*Note: This is largely identical to a post I made on facebook earlier today after discovering first the "Kony 2012" (http://s3.amazonaws.com/kony2012/kony_5.html) video and then this --> http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/ response by a political science student on tumblr which has had over a million hits in under 24 hours. I am hoping that it fairly reflects both sides of a debate that has become so wildly popular and controversial in such a short span of time (short enough to put Rebecca Black's rise to stardom to shame) that it has inspired a number of passionate, spur of the moment internet rants. Here goes:
It's clear from Grant Oyston's tumblr post opposing "Kony 2012" that the author did not intend this as a rallying point or an ultimate information source about the movement. His rhetoric is questionable, since at times he doesn't provide very thorough sources (or omits/twists information to suit his purposes, for instance claiming charity navigator gives IC 2/4 stars for accountability but failing to mention that the *overall* rating is 3/4) and suggests that no action is better than some action. This is arguable. However he does want to bring attention to the blatant problems that exist within the Invisible Children organization. The financial aspect is difficult to decipher for someone without a background in this area of study, so I'm more concerned with IC's ties to the Ugandan army, which is a clusterfuck if ever there was one.
The UPDF is often cited right alongside the LRA as a hotbed of criminal activity. In a report by Human Rights Watch on the conditions for civilians in Uganda, it is stated that "In every camp visited, Human Rights Watch found cases of abuse by the LRA and also by UPDF soldiers. UPDF-administered beatings of civilians were extremely commonplace, but the killing of civilians, sometimes inside the camps, was also documented." (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,COUNTRYREP,,UGA,43ba85384,0.html) Admittedly this report is dated 2005 but that doesn't make it any less reliable and that kind of corruption doesn't evaporate overnight or even over years of time.
If Jason Russell and others involved with his campaign are unaware of the atrocities perpetrated by the UPDF, they must be walking around blindfolded. They may feel that allying themselves with an unsavory group is a better course of action than walking in unarmed. I'm not inclined to give my money to anyone who associates with the UPDF. However in the "visible children" tumblr post it is suggested that giving aid to victims is a worthier task than actively trying to stop Kony. I take issue with that philosophy because *only* helping victims won't stop new victims from being taken. So it's a complex situation and there may not be a perfect solution. The Texas A&M branch of IC claims that the only feasible way to bring the LRA to justice is by coordinating with local forces (such as the UPDF). My alternative would be to direct some of the funds Kony 2012 is putting into shiny bracelets into contacting peacekeeping forces with more clout and getting them involved (the US gov't sure doesn't seem to have a problem barreling into other countries to right the "wrongs" they see there).
SO what all that rambling comes down to is that from where I stand neither Jason Russell nor Grant Oyston have it quite figured out, but they're doing something crucial anyway: getting the word out. As an aside, it doesn't really matter how or when somebody found out about this movement; hipster ideals don't mesh well with activism. As long as people are finding out, that's a GOOD thing, and complaining that they're "jumping on the bandwagon" is completely counter-productive. If somebody has a better plan than Russell or Oyston, they should get out there and do *something* themselves (myself included of course)--other than changing their profile picture for 24 hours. This is something I'll be thinking a lot about, personally.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Friday, December 30, 2011
This time there is a title...
Today I want to talk about the bystander effect. It's a phrase that was coined in New York, one could argue appropriately so. Although we come across the term far too often in the headlines, fleetingly and without much lasting effect, I think it bears examining more closely. Over a year ago, I heard of an absolutely appalling case of the bystander effect which occurred on the street in Queens. 31-year-old Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax was stabbed and bled to death on the sidewalk after coming to the aid of a woman who was being mugged. Over a dozen people passed by as Tale-Yax bled out, noticed, and did nothing. One man stopped to take a picture. Details are outlined in the following article: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/dying-homeless-man-stopped-mugging-sidewalk/story?id=10471047#.Tv6PLPKwXRY
Possibly nobody helped Hugo Tale-Yax because he was homeless. What if it had been a young, well-dressed woman lying on the sidewalk? Impossible to know. But one can assume passers-by would at the very least have shown more concern.
Gaby Dunn, who writes for Thought Catalog, followed the same line of speculation in her article on December 15th. http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/the-bystander-effect/ Her article describes her experience witnessing a homeless man with his hand caught in a subway door, and the shocking passivity of those seated nearby who made no move to help. She goes on to suggest that people in such situations don't get involved because they don't want to cause a fuss if it turns out that they are wrong about the victim being in a state of crisis, so they prefer to tell themselves that someone else will help.
