Showing posts with label academic activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic activism. Show all posts

Friday, February 16, 2018

Antiracist Medievalisms: Lessons from Chinese Exclusion

by JONATHAN HSY

 
[Early Chinese American voices (left to right): Wong Chin Foo, Yan Phou Lee, and Edith Maude Eaton / Sui Sin Far.]

Racist appropriation of the Middle Ages is a disturbing aspect of contemporary culture. Among the most notorious recent examples are the use of medieval iconography by white nationalists and related displays at (neo) Nazi rallies. As a Chinese American I’m acutely aware of the role that toxic forms of medievalism have played in a long history of discrimination and violence. One particularly painful aspect of such history is the era of Chinese exclusiona decades-long period when legislation denied Chinese immigrants in the US (and Canada) full rights of citizenship, and anti-Chinese riots were enabled by a toxic mix of nativist and xenophobic medievalism. As Illustrating Chinese Exclusion reveals, dehumanizing caricatures of the unassimilable “Chinaman” with slanted eyes and long “pigtail” were often contrasted with idealized exemplars of (Christian) white masculinity; moreover, such propaganda gleefully exploited “medieval” imagery to appeal to a popular audience (e.g., Thomas Nast’s political cartoons “Pacific Chivalry” and “Martyrdom of St Crispin”).

Toxic medievalism (medieval-ism referring to popular fantasies of a medieval past) was not just pervasive in visual media.[1] Such toxicity infused the political rhetoric of “Yellow Peril.” In the words of US Senator James G. Blaine, front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination: “The question is [whether] the Anglo-Saxon race will possess the Pacific Slope or the Mongolians will possess it.”[2] Elsewhere, Blaine asserted that states such as California can “[maintain] a vast population of Anglo-Saxon freemen, if we do not surrender it to Chinese coolies.”[3] Throughout the 1880’s, anti-Chinese riots were orchestrated by members of the Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, a group that deployed medieval iconography and nativist nostalgia to provoke violence and expulsion (and as early as 1870, a trade union styled the Knights of Saint Crispin held mass meetings in San Francisco and other cities decrying “coolie labor”).[4] To make matters worse, “progressive” reform movements in Chinatowns—whether led by white women or by white men—exploited missionary discourses of social uplift and moral crusade to assert the superiority of Western civilization over “barbarous” Asian influences.[5]

The Chinese Exclusion era is one vivid example of how nativist appropriations of “medieval” imagery and discourse can fuel animus against immigrant communities across North America (and immigrant diasporas around the globe). Rather than write another piece lamenting the “abuse” or “misuse” of a medieval past, I consider the targets of toxic medievalism. How did Chinese Americans transform a hostile sociopolitical environment? What strategies did they employ to resist discrimination?

In the following sketches, I explore how early Chinese Americans created space for antiracist medievalism.[6] Not only did people of Chinese ancestry turn “medieval” tropes and rhetoric against their contemporary detractors, but they also found affirming possibilities to assert a shared humanity and to claim cultural belonging.[7]


Chinese American Voices


[Closing of a handwritten letter by Wong Ar Chong – entire letter here]

One way to address toxic chivalry was simply to rebuke it directly.

In an eloquent letter addressed to civil rights advocate William Lloyd Garrison, Chinese immigrant and Boston tea merchant Wong Ar Chong was an early voice from within the Chinese American community expressing opposition to nativism. In 1878, Denis Kearney—himself an (Irish Catholic) immigrant—had published an “Appeal from California” (co-signed by H.L. Knight) decrying a “Chinese invasion” and announcing a readiness to take “arm … if need be.” In his handwritten letter dated February 28, 1879, Wong decries Kearney’s ideology (see this Smithsonian website for images of the letter; you can also read a full transcript).

Wong’s letter offers an antidote to toxic chivalry by appealing to Christian charity, equal rights, and gentility—all sensibilities coded as elite masculine virtues. Wong reveals the pervasive legal disenfranchisement of Chinese immigrants, endorses a quintessentially American ethos of hard work, and—whether or not he identified as Christian himself—he invokes the Golden Rule: “I ask you, where is … your Christian charity, and the fruits of your Bible teachings when you talk about doing to others as you would have them do to you?”

As is the case with any act of communication, the medium is the message. Kearney and Knight’s nativist and populist “appeal” is rebutted by Wong’s direct appeal for civil rights. Wong’s decision to write in his own hand on account ledger paper not only reminds the reader of his writing body; the document also asserts the social and economic value of Chinese immigrant labor.


