10.14.2024

foot pain, swimming, push-ups, and roast chicken: four things going on with me

I haven't written one of these silly personal posts in a while, and things are piling up. As I always say, I write this blog for myself, and I have some things to record.

Foot pain. I've been beset with crazy pain in my feet. I ignored it for months, continuing to walk 20-25 kms each week, while the pain worsened. New orthotics, proper shoes, but the pain worsened and became inescapable. Finally I went back to the podiatrist -- no small thing, as it means taking a full day off work, arranging dog care, a long day of driving. Diagnosis: peroneal tendonitis. Apparently, this is a thing. Who knew.
Quite sure my technique does not look like this.

I'm trying my best to not freak out. Walking is my principal form of exercise, and if I can't walk... what will happen to my health, and my quality of life? So I'm working hard to stay in the present and not think too far ahead.

Lots to do and not do. Resting my feet as much as possible -- no long dog-walks, no treadmill. Icing. Wearing compression sleeves. Getting physio and doing foot stretches and strengthening exercises. 

And... finding ways to get exercise that doesn't stress my feet.

Swimming again. There's always a silver lining: my foot pain led me back to the pool. I haven't been swimming since before covid. Our pool has a weekly, "sensory-friendly" swim which is perfect for me. I've been going every week and it's starting to feel great. I'm planning on adding an aquafit class on a separate day.

But my chicken did look like this!
Strength and flexibility.
 I had also really fallen off my strengthening and stretching, and the extended break from the treadmill has led me back to that, too. I found a YouTuber I like a lot, treated myself to the paid, ad-free level, and have been doing standing or sitting workouts, which are still quite challenging. 

Proof: for the first time ever, I did a full, non-modified push-up. It's been a personal goal of mine that I was never able to achieve, until now. 

Still, I am very much hoping to resolve the peroneal tendonitis and be able to walk for extended times again, at least rotating with pool time.

Roast chicken. I love roast chicken and have always been intimidated to make it myself. There are so many techniques, so much advice, I assumed it was difficult and complicated. Then I stumbled on Mark Bittman's roast chicken recipe, which sounded incredibly simple and delicious. I bought a cast-iron skillet, the first I've ever owned, and a pasture-raised, organic chicken. It was incredibly easy, and so delicious: crispy on the outside, tender and juicy on the inside. Next time I'll put a bunch of little potatoes under the chicken and I'll be even happier.



10.11.2024

it was the best of times, it was the worst of times: a tale of one library manager on two consecutive days

This started out as a "things i heard at the library" post, but it got too complicated. Instead, it's a story about my life as the manager of a public library in a high-risk community.

First we heard about Georgie

Headed to a library near you.
Earlier this week, we learned that a regular customer of ours, someone we saw every day without fail, was killed. Murdered. We regularly hear of substance-use-related deaths, and suicides, and deaths from general poor health. But this was the first time in my experience in Port Hardy that we heard about a homicide.

The man who was killed was a sweet, kind, quiet person. He didn't have housing and lived at the local Salvation Army shelter. He was a regular at the community puzzle table. When he first appeared in the branch, he was very withdrawn and sat in a corner by himself. One of our staff took it upon herself to slowly, gradually, quietly bring him into the library community.

The news that he had been killed was truly shocking and heartbreaking. But I can't be heartbroken at work. If I'm heartbroken at work, I can't do my job. So I save my heartbreak for when I'm home, by myself. And in this way, my work unintentionally comes home with me. 

I also realize the same is true for my staff, and it's my job to support them and offer resources if they need them. So also in this way, my work follows me home.

Then we dealt with the retraumatization, and probably toxic drugs

The following day, someone came up to the info desk, spoke a few incoherent words, sat down on the floor, then collapsed. Kneeling beside her, staff first asked another team member to call an outreach worker, then changed her mind and asked her to call 911. While that was going on, two more people entered the branch, both staggering and incoherent. Both sat down, then passed out. Within an hour, four separate ambulances took away a total of seven people.

Things calmed down after that. Later in the day -- right before the start of a program -- another person collapsed, another ambulance called. That brought us to five calls and eight people, breaking the previous record.

We can only assume this was at least partly a response to Georgie's death, which triggered a wave of retraumatization. Adding to that, several area drug dealers are now incarcerated, which means that people are buying from new dealers, a new supply, so they cannot judge the dosage, and there may be fentanyl or other toxic substances in the mix. 

Everyone survived. We are grateful for that.

In between, a program

The program went off as planned: "Good Health Starts at the Supermarket". A registered dietician from the public health office gave a presentation on how to "shop healthy". We had draw prizes of grocery gift cards, and a bag of healthy groceries. Ten people attended, and the prize winners -- low income people themselves -- shared with the others. 

I organized this program, which is part of what I do. Incidentally, and importantly, it was one of the very few programs attended by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous library customers. That was very gratifying.

While the program was going on, I attended (virtually) a Board meeting of the Mt Waddington Family Literacy Society, of which I am now co-chair.

The next day, building community connections to combat racism

The following day, I co-chaired a steering-committee meeting of the Welcoming Communities Coalition of North Vancouver Island. The Coalition is dedicated to reducing and eliminating barriers to newcomers' full participation in our communities, with a focus on antiracism.

Our North Island communities have become the landing place for a large number of newcomers to Canada. These folks, all of whom have arranged employment, are needed and should be welcomed into our towns, but of course that is not always their experience. 

Being a newcomer is not easy, but I cannot imagine how much more difficult it is made by small-town, remote-community life. When the Immigrant Welcome Centre opened an office in this region, I decided to make newcomers an intentional focus of my library branches.

Connecting with the Immigrant Welcome Centre, I also found the Welcoming Communities Coalition, which is part of the IWC, but not involved in direct service provision. One thing led to another, and I became the co-chair of the Welcoming Communities Coalition steering committee on North Vancouver Island. 

Through connections I have made during my work here, I was able to invite others to the table -- people who can greatly help move our work forward. These connections are indeed my greatest contribution to this work.  

At this recent meeting (which I organized), I truly felt the power and potential of forging and cultivating community connections. The people I invited will become the key players at making our efforts successful. I say this not to pat myself on the back or to win praise. I say it with a sense of wonder and much joy that I have come so far, and that I have shaped my work in this way. It is deeply satisfying.

The folks on the steering committee are seasoned, realistic activists and advocates. We know we will not eliminate racism in our communities. However, we will:
- organize events designed to celebrate diversity and promote cultural exchange,
- educate residents about racism and antiracism,
- connect newcomers with resources,
- encourage and facilitate the reporting of hate crimes and racist actions,
- help newcomers understand the specific cultural context of our communities, especially relationships with Indigenous communities, 
- educate people about human rights, and
- take a visible stand against racism and invite everyone in our communities to do so with us.

What else I'm up to

This is a window into my working life. I'm also interviewing and hiring new staff, overseeing and supporting the work of frontline workers, overseeing five facilities, giving presentations to community groups, designing programs, and plowing through a small mountain of paperwork. And hopefully soon, helping my union bargain our next contract. 

10.07.2024

what i'm reading: the wolf, outstanding nonfiction by nate blakeslee

current/international edition
The Wolf: A True Story of Survival and Obsession in the West by Nate Blakeslee is a masterpiece. It is truly one of the best works of narrative nonfiction that I've read.  (The book is also published under the title American Wolf, with the same subtitle.) 

This book had been on my radar since it was published in 2017, and I found a used hardcover at Powell's this year. I was almost afraid to read it, as I thought it might be too sad. Now I'm so glad I didn't let that stop me (and it shouldn't stop you).

Blakeslee's earlier book, Tulia: Race, Cocaine, and Corruption in a Small Texas Town has been on my List even longer; it was published in 2006. Now I will be sure to move it up in the queue.


original cover






I scarcely know how to write about a book that enthralls me like The Wolf has. It is a page-turner, with exciting, vivid scenes of wild nature unfolding before your eyes. It is also an education on how that wild nature is hostage to humans, and how humans are hostage to politics. And it is a view into a human community that has grown around a deep love of the wild, and an obsessive desire to be close to it and protect it.

