Huffpost Black Voices
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Foz Meadows Headshot

Racism, 'Revealing Eden' and STGRB

Posted: Updated:

In the past few weeks, mass critical discussion of a YA novel by Victoria Foyt -- titled Revealing Eden: Save the Pearls -- has sprung up online after various people noticed that the book was, shall we say, extremely problematic vis-a-vis racism. And by 'extremely problematic,' I mean that the white female protagonist wears blackface (complete with extra-red lips), black people are called 'Coals,' the black male love interest is literally described as animalistic and bestial, the dystopian elements come in large part from black people being in charge while whites are a demonized minority, Aztec characters speak Spanish for no readily discernable reason, and the title literally translates to 'save the white people' -- 'Pearls' being an (apparently) derogatory term for whites, though, as various other commenters have pointed out, the Coals/Pearls contrast is itself offensive: after all, coal is dirty and cheap, whereas pearls are beautiful and valuable.

Things might have died down had Foyt herself not waded in, angrily denying all assertions that either the book or her attitudes were racist while simultaneously speculating that African-American readers might not even exist as a category. It was at this point that an awful possibility occurred to me: What if the Stop the GR Bullies site were to start defending Foyt on the grounds that calling her racist constituted bullying? It was a cynical thought, and one I was prepared to categorize as uncharitable even as I tweeted about the possibility on Wednesday; surely, even STGRB could recognize that in this instance, the accusations of racism were both legitimate and extremely relevant to any discussion of the novel, given Foyt's claim that the story was meant to "turn racism on its head" -- after all, how can you assess whether a book has succeeded at its stated goals without analyzing the author's efforts at achieving them? How can you discuss the presence of blatant racism in a novel without asking why the author included it, and whether they even realized it was there, let alone offensive?

But as it turns out, my cynical predictions proved accurate: this morning, STGRB has come out in defence of Foyt, asserting that:

... calling the author racist (when she has clearly stated that she is not) or calling her ignorant, disgusting, terrible, sexist, etc., or saying that she and her agent, editor, and publisher should be sued -- that is bullying.

Which is, apart from anything else, monumentally hypocritical given that the site's entire purpose is to label as bullies people who actively state that they aren't. If Foyt can be deemed definitely non-racist simply by virtue of asserting that she isn't, then how can STGRB accuse anyone of bullying who doesn't openly identify as a bully without contradicting their own logic? Regardless of whether you agree with their judgements or practices, the primary assertion of STGRB is that sometimes it's necessary to bestow negative labels on people who deny their applicability -- but in this respect as in so many others, the site is determined to enforce a double standard: one for them, and one for anyone who disagrees. Site manager Athena's assertion that "someone's intentions do define them" is fundamentally flawed: she assumes that someone with good intentions can't cause actual harm, or that if they do, they shouldn't be held responsible for it. I've written before about intentionality versus interpretation in YA, but what it all metaphorically boils down to is this: If a driver accidentally hits a pedestrian, the fact that they didn't mean to is immaterial. The pedestrian is still injured, the driver is still negligent, and if, despite these facts, the driver continues to assert that they're actually very good behind the wheel of a car, we are right to question them. If it really was an accident, a genuinely responsible driver will nonetheless acknowledge their error and take every precaution to ensure they never replicate it, but if it turns out that the driver has been drastically overconfident in their assessment of their abilities, their entire approach to driving needs to change.

Victoria Foyt is being called a racist because the number and severity of the problems present in Revealing Eden are such that the novel ultimately serves to reinforce the very same toxic behavior it sets out to debunk. The assertion isn't that Foyt is being consciously racist in the sense of actively believing black people to be inferior, but rather that, despite her apparently good intentions, she has nonetheless subconsciously absorbed and then actively replicated certain impressions and stereotypes about black people without realizing that they're offensive -- and when the extent of her cognitive dissonance was pointed out to her by myriad readers, both white and POC, she responded by asserting that their accusations were "exactly what creates racism." She has well and truly hit the pedestrian and has responded by declaring herself to be an excellent driver.

I've said before that STGRB is not a subtle site, and now more than ever, I stand by that. In many instances -- perhaps even a majority of instances -- reviewing the author rather than the book is a bad thing to do, but it would be both impossible and irresponsible to try and fully separate a writer from their words, particularly in instances where they've chosen to openly discuss their inspiration or intentions. Foyt is being critiqued as much for the tenor and content of her blogged responses to criticism as for the book itself, and however strongly you might object to references to her as a person cropping up in reviews of the latter, attempting to outlaw commentary on the former is utterly unreasonable. Authors exist in the world, not a vacuum; we are influenced by everything around us, and when that influence transfers itself to our work -- whether intentionally or unintentionally -- it isn't unreasonable for critics to take notice, and to comment accordingly.