[Wong Chin Foo – via bio on this Smithsonian website]

Activist, journalist, and lecturer, Wong Chin Foo (王清福) took a divergent strategy for Chinese American advocacy. Rather than plea to allies for aid, he called out allies for their hypocrisy.

Wong Chin Foo has been dubbed “the first Chinese American” (among other things, he was likely the first to use the term “Chinese American” in reference to a social identity). Naturalized as a citizen in 1874 in Michigan prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act, he founded the first Chinese-language newspaper on the East Coast, aptly entitled The Chinese American.[8] In his scathing essay “Why Am I A Heathen?” (1887), Wong sparked a great deal of controversy for pointing out the bigotry of self-proclaimed Christians and rebuking their greed and imperialism. He sarcastically ends the work by “invit[ing] the Christians of America to come to Confucius.”

By claiming an ethical stance as a “heathen,” Wong cleverly upended the “Heathen Chinee” stereotype. Popularized by a poem published in 1870 by Bret Harte that was intended to mock anti-Chinese sentiments, the character of the shifty and untrustworthy “Heathen Chinee” became a “meme” in visual culture. Even though Harte had intended to expose and satirize racism, the wide circulation of the “Heathen Chinee” stereotype had the disastrous effect of reinforcing anti-Chinese prejudices (read and judge for yourself). Through his deliberate “heathen” posture, Wong suggests that white allies such as Harte can prove dangerously unreliable. Even when attempting to be antiracist, white supporters can do more harm than good.

In addition to reclaiming an ethical “heathen” status, Wong’s works of literary fiction challenged white audiences in surprising concurrent route: by reshaping chivalry for Chinese Americans.

Wu Chih Tien, The Celestial Empress (1889), which Wong claimed was an English “translation” of an (unverified) ancient Chinese romance, was published as a serial novel in The Cosmopolitan and featured a healthy dose of nostalgic heroism. As literary critic Hsuan L. Hsu observes, the novel “[takes] as its protagonist the handsome, robust, intelligent, and sympathetic prince,” and it “resists the equation of whiteness with imperial manhood” so pervasive in historical romances.[9] Published in the same year as Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889), Wong used the same illustrator as Twain did—but instead of producing another medieval romance with a white character, he casts a Chinese man in the lead role. Alluding to illustrious classics of Chinese literature such as The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Wong’s newly-invented historical novel shrewdly repurposed a familiar set of narrative and visual conventions, all the while inviting white readers to identify with a seemingly unlikely hero.

[Yan Phou Lee – via Wikipedia]

Wong Chin Foo wasn’t the only Chinese American to adapt medieval mentalities to reach white audiences. Yan Phou Lee, one of the first Chinese students to earn a degree in the US, sought to assimilate to his new home, publishing a memoir When I Was a Boy in China (1887) and all other works with his surname “last” just like Anglo-Americans. Although he submitted paperwork around 1887, an amendment to the exclusion law prevented him from claiming citizenship.[10]

Reflecting the views of a committed Christian, Lee’s “Why I Am Not a Heathen: A Rejoinder to Wong Chin Foo” (1887) addresses white audiences from an “insider” position. Arguing that violent Christians are not upholding the faith and emphasizing that the ethical Christians are those who have helped Chinese immigrant communities, Lee asserts that “when I have found ‘fraternity’ I invariably found it in the Christian church.” Mindful of outraged white reactions to Wong’s essay, Lee not only aimed to manage the anxieties of white middle-class readers; he also discovered his own path for denouncing anti-Chinese racism.

Divergent in personality and tactics, both Wong and Lee “re-coded” the possibilities of Chinese American masculinity—and they did so through a shared idiom of chivalry.


[Edith Maude Eaton / Sui Sin Far – original image here]

Born in England to an English father and a Chinese mother, Edith Maude Eaton evades simple identity categories.[11] Although she was able to pass as white, she wrote most of her famous works under the Chinese pseudonym Sui Sin Far (a transcription of the Cantonese 水仙花 for “water lily”)—among other pen names and fictive authorial personae.[12]

In “Leaves From the Mental Portfolio of a Eurasian” (1909), Sui Sin Far relates episodes spanning her childhood and young adulthood in England, Montreal, New York, and San Francisco’s Chinatown.[13] Although she strongly identified with her Chinese background (in the text and in real life), the first-person narrative—related in a perpetual present tense—reveals the shifting ways she was perceived across time and space.

