Can I get a witness: writing for social change

Social change. That was the topic of a discussion held by the James River Writers and the Richmond Times-Dispatch on May 27. The panelists included Michael Paul Williams, a columnist with the RTD; Emily Troutman, a journalist with AOL; and Linda Beatrice Brown, an author of fiction. The host was Maya Payne Smart, a freelance journalist and author.

I was hopeful, in the beginning. I went in knowing that I would be surrounded by introverts. Writers. Artists. The best and the worst kind of people. But I was still hopeful. The event was titled, Can I get a witness: writing for social change. The title in itself is enough to energize anyone with even a vague notion of the importance of the written word. For me, words don’t lie. People use them to lie. The words we use as writers more often reflect our own level of honesty within ourselves. Our own self-knowledge is between every line.

I was a bit uncomfortable, as it was held at the Children’s Museum and I was much more interested in the abstract artistic visions that adorned the walls and in exploring the ambulance that sat in a lonely corner than snob-hopping with the literary elite of Richmond. I don’t mean to sound crass, but Richmond, in all its small-city glory, wreaks of cliques. Not that it’s bad, but it’s annoying. As I gathered the handouts and prepared to make my way into the room, there was a stack of note cards and a small, hand-written sign asking attendees to write down their literary accomplishments. These would then be read aloud at the intermission. I thought about it, hesitated. The whole concept seemed masturbatory. Of course it was done with the best intentions, but I couldn’t help but feel that this event wreaked of sycophants. Come intermission time, no names were read. Perhaps everyone felt as I did or perhaps I was in a room of amateurs. Or, most likely, people felt the need to be modest in a room where intellectual judgement is the status quo.

Like a good little lab rat, I wandered into my labyrinth seeking the cheese and trying desperately to avoid any external stimulus that would negatively impact my mission. It quickly became apparent that what could have been a rally call to excite and engage socially aware writers was actually a watered-down saccharine melange of industry-saturated sentiments flanked by polite attention-seeking questions and pretentiousness. One of the panelists had been to the Congo, and made sure that the crowd knew that by reminding them every chance she got.

Racism.

The only social issue that was discussed was race. Nobody even mentioned the oil spill in the gulf, and the lack of real reporting covering the event. BP could dump a ridiculous amount of rocks and cement on top of the damn thing and it would be plugged. But no, they need to salvage the well. They need to find a way to have access to the oil, that’s why it’s still flowing. My goodness, it doesn’t take a scientist to tell you that. But media won’t budge on it. Why? Because it’s too touchy and the BP scientists have enough of their own “data” to fuel a legal battle that would bury the media outlets, not to mention reduce the advertising revenue to the media from BP.

The panelists, who represented mainstream media, touched on humanitarian issues, but nothing else. Not one of the panelists said what social issues needed to be addressed, aside from the racial issue. I wish I were black so I could feel the freedom to talk freely about race in American culture. Any white person who talks about racial issues seems to be a racist. If they are not a racist, it’s easy to construe them as racist. It’s the default stereotype.

But I’m going to out on a limb here and speak my mind. If people have a problem with racism, than stop seeing race. If people think that remembering slavery and segregation is a means to understand our current situation, where does it end? I am so tired of the “remember slavery” sentiment. Since the dawn of mankind, human beings have enslaved each other. Why do Americans with slave ancestors seem to dwell constantly on that fact, as if talking about it will magically make racist white people see the error of their ways? All people, all colors, have the capacity to hate and to love. Almost all cultures throughout history have enslaved their brothers. Where does “remember slavery” end? In America, apparently, it ends in America, the toddler in the global family of culture.