Blakeslee weaves these threads together in a gripping tale. You could almost call it a multigenerational family saga -- both the generations of wolf families, and their enemies, the humans who are aligned against them.

You know I love and am deeply fascinated by wolves. So yeah, I'm primed to love this book. But my interest is also why I'm extremely discriminating in what I'll read on this subject. I stick to the big names in the field and can't be bothered with the mundane. That's why I can confidently praise this book so highly. 

There is heartbreak. You have to know that going in. Towards the end, I was weeping, and I'm sure you will be, too. But it's not the horror of animal cruelty, which I cannot read about and very much avoid. It's the heartbreak of losing a character that you have come to know, respect, and revere. Blakeslee also brings you the meaning that arose from that heartbreak, and there is comfort in that. There are also happy endings, too -- and if not happy, then positive and satisfying.

If you love and value the bits of wild that are left on our planet -- and if you believe that we humans must steward those wild places -- I recommend this book. Also, if you simply love to read good books: this is one.

9.29.2024

how new york city is like a polar bear, or what i'm reading: three books about the death murder of north american cities

I knew these books would break my heart. 

I chose three books from my List, all on the same topic: How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood, by P. E. Moskowitz, The Gentrification of the Mind: Witness to a Lost Imagination, by Sarah Schulman, and Vanishing New York: How a Great City Lost its Soul, by Jeremiah Moss. 

With my heart duly broken, in mourning for New York City and all it means, I've been trying to write this post for weeks. I hardly know where to begin.

Gentrification doesn't begin to describe

The phenomenon described in these books is usually called gentrification, but that process -- how it is commonly conceived -- does not convey the sinister, soul-crushing shift that has erased the lifeblood of major cities all over North America, and apparently, the world.

The two cities most emblematic of this change are New York and San Francisco. This makes sense, as historically both have been the chosen homes of creative and nonconformist people from all over the US, and both possess some of the most valuable real estate in the country. But no North American city has been immune to this, from Toronto to Austin, from Detroit to Atlanta, from Portland, Oregon to Burlington, Vermont.

Gentrification is too mild a word. Call it hyper-gentrification, homogenization, suburbanization. Disneyfication. The authors of these three books use those words -- and those were the words we, too, were using in 1990s New York.

I felt the trend of deadly homogenization keenly through the 1990s and in the early 2000s. The progress of that shift was part of what propelled me to leave New York in 2005 -- and if we had a viable plan, we might have left several years earlier. In a sense, this is the same sensitivity that had us feeling the rightward shift in the US, and the encroaching end of reproductive rights, before the mainstream seemed to catch on.

In 2004, as I was just beginning this blog, I wrote: 
I've been ready to leave New York for a while. The incessant homogenization is really getting me down: all the chain stores, theme restaurants, the Upper West Side looking like Chelsea looking like Park Slope. It's something I've been complaining about since the late 80s, and it's only gotten worse and worse. NYC has lost so much uniqueness, so much character; it feels too much like anyplace USA. I find it very sad. A friend called it soul-destroying, and that's precisely right.
Although we were highly sensitized to this shift, I now realize we ourselves were among the earliest wave of gentrification -- the creative "pioneer" phase -- in the Washington Heights neighbourhood of upper Manhattan. I now hear those words in a different light: P. E. Moskowitz notes how the language of gentrification mimics the language of colonization, and how fitting that is, as both displace people and cultures.

Not to be confused with nostalgia

This is not simple nostalgia. It's not "things were better back in my day". It's a fundamental shift in the city's character, and it's driven principally by two things: a lack of affordable housing, and the absence of commercial rent control. These two factors are themselves caused by a web of root causes from the banking industry, real estate developers (and the governments that protect both), and one of the most egregious of all: rezoning.

Thousands -- tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands -- of working-class people can no longer afford to live in the cities. They are forced into the suburbs or exurbs, where they are have longer and more expensive commutes, where they are isolated, where they lose their communities, lose services.

The ethnic communities that have formed organically in response to waves of immigration are replaced by people who can afford the out-sized rents, and whose expectations and demands align with privilege and luxury.

Creatives can no longer afford to live in cities. Music, art, theatre, acting, and all manner of creative thinking -- typically supported by having free time outside of one's "day job" or "survival job," because of relatively inexpensive living situations -- becomes impossible for all but the highly privileged. The very reason that so many millions have flocked to cities -- to create, to be themselves, to create themselves -- becomes impossible. 

Exorbitant rents plus the shuttering of locally-owned neighbourhood businesses, replaced with national chains (the only companies that can afford the spaces) kills communities, and with it, the character of the city. 

The city loses the very thing that made it itself. 

This is not the natural order of things
New York City, to be sure, was always a playground for the rich. Ultra-expensive restaurants, luxury ticket prices, fundraising galas for the elite who support expensive arts and culture -- this has always been an integral part of the city. But parallel to that world were countless others -- cheap eats, theatre of every price and for every taste, poetry slams, underground art scenes, cheap clothing stores, used bookstores, dive bars. Lots and lots of free or cheap stuff. Gone, gone, gone. Distinct neighbourhoods with distinct personalities. Gone. gone. gone.

What makes a city vibrant and interesting, what gives it character, what leaves it open to discovery, depends on the diversity and the creativity of the populace, and a city where they can carve out an area to do so.

Finding pockets of affordable housing (often by living with a large number of roommates), inexpensive food, spaces where creative people can congregate -- be they tiny off-off-Broadway theatres, open-mic comedy nights, neighbourhood restaurants, food trucks, free museum nights, and a menu of options for supporting oneself -- waiting tables, tending bar, office "temping"  -- this is why creatives flock to cities. This is why people without huge amounts of discretionary income can thrive in them, giving cities character, making them more interesting -- which in turn bolster the city's economy. 

Without anything resembling affordable housing, none of this can happen.

Three books in brief

Of these three books, Sarah Schulman offers the most original concept and the most challenging read. Schulman offers a unique and fascinating thesis about the AIDS epidemic being an agent of gentrification, permanently altering New York's queer community, and decimating activism among low-income people. 

From the introduction to The Gentrification of the Mind.
On the way home, these images were reeling in my mind. The truth of complexity, empowerment, the agency of the oppressed, replaced by an acceptance of banality, a concept of self based falsely in passivity, an inability to realize oneself as a powerful instigator and agent of profound social change.

What is this process? What is this thing that homogenizes complexity, difference, dynamic dialogic action for change and replaces it with sameness? With a kind of institutionalization of culture? With a lack of demand on the powers that be? With containment?

My answer to that question, always came back to the same concept: gentrification.

. . . To me, the literal experience of gentrification is a concrete replacement process. Physically it is an urban phenomena: the removal of communities of diverse classes, ethnicities, races, sexualities, languages, and points of view from the central neighborhoods of cities, and their replacement by more homogenized groups. With this comes the destruction of  culture and relationship, and this destruction has profound consequences of the future lives of cities.

But in the case of my particular question, while literal gentrification was very important to what I was observing, there was also a spiritual gentrification that was affecting people who did not have rights, who were not represented, who did not have power or even consciousness about the reality of their condition. There was a gentrification of the mind, an internal replacement that alienated people from the concrete process of social and artistic change.
P. E. Moskowitz looks at four cities -- Detroit, New Orleans, San Francisco, and New York -- and illustrates how hyper-gentrification has altered each city -- and how it happened. He digs down to reveal root causes, making visible a process that is thought to be inevitable, but is actually intentionally created by humans, for their own power and profit.

From How to Kill a City.
The Michael Bloomberg administration rezoned large swaths of the city, mostly from industrial and commercial to high density residential. Developers were given free rein in these newly zoned areas. Most buildings were not required to provide any affordable housing, and in those that were, their percentages were low enough, and the definition of "affordable" loose enough, that they made virtually no impact.