Sui Sin Far’s autobiographical writing integrates white heroism and Chinese victimhood in one body. The first encounter with racist violence transpires after the family enters the US. In New York, white children on the street find out she and her brother are Chinese and hurl insults: “Chinky, Chinky, Chinaman, yellow-face, pig-tail, rat-eater” (222). The narrator proclaims she (and by extension her brother) “would rather be Chinese than anything in the world,” and in an ensuing skirmish “the white blood in our veins fights valiantly for the Chinese half of us” (222). Informing her proud mother afterwards that the siblings “won the battle,” and the narrator awakes in the morning shouting lyrics to “Sound the battle cry”—a hymn laden with chivalric imagery (222-223).

Alluding to anti-Chinese violence through this tale of childhood harassment, Sui Sin Far uses medieval imagery to express a dual identity. Internalizing “white savior” tropes of progressive missionary uplift, she imagines a chivalric white self fighting on behalf of another self that is vulnerable and Chinese.

Later in the text, she declares that she loves “poetry, particularly heroic pieces [and] fairy tales” and “dream[s] dreams of being great and noble” (225).[14] She takes “glory in the idea of dying at the stake and a great genie arising from the flames and declaring to those who have scorned us: ‘Behold, how great and glorious and noble are Chinese people!’” (225). By invoking potent imagery of Joan of Arc, Sui Sin Far anticipates the more famous women warriors in later Chinese American writing.[15]

The prophetic dream of the narrator is fulfilled when the text shifts into a hagiographical third-person voice. She cites a Chinese writer in New York who states: “The Chinese in America owe an everlasting debt of gratitude to Sui Sin Far for the bold stand she has taken in their defense” (226). In her later work as a journalist, advocate, the author indeed wrote movingly on behalf of immigrants in Chinatowns (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Montreal).[16] Sui Sin Far rerouted what might otherwise become tropes of toxic chivalry, expressing through medieval intertexts a sustained commitment to racial justice.


Lessons Learned

What lessons can these early Chinese American voices offer?

  •  Toxic medievalism has real consequences (physical, financial, social, and psychological), and work on race and medievalism should center targets of toxic medievalism, not just examine white intentions (malicious or benevolent). Chinese Americans were not just passive “victims” of misrepresentation; they were active participants in popular forms of medievalism and they found ways to advocate for themselves.

  • Antiracist medievalism takes many forms. Early Chinese Americans expressed resistance to discrimination and rerouted notions of nobility, chivalry, and virtue to antiracist ends—but they achieved their goals through divergent social positions (varying by class, profession, gender, and religion).

  • Targets of toxic medievalism exhibit courage—and integrity—in calling on mainstream society to do better. Writing in English, these Chinese Americans aimed to reach majority-white audiences. They invented new forms of self-representation, created platforms when none were available, and kept supporters accountable.

Early Chinese Americans made use of platforms that are still in use: letter-writing, journalism, activism, public discourse, creative writing, and combinations thereof. These figures not only reveal powerful strategies for antiracism and resistance in the historical past; they also provide models for advocacy, art, solidarity, and action today.






