VIDEO: Christian Rap


Trip Lee "The Invasion (Hero)" music video feat. Jai (@rapzilla @triplee116 @justjai)


Music video for the song "The Invasion (Hero)" feat. Jai, by Trip Lee. Directed by TK McKamy and Sho Baraka. http://www.rapzilla.com
_________________________________________________

Jin - "Angels"


The Official Music Video for Jin's new track "Angels", from the new mix tape "Say Something." Shot on location in Hong Kong, 2010. 

Directed by: Hosanna Wong
Executive Produced by: Carl Choi
Presented by: Catch Adventures

Jin Business Inquiries: cc@catchadventures.com 

Hosanna Wong Business Inquiries: ln@plancmgmt.com

 

PUB: Contests - Southwest Review - SMU

SMU Logo

 

 

 

Spirit Point Image

The Morton Marr Poetry Prize

The Morton Marr Poetry Prize is an endowment by Marilyn Klepak of Dallas in honor of her father, whose love of poetry has encouraged her to pass this love on to others. Generous supplemental donations were also provided by Mr. and Mrs. David T. Searls, Jr. The first prize is $1,000 and the second place prize is $500. Both prizes earn publication in Southwest Review pages. Judging for 2009 was Dan Chiasson.

RULES: This contest is open to writers who have not yet published a first book of poetry. Contestants may submit no more than six, previously unpublished poems in a "traditional" form (e.g. sonnet, sestina, villanelle, rhymed stanzas, blank verse, etc.). Poems should be printed blank with name and address information only on a cover sheet or letter. (If work is submitted online, please omit the author's name from the final "submission content text area"). There is a $5.00 per poem entry/handling fee. Postmarked deadline for entry is September 30, 2010. Submissions will not be returned. For notification of winning poems, include a SASE. Entries should be addressed to: The Morton Marr Poetry Prize,  Southwest Review, P.O. Box 750374, Dallas, TX 75275-0374

 

The David Nathan Meyerson Fiction Prize

Southwest Review is pleased to announce a new prize for fiction writers who have not published a first book. Named for the late David Nathan Meyerson (1967-1998), a therapist and talented writer who died before he was able to show to the greater world the full fruits of his literary potential, the prize consists of $1,000 and publication in SWR. With the generous support of Marlene, Marti, and Morton Meyerson, the award will continue to honor David Meyerson's memory by encouraging and taking notice of other writers of great promise.

RULES: The prize is open to writers who have not yet published a novel. Submissions must be no longer than 8,000 words. A $25.00 reading fee must accompany each submission. Work should be printed without the author's name (if work is submitted online, please omit the author's name from the final "submission content text area"). Name and address should appear only on the cover letter or at the top of the online form. Submissions will not be returned. No simultaneous or previously published work. For notification, include a SASE. Postmarked deadline for entry is May 1, 2010. Winner will be announced in August. Entries should be addressed to: The Meyerson Fiction Prize, Southwest Review, P.O. Box 750374, Dallas, TX 75275-0374.

 

To submit your work for the Marr Poetry Prize, click here.

To submit your work for the Meyerson Fiction Prize, click here.

To submit your work for regular publication, click here.


Southern Methodist University
PO Box 750374 . Dallas TX 75275-0374
214-768-1037 .  Fax 214-768-1408
Email: swr@smu.edu
Copyright Southwest Review 2010

via smu.edu

 

PUB: Submissions | Literary Laundry

Competitions

Each issue of Literary Laundry is accompanied by a writing
competition. All pieces submitted to us for review will be entered into consideration for our Awards of Distinction. We offer the following cash
awards:

$500 for best poem
$500 for best short story
$250 for best one-act drama

In addition to considering undergraduate works for the Award of Distinction, we will also consider them for the following undergraduate
awards:

$250 for best poem
$250 for best short story

Submissions are due December 1, 2010. There is no fee to submit.


Submissions

 

We look forward to discovering great literature and encourage all writers to submit their work. Literary Laundry rejects the belief that authors must pay in order to have their work read. We therefore require no submission fee.

The following guidelines govern our submission policy:

  1. Authors may submit only one work per category during each review cycle. Authors can, however, submit work in multiple categories during one review cycle.
  2. Poets may submit up to three pages of poetry. It does not matter to us whether we receive one three page poem or many short poems on three pages. Poems, however, must be submitted in one document.
  3. Authors submitting prose fiction may submit one short story (or one chapter from a larger piece) per review cycle. We ask that submissions be single-spaced and kept to less than 10 pages single-spaced.
  4. Authors submitting one-act drama may submit one piece per review cycle. We ask that submissions be single-spaced and kept to less than 15 pages single-spaced.
  5. Authors must include with their work a one to two paragraph “abstract” explaining why their writing is intellectually evocative or of interest to a contemporary audience. The abstract should be included in the document submitted.
  6. We welcome work that does not conventionally fall in one of these three genres. Please submit the work to the genre of your preference and explain its form in the abstract.
  7. All submissions must be previously unpublished.
  8. In order to submit work to Literary Laundry, authors must subscribe to the journal and create an account with username and password.
  9. Literary Laundry is committed to ensuring that authors retain full rights to their submissions. We request that pieces selected for publication not appear in other literary journals within 18 months of online publication by Literary Laundry. If a work published on Literary Laundry is published again in the future, we ask only for an acknowledgment that the piece first appeared in Literary Laundry. 

 The following guidelines govern applications for our Author Showcase:

  1. Authors must include a biography (picture is optional but would be preferred).
  2. Authors must include an “abstract” explaining both the aesthetic character of their writing in general, and why the particular pieces submitted for showcase exemplify their endeavors. This "abstract" should also detail why submitted work is intellectually evocative or of interest to a contemporary audience. It should be approximately 300 words.
  3. Authors submitting only poetry for showcase should submit between 8 and 10 works. At least 3 must be previously unpublished.
  4. Authors submitting only prose fiction for showcase should submit between 3 and 4 short stories (or chapters from larger works).  At least one must be previously unpublished.
  5. Authors submitting only one-act drama may submit between 3 and 4 pieces. At least one must be previously unpublished.
  6. Authors wishing to submit in multiple categories may submit a total of 10 pieces. Of these 10 works, no more than 4 can be prose-fiction or one-act drama. At least 1/3 of submissions must be previously unpublished.
  7. Authors must indicate which pieces are previously published and which are previously unpublished. Authors must identify the place and time of publication for previously published work.

In order to submit work to Literary Laundry, authors must subscribe to the journal and create an account with username and password.

Literary Laundry strives to be accessible and writer-friendly. Nonetheless, our primary aims are fast turn-around and the production of a high-quality journal. We do not intend to hold your work for longer than six months. If you submit work to Literary Laundry, you will receive, within six months, either an acceptance e-mail or a notification that the new issue has been published. We attempt to announce publication releases within 24 hours of loading the journal online. We assume that our submitters support Literary Laundry's desire to showcase masterful and intellectually engaging works of creative writing. Rather than "reject," we invite our submitters to read the journal and discuss it in the forums. 

Click here to login and submit

 

Click here to subscribe to Literary Laundry and create an account for submission

 

 

 

PUB: WOW! Women On Writing Quarterly Flash Fiction Contest: Guest Judge, Literary Agent Kathleen Ortiz

SUMMER 2010 FLASH FICTION CONTEST

OVERVIEW:

WOW! hosts a (quarterly) writing contest every three months. The mission of this contest is to inspire creativity, communication, and well-rewarded recognition to contestants. The contest is open globally; age is of no matter; and entries must be in English. We are open to all styles of writing, although we do encourage you to take a close look at our guest judge for the season (upper right hand corner) and the flavor of our sponsor, if you are serious about winning. We love creativity, originality, and light-hearted reads. That's not to say that our guest judge will feel the same... so go wild! Express yourself, and most of all, let's have some fun!

WORD COUNT:

Maximum: 750

Minimum: 250

The title is not to be counted in your word count. We use MS Word's word count to determine the submitted entry's word count.

PROMPT:

OPEN PROMPT!

That’s right, this is your chance to shine, and get creative. You can write about anything, as long as it’s within the word count and fiction. So, dig out those stories you started way back when and tailor them to the word count.

We’re open to any style and genre. From horror to romance! So, get creative, and most of all, have fun.

CONTEST DEADLINES:

FALL: September - November 30th Midnight (Pacific Time) - CLOSED

WINTER: December - February 28th, Midnight (Pacific Time) - CLOSED

SPRING: March - May 31st, Midnight (Pacific Time) - CLOSED

SUMMER: June - August 31st, Midnight (Pacific Time) - NOW OPEN!

ENTRY FEE: $10.00

This is not a reading fee. Entry fees are used to award our 25 winners as well as administrative costs.

We are limiting the amount of entries to a maximum of 300 stories. Please enter early to ensure inclusion. If we reach 300 entries, we will disable the PayPal buttons.

Buy Entry Only: $10.00 CLOSED-->

Buy Entry Only: $10.00

Have you entered our contest before?
Yes! No, this is my first time Can't remember...
What's the title of your story

OR

Buy Entry with Critique: $20.00 CLOSED

--> Buy Entry with Critique: $20.00

ADDITIONAL OPTION: Due to popular demand, we now have two options for your entry. For an additional $10.00 you can now purchase a critique of your contest entry.

Have you entered our contest before?
Yes! No, this is my first time Can't remember...
What's the title of your story

Upon the close of our contest, and after the winners are announced, you will receive a critique from one of our round table judges on three categories:

  • Subject
  • Content
  • Technical

You will be provided with your scores (1-5) in each category, and personal editorial feedback for each category as well. Please be patient upon the close of our contest and allow time for our editors to thoroughly critique your piece. We send out critiques after the contest winners are announced to ensure fairness.

 

INFO: The sound of bubbles bursting: Student gains on state test vanished into thin air

The sound of bubbles bursting: Student gains on state test vanished into thin air

Sunday, August 1st 2010, 4:00 AM

Every year for the past four years, the New York State Education Department has announced dramatic test score gains. And every year, it turns out they were misrepresenting reality. This year, New Yorkers got an accurate accounting of student performance, and it was sobering.

Since 2006, scores have gone through the roof. Teachers and principals quietly told reporters that the tests were getting easier to pass, but no one listened. A few critics and testing experts warned that outsized annual gains were not credible, but no one listened.

At the same time that the state was announcing phenomenal annual gains, national tests administered by the federal government - exams considered the gold standard - told a different story. On those tests, the state's scores in reading were flat from 2000 to 2009. Math scores were up in fourth grade, but not in eighth grade, where they were flat from 2005 to 2009.

New York Commissioner of Education David Steiner made a bold move. He decided to end the inflation - and administer some shock therapy. The sharp contrast between mostly flat scores on national tests and dramatic annual claims by the state made it necessary for him to act, and he did.