And so multimillion dollar condos fronted by twisted blue and green frosted glass have sprouted in Chelsea, in Midtown, and along every other corridor where the city has allowed height limits to be raised and zoning to be changed. Given the height of these buildings you'd think street life in West Chelsea would be busy, but the neighborhood is still largely a dead zone. And that's because these buildings, like many in New York nowadays, are not so much places to live as places for capital to grow.
Entire neighborhoods are becoming stash pads for the global elite who see real estate as a safer investment than the stock market. Often very few people are really living in these buildings, except for maybe a month or two out of the year. Chelsea is not even the worst: a New York Times investigation found that on a single three-block stretch in Midtown, 57 percent of apartments are vacant for at least 10 months each year. Absentee home ownership has grown by 70 percent in Manhattan since 2000. Even if you believe that attracting billionaires to New York is a good idea, it's hard to understand why these apartments are assessed at rates of one one-hundredth of what they are worth. Because of New York's tax code, a $100 million apartment in one of these new, super-tall glass buildings is usually only taxed as if it were worth $3 million or $4 million. Even mayor Bloomberg's more progressive successor, Bill de Blasio, has done little to change this status quo. . . . 
I walk along tree-lined 11th Street (one of the prettiest streets in New York, if you ask me me), past Magnolia Bakery, where dozens of tourists perpetually stand outside to partake in their own personal recreations of a Sex and the City episode that aired nearly 20 years ago. I hit 7th Avenue and in front of me is Saint Vincent's, or what used to be Saint Vincent's -- the neighborhood hospital that everyone in my family made use of at least once. It closed down to make room for a condo development that now takes up the entire block and where apartments go for $20 million. Down the block was a good vegetarian Chinese restaurant that recently closed when its rent was raised from $5,000 to $25,000 a month.

Continuing on 11th Street, I hit Sixth Avenue and then Union Square. One of the only open, European-style plazas in the entire city, Union Square was well on its way to being gentrified when I was growing up, but now it is essentially a shopping mall. If you've never been there, imagine a big town square like a piazza in Italy, but instead of government buildings and stately architecture flanking each side, there are stores: DSW and Walgreen's and Nordstrom Rack and Best Buy, to name a few. It's a hyper-capitalist's version of a stately plaza. This area did not naturally evolve to become an outdoor shopping mall. It took concerted effort. 
During the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, Union Square was a site for protest and a gathering spot for New York's art scene. Andy Warhol's Factory was nearby, as were famous nightclubs such as Max's Kansas City. But after New York City went bankrupt in the 1970s, a consortium of business leaders, including the Chairman of the Board of Con Edison (New York's main electric company), proposed redeveloping Union Square as an essentially private enterprise. A Business Improvement District, or BID, took over Union Square, replacing city control. 
BIDs aren't unique to New York but they wield a lot of power here. Business Improvement Districts in New York often do the work that a robust city government would do on its own, planning streetscapes, cleaning up trash, and policing the area. But a BID's employees are nonunion workers and get paid low wages, and BID have no special laws governing them, meaning they cannot be held accountable to voters/citizens in the same way that a government agency theoretically could be. The BIDs are accountable to no one except the neighborhood businesses that provide 100% of their funding. Member voting rights in a BID are assigned to each business based on that businesses land value. 
Today, Union Square is often blocked off by BID sponsored barricades, it's grassy areas protected with BID-approved netting, its security and clean-up paid for by the BID. Sure, thanks to the BID, Union Square is less dirty than it once was, but it's also no longer a public square in any true sense. "We're constantly trying to attract a specific demographic: young, moneyed consumers who know New York City from New York magazine... and who watch 'Friends'," a spokesperson for Union Square BID once said. "We can train these young consumers to think of urban living on Union Square." 
Harlem's 125th Street "revitalization" has a similar story: a cabal of development-friendly nonprofits has worked to bring in chain stores and luxury housing. Meanwhile, the media report on the "new" Harlem as if its progression to luxury and whiteness is somehow natural.
The best and most painful of the these books is Vanishing New York, by Jeremiah Moss, a pseudonym of Griffin Hansbury. As Moss, Hansbury wrote the long-running blog "Jeremiah's Vanishing New York", which became a hub for the rage and sadness that so many New Yorkers feel at the destruction of our city. Of course that includes former New Yorkers -- because once you are, you are. 

I loved Moss' introduction to Vanishing New York. I tried to get his permission to reprint it, but never heard back, so I'm restraining myself in sharing only a portion.
Reports of New York's death are not greatly exaggerated, though some would argue otherwise, insisting that the city's undomesticated heart still beats in far-off corners of Brooklyn and the Bronx, that you'll find a faint pulse in whitewashed Manhattan if you look hard enough. These insistent optimists, deep into denial, point to any trace of the Old Town and say, "There is New York." Yes, there it is. But it's only a remnant, a lone survivor from an endangered species rapidly vanishing. Maybe it's that dive bar with the Ramones on the jukebox, or that bookshop with a cat lounging atop stacks, or the rare sighting of a transgender outlaw walking some West Village street in platform heels. It's like finding a polar bear, sweating on her melting chunk of iceberg, and then denying that the world is cooked because, hey, there's a polar bear. 
Others quote from the long history of doomsayers, the many writers who declared the city dead. "The complaint that the real soul of Manhattan has already expired is a long-standing one -- perhaps as old as 19th century Knickerbockers pining for a mythological Dutch past," writes Bryan Waterman in the Cambridge Companion to the Literature of New York. That's true. But has the complaint ever been made by so many, so relentlessly, and with such passionate certainty as it is today -- and with so much evidence to back it up?
Novelist Caleb Carr called the massive change to the 21st Century city a "regrettable, soul-sucking transformation." Patti Smith told us to "find a new city" because "New York has closed itself off to the young and the struggling." David Byrne wrote an essay on the cultural death of New York saying, "Most of Manhattan and many parts of Brooklyn are virtual walled communities, pleasure domes for the rich." Essayist David Rakoff observed how "the town's vibrancy and authenticity" have been "replaced by a culture-free, high-end retail clusterfuck of luxury condo buildings." 
Responding to all this, the counter argument goes: but it's safer! The streets are clean! And we have great restaurants! In the New Yorker Adam Gopnik summed it up: "New York is safer and richer but less like itself, an old lover who has gone for a facelift and come out looking like no one in particular. The wrinkles are gone, but so is the face. . . . For the first time in Manhattan's history, it has no bohemian frontier." 
I could go on with pages of similar quotes, all from the past decade or so, a chorus of voices from literature, art, new media, journalism, all making the same argument: at the beginning of the 21st Century, the city changed in what felt like an instant, and the change wasn't good. In short, New York has lost its soul. The place is dead. OK, "dead" might be hyperbolic. Is "dying" a better word? How about "comatose," awaiting a miraculous revival? Maybe this shift is just another phase in the city's long and ever-changing evolution. But who ever thought New York would have a soulless period?