Make no mistake about it, racism transcends every gender, color and belief system. I have met white and black racists, both who scared me at the depth of their ignorance and the strength of their convictions. And when a person talks passionately about the horrors of racism, perhaps it’s best to look inside one’s own self before bantering on about the hate that came from an era of pure greed, fear and human indecency. If we have a problem with racism, we need to look inside. Do we allow our hatred of racism to create racist sentiments in our own minds? Without even knowing it, by casting the first stone we fail to see the stone that waits to be thrown at us. Do we, when we talk about the horrors of racism, use our own hate of this hateful act to create in us a racist mentality? The answer is undoubtedly yes in a vast majority of people. Even though we like to talk about the importance of turning our cheek to our enemy, it’s much more gratifying to poke out the eyes of the one who blinded our vision.

Do we, when we talk about ignorance and oppression and slavery, instill those realities into our brothers and sisters, to fight fire with fire? Obviously not in the same form, but slavery of the mind, ignorance of the heart and oppression of truth? Not intentionally, because our hearts are filled with good intentions, but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with them. Did Hitler know he was evil? Yeah, right. He thought he was doing God’s work. Good intentions paved the way to his demise and built a wall of mistrust against the German people that still stands today in the eyes of many.

Do we talk about the ills of racism while we also ignore attraction to other races? Is it a cultural thing, or is it our own internal racism? Do we judge a man in a beard who wears a flowing robe and a quirky hat and speaks English with an accent? Do we judge a group of men, small in stature and dark-skinned, working on a building and speaking Spanish? Do we judge the woman with small, narrow eyes who waits for us at the convenience store? Or the man with the dark turban who takes our change at the toll booth? Or the lady whose face is covered in a burka? Do we make assumptions and pass judgement based strictly on looks? Of course we do. It’s human, and it’s racist. Perhaps it’s not violent racism, but it’s the seed of discord that is sewn by us and harvested by our children. It is what has kept humanity separated from itself since the dawn of evolution, and it is what prevents us from being a human race instead of a conglomeration of man-made races.

It doesn’t seem right to constantly bring up the civil rights movement and slavery. The panelists didn’t even mention Native Americans. Not a single word. European invaders completely erased at least seven nations in the Americas. Not tribes, nations, each nation consisting of a diverse group of peoples and languages and customs, completely lost to time. At least African slaves had a part in society, at least they had value, albeit it was inhumane and profane and disgusting, at least they were not systematically annihilated, at least they did not experience genocide. Oppression, murder, barbaric treatment, lack of respect, yes. But if we’re going to talk about the history that people need to understand to make better life choices today, why didn’t anyone mention the plight of Native Americans? To talk about social change, and to mention the two things that constantly remind white people of their duty to make-up for their perceived ancestors’ stupidity is childish, irresponsible and only serves to deepen the racial divide.

You want to end racism? Stop talking about race. Stop using race in conversation, stop separating people. You are trying to elevate society but you are using the methods of the magician who sold you his bag of tricks. You want to kill racism? Elevate your mind, look inside yourself, see how you yourself use race, how you talk about slavery and segregation and what you are really saying. Yes we need to know our history, but do we need to be bombarded with a single aspect of history so much until we’re desensitized by it? Do we have to hear about slavery in America when some countries are experiencing racial injustice as we speak? Where a woman in Saudi Arabia can’t talk to man she’s not related to unless she’s with a chaperone? Where a shoe shiner in India will never realize his dreams because of his social ranking? Where a Chinese Muslim will never have the respect of his secular brethren? What about this racism? Yes, it exists in America, absolutely. But talking about its existence doesn’t make it go away. Tell me a story about a murder and people will still kill. Now, this is not to say we shouldn’t talk about these things, but, everything is relative. American slavery lasted a few hundred years. Some groups have been slaves for millennia or more. It’s all relative, and slavery in America is a small part of the history of slavery in the world.

That said, it is important to note that Africans have been one of the most marginalized peoples in the history of our world, and the devastation of colonialism and imperialism has permanently scarred our motherland, the cradle of humanity. History and ignorance does not end in America, and western powers are accountable for their vast and corroded influence on indigenous peoples from foreign lands. How they do this is a topic for another day.

The question today is not one of slavery, racism or segregation. At least not in the traditional sense. Today, our enemy is slavery of the mind. To paraphrase Bob Marley, we need to emancipate ourselves from this mental slavery, this societal cancer that manipulates our desires into perpetuating the status quo, into becoming a de facto supporter of the power structure by our ignorance of it.

