Friday, November 06, 2015

The Power of Social Media to Change Children's Literature

This has been quite the year in children's literature--and I say that in a good way. Some people are decrying social media, but I celebrate it. It is making a difference.

Some say social media that questions books like A Fine Dessert is unfairly attacking the author and illustrator. Some say the creators of the book are being publicly shamed. Roger Sutton said that about the change made to Amazing Grace. 


But you know who has been publicly shamed 
for decades and decades? 
Children.
Children whose culture is misrepresented or poorly 
represented in popular, classic, and award-winning books. 


In his new book, Poet: The Remarkable Story of George Moses Horton, Don Tate's note in the back is important. He writes:
When I first began illustrating children's books, I decided that I would not work on stories about slavery. I had many reasons, one being that I wanted to focus on contemporary stories relevant to young readers today. In all honesty, though, what I wasn't admitting to myself was that I was ashamed of the topic.
I grew up in a small town in the Midwest in the 1970s and 1980s. At school, I was usually the only brown face in a sea of white. It seemed to me that whenever the topic of black history came up, it was always in relation to slavery, about how black people were once the property of white people--no more human than a horse or a wheelbarrow. Sometimes white kids snickered and made jokes about the topic. Sometimes, black kids did too.
A wash of emotion floods over me each time I read Don's words. I've heard similar things from Native kids and teens, too. Don takes up the topic of slavery in Poet. But he does it with a full understanding of what it feels like to be a black child reading a book that depicts slavery.

I have no doubt that Emily Jenkins and Sophie Blackall meant well when they created A Fine Dessert, but they and the community of people who worked with them on the book created it from within a space that doesn't have what Don has. The outcome, as most of us know, has caused an enormous discussion on social media.

I have empathy for Jenkins and Blackall, but as my larger text above makes clear, my empathy is with children. Because of social media, Jenkins, Blackall, and anyone who is following this discussion, have heard from people they don't normally hear from. People who aren't in their community. In this case, African American parents who are stunned with the depiction of slavery in A Fine Dessert. Some of the response has been blistering in its anger. Jenkins has heard them, and subsequently, apologized.

Thus far, Blackall has not. She says she's heard them, but what does it mean when you hear someone--with reason or with fury--tell you that you've hurt them, but all you do is rebut what they say? I don't know what to call that response.

She and people who are empathizing with her are decrying social media, but I celebrate what it is doing right now in children's literature. Because of it, I have a blog that people read. They link to it. They reference it. They assign it. They share it. The outcome? People write to tell me what they're learning.

Because of social media, we can all watch a video of a panel discussion that took place last weekend. A discussion--I think--that has never happened before at a conference. I'm asking my colleagues who research children's literature. Nobody recalls one like this before.

Sean Qualls, Sophie Blackall, and Daniel Jose Older spoke on a panel titled "Lens of Diversity: It is Not All in What You See" at the New York City School Library System's 26th annual conference. I'm studying the video and will have more to say about it later, but for now, watch it yourself.



I'll be back with a post about it later. For now I've got to finish preparing a talk I'll be giving for Chicago Public Library tomorrow. I was shaken to the core as I watched the video. Shaken by the denial of Qualls and Blackall, and shaken by the honesty of Older. He is using social media to effect change. Change is happening. I know that change is happening because of the email I get from gatekeepers.

I think we're in the crisis that Walter Dean Myers anticipated in 1986 in his New York Times article, I Thought We Would Actually Revolutionize the Industry. He wrote about how the 1970s looked like a turning point:
...the quality of the books written by blacks in the 70's was so outstanding that I actually thought we would revolutionize the industry, bringing to it a quality and dimension that would raise the standard for all children's books. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. No sooner had all the pieces conducive to the publishing of more books on the black experience come together than they started falling apart. 

This time round, I think things will not fall apart. Social media is driving change in children's literature. And so, I celebrate it.

12 comments:

Late Edition said...

I don't know that Blackall has rebutted anyone, exactly, but she has argued, respectfully, that there can be more than one response to the book. Since there have in fact been more than one response, the point seems hard to argue. And I mean more than one response from readers of all races. There has been anger, and also people who feel the book can be useful if used in the right context, and also people who are fine with it, like Qualls, according to what he says at this panel. And for you to call Sean Qualls in denial just because he reads the book differently from you, while at the same time accusing others of dismissing voices — I don't even want to try to unpack that dynamic. Jenkins and Blackall aren't the only ones who can have good intentions and still make a misstep. Maybe allow different people different opinions.

PragmaticMom said...

I think the illustrations in A Fine Dessert are gorgeous and wothy of Caldecott attention. I did notice the slavery depiction when I first read the book and it did give me pause but I think it's age appropriate given the book is geared to ages 4 and up and often kids younger than 4 are exposed to picture books. I don't think a more common depiction of slavery is suitable for preschool, kindegarten and first grade. Slavery is too violent and complex a subject to go into at that age. And in all honestly, when I saw the slavery page, I thought it could also be servants versus slaves because it wasn't totally clear to me that the family lives in the Deep South.