If you take away just one thing from this book, let it be this: hyper-gentrification and its free market engine is neither natural nor inevitable. It is man-made, intentional, and therefore stoppable. And yet. Just as deniers of global warming insist that nothing out of the ordinary is happening to our world's climate, so deniers of hyper-gentrification say that nothing out of the ordinary is happening to New York, and that its extreme transformation in the 2000s is just urban change. Let me be clear: I'm not talking about the weather, I'm talking about the climate, and New York's climate has been catastrophically changed. 
How did such a catastrophe befall the greatest city on earth? It didn't happen all at once. After decades of scheming on the part of urban elites -- the real estate magnates, financiers, planners, and politicians -- who worked tirelessly to take the city from those they considered "undesirables," mayor Ed Koch really got the ball rolling in the 1980s. Rudy Giuliani brought the muscle in the 1990s. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 played a pivotal role. And then after the turn of the millennium, Mike Bloomberg dealt the death blow, a stunning coup de grace. Gentrification morphed into hyper-gentrification. Mainstream young people flooded in from the suburbs where their white-flighty grandparents had fled years ago. They came in droves, many of them (not all) armed with a sense of manifest destiny, helping to turn New York into a sanitized vertical suburbia. They carry a share of blame, the new arrivals who say they love New York, yet celebrate the city's makeover into an image of their Maple Valleys and Prairievilles, their Springfields and Massapequas, complete with hundreds upon hundreds of chains: Starbucks and 7-Elevens, Applebee's and Olive Gardens, Home Depots, Targets, IHOPs, Dunkin' Donuts and -- God help us -- Denny's. While it's true you can still find a pulse, here and there, along the thickly settled stretch of Manhattan, and that the city's soul still haunts pockets of the outer pockets of the outer boroughs, this book is not a Baedeker to those pockets. . . . 
This is not unique to New York. Hyper-gentrification, the term I use for the force that drives the city's undoing -- gentrification on speed, shot up with free-market capitalism -- is a global pandemic, a seemingly unstoppable virus attacking much of the world. San Francisco is dying, maybe even faster than New York. You see it in Portland and Seattle. Austin and Boston. Paris, London, Barcelona, and Berlin have all been infected. The virus has spread as far as Tel Aviv, Beirut, Seoul, and Shanghai. And in every afflicted city, the story is the same: luxury condos, mass evictions, hipster invasions, a plague of tourists, the death of small local businesses, and the rise of corporate monoculture. While I speak to the global issues in this book, New York is my case study. It may be chauvinistic to say New York is the world's capital city, but New Yorkers are chauvinistic. 

 This is also from the introduction, out of order, but a very fitting conclusion.

We all have our own lost city. If we stick around long enough, we lose the city of our youth, our dreams and foiled ambitions. Joseph Mitchell, great chronicler of Gotham, wrote, "I used to feel very much at home in New York City. I wasn't born here, I wasn't a native, but I might as well have been: I belonged here. Several years ago, however, I began to be oppressed by a feeling that New York City had gone past me and that I didn't belong here anymore." I could say the same today, but this book isn't about how we all lose our personal city. It's about how the city has been taken from us. It's not just the story of a death; it's the story of a murder.

9.16.2024

what i'm reading: three retellings of classics: julia (1984), james (huckleberry finn), finn (huckleberry finn)

When I first heard about Julia, Sandra Newman's retelling of George Orwell's 1984 from Julia's perspective, I wasn't sure I would read it. Orwell is one of my very top writers, and 1984 is, for me, a foundational work. It's one of the few books I've read multiple times, and every time I read it, I find more in it. Did I want to revisit it with another author? Knowing that the Orwell estate approved Newman's use of the original, and being drawn to the words "feminist retelling," I decided I would.

I would have been foolish to skip it. Julia is a gripping, suspenseful, devastating look at women's lives under a totalitarian state. It intersects with Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale (more the brilliant TV series than the book) and some other dystopian novels, and is simultaneously true to the Orwell masterpiece.

Julia is, in a sense, more fully fleshed out than 1984. Sandra Newman has a huge body of dystopian work in which to situate Julia. In Orwell's day, there was no genre called "dystopian fiction". Not that there weren't other dystopian novels -- this page from Miami Dade College has a good overview of earlier works, many now obscure. But dystopian fiction was not the cluttered field it is now, with at least a dozen subgenres, and hundreds of forgettable, derivative knock-offs.

1984 is dystopian in the sense that The Catcher in the Rye and The Outsiders are YA novels. They can be thought of as proto-genre, or the grandparents of the modern genre. So reading Julia post Hunger Games and Divergent and Uglies and and and and... has a wholly different effect and impact.

More importantly, Julia explores what is absent from 1984: the plight of women in the totalitarian (or simply authoritarian) state: the control of our reproduction. Much of it already exists, in the U.S. and in dictatorships and fake democracies around the world, and the details that might not exist are merely extrapolation. Similarly, Julia also makes the reader reckon with the features of Orwell's dark future that have come to pass -- the surveillience state, the re-writing of history. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Newman, writing now, can more fully connect our world to this future dystopia. How did we get here? What opportunity is there to re-write the future? Is it too late? Delving into Julia's childhood offers some possible answers.

The climactic chapter of this book is one of the most page-turning, pulse-pounding sequences I've ever read. Granted, most of my reading is not of the pulse-pounding variety, but the penultimate scenes left me gasping.

I highly recommend Julia, but if you haven't read 1984, I hope you will do that first. 

James

Coincidentally, I read James immediately before reading JuliaJames is a retelling of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, told from the point of view of Jim, the enslaved person who has escaped his bondage and is on the run with Huck.

This novel, too, is devastating. It brings you so close to the horrifying reality of chattel slavery that at times it is painful to read. Where it differs from Julia, however, is that it is also devastatingly witty and downright funny. Everett employs humour to send up the idiocy of the slavers and the white world in general. This is marvelous, and brings James closer to Huckleberry Finn and Everett closer to Twain. 

Everett also offers an unexpected plot twist that aligns perfectly with some of the central themes of Twain's masterpiece. I loved this. I also recalled the themes of Russell Banks' Rule of the Bone. (Curious? Read it.)

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, as you may know, is often "challenged" by parents seeking to keep it out of school libraries and off class reading lists. Part of this is based on Twain's use of the word nigger throughout the book. I was pleased that Everett doesn't answer to that parochial mentality. Surely when a slaveowner is referring to his human "property," he is not going to use a polite term or a euphemism. Writing around this truth would only dilute the power of the book. 

Similarly, when referring to the sexual assaults that enslaved women (and no doubt, many men) were subjected to on a regular basis, Everett uses the word rape. Although there were one or two places where I questioned if the victims would have known that word, I was very grateful to see it there on the page, with no sugar-coating and no qualifiers. 

Finn

A few years ago, I read Finn, Jon Clinch's 2008 debut novel, the story of Huckleberry Finn's abusive, alcoholic wretch of a father. Pap (as he is called in Huck Finn) is only a minor character in Twain's book, but the abuse he visits on Huck is well known to everyone in the community, and a prinicpal motivator in Huck's "adventures". 

Who was this man? What made him so mean, so reprehensible? Why was he so awful to Huck? In Finn, Clinch imagines the answers. He creates a terrifying and wholly believable portrait of how a man is reduced to degradation. He even manages to induce a bit of sympathy in the reader. Every abuser has a trauma story of their own, and Pap is no exception.

The author doesn't defend Finn or his actions. He just imagines how he came to pass. Clinch also creates some brilliant suspense and plot twists. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

Clinch followed Finn with Marley, an alternate-point-of-view of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. I didn't do well with this one, but I think I may try again.

* * * *

This fiction "what i'm reading" trio is brought to you by meaningful, complex nonfictions exploring a topic of great importance to me. In other words: I am struggling mightily with another post, needed a break from it, and this was the result.

9.02.2024

labour day reading list

Image: Ricardo Levins Morales

Last year, I created and led a labour book club through my union, the BCGEU

I navigated my way through multitudes of obstacles to make this happen, so I was disappointed that our local leadership chose not to continue it. Sadly, Labour Book Club was a one-off project, at least for the foreseeable future. 

It was a great experience and I'm glad I saw it through. This was our reading list. The criteria was simply fiction about labour.

The Cold Millions, Jess Walter

In Dubious Battle, John Steinbeck

God's Bits of Wood, Ousmane Sembene

The Last Ballad, Wiley Cash

In the Skin of a Lion, Michael Ondaatje

Sometimes a Great Notion, Ken Kesey

For the Win, Cory Doctorow

Gilded Mountain, Kate Manning

Our most surprising, most challenging, and most rewarding read was God's Bits of Wood, by the Senegalese filmmaker, writer, and activist Ousmane Sembene. I had never heard of Sembene; I found the title strictly through research. 

