is that our identity, and indeed our history is very much caught up with the convicts. The first white people in Australia were convicts, usually Irish, and it wasn't a nice place. So I believe (and I'm not an expert, and maybe another Australian who studied these things could elaborate further), came about our distrust of authority, and the ideals of egalitarianism, or a fair go...

This of course didn't pass on to the Indigenous population. The first white people in Australia weren't educated, came from a low class and had been, back in the old country, seen as the lowest of the low (irish, criminals etc), so it was probably normal human behavour to take it out on the indigenous people. Australian Indigenous peoples weren't recognised as human and the weirdo Darwin dudes had them on the bottom of the human gene pool.

Then there came about years of genocide (life and culture), massacres, forced assimiliation, religious conversion, the stolen generation etc. But for most Australians, that is, most White Australians, the knowledge of this was non-existent. The Indigenous population is so low, in a lot of places you can live your entire life not living with, or working with Indigenous people. So I can understand why some Australians find it hard to understand that there is racial, problem, even today.

You can't see racism if you live in a white community.

The major difference I see between Australia and the United States (and granted, I've never lived in the US, so yeah), is that it's almost taboo to discuss racial issues in our country. Australians are very reluctant to bare our dirty laundry, we want the world to love us, we want to be seen as the ideal, to be the lucky country, the fair country. Even for me, I don't really want the rest of the world to see my country is racist. I won't pretend it doesn't hurt my pride, because it does at times.

And I come from a part of Australia that is considered the most racist. I don't like it, I don't like admitting it. Because I know we're more then just that.

For me, I see Canada and New Zealand as the ideal nations when it comes to race relations, the countries which do the best out of the...at least, Commonwealth nations.

Then there came about years of genocide (life and culture), massacres, forced assimiliation, religious conversion, the stolen generation etc.

The history of our treatment of Aboriginal peoples is just as bad. Perhaps one of the reasons that white Canadians tend to know more about it is that there were two serious campaigns of armed resistance among Aboriginal peoples - they are called the Riel Rebellions after Louis Riel, the Métis leader of the resistance. (The Métis are a recognised aboriginal people in Canada, being the descendants of marriages between Aboriginal people and Europeans).

The Rebellions are a significant part of our history, and so as kids we learn, at the very least, that there were Aboriginal peoples who wanted us to stay away from their land strongly enough to fight and die for it in ways that Europeans could recognise as traditional warfare.

Canada's problem is that we have become so attached to our image as a peacekeeping nation with a good record on human rights that we are reluctant to examine anything in our history that goes against this image.

What we need to do is realise that we will better live up to this ideal of what Canada could be if we acknowledge where we have not done well in the past, and actually do something concrete to acknowledge, atone for and change it.

That said, I do think that there are some things we are learning to do better, and the concept of valuing our multiculturalism and diversity is a part of that.

Snap! (and you're in Brisbane too? Cool! - well, humid and sunny :-) ).

Yes, good old Bris Vegas! I'm at this moment listening to a protest going down George Street Parliament House.

I think we've all written a bit, mainly at the "Gah, don't be stupid, white people" level.

There's lots of interesting issues, both in terms of the ways we are white and benefit from white privilege, and the ways in which, not so much we're not white, but we're not the same thing I think PoC are pointing at and complaining about in this debate, which I think is why there are no Aussies I know of who have spat the dummy. From my perspective, it is very definitely not "White" people who are acting stupid but White North American members of fandom/sff culture.

Australia officially aims for a policy more like Canada's, but we have plenty of internal examples of racism against people not of British/Irish or at least Northern European origin (and we did have the White Australia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia) before that, which is exactly what it sounds like).

Also I'm not proud of this, but Australia does have its own episode of something awfully close to institutionalised slavery, if not that actual thing: Blackbirding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbirding). I also don't quite know how to classify the Stolen Generations, other than "what a horrible, racist, othering thing to do".

I'll also note that since I am Danish by birth and Australian by choice: that I know Denmark had sugar plantations and slaves in the Caribbean; that Greenlanders experience the same kind of indigenous issues familiar in Canada and Australia; and that Danes are in my inexpert opinion worse at handling immigrants/refugees than Australians, in terms of everyday, next-door neighbour stuff. (On the official policy level, John Howard alack alas takes some beating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_detention_in_Australia), but most of us of a more left-wing persuasion did spend most of his prime ministership noting how fond he seemed to be of the 1950s, and the White Australia policy was not excluded.)

