May 22, 2007

Herbivore Magazine & The Imaginary Childhood Journal of Albert Schweitzer

Herbivore magazine cover
page from The Boy Who Loved All Living Things

Maybe you've noticed that cheeky Herbivore magazine has recently taken a bit of whatever Alice did, and has shrunk to about a quarter of its original size. Today we connect with editor, Josh Hooten, to learn more about the Indy Press Newsstand Services (a unit of the Independent Press Association) debacle, the sorry state of indie publishing, and how Herbivore learned to make lemonade out of some pretty nasty lemons. Hooten will also give us a taste of what's in store this summer for subscribers and other Herbivore fans.

Then, Sheila Hamanaka joins us to discuss her new book The Boy Who Loved All Living Things: The Imaginary Childhood Journal of Albert Schweitzer, including a conversation about the challenge of writing textured, animal-themed children's lit and more about the man who inspired her recent text. "Children lead complicated lives. Like many kids today, Albert felt peer pressure... Like many kids, he was dealt with severely at times, and like many kids, he sometimes meted out the same treatment in kind to his animal friends. This is real stuff," writes Hamanaka. "What is different about Albert, and what I hope kids take away, is how he chose to deal with his challenges... I hope that this book will bring a Nobel prizewinner to life as a real — not perfect — person, and remind us all to be kinder." Well-known for his "reverence for life" philosophy and his medical missionary work in Africa, Schweitzer won the Nobel Peace Prize of 1952. He remains both a complex and compelling figure for many.

Download mp3s of the interview:
lower quality / smaller: part 1 (2.16 MB) and part 2 (3.58 MB)
higher quality / larger: part 1 (4.66 MB) and part 2 (7.7 MB)

Tags: Youth
Submitted by marvin (not verified) on Tue, 2007-05-22 11:30.

sheila's racist comment "all white people are racist" is unacceptable. as "white" male of fifty-three (53) orbits and most absolutely NOT a racist; i take offence at this comment and declare that sheila's statement detracts from the message of veganism, humanitarianism, and most importantly anti-racism.

i live and work for the day when that "word" dies, when people are accepted (or avoided) by the cumulation of how they live their lives; not by an incident or the view of another.

Submitted by another while male (not verified) on Tue, 2007-05-22 19:10.

marvin,

from one white male to another,

lots of people (including many older white men, such as yourself) have made similar claims, and with good reason. sheila's view, and the views of many of those who do serious anti-racist activism, is based on the idea that racism is not just a matter of "cumulations of how people live", but by the systemic privileges that they benefit from and reinforce through their day to day actions, whether they know it or not.

see also: bell hooks, frantz fanon, robert jensen.

seriously, look into it.

love,
an anonymous white guy.

Submitted by marvin (not verified) on Mon, 2007-05-28 09:02.

i agree that there are “systemic privileges” afforded to “whites”,
and that there are “benefits” for “whites” unrealized by some “whites”;
however the concept that these “privileges” are “reinforced” through the daily actions of all “whites”,
knowingly or not, is a racist concept.

the fact is (and will always be) that if anybody desires “do serious anti-racist activism”,
the goal will never be reached with racism as a component.

preferring to communicate with sheila directly (& privately) via email,
which is apparently not an option,
commenting on this web site regarding the show was they only way
to hopefully express to her the problem with the statement;
and possibly cause her to reconsider how to articulate her views
in a way that does not promote racism

Submitted by Lauren (not verified) on Fri, 2007-06-01 11:35.

Hi Marvin,

I think the basic point of what Sheila was arguing is that that white people who live within a white supremacist culture (which ours is) benefit from the privilege of whiteness on a regular, daily basis. That means even with the best intentions, and education about racism, white people still reap the benefits of living in a culture that inherently values whiteness. Further, because of the pervasive, systemic nature of racist ideology, white people are so steeped in these ways of acting and thinking, that it is impossible to fully expunge this aspect from ourselves. It's something white people need to continually work at addressing, to challenge in ourselves and others.