[1] The term “toxic” has a particular resonance with histories of anti-Chinese racism and (white) anxieties about Chinatowns; Mel Y. Chen, Animacies: Biopolitcs, Racial Mattering, and Queer Affect (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012), 170-171; esp. Ch. 6, “Following Mercurial Affect,” 189-221. The phrases “toxic medievalism” and “toxic chivalry” are used along the lines of present-day feminist understandings of “toxic masculinity.”
[2] Paul Yin, “The Narratives of Chinese-American Litigation During the Chinese Exclusion Era,” Asian American Law Journal 19, 4 (2012): 145-169, at 147.
[3] Henry Davenport Northrop (ed.), Life and Public Services of Hon. James G. Blaine: The Plumed Knight (Minneapolis: L.M. Ayer Publishing Co., 1893), 218.
[4] Elmer Clarence Sandmeyer, The Anti-Chinese Movement in California (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991), 47; Brian Donovan, White Slave Crusades: Race, Gender, and Anti-vice Activism, 1887-1917 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006).
[5] On “Chinese invasion fiction” and Christian missionary literature, see Edlie Wong, Racial Reconstruction: Black Inclusion, Chinese Exclusion, and the Fictions of Citizenship (NYU Press, 2015), 130; on “Mongolian” as a racial stereotype and legal category tied to medieval Eurasian contexts, see Guenter B. Risse, Plague, Fear, and Politics in San Francisco’s Chinatown (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press), 5-6.
[6] I use the term Chinese American (without the hyphen) to denote people of Chinese ancestry writing in the US who specifically identified with Chinese immigrant communities. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the contingency and flexibility of identity terms along the lines of David Palumbo-Liu: “As in the construction ‘and/or,’ where the solidus at once [marks] a choice between two terms … ‘Asian/American’ marks both [a] distinction … and a dynamic, unsettled, and inclusive movement (Asian/American: Historical Crossings of a Racial Frontier [Stanford University Press, 1999], 1).
[7] My discussion of medievalism in Chinese American writing implicitly speaks across time to first-person writing by present-day people of color and ethnic minority medievalists so often positioned (to borrow a phrase from Cord Whitaker) as “other to the European Middle Ages” (5). Cord Whitaker, “Race-ing the dragon: the Middle Ages, race, and trippin’ into the future,” postmedieval 6, 1 (April 2015): 3-11; see Cord Whitaker, Wan-Chuan Kao, Dorothy Kim, Adam Miyashiro, and Carolyn Dinshaw, “Pale Faces: Race, Religion, and Affect in Chaucer’s Texts and Their Readers,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 23 (2001): 19-41; note related work by Candace Barrington, Michelle WarrenDavid Wallace, and basically everything by Helen Young. On adjacent postcolonial approaches to medievalism globally, note Nadia Altschul and Kathleen Davis (eds.), Medievalisms in the Postcolonial World: The Idea of “the Middle Ages” Outside Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009).
[8] Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong University Press, 2013).
[9] Hsuan L. Hsu, Sitting in Darkness: Mark Twain’s Asia and Comparative Racialization (New York University Press, 2015), 132.
[10] Yan Phou Lee: When I Was a Boy in China: Edited with Introductory Comments by Richard V. Lee (2004), 20.
[11] Patricia Chu grants the author status as “an isolated foremother of the yet to be written Asian American literature, anticipates later writers’ concerns with identity, racial and gender oppression, the search for ancestry and filiation, and the problems of Americanization embodied in Asian American versions of the immigrant romance” and what makes her distinctive compared to other writers is that “her decision to claim Chinese American identity and authorship is more obviously her own deliberate and individual choice” (Assimilating Asians: Gendered Strategies of Authorship in Asian America [Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002], 100). David Shih maintains it’s too limiting to claim the writer as an “Asian American” foremother and “discrete racial and national subject” (“The Seduction of Origins,” in Form and Transformation of Asian American Literature, ed. Zhou Xiaojing and Samina Najmi [Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005], 49). Mary Chapman considers both “Asian American” and “Asian Canadian” claims to the author, but she concludes Sui Sin Far is best read transnationally as “border-crossing, border-straddling, and border-crossing” figure whose first-person personae enact complex modes of racial and gender passing (Becoming Sui Sin Far: Early Fiction, Journalism, and Travel Writing by Edith Maude Eaton [Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2016], xxiv).
[12] Her sister, Winnifred Eaton, styled herself as “Japanese” writing romances under the pen name Onoto Watanna (to commercial success). On the divergent trajectories of the sisters’ careers, see Dominika Ferens, Edith and Winnifred Eaton: Chinatown Missions and Japanese Romances (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002); on the divergent effects of Orientalist marketing of the works by the Eaton sisters, see Yoonmee Chang, Writing the Ghetto: Class, Authorship, and the Asian American Ethnic Enclave (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2010), 61-66; for a sympathetic reading of Watanna’s medievalism through intertextual allusions to the classical Japanese romance Tale of Genji, see Shoshannah Ganz, Eastern Encounters: Canadian Women’s Writing about the East, 1867-1929 (Taipei: National Taiwan University Press, 2017), 37-38 and 142-159.
[13] Page numbers for “Leaves” follow Hsuan L. Hsu (ed.), Mrs. Spring Fragrance: Edith Maude Eaton/Sui Sin Far (Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 2011).
[14] This claim is confirmed by her early publications. As Edith Eaton, she published (for instance) a work integrating prose and interpolated verses entitled “In Fairyland” Dominion Illustrated 5.120 (18 October 1890): 270; note the literary context for her medievalism (Chapman, Becoming Sui Sin Far, xxxii-xxxiii).
[15] Born in 1905 in Los Angeles, Louise Leung Larson was given the name “Lau Lan, after the most famous woman in France, Joan of Arc” (Sweet Bamboo: A Memoir of a Chinese American Family [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001], 225); see also Maxine Hong Kingston, The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); David Henry Hwang, FOB and Other Plays (New York: Plume, 1990); Gene Luen Yang, Boxers & Saints (New York: First Second Books, 2013).
[16] For instance, “A Plea For the Chinaman” (1896) addresses anti-Chinese legislation in Canada. Patricia Chu notes that the author signed this publication as “‘E.E.,’ at time when she published under the name Edith Eaton and was perceived as an English woman” (Assimilating Asians, 102). In this instance, passing in print as an English woman allows her pro-Chinese arguments to land more effectively with a white Anglophone audience.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Whiteness in Medieval Studies Workshop: A Reflection on Emotional Labor