Canada definitely had a "White Canada" policy for a while - directed primarily against immigrants from Asia in the first part of the 20th century. Prior to that, we were very happy to invite Asian workers to Canada to help build our national railroad and do other hard and dangerous work, although we were not always very keen on allowing these (mostly male) workers to bring their families here.

Our immigration policy now is supposedly neutral - there are "objective" categories where a potential immigrant accumulates points, and there are no country or continental quotas, such as the U.S. has. however, there are some biases built into those categories which do make it more difficult for people from some cultures to amass enough points to be able to apply.

And immigrants of colour face a lot of problems once they arrive that are definitely associated with both institutionalised racism and prejudice/discrimination, although there are attempts to recognise and change that.

A cultural myth/metaphor isn't always reflective of the reality, even if it is reflective of the ideal.

Hell, we can't even manage to establish a Truth and Reconciliation process for Aboriginal survivors of forced removal to residential schools, despite the fact that our government has mandated that such a process be set up. People appointed to the Commission keep getting into arguments with each other and resigning. Meanwhile, the survivors are ageing and every year there are fewer left to tell their stories.

From my perspective, it is very definitely not "White" people who are acting stupid but White North American members of fandom/sff culture.

I've been a stupid Australian who has said dumb things, and I'm sure I'll continue to put my foot in it, I always do :)

But I must admit the, major reason why I don't say much in these discussions, apart from, it's depressing. Is because it's all from a major American perspective, 95% of the people involved are American. And I just, don't feel qualified to be part of that, plus also, am white!

I'm really, very, very grateful every time someone makes an sweeping statement, and then qualifies with, 'at least as far as American society is concerned'.

Because I get very uncomfortable if Americans (as the dominant privileged culture) makes assertions, mostly without thinking, I believe (and I hope it doesn't come off as argumentative, because I'm so not trying that) that imply America=the world.

And I'll disclaimer this by saying that no, I don't think the rest of the world is better then the US when it comes to race relations. :)

So anyway, to go back to my main point, that's the reason why I haven't said much. Because I've seen all *this* particular issue as more of a North American thing.

ETA: To clarify further, when I say *this* particular issue, I'm talking about the events that were sparked off from Ms Bear and the professionals writers around that issue.

I think we exactly agree - I admit I will say stupid things and reveal clueless white privilege and I just try to learn from it. But this particular issue, yes, it looks so very, very NorAm to me. I feel a lot of the issues PoC are raising about the White culture of SFF are the same or very similar as the issues I have with SFF being so North American.

I'll note - I don't think it's as damaging or excluding to be a white person who sees most SFF to be about white people with a slightly different culture, as to be a PoC.

But when the PoC talk about how the (white) SFF community is Shocked! to discover their wonderful homey little community excludes/doesn't consider PoC, I nod and think "or people who live outside the US or don't speak English". And when PoC talk about the frustration at watching the one hundredth or one thousandth Special White Snowflake do exactly the same hurtful things all the previous Special White Snowflakes have done, I am reminded of what it's like, having to explain on the one newsgroup, for the 50th time, that the seasons are NOT the same down here, honest.

Again, much less hurt, but I have a pretty good idea of the general gist of what it must be like, I just imagine the extra hurt :-).

But this particular issue, yes, it looks so very, very NorAm to me. I feel a lot of the issues PoC are raising about the White culture of SFF are the same or very similar as the issues I have with SFF being so North American.

In many ways, it's not just NorAm, it's US. As a Canadian, there's a lot in this that is sort of but not quite the same as my experience. Being situated so close to the US (and being saturated with their media) makes finding the differences between "them" and "us" both trickier and, for us at least, more important.

I get, for instance, very tired of explaining to Americans that neither their First nor Fifth Amendments mean anything to me, nor do they have any right to bear arms in my country, thank you very much. I do note, however, that some of them are aware, with varying responses, that in Canada, a marriage takes place between two people, not between a man and a woman.

Speaking of the seasons, most of the news coverage I've heard lately has been about conditions in Sydney and Melbourne - have you had severe heat problems in Brisbane as well?