Because it is out of copyright, God's Bits of Wood is legitimately available to read online at no cost, and I highly recommend it. It is a gripping, eye-opening, moving, and inspiring story of people organizing themselves at the intersection of labour, racism, and colonization. It is also a lightly fictionalized version of actual events that took place in 1947 Senegal, then a colony of France. The event is referred to as a "railway workers' strike" but that does not begin to describe the breadth and power of this struggle -- especially actions taken by the women, who were not themselves railway workers.

On the other end of the spectrum, I found Sometimes a Great Notion nearly unreadable. However, the others in our small group enjoyed it much more than I did. 

All the other titles are good, interesting, and worth reading if they look interesting to you.




8.22.2024

lee zaslofsky, rest in power

This week I learned that a friend and comrade from my Toronto days has died: Lee Zaslofksy. 

Lee was a leader in the War Resisters Support Campaign, supporting men and women who refused to participate in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. For a long time, Lee was the coordinator of the network as it found housing, funds, employment, and community for war resisters coming to Canada. But "coordinator" is a shallow title that doesn't convey what Lee did; his work was much deeper and broader than coordination. Lee supplied friendship and community. He gave of himself. He showed up. He loved.

When you're involved in high-stakes activism, where your work has serious impacts on people lives, people form powerful bonds. You might know very little about someone's background or their day-to-day life, discovering bits of their story as time goes on. Sometimes you might not see or speak with each other in between meetings. Other times you'll speak five times a day. Activist comrades occupy a unique space in your life, different from an ordinary friendship. The passion of your commitment, the depth of your belief, your shared desire to move your cause forward, your deep respect for each other, creates a love that I am grateful to have experienced, more than once in my life. 

Through the War Resisters Support Campaign, I worked with people that I feel incredibly fortunate to have known, so lucky that my life intersected with theirs.

Lee was one of those people to me. Lee will always be on my list of people I am so grateful and fortunate to have known. 

I recall that we didn't always agree on everything, and sometimes differed in our visions of how to move our great project forward. We would become very heated and passionate. I recall him banging the table for emphasis -- and the next time he saw me, hugging me tightly.

Lee was a Vietnam War deserter. He had been a home healthcare aide. He had been a staffer in Jack Layton's office, when Jack was on the Toronto city council. He loved the country of Vietnam, and visited as often as he could, for long periods of time, and had boyfriends there. He was born in Brooklyn, and became a Canadian citizen as soon as he was eligible (as did I).

That might be the sum-total of what I knew about Lee's biography. But I knew much more important things: his principles, his passion for justice, his belief in human potential. His crazy sense of humour, that might elicit anything from an eye-roll to hilarity. The love that poured from him.

His death has hit us all so hard -- all the "resisters and campaigners," we used to say. Now a loose collection of people scattered around North America and beyond, some of us in touch on social media, others not at all, but our bond endures. 

Lee Zaslofsky, rest in power, my friend.

8.17.2024

why i call kamala harris by her last name and wish you would too

Here's a question for progressive folks following the US election campaign: Why do you call Kamala Harris "Kamala" and call Tim Walz "Walz"?

* * * * 

A long time ago, way back in the late 80s, Allan and I would watch a local news broadcast together. We're talking regular TV, "the news" on three times daily -- two local broadcasts (one at 6:00, one at 10:00 or 11:00 pm), and one national broadcast.

During the sports portion of the broadcast, the sports anchor would talk about Mattingly -- Don Mattingly of the New York Yankees, Ewing -- Patrick Ewing, of the New York Knicks, and Chrissie -- tennis great Chris Evert. She wasn't Evert. She was Chrissie.

There were some pioneering broadcasters, notably on ESPN, who broke with this tradition and called female athletes by their last names, but it was unusual, and ESPN was not yet the giant it would later become.

Women's team sports, for the most part, were ignored completely. Big female sports stars were usually called by their first names. Chrissie, Martina, Steffi. Mary Lou. 

The reason for this is simple: sexism. Women's sports were not taken seriously. Calling Chris Evert Chrissie was infantilizing and disrespectful, reflecting the way women's sports were served to the public.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, women's sports grew in stature. The groundbreaking US legislation that mandated funding parity for male and female sports programs -- usually referred to as "Title 9" (Title IX) -- began to bear fruit. Young female athletes received better coaching and had more opportunities. Women's college sports became more visible and more exciting. ESPN broke new ground with a 24-hour sports-news cycle, so they needed more events to cover. That organization also had a progressive mandate to report on sports with less sexism and racism. 

I don't doubt that there are local sportscasters in Texas or Florida -- or hell, in upstate New York or rural Alberta -- that refer to Serena, Simone, or Megan, but at this point, they are likely the exceptions. Sportscasters and sportswriters routinely referring to Williams, Biles, and Rapinoe is a sign of a less sexist view of women's sports.

Can we please apply this to the political sphere?

Surely if we can refer to female athletes by their last names, we can give female candidates for the presidency of the United States the same respect?

During Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaigns, most people referred to her as Hillary. Some said this was to distinguish between Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Really? So during the 2016 presidential election campaign, while Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump, if we heard the name Clinton, we might think someone was referring to Bill Clinton, who left public office in 2001? 

Another excuse given for calling female candidates by their first names is that we feel like we know them, we believe they are our friends, so we're on a first-name basis with them. Why, then, didn't anyone call Obama Barack? And how can this be said of a woman who so many voters and pundits despise? 

A more likely suspect is the feminist age-gap: why younger women are more likely to change their last names when they marry, why they don't mind being referred to as girls rather than women. I don't get it, but those are personal choices (although with political implications). We're talking about the professional, national, and international stage. Different standards  should apply.

Office workers are still routinely called girls and health-care workers can't seem to make it past ladies. To be clear: these workers refer to themselves and their co-workers as girls and ladies. I've worked in both of these environment (combined) for decades, and the habit seems impervious to change. Every time I hear someone refer to a group of social workers, hospital workers, library workers -- any group of women working in a predominantly female field --  as girls or ladies I want to cry or scream. Or I felt that way when I was younger. Now I just feel the sadness and resignation of defeat. 

Ladies should go the way of mulatto. Lady is not only sexist, but its roots are classist and tied to gender norms -- what was considered "ladylike", i.e. acceptable female behaviour. Someone will point out that the roots of a word are not important if the word is now used in a different context. Then why are we no longer using master bedroom and grandfathered in? Because those expresisons are rooted in slavery. The same applies to ladies, a word rooted in classism. Yet it is so prevalent I despair of it ever changing. 

We are finally seeing gender-neutral terms for various jobs become the norm: writer, actor, lawyer, doctor, athlete, politician, flight attendant, cleaner, housekeeper. Speech patterns are finally reflecting reality: people of different genders do all kinds of jobs. There is no need -- never has been a need -- to qualify a job title with --ess or lady. The job is the job. 

So why is the name not the name?

I don't expect anyone to change their speech habits after reading this post. Perhaps a writer with a wider reach can at least open up the conversation. The candidates are Trump, Vance, Harris, and Walz.

8.11.2024

what i'm reading: path lit by lightning, the life of jim thorpe

Jim Thorpe was one of my fascinations as a child and teen. I spent a lot of time watching old movies on TV, and one day stumbled on "Jim Thorpe: All American," starring Burt Lancaster as Thorpe. I also read from a biography series in my school library, and there was a book on Thorpe. Thorpe was considered the greatest athlete in the world, and he was Native American. I don't know why his story captivated me so. The underdog? The outsider? Indigenous? For whatever reasons, I was star-struck.

My early interest in Indigenous peoples and cultures has lasted a lifetime, as has my abiding interest in the nexus of social issues and sport. So when I saw that David Maraniss had written a biography of Thorpe, I immediately put the title on my list: Path Lit By Lightning: The Life of Jim Thorpe.