Roxanne said...

Debbie, I'm curious as to how you gathered data/information about the children who suffered from reading or being read to A Fine Dessert (or other books.) You said that you're siding with the children who are the intended audience of children's books and I hope that you know that for many of us, that is our caring as well. And yet, I see that you seem ready to discount any account of using this book with kids with positive outcomes from anecdotal experiences shared by people who commented on various blogs. To you, is it immediately apparent that A Fine Dessert has inflicted pain in child readers? Do you think it is possible that it has elicited discomfort, curiosity, confusion, questions, explorations and conversations that led to a deepened understanding? It seems to me that that is one of the powers of literature. And in so many diversity trainings that I have attended in the past many years, we always talked a lot about having courageous conversations where discomfort is embraced and sometimes even encouraged. I know that is about educating adults, but I have a hard time understanding how adults can become versed in having difficult but really fruitful discussions with each other when their views are very different if these adults never had such training growing up.

I truly believe that children will benefit to be exposed to tough topics and be given guidance on how to handle such topics even if it creates an uncomfortable scenario. Children have a huge capacity to learn and to see and to listen and to express themselves. Of course I will not advocate intentional hurtful texts or imagery, but I do think when we say that we care ultimately and utmost about our children, we need to think both about protecting them and about equipping them with tactics and tools.

徐幼鳳 said...

Debbie, I'm curious as to how you gathered data/information about the children who suffered from reading or being read to A Fine Dessert (or other books.) You said that you're siding with the children who are the intended audience of children's books and I hope that you know that for many of us, that is our caring as well. And yet, I see that you seem ready to discount any account of using this book with kids with positive outcomes from anecdotal experiences shared by people who commented on various blogs. To you, is it immediately apparent that A Fine Dessert has inflicted pain in child readers? Do you think it is possible that it has elicited discomfort, curiosity, confusion, questions, explorations and conversations that led to a deepened understanding? It seems to me that that is one of the powers of literature. And in so many diversity trainings that I have attended in the past many years, we always talked a lot about having courageous conversations where discomfort is embraced and sometimes even encouraged. I know that is about educating adults, but I have a hard time understanding how adults can become versed in having difficult but really fruitful discussions with each other when their views are very different if these adults never had such training growing up.

I truly believe that children will benefit to be exposed to tough topics and be given guidance on how to handle such topics even if it creates an uncomfortable scenario. Children have a huge capacity to learn and to see and to listen and to express themselves. Of course I will not advocate intentional hurtful texts or imagery, but I do think when we say that we care ultimately and utmost about our children, we need to think both about protecting them and about equipping them with tactics and tools.

Nanette said...

Roxanne, I believe your comment, like the book itself, centers white children (or, at least, non-Black children) and what they can learn from reading Dessert. To even come close to an understanding of the harm that can come from this book, you'll need to center Black children. Look at *them* first, and how this book could affect *them*--particularly if they are reading it themselves, or being read to by someone not qualified to speak on this topic (the more I read, the less faith I have that there are many who *are* qualified.)

I was going to write a much more detailed comment (even though I am not Debbie,) but there have been so many Black parents, grandparents, educators, authors, others (not to mention the non Black ones) who have been speaking on this over the past week or so, that now I think not knowing or not understanding is more simply a matter of not listening.

Debbie Reese said...

Hi Roxanne,

I remember similar questions from people at CCBCnet last year or the year before.

I think Nanette's comment is terrific. As I read yours (Roxanne), I felt that you had white children as the default.

I can point you to a page of accounts from Native kids and their parents, recounting experiences with stereotypical and biased stories: http://oyate.org/index.php/resources/45-resources/living-stories

And I can point you to empirical research studies that measure self efficacy pre- and post- viewing images of Native people (positive and negative): http://sitemaker.umich.edu/daphna.oyserman/files/frybergmarkusoysermanstone2008.pdf


Nanette said...

I have soooo many thoughts on this post. First, yay! Daniel Jose Older is brilliant, as usual. I am confidently looking forward to his MacArthur Award (or something similar) somewhere down the road--he's done, and doing, so much to help change things and bring light (and heat) to the subject of diversity in literature, as well as other things. Plus he's an amazing writer.

That said, I'm sort of glad that Qualls took the other view. Though from what he was saying and how he was saying it (about the checklists and stuff) I don't think he's been following a lot of the conversation about either the Dessert book or the other stuff. Still, whether he has or not, and whether it was a conscious decision or not, I'm somewhat relieved that the optics weren't of two men of color going after the poor white lady with the marvelous accent who was just doing the best she could and all that. No matter how soft spoken and sweet sounding Qualls is (and he is... couldn't hear him half the time) it would have been seen as an attack just because of his visuals. And then people would have stopped listening to both he and Daniel.