My part of Canada has been having one of the coldest winters in a very long time. Whereas the part of Canada known for being very very cold in the winter has been having record periods of temperature that's above freezing. But of course, all of this erratic weather has nothing to do with global climate change.

As a Canadian, there's a lot in this that is sort of but not quite the same as my experience. Being situated so close to the US (and being saturated with their media) makes finding the differences between "them" and "us" both trickier and, for us at least, more important.

Your location and the cultural innundation must make it very difficult to find a separate identity as a nation.

I mean, yes, in Australia we do get saturated by American media, but also some British television, but we do have geographical difference, and we do have an accent and landscape which is fairly distinct from the United States.

In fact, I think you might hear some similar complaints from New Zealanders about being subsumed by Australia that Canadians get with the United States, but on a smaller scale.

Brisbane has been fine, we don't get the dry heat waves as much as the Southern States do at this time of year, or the bush fires *touch wood* but at the moment the North is going through flooding.

If it's not one natural disaster, it's always another.

Absolutely agreed that somebody who reads something that pisses them off enough to throw the book against the wall and posts about it has every right to their reaction, and to their voice.

Agreed as well that those who try to defend the author against accusations of racism (which weren't really made, and which the author felt no need to 'defend' against herself) are doing neither the author nor themselves any favors. Every reader is entitled to their own interpretation of the text, whatever the author's intent (unless perhaps they actually saw something that is completely contradicted by a plain reading of the text - had an interesting discussion once with somebody who interpreted Ged as an example of white privilege and had to be shown the passages where his skin and hair are actually described).

However, I don't think this is quite the right metaphor for the situation. Unless Elizabeth Bear is coming to your house to pick that book up and shove it back in front of your face, she IS NOT IN FACT STANDING ON YOUR FOOT AND REFUSING TO GET OFF.

I don't know if you have read all of the various posts associated with this issue (please see

rydra_wong's journal for a series of comprehensive collections of posts made on this issue from all perspectives), but if you haven't that will give you some of the context for my post (and take up a few years of your time, alas). Also, the "standing on someone's foot" metaphor was chosen here because it links back to previous discussions of racism in the sff/fan community, and so I agree it may fit the current situation a bit loosely.

However, the metaphor as I'm using it is in reference to the responses to the original post, and to all the posts by other people of colour that followed, in which they argued that there was something hurtful and angering to them in the book in question.

Anyone can accidentally step on someone's toes - it's not a personal act, it's not intentional, sometimes it's not even something that the person who steps is aware of. In my mind, a close although not a perfect analogy to how a book sent out to the world might affect a reader.

However, once the person whose toes have been stepped on says "excuse me, you're steeping on my toes" and has been answered with, not "I'm sorry, I didn't mean that" but with a dizzying variety of excuses as to why, having accidentally ended up standing on someone else's foot, there was no reason to move, then the metaphor fits - although of course, I would say that, considering that I chose the metaphor.

Initially, I would not have included Bear as one of the people doing the standing on feet and refusing to get off - she responded to Seeking Avalon's Willow with courtesy, acknowledging that there was an issue worthy of discussion in how people of colour are represented in her work.

Unfortunately, Elizabeth Bear has now said, in effect, "no, I didn't step on your foot, but I pretended to agree that you had so I could graciously use the incident to share my deep understanding of sore feet with the world." Which only makes matters worse, in my opinion. Because now she really is standing on the feet of people who are trying to point out that despite her good intentions, there are still issues of racial representation worthy of discussion with her work, and refusing not just to get off, but to acknowledge that she stepped on those feet in the first place.

Thank you for engaging with the issues before making a critical analysis of my use of metaphor.

I've read a bit more (certainly not all - who has the time) of the previous discussion, and I'll agree now that the cumulative effect of all the posts in Bear's 'defense' fits the metaphor better than I originally thought.

It wouldn't have fit writing or publishing the book, as I thought you meant, at all well. We live in a world where readers have to make an active choice to purchase or borrow and read a book; they don't fly off the shelves and force themselves on us (although that's a nifty idea for a fantasy novel).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

On throwing books at the wall and standing on people's feet

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I am only responding from my limited experience...

Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...

Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...

Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...

Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...

Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject