RESPONSE TO THURSDAY NIGHT FEATURE READING EXPLAINED

Usually, publications put retractions and corrections at the bottom of articles, but I think the following thoughts should precede the original text.

After chatting with the host in question:

Sometimes emotions can run away with you…I should probably say “with me,” and I suspect that was the case when I posted my sad post yesterday.

In my response to Thursday’s event, I mentioned “inconsideration,” despite not really exercising much myself…at least not toward the host. I can’t let me off the hook for that.

I’ve spoken with the host, and our chat made me realize that I didn’t consider the challenges of their situation, and in failing to do so, I may have been even more inconsiderate than I “accused” the host of being!

As I have made clear to more than one individual, I am in no way knocking the good things that the venue provides to its participants on a weekly basis and would suggest checking out the venue to experience it directly and not through my jaded eyes and ears.

I’ve tried to express that my perspective is a limited one and usually different from the perspectives of others I’ve encountered. I don’t discount my own experience, but I don’t want the experiences of the venue host or regulars to be discounted either.

There is value to be had in our varied experiences and I am reminded, once again, that emotional responses can short circuit the brain and result in having to write follow-ups like this!

Initial Post

I did something yesterday that surprises even me: I posted on Facebook an emotional response to an experience I had the night before...including a teary photo. I did something similar once before (no teary photo 😏) when I posted a rant after being "Trumped" back in 2017. 

I'm not usually a fan of public bleeding, yet there I was, leaking red all over Facebook. I'm a little embarrassed about that, but that's just ego talking. It is what it is, and now I feel compelled to explain.

The level of inconsideration displayed by the host of the poetry reading event on Zoom, at which I was the feature reader on Thursday, was unconscionable from where I sit. Had the level of inconsideration not been relatively consistent across the board, my conclusion that “race” played a role would be far less tentative. As it is, I can only surmise that "race" played a role.

Stephanie and I might call my response an “over reaction” and that over reaction laid me low yesterday. You would probably need to know my perspective on the “racialization” of human beings along with my antipathy to the lack of consideration we show each other as beings to understand my  response.

Below is my perspective (always subject to re-examination) of Thursday night’s experience. I’ve also included some excerpts of a paper I wrote back in the 90s, before realizing that “academia” was no less hostile an environment than any other domain of social existence. The excerpts might shed some light on the foundation and precursors of my response. Nothing I have seen, heard, or experienced in other ways since the writing invalidates the premises and positions laid out in the paper.

My response to Thursday night’s experience, however much of an overaction it might be, reflects the impact of a lifelong struggle to exist in a world that represents a hostile environment for one with perspectives such as mine.

The Experience from My Perspective

The host asked me to be the feature reader and didn’t inform me that there was a theme: “Black Music.” Did the host know that I wouldn’t have agreed to feature had I known what it was? Did they simply forget to inform me? It really doesn’t matter because it demonstrates a lack of consideration, which is the primary and essential issue for me.

The event began at 10pm EDT, and knowing that if anyone came specifically to hear me read it would more than likely be people from the east coast, here’s what I asked: “This might be a big ask, and I'm prepared for a no, but your event seems to as flexible as any I've been to, so I wonder if you would consider putting east coast attendees on first and maybe let me read a little earlier than usual?” It is a level of consideration that Billy Brown uses at his Fixed and Free open mic event. The response I got was a “Sure let’s talk about it tonight,” tonight being the night of the reading.

When I logged on shortly before 10pm EDT, there were already several people in the room, including at least a few people from the east coast who were there because I had asked them to be there. To shorten the long story a tad, I’ll just say it was evident that the request to consider the east coast folks who had extended themselves to be there was not exactly granted. Troubling, but not totally unexpected given our world.

When I became so troubled that I was seriously considering logging off the call (I private messaged a few letting them know that I would totally understand if they wanted to log off), was when I noticed that the host was calling on people to read who were logging onto the call well into the proceedings, passing people by who had been there before the event had officially begun.

We can chalk this up to coincidence, cronyism, whatever, but it seemed to me that skin color was playing a role in who was being called on to read. There’s no way to confirm this, but that was how it appeared to me. 

Yep, I was incensed, and it took as much resolve as I could muster to argue myself out of bailing. Had people not shown up specifically because of my presence, I would have. I am critiquing myself for not addressing the situation immediately and directly. 