Of primary concern for me, regarding the “social change” panelist discussion, was the fact that the speakers represented corporate media, the status quo. If you subscribe to the fact that greed is a systemic problem in our society, than you must know that corporate, mainstream media will never be a vehicle for social change. Real and necessary social change would erase the need for corporate mainstream media. Even our fiction writer, with all her freedom to reach out, chose not to discuss the real and necessary social changes that need to occur and how, as writers and journalists, we discuss the topics that will inspire in people the desire to change.

And let’s be honest. There’s no such thing as objective journalism. Journalism is storytelling. That’s it. If you’ve ever played the rumor game in elementary school, we all know how stories mysteriously become embellished. But, journalism is also a search for truth, as Mr. Williams attested. But, as an audience member pointed out, truth is relative to our experience and each person understands truth as it relates to their own opinions. We read what we agree with so truth doesn’t make us afraid of ourselves. Most people are this way, at least. Most people are like this because of the profound and paralyzing fear that inhabits our society on a global scale. A true, primal fear that we suppress with all our materialism, hobbies, “responsible living” and “philanthropy.”

So, with all this cynicism, what’s the point of it all? If truth is relative and journalism is the pursuit of truth, than journalism is relative? Yes. Objectivity is a means to an end, it is not an end in itself. Objectivity is showing all sides, but our choices in who talks the most, who leads, who follows, who reacts, who comes out as the winner, our story structure and style and the facts we choose to follow other facts all contribute to the message that the writer is trying to convey. It is not the reporter’s fault, it’s our nature. Reporters are also subject to fear.

I thought it was only fair to ask the panelists how they deal with the fact that they represent corporate media and how they dealt with that kind of censorship. Of course, in the guise of the crowd my question came out quite offensively. Here’s how I would have liked to have reacted:

“Here we are, talking about social change, and nobody, not one of you, have mentioned the fact that our country is facing the most serious crisis of consciousness it has ever faced. Ever. I say that because in the past, our crises were obvious, if not to everyone, at least to those who were affected. Now, in the genius of our system, we are so easily blinded by what is truly important, our blissful ignorance has absorbed our souls like a slow cancer that we welcome with open arms because without the cancer which dulls our senses we would have to face the real world and its real pain. Karl Marx had it wrong, it’s not religion that is the opiate of society, it is consumerism. But I’m not going to rant about the ills of society and human depravity. You talk about starving children in Africa? You talk about this problem this country has with that country, and you think that you spend a few weeks or a few months abroad and you write a few human interest feature pieces and you attend some UN conferences and you have lunch with NGOs at a fancy restaurant, talking about how people need food, you think you’re serving a cause? All this self-righteousness is like pile of bullshit rotting under a mound of rank flesh. Mr. Williams you are quite honest, even in your evasiveness. You have an air of acceptance, a resignation that you’ve learned to deal with the fact that you work for Media General. I do respect you for that. And I respect all of the panelists as human beings and professionals. But. Oh, but. But you, (name omitted), have a moral dilemma about giving ice cream to some fucking kids on the street? Are you effing kidding me? Get over yourself! You are not the welcoming arm of God for these people. (If you were at the meeting, you would know what I am talking about). You are not a spiritual crusader doing what’s right for the sake of what’s right. Only for the glorification and satisfaction of your soul that you are doing something you think is good and right.