Now we know the painful truth. Last year, 86.4% of the state's students in grades three to eight were deemed proficient in mathematics; today it is 61%. Last year, 77.4% of students in the same grades were deemed proficient in reading; today it is 53.2%.

When the scores were released, there was a sound of bursting bubbles across the state. What once were miracles turned into mirages.

Since 2005, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein have trumpeted historic gains. But after the state's adjustment, the pass rate on the state reading test among city students fell from an impressive 68.8% to an unimpressive 42.4%, and from an astonishing 81.8% to a disappointing 54% in mathematics. Overnight, the city's historic gains disappeared.

Now, look at the achievement gap between the performance of white students and that of minorities. Last year, black students were 22 points behind white students in passing the state English exam. This year - after the state corrected its scoring - the gap increased to 30.4 points.

In math, the gap grew even more. Black students were 17 points behind whites last year. Now they've fallen 30 points behind.

Charter school advocates saw their bubble burst as well. The pass rates in the state's charter schools, overall, dropped even faster than those in regular public schools. In third grade math, it plunged from 96.1% to 61.6%, and in eighth grade, from 84.5% to 50.4%. On the 2010 reading tests, the scores of charter students in New York City were nearly identical to those of district schools: 43% compared to 42%.

In math, 63% of the city's charter students passed, compared to 54% in public schools, which was an advantage but nothing like the miraculous results previously claimed by charter promoters.

Among other bubbles that popped were the city's school report cards, which based 85% of their grades on the state's test scores, mostly on gains on the test now proven to be vastly overstated. Some schools were given an A for "progress" on dumbed-down tests, and others were closed because they didn't make the grade. But the measure was a deeply flawed instrument.

The hundreds of millions of dollars that the city has spent on test preparation turned out to be a bad investment. Students were learning test-taking skills, not truly learning reading or mathematics.

As a result of the fiasco, we now know that the bonuses of more than $30 million handed out last year to teachers in schools that made "gains" on the state tests were a waste of precious money.

Why does test score inflation matter? Aside from the fact that the state misled the public, the inflated scores caused tens of thousands of students to be denied needed remediation. The inflated scores also help to explain why 75% of the city's high school graduates require remediation when they enroll in community colleges at the City University.

Now we know that achievement in the city and state did not grow by historic proportions, as officials claimed.

The way to avoid similar messes in the future is to use test scores for information and diagnosis, not for rewards and punishments.

Two questions remain: Will Bloomberg and Klein accept this new reality or will they continue to deny the plain facts and refuse to be held accountable? And will the state education department find and fire the bureaucrats and private contractors responsible for this scandal? Unfortunately, the prospects for genuine accountability by the city and state are not promising.

Ravitch is Research Professor of Education at New York University.

 

INFO: "Cruel But Not Unusual: The Punishment of Women in U.S. Prisons, An Interview with Marilyn Buck and Laura Whitehorn"

Cruel But Not Unusual: The Punishment of Women in U.S. Prisons, An Interview with Marilyn Buck and Laura Whitehorn
by Susie Day

 

Marilyn Buck died on 3 August 2010, less than a month after her release from federal prison.  The interview below was first published in the July-August 2001 issue of Monthly Review.  -- Ed.

After years of neglect, the issue of women in prison has begun to receive attention in this country.  Media accounts of overcrowding, lengthening sentences, and horrendous medical care in women's prisons appear regularly.  Amnesty International -- long known for ignoring human rights abuses inside United States prisons and jails -- issued a report, two days shy of International Women's Day 2001, documenting over 1,000 cases of sexual abuse of U.S. women prisoners by their jailers.  However, we seldom hear from these women themselves.  And we never hear from women incarcerated for their political actions.

Here are the voices and observations of two women political prisoners.  Laura Whitehorn, released in 1999, served over fourteen years behind bars for a series of property bombings, including one of the U.S. Capitol building, to protest police brutality and U.S. foreign policy (the "Resistance Conspiracy" case).  Marilyn Buck, Laura's friend and codefendant, was also convicted for her alleged role in the 1979 prison escape of Assata Shakur, and a number of armored car expropriations in support of the Black Liberation Army.  She is serving a total sentence of eighty years and remains in the Dublin California Federal Correctional Facility.  (Her codefendants on that case include Dr. Mutulu Shakur and Sekou Odinga, both also incarcerated in federal prisons.)

While it was possible to talk to Laura at length about her time behind bars, Marilyn was able only to make four long-distance phone calls, each summarily cut off by the prison after fifteen minutes.  After reading Marilyn's words -- and having known and lived beside Marilyn for years in prison -- Laura added to what Marilyn wasn't able to say, as well as expressing her own experience and recollections.

SD: You both were arrested and imprisoned in 1985.  How have prison conditions around you changed over those years?

MB: They've become much more repressive, particularly since Ronald Reagan's presidency.  Each year, there's been slippage.  And certainly Clinton played a big role with the Anti-Terrorism Act, which further limited people's legal rights.

The balance of who is in prison has also changed.  There's a much higher percentage of blacks and Latinos, and -- at least in the Federal system -- an enormous number of immigrants.  Not just immigrants but foreign nationals, who've been arrested for incidents in crossing borders.  People are detained for years without ever being given any kind of judicial decision.