It's a masterful work, and also a very sad story. While Thorpe's accomplishments are truly amazing, and should be much more widely known, his life story is more about frustration and loss than about excellence and winning.
Over the years, journalists often portrayed Thorpe as down and out, a shadow of his once grand self, working his way back to a better life from the bottom he hit digging ditches in Los Angeles during the depths of the Depression. It was an understandable if inadequate depiction. The arc of his life after his prime athletic years was less a series of jagged ups and downs than an unceasing exertion against the tide. He had launched so many endeavors in and out of sports, always temporary, always on the move. Hollywood extra. Indian organizer. Seamen. Bar greeter. Banquet speaker. Parks employee. Sports entrepreneur with the Tampa Cardinals in football, the World Famous Indians in basketball, Harjo's Indians in baseball, Jim Thorpe's Thunderbirds in women's softball. [His third wife] Patsy had many more plans for Jim, ranging from a national television show to an agreement to return to pro football with the Philadelphia Eagles, to serving as a pro wrestling manager -- all, they hoped, leading to the ultimate goal of fulfilling Jim's long-held dream of running the Thunderbird Fishing and Hunting Lodge along Florida's Indian River. As usual, most of it would never happen.
Just how good was Thorpe?

In his prime, Thorpe was universally considered the greatest athlete in the world. He ran faster, jumped higher, threw farther, and excelled in more sports than anyone the world had ever seen. He was unquestionably the greatest American football player the world would see for decades, perhaps a century -- possibly ever. He was big and strong, and also light and graceful, winning trophies for ballroom dancing. Thorpe's sports intelligence was so keen that he could watch someone perform a feat or technique once, then effectively imitate it, then best it.

In the 1912 Stockholm Olympics, he won gold medals in both penthalon and decathlon, which then consisted of long jump, javelin throw, 200-meter dash, discus throw, and 1500-meter run. In an incident now famous on social media, someone stole Thorpe's track shoes only moments before the competition. Scrambling, he found two shoes, a mismatched pair -- one retrieved from a trash can -- and won a gold medal wearing those.

After the Olympics, in the Amateur Athletic Union's All-Around Championship -- equivalent to today's world championships in any given sport -- Thorpe won seven of the 10 events he competed in and placed second in the other three, breaking the world record for total points scored. Martin Sheridan, a five-time Olympic gold medalist, was present when his record was broken. He told the press, "Thorpe is the greatest athlete that ever lived. He has me beaten fifty ways. Even when I was in my prime, I could not do what he did today."

I don't watch football (in any of its forms), but reading Maraniss's thrilling descriptions of Thorpe's preternatural ability to avoid tackles, running around, through, and over any opponent in his path, I would give anything to have seen Thorpe play. Sportswriters ran out of superlatives to convey what they had seen.

Here's a view from 1950.
The Associated Press, after polling 391 sportswriters and broadcasters, declared Thorpe "the number one gridiron performer of the last 50 years," as he far outpaced Red Grange and Bronco Nagurski, the only other players in double figures in the voting, followed by Ernie Nevers, Sammy Baugh, Don Hutson , and George Gipp (who had four votes). 
When the same electorate chose the greatest track athlete of the half century, Thorpe finished second behind Jesse Owens. More bests were named in succession in baseball, boxing, basketball, golf, tennis, swimming, and horse racing -- until on February 11, 1950, the AP announced the ultimate crown.

The group of 56 athletes who received at least one vote as greatest athlete of the half century included Willie Hoppe in billiards and Dave Freeman in badminton, but the top 11 formed a gallery of major sports legends. At 11th came the electric Jackie Robinson, in his third year as the pioneer of [B]lack players in the major leagues, with two first-place votes and 24 total points. Next, counting down, came Nagurski at 10th, then Lou Gehrig, Owens, Grange, Joe Lewis, and Bobby Jones, none of whom reached 100 votes. 
For the top four, the numbers jumped exponentially. Ty Cobb had one first-place vote and 148 points for fourth. Jack Dempsey claimed 19 first-place votes and 246 total points for third. Babe Ruth had 86 first-place votes and 539 total points for second.

All overshadowed by the colossus. Jim Thorpe finished with 252 first-place votes and 875 total points.
Disgraced by a disgraceful injustice

In 1913, one year after Thorpe's internationally celebrated success in Stockholm, he was stripped of his titles, and his medals and trophies were confiscated, after it was revealed that Thorpe had played some loosely organized semi-pro baseball. 

Playing bush-league baseball during the summer was a fact of life for hundreds of college athletes. This was technically against the rules, but the rule was rarely, if ever, enforced. Most college athletes would play under a fake name, and officials simply looked away. Thorpe made the "mistake" of using his real name and took no great pains to hide his play. The price for his honesty was catastrophic. The Olympic Committee invalidated Thorpe's wins, and declared the silver medalists the victor.

Protest rang out all over the world. The silver medalists in pentathlon and decathlon, athletes from Norway and Sweden respectively, refused to accept the gold, saying Thorpe had earned it and they had not. Athletes, coaches, fans throughout the world, and the King of Sweden were united in their opposition to the decision. It was not reversed.

Thorpe would press his cause throughout his life, writing letters, speaking to sportswriters, and mentioning it in public appearances, asking for his gold-medal status to be reinstated, and to be given the medals and trophies he had won. 

One man made sure this didn't happen: Avery Brundage.

Nazis and ordinary snakes

Avery Brundage was a powerful Olympic official (and a competitor of Thorpe's) who staunchly defended the elitism of the Olympics. Under his vision, the modern Olympics were a celebration of amateurism -- meaning, people wealthy enough to have copious leisure time, unsullied by the need to support oneself or one's family. He defended this vision at the expense of an incredibly talented, honest, and vulnerable athlete. 

Brundage, not incidentally, was a Nazi. He had a long, glorious career defending racial purity and the murderous, racist regimes that sought to enforce it.

Arguably more devastating than the rescinded gold medals was the betrayal that enabled it. Thorpe's influential coach, Glenn "Pop" Warner, and the head administrator of the Carlisle Indian Boarding School claimed to have no knowledge of Thorpe's baseball play. They took the athlete on whose talents their careers -- and profits -- were built, and threw him under the proverbial bus. They blatantly lied about their knowledge of Thorpe's activity, and feigned shock and outrage, thus saving their own careers and ruining Thorpe's.

The rest is struggle

The rest of Thorpe's life would become a series of struggles, or perhaps one long struggle and a long series of disappointments. People would routinely rip him off. He would go on a baseball barnstorming tour, play all the games, live on a meager allowance, then at the end of the tour, the producer would say, sorry, I have no money to pay you, goodbye. There is story after story like this. Bad investment deals. Grand schemes for a football league. Organizers doling out hope and stringing him along. And always, Thorpe's generous nature, always wanting to help others, giving away money he himself desperately needed. 

Maraniss writes:
Over the years, journalists often portrayed Thorpe as down and out, a shadow of his once grand self, working his way back to a better life from the bottom he hit digging ditches in Los Angeles during the depths of the depression. It was an understandable if inadequate depiction period the arc of his life after his prime athletic years was less a series of jagged ups and downs than an unceasing exertion against the tide. He had launched so many endeavors in and out of sports, always temporary, always on the move. Hollywood extra. Indian organizer. Seamen. Bar greeter. Banquet speaker. Parks employee. Sports entrepreneur with the Tampa Cardinals in football about that the world famous Indians in basketball, hard joes Indians ing baseball, Jim Thorpe's Thunderbirds in women's softball. Patsy had many more plans for Jim, ranging from a national television show to an agreement to return to Pro Football with the Philadelphia Eagles to serving as a pro wrestling manager dash all, they hoped, leading to the ultimate goal of fulfilling gene gyms long held dream of running the Thunderbird fishing and hunting lodge along Florida's Indian River. As usual, most of it would never happen.

