Now that we are in the mid-season break of the Walking Dead, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the glaringly obvious racial problems within this potentially interesting show. (My comments are about the show only—I have not gotten the chance to read the comic book. I certainly hope it does race better than its television counterpart.)

As someone who writes genre fiction myself, I understand the difficulty in writing fully actualize minority characters and the fear of doing it wrong. I understand that it’s just easier to ignore race all together or succumb to the idea that minorities don’t watch genre shows anyway, so choose not to bother. This attitude, though, leads to problems as evidenced by the big fat racial disaster in the Walking Dead.

The show is not necessarily a disaster because of the plot, though it’s slow and there are few likeable characters. It’s such because of the elephant in the room.

It was Toni Morrison who said that the “black presence*” is placed in fiction (and in this case TV) according to the needs and desires of its white creator and that the presence has been there since the creation of the construct of race—or at least the beginning of the American slave trade. Most notably, though, she says that the black presence is there even if it’s ignored and especially if it is unrecognized. In other words, blackness is a part of our social consciousness (in binary opposition to whiteness) and to ignore it shows more about the society than about the people the society hopes to alienate.

The Walking Dead is prime example: in the heart of downtown Atlanta, which has one of the largest black populations in the country, there should be blacks. Lots of them. Everywhere. In fact, it’s hard to imagine writing about Atlanta without having a significantly black cast. Other than perhaps Gone With the Wind. We’re damn near 60% of the population.

Blacks would have been within the homeless which turned into zombies that invaded the city, they would have been within the working population, and obviously they would have been a significant part of the survivors. Assuming you couldn’t find walk-ons to play the zombies, it should have been imperative to cast more than a few for main roles. Instead the unique Atlanta location was ignored and with it the opportunity to do race better than its genre predecessors.

The show began with so much promise. In a small town somewhere near Atlanta (close enough to ride a horse to into the city) a white cop, Rick, awakes to the world all zombiefied. He eventually runs into a black father (Morgan) and son (Duane). I’ll be honest with you. To me, these two characters are the most interesting characters in the entire series. They had all of the makings of a long thematic future: inner turmoil, focus, a father’s fight for his son while suffering visits from the child’s dead mother. From a viewer’s standpoint it was very effective to see this dead woman appear at the door, menacingly spying into the peephole torturing the pair. There has been only one parallel moment in the show (those who watch it will remember the shocking ending to the third episode in the second season).

But from this point it becomes wholly unremarkable and even problematic. The white man leaves the blacks behind. Naturally this is what the “characters” want (this becomes important again later) and so Rick doesn’t have any choice but to leave them. Now, this is completely ridiculous premise or at least needs a better set up. Not only do I think this dude would have taken his son the hell out of there, but he would have done it long before the cop even showed up. Of course it’s easy to talk about the character’s motivations and whatnot, but the truth is that this is written. It’s not real life which has no plot or reason. No. Instead someone wrote this fantastic duo out of the show after manipulating them to set up Rick’s search for his own son.

The show moves on (slowly) and the father finally finds his family—with a group of approximately 20 other survivors. The racial makeup: two blacks (woman and man), a Latina couple and two children, one Asian and the rest were either white or looked so**.

Two of the characters are redneck white dudes. They’re racist and they are used to show us how bad racism is so that anything else pales in comparison. At least they show us how bad obvious racism is. Instead the show uses long hidden biases within our society because by the time the finale comes around the black woman has out grown her usefulness.

One possible highlight: Somewhere around mid season, the group runs into a gang of Latina “thugs.” We know they’re thugs, because, well they’re Latina**. However, at this point the show does something interesting. It turns our preconceived notions of minority thugs on its head and shows us a group of individuals who are taking care of the elderly. Of course it’s done through a gang like structural group which is wholly different than our obvious “good guys” and the viewer realizes that Rick and his group cannot stay less the head gang member outshine him.