guest posting by SHOKOOFEH RAJABZADEH

[ITM readers: check out this timely reflection on the workshop at the May 2017 International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, MI, on "Whiteness in Medieval Studies." ICYMI, note also a recent ITM posting about more inclusivity in public discourse about race and medieval studies.]

 “Whiteness in Medieval Studies” Workshop : A Reflection on Emotional Labor

Reflection written by Shokoofeh Rajabzadeh
Workshop organized by: Seeta Chaganti, Jonathan Hsy, Sierra Lomuto, and Shokoofeh Rajabzadeh, with Dorothy Kim and the Fellowship of Medievalists of Color

Students and faculty of color often find themselves leading initiatives to dismantle power structures of whiteness that support racism and implicit biases. It is easy to assume that we are somehow more comfortable with this kind of work, that we have less to lose which is why we are willing to risk our reputations or job prospects, or that we somehow have more support than others and are thus more prepared to put ourselves forward. This is far from the truth. I can only speak on behalf of my own experiences, but I believe my observations will resonate with other students and faculty of color. As an immigrant and Iranian, Muslim-American, I have always moved through the world expecting  that, at any point, I may lose everything: immigration status, freedom of speech, physical safety due to Islamophobic violence, educational opportunities, financial security due to racial profiling, etc. In the Islamophobic world I grew up in, before I could read, write, and move for my own sake, I had to make space for myself in classes that did not welcome me, navigate the administrative bureaucracies of my middle and high schools when I was bullied or threatened, and fight for opportunities in fields, subjects, and extracurricular activities that did not readily yield opportunities to people like me. In other words, I speak up not because I have less to lose or because I am more comfortable with the consequences, but because that’s the only way I’ve ever been heard. Our experiences as people of color may differ, but what we all share is courage. We have never had the privilege of being in the white world without it. 
            I am also a student and educator. And it is important for me to stress that I have my courage  because of my education, not in spite of it. I have learned how to think critically in classrooms. My educators model courage for me both inside and outside of the classroom. University of California, Berkeley, like other universities, is one of the few places where people think critically about the pursuit of knowledge and are committed to its advancement for its own sake and not to serve an agenda. That is to say, when students ask for change in a field, institution, department, or classroom, they are not threatening the field or institution. They are celebrating it. Their initiatives prove their investment in the degree, that they are committed, that they care, and that it is not enough for them to make it through the field. They want to thrive in it.

“Whiteness in Medieval Studies” ICMS Workshop

At the 2017 International Congress on Medieval Studies at Kalamazoo, Michigan, some of the members of the Fellowship of Medievalists of Color organized and led the “Whiteness in Medieval Studies” workshop to bring racial consciousness to medieval studies, disrupt white supremacists’ attraction to our field, and improve the field’s inclusivity. Sierra Lomuto laid the foundations for the workshop when she confronted the white nationalist appropriation of the field by writing a bold piece titled, “White Nationalism and the Ethics of Medieval Studies.” Sierra proposed the idea of the workshop to the Fellowship of Medievalists of Color listserv shortly after the piece’s publication in December 2016. And that began an intensely laborious, yet invigorating preparation process.
The following five months were packed with hundreds of emails, countless numbers of meetings over the phone and Skype, and many, many, drafts and revisions of our workshop materials by the organizers and medievalists of color on the listerv, totalling over one hundred hours of labor by each of the main organizers of the event— Seeta Chaganti, Jonathan Hsy, Sierra Lomuto, and myself. The results of our intense labor was a one-hour workshop. The hour included: a five minute opening given by Sierra and me stressing that our main objective was to bring racial consciousness to the field, which required first and foremost recognizing whiteness as a race; a thirty minute staged conversation by Seeta and Jonathan that addressed some of the ways whiteness and implicit biases shape notions of professional merit, how scholars are read in peer review or hiring practices, and the implications of race on mentorship; and a thirty-minute discussion focused on questions based on the pre-circulated readings. The workshop was phenomenally well-attended. We estimated between 200-250 people. Many of the participants seemed to have done the readings beforehand, which suggested to us a thirst for learning and understanding beyond the confines of the workshop. We walked away proud and relieved.