The Hollywood Indians, the Big Chiefs, and the warpath

Thorpe had a minor movie career, at a time when Hollywood was making westerns, in which the Indians were always bad guys, while also promoting the "noble savage" stereotype. It comes as no surprise that the Hollywood Indians, as they were called, were paid less than white actors, and used only as extras. If a movie called for a starring Indian role, it was invariably played by a white actor. This was, of course, a practice that Hollywood employed for decades with leading roles depicting Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans, and has only recently begun to drop, from public pressure.

Thorpe became a spokesperson for Native Americans in the movie business, advising newcomers on how to survive in the business and advocating for Native actors, pushing for them to get their fair due. I had no idea, and I loved this.

If you've never had occasion to read sports pages of old newspapers, you might be shocked at the way the press covered Thorpe. The racist stereotyping is constant and so pervasive, you might think it was a parody. 

Native American athletes were always called Chief, and said to be "on the warpath". Headlines routinely read "Big Chief Thorpe Runs Heap-um Fast", "Injun Thorpe Say You No Catch Me," and similar. 

Having read a lot of this kind of thing over time, I was not surprised. When Joe DiMaggio signed with the New York Yankees, sportswriters gleefully told their readers DiMaggio hardly smelled like garlic at all. Seriously. These "jokes" never stopped. There were pitifully few instances of game stories or features about Thorpe that did not contain these racist stereotypes. His greatest champion in the press, the talented and famous Grantland Rice, wrote seriously and beautifully about Thorpe. But even Rice employed the accepted wisdom of the day, that Thorpe was the last of a "dying race," childlike in his innocence.

Crossing many paths

Thorpe didn't lead an exemplary life. He struggled with alcohol and relationships. In that, he was no different than millions of others, and he had the additional burden of racism and discrimination. Thorpe lost his twin brother when he was a little boy, and his first child to the influenza pandemic. There was a lot of sadness and loss in his life.

Thorpe's career intersected with many people who would later become famous. He demolished both George S. Patton and Dwight D. Eisenhower on the football field, he batted against the great Walter Johnson, he was friends with Babe Ruth (he and Thorpe had much in common), and was befriended and aided by Bob Hope. Maraniss skillfully uses each encounter to illuminate facets of Thorpe's personality and talents.

Maraniss has an excellent take on Native American issues. Living at the Carlisle Indian Boarding School worked out well for Thorpe, not unlike how St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys worked out for Babe Ruth. But Maraniss doesn't use this to mount a specious argument on the effectiveness of the Indian Boarding Schools. He is very clear on what was going on -- the destruction of families and culture, the infantilizing of adults (Native Americans were forced to petition Indian Agents to access their own money), the forced assimilation, the school conditions that were ripe for, and rife with, abuse.

Here's an interesting and maddening note.
Ten days before Christmas, a letter arrived from Horace J. Johnson, chief agent at the Sac and Fox Agency in Stroud. One document inside proclaimed that James Francis Thorpe had qualified to be deemed a United States citizen. He was 29. He had lived his entire life on American soil. He was educated at government schools. He could read and write. He had brought glory to the United States as the greatest athlete at the Olympics in 1912, praised by President Taft for representing "the best type of American citizen". His income as a professional baseball and football player exceeded the $3,000-a-year minimum that required him to pay federal taxes. All of that, yet only now was he granted citizenship.
* * * *

Many years ago, I put Maraniss's book They Marched Into Sunlight on my List. Looking over the list for our recent pilgrimage to Powell's in Portland, I thought, do I still want to read this? Nah. I moved the title into the "no longer want to read" section. (No deleting!) Now that I've read Path Lit by Lightning, my interest in that earlier book is renewed. Maraniss has also written a biography of Roberto Clemente, among many other works,

I will also note that Path Lit by Lightning reminded me greatly of my partner Allan's first book, 1918: Babe Ruth and the World Champion Boston Red Sox. 1918 has a shorter time-span and narrower focus, but the two books and the writing styles have a lot in common. Maraniss's play-by-play of football games is almost as good as Allan's recreation of baseball games from those long-ago days.

If you're all tl;dr about my blog, this excellently written review of Path Lit by Lightning by Keith Olbermann is really worth reading. 

7.25.2024

things i heard at the library, an occasional series # 41

I'm filling in for frontline staff on a break. A customer approaches.

Customer: I put a book on hold. Is it here?

Me: Did you receive a notice that it is in?

Customer: I don't want to answer any questions. Just tell me if my book is in.

Me: I need to know your last name.

Customer: [tells me last name]

Me, finding book: Please check that the last digits of your library card match these numbers.

Customer: How do I do that?

We stare at each other for a moment.

Me: Please show me your library card.

Customer: I don't have it with me. Can't you help me anyway?

Me: Yes, I can. But I will need to ask you some questions.

More staring.

Customer: OK. 

I ask her the required questions and check out her book.

Now she appears to be embarrassed and over-thanks me. 

Notice to library users: if you want information, we need to ask you questions!

what i'm reading: how the word is passed by clint smith, a road trip through history and racism

Among the many recent titles published about racism, Clint Smith's How the Word is Passed: A Reckoning with the History of Slavery Across America is probably the most meaningful and accessible book I've read.

Smith takes the reader on a journey to nine places that are potent with the legacy of slavery, to see how the stories they tell reflect, distort, or deny that history. 

Smith visits: 

  • Monticello, the plantation home of Thomas Jefferson,
  • The Whitney Plantation, a non-profit that seeks to educate the public about the slavery,
  • Louisiana State Penitentiary, always referred to as Angola,
  • Blandford Cemetery, best known for a mass grave of Confederate soldiers,
  • a Juneteenth celebration in Galveston, Texas,
  • the African Burial Ground National Monument in New York City,
  • the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC, and 
  • Gorée Island in Senegal, which was a holding station for kidnapped and enslaved people before they were forced onto ships. 

Smith, who is a poet and also writes for The Atlantic, tells these stories with a blend of research, interviews, and personal reflection, and with a warm, open-minded, open-hearted approach that I found very engaging. How the Word Is Passed has won a boatload of awards, and there's no shortage of reviews online, so I'll just share a sample of some passages from the book that resonated deeply with me.

* * * *

I thought of my primary and secondary education. I remembered feeling crippling guilt as I silently wondered why every enslaved person couldn't simply escape like Douglass, Tubman, and Jacobs had. I found myself angered by the stories of those who did not escape. Had they not tried hard enough? Didn't they care enough to do something? Did they choose to remain enslaved? This, I now realize, is part of the insidiousness of white supremacy; it illuminates the exceptional in order to implicity blame those who cannot, in the most brutal circumstances, attain superhuman heights. It does this instead of blaming the system, the people who built it, the people who maintained it.

Many Jewish people, especially of earlier generations, felt deep shame that European Jews "allowed" themselves to be rounded up and slaughtered. Rape survivors believe they "let" themselves be raped. 

The section on Angola was absolutely wild, one of those "I thought I knew how bad this was" moments.

The conditions under convict leasing [from Angola Prison] were often as gruesome as anything that had existed under slavery. . . . As one man told the National Conference of Charities and Corrections in 1883, "Before the war, we owned the negroes. If a man had a good negro, he could afford to take care of him. If sick, get a doctor. He might even put gold plugs in his teeth. But these convicts, we don't own 'em. One dies, get another."

From W.E.B. Du Bois in 1928, quoted in How the Word is Passed. I love hearing the states' rights argument demolished.

Each year on the 19th of January, there is renewed effort to canonize Robert E. Lee, the greatest Confederate general. His personal comeliness, his aristrocratic birth, and his military prowess all call for the verdict of greatness and genius. But one thing -- one terrible fact -- militates against this, and this is the inescapable truth that Robert E. Lee led a bloody war to perpetuate slavery. Copperheads like the New York Times may magisterally declare, "Of course, he never fought for slavery." Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. . . . No, people do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege, and that was what Virginia fought for in the Civil War. And Lee followed Virginia. . . . Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not, he was a fool. If he did, Robert E. Lee was a traitor and a rebel -- not indeed to his country but to humanity and humanity's God.