This leads me to one of the most obviously fucked up moments in the show. After discovering the CDC they’ve taken shelter in is going to explode, one of the white women decides to stay, taking her own life. Likewise the black woman, Jacqui, does the same. A white male character comes back for the white woman and tells her he refuses to let her die. Obviously she’s worth more than blowing up in the bunker of an obsolete federal building. Too bad Jacqui isn’t also. The white man tells the white woman that he will stay with her and die too if she doesn’t leave. Not wanting to risk the white man’s life, the white woman leaves and her life is spared. No one tries to save the black woman—none of the white characters or the minority ones. It can be assumed then that even the minority characters realize that this woman is not worth saving.

The two whites share an odd glance with the black woman as they leave. The glance speaks volumes and the “black presence” stumbles all over itself trying to ignore the obvious ideology within the show: black women are valued less and are not worth the effort it takes to save them; and minorities must be left behind, they are expendable, useless to the new society. Of course Jacqui blows up at the writers’, I mean …. um… her own insistence.

Somewhere around this time the Latino couple and children decide to leave off on their own. They probably saw the warning signs and chose to rough it out, less being considered expendable within the group structure. Or, you know, the writers didn’t have a use for them anymore.

At this point, there are a few main characters left in the show, but the remaining black man is certainly not one of them. The Asian guy could be argued as such, but only in that he is the errand boy for the rest of the group. Seriously, he’s “small and fast” and sent to get stuff, like pregnancy test for the white characters. Yep, they’re reproducing while the minorities are dropping off like flies. Actually, now that I think about it, isn’t that the basis of the eugenics movement of the last century and one of the major concerns of whites of the time. If the people of the last century had only known that a zombie apocalypse was the answer.

Either way, the black man hardly appears in the show at all and he’s actually one of the most pathetic people on TV.  The whites on the show are running around, protecting the group while the black guy gets his ass kicked; drops a key, effectively killing the racist white dude; and gets a blood infection. It could be argued, though (and I’m willing to accept this argument to some extent), that the character is the exact opposite of the typical black male in other shows. And it’s true. Other than the name “T-Dog” (WTF?) he’s not obviously the black “hood,” he isn’t the black “businessman” and he isn’t the black “intellectual.” No instead he’s a completely blank slate. We don’t know anything about him which is not the case for any other character in the entire show.

For example:

Rick, a white cop has a wife and son and we have flashbacks back to them before the apocalypse. He’s the leader for whatever reason, but he’s not particularly good at it. But he’s a cop, and can shoot a gun, so why not?

Shane: the other white cop is his friend and is in love with his wife. For the life of me, I don’t know why. She seems to be the only chick who doesn’t find a way to shower and she’s constantly dirty. He’s also a leader or was before Rick came back. He shoots things and protects the group.

Lori, the wife is torn between two men. She has a son, she was having problems with her husband before he died and then moved on right after. She’s pregos and whiny and we don’t know who’s kid it is. But she assures us it doesn’t matter. She’s a woman so naturally she cooks. That’s what women do. But she helps the group this way.

Andrea lost her sister and is suffering from depression. She wanted to die but the writers interfered. She’s turning out to be a good shot. Even she hunts and helps the group now.

Carol’s husband abused her. She has a daughter who’s missing/dead and suffers for it. Woman = cook. And she’s sad which shows she’s a real person.

Daryl sacrificed his racist brother for the sake of the group. He is a great fighter and does what has to be done for everyone to survive. He is the only person who didn’t give up on the little girl—which show he’s a real (not racist like his bother) person. He hunts and protects the group and has an awesome silent shooter.

Dale: the old man. He’s in love with Andrea—whether physically or just in a daughter way, I can’t tell. He sees everything around him and doesn’t like Shane. Who can blame him really, but it’s none of his business and he can’t stop interfering. He often keeps a look out and protects in that way.

Glen, the only other minority, is sleeping with a white girl. They’re a cute couple and we’re supposed to like them. He’s a gofer for the group because…he’s Asian and small and fast. Oh and at one point the group decides to put him in the well with a zombie for no clear reason at all. And why not, the U.S. has been putting Asians in dark oppressive holes since the beginning of the transcontinental railroad.

