Finding minority writers isn't 'racial nepotism'. It's the cure for bigotry
|
Version 0 of 1. In America, the work of writers of color is severely under-represented in the literary world. It is therefore ridiculous to argue that an editor looking to publish underrepresented writers is engaged in “racial nepotism”. But that is precisely what Sherman Alexie, guest editor of the Best American Poets 2015 edition, argues he is guilty of in a recent poetry spat about diversity and cultural appropriation. Alexie included Michael Derrick Hudson’s poem The Bees, the Flowers, Jesus, Ancient Tigers, Poseidon, Adam and Eve in the recent poetry anthology. Hudson wrote the poem under the Chinese pseudonym Yi-Fen Chou, a fact which only came to Alexie’s attention after he selected it to be included. However, the editor decided not to exclude it, or publish it on the condition that it appears under Hudson’s name. He argued that it would have been “dishonest” to do so after learning of his true, non-Asian identity. Defending his decision, Alexie wrote that he was initially drawn to Hudson’s poem because of his own personal bias to publish people of color, which he rather absurdly characterizes as “racial nepotism.” As if because Alexie “paid more initial attention” to Hudson’s poem due to its author’s perceived Asian identity, he’s guilty of an equally immoral deception. As if a genuine attempt to level the playing field in an industry rife with discrimination, justifies a grotesque example of cultural appropriation. Nepotism represents shared alliances and acts of favoritism among people in power. And in the publishing industry, people of color do not have power. If a member of a historically marginalized community helps out another person from a historically marginalized community that does not constitute nepotism. If someone tries to curate voices that go beyond a narrow segment of the population to reflect, more accurately, the reality of the world, they are being a good editor. They are trying to engage voices not typically heard, in a broader, more inclusive conversation. Alexie, who concedes he is “committing an injustice against people of color, and against Chinese and Asian poets in particular” – is being lauded online for his detailed technique, his forthrightness and his authentic admission of his imperfections. Unfortunately, the effusive praise parade for Alexie’s scrupulous methodology has jettisoned a much-needed conversation about cultural appropriation in literature, in favor of social media fervor rallying behind his decision. The position that a racist deception should be met with honesty and due diligence in return is nothing short of baffling. The perpetuation of the lie – in the form of permanent, printed words on a page in a celebratory issue of poetry – is a continued cultural theft. Moreover, Alexie has gone beyond simply supporting Hudson’s pseudonym as Chou, he has afforded the poet several sentences in his bio, in the form of personal, unverifiable statistics regarding his rate of acceptances and rejections to publications, to justify Hudson’s choice of a Chinese pseudonym. Alexie maintains he found Hudson’s poem so “compelling,” he had no choice but to include it in the anthology. But as an editor, Alexie could have required Hudson to publish it under his real name. After all, if the purpose of Hudson’s use of a Chinese pseudonym was to increase his rate of publication (as he maintains in his bio), surely once he achieved this goal, he could have relinquished the pseudonym. Though Alexie’s nearly 3,000-word statement goes into great detail about the mechanics of his selection process, it lacks an in-depth contemplation of the consequences of such an offensive example of cultural appropriation on Asian writers, or other writers of color. Alexie fails to ponder, to any degree, the effect Hudson’s byline might have on a writer with an “ethnic” name routinely rejected for lacking an “audience” for their work, or whose book covers are “whitewashed,” or who is told by a publishing house that it has already published someone else in their cultural group. Nor does Alexie acknowledge the emotional toll on an underrepresented writer who now, it seems, must compete not only with those possessing white and male privileges, but also the perceived privilege of a stolen ethnicity – an equation that yields all of the benefits of success, but none of the pain of bigotry. Alexie claims he took his role as guest editor “very fucking seriously,” and yet, his light-hearted, at times flippant response belies that assertion. When the aftermath of Alexie’s guest editing stint of Best American Poets 2015 subsides, and when Hudson’s deception gets buried under more recent headlines, what will remain is the slew of struggling writers of color submitting month after month under names connected to an authentic history and heritage, who will now have to worry, on top of everything else, about whether editors will ever again see them for exactly who they are. |