You see, it’s not the things we read about in the paper or watch on TV or hear on the radio that are our real problems. Our real, true and honest obstacle to social change is ourselves. It is our pride, our arrogance, our greed, our lack of humility, our exacerbated nationalism and jingoist attitudes, our lust for objects, our passion for our creations (food, cars, travel, etc), our self-worship, our good intentions that leak evil consequences, and especially our false use of religion and beliefs to deal with our fear. Human beings will never change unless we decide to be human. The amount of change that needs to take place is mind boggling. Human beings are so far away from what is real, we are so wound up with what’s new, the new toys and gadgets and living quarters, what’s the new green, green living, carbon credits, bring your own bags to the grocery store, eating organic if you can afford it, ecotourism, technology and human body integration, writing a book about writing a book, who’s who in the movies, who did what in what country, who adopted the blackest baby with the most flies on its head, where the best deals are, who has the biggest TV, the fastest computer, the biggest harddrive, the smallest keyboard, the coolest mobile phone, the tightest ass, the biggest lips, the juiciest hamburger, the greasiest fries, the smoothest talkers, the biggest walkers, the Joneses, the Joneses, the Joneses. And that’s only here in America. These types of problems exist everywhere, they’re just manifested differently.

Wealth and ice cream

I would like to now take a moment to talk about the wealth of “developing” countries. We, as westerners, look at a nation and define a people as “poor” based strictly on material wealth, as if that is the only measure by which a people’s worth is considered. Disgusting. The qualitative importance of a people is never an economic matter because it doesn’t affect global policy and it is of no benefit to “global stability” or the “global economic interests.” I’m not going to rant on about how western countries only invade the countries where there is an economic incentive to win. I’m not going to go into a tirade about how the IMF and World Bank (what a presumptuous name!) put countries into debt and offer no planning strategies that are specific to that region and culture. I’m not to talk about how every true democratic leader that has emerged in the developing world was instantly opposed by the U.S. government because a truly democratic leader is an enemy to U.S. interest (see P.E. Lumumba, et all). I’m not going to talk about that. But I am going to talk about a story that our panelist who was in the Congo talked about.

She mentioned a story about kids who walked up to her car asking for ice cream. She had a moral dilemma, as the ice cream in the car did not belong to her and she wanted to give the young boys an ice cream. But what’s funny, is that if she were never there eating ice cream in the first place, they would have never run up to her car. If westerners had never invaded and flooded Congo with its practices and diseases, ice cream would have never been introduced in Congo. Or if it was eventually introduced, most people would probably be able to afford it because they would have developed on their own and not under the knife of an oppressor or under the post-oppressor stress and pressure from countries with a golden tongue and a sneaky eye. You talk about knowing your history? Are you effing kidding me? Her dilemma is over giving a kid some ice cream? And then, suddenly, in a flash, her eyes were opened by her friend who used common sense and gave the kids his half-eaten cone for them to share? And she thinks it was her judgement which she passed on them, that she expected each of them should have their own cone, that that was her dilemma? My god! What a pretentious load. It was sickening. And when the thing was over, the sycophants emerged. I tried talking to the one woman who made sense to me during the meeting, but even she was eager to meet the Congo-advertising journalist. Networking, they call it. It should be called hook setting, or maybe frenzy feeding, or no, even better–parasitic orgies.

So, it ended, with my hand high in the air and the attitude of the people on stage obviously averse to even acknowledging me. I left, not really wanting to talk to anyone because it seemed like no one there even addressed the real issues that need to be changed. Sure we talked about ignorance and racism, but those are only symptoms of the grand disease of our society–our self-deification and our fear.

We will only be human when we can all live like our Christ, our Buddah, our Mohammed, our Gandhi, our Martin Luther King, our Mother Teresa, our monks, priests, imams, ascetics, single mothers, estranged fathers, orphaned children, diseased infants, and damaged soldiers who have risen above the physical world that dominates our mind and are now in the elevated realm of the Way. We can not be happy, we can not have change without a revolution of our mind, without an emancipation from our mental slavery. Until we realize that we are living in Babylon, until we unplug our hearts from the system and only use it as necessary and not as a necessity, until that day comes when we don’t see color, we don’t hear blasphemes, when there are no disgusting tastes or foul smells or violent touches, until we live in that world in our minds and hearts, until we are free from our desire to control everything, until we are free from our fear of each other and our true selves, until that day, we are slaves to the status quo, and we will never be free, and we will never have “social change.”

Can I get a witness?