The Workshop & Emotional Labor

While workshops like this one demand physical and intellectual labor, as graduate students and academics we are accustomed to tight lower back muscles and mental fatigue. What makes this work especially difficult is the emotional labor— the fears and anxieties around putting oneself in precarious positions; the calculations, the negotiations, the consideration of white fragility; strategizing how to strengthen white allyship while staring into the eyes of Whiteness in medieval studies; working through the fears; and confronting whiteness boldly and unapologetically as a person of color. It is this kind of emotional work that is taxing.
For example, one’s first inclination when organizing a workshop on the experience of people of color with respect to Whiteness is to structure it so that it values the personal anecdote. As people of color in predominantly white spaces, we do our best to stand out as little as possible, and to blend in as much as possible. Personal anecdotes are empowering because they give us the opportunity to set the tone and lead the conversation. And they do so in a way that foregrounds, rather than tempers, our identities as people of color. That is just the work it does for the speaker, however. Sharing personal anecdotes, experiences of microaggressions, and/or just plain agressions has the power to validate the experiences of every other person of color in the room. It is equally if not more empowering to realize that there was never a need for you to experience a vortex of self-doubt as you silently sat in a seminar room a few months ago or a conference last year, that your experience was real. This validation allows you to begin the process of healing that you have resisted because you convinced yourself your worldview is a paranoid, critical, or judgmental one. That is the power of the personal story.
And yet, to be taken seriously while speaking personally is itself a privilege that people of color do not have. We understand that too often the personal anecdote is mistaken for shaming and blaming the white body. It triggers guilt that is toxic for any constructive conversation. And more importantly, often when people of color offer specific examples, the focus of the discussion moves away from, “What about the power structure led to this act of marginalization?” and focuses instead on, “What were the intentions of the accuser?” Most often, the intentions are honorable, and yet this is besides the point, for as Sierra and I mentioned in our opening remarks, to confront whiteness is to move beyond the particular bodies in the room and to think about power structures that allow, train, or accustom bodies to work, move, or speak in certain ways.
To be an ally is to first and foremost accept that structural racism exists, and to expect it wherever and whenever there are spaces, much less fields, that are predominately white. To demand specifics or to defend the well and good intentions of one person or another is to miss the point. It shifts the burden back on the person of color. It suggests that they were not generous enough, that they were or are sensitive, judgmental, or critical. This unfortunate maneuvering of blame detracts from the real problem at hand: the toxic structure that underlies microaggressions and makes them possible. Seeta, Jonathan, Sierra, and I wanted to bring the community together to address the underlying condition, rather than fiddle with the symptoms.
So, every time the four of us met on Skype, edited documents, or spoke to one another, we asked ourselves again and again: Should we risk shifting the focus of the discussion in order to validate the experiences of those most vulnerable in the room? Are we convincing ourselves to keep it impersonal and general because we are afraid of how our predominantly white audience may interpret our stories? Will we seem threatening, petty, angry, rude, or judgmental if we share them? Will this turn people away from our main cause? Are we withholding our personal anecdotes because we are doubting those experiences again? Such questions required us to collectively revisit our experiences again to reassure ourselves that they were part of a larger pattern of marginalization. We interrogated our choices and intentions at every turn, because it was important for us that fear was not guiding our decisions. If after our discussion, we realized that we were containing our personal anecdotes because we were afraid of the consequences, then it was even more imperative that we work up the courage to make our stories heard, not only for our own sakes, but for the sake of every other medievalist of color in the room. On the other hand, we were willing to forgo the desire to be heard if the stories undermined the structure and objectives of the workshop.
After a lot of deliberation, we decided to keep our comments and the staged conversation and questions general, speaking as medievalists of color rather than as Seeta, Jonathan, Sierra, or Shokoofeh in order to keep the discussion as focused as possible. At the same time, we agreed that we should introduce a personal anecdote whenever we found it pertinent. We also distributed index cards to the audience to give people the opportunity to share personal stories.
I describe this example in detail not only to expose the emotional and intellectual labor that went into every decision, every spoken line, and every group question at the workshop, but more importantly to show that this work is not easy or comfortable for us. Despite our willingness to organize this workshop, at the end of the day, as medievalists of color, we are a minority in our home institutions, in the field at large, and especially at the International Congress on Medieval Studies. We are not familiar bodies. We do not blend in. And this inevitably makes us vulnerable.  
In fact, when Sierra and I began the planning process with Seeta and Jonathan, we were so afraid of the professional and social consequences of publicly exposing the field’s racial politics that we neither intended to put our names on formal documents nor speak at the workshop itself. This was the plan for months and, looking back, I am deeply unsettled by our willingness to put in so much labor without  taking credit for it. It wasn’t until we created the website, and were faced with the reality of leaving our names off of the official, public-facing presentation of the workshop, that we realized the disempowerment embedded in our decision. To choose not to put our names on the website was to officialize the anonymity. This was silencing, defeating. However, to publicize our names was to present ourselves as critics of a field before establishing ourselves as scholars and professors.
The ease with which we were willing to pour ourselves into this work while remaining anonymous is a perfect example of the power structures of whiteness at work. We silence ourselves because we are afraid of further threatening our already slim chances of getting hired as people of color in a white field. The silencing in turn suggests that what we have to say is disruptive, disrespectful, and most of all shameful. Moments before launching the website, Sierra and I decided to publish our names on the home page. There was little to no discussion about why we had changed our minds. The anxieties and concerns for our future never fully subsided, but they were countered by trust and self-respect. It was a choice driven by courage. 

