opponents of racism, separated by language

I believe I've finally understood much of the reason for the clash between antiracists and the older generation: the language for opposing racism has changed radically.

When I was young, we expected more than jetpacks by 2000. We expected the concept of "race" to have faded away, so all skin colors and ethnicities would be seen as equal. That's what we heard when Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," and El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) said shortly before he was killed, "I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being, neither white, black, brown nor red. When you are dealing with humanity as one family, there's no question of integration or intermarriage. It's just one human being marrying another human being, or one human being living around and with another human being." We expected the Star Trek future, where Uhura has her heritage, but no one uses a racial term to describe her.

In that day, racists proudly declared they were racists. There were no "antiracists"—the word is so new I can't find it in a dictionary. Its Wikipedia article is misleading, a retcon that suggests the term is ancient. I first heard the word in the '90s, I believe. Until then, the default assumption on racial issues was that you were racist or not. Which position was good and which was bad depended on your opinion of other races.

But the basic assumption is different for antiracists. Zvi likes tv wrote in the comments at trying to answer hard questions:

"Are all encounters between people of color and whites racial? Does that include white allies?" Yes, all encounters between PoC and whites are racial. (Racial != hostile.) Yes, all encounters between PoC and white allies are racial.

The default mode for antiracists is that everything is racial. I'm not saying this to say they're wrong, and I pray I'm not misrepresenting Zvi. I'm only saying their fundamental assumption is different.

A quick history, some of which I've talked about endlessly, some of which is new:

When Baby Boomers were young, the worst thing you could call someone racially was "nigger." "Black" was almost as rude, because it reduced a person to a skin color. The polite terms were "Colored People" and "Negro." Racists believed in scientific racism.

For members of Generation Jones like Emma and me, the language of race and racism changed as we grew. "Black" was reclaimed, and "Afro-American" came along, followed by "African American," and then "people of color" was revived. Racists let go of scientific racism, but they clung to the idea that the races were inherently different. Some of them claimed to be racialists instead of racists. The last famous racist was David Duke, who calls himself a racial realist. In the '90s, "racial realism" looked like the last sad gasp of racism.

And then the antiracists embraced the rhetoric of racial division. Their terminology sounds to me like David Duke's "racial realism". When racists say the races are equal, but different, it is hard to hear the difference in meaning when antiracists say the races are equal, but different.

But language changes. marydell says in Okay, dude, tell me about your pain:

When someone criticizes my words as racist, or me as a person as racist, to me that's approximately equivalent to "sinful," - that is, the thing that's embedded in me, that I work to overcome.

I believe in unconscious racism, but my generation didn't think racism was inherent like "sin", something everyone naturally has. To us, racism was a personal failing, something we should recognize and root out. To antiracists, racism can't be entirely overcome; like an addiction, it can only be recognized and monitored.

Perhaps the hardest thing for antiracists to understand is why "racist" is a trigger word for us. I tackled that in dancing to the jab of the "racist" stick.

What I dislike most about the antiracists' model of the world is it suggests people were always divided into races and always will be. I still want my jetpack, and I still want Uhura to live in a world where if someone says she is black, the response is confusion, because to them, she's a human who is a beautiful shade of brown.

But I didn't get my jetpack. I have trouble understanding the antiracists' model, but I don't think it has to divide us. We still want to see people as people. We still want people to enjoy their heritage. We still recognize that racists and unconscious racism exist and should be watched for. Instead of focusing on the differences between older opponents of racism and younger ones, maybe it's time to accept the differences. The goal is equality for all, and anyone who seeks that is an ally of mine.

The original comments on this post are here.

caste: the first racism, or another reason to blame the British?

Most of my reading about India had been about the Raj and Hinduism, so I thought the concept of caste and race were effectively identical: people are born and die in the caste their culture assigns them, and no matter how much their class might change, the prejudice against their birth category remains.

But it may be that when the British accepted the pseudo-science of race in the late 1700s, their concept influenced Indian thought. From Caste system in India:

Some scholars believe that the relative ranking of other castes was fluid or differed from one place to another prior to the arrival of the British.^[40]

Whether they're right about the past, the ranking is not fluid now. Some writers desperately claim that modern casteism is not racism. From Caste system in India:

...Andre Béteille, who writes that treating caste as a form of racism is "politically mischievous" and worse, "scientifically nonsense" since there is no discernible difference in the racial characteristics between Brahmins and Scheduled Castes. He writes that "Every social group cannot be regarded as a race simply because we want to protect it against prejudice and discrimination".^[93]

What people like Béteille cannot grasp is there is no significant genetic difference among the commonly accepted racial groups either. If "caste" allowed for change the way "tribe" does, if you could change your caste by adoption or marriage, the caste system would not be racist. But so long as "caste" is seen as an inherent human quality, the caste system will be a form of racism.

dancing to the jab of the "racist" stick

I learned something about myself late last night. I hesitate to share it, because I don't like revealing my weaknesses and stupidities.