T-Dog?…. I couldn’t tell you. I don’t know if he was related to the black woman. I don’t know if he was married or if he has ever had sex in his life, to tell the truth. If the show told us this, I don’t remember because it wasn’t important. Nothing about him is. Nothing about him is memorable, either.

I take that back. He did have one memorable moment other than getting his ass kicked by Daryl’s brother and losing the key.

The only other time race was mentioned was after T-Dog (seriously, what the fuck’s up with the name?) cut himself and became infected. The redneck, Daryl, saves his life which is meant to tell us something really important such as if the redneck has finally gotten over race and become “colorblind” then by god everyone should. Including the viewers.

But not, of course, their own character. After getting saved by Daryl T-Dog gets a blood infection (he truly is pathetic). In his delirious state he goes on a racial diatribe, complaining that everyone around him is “racist” and explaining that it is not safe for a black man to be around southern Georgia cops and too many white folks. Of course these are valid concerns but he is shut down effectively by Dale. T-Dog hasn’t really appeared in the show since that time which, I suppose, is the proper smack down for daring to challenge the white powers that be.

The interesting thing here is the implication that race is only ever a problem when minorities mention it. And obviously it’s only mentioned when the person is crazy or delusional. Race, within the show or otherwise, is never an issue for practical, rational thinking people—only infected black men. Racism is either blatant in your face (the racist redneck) or it is an accusation (the black man) and doesn’t really exist. Either way, it does not belong in a zombie apocalypse.

Ironically the character during this rare moment of honesty is probably right. At least about the show and the black presence that Morrison has outlined. The show does race in a really poor way and this is highlighted by the fact that they have until this moment ignored it and then out of nowhere attacked it so aggressively, as if to silence any dissenting voice daring to challenge them.

The real question of course lies with the Walking Dead staff—the presumable white creator. Will they continue to play ignorant with the “black presence,” ignoring it but never truly succeeding because of the inherent nature of blackness in our society? Or will they challenge themselves, realizing they will probably get things wrong but that doing it wrong, and trying, is often better than not doing it at all?

Practically anything is better than what we have now.




*Toni Morrison refers to the black presence as the “Africanist presence” in her literary criticism Playing in the Dark. It’s brilliant and I wholly suggest reading it.

**I realize that some of the actors’ racial identity may be different from the characters they play, but that is irrelevant to the stereotype we are given on screen.

Like Newt Gingrich, there is another white man telling black kids what they should do and how to behave. Also like Gingrich, Gene Marks professes to do so under the guise of helping blacks.

Mr. Marks says things like: "If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldn’t care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city."

But don't worry, he just wants to help: "I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed."

Yeah, you heard that right. All black kids have to do is work really hard and learn some technology and magically racism, sexism and class disparages all disappear.

There have been a lot of people who have remarked about how Marks is arrogant, ignorant and just plain ridiculous.

But it's all so ridiculous because the bases of the entire essay is built on a faulty premise. People have mentioned that this white man could never be the black kid that he professes to help, and here's why:

The statement "I" takes into account all of the being every person is, who they have become and places it in the context of their life and experiences of how and why they have become the person they have. A person can not take that "I" and place into another context because it is not the experience for which that person can ever exist. Therefore, the very statement "If I Were a Black Kid," can not be reconciled for Mr. Marks because he is not only not a black kid, but he could never be the black kid he professes and so can not apply his life experiences to such.

I hope I made myself clear enough to make sense. I just don't understand why people feel the need to preach to minority and poor people about how to be good decent members of society--like white folks. But I'm sure it won't stop with this man, or the one after him.

BTW, can anyone tell me: how many black kids do you know that read Forbes magazine?

Newt Gingrich claims that poor kids don't know work unless it’s for crime: “Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of... I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal."

