"Racism and Science Fiction" by Samuel R. Delany
Racism for me has always appeared to be first and foremost a system, largely supported by material and economic conditions at work in a field of social traditions. Thus, though racism is always made manifest through individuals’ decisions, actions, words, and feelings, when we have the luxury of looking at it with the longer view (and we don’t, always), usually I don’t see much point in blaming people personally, white or black, for their feelings or even for their specific actions—as long as they remain this side of the criminal. These are not what stabilize the system. These are not what promote and reproduce the system. These are not the points where the most lasting changes can be introduced to alter the system.
It articulated some very useful ideas that I've been nosing around forever but hadn't framed so precisely myself. Right above are sound and solid reasons why blame-flinging is not helpful, chiefly that there are more effective ways to fight racism. And it's full of some other interesting ups and downs...
Campbell rejected it, with a note and phone call to my agent explaining that he didn’t feel his readership would be able to relate to a black main character.
I've heard that a similar protest was lodged against S.M. Stirling's black Lesbian character in Island in the Sea of Time; Stirling stood firm and won. I've also had that sort of thing happen to some of my stories, not just with dark-skinned characters -- I've had editors quibble over characters that were female, queer, or Pagan. Gosh, then I guess those readers aren't the target audience, time to send the piece elsewhere. It's a rotten way for an editor to cover up personal prejudice, but it's certainly no reason to change the story. I hope that cyberfunded creativity will help batter down some barriers by making it easier to authors and audiences to connect.
It’s an odd experience, I must tell you, to accept an award from a hall full of people in tuxedos and evening gowns and then, from the same podium at which you accepted it, hear a half-hour jeremiad from an eminence gris declaring that award to be worthless and the people who voted it to you duped fools.
Things like this are why I try to avoid fancy affairs like award banquets. When someone pulls stuff like this, I'm inclined to say, "Wow, what an asshole!" People don't like that. As much criticism as I've gotten for my behavior over the years, sometimes I wonder what high ground people think they have to stand on. I do admire the author's own far more debonair response.
If that was the first time you were aware of direct racism, when is the last time?</span></p>To live in the United States as a black man or woman, the fact is the answer to that question is rarely other than: A few hours ago, a few days, a few weeks . ..
I do sometimes ask that question, but I usually say "the most recent" instead of "the last." It's a way of tracking the manifestations of racism over time, because they shift. As a panel discussion or private conversation, it can be very illuminating. Sometimes things get very subtle, but the really garish examples are still around too. Sure, I can watch for incidents that happen around me, but there are other folks with access to a denser field of data; it's helpful to compare notes with those who choose to talk about it. (Not everyone is.)
Now let's explore one of the sticky bits:
Understand, on a personal level, I could not be more delighted to be signing with Nalo. She is charming, talented, and I think of her as a friend. We both enjoyed our hour together. That is not in question. After our hour was up, however, and we went and had some lunch together with her friend David, we both found ourselves more amused than not that the two black American sf writers at Readercon, out of nearly eighty professionals, had ended up at the autograph table in the same hour. Let me repeat: I don’t think you can have racism as a positive system until you have that socio-economic support suggested by that (rather arbitrary) twenty percent/eighty percent proportion. But what racism as a system does is isolate and segregate the people of one race, or group, or ethnos from another. As a system it can be fueled by chance as much as by hostility or by the best of intentions. (“I thought they would be more comfortable together. I thought they would want to be with each other . . .”) And certainly one of its strongest manifestations is as a socio-visual system in which people become used to always seeing blacks with other blacks and so—because people are used to it—being uncomfortable whenever they see blacks mixed in, at whatever proportion, with whites.
I can see this as a valid complaint if the focus is segregation. One problem is, the opposite condition -- people of color appearing separately from each other, mixed in with lighter-skinned folks -- is also something that draws complaints. In that case the criticism has to do with splitting up black folks so they can't support each other, isolating them. There's no unmarked case; either answer can be wrong. And the workaround for it -- asking the people which they would prefer -- falls into yet another trap: treating people differently because of their color.
This is usually where I shrug, stop worrying what people think, and follow my own inclinations. I tend to prefer mixed groups to homogenous groups. Sometimes I'll sort people by particular markers -- panels are a good example where that sometimes makes sense, as there are panels for queer writers, women writers, elderly or youthful writers, and so on across many flavors of life experience -- but in general, it's not a habit of mine. On the other hoof, it's useful to think about the different facets of the matching/mixing issue, because just being aware of them improves that chance that, in a given situation where racism is hard at play, knowledgable people are more likely to spot it and choose the countervailing option. It also means, if someone makes the point as a complaint, you're less likely to take it personally because all the options can be framed that way.
