We Have Fed You All For A Thousand Years

I’ve loved this poem since I first heard it, perhaps in 1972 or so.  It has been set to music, and it’s been recorded by Utah Phillips, but I’ve always felt its power more as a poem.

We have fed you all for a thousand years
And you hail us still unfed,
Though there’s never a dollar of all your wealth
But marks the workers dead.
We have yielded our best to give you rest
And you lie on crimson wool.
And if blood be the price of all your wealth,
Good God! We have paid it in full!

There is never a mine blown skyward now,
But we’re buried alive for you.
There’s never a wreck drifts shore ward now
But we are its ghastly crew.
Go reckon our dead by the forges red,
And the factories where we spin.
If blood be the price of your cursed wealth
Good God! We have paid it in.

We have fed you all for a thousand years,
For that was our doom, you know.
From the days when you chained us in your fields,
To the strike of a week ago.
You have taken our lives, and our babies and wives,
And we’re told it’s your legal share.
But if blood be the price of your lawful wealth,
Good God! We have bought it fair.

By an “unknown proletarian”, April 18, 1908.

The Ones That Stick With Us

There is no reliable connection between a writer’s skill and popularity. I mean, I wish there were; it would make things easier. But just when you’re ready to point to writers like [REDACTED] and say, “See? If you’re popular, you suck,” you run into a Gaiman or a Martin and go, “Uh, well, okay, sometimes they’re popular on account of being really good.” The reverse case requires no special proof: especially with the increase in self-publishing, there is no shortage of writers who richly deserve their obscurity.

But then there are the frustrating cases, the ones where we want to grab the entire reading public by the lapels, shake them, and say, “Why haven’t you read this, you lunatic?” These writers can make us think we’re in a secret cabal, we are the ones who know. When we throw out the names of books or authors to someone we’ve just met at a convention, and the person says, War For the Oaks, our eyes get big, and we squee and say something that comes down to, “Oh, you too are initiated into the Secret?”

I use Emma Bull’s work as an example because her books are a classic case: known to so few it frustrates us. But those few love them with an intensity that seems to make up for the lack of popularity, like there’s some sort of law of Conservation of Squee. No, there is no such law (cf Martin & Gaiman), but it sometimes it seems like it—the fewer who know, the more intense the love and the deeper and more lasting and more powerful the effect.

If there were such a law, it would explain Pamela Dean. Even fewer people have heard of her than of Emma, a fact which constantly makes us grind our teeth (Emma’s teeth included, and yes, Emma, I am revealing things about your teeth), but those few! They meet in secret, and, when no one’s around, they say, “Tam Lin.” “I know! Just…” “Yeah. Wow.” And then they talk about Juniper and Gentian and Rosemary, or The Dubious Hills, or The Secret Country Trilogy, in hushed voices, as if for fear of scaring away the magic.

I am mentioning this now because, thanks to self-publishing, her work is becoming more available. Older, out of print works, and previously unpublished works are or will soon be for sale via print on demand or as e-books.

I am mentioning this because I would like all of you to be a part of the secret cabal whose lives have been changed.

The website is here. Do yourself a favor, and become part of the secret. Maybe it won’t be so secret any more, and we’d all like that very much.

When People Say “White People Say”

Stop saying “white people say.”

This has come up anew because Beyoncé flipped off the cops in the middle of the Super Bowl, with the result that bunches of us cheered, and the defenders of the status quo were deeply offended and outraged. Naturally, that outrage itself infuriates us, and makes us want to distance ourselves from the bigots and reactionaries. This is healthy. The next step is to go onto Facebook or Twitter and publish some meme that, while it may not advance our knowledge, at least serves to tell our friends, “Yes, I’m on her side!” There’s nothing wrong with that. Facebook memes are about shows of solidarity, or displays of wit, or cute cats, but they aren’t about advancing knowledge, which is fine.  And if you want to vent, and rage against overt bigotry, hell, I’m last person to suggest not doing that.

It’s fine until that meme works to reinforce the very sort of thinking we need to reject. At that point, it becomes part of the problem, whatever the intention of the creator.