LW: I think it's typical of Marilyn not to complain in an interview about her own conditions.  When we look at the two million people now in the federal and state systems, the proportion of women in those numbers has gone way up.  What that means to someone like Marilyn is tremendous overcrowding: you're living the rest of your life in a tiny cell that was built for one person and now houses three.  It means you have no property, because there's no room.  Little by little, they took away any clothing that was sent to you, and put down much more stringent requirements.  It means that you have no desk.  Marilyn Buck, like many prisoners who fight very hard to get an education, has to sit on a cot and write on her lap.  The overcrowding means that people are treated like problems and like baggage.

The other thing is the federal conspiracy laws, which are particularly pernicious for women.  In 1985, when people heard that I was facing thirty-three years, they were astounded.  That seemed like so much time.  In 1990, when I ended up with twenty-three years, people were less astounded, because the laws had changed and sentences were much longer.  By then, my cellmate had a twenty-four-year sentence on a first offense.  This was a drug conspiracy case where it was really her husband who had run this drug ring, and she was swept up in the indictment.  Or there's our friend Danielle, who has a triple-life sentence for another drug conspiracy -- her crime was basically refusing to testify against her husband.  We found many more women with those kinds of sentences.

SD: How do you think these last fifteen years have affected you, personally?

MB: Imagine yourself in a relationship with an abuser who controls your every move, keeps you locked in the house.  There's the ever-present threat of violence or further repression if you don't toe the line.  I think that's a fairly good analogy of what happens.  And imagine being there for fifteen years.

To be punished, to be absolutely controlled, whether it's about buttoning your shirt; how you have a scarf on your head; how long or how baggy your pants are -- all of those things are under scrutiny.  It's hard to give a clinical picture of what they do, because how do you know, when you're the target, or the victim, what that does to you?  But there's a difference between being a target and being a victim.

LW: The largest proportion of guards in federal women's prisons are men.  That's who's in your living unit.  That's who's looking through the window in your door when you might be using the bathroom or changing your clothes.  There's the total loss of ability to defend your person.

For me, the hardest part was the pat-searches.  In the federal system, it's legal for male guards to pat-search women prisoners.  That means they stand behind you and run their hands all over your body.  The point is not to locate contraband; it's to reduce you to a completely powerless person.  If I had pushed a guard's hands away they would have sent me to the hole for assault.  In fact, that did happen once.  It reduces you to an object, not worthy of being defended.  The message is, "your body is meaningless, why don't you want this man to put his hands all over you?"  Very, very deeply damaging.

Marilyn talks about being "a target or a victim."  She makes a distinction.  That's really important because the struggle inside prison is to refuse to be victimized.  Once you allow yourself to be a victim, you lose your ability to stand up and say, "I'm a person; I'm not a piece of garbage."

But over the years, when you have to put up with that again and again, you avoid situations because you just don't want to go through it.  You have to exert an enormous amount of psychic energy to remove yourself from the situation, where this guy's running his hands over your body.  You end up exhausted at the end of the day, and your nerves are shot.  Your only life is resisting these situations.

SD: Is there a portrait of a typical woman prisoner you could draw?

MB: No, except in the broadest strokes.  Typically, she's a woman of color.  When she first comes to prison, she's twenty-three to twenty-four years old.  Probably the median age of women here is thirty-five to thirty-six, which is much older than it used to be because women stay in prison much longer.  Presently, in this particular institution, over 50 percent of the women are Latin American, a large percentage of that, Mexican.  You could also say -- and this is not news -- a lot of the women here come from abusive relationships, whether parents or husbands. . . .  If you look at the statistics, it says up to 80 percent.

LW: I would also say that a huge number of the women are mothers.  It means that, on the outside, there are basically a lot of orphans.  I consider the prison system today to be a form of genocide.  Prison has been used against third-world populations inside the United States, in particular African-American and Latino populations.  These women are very young when they come to prison.  They have sentences that will go through their childbearing years.  Their children are either farmed out to relatives, or they become wards of the state.  It means that the women, who would form some sort of collective bond when there's a need for struggle, are gone from the community.  And it means that their children may well go to prison themselves.  Those of us who grew up with mothers have complaints that we didn't get enough love.  What does it mean to have your mother in prison?

One thing that would strike me whenever people came in from the outside for something like an AIDS health fair -- we fought very hard to have those fairs -- is that these straight, middle-America types would be sweating bullets, they were so scared.  And they would be so expansive and warm when they left.  They would say, "My picture of you all was so wrong.  I pictured these killers with knives in their teeth, and I find you're just like my neighbors."

If you look at the number of women in prison, some of us are your neighbors.  I don't care where you live.  People who read Monthly Review: your neighbors are in prison, OK?  I must have met thousands and thousands of women over almost fifteen years, and I would have to say that, of the women I met, there are probably ten or fifteen who, in a socialist society, would need to be in prison.

SD: Do women ever get "better" after they go to prison?

MB: Sometimes.  I think there's the possibility of coming to terms with the fact that you were abused.  Basically, you have two things happening.  One is that you have this potential, because you're not running around, doing the things you had to do as a mother, a wife, a partner, or as someone who had to go to work.  When that daily activity stops, then the potential exists to discover a sense of independence.

The other side is that we're in a situation where we're absolutely controlled.  That sort of enhances another abusive relationship.  It can limit your imagination and shut you down.  So a lot of women become more creative here, in terms of arts and crafts, but it doesn't necessarily open them to their potential as human beings.