Responses to the Workshop

It was encouraging that our workshop participants responded to our vulnerability with courageous statements and promises of their own, both during the workshop itself and in their online reflections. In fact, all of our white friends and colleagues who attended the workshop later applauded it. People we did not know approached us during the Congress to express gratitude; many told us they were encouraged and motivated to interrogate their own practices as educators and do more at their own institutions. One man raised his hand during the workshop discussion to admit (and I paraphrase), “I thought I knew what the folk theory of racism was, but after doing the reading, I realize that not only did I not understand it fully, but that I am guilty of it in my classroom as well.” Another woman had the courage to admit that she had not put forward a black professor in her department for a teaching award because the professor (as well as many of the other professors of color in her department) was cross-listed with a different department— in this case, African American Studies. She always assumed that the other department would put them forward for the award. From the reflections we learned that people who felt like they were always “second-guess[ing]” themselves or “overreacting or overanalyzing...felt very validated and less alone.” At the same time, white individuals in the room expressed that they needed to focus on “what [the] IMPACT of [their] actions/words/assumptions” were “regardless of their INTENTION” (emphasis not mine). And one person even acknowledged that her “anti-racist intentions and actions don’t necessarily mean that [she has] rooted out problematic unconscious ideas.”
More than anything, a sense of urgency permeated the reflections on the workshop. “Change is needed RIGHT NOW,” one of the participants has written. “It is time to change...the woeful inadequacy with which whiteness in medieval studies has been addressed.” Many expressed the need for “more of these” kinds of conversations, “more…[workshops] in Kalamazoos [sic] and elsewhere,”  a desire to make this “an annual workshop at the ICMS,” a desire for “more time,” “more discussion[s] of whiteness and how it functions in the field.” And some even acknowledged that they “cannot let medievalists of color do all the work.”
From these statements, it is clear that our white friends and colleagues also recognize the power structures at play, and there is a yearning not only to better understand how the structure functions but more importantly, how to dismantle it. It takes strength to admit white privilege, but it takes a sheer amount of courage to confront how whiteness has led one to overlook prejudices and to then commit to breaking destructive patterns that the white power structure has established and eagerly welcomes white bodies into.

Reflection & Next Steps

Only acts of courage can change systems. But acts of courage are not comfortable or convenient. They are not safe. They are never anonymous.
They can, however, vary. One does not need to lead a workshop in front of hundreds to make a change. In fact, the smallest act of courage can have an intense ripple effect. Speaking up with a person of color when she raises concerns at a meeting, speaking up in forums when a person of color is disrespected, not hired, not promoted, etc. Relentlessly pushing for inclusivity initiatives at institutions, putting that ask in writing, and sharing it with colleagues is perhaps one of the safest yet most powerful acts of courage available. It can have a monumental impact on many levels. To have others raising concerns about inclusivity not only relieves a heavy burden from the person of color, but dramatically impacts how welcome they feel in the community.
One of the qualities that ties these examples together, however, is that they are public. Concern, disappointment, and even rage in private (and here, private includes sympathetic friends or colleagues) is limited in its efficacy. It is comfortable, convenient, more or less anonymous, and it neither weakens the structure, nor validates the person of color. It is only with sheer vulnerability that there is any hope of bringing this power structure to its knees.
To that end, then, we must admit that more than anything acts of courage are about acknowledging fear. Fear is a central part of courage. To admit boldly that we are afraid, and to list what we are afraid of is to admit that we have something to lose. It is only courage when we recognize what we have to lose and continue to fight for it.  After all, what we have to lose is the very thing we’re fighting for.