I don't know who you're reading to reach your conclusions about racism, but like the other poster, I would really recommend people like bell hooks, or anthologies such as 'Names We Call Home: Autobiography on Racial Identity," among many others.

Submitted by another white male (not verified) on Fri, 2007-06-01 12:41.

dear marvin,

*i'm not a spokesperson for sheila hamanaka, so my writing below does not represent her in any way.*

first of all, your excessive use of quotes makes you sound totally sarcastic. if you actually do agree that there are "systemic privileges" afforded to "whites" and that there are "benefits" for "whites", then "you" should be "careful" not to overquote... it makes reading your comments rather "annoying" and "patronizing".

for what it's worth, it is quite common for white people to be utterly offended when they are called out for their unconscious racism, and to call such an accusation racist in turn. if you think about it in terms of stages, you are probably in the denial / anger stage.

we live in a culture where the white heterosexual male is the normative pinnacle. as a white male growing up in (what i'm assuming to be) western culture, you are the (daily) beneficiary of a history of colonialism, capitalism, and fucked up race dynamics that you may be aware of. what you may not be aware of is how your actions and words reinforce those horrible things on a daily basis. it doesn't mean that you're a horrible person... but a lot of white guys (and gals) have been led to believe that as long as they don't use racial epithets and derogatory terms, that they are not racist. well, there are MANY MANY ways to be racist, some of which are not so obvious at first.

i know it sucks... but there is a raft of anti-racist literature out there (written by people of color and whiteys alike) that explores this subject. if sheila's comment offended you so strongly, why not make a move towards understanding where those ideas come from, instead of just declaring that you find them offensive and shutting down?

seriously, why not read something? let me throw you a softball:

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/racearticles.htm

heart.
another white guy.

Submitted by Adam (not verified) on Thu, 2007-06-07 22:47.

RACISM and REDUCTIVISM :
Thank you, “another white male,” for the link to Robert Jensen’s articles. Reading some of these helped clarify what you and others have been discussing as “racism.” I think the number one problem when discussing race is that often those with opposing viewpoints aren’t even on the same page with the racism being discussed. Much of this comes from the un-self-education, like my-until-recent-self, but also to a large degree those who do have a greater awareness of racism.

Certainly most people are lazy, uninspired, or lack the resources to dedicate themselves to educating themselves on injustices, but in many cases those with the scholarly and academic knowledge of these injustices forget that other people (innocent and guilty) are not on the same page. In the case of this program, Sheila Hamanaka was forgetful of the sad reality of people’s ignorance/naivety/denial and used the term racism in a sense that was very counterintuitive to some listeners like Marvin. Rather than typing Marvin and others as fools (as many anti-racists do), they have to understand they themselves are coming from a place of much deeper awareness and not assume others are as well, and at the same time skeptics of the anti-racist claims must also realize that they may not have educated themselves on the topic as much as the other has and should engage in dialogue before defensiveness.

On that note, I’d like to critique the phrase that “all white people are racist,” because while certainly all white people may be privileged from their identity as whites, and perhaps are self-aware and resistant of racist thoughts, declaring ALL whites as racist is overly reductive in its universal categorization and essentialism; it makes no distinction between the degrees of racism (i.e. hate vs tolerant) and the types (i.e. personal and institutional). I also find it difficult to equate individuals being racist with a culture or a society being as such, however much those individuals benefit. In any case, calling all white people racist only “drains the term of any meaning” as Jensen writes:

“If every white person is a racist, then no one is really a racist. We have to be able to distinguish between the way in which all white people benefit from living in a white-supremacist society (what we could call white privilege) and the different forms that racism -- personal and institutional – takes.

“But to admit that [I sometimes identify non-whites on the primary basis of them being non-whites] is not the same thing as saying I am racist. Instead, I would say I am and anti-racist person who often succeeds at resisting the embedded racism of the culture, when he can see it. Even though I sometimes fail, I am different than a colleague who really believes that black people are intellectually inferior -- and we all know there are professors who hold such views, even if it is no longer polite to speak them in public.”
(http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/notracist.htm)