Call me or someone I love a racist, and I go into a righteous fury. I never thought it was personal. I thought I was objecting to a lie, an evil meme. More fool me.

When the issue has come up, the basic script has always gone like this:

Antiracist: (All white people/You) are racist. Whites grew up with power in a racist society.

Will: Many whites fought racists. My family included. We couldn't get fire insurance because word was out that the Klan would burn us out. I was beaten and spat on and called a niggerlover. Dad taught me how to carry the shotgun to him in case they showed up, but they didn't.

Antiracist: Why are you trying to take credit for something your family did forty years ago?

Will: But people of all colors worked together against racism! It's racist to assume someone is racist because they're white. (Argue until banned.)

Until last night, I thought their assumption that all whites are racist prevented them from seeing the truth. Last night, I saw I had failed to see it.

I thought I cited my family as an example, like this: Proposition: Whites aren't racist. Example: People like my family worked to end legal racism. Conclusion: Whites aren't racist. I couldn't understand why the antiracists couldn't add one and one to get two.

But I couldn't add one and one to get two. It was never dispassionate for me. I was taught from an early age that white racists were the enemy. They hurt me and my family. They forced my parents to send us away for several months where we would be safe. During that time, I didn't know whether my parents would be killed.

When I hear "racist," a part of my brain thinks, "Go to the closet quickly, get the shotgun. Carry it with the barrel pointed at the ground. Walk quickly, don't run, don't panic. Give it to Dad, then run back to the house. Pray Dad isn't killed. Pray Mom isn't killed. Pray Liz isn't killed. Pray Mike isn't killed. Pray the dogs aren't killed. Pray the house doesn't burn down. Pray your comic books don't get burnt. Pray that if they kill you, it doesn't hurt."

Call people by the name of the childhood enemy they feared, and they get furious. It's Psychology 101, but I never realized it applied to me, too.

Knowing this doesn't mean I won't dance the next time I'm jabbed with the "racist" stick, but I think I'll be able to say, "No, thank you," now.

The original comments on this post are here.

my response to "Will Shetterly: Do Not Engage"

The quick take: Scifi fans who graduated from expensive private schools like talking about race and hate talking about class. Micole Sudberg, aka Coffeeandink, of Yale and Julia Sparkymonster of Harvard took things I'd said out of context to make it look like I believe something I don't. I've bled from the blows of racists. I've never said that racism no longer matters. In every case they mention but one, I was bringing up class because it was being ignored by people who think racism is a spherical cow. In the exception, I was agreeing that racism is the primary problem.

See also: Failfandom 101 cheat sheet

The long take: People like Coffeeandink and Sparkymonster believe class issues can be ignored when discussing racism. Many writers on race disagree. From Thandeka's The Whiting of Euro-Americans: A Divide and Conquer Strategy:

...we must not forget that white racism was from the start a vehicle for classism; its primary goal was not to elevate a race but to denigrate a class. White racism was thus a means to an end, and the end was the defense of Virginia’s class structure and the further subjugation of the poor of all "racial" colors.

Regarding their claims:

1. My post about how my life would have been different if I'd been born black is here: parallel lives: a different race, a different class. I noted, "Life would’ve been harder on me..."

2. Regarding the "taxi test", I said,  "I don't mean to suggest it's all classism, honest. There are racist taxi drivers. No question."

The taxi test focuses on this video:

Because it's a test for racism, Bruno and Kotto are dressed similarly. If it was a test for classism, Bruno would dress working class and Kotto would be in a suit.

Also, I love Kotto's acting, but his taxi technique sucks. Bruno's is much better: Take a spot that's not too close to the intersection, then stand as far out in the street as possible and wave with no hesitation.

3. I've never said racism doesn't affect middle-class black people. When I said, "Yeah, that's stupidism at its purest." I was agreeing that racism affects them. "Stupidism" is Doselle Young's catch-all for racism, sexism, or whatever stupid prejudice is being exhibited.