It’s sad and pathetic that a man running for president of the United States has such a bias against a large portion of society and is so willing to write them off, but I’m not surprised. What bothers me most are the commenters—as is often the case. Comments such as: “What you guys don’t understand is that Newt is telling the truth” or “A work ethic is a learned behavior, imprinted usually from watching your parents work. Democrats actually do not want poor folks to become independent and self sufficient. They need the votes….”

Forgetting for a moment that poor children are probably the only children in the US who actually know what real work is, it’s ridiculous that people are so willing to blame the poor for….being poor. I realize that it helps people’s conscious because they can believe that not only do they deserve what they’ve gotten, but that they’ve EARNED it the way those poor folks haven’t. But this is a problematic view of things. For one thing whatever class people are born in is the class they most likely stay in. This is not because of work ethic, but because those in upper classes have advantages that those in poorer classes don’t and this is perpetuated throughout our society.

But if there is more crime in these areas that can't be reconciled by the fact the minority and poor people are arrested and jailed more often for the same crimes, it also overlooks the simple fact that when you’re poor eating and surviving becomes the most important thing in one’s life. Morals and “honor” don’t go out the window, they change to fit your survival necessities. Would I steal bread from the store or have my children go hungry for the night? I may be admitting something about my morals, but my children eat first. Period. That’s morally right to me.

People who have not had to worry about these things, don’t think about these things. And they put a lot of emphasizes on doing the “right” thing and whatnot. However, can it ever be the right thing to do to let the poor slowly starve?

Of course, the one thing that will inevitably come up is the mention of “these” people not being willing to work. Not only is this blatantly not true, but it stigmatizes people who have not had the same education opportunities, and have fewer job opportunities. Furthermore, it causes affluent people to rationalize their own positions. No need to want to fix poverty when it’s the impoverished fault they’re that way.

I’m going to go out on a limb while being a bit facetious as well.

But you see, I don’t understand what the big deal is. Isn’t this what a capitalist society is for? Earning money no matter the consequences? A nice young man without any job prospects decides to open an enterprising business in the slums or middle America somewhere and there’s a problem? He can employ a group of people, make sure he keeps a steady set of customers flowing back in, and is making decent money where there’s no other jobs found. It’s capitalism baby. Making money. People don’t matter (we just call our business a person). Ethics don’t matter (thousands of people lost a job but I saved money when I moved my business to where I can pay 10 year-old kids 50 cent an hour to do what Americans were doing—NOW THOSE ARE KIDS WITH WORK ETHIC, MAN). Nothing else matters. Big companies do it. Our politicians do it. The only difference is that the big company have laws that can ensure that they aren’t breaking them.

Of course I’m being over the top but by laying it out like this I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to see that there are real problems in our society. Real disparages that will not go away while those who “have” continue to blame those who don’t. Instead I think we need to evaluate our priorities and put PEOPLE first. All people, not just some of them.

But perhaps we as a society have appraised the situation and concluded that this is exactly what we want?

Dear people who say radical feminism is “too white”,
That’s because radical feminism doesn’t actually mean, “What about the black men?!” So now you know.

Sincerely,
Radical Feminism

Wow.

The implication here—even if they don’t mean it to be—is that black women, who are directly affected by accepted sexist attitudes of black men, aren’t important. You see, black women must deal with the subjugation of both black men and white men AND white women. How can you claim to help all women, when you blatantly ignore the suffering of anyone who isn’t just like you? In that regard, how is this really any different than the oppressive attitudes of those in power?

I’ll give you a hint…. It’s not.

This is yet another reason I have stopped identifying myself as a feminist. In too many instances minority women are expected to toe the line and get behind whatever white women say is “true” oppression. When I’ve expressed this in the past, I’ve been told that because I rejected the term feminism, people like me “help keep [feminism] from being inclusive.”

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I just don’t understand. Can someone explain this to me?

Keeping a list of everything that's going on with my collection, if for no other reason than to have a go-to list somewhere:

i09 featured an excerpt of the novella, The Teachings and Redemption of Ms. Fannie Lou Mason, from the collection. For the record, this is one of my favorite stories and I'm glad to see it getting some love.