LW: Also, a lot of women who have been in abusive relationships get into lesbian relationships.  And one of the things the chaplains do is preach against homosexuality, because they're terrified of it.  I was once in a prison where there was a progressive chaplain who told other chaplains that for a lot of the women, these relationships were the first time someone looked at them and saw beauty and not something to be used and abused.  There were also some horrible lesbian relationships that were a recreation of the worst in straight relationships.

Can we talk about medical care?  The women are getting older.  A lot of women in prison are going through menopause.  Many have gynecological problems.  I had surgery when I was in prison.  There you are: you're bleeding; you've had surgery a few hours before.  You're strip-searched, shackled, chained, and you have to walk back to a van.  If you're lucky they'll have a wheelchair for you to take you back to your unit.

I now work at POZ magazine, and a woman in Danbury Prison wrote a column for the magazine.  She has HIV and goes to the male gynecologist to be told that she needs surgery on her cervix.  She says to him, "I have to be completely sedated for this operation."  And he says, "No you don't."  And she says, "Yes, I do.  I have a history of sexual abuse and I have a panic attack when I have to lie on my back with my legs spread open and chained in front of strangers."

And he laughs at her.  He tells her, "Well, then, we can't do the surgery."  And she writes, "I hate my doctor.  And that's a problem.  For me, but not for him."  That's so profound.  That relationship of being "cared for" by someone who sees you as their enemy is completely deleterious to your health.

I hope everyone who reads this article is familiar with the medical crisis in the California Women's prison at Chowchilla.  "Health care" there is left to the guards: they are trained as low level EMT's and they do the first stage of triage, deciding whether a woman should be seen by a doctor or not.  Seventeen women died in that prison last year alone and independent investigations concluded that medical incompetence or refusal of medical attention contributed to the deaths.

The other thing I saw so much in women was the further erosion of already-low self-esteem.  What does it do to you to have to go stand in line and get a man's attention and ask him for sanitary napkins and then be asked, "Didn't you ask me for some yesterday?"

SD: How do you deal with the deaths of family and friends while you're in prison?

MB: My mother died about six weeks ago.  She became ill in September, so I went through a phase of real guilt that I wasn't there.  And real sorrow and real anger.  I think I've looked at the guilt a little more.  I just couldn't be there.  But the sorrow of not being able to hold my mother's little bird hand by the time she was starving to death from the cancer . . . just breaks my heart.  And there's nothing I can do about it.

I could intellectualize it.  I could have been on a ship halfway around the world, and we got stuck in the trade winds and couldn't get there in time.  But I'm an extreme realist and understand who I am as a political prisoner.  I knew that I would not be allowed to go to her bedside, nor to her funeral.  That was just the reality.  She died on a Sunday.  And she was buried on my birthday.  So it's just all very hard.

I talked to my mother every week I could.  And she came to visit me once a year.  It was hard for her to get here.  My mom was seventy-four.  She had to drive a long way and go through all the emotional turmoil that you can't avoid when you see somebody you can't do anything for.  So I had to look at her anger, too.

In a certain way, I want to be able to lie on the floor and bang my heels and cry and scream, but that just hurts my heels. . .  So what can I say?  I'm having a hard time.  I'm having a very, very hard time.  I . . . you know, it's grief.  But it's grief under dire conditions.  I'll always miss my mother.

LW: One of the hardest things about being in prison is losing somebody you love and being unable to be there with them while they're dying, or go to the memorial service afterwards.  Being in prison through some of the worst years of the AIDS epidemic meant that I lost friends, both on the outside and the inside, very dear women who were among the best friends I've ever had in life.

My father died while I was in prison.  I was very fortunate that there was a chaplain who allowed me to phone him twice while he was in the intensive care unit.  It's just an emblem of how families are destroyed by prison -- the fact that Marilyn was not permitted to go; that I was not permitted to go to my father's funeral; that there was no question of ever being permitted to go.

SD: What kinds of internal resources have you developed to deal with these years in prison?

MB: For me, the main thing is that I recognized, after the first five years of being imprisoned and on trial a lot, that one tends to build one's walls.  Which means that you begin to censor yourself, so that they can't censor you.

I censored how I spoke to people, how I interacted.  It goes in tandem with, "If I button my shirt the way they want, they won't attack me for not buttoning my shirt properly."  In some ways, I found myself trying to be a "good girl," because then maybe they'd see I wasn't a "bad girl."

When I got a handle on what I was doing, I was horrified, because how can you be a women's liberationist and worry about being a good girl or a bad girl?  What I believed in my gut was being turned inside out by my actual life.  And it made me understand a lot more about how any woman -- it doesn't matter who you are or what you think -- can get in a relationship with another person -- generally a man, but not always -- who can become your abuser, your owner.

So once I could begin to see that, I tried to find ways to tear down my walls, to protect myself less.  It's always a risk, because when you open a door, you don't know what's going to come in, or what's going to go out.  And everyone is needy in prison.  When you're a prisoner, you're needy.  It's emotionally, psychologically devastating.  But I felt like, if I didn't take that risk, that I was going to smother the essence of who I was.

What I do is that I write.  I write poems.  Over the years I've moved from being a rhetorical, frozen writer to try to put out more of who I am, and how I feel. . . .  I think that ultimately, if we want human liberation, we have to be able to be honest with ourselves and other people about our desires, our resentments, as we say these days, our "issues."

So I look to that as a little flame before my face.  I can't say I'm there.  But I can at least keep that in my mind.