That would've been clearer in context—I'm sure I explained the term earlier. It's not one I would use without explanation.

That entry created confusion later. In answer to this:

I'd also remind you that having Delaney as a role model for writing fantasy would do jack all about the institutionalized racism in the publishing industry (and sci-fi fandom). Look at the dearth of writers who are black. Do you think that is just a random coincidence?

I wrote,

...about the time I began paying attention to their race, I was reading Delany and Frank Yerby. They would've told me that I could be a black writer--and they did tell me that I could be a writer.

icecreamempress wrote:

I can't believe that W*ll Sh*tt*rly has never actually met Samuel R. Delany. Or that, if he has ever actually met Samuel R. Delany, he thinks that Delany would ever suggest any such thing.

And Jesus Christ, Frank Yerby could hardly be a black writer himself--why would he encourage some random white guy to do it?

What I was trying to say: When I was fifteen, I was reading Delany and Yerby. I knew they were black. The "would've told me" and "did tell me" was metaphorical: their work said had I been black, I would've thought it was possible to become a black writer. Since I wasn't black, reading them told me it was possible for anyone to become a writer.

I have driven Chip Delany around Minneapolis, by the way. Never met Frank Yerby.

4. Tempest Bradford, a capitalist from "a pretty comfortable middle class upbringing" and a graduate of the US's second most expensive private university, sees El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) as an opponent of racism and ignores his sayings like, “It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck," and "You can't have capitalism without racism."

She did enlighten me to the problem with a term that had been polite for years, "colorblind." See "Race": Born with the USA, plus Seeing Color. I don't use it anymore. But I still love El-Shabazz's “I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being, neither white, black, brown nor red.” That's my crazy.

5. I was talking about SFWA and class issues. Like the other quotes they chose, it's easy to misread out of context.

6. Tempest claims "Blacks and other minorities cannot be racist because they do not have institutional, systemic power." I have finally understood their definition of "racism." See opponents of racism, separated by language. I still think anyone who asks you to ignore the dictionary in favor of their definition is asking you to join their crazy.

7. I wrote that just after Katrina. Since then, more information has come up indicating race was less of a factor:

The famous photos of the "looter" and "scavenger" are explained here.

In New Orleans - Undone by Neoliberalism, Adolph Reed Jr. writes, "A critique that focuses just on race misses how the deeper structures of neoliberal practice and ideology underlie the travesty in New Orleans, as well as in the other devastated areas of the Gulf Coast. (Adjacent to the Lower Ninth Ward, St. Bernard Parish, nearly 90 percent white, working class and reliably Republican, was virtually wiped off the face of the earth. Most of the parish's housing was destroyed. No hospitals or public libraries have reopened, and only 20 percent of its schools are operating.)"

If anyone has any evidence that poor whites were treated better than poor blacks during Katrina, or that rich whites were treated better than rich blacks, share it.

There's a typo in the archived post that I wish I could fix. To "Why is it so hard for some people to admit that racism still exists in this country?", I wrote, "I agree that racism doesn't exist. But race doesn't, and if we keep focusing on race instead of class, we'll never end racism." That should be, "I agree that racism does exist. But race doesn't..."

8. I love the Bingo Card. It's perfect.

9. veejane says,

...what I remember was how he called himself lower-middle class, and yet had a trust fund and went to Choate.

(My Choatey white butt laughed and laughed at him, but after the first or second try didn't even bother. If he can't even speak truthfully about his own personal wank issue, how on earth could he possibly give the time of day to any other issue? It was clearly all about his proving his righteousness, from a very slender body of evidence.)

My class changed enormously when my grandfather's money became available to me, and changed again when it was gone. See my biography. People who see the world in terms of race and gender do not realize that class can change.

veejane says, "I vaguely recall that the same post entailed an in-depth comments-debate about investment portfolios, i.e. he did not believe that having or even seriously thinking about an investment portfolio said something about the social positioning of his parents/family."

To which I can only say, WTF? Investment portfolio? If you set an investment portfolio in front of me today, I would not know what it was unless it said "investment portfolio" on it.

10. Regarding the speculation about whether I'm a socialist, a libertarian, a tool of China, a tool of Cuba, or a tool of both, I'm a democratic socialist who believes in democracy strongly enough to despise the antidemocratic work of the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy. My opposition to the CIA may be why they think I'm a tool of China or Cuba, though the last time I looked, neither was democratic.