My only indirect acknowledgement was the following post in the chat: "20:52:34- From  T. A. Niles  to  Everyone:  Fascinating. Judy were you planning on reading? How about you Phynne, Madison, Shaun, C.C.?"  Every one of the above-listed people had been in the room prior to multiple others who were called to read before them. I’m sure I’ll find a way to be okay with the decision not to be more direct and to stay and read. Note: Notice the MDT time...10:52 EDT and I hadn't started yet. Not unusual for this venue.

The Context

You would probably have to know my perspective on the “racialization” of human beings along with my antipathy to the lack of consideration we show each other as beings to understand my “over reaction.” However much of an overaction it might be, my response reflects the impact of a lifelong struggle to exist in a world that represents a hostile environment for one with perspectives such as mine.

Below are some excerpts of a paper I wrote back in the 90s before realizing that “academia” was no less a hostile environment than any other domain of social existence. Nothing I have seen, heard, experienced invalidates the premises of the paper. The paper is entitled, Reconceptualizing the “Isms” of Social Groupings: Tracking the Beasts to Their Common Lair.

Paper Excerpts

From the Intro (citations removed): 

The historical development of the terms, ‘race’ and ‘racism,’ their various past and present understandings and manifestations have been discussed at length in numerous works. Most seem to agree that there is a nasty beast out there that preys upon human societies and answers to the name ‘Racism.’ 

Many in various academic disciplines have answered the call to hunt down and put to sleep this horrid beast. Armed with large caliber computers, amphibious keyboards, intensive and comprehensive statistical preparation, highly tuned rational acumen, high powered research methods, and decades of the finest education and training that money can buy, these noble soldiers of academe march onward in this almost holy war. 

They saturate the social perimeter with ideological grenades and launch salvo after salvo of verbal shrapnel…yet this thing called racism continues to elude all attacks, and to wreak havoc on societies around the globe.

One difficulty encountered by those attempting to track down and eliminate this beast is that many entities seem to answer when the name ‘racism’ is called. As such, much of the work on racism, especially the historical treatises, apportion considerable space and time to attempting to identify this elusive and ultimately threatening. 

In addition to identifying the beast itself, these soldiers of academe have addressed causes and effects of racism, have outlined strategies to defeat the beast, and have sought to identify and explicate the relationships shared by racism and other social constructs.  

Other Excerpts:

I think it important to emphasize that by resources I mean anything, tangible or otherwise, that one would consider desirable for his/her continued well‑being, or that might be construed as contributing to the satisfaction of basic human needs. Social phenomena such as power (as in ability to influence environment), esteem of others, self‑esteem, respect, etc., are considered resources. No less important, such things as spiritual development, or the opportunity for same, physical health, mental health, [etc.] are all considered resources from this perspective.

To deny a human being any of the above-mentioned resources, or access to same, because of perceived racial group membership is to cause harm, is to engage in racism, and is to act immorally.

In sum, Race is a socially constructed means of differentiation and evaluation utilized to assist individuals and groups of individuals in meeting their first-through-fourth-order needs.

Race, as an attempt to differentiate the self from the other (second-order need), benign in and of itself, becomes malignant when combined with other needs, such as the need to enhance self-esteem (third-order need), and when encompassed in a worldview which stipulates an environment of finite resources, which fosters an “us versus them” orientation.

...it seems safe to say that using “race” as a means of identifying and evaluating self and other is the spawning ground for racism.

It will take a complete revolution in the way humankind perceives itself and its environment before we can make any progress in the war against the isms. I question whether even those struggling against the chains of the isms can see how, in their very struggle, they reify the very essence of and need for the struggle.

And the epigraph that opens the paper:

A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'universe,' a part limited in time and space. He [/she] experiences himself, his/her thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest‑ a kind of optical delusion of his [/her] consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal decisions and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty (Albert Einstein).

My response to Thursday night was/is a reflection of the cumulative effect of existing in a world of people who perceive human existence and relations in vastly different ways that are contradictory to my own…ways that I believe are detrimental to the human condition. It also reflects the belief that those ways are so ubiquitous and ingrained that there is little-to-no hope of humanity charting a different course…a course that might result in more opportunity for the maximization of each living being. 

As for the reading itself, I just pulled up the chat for the first time and it appears that it was well-received for the most part. I will be uncomfortable approaching tomorrow's feature reading, but I will honor the invitation and attendant commitment. Thanks for hanging in there with me on this!🙏