It is important to use care and precision when writing about race, particularly on the internet. The conversation is fraught enough, and a careless or craven approach to the subject matter can start a fire where there once was fertile ground for conversation. It can kill an opportunity dead.
Earlier today, a comics news/rumor site posted that DC is looking to increase the number of female and non-white freelancers they employ. This is, assuming best practices on the part of the publisher, a good thing. There's no valid reason why they shouldn't, and plenty of good reasons why they should. A variety of storytellers appeals to a variety of fans, and having a wider variety of creators means that a company that can sell to a wider variety of fans. (This is the crux of the diversity conversation in comics to me. "Do you want more, or do you want what you already have?")
There are a number of ways to discuss this rumor. The way I did it in that paragraph is one way. It's intentionally flat, but a little pointed. "This is what's happening. Here's what I think it means." You could dig deeper into the context of comics (will these books sell, do the creators get a number of chances, what are the plans specifically?) but y'know. Time is money and Tumblr is free. You get what you got.
The way the rumor site chose to go about it was different. Instead of presenting the situation as it stands, the site positioned it differently. They said that DC was instructing editors to hire new blood as a part of an affirmative action (US)/positive discrimination (UK) scheme, "[a]nd for white, male freelancers to be nudged down the submission pool." As a follow-up, they gave a rundown of possible internet commentary, a four-point list of common responses from the type of people who tend to get upset about these things, and then a few reasons why it may be a good idea.
Set aside the truth of the rumor. (I don't know what DC is doing, but going by their current line they definitely are pursuing a change in who they hire and why, so good on them if the salient points of this rumor are true.) The truth is not the sticking point for me. The coverage is.
It's important to be precise not just with what you're saying, but how and why you're saying it. By breaking this rumor this way, the site puts the rise of women and people of color not just in opposition to the employment opportunities available for specifically white men, but at the expense of those opportunities. In other words, it was written in such a way that "They're taking jobs from white men" is not just subtext, the way a dog whistle usually is, but just a hair's breadth shy of text.
Anything can be turned into a conflict, an Us vs Them. A contest. "This side wins because that side loses." Reality will tell you that this is not true at all. All it takes to make a space is someone with money saying "Oh, yeah, we should put this out there." It's not a true zero-sum game.
I wrote a piece a couple years ago about how "'Racists React To [thing]' posts are just passive white supremacy." The short version is that white supremacy is not just lynchings and beatings. It's prioritizing white voices over other voices. It is a cultural system, not just something people opt-in to. It is how we are taught, trained, and raised in America. We all live under white supremacy.
By including the comments of imaginary strawmen in the conversation from jump, by treating their negative input as equally worthy of notice and attention as a (possibly) positive move from DC Comics, you're diminishing the talent and attention that women and people of color rarely receive on the same level as their brethren. You're saying that their voices matter, but mostly they matter in terms of how they fit in relation to these other dudes who matter more, even when they're completely made-up.
Diversity isn't about us getting a look at the expense of anybody else. It's about everybody getting a truly fair shot.
It is important to be precise. It is important to avoid carelessness. When women speak out, when people of color speak out, they're often doing so from a place where they are not the most powerful voice in the room. We are constantly questioned—the old saw is "you have to work twice as hard for half the credit." This is why it is important for writers to be precise, to avoid carelessness, because it is very, very easy for imprecision and carelessness to stop a conversation dead.
Earlier this year, there was a conversation about Marvel creating hip-hop variant covers for their comics. A few people questioned the originality of the idea, and others questioned whether or not it was cultural appropriation to use a predominately black art form to sell comics for the financial benefit of a company that employs black artists, but has a dismal track record employing black writers. Agree or disagree, but there's a conversation to be had there, one that would probably benefit everyone involved.
On July 20, a writer for a major paper covered the controversy (including quoting a post I wrote on a related subject). The writer focused on the authenticity of the covers, of whether a corporation could be a real rap fan. While the charges of cultural appropriation and hiring practices is a difficult one, authenticity is a much, much easier hill to climb. When asked about the controversy, a Marvel executive focused on this essay—not any of the commentary by black people, not any of the commentary from people steeped in rap culture—and used a piece that missed the point of the conversation to wave away the majority of the criticism. He turned a critique into a marketing opportunity, a move which I simultaneously hate and respect—it's great marketing, a real Jay-Z move.
By broadening the conversation beyond its intentional and original limits, the writer inadvertently gave someone a chance to not just ignore, but discredit a number of concerned voices. A company isn't capable of authenticity. It isn't a person. But when you accuse a company of being inauthentic, then the easy rejoinder is "Oh, well, we all listen to rap here, so I don't get the complaint. Here are some rappers I have on my iPod right now."
I'm obviously unhappy with both pieces, but I'm an "it is what it is" kinda guy. These pieces went up, they're in the ether, and they defined their respective conversations. They're just good examples of why care and precision are so important. Care keeps you from indulging in a bit of theater that spikes a worthy conversation. Precision keeps you from accidentally indulging in a bit of the ol' white supremacy by treating the achievements of one group as equal to the baseless complaints of another. It's not even really about the outlets or writers in question here to me. Anyone can fall into this trap, not just rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, and nitwits.
You have to think about these things. You have to understand these things. Everyone is created equal, but not everyone is treated as equal in our culture. You have to work the angles, sharp and precise, before you hit send, because one thing white supremacy is good at is screwing up really basic, innocuous things for people. Without care and precision, you end up with easy dismissals thanks to soft pieces and hurt feelings based on how a rumor is positioned in the press.
origamiaround
baratheonpilled
prguitarman
titsay
2087