I believe the problem runs deeper than that. It betrays the fundamentally egocentric nature of individuals who's personalities are shaped by the conveniences of the modern world. Two hundred years ago, if I lived in a village where survival was dependent upon cooperation, small comforts were fought for tooth and nail, and I knew the names of my neighbors and their children, how could I possibly see one of them in peril and just walk on by? But today, if I live alone in a city where my needs are met as a result of my own actions alone, and my thoughts are broadcast and my questions answered instantly thanks to almighty facebook and Google thus placing my own existence at the forefront of my whole world, then what do those who live nearby mean to me? There is no reason to put myself even slightly at risk for someone who has no ties to me whatsoever. No reason apart from basic human compassion, of course.
All this isn't to say that modernity is the root of all evil, it's simply meant to inspire thought and discussion. If you (whoever happens to be reading) were in the same position as those who witnessed Hugo Tale-Yax's death on a sidewalk in Queen's, what circumstances would prompt you to seek help, or not to seek it? Would you stop if you were late for work? Would you keep going if you saw how much blood he had lost? What if he had a beer in his hand, or if he was a she?
That's all for now, cheers everyone, and happy new year!
Possibly nobody helped Hugo Tale-Yax because he was homeless. What if it had been a young, well-dressed woman lying on the sidewalk? Impossible to know. But one can assume passers-by would at the very least have shown more concern.
Gaby Dunn, who writes for Thought Catalog, followed the same line of speculation in her article on December 15th. http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/the-bystander-effect/ Her article describes her experience witnessing a homeless man with his hand caught in a subway door, and the shocking passivity of those seated nearby who made no move to help. She goes on to suggest that people in such situations don't get involved because they don't want to cause a fuss if it turns out that they are wrong about the victim being in a state of crisis, so they prefer to tell themselves that someone else will help.
I believe the problem runs deeper than that. It betrays the fundamentally egocentric nature of individuals who's personalities are shaped by the conveniences of the modern world. Two hundred years ago, if I lived in a village where survival was dependent upon cooperation, small comforts were fought for tooth and nail, and I knew the names of my neighbors and their children, how could I possibly see one of them in peril and just walk on by? But today, if I live alone in a city where my needs are met as a result of my own actions alone, and my thoughts are broadcast and my questions answered instantly thanks to almighty facebook and Google thus placing my own existence at the forefront of my whole world, then what do those who live nearby mean to me? There is no reason to put myself even slightly at risk for someone who has no ties to me whatsoever. No reason apart from basic human compassion, of course.
All this isn't to say that modernity is the root of all evil, it's simply meant to inspire thought and discussion. If you (whoever happens to be reading) were in the same position as those who witnessed Hugo Tale-Yax's death on a sidewalk in Queen's, what circumstances would prompt you to seek help, or not to seek it? Would you stop if you were late for work? Would you keep going if you saw how much blood he had lost? What if he had a beer in his hand, or if he was a she?
That's all for now, cheers everyone, and happy new year!
Monday, December 26, 2011
http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/genreville/?p=1519
On September 12th, 2011, an open letter to the pulbishing industry written by Rachel Manija Brown and Sherwood Smith, co authors of a post-apocalyptic YA novel, was posted on Genreville. The link to this letter can be found above. It details the athors' experiences with being asked to remove a homosexual character from their book. On September 15th Joanna Stampfel-Volpe of the Nancy Coffey agency, who went unnamed in Brown and Smith's letter, came forward with a rebuttal. The rebuttal claims that none of the information provided in the original article is true, and that the authors were asked to remove the gay character from their book simply because it contained too many POV characters. It can be found here
http://bookshelvesofdoom.blogs.com/bookshelves_of_doom/2011/09/say-yes-to-gay-ya-redux-and-dux-again.html
A few things to consider: Based upon the information given in the second article, it appears that Brown and Smith did not consult with Stampfel-Volpe (beyond the original conference call in which they were informed of the edits required in their book) or give her any advance notice that they would be posting the letter--a definite faux pas. However regardless of the conflict between the authors and the agent, the letter received overwhelming response from writers who had undergone similar struggles trying to publish LGBT-Q lit for a children and YA readership, indicating that the market faces a serious problem with diversity and equal representation. According to Brown and Smith's letter, less than 1% of YA lit. contains a major or supporting LGBT-Q character. Jian Gomeshi of CBC Radio's Q program interviewed Brown and Smith extensively this morning.
EDIT: Here is a link to the audio for the interview. Just click on the link for the December 26th episode. http://www.cbc.ca/q/episodes/ It is clear that the agent has by no means been represented as acting in a homophobic manner, merely acting as a representative of the best interests of her agency. However I take this as an opportunity to discuss the wider problem of lack of diversity in YA fiction. My thoughts:
Is it possible for the publishing industry to refuse to publish books starring LGBT-Q characters while claiming non-homosexual motives? If one claims the novel will not sell because there is no place in the market for it, then one is merely feeling the pressure of cowardice or avarice: the former for not aiding the equal rights cause by pushing the envelope, as those with a greater sense of purpose are wont to do, for fear of backlash from the small-minded; the latter for not pursuing the novel for financial reasons ("this book will not sell.")