The original comments on this post are here and here.

can capitalists and commies be friends?

In the antiracism debacle, a number of people say that I don't hear their side of the discussion and reject it out of hand. What they don't grasp is that I was a liberal. I know that side of the argument. I rejected it long ago. It's not that they have failed to convince me, or that I refuse to listen. It's that our society failed to keep me convinced, and now I hear what conservatives and liberals will only acknowledge with a mutter about "class war".

Original comments on this post are here.

among the things I need to learn: comment etiquette

I just got email that serendipitously touched on something I'd been thinking about: too often, my comments online are brief, so they seem abrupt or rude when I only mean to be acknowledging someone else's comment. Here's part of how I answered:

The problem is that I try to do ten thousand things at once, and I do them very badly. I need to slow down, and answer one person at a time.

Very much my bad.

And, alas, I can't fix it today. But maybe next week. I'll make this a blog post, because it matters. Thank you for mentioning it.

Is no response better than a hasty one? I suppose the answer is, "It depends." I'll ponder this, too.

Original comments on this post are here.

Will Shetterly bingo!

I so want the T-shirt.

The original comments on this post are here.

honor requires that I acknowledge this

I've had an enormous falling-out at LiveJournal. My first response was enormous shame about how badly I handled things. My second was relief. I've spent all my life thinking there must be some way to reason with everyone except Scientologists, Mormons, and Ayn Rand fans. And it just isn't so. I don't have to alienate people anymore by trying to convince them of things that they just aren't going to believe because their worldview doesn't allow it.

And I should add that I've always been able to get along with Scientologists, Mormons, and Ayn Rand fans in person, perhaps because I know it's impossible to reason with them about their fundamental beliefs. I've known lovely folks in all three groups, so if you're in one, don't try to convert me, and we'll get along great.

Still, I can't decide whether I should withdraw from projects that I'm involved with so I don't taint them, or I should commit myself with greater force to them, because I have failed so badly.
Well, it is good to fail. Sometimes we learn from failure.

The original comments on this post are here.

for those who don't know that whites died in the civil rights struggle

I just got this comment from sparkymonster here:

Will, if you were a black person the Klan wouldn't have just called your mom. Or yelled an insult. THEY WOULD HAVE KILLED YOU. Being white saved your ass.

I highly recommend a visit to the Civil Rights Memorial. The names and faces will tell you that whites and blacks worked and died together to make a better world for us all.

P.S. The Klan did threaten more than they acted. I strongly suspect that was what happened in our case. Or maybe, when Dad sent the kids away to safety, they decided that was enough of a victory for them.

why I'm not anyone's white ally

I wrote a post last night, then deleted it. It wasn't helpful. It was written out of fury for the sake of people I love and respect. I can't say the anger has passed, but writing this may help me deal with it.

For anyone who doesn't know me: Many of the details in Dogland are autobiographical. My family could not get fire insurance because word was out that the Ku Klux Klan would burn us down, I did see my mother crying because we got death threats in the night, my father did show me where the shotgun was and taught me how to carry it to him if the Klan ever showed up, I did get spat on and hit and called a niggerlover. I know a little about racism. In the '80s, when I wrote Captain Confederacy, I was told by a surprising number of people, "Why are you writing about racism? That's over." When I created the black female Captain Confederacy, I created one of the first black female superheroes to have her own comic book. I don't think I've ever written a story in which everyone was of the same race. I've been concerned about racism all my life.

But I've been concerned about racism because I'm concerned about justice. Racism is unjust, but it's part of a greater injustice, classism. Classism provides the structure for racism. End classism, and there's no room left for racism to manifest itself.

LiveJournal has an active antiracist community that consists mostly of middle-class and upper-class folks who are very concerned with the privileges of the privileged: they want the top of the pyramid to be as diverse as the bottom.

But I want to level the pyramid.

So I can't be their white ally. Someday, they might notice that injustice is greater than they think. If that day comes, we will work together.

Why am I writing this on Martin Luther King Day, on the day before Barack Obama is inaugurated? Last night, I discovered that a number of LJ's antiracists were screaming "racist!" at good people as though whenever a "white" and a "person of color" disagree, the white must be acting out of racism, and that any reference to intelligence or education must be a coded assault on all people of a particular race.

That is so profoundly racist that it makes me want to cry. Perhaps it's good to expose the myth that only whites can be racist, but it's always sad when the oppressed accept the worldview of their oppressers.

Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see." If you want to end racism, stop seeing people in terms of race.

The original comments on this post are here.

Will Shetterly bingo! (and how to find the rest of my blog)

My earlier blogging has been reposted here.

I so want the T-shirt.

via spiralsheep: In which there is Will Shetterly bingo.

Is this racist?

Here's what's behind my latest round of posts about racism. Emma briefly entered the LiveJournal racism brouhaha with, I think, two comments in this thread, then left the internet because she's trying to finish a novella. In her absence, she was denounced as a racist. So were several other writers who took similar positions.

All of these writers used exactly the same words they would have used had they been disagreeing with writers who identified as "white." To me, if you treat someone as an equal, you're not being racist. Equality includes being able to say your equal's analysis is superficial. If that's not so, there's no point in talking about art or science or anything where people might disagree.

To me, assuming someone is racist because you see them as white makes you the racist. Had all the writers been white, would the denounced writers still be racist?

I'll grant that's possible. The definition of both "race" and "racism" have changed enormously since I was young.

Now, if you think I'm a white racist, I'm cool with that: I've been beaten by white racists for being a niggerlover. Maybe the two balance out.

And I admit I may just have trouble understanding this. I'm fifty-three years old. The world changes, and language evolves. Most of us end our lives fighting battles that were won or lost decades ago. Heck, I'm still annoyed that "impact" has become a verb.

The original comments on this post are here.

Race: Born in the USA, plus Seeing Color

Check the Oxford English Dictionary to learn when people began seeing each other in terms of race, and the answer may surprise you: the oldest recorded example is from 1774. Oliver Goldsmith wrote in his History of the Earth and Animated Nature, “The second great variety in the human species seems to be that of the Tartar race.” Goldsmith didn't expect his reader to be familiar with the new meaning. He goes on to say, "To this race of men we must also refer the Chinese and the Japanese, however different they seem in their manners and ceremonies. It is the form of the body that we are now principally considering." (My italics.)

The word itself is older. It comes from the Italian, razza. In English before the late 18th century, it simply meant a group of related things: the race of women, the German race, the race of heroes, the race of tart wines, etc.

Before the late 1700s, skin color, like hair color, only suggested tribal allegiance. Many people were prejudiced against outsiders, but they did not have the concept of race to divide people permanently. Slavers dealt in people from other countries and rebels from their own—during the 1600s, one hundred thousand Irish people were sold in the New World.

"Race" and racial prejudice required the sanction of science. The 18th Century was the Age of Enlightenment. The idea was growing that all men were equal. But if everyone was equal, how could anyone be sold? Science gave the answer: inferior "races" did not deserve the same treatment as superior ones.

It's time for the racist idea of "race" should die. Anti-racists think the concept of "race" should live on without its racist associations. I had thought that was impossible, but perhaps it's not: race had one meaning, and then another, and now it may be developing a third, one that has more to do with ethnicity than genes. It may be returning to its older meaning of a group.

—

A note about being "colorblind" to race: When I was a child in the 1950s, the polite term for African-Americans was "colored people," as the name of the NAACP indicates. But "colored people" was still a way to separate African-Americans from European-Americans, so "colorblind" was a metaphor to say you saw the whole person, the mind as well as the skin.

Then "people of color" was adopted, embracing all people who were not considered "white". As "color" gained positive values, "colorblind" acquired negative ones. This blindsided older people who had been using the colorblind metaphor—the history of race is filled with polite terms replacing each other, from "Negro" to "colored person" to "Afro-American" to "African-American" to "Person of Color." Use the older term, and you sound racist to people who do not know that earlier, it was the term of respect.

The original comments on this post are here.

Writing the Same

There's one kind of writing advice that Emma and I don't give unless we're asked for it: How to write the "other."

The simplest reason is practical: If you can't write a distinct character in a setting that's convincingly accurate, you're not going to do it because we say you should. There are some things that writers either get or they don't.

But there are other reasons. Writing characters and cultures truthfully falls under other advice that we always give:

1. Research what you write. Get an important fact wrong, and the reader won't trust you about anything else. You don't get to make up Ojibwe culture any more than you get to decide what color New York taxis are.

2. All of your characters, even those who make the briefest appearance to deliver a package or sell a cup of coffee, are individuals, the stars of their own story. Every aspect of your story should be interesting and convincing. That includes every character.