Pleased that Publishers Weekly gave Let's Play White a decent review.

The Austin Post reviewed it as well. It's a keeper.

This is the awesome Laird Barron's assessment.

Here's the most recent review.

There's only 3 copy left in stock at Amazon. Why not grab a copy while it's cheap?

On Sunday I recorded a radio show for WREK Atlanta with authors Eugie Foster and J M McDermott. Eugie Foster has written about this with more detail than I ever could have, so I shall defer to her:

Met up with Chesya Burke and J.M. McDermott yesterday afternoon to record a show for WREK radio’s Sci Fi Lab featuring local SF writers, hosted by Travis Gasque. Seems like we managed to touch upon nearly everything: books and fellow writers we admire, the writing industry, publishing trends and directions, writing habits and advice, SF movies, the wibbliness of genre definitions, the ethical issues of cloning and space colonization, writing multicultural fiction, and a slew of other topics....

I had a great time and have been invited to a science fiction symposium at Georgia Tech in November.

i09 has featured an excerpt of my novella, The Teachings and Redemption of Ms. Fannie Lou Mason. Squee!

Chesya Burke is winning lots of buzz for her poetic short stories, which deal with race and weirdness in the heart of small town America. And now we've got an exclusive excerpt from her new story collection, Let's Play White.

People always seem to use capitalism* as a way to support inequality. For example, there is an ongoing argument that publishers and agents are asking writers to remove all references to their characters' gayness, or remove the characters all together. In response, someone decided to play "devil's advocate" and defend the publishers:

"I do have to play devil's advocate here. You know the publisher is running a business. It is his job to publish what sells. If you read the original article the editor states that it would be okay to reveal the character as gay in later books, after people are emotionally invested. No matter how open minded you are, when you are running a business you have to realize that you can't force open mindedness."

So it's okay if the author sneaks in a gay characters after readers are emotionally invested? And this can only happen for readers if the characters are not gay to begin with? Because it's not possible to be emotionally invested in a gay character, only straight characters (and by extension, people) get this benefit.

Of course, the responder here is not being prejudiced, he's only playing devil's advocate and thinking of the bigger picture: businesses. In business, publishers have to make money to be able to publish more books. Their research has shown them that gay characters don't make money.

Or has it really? Here's a question. How do they know that gay characters don't sell if they aren't willing to publish them in the first place? I'm reminded here of the long held belief that blacks don't read, and aren't interested in literature, and so publishers didn't bother trying to publish them. After all, their research had told them that it was so, right? We all know what happened there. Blacks began self-publishing, supporting each other, and created an entire community devoted to their own literature--which is still huge today. After the fact, publishers realized blacks were an under served market and only then did they jump on the bandwagon, publish black authors, shove them in the "black section" of the bookstore and call it a day. But what difference did it make that they were segregating these books, because research showed that it was the best way to promote black authors, right?....

But let's assume that the argument is true (it's not, I know, but stick with me). What if somehow they can prove that gay/black/multicultural/whatever characters don't sell to a large segment of the population (forgetting for a moment that not all or even most writers are going to write about these topics in the first place, and that those who do may be serving a segment of the population that seek out this work, AND that the publishers themselves are separating much of this material, keeping them from the larger audiences).

But should we cater to those bigoted people?

The question is, if businesses are using oppressive practices and it is in their best interest to do so, should that be reason enough to accept these practices? Some people in this system would be oppressed, but if the majority condone it, should it be acceptable, as long as the businesses make as much money as they can, and therefore put money back into the economy? Is that the society we want to inhabit?

Of course it doesn't take shotty research and vague accusations of "sales numbers" to uphold people's biases; if they're allowed to, they will use those biases if given the chance. If this is not what we want, we have to take a stand and show that as a society, we do not condone this kind of behavior from anyone, including business. Perhaps, especially big business.


*Perhaps this tells us that capitalism itself is flawed. Any system that makes it more possible for certain segments of the the population to be discriminated against is not democratic.