No, my objection is not based on “not all white people,” or, “not all men,” or whatever. That isn’t the problem. It isn’t about lumping racist white people in with non-racist white people, that isn’t it either. And it isn’t about offending white people who aren’t racist. That’s another thing that misses the point. In fact, it isn’t about “white people” at all. And making it about “white people” is exactly the problem.

We’re in a war right now. There are two sides in this war: those who profit from the exploitation of the masses, and those who are exploited. The people who are blowing up hospitals and bombing children in the middle east are the people shooting unarmed poor and working class people, especially minorities, in the US. The people who are carrying out and financially backing genocidal attacks on the Palestinians are the people spying on us, poisoning our water, and reducing us to subsistence level wages, when we’re lucky enough to have a job. The people pushing us into conflicts with Russia and China are the people attacking our educational system. So the first step is to face it, we’re in a war.

There are many ways to fight a war, depending on objectives, conditions, and resources. But you know how you don’t fight a war? You don’t fight a war by saying, “Hey, never mind those people shooting at you, your real enemy are those folks in Company C, the barracks next door. Go get ’em!” Here’s a clue: the person who tries to get you shooting at your comrade is not your friend.

It’s about categories. Now, the middle-class philistine loves to tell us, “we’re all people, we should just be people and we ought to never see things as us against them.” I will leave the middle-class philistine to this opinion, comfortable that this sort of “ought” will never actually have an effect on the world. For the rest of us, the question is, what sort of categories? Well, it depends on what you’re doing with them, doesn’t it? The jingoist sees “American” and “Foreigner.” The evangelical Christian sees those who are saved and those who are not. The snob sees the elite and the hoi-palloi. The sexist sees men and women. The homophobe sees gay and straight. The bigot sees black and white. The Marxist sees things in class terms, and seeks to explain things—including those other divisions—according to class interests. I would argue, and have argued, that this latter view is correct, in that it corresponds to the objective processes that drive society forward at its most fundamental level.

When you say, “White people say” you are treating the category of race as if it were real, and vital, and central. You are making it stronger. You hear the enemy say, “Shoot at those guys in Company C” and are understandably saying, “Company C, you need to shoot back.” Understandable, but wrong—I say we need to be shooting at that son of a bitch who is trying to get us to shoot each other. You are letting the enemy dictate the terms. Are there people who pull their personal identity from race, or from sex, or sexual orientation, from religion, from ethnicity? Certainly there are; I daresay people can pull their sense of identity from wherever they choose. But this will not keep the bombs from falling on Syria; it will not halt the drive to World War III; it will not prevent more and more unemployment, poverty, homelessness. And it will not help to organize the working class—the one force on Earth with the power and the historic duty to go up against capital.

We need to recognize our side. And our side is not determined by our color, or the shape of our genitalia, or who we like to sleep with. It is determined by external war and internal repression and the answer to a fairly simple question: Are we exploiting the labor of others to make billions of dollars on human misery, or are we in the ranks of the exploited?

So the oppressed minorities are just supposed to ignore their oppression for the sake of unity?

No. We are all supposed to demand and work for an immediate and unconditional end to that oppression—for the sake of unity. We must band together against police murder, against the hysteria directed against our Muslim brothers and sisters, against the impoverishment of the American Indian, against the brutal exploitation of the Latino, against the attacks on the reproductive rights of women. The fight against institutional racism must be part of the fight against capitalism; and the fight against racism and other forms of backwardness within the ranks of the oppressed (which does exist, although not nearly to the degree the media wants us to believe) must be part of the fight to organize against oppression.

ETA: I’m adding this in response to the comments, because the point Matt brings up is valid, and Jonas’s answer is spot on: I am arguing that race is a fallacious category created to keep the oppressed divided;  but racism is real, and it is the duty of every class-conscious worker to fight it.

You know what helps in the fight against racism within the working class? When you say, “The category of race is pure crap, created to keep you apart, and look at how low your wages are exactly because the bosses have kept you fighting each other by convincing you that the category of race is real. We have to work together, and that means saying ‘NO’ to any effort to try to convince you, by economic advantage, social advantage, or psychological game playing, that you have any interests in common with the exploiters. And we work together in this way, not because you should sacrifice for others, but because it is your own best interest that we are united against our enemy.”

