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

[morgan_dhu]

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.)

Comments

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

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.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

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.

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

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.