Anyway, it's complicated, but still... what an interesting panel discussion. In all the other stuff I loved was what Qualls said about the subway and views--from the sounds of it all of the panelists live both in the same city, and in very different ones.

Thank you for the Walter Dean Myers article--I grew up in the 60s and 70s and it was a time of hope of so many things changing--yet, so many things stayed the same or even regressed. That's why I, too, love social media and its ability to bring people together, to make it more difficult for gatekeepers to ignore issues, and to have such a wide range of input from professionals, readers, parents (and grandparents) on topics that affect our children.

徐幼鳳 said...

Thanks Debbie, for the links. Will read the findings!

I find it interesting , revealing, and slightly troubling that Debbie and Nanette have no problem presuming what I had or did not have in mind when I made my statement. My actual mental imagery is definitely not of a bunch of white children sitting in a classroom to unpack what the text or images say. Instead, I had in mind what will make the most sense in conversations like this: many different views, ideas, understandings, all come together, brought to the surface, and are given chances and tools to know that there are Diverse views and feelings and how to respect and validate views different from our own, and do not readily discount others' opinions just becasue they differ from our own. I hope you have not felt that I devalue your ideas and I would love to see all of us keep talking: but not in circles.

When Debbie used "denial" to describe Quall's thoughts and when Nanette presumes that Qualls must have not followed the controversy and that I must not have brown children in mind, I sense that there is little willingness to dialogue or to form new understanding becasue you already are 100% sure of your position: which I find somehow dangerous.

Have you read this statement about A Fine Dessert? And what are your thoughts on her view?

https://littlemisslitberry.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/a-fine-backlash-no-smiling-black-people/

Debbie Reese said...

Hi Roxanne,

I agree--we need to keep talking.

You will always find someone who will has a different viewpoint. That is a given.

For example: at the University of Illinois, most Native people (students, staff, faculty) found the mascot stereotypical. You could find some who disagreed, but that was a much smaller group. Right now, you can find Native people who like the Washington team name, too. People who like the mascots can--and do--choose to hold up that Native who agrees with them rather than consider the others, which in this case, include statements made by national organizations like the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association, and ones that aren't Native, like the American Psychological Association.

With decades of work, Native people have been able to help people understand the issues of misrepresentation and appropriation with regard to mascots. Part of what I do here on AICL is show that stereotyping within children's books parallels mascot imagery, from the garish to the noble.

Whether we're speaking about a specific book, like A FINE DESSERT, or a specific mascot, I think it is important to consider the larger context of equity and power and the ways that dominant institutions depict those with less, little, or no power.

I could push you to respond to what Don Tate said about his childhood. I could say you're discounting him and the African Americans who are not ok with the depiction of slavery in A FINE DESSERT, but we need not do that. We can, and should, look at the larger context. That "100%" remark is not helpful. Very few things in life are ever 100%.

I am 100% sure of this: people of color, Native people, people with disabilities.... a large swatch of people have, for hundreds of years, been misrepresented in children's books. I think you are 100% sure of that, too. How we get to a place where misrepresentation is NOT the norm is going to take a lot of work.

I plan to watch the hour-long video again and write about it. Qualls said several contradictory things, so I want to spend more time listening to his remarks so I can be more clear in what I say. The way he spoke about a checklist is, I believe, a denial of what people are asking for with regard to diversity. I don't want a checklist and I don't think you do, either, right?

Anonymous said...

Is Emily Jenkins's brief apology (and subsequent radio silence) somehow better than Sophie Blackall's willingness to engage, respectfully, in this discussion?

Debbie Reese said...

Back, Roxanne, to add another case. The Mexican American Studies program at Tucson Unified School District offered students literature and materials that affirmed their identities as Mexican American, and for Native students in the program, a Native identity. There are research studies done on that program that point to the impact on students. Here's two:

https://www.coe.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/MAS_report_2012_0.pdf

http://www.tulibro915.com/uploads/1/2/5/5/12552697/_am_educ_res_j-2014-cabrera.pdf

徐幼鳳 said...

Thanks, Debbie, for all the resources. And I agree with you that using that 100% is probably not helpful at all. However, that is how I felt at the time. And I don't believe by my trying to take many different viewpoints into account means that I discounted Don Tate's (yes, I am aware of it) and many others' voices.

Now switching gear a bit and perhaps in much more agreement with you than not:

What I felt most uncomfortable in watching the Full Panel video was that by having Qualls' voice and opinions, it might make it easier for Blackall to stop thinking hard or engaging in further discussions (whether she does or not is not something I can presume or speak for) now that she has the voice of a black man that supports her work for this book. I think your concerns are really valid: the strong and questioning viewpoints/voices of the marginalized can be easily overpowered and thus are lost in the large conversation due to the existence of a single or a few supportive viewpoint/voices from the same group of marginalized people. (One well-adjusted black student in an elite school can be cited as evidence of the success of the entire institution when in reality, perhaps, there are many failed attempts at achieving true equity.)

I will keep thinking and learning.