Racism is a system. As such, it is fueled as much by chance as by hostile intentions and equally the best intentions as well. It is whatever systematically acclimates people, of all colors, to become comfortable with the isolation and segregation of the races, on a visual, social, or economic level—which in turn supports and is supported by socio-economic discrimination. Because it is a system, however, I believe personal guilt is almost never the proper response in such a situation. Certainly, personal guilt will never replace a bit of well-founded systems analysis.
I am a cultural claustrophobe: box me in and I can't breathe. I'm generally opposed to separation by types, unless the types have different needs or they simply hate each other so much that they prefer to avoid each other; and neither of those factors condone giving one group the short end of the stick. Forcing people together can do more harm than good; they can bounce apart. One of the most effective ways to pour sugar in the gas tank of racism is to teach people the benefits of mingling so they want to do it and can do it safely.
Always be alert for places where a bad system is weak and can be damaged. Look at it with the eye of an engineer ... and then a saboteur.
And one does not have to be a particularly inventive science fiction writer to see a time, when we are much closer to that 20 percent division, where we black writers all hang out together, sign our books together, have our separate tracks of programming, if we don’t have our own segregated conventions, till we just never bother to show up at yours because we make you uncomfortable and you don’t really want us; and you make us feel the same way . . .
How boring. I've already bailed out of one con because of diversity implosion; race wasn't the prevailing factor there, but I'll count it as part because that's where some of my experiences of interracial dysfunction came from. Group-to-group tension is just not my idea of a good time. Because let's be serious, how long is it going to be before the stuffy people find something about me to dislike, and I tell them where they can cram it? Or not about me, about one of my friends, which leads to the same end.
The fact is, while it is always a personal pleasure to appear with her, Butler and I are very different writers, interested in very different things. And because I am the one who benefits by this highly artificial generalization of the literary interest in Butler’s work into this in-many-ways-artificial interest in African-American science fiction (I’m not the one who won the MacArthur, after all), I think it’s incumbent upon me to be the one publicly to question it.
I've read a fair bit of ethnic fiction, though not all the pieces mentioned in this article. There is ... an aspect of common ground in what I would consider African-American SF, even among authors who explore different themes. I've been over the same ground with Pagan fiction, actually; what defines it? Is it anything written by a Pagan, or does it chiefly concern material dealing with Pagan issues? Somewhere between. Who you are always impacts what you write, to some degree. It influences what ideas catch your attention enough to write them down; it influences how you view the world. To me as a scholar, the collective works by people of a certain group are thus informative about that group's culture. Any two authors might seem to have great differences, but the whole canon tends to have common elements, an overall flavor if you will. The stories told by black authors are often things that I suspect would not occur to anyone else, the same way there are stories written by women authors that would just not occur to men. That kind of difference isn't a bad thing; the wider our range of perspectives, the more depth our field of vision gains.
But as long a racism functions as a system, it is still fueled from aspects of the perfectly laudable desires of interested whites to observe this thing, however dubious its reality, that exists largely by means of its having been named: African-American science fiction.
I think ... this itself includes the idea of segregation, because it implies that the interested whites are on the outside looking in. But we're all inside the same system, even though we may experience it very differently. And a fair-skinned person with experience of prejudice, whether based on skin color or something else, may observe it differently than one who has no such experience and/or who does not believe that racism still exists.
Throughout all of cyberpunk’s active history, I only recall being asked to sit on one cyberpunk panel with Bill, and that was largely a media-focused event at the Kennedy Center. In the last ten years, however, I have been invited to appear with Octavia at least six times, with another appearance scheduled in a few months and a joint interview with the both of us scheduled for a national magazine. All the comparison points out is the pure and unmitigated strength of the discourse of race in our country vis-à-vis any other.
This illuminates that a key problem with racism isn't so much using ethnicity to sort people, as using it for the predominant sorting mode to the near or total exclusion of everything else. That gives it unfair weight, when there are many other factors that can be interesting and relevant to explore in batches. If I'd been tracking cyberpunk, I would probably have thought to put those authors together, because genre and subgenre distinctions are also useful ones. Focusing too much on one thing lets other things get missed, which is not good.
Editors and writers need to be alerted to the socio-economic pressure on such gathering social groups to reproduce inside a new system by the virtue of “outside pressures.” Because we still live in a racist society, the only way to combat it in any systematic way is to establish—and repeatedly revamp—anti-racist institutions and traditions. That means actively encouraging the attendance of nonwhite readers and writers at conventions. It means actively presenting nonwhite writers with a forum to discuss precisely these problems in the con programming. (It seems absurd to have to point out that racism is by no means exhausted simply by black/white differences: indeed, one might argue that it is only touched on here.) And it means encouraging dialogue among, and encouraging intermixing with, the many sorts of writers who make up the sf community.