If you are a person of color who works in the field of medieval studies, the Fellowship of Medievalists of Color warmly welcomes you. To join the listserv, contact the current administrator Jonathan Hsy at jhsy at gwu dot edu.


About the author: Shokoofeh Rajabzadeh has an Mphil from Oxford University, and is currently a PhD candidate at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation, tentatively titled "The Muslim Prism," explores the entanglement of race, ethnicity, and faith as reflected and refracted in the Muslim body and in representations of Islamic space. She invests as much of her free time as possible in inclusivity and diversity initiatives on the UC Berkeley campus and in the field of medieval studies.

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

On Hospitality: #BlanketGate and #BlanketsForKzoo2017

by JONATHAN HSY



Screenshot of the #BlanketsForKzoo2017 crowdfunding website; click for transcription of text with visual description.


The International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo (#Kzoo2017) is approaching!

There are been a number of conversations on social media about hospitality and inclusivity at Kzoo: from questions of in/accessibility, disability, and mental health to online responses to the recently-announced effort to encourage writing pronouns on one's own conference badge as a gesture of inclusivity for all people of any gender identity or gender presentation.

Most recently, #BlanketGate erupted (it was announced on Monday, May 8, that that WMU will no longer provide blankets for those staying in the dorms and blankets are instead available for purchase for $17). Since this development most adversely affects scholars with limited funding, SMFS began a crowdfunding drive to purchase blankets for Congress attendees (with plans to also donate blankets to a homeless shelter afterwards).

For full context and to contribute to the blanket drive at Kzoo2017, visit this crowdfunding page created by Kathleen Kennedy (the target is $5,000).

(For more info on the logistics of this effort, see Karen Overbey’s public Facebook posting.) *

Efforts such as these are extremely important to create a Congress that truly enacts hospitality and welcome (in all senses of these words). On this note, check out the community-minded events on the BABEL schedule for Kzoo2017 (among many other things Medieval Donut 3.0, a Queerdievalists social, a workshop led on by members of a fellowship of Medievalists of Color, and BABEL roundtables on Feminism With/Out Gender and Access in the Academy). For more postings along these lines, check out the website for the SMFS Trans* Travel Fund, JEFFREY’s posting at ITM, Gabrielle M.W. Bychowski’s eloquent open letter, a post on horizontal mentorship by Micah Goodrich, and an honest and informative perspective from Karra Shimabukuro on anxiety and its implications for the conference experience.

* UPDATE 4:31pm EST: The blanket drive organizers have been coordinating with ICMS staff. Blankets left in dorm rooms will be bundled up, laundered, and donated. If you wish your blanket to be donated you can leave a note in your room upon departure.

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Workshop on Whiteness in Medieval Studies at #Kzoo2017

by JONATHAN HSY


Opening page of the website for the workshop on "Whiteness in Medieval Studies" to be held at ICMS in Kalamazoo 2017 (click through to the website for full info). Photo of a painted wooden sculpture of Caspar (according to tradition, the black African king of the Three Kings/Magi) from an Adoration Group made in Swabia before the year 1489. New York City, Cloisters Collection, Accession #52.83.2; more info about this artifact at this page from the Met Museum site.

Announcing an important workshop on "Whiteness in Medieval Studies" at the International Medieval Congress at Kalamazoo! It will take place on Saturday, May 13, starting at 5:45pm in Fetzer 1045. For full information including links to the readings in advance of the workshop, visit the event websiteEVERYONE IS WELCOME!

Thanks to the fellowship of Medievalists of Color and the Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship for making this event happen.

For previous postings about this workshop at ITM, see here and here. If you're a person of color (racial minority) in the field of medieval studies and would like to be added to the Medievalists of Color listserv, please contact the current administrator Jonathan Hsy: jhsy [at] gwu [dot] edu.