But let's take a moment to consider what racism actually means, as both the STGRB crew and several of their commenters appear to be confused about the issue. Contrary to the stated opinions of the STGRB site owners, racism isn't exclusively an active, conscious phenomenon -- by which I mean that the terminology doesn't only apply to people in KKK hoods who openly assert that black people are inferior. In a cultural context where discrimination is still a daily fact of life for an overwhelming number of people, but where openly stating disdain for POC is socially frowned upon, racism has become primarily a subconscious affair. But this by no means blunts its effect; in fact, it makes it even more insidious, because it breeds in people a problematic belief that hating racism is identical to not actually being racist.

When Trayvon Martin was killed, a grassroots smear campaign sprang up to defend his killer and paint the unarmed, teenage Martin as a thug; some people even started selling shooting targets printed with his face. One newscaster blamed Martin's death on the fact that he was wearing a hoodie, saying that "black and Latino youngsters particularly" shouldn't wear them to avoid looking suspicious. Meanwhile, George Zimmerman, Martin's killer, defended himself using Florida's Stand Your Ground law. His exoneration was instantly contrasted with the prominent case of a black woman, Marissa Alexander, who'd fired a gun while being physically assaulted by a violent partner. Alexander was told that Stand Your Ground didn't apply in her case; subsequent journalistic investigation found that "defendants claiming 'stand your ground' are more likely to prevail if the victim is black" -- which prompted an investigation into racism's influence on the law by federal and state officials. By contrast, the extrajudicial killing of black people by law enforcement in America was recently recorded to have reached the rate of one every 40 hours, while just last Friday, a member of the GOP stated that members of the Republican party in Florida had actively sought to suppress black votes.

Outside the courtroom, men and women of color still earn significantly less than their white counterparts. A white Baptist church recently refused to marry a black couple, despite both parties being regular attendees. A poll conducted in March this year showed that 29 percent of Republican voters in Missisippi think that interracial marriage should be illegal, while a recent study of college students showed that "white students and those who rated highly in color-blind racial attitudes were more likely not to be offended by images from racially themed parties at which attendees dressed and acted as caricatures of racial stereotypes" -- a result which showed a strong correlation between color-blind attitudes and a tacit acceptance/non-recognition of racism. Similarly, implicit association tests (IATs) have frequently shown that the cultural effects of racial bias are widespread, while the shaming of and self-loathing among black girls who've been culturally conditioned to view their own natural hair and skin as disgusting is utterly heartbreaking. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea: racism is everywhere, it is frequently subtle or subconscious, and its effects can be utterly devastating.

So when, to return to the case of STGRB and Victoria Foyt, I see site manager Athena responding to the suggestion that "Accusations of racism are no different than 17th. C. accusations of witchcraft" by praising the commenter's "understanding and intelligence," it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that Foyt isn't the only party to lack a meaningful understanding of racism. I cannot overstate this enough: Calling someone out for racism is not worse than actually being racist. If you care more about being called racist than about the possibility that you actually might be racist, then you have a serious problem, because what you've just done, right there? Is concluded that it's more important to appear to support equality than to actually support equality.

Distressingly, this isn't the first time that race has become a prominent factor in discussions of YA novels. Negative fan reactions to the casting of POC actors in the film adaptations of two successful YA series -- first to Amandla Stenberg as Rue in Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games, and now to Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane in Cassandra Clare's The Mortal Instruments -- serve to highlight how toxic the assumption of 'whiteness as normative' can be. Even in instances where characters are explicitly stated to be POC, as was the case in both Clare's and Collins's work, many readers assume otherwise -- not necessarily due to conscious racism, but because they unconsciously edit out information that contradicts the culturally learned assumption that whiteness is the default setting.

Intentions are meaningless if contradicted by our actions, and doubly so if we refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of dissonance between them. Victoria Foyt is not being bullied; she is being called out for having written a horrendously racist book in the first instance and then for completely dismissing her critics in the second. Trying to turn the existing conversation about the negative themes of Revealing Eden, the reactions of POC readers, Foyt's behavior and the general problem of race in YA into a discussion about the appropriateness of various reviewing techniques is, ultimately, a form of derailing. However important the issue might be otherwise, it's a separate topic to the one at hand, and the STGRB site managers have done themselves even less credit than usual by so hamfistedly conflating the two. Subconscious racism is a real problem -- but so is the refusal of would-be allies to acknowledge that, despite all their active efforts and intentions, it can still affect them, too.