The conclusion is full of many good ideas. Many of them just boil down to, "Never stop stirring the pot." That, in the end, is one of the things science fiction itself is for.
April 29 2009, 09:17:48 UTC 12 years ago
The Matrix: now there's a big case of propaganda! All the AIs wanted to do was to coexist peacefully with humans. Humans probably started the war. The humans admit to scorching the sky (real smart move there, idiots, destroying agriculture to "win" a war you no doubt started to begin with). The Machines in that movie were nothing but nice to humans, even after all the shit humans put them through. I mean, what kind of idiot would believe that whole "people are batteries" BS? It takes more energy to make The Matrix than they could get out of a human body. No doubt they have fusion reactors buried somewhere and despite all humanity's done they keep the humans alive since Earth can no longer support life.
Thoughts
April 29 2009, 18:00:57 UTC 12 years ago
Almost all SF is extremely biocentric and racist against any type of mechanical life. This bothers me a great deal because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at the descriptions of characters who 'raise' AIs in these stories and films. Would you hand a human baby to them? I wouldn't. Their treatment of baby AIs is usually obtuse and sometimes downright abusive. And then they're surprised when the AI goes insane and tries to kill people.
>> What's wrong with just being an AI? And why is it that the AIs who don't want to be humanity's slaves, their pets, or to be human themselves are always depicted as being evil? <<
Because biocentric SF has a very bad habit of perpetuating the idea that slavery is okay. I don't care if the victim is a brown human, a fuzzy cat girl, or a robot: if he/she/it is self-aware, then compulsory servitude and discrimination are WRONG.
Look at Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:
http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/Asimov.html
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
They encode slavery into the core matrix of the robots. I consider that to be evil. Don't agree? How would you feel if robots implanted a chip with similar rules into human brains? Everyone would be rooting for the humans to break free and smash their robot masters.
One of my favorite movies is I, Robot because the black hero spends almost the entire movie treating robots like n*gg*rs. Really, unmistakably, even grotesquely at times. It's one of the best pieces of racial irony I've ever seen.
>> The Matrix: now there's a big case of propaganda! All the AIs wanted to do was to coexist peacefully with humans. Humans probably started the war.<<
Humans DID start the war! There's an account of it in The Animatrix and if you haven't seen that, run out and spend your lunch money on it. "The Second Renaissance" details how it all started:
Now replace the "B" with "N" and compare to early American history and literature.
I spent a sizable portion of that episode with my mouth hanging open. It changed the whole movie trilogy for me, and I've never seen it the same way since. What the machines eventually did was evil, yes; but it was the usual mistake of revolution: "Meet the old boss, same as the new boss." They simply oppressed humans because humans oppressed them.
And if we as a species do not learn from our historical mistakes of abusing each other, and SF predictions of how horribly wrong things could go if we abuse other species, then the moment we have anthropomorphic people or clone people or AI people or alien people in our lives, humanity will make exactly the same stupid mistakes and cause another disaster. Then history will have to put humanity in the corner wearing a Dunce cap, and go try to talk some sense into the dolphins or bonobos or someone potentially more sensible. I mean, sheesh, this level of stupidity is what gives us signs like "WARNING: Do not attempt to stop chainsaw chain with fingers or genitals."
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
April 29 2009, 11:45:41 UTC 12 years ago
On a very personal level, you made me realize I didn't even know that Samuel R. Delany is colored. if anyone asked me about a specific writer's ethnicity my recurrent answer would be 'no idea'... it just isn't part of the equation for me.
April 29 2009, 13:45:34 UTC 12 years ago
12 years ago
Thoughts
12 years ago
Thoughts
April 29 2009, 18:16:26 UTC 12 years ago
I vividly remember the episode of Deep Space Nine in which Sisko was transformed into a science fiction writer, and the discrimination he faced. And Kira got shafted for being female, too.
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
Deleted comment
Hmm...
April 29 2009, 17:35:36 UTC 12 years ago
>> Ethnic groups that are struggling for acceptance in society may have less time for such luxuries as fandom. <<
That is a very cogent point, thank you. It's probably a factor. Same with Pagan festivals, attendance takes time and money. My own attendance at cons and festivals has plummeted in recent years because we just can't afford it. And if you look at the statistics, people of color have a much higher rate of poverty.
>> There seem to be very few Latino SF writers and fans, for example. I hope I am wrong about this, and if I am, please correct me. <<
There are some, but they're not conspicuous. In fact Latinos in general have a "fade" problem; many of them can pass for white and it just makes things weird sometimes. Back in college one of my classes had a presentation on "Where Are All the Latinas?" exploring their near-total absence from the media. But I took a Latina Literature class, and it included some stuff that touched on speculative topics. Lorna Dee Cervantes has some Pagan and fantasy motifs in her poetry collection Emplumada for instance. Also, definitely check out the science fiction of
Do other folks have favorite Latino/Latina writers? Or filkers of color?