3. Humans are human. The differences matter when conveying cultures, but ultimately, people laugh and cry and love and hate and share and hoard and do all of the same things. They just do them in ways that are specific to their culture. When you write someone from another culture, you're not writing an "Other." You're writing a fellow member of the human tribe.

Comments on the original post are here.

Dear rich and middleclass people of color and their white allies

You may think you speak for everyone you consider people of color, but many poor people of color believe there are two black races, one poor and one rich. You may happily address race and ignore class now, but the world will not let you do that forever.

The original comments on this post are here.

intellectual elitism and racism

Intellectual elitism is not racism. When I say Samuel Delany is smarter and knows more than me, I'm not saying blacks are superior. I'm just saying some people have lived longer and thought harder than others. Now, I'll never catch up to Delany. But some people whose writing is currently immature will mature greatly, and they will look back on their work, and they'll think, "Damn. I was young."

Others will never change. I hate binarianism, but I am comfortable saying the world can be divided between the people who keep learning and the people who stop.

later: Okay, this post is prob'ly very strange out of context. Maybe I should leave it that way. I'll just add this: If you hear something that you think suggests hierarchy and it's from someone you see in racial terms, remember that there are more hierarchies than race.

Intellectual hierarchies make me uncomfortable. On one side: people can know a great deal about something and still draw the wrong conclusions. On the other: it is good to learn from those who have gone before.

and later: Perhaps it's that tension between old knowledge and new insight that makes intellectual hierarchies valuable. Those who make intellectual hierarchies rigid are fools (yeah, Alan Bloom, I'm trash-talking you!). Those who assume the past is irrelevant and only their subjective experience matters are greater fools. Fortunately for fools, they can grow wise.

The original comments on this post are here.

link of the day: "Color"

Vagabond Scholar: Color

The most appalling ad from India is there, and there's a great Redd Foxx clip.

Vonnegut Advice: Short Stories

I'm still thinking about the last suggestion.

And, yes, great writers can break any rule. But most great writers know the rules they're breaking. And, let's be honest here: are you a great writer? Even if you are, it never hurts to learn rules so you can break them well.

most people turn to story to escape?

Scott McCloud talks at TED.com. I didn't think I would have much more to say about it than, "Scott's brilliant," but at the end, he says as an aside, "Most people turn to story to escape."

It's true in a half-truth way. I think we turn to story to learn without knowing we're learning. It's why story matters so much as propaganda, and why bad propaganda is so easy to spot...and why good propaganda is so hard to spot. Bad propaganda makes sure we know what we're supposed to learn. Good propaganda subordinates its assumptions and trusts the story to bore its lesson in without being noticed. When stories reinforce assumptions, the propaganda may be badly done, but it'll still be enjoyed by its audience—Ayn Rand fans honestly believe she's a great storyteller. But when stories challenge assumptions, they have to be magnificently well done to keep the audience from getting uncomfortable and seeking escape elsewhere.

Which may be why commercial writers never challenge assumptions. They reinforce assumptions that are nearly universal: it's good to save children and kitties, it's bad to make people suffer, it's nice to fall in love, it hurts to be rejected, etc.

But how to challenge assumptions well, I don't know. I keep thinking about two books that have affected the USA profoundly, Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Jungle. They didn't touch people with antithetical beliefs—slavers and capitalists weren't affected at all. They rallied the people who were sympathetic, but whose sympathy had never been roused.

Hmm. Maybe, in my writing, I've been thinking too much about challenging, and not enough about rallying. I shall ponder this.

NED watch: Socialism seems to be working in Venezuela

Socialism seems to be working in Venezuela | CITIZEN-TIMES.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

...despite the corporate media and continuing US taxpayer financial support to anti-Chavez opposition institutions from USAID and National Endowment for Democracy ($20 million annually), two-thirds of the people in Venezuela continue to support him and the United Socialist Party.

That's the only bit about the NED. The article is mostly about life in Venezuela. It's a fascinating look, though I suspect the statistics are from before global capitalism began its meltdown.

wisdom of Lao Tzu

The sage does not hoard.
The more he helps others,
the more he benefits himself,
The more he gives to others,
the more he gets himself.
The Way of Heaven does one good
but never does one harm.
The Way of the sage
is to act but not to compete.
—Tao Te Ching 81

note: I've quoted this one before, but I like this translation better.

why does the NED take sides?

Yes, it's a naive question, but having principles means being willing to ask naive questions. Where democracy exists, why does the NED take a side? If it exists as it claims, to promote democracy, it should support no party or all parties in countries where it intervenes.