LW: I think the hardest thing to maintain over the years, for me, was my sense of outrage.  After a while, your heart hurts so continually, you begin to build a sort of padding around it.  For example, one of the hardest things for me in prison was at the end of the visiting period, when you see children being led away from their mothers and they don't understand, especially the little ones are just screaming and crying.  I got to a point where I would try to leave my visits early because I couldn't stand that any more.

I really started to disrespect myself for that.  I felt like, the mother's going through it, how do you get the right to remove yourself from it?  I think from that, I understood something of why people don't want to know about prisons, because it's too hard; there's something so painful about seeing a woman being removed from her baby.  A woman who gives birth in most U.S. prisons gets somewhere between eight and twenty-four hours before she is taken back to the prison and separated from the infant.

When people say, "God, how did you survive prison?"  I think the way I did it was by touching the lives and being touched by the lives of women around me.  I mean, I was in prison with women who had been raped repeatedly by a stepfather when they were between seven and eleven, who had to go through pat-searches every day, through shakedowns where some man comes in your cell and paws through your underwear.  They would call home and find out that their daughter, who was thirteen, was again being abused by that same stepfather, who was back in the picture.  They had to deal with the most intense levels of abuse, and yet were able to stand up through it, were able to survive.

I learned early on how people can communicate with each other on a really deep level without having to give up their own personal strength.  I learned how to get emotional sustenance from the women around me and how to try to give some to them.  That's the main thing I learned from prison.  And it was easy for me because I knew I had a release date.  For someone like Marilyn, or our friend Danielle, finding the strength to survive is an enormous job.

SD: What reactions do you get as a political person from other prisoners?

MB: Most people don't know my politics specifically.  As I get older and tireder, and more beaten down by being in prison, I'm not out there as much with the population.  I don't go to the dining room very much.  I'm too tired to do that.  So less and less, people know me.

But some people do understand my politics.  You know, one woman who's twenty-two years old just left.  A young black woman, we talked sometimes, and I have been supportive and critical of her in a couple of situations.  When she left, she said, "Thank you.  You helped me a lot."

So, to me, what your politics are in the abstract don't mean a damn; it's how you practice them.  For myself as a white woman, I ask, how do you treat people; how do people receive you as a human being?  Are people abstractions to you, in terms of racism?  Or do you treat people as real equals, even given all the issues of privilege?  Because they exist in prison, too.

Sometimes I'm treated differently by the administration.  I know that my mail gets opened.  That's not true of everyone else.  So I end up getting envelopes without any contents.  Every time you say anything about it, it's "Oh, it must be the post office."

LW: Marilyn's right that people knew us as political prisoners by how we dealt with people and situations every day.  I remember feeling that the main impact I'd had was when I would intervene when a guard was picking on a woman, or help somebody get her privileges back when they'd been taken away unjustly.  More than if I gave them a lecture on the history of something.

But Marilyn's also way too modest.  When we were in prison together, all the other women knew she represented the politics of struggles for justice, human rights, liberation.  Women would always approach her for help in understanding not only incidents on the news, world affairs, but also incidents of racism and hostility among different nationalities in the prison population.  She may tire of talking about it, but I know for a fact she never tires of acting on all of it, treating people with respect, making peace in difficult situations, basically doing the right thing no matter how tired she is, how long she's had to do it.

One thing that changed while I was in prison is that there were many more women political prisoners.  It was a shock to the prison system itself because they were terrified of us.

The government created a control unit.  They tested it out on two of the Puerto Rican women, Lucy Rodriguez and Haydee Beltran.  Then they put Alejandrina Torres and Silvia Baraldini and Susan Rosenberg in an underground unit at the Federal Correctional Institution at Lexington.  It was actually a basement unit and they were supposed to be there for the rest of their sentences, which were fifty-eight and forty-three and thirty-five years.  It was a big mistake because it got international attention.  It was one of the first times Amnesty International got involved in the conditions of incarceration in the United States.  Part of it was that they were terrified we would revolutionize the rest of the prison population.

A few years after that unit was closed down, I was in Lexington and working in the landscape crew, mowing grass, and my boss was a guard who had been assigned to that basement unit.  She told me that they had been told not to speak to the prisoners there because they would brainwash them.  I thought it was hysterical.  I said, "You'll see after we've worked together, whether I brainwash you."

About three months later, that guard asked me, "Who's that guy who's the biggest mass murderer ever?"  And I said, "George Bush."  Then we got into a discussion about who is a mass-murderer -- someone who kills five people or a president who -- ?  And she says, "You know, you're making a lot of sense, Whitehorn.  Uh-oh.  I am being brainwashed."

SD: Some people say that political prisoners get more recognition and support than social prisoners.  What's your reaction to that?

MB: There's a misconception that political prisoners always get so much support.  There are some who were in prison for years before they got any support at all, except for a few people they'd worked with in the world.  We could look at Mandela.  All these people worked to free Mandela.  What was done about all the other [African National Congress] prisoners?  Probably ninety-nine out of one hundred political prisoners didn't join the struggle to become famous.

Also political prisoners tend not to get parole.  Particularly men political prisoners, they're in isolation for years and years.  There's a lot of things we don't get that sometimes other prisoners do get.

LW: If you want to understand prisons, you have to understand both political and social prisoners.  They're two sides of a program of repression.  One is, you terrify communities and tell them the law is all-powerful and people will lose their freedom for many, many years if they transgress.  The other is, you give huge sentences to anyone who says, "There are such egregious social injustices that we have to go up against the government."  You lock those people up for long periods of time, and that will prevent the rise of a new generation of leaders or activists.  If you leave out one side of that equation, you'll never understand what prisons are.  You'll think they're just about making money, which is ridiculous.