I also especially loved the sections on monuments and naming of public places. I want to see all the names on Vancouver Island restored to Indigenous words, especially those place-names that recall the architect of the residential "school" system: Duncan, Campbell, Scott. And most of all, I want to see the ridiculously named British Columbia wiped off the map and restored or updated. Here are several passages about that. Turns out we're all supporting white supremacy.

It is not simply that statues of Lee and other Confederates stand as monuments to a traitorous army predicated on maintaining and expanding the insitution of slavery; it is also that we, U.S. taxpayers, are paying for their maintenance and preservation. A 2018 report by Smithsonian magazine and the Nation Institute's Investigative Fund (now Type Investigations) found that over the previous ten years, U.S. taxpayers have directed at least forty million dollars to Confederate monuments, including statues, homes, museums, and cemeteries, as well as Confederate heritage groups. And in Virginia, the subsidizing of Confederate iconography is a more than century-long project.

In 1902, as Jim Crow continued to expand as a violent and politically repressive force, the state's all-white legislature created an annual allocation of the state's funds for the care of Confederate graves. Smithsonian's investigation found that in total, the state had spent approximately $9 million in today's dollars. Much of that funding goes directly to the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which received over $1.6 million in funds for Confederate cemeteries from the State of Virginia between 1996 and 2018.

Why should we restore names? 

The creation of any monument sends a message, whether intentional or not. I think of the statues around the country of people who presided over Native genocide or forced resettlement, and how a young Indigenous child might experience that pedestaled figure. 

 More from W.E.B. Du Bois:

The most terrible thing about War, I am convinced, is its monuments -- the awful things we are compelled to build in order to remember the victims. To the South, particularly, human ingenuity has been put to it to explain, on its war monuments, the Confederacy. Of course, the plain truth of the matter would be an inscription something like this: "Sacred to the memory of those who fought to Perpetuate Human Slavery." But that reads with increasing difficulty as time goes on. It does, however, seem to be overdoing the matter to read on a North Carolina Confederate monument: "Died Fighting for Liberty!"

Smith, driving around his hometown of New Orleans:

"Go straight for two miles on Robert E. Lee."

"Take a left on Jefferson Davis."

"Make the first right on Claiborne."

Translation:

"Go straight for two miles on the general whose troops slaughtered hundreds of Black soldiers who were trying to surrender."

"Take a left on the president of the Confederacy, who understood the torture of Black bodies as the cornerstone of their new nation."

"Make the first right on the man who allowed the heads of rebelling slaves to be mounted on stakes in order to prevent other slaves from getting any ideas."

 On the ancestry of Black Americans:

In my experience -- as both educator and student, as researcher and writer -- there was little mainstream discussion of who Black people were before they reached the coasts of the New World, beyond the ball and chain. This was something I had heard when I lived in Senegal, a decade prior, that we Black Americans were taught so little of our traditions, our cultures, our voices before we were taken and forced onto ships that carried us across the Atlantic. As Sue pointed out, the risk is that Black Americans understand our history as beginning in bondage rather than in the freedom of Africa that preceded it.

Language matters:

A statement like "Black Southerners were segregated because of their skin color" . . . that passive construction makes it seem as if segregation was completely natural, which absolves the enforces of segregation . . . from any sort of culpability. 

This immediately reminded me of a familiar whitewashing: "Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier." Allan and I have often noted how this phrasing conceals the truth. It sounds like Robinson was the first Black person good enough to break through to the major leagues. How about "Black people were not allowed to play in this league because of the racism and discrimination of the teams' owners"? Or perhaps, "As in society overall, the owners of Major League Baseball teams supported segregation and discrimination, and did not allow Black players on their teams."

On this episode of "It Wasn't Only in the South", this is about slavery in Dutch New Amsterdam.

According to historian Jill Lepore, for every 100 people taken from Africa, only about 64 would survive the trip from the region's interior to the coast. Of those 64, around 48 would survive the weeks-long journey across the Atlantic. Of those 48, only 28-30 would survive the first three to four years in the colony. [Historians Ira] Berlin and [Leslie M.] Harris refer to New York at this time as "a death factory for black people."

From a teacher in Senegal:

Part of what Hasan teaches his students is that we cannot understand slavery and colonialism as two separate historical phenomena. They are inextricably linked pieces of history. Slavery took a toll on West Africa's population; millions of people were stripped from their homelands and sent across the ocean to serve in intergenerational bondage. The profound harm continued during colonialism, with much of the contenent stripped of its natural resources instead of its people. Hasan reflected, "In both situations, in slavery and colonization, what you have is a system of plunder. First, in slavery, we have a plunder of human beings. Africa had been ripped of its people. And colonization is a plunder of natural resources. Both are plunder systems."

I'll close with the passage that was immediately and profoundly resonant to me, as I wish it would be for all American Jews. My notes say "xref zionism".

What would it take -- what does it take -- for you to confront a false history even if it means shattering the stories you have been told throughout your life? Even if it means having to fundamentally reexamine who you are and who your family has been? Just because something is difficult to accept doesn't mean you should refuse to accept it. Just because someone tells you a story doesn't make the story true.

7.17.2024

what i'm reading: the red parts: a powerful, haunting memoir of trauma, loss, and the limits of justice

This is why I keep a running book list that is decades long. For more than 15 years, my list has included this note.

The Red Parts - Maggie Nelson - murder of aunt she never knew

The Red Parts was published in 2007. I never would have remembered it. But it remained on my list, and last month, I found it at Powell's. I'm not a fast reader, but I read this book in two sittings. I was riveted.

* * * *

In 1969, Jane Mixer was 23 years old, a law student at the University of Michigan. She was on her way to her parents' home to announce her engagement. She never arrived. When her body was found, it was clear she was murdered. 

Maggie Nelson was born four years later. Jane Mixer was her mother's sister. 

In 2004, Nelson was about to publish Jane: A Murder, a collection of poetry and research snippets about the aunt she never knew, and about her death. Out of nowhere, a bomb dropped: Jane's case -- unsolved for 35 years -- had been reopened. Then: an arrest, a trial, media attention. A re-opening of wounds. Fresh trauma.

*  *  *  *

Nelson never knew her Aunt Jane, but her life was profoundly affected by her murder. The echoes of Jane's horrific death reverberated through her life and the lives of everyone in her family.

When Maggie Nelson wrote this book, I don't think the expression intergenerational trauma was commonly used, and Nelson never refers to her family's situation in such clinical terms. But this book is a view of intergenerational trauma from the inside -- from deep inside.

Although the subtitle of this book is "The Autobiography of a Trial", The Red Parts is more memoir than trial reporting. Although there is an investigation, a court room, a jury, an autopsy report -- and autopsy and crime scene photographs, which the family must decide whether or not to view -- and although producers of true-crime TV are already re-packaging the story into a series of clichés -- the book is not a procedural or a legal thriller. It is a profoundly emotional recounting of how trauma plays out in our lives. 

It's very difficult to write clearly about emotions, to bring a reader close to an emotional truth without resorting to melodrama, hyperbole, or cliché -- without being gruesome, but without pulling punches. Nelson comes as close as any writer I've ever read: raw, unflinching, self-aware, humbled and sometimes overwhelmed by the responsibility she has taken on. She is brutally honest, and courageously revelatory about her own life. How much of what she reveals was the result of the trauma of Jane's murder is left for the reader to contemplate.

Threaded through the book is an undercurrent: the author's thoughts on justice -- what passes for justice in the legal system, what real justice might look like, questioning whether justice can ever truly exist. There is no soapbox, no lecture, no statistics. Nelson simply questions everything, interrogating the popular conceptions of healing and closure, and the relative value our society places on certain lives. Her conclusions are only more questions.

I'm grateful to Maggie Nelson for her opposition to the death penalty, and for her recognition of the relative value of lives as reflected in the media. But mostly I'm in awe of her writing and grateful for her honesty.