You know what doesn’t help? Telling them, “categories of race are real, and we must make them stronger, oh, and be sure you sacrifice what supposed privileges your masters have given you over the doubly oppressed, because you’ll feel all warm and glowy.” This, of course, is very helpful to those who want the oppression to continue. And I’m sure it feels very good to those in the middle—those with secure and comfortable lives who don’t want those lives disrupted by something as untidy and disturbing as the class struggle. If this describes you, then, sure, feel free to say, “White people say.” But don’t pretend that you are helping the oppressed.

Heads Up: People are not stupid, and they don’t suck

Rant on

I am utterly out of patience with these, “humans suck” “people are stupid” sorts of comments. The very kindest thing to be said is that they’re shallow and unscientific. Humans are resourceful in problem solving, self-sacrificing in disaster, passionate in creating art, ingenious in developing technology, determined in fighting injustice. For every government you show me that is refusing refugees, I’ll show you thousands of their people in the street protesting against it. For every backward comment from a Trump supporter, I’ll show you dozens of outraged responses. For every child murdered by drones, I’ll show you scores of people who are appalled.

Even in this ugly, degenerated capitalist system that builds greed and selfishness into every aspect of life, that forces every relationship between people to be mediated by relationships between things, that turns the struggle for existence into a zero sum game, human beings have never stopped fighting to make things better, to expand basic rights, and to increase equality. Cynicism is the result of ignorance, cowardice, or knavery.

Rant off

The Reaction Shot

wheatonI have a little bit of theater in my past. From around age 14 to maybe 20, my passion for theater and for writing were about the same. One effect of having a theater background is that I’m in the habit, when watching a performance, of thinking about how it applies to writing. The one I’ve been noticing most recently is the reaction shot.

vlcsnap-00003

In a particularly effective scene, think about, instead of the actor who is doing the thing, the one who is reacting to it. This is always the key to fight scenes: stage combat (I love stage combat) is 90% about reacting to attacks. But it applies more broadly. For example, I’ve just re-watched Leverage, one of my favorite shows. If you watch the episodes where Wil Wheaton guest stars, watch how many scenes he sells by reacting. There is one spectacular example in “The Last Dam Job,” where we believe in the taser because of how he sells being tased. Another great example is in The Martian. One of the more delightful scenes in a movie full of delightful scenes is the one where the crew is finally in touch again with the stranded astronaut. There is some splendid and real-sounding banter between friends (“We have to take turns doing your tasks, but I mean, it’s only botany, it’s not real science.”), which is both well written and well performed between the actors; but what really makes the scene work is the way the rest of the crew, listening to the conversation, reacts to it. For a third example, I’ve been watching some old episodes of the original Mission: Impossible, and watching Martin Landau react, and noticing how much that carries a scene, is fascinating. (As a side note, Landau is one of my favorite actors; if you ever get the chance, catch his appearance on Inside the Actor’s Stuido. He talks about acting the way we process geeks talk about writing.)

vlcsnap-00004

Do I have to spell out how this relates to writing? No, but I will anyway, because I’m a pedantic son of a bitch. Check out how easy it is to change the emotional content of a scene just by the reaction of someone not directly involved  in the action.

“Okay,” I said, letting a dagger fall into my hand. “We can do it that way if you want.”
He kept his face expressionless. Behind him, the bodyguard folded his arms and smirked.

vs

“Okay,” I said, letting a dagger fall into my hand.  “We can do it that way if you want.”
He kept his face expressionless. Behind him, the bodyguard leaned forward a little, hands twitching.

Or, this.

He held out his arm, and she took it. Her friend glanced at them and gritted her teeth.

vs

He held out his arm, and she took it. Her friend glanced at them, then looked away, suppressing a smile.

Now of course, point of view is at the heart of this, as it is at the heart of everything. But paying attention to the reaction of those who are not directly involved in the action can accomplish a lot with very little effort.