Having said that, I think the current building of a mass movement about the prison industrial complex began with political prisoners.  There is absolutely no division between supporting political prisoners and fighting for an end to the prison system.  Angela Davis has been instrumental in it.  Who's she?  She's an ex-political prisoner.  The people who have organized a lot of young activists in that movement are political prisoners or ex-political prisoners.

Every single political prisoner did prison work before they went to prison.  We were the people who supported the Attica brothers; we were the people who were in the Midnight Special Collective back in the early '70s in New York, which was a prison support collective.  We're not the ones who don't think social prisoners are important.

And political prisoners often need extra support.  Marilyn Buck has an eighty-year sentence and she has never been accused of actually hurting a single person.  Or Teddy Jah Heath, who just died in prison.  He had been convicted of a kidnapping, where a big-time drug-dealer was put in a car, driven around, talked to, and let out.  No injury; no nothing.  Jah did twenty-seven years in prison.  After twenty-five years, he went to the parole board and was rejected.  Two years later, he died in prison of colon cancer.  Because his act was a political act.  It was done in line with the programs of the Black Liberation Army, growing out of the Black Panther Party, to stop the drug trade in the black communities.

SD: Marilyn, what do you need from people on the outside?

MB: What I need from people is what we all need: to seize our human liberation as much as possible as women, as lesbians, as heterosexuals.  To support the right of human beings to have their own nations, their own liberation, and their own justice.  If we stopped police brutality; if black women and men were treated like equal human beings, that would make me feel really, really good, because I would be less dehumanized as a white person in this society.  I would not be objectified as the oppressor.

I would like us to be more creative; to be the artists that we all are.  I don't want to see child prostitution.  That to me is oppression in the concrete; people having to sell their children to stay alive.  Or watching their children in the clutches of the police.  Or a woman standing on her feet as a waitress for ten hours a day when her veins are breaking and still not be able to pay the rent and be there for her children.

I was thinking about this the other day -- I think about the vision I had when I was a nineteen-year-old of justice and human rights and women's equality.  It was a wonderful vision.  I think how it got implemented -- how we became rigid and rhetorical within that -- took away from that vision.  But without a vision, you can't go forward.

SD: Laura, now that you're out of prison, what do you want to do?

LW: I don't ever want to forget.  That would be like putting calluses over my heart.  It would be forgetting the people I owe something to.  I guess the hardest thing for me about getting out was leaving so many people behind.  I've been working in release efforts.  We filed papers for clemency with Clinton for all the federal political prisoners.  I try to do work for HIV+ prisoners through my job at POZ magazine.  And when people ask me, "How can I support your friends who are left behind?" that makes me feel whole.

It's made me sad that I've tried to interest different groups of women in supporting young women in prison on these ridiculous [drug] conspiracy cases.  The "girlfriend crimes," like Kemba Smith.  There are hundreds of Kemba Smiths in the federal system.  And I have been singularly unsuccessful in interesting any organized women's groups to fight for those women.

One thing that makes prisons so criminal is that they damage people over time.  I'm very damaged, and I had tons of support.  I did prison work for years before I was arrested, so I knew what to expect.  Nothing could really catch me off guard.  Yet I find I have places in me that I don't know how to go to, that are so filled with pain.

Especially late, in the middle of the night, when I think about some of my friends, these young women who are doing life sentences.  They didn't kill anyone.  They didn't hurt anybody.  They gave a fucking message to someone, or maybe they didn't turn their husband in, and they knew he had killed someone.  They're doing life, and they have very little chance of getting out.  There's a pain in me that I don't know how to deal with.

You know, it's very difficult to carry on relationships with people on the outside while you're in prison.  Your friends shield you from things because either they think you don't want to hear about the great dinner they had the night before, or you're going to think their problems are trivial because, after all, they're not in prison.  It damages your ability to have human relationships.  And I have to say that the people I've seen who carry on friendships with prisoners are few and far between, and I honor them.

So I need to continue to struggle for prisoners and to win their release.  And to say, it's extremely important for people on the outside to understand what prisons are and who's in prison and to visit them.  To bring that kind of humanity into the prisons -- but most of all, to bring those prisoners out, back into the communities.


See, also, in the same issue of Monthly Review: "Prisons and Executions -- The U.S. Model: A Historical Introduction"; Michael Tigar, "Lawyers, Jails, and the Law's Fake Bargains"; and Marta Russell and Jean Stewart, "Disablement, Prison, and Historical Segregation."

 

INFO: Portrait or Postcard? The Controversy over a “Rare” Photograph of Slave Children

Portrait or Postcard? The Controversy over a “Rare” Photograph of Slave Children

By Mary Niall Mitchell

Mary Niall Mitchell is Associate Professor of History at the University of New Orleans. Her latest book, "Raising Freedom's Child: Black Children and Visions of the Future after Slavery" (NYU, 2008), is now available in paperback.

For those of us who work with historical photographs (particularly images from the nineteenth century, when the medium was still in its infancy) there are few things more thrilling than stumbling on an image we didn’t know existed.  But finding and then identifying historical photographs with any certainty, particularly the subjects in them, is tricky business.  Retrieving the story behind the image—who took it, of whom, and why—can often be near impossible.