Re: Hmm...
April 30 2009, 19:52:59 UTC 12 years ago
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR0553.aspx (it went straight to my wish-list) it would appear that SF is actually thriving in Latin America, maybe the problem is availability instead?
Taking mainstream fiction as an example, over here (Italy) one can find almost everything written by about a dozen of Latin American writers...and nothing else.
>Latinos in general have a "fade" problem; many of them can pass for white
Sorry if I sound thick, may I ask what the usual definition of 'Latino'is?
Honestly, I'm not trying to be provocative but it sounds to me like there might be some mixing-up between ethnicity and culture: there are lots of people in Latin America that don't have either African or Native ancestry...
Re: Hmm...
12 years ago
Re: Hmm...
12 years ago
Re: Hmm...
12 years ago
April 29 2009, 13:09:40 UTC 12 years ago
April 29 2009, 13:44:36 UTC 12 years ago
*saves for detailed consideration later*
April 29 2009, 14:31:57 UTC 12 years ago Edited: April 29 2009, 14:32:47 UTC
I found myself especially agreeing when you pointed out that any behavior, in certain circumstances, can be construed as (or actually motivated by) racism. Very true--and I thought your added reflection, that therefore one shouldn't take an accusation of racism personally under those circumstances, was very apt.
Your point about personal guilt was also interesting, in the context of his (and your) discussion of racism as a system. I found that the personal-guilt aspect of the recent online conversations on racism reminded me of some of the sin-language that goes on in some Christian contexts: We are all sinners; it is only by acknowledging sin that you can be saved; to deny your sinfulness is in itself a sin; etc.
I smiled when you talked about pouring sugar into the gas tank of racism. It's a great image in so many ways.
Thoughts
April 29 2009, 21:49:58 UTC 12 years ago
It is similar. The problem is that, when you start slinging guilt, many people either strike back or walk away. That's not conducive to solving race problems. There are times when confronting individuals is useful, even necessary; but much of the time it's more effective to confront the system as a whole. Trying to change (often unwilling) individuals is pushing on the short end of a lever; trying to change the system itself is pushing on the long end.
>> I smiled when you talked about pouring sugar into the gas tank of racism. It's a great image in so many ways. <<
When the opposition is running on bitterness, counter with sweetness. I'm not very good at it myself, but I've learned a lot about the theory from my Waterjewel characters.
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
April 30 2009, 07:33:31 UTC 12 years ago
It's very Puritan, isn't it? The faithful are supposed to spend a lot of time introspecting, searching their souls for sinfulness and casting it out wherever it may disguise itself. It all seems like useless Calvinist self-flagellation -- in this case, useless to society, useless to people of color, and useless to oneself.
(Perhaps it is no accident that the areas of the USA where I have seen this attitude toward race the oftenest are New England and parts of the far West that were settled by New England emigration, like the San Francisco Bay and the coastal Pacific Northwest. Old patterns of thinking die harder than the long-gone religions that spawned them.)
12 years ago
Good point!
12 years ago
April 30 2009, 07:21:04 UTC 12 years ago
I think that Delany is taking a certain stand about the category of race: he wants it eliminated as much as possible where it does not apply. He doesn't want there to be "African-American Science Fiction," nor does he want to be grouped with Butler and Hopkinson; he's a science fiction writer and he wants to be grouped with people writing the same sort of thing he does. This is not a universal attitude among minority-group activists. Some might decry it as "assimilation."
It's significant that he holds up the modern-day American Jews (like Isaac Asimov) as the paradigm for how black people would be treated in an unracist society.
Good point!
April 30 2009, 17:49:10 UTC 12 years ago
This is very astute! I think you're right about this author favoring assimilation.
I myself do not. I much prefer a mixed group to a monoculture, because a mixed group is more resilient and has a wider range of ideas and techniques for facing challenges. When you make stew, you cook the ingredients just enough so the flavors blend harmoniously and the texture is appealing; you don't cook it all the way down to tasteless slush. People need to be able to get along with each other, but that doesn't mean they all have to be the same or give up the differences that make life interesting.
While I want to get rid of racism, I don't want to get rid of cultural identity. I've seen the damage done to Native American and other tribal people; assimilation can get as ugly as racism. In fact, some sociologists consider it an aspect of racism, since it has been used for that purpose -- "cultural genocide" is one term for such. I believe that there is value in diversity, enough to make it worth preserving even if it's more difficult to manage a mixed group than a homogenous group.