I recommend Operation Disrupt Democracy in El Salvador. But because people have little time, here are the key bits:

Since November 2007, El Salvador's leftist party, the FMLN (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front), has been consistently polling at a 12-14 point advantage for upcoming legislative, municipal, and presidential elections—ahead of the right-wing ARENA (National Republican Alliance) party's presidential candidate and former national civilian police director, Rodrigo Avila, who has peaked at around 38 percent by conservative estimates.

...FMLN candidate Mauricio Funes has said that an FMLN administration would work to oppose biofuel production and the current profit structure for mining projects in favor of spurring agricultural development. "We have to improve agricultural production. Over the past 19 years of ARENA government, the infrastructure for food production has been neglected and dismantled. It is essential and a priority to allot land use for food production and the harvesting of vegetables and staple grains. This is what the people need. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of allotting areas of land for biofuel production because we are not going to work to feed machines; we have to work to feed human beings."

...In November 2007, another NED recipient, the International Republican Institute (IRI), presented Salvadoran President Tony Saca of the ARENA party with the "Freedom Award" for promoting U.S. values in El Salvador such as "linking economic growth with democratic governance and vigorously defending freedom at home and abroad." Never mind the re-emergence of death squads, unsuccessful attempts to convict protestors and vendors as "terrorists," and an unprecedented post-war increase in Salvadoran migration to, and deportations from, the U.S. during his term.

...major changes underfoot in the Latin American region have put Washington on edge. Country after country is electing governments who represent the majority of people instead of the financial interests of a few. El Salvador's left appears destined for both an historic victory at the polls and a new phase of struggle against U.S. dominance, as USAID and NED have become the faltering empire's new "diplomatic weapons" of choice.

more answers to writing questions

Will Entrekin asked,

Why haven't you felt like a writer for the past year or two?

Because I'm not sure why I want to write. Long before I was published, my answer would have been "To entertain myself and others." Which is a fine answer, but it doesn't work for me anymore. When I worked to be published, my answer was, "To make a living in a way I enjoy." But the publishing industry is changing in ways no one understands. Those of us who were paying attention knew Black Wednesday would come, just as we know traditional publishing will keep taking hits until it transforms itself or dies.

More importantly, I'm no longer satisfied with entertainment as a goal. It was never a pure goal—I always wanted to write stories that illuminated—but now I see most entertainment as soporific propaganda, comforting people without challenging them. Organized entertainment is the successor to organized religion, another way to tell people to be quiet and trust their masters.

So I either need to quit writing, or write something so compelling that it'll be published in today's market, yet so subversive that it'll please me. I have an idea for that book. I'm researching it now. If I'm wrong, it's better than giving up, and the research is fun.

huladavid asked,

Well, basically what is it that you do to get your butt in the chair and write. Right now, all I have are deadlines every other Friday, and what I'm turning out for Lavender pretty short. I'll do a little research, and then mean to start writing, but it's usually not until the day before or day of the deadline I actually get crackin'.

It seems lazy, and disorganized, but at the same time...well, it works.

Rule #1 in writing: If it works, it works. "Wait until close to (or past) the deadline" used to work for me. It doesn't anymore, and it never worked well, so I'm switching to something I often forget:

When you prioritize, put your priorities first. Start the day with a little writing, even if it's just a note about what you want to write that day. Email, blogging, watching a show, and reading a story all have their place. For artists, that place should be after making art.

tyndal asked,

Do you build your characters first or outline a story and the characters evolve into the structure?

Any techniques for getting a character from one point to the other in a story without the plot seeming like a fill in between spaces.

For the first question, "Uh, yes?" It's hard to generalize. I think I usually have a notion about a character and a setting, and then I move onward. I'm learning to like outlines: it's comforting to know that there's a possible ending out there, even if writing the story takes me somewhere else. Nathan Long had advice I admire: don't write the beginning until you know the ending. But some of us have to write beginnings to find endings.

For the second, remember that you're writing three different stories simultaneously. The best transitions come from what's true to the characters, not what's necessary for the plot.

Grey asked

Could you let us know what writing projects you're working on at present? Mostly so we can look forward to the next book/story you publish?

1. Yet one more attempt to find a new beginning for what was called Mystrella. (I think I finally know how to do it.)

2. The Secret Ambitious Novel.

Okay, that's barely an answer. But I tried!