 [Amazon | B&N | Mysterious Galaxy] |
Marvel Comics has revealed the identity of the new Ultimate Spider-Man: a half-black, half-Hispanic teen named Miles Morales. For those of you who believe racism is dead, or that the geek community is somehow accepting and welcoming and open to all, read on… Larry Doherty of Larry’s Comics responded with the following:
You can see more of Larry’s Tweets and comments at http://graphicpolicy.com/2011/08/01/the-comicmarket-problem/ if you’re feeling masochistic. But don’t worry. Despite his “nigga” Tweet and other comments, Larry assures us that he’s not racist, and these were simply good-natured jokes. (Why can’t you people take a joke?) Bleeding Cool News rounded up some of the comments on the USA Today article about the new Spider-Man. Please keep in mind that these are comments that weren’t removed for being too offensive. Here are a few: That’s just dangerous. With spider powers, just think how much stuff he could steal, if he was not so lazy. What will he say when he runs into a criminal? “Sup Foo? Dis is MY ‘hood!” Shame on Marvel Comics! This is not diversity; this is a disgrace! Spiderman was Peter Parker, and Peter Parker was white. Create a new character if you want to prove that Marvel Comics is “diverse”. Minorities are typically less than 18% of the population, but they seem to get nearly 100% of the history. Why should white children not have a comic book hero that they can identify with? That’s right, Marvel comics! Where are all the white heroes? Shame on you for discriminating against us poor, underrepresented white people. Though I admit I found, “I want to see his birth certificate” amusing. Click here to read more, if you can stomach it. Unfortunately, these are not isolated comments. There’s much more out there along similar lines. Don’t tell me racism is dead. Don’t tell me people are overreacting, or that this shit is just “good-natured joking.” Don’t tell me how the geek community is so much more accepting. And circling back to Larry’s Comics, does anyone have any recommendations for comics retailers that don’t encourage racism and general douchebaggery? A while ago, somebody on LiveJournal linked to White Whines, one of several sites which collects “first-world problems.” There are certainly some spoiled, privileged, and sometimes humorous posts collected here … but the whole concept bugged me. Partly, I hate playing Competitive Problems. Yes, it’s important to keep perspective, and to recognize that there are others out there with far more serious problems than mine … but that doesn’t make my problems unimportant. Jay Lake talked about it a bit on his LiveJournal a few months back: Friend: “Man, I feel lousy. I have a cold.” Because cancer is the trump card of Competitive Problems. (Okay, now I’m tempted to write the rules of this game. Diabetes gives me a +3 to complain about health problems, but I also lose one point per published book for any writing-related complaints…) Where was I? Oh, right. What bothers me more than the “Ha ha, your problems aren’t real problems,” attitude (and I will admit I don’t have a ton of sympathy for some of the problems posted), is the whole concept of lableing these things “white people’s problems” and “first world problems.” As it turns out, “third world” isn’t actually shorthand for “Everyone is poor and starving and diseased and waiting for the west to swoop in and save them.” Here, have a few images from third world countries like India, South Africa, Brazil, and Tanzania. I could write a long-winded post trying to unpack the various problematic assumptions here, but I decided to go a different route instead. Feel free to substitute “first world” and “third world” for white and PoC in my comments below.
Four more modified White Whine images behind the cut… Quick announcement: Hey, guess who’s going to be Guest of Honor at Constellation in Nebraska this April! # Publishers Weekly recently reported on NewSouth, a small publisher which will be releasing a new edition of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn in which all uses of the word “nigger” and “injun” have been changed. It’s not the first time this sort of thing has happened. John Wallace released a similarly “cleansed” edition of Huck Finn two decades ago. There’s a lot to unpack here. Twain scholar Dr. Alan Gribben, who edited the NewSouth edition, lays out his rationale in the introduction (available online): Far more controversial than this reuniting of Twain’s boy books will be the editor’s decision to eliminate two racial slurs that have increasingly formed a barrier to these works for teachers, students, and general readers. The editor thus hopes to introduce both books to a wider readership than they can currently enjoy. In other words, he was worried because the books were already being banned from schools and elsewhere. His primary goal isn’t necessarily to censor the book, but to circumvent banning by removing the primary point of contention. He goes on to talk about his personal experiences reading the book, and the pain caused by the repeated and casual use of the word “nigger.” (Side note: I’ve seen zero discussion of the word “injun” in this context, which bothers me.) I sympathize with Gribben’s intentions. And I think the discussion as to whether or not these stories are appropriate for the classroom is a good debate to have. We can argue that the book provides an opportunity to have a painfully honest discussion about history and race and racism, but how many teachers are truly qualified to moderate such a discussion and make it a positive experience for all students? I would trust very few of my high school English teachers to do a decent job. That said, I don’t believe a “cleansed” edition of the book is the answer. As an author, I don’t want someone else rewriting my books to make them more acceptable. And Mark Twain isn’t just literature; he’s history. I have strong misgivings about the way we revise history. To learn from the past, we have to be willing to look at our flaws and failures, not erase them. Gribben is passionate about Twain’s work. My question for him is whether he believes the challenges to this book are appropriate. If not, then why is he giving in to them? If so — if schools are teaching these books to students who aren’t ready for them, or are presenting them in ways which are hurtful to students — then is the solution to present a bastardized edition of the text? We don’t teach Ulysses to fifth graders because they’re not ready for it. I don’t know exactly when students are ready to tackle the raw and painful racial issues in Twain, but I don’t believe glossing those issues over or pretending they don’t exist is the way to go. There are so many wonderful, beautiful, powerful books out there … why is it so important that this one be pushed upon students before they’re ready? Maybe this is a book better taught at the college level instead of high school or junior high. As a writer, a parent, and a former teacher, I obviously have some strong feelings about all of this. But like Gribben, I’m a white man up on my soap box about the use of “nigger” and “injun,” which is problematic for a number of reasons. It’s easy for me to say we should keep those words in the book – neither I nor my family are the ones who’ve been hurt by them. So if you’ve read this rather long post, then thank you … but please make sure my voice isn’t the only one you’re listening to. Here are a few of the articles I read as I was trying to sort out my own thoughts and reaction:
Today’s rant comes courtesy of debates about Robert Heinlein. Tor.com has an ongoing discussion about Heinlein and his work, one which has spilled into Twitter and a number of blogs. Stirring up the anger and ire: claims that Heinlein and/or his work is sexist (possibly racist as well?) Responses to these claims range from the thoughtful to the religiously righteous. Fair enough, as the initial accusations probably span that same range. But I want to focus on two kinds of responses. 1. “[I]t is fallacious to judge deceased writers by the political fads and fashions of the modern era.“ I.e., it’s unfair to judge Heinlein, because his work is “a product of the time.” Taking that train of thought further, is it unfair to judge the American colonists for the attempted genocide of the Native Americans, because that was just a product of the time? Is it unfair to condemn slavery, because times were different back then? Historical context is important. It’s also good to recognize the lens through which we’re analyzing a text, whether that lens is political, theoretical, or whatever. And I’m well aware that many countries view the United States’ attitudes toward racism and sexism as a bit wacky. But to claim that just because your perspective is, like Heinlein’s, grounded in a particular time and culture, it’s therefore invalid and/or fallacious is … well, a little silly. I can read Tarzan and recognize that views on race were different in Edgar Rice Burroughs’ time. I can also argue that, given Tarzan’s casual murder of blacks in the jungle, and a text that treats these incidents in precisely the same way as the hunting of animals, there’s racism here. Is the historical context different than if the book were written today? Sure. And I recognize that my own moral framework is far from perfect. Does that mean I’m not allowed to feel disgust at Tarzan’s joy in killing “savages,” or to talk about the racism in that portrayal? Give me a break. 2. Then there’s “How dare you call Heinlein sexist?” There is a valid point here. As an author, it makes me uncomfortable when people blur the work with the writer. I’d hate to think of someone reading the goblin books and deciding Jim C. Hines is a closet cannibal, for example. The work =/= the writer, and I think we need to be aware of that distinction. Going back to Tarzan, it’s clear that Tarzan never considers blacks as human. For much of the book, he doesn’t even view himself as human, for that matter. This is the character’s attitude … but the text never questions this attitude. Even after Tarzan learns of his own humanity, he never makes the connection that those dark-skinned beasts were people. The text supports Tarzan’s view, and you can argue that this is due to racism on Burroughs’ part. But there are those who’ll say “racist” or “sexist” are the nuclear option, nothing but insults intended to destroy the recipient. If you dare utter those words, you aren’t interested in conversation or discussion; you’re just name-calling, trying to slander poor Burroughs. …which makes it kind of difficult to talk about issues of race and gender and discrimination and so on. But then, sometimes I think that’s the point: to shut down discussion. If you want to examine the distinction between author and work, and to argue for one or the other, then great. I love debating literature and exploring different interpretations. On the other hand, if you’re just going to say “Hey, you called Heinlein the S-word! You can’t do that!!!”, then to me, you’re simply announcing your unwillingness to discuss or listen. “I’m not a racist by any stretch of the imagination, but whenever people start talking about diversity, it’s a word I can’t stand … What these people don’t like is somebody forcing diversity down their throats.” -Prescott City Councilman Steve Blair, supporting the decision to “lighten” the dark faces of a school mural.
Click here for a gallery of the offending mural. This is an elementary school where, for several months, passers by have shouted, “You’re desecrating our school,” “Get the nigger off the wall,” and “Get the spic off the wall.” ETA: Looks like Blair’s remarks have cost him his radio job. (Thanks mouseferatu for the link.) # “DEATH, DEATH, DEATH to ‘Political Correctness’. I like ‘pulp’ and ‘Sword and Sorcery’ in all its gory, sexist, glory … Women are to be barmaids, princesses, slave girls, dancers, victims to be rescued, etc. Blacks and MezoAmerican like peoples are either rare ‘Noble Savages’ or hideous cannibals with filed teeth. Orientals are sinister characters, though their women look hot but unless they are ‘Rescued sacrifice victim’ also very sinister. Of course, awesome ‘Noble Savages’ think Kubotai from ‘Conan the Barbarian’! Mix in lovecraft, westerns, maybe some not too queer Burroughs like stuff.“ (This individual later described himself as “Rabidly Non-PC but not necessarily racist.”) -Two commenters, on separate blogs, responding to Realms of Fantasy’s call for new subscribers. # And people roll their eyes and mutter about political correctness when someone gets angry about yet another publisher whitewashing a cover. Or they grumble about quotas if someone points out yet another editor’s all-white “Best of” anthology. Or they ask “Why are you making such a big deal out of this isolated little incident?” Because none of these things happen in isolation. Because I believe racism is learned, and the first lesson is less likely to be , “Let’s go lynch those uppity blacks,” than it is something like, “A story by/about those people in my magazine or anthology? Down with political correctness!” This is my country. My genre. I love them both, but sometimes I am ashamed and embarrassed by them as well. |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Jim C. Hines - All Rights Reserved |
||