But a greater offense is hiding behind outrageous statements masquerading as sincerity, such as "I have nothing against gays. This subject simply isn't appropriate for children." Let's look at straight couples in popular YA lit: Ron and Hermione from Harry Potter. Katniss and Gale or Peeta in The Hunger Games. Bella and Edward or Jacob of Twilight. None of which has faced much in the way of controversy for the appropriateness of their relationships, despite the fact that many of the scenes they (read: Bella and Edward) share go far beyond the mere kissing reportedly shown in, for example, Brown and Smith's book. (Could the same be said if it had been Hermione and Ginny, or Edward and Jacob, who were coupled up instead?)
Why, then, is featuring a gay relationship inappropriate , if not because it introduces the idea of homosexuality to children (although if you speak to any grade school or junior high teacher worth the paper their degree was printed on, they will tell you children often become aware of their sexual orientation from their early pre-teen years.) In short, it is inappropriate to make children aware that there exist other sexual and gender identities besides the heterosexual one heavily featured in 99% (according to stats posted in the original letter) of the fiction available to them.
PLEASE. If that isn't homophobic, I don't know what is.
I have been fortunate enough not to encounter this problem with my own book thus far. What are your thoughts (if anyone is reading) on this controversial issue. I feel that, in the year 2011, the fact that there is even a controversy is unacceptable.
That's it for me today. Until next time, cheers to you all...
On September 12th, 2011, an open letter to the pulbishing industry written by Rachel Manija Brown and Sherwood Smith, co authors of a post-apocalyptic YA novel, was posted on Genreville. The link to this letter can be found above. It details the athors' experiences with being asked to remove a homosexual character from their book. On September 15th Joanna Stampfel-Volpe of the Nancy Coffey agency, who went unnamed in Brown and Smith's letter, came forward with a rebuttal. The rebuttal claims that none of the information provided in the original article is true, and that the authors were asked to remove the gay character from their book simply because it contained too many POV characters. It can be found here
http://bookshelvesofdoom.blogs.com/bookshelves_of_doom/2011/09/say-yes-to-gay-ya-redux-and-dux-again.html
A few things to consider: Based upon the information given in the second article, it appears that Brown and Smith did not consult with Stampfel-Volpe (beyond the original conference call in which they were informed of the edits required in their book) or give her any advance notice that they would be posting the letter--a definite faux pas. However regardless of the conflict between the authors and the agent, the letter received overwhelming response from writers who had undergone similar struggles trying to publish LGBT-Q lit for a children and YA readership, indicating that the market faces a serious problem with diversity and equal representation. According to Brown and Smith's letter, less than 1% of YA lit. contains a major or supporting LGBT-Q character. Jian Gomeshi of CBC Radio's Q program interviewed Brown and Smith extensively this morning.
EDIT: Here is a link to the audio for the interview. Just click on the link for the December 26th episode. http://www.cbc.ca/q/episodes/ It is clear that the agent has by no means been represented as acting in a homophobic manner, merely acting as a representative of the best interests of her agency. However I take this as an opportunity to discuss the wider problem of lack of diversity in YA fiction. My thoughts:
Is it possible for the publishing industry to refuse to publish books starring LGBT-Q characters while claiming non-homosexual motives? If one claims the novel will not sell because there is no place in the market for it, then one is merely feeling the pressure of cowardice or avarice: the former for not aiding the equal rights cause by pushing the envelope, as those with a greater sense of purpose are wont to do, for fear of backlash from the small-minded; the latter for not pursuing the novel for financial reasons ("this book will not sell.")
But a greater offense is hiding behind outrageous statements masquerading as sincerity, such as "I have nothing against gays. This subject simply isn't appropriate for children." Let's look at straight couples in popular YA lit: Ron and Hermione from Harry Potter. Katniss and Gale or Peeta in The Hunger Games. Bella and Edward or Jacob of Twilight. None of which has faced much in the way of controversy for the appropriateness of their relationships, despite the fact that many of the scenes they (read: Bella and Edward) share go far beyond the mere kissing reportedly shown in, for example, Brown and Smith's book. (Could the same be said if it had been Hermione and Ginny, or Edward and Jacob, who were coupled up instead?)
Why, then, is featuring a gay relationship inappropriate , if not because it introduces the idea of homosexuality to children (although if you speak to any grade school or junior high teacher worth the paper their degree was printed on, they will tell you children often become aware of their sexual orientation from their early pre-teen years.) In short, it is inappropriate to make children aware that there exist other sexual and gender identities besides the heterosexual one heavily featured in 99% (according to stats posted in the original letter) of the fiction available to them.
PLEASE. If that isn't homophobic, I don't know what is.
I have been fortunate enough not to encounter this problem with my own book thus far. What are your thoughts (if anyone is reading) on this controversial issue. I feel that, in the year 2011, the fact that there is even a controversy is unacceptable.
That's it for me today. Until next time, cheers to you all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)