So I was surprised last week to see an AP story about a “rare” photograph of slave children.  The accompanying image—purportedly of two boys, either enslaved or just recently freed, from North Carolina taken in the 1860s dressed in ragged clothes, seated on a wooden barrel, posed for the camera—intrigued me for several reasons.  For one, my own reading of the image was quite different from what was described in the wire article and subsequent reports (recent sleuthing by collectors supports my suspicions, as I’ll explain).  Second, the eagerness to accept the authenticity of this image as a reflection of daily life in the South in this era is based on, at best, a shallow reading of the history of black children in the photography of this period.  Finally, the shock the image of “slave children” seemed to give reporters and readers, and even some experts, makes it clear that the picture of antebellum slavery most people hold in their heads is an outdated one.  If they imagine Southern plantations were sustained largely by the sweat and blood by enslaved adults, the work of recent historians has brought another view to light, one in which young people made up the majority of the enslaved.

The basic story about the discovery and subsequent dispute over the photograph’s provenance, is as follows.  A collector named Keya Morgan recently purchased the album containing the photograph, found in an attic in North Carolina, for $30,000.  He also purchased, at the same sale, for $20,000, a deed of sale for a slave named John, valued at $1,150 in 1854.  The deed seems to have been represented to Morgan as the sale document for one of the boys in the photograph, but this link seems unlikely.  The price is awfully high for an infant in that period, which is what either boy in the photograph would have been at the time of sale if the picture had been taken in the 1860s.  Subsequent digging by the AP and others found what seems to be the original petition for the sale in the Digital Archive of Slavery, which suggests that the slave John, mentioned in the deed, was twenty-seven or twenty-eight in 1854.

Bringing further attention to the photograph was the initial attribution of the image to someone in Matthew Brady’s photographic studio (the caption beneath Morgan’s photograph reads simply “Brady”).  If a link to the famous Civil War photographer could be confirmed, perhaps it could justify the high sale price.  Web searches by a blogger named Kate Marcus and a collector named Sherry Howard, however, found other copies of this image in stereoscope format (meant to be seen through a 3-D like viewfinder popular from the mid- to late nineteenth century).  One copy recently sold on eBay for $163, and another is in the New York Public Library Digital Gallery.  Both are attributed to J.N. Wilson, a photographer active in Savannah, Georgia in the 1870s and 1880s, and seem to have been part of a series of “Plantation Scenes.”  The caption in the NYPL catalog (which presumably appears on card’s verso) reads:  “Plantation Scene; Happy Little Nigs.”

A curator at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. who initially supported the possible Brady studio attribution, has since reconsidered.  Although Brady did make stereoscopic images, he told a reporter for USA Today’s online magazine, this probably was not his handiwork:  “I took it at face value.  But I should have known.”  The AP has since filed a follow-up piece in which the buyer, Morgan, continues to defend his story, stating that his is the original and others are copies (supporting the idea that Wilson borrowed the “Brady” image and claimed it as his own) and maintaining a possible link between the photograph and the deed of sale.  It is also possible, however, that the Brady studio borrowed from an original of Wilson and affixed Brady’s name to it.  In the interest of selling postcards, attributions in the nineteenth century could often be multiple and indeterminate.

My own first response to the photograph and initial reports about it was frustration.  The assumption seemed to be that since these children were unknown—that they do not “exist in history” as Morgan put it—that there could be no larger context for a photograph of black children that needed to be understood, and that this was simply an authentic snapshot of their daily lives.  My experience with such photographs in the archives, however, suggests otherwise.

Technically, the photograph looks more 1870s or 1880s than 1860s. Though I have seen earlier staged outdoor portraits of adults, most images of freedchildren taken in the 1860s were indoor studio portraits commissioned by Northern missionaries in the South or private individuals (often Union soldiers) who took an interest in a particular child.  Often these photos were for propaganda or fundraising purposes, and frequently they featured ragged slave children transformed into neat and tidy workers under the influence of Northern benevolent societies.  An example of this sort of image, from 1864, is in the holdings of the Virginia Historical Society.

It was not until the 1870s that southern outdoor scenes—often “plantation scenes”—became common.  By then, the “Old South” was already becoming the creation of post-Civil War nostalgia, North and South.  Tourists and curious Northerners could buy stereoscopic postcards for a vivid glimpse at life in the Southern states.  These picturesque vignettes frequently featured black children.  To many nineteenth century viewers poor black children represented a sympathetic, often comical, and unthreatening view of the newly freed black population.  If the photograph in question is the work of J.N. Wilson, it would fit this pattern.  In fact, it wouldn’t be Wilson’s only foray into this genre of child photography.  His stereoscope of “Chimney Sweeps,” for instance, also taken in Savannah in the 1870s, and in the NYPL’s digital collection, is in this same vein.

If we look to the photograph itself for clues to its origin, it seems the boys in the photo are posed in front of a stand of banana trees, turned brown by a frost, and there is a live banana tree in the distance (other critics have suggested the backdrop is sugarcane, but bananas seem more likely to me).  To concede a point in favor of the North Carolina connection, it is possible that the photograph was taken in coastal North Carolina—the deed of sale for John was from Brunswick County, which isn’t too far from the coast.  But Savannah’s climate (to support the Wilson attribution) is friendlier to tropical flora.

Of course, this level of scrutiny obscures the surviving view we do have of two black boys who lived in the immediate aftermath of chattel slavery, who no doubt had their own story to tell—the unfamiliar story that so moved Mr. Morgan and those who read the first news reports.  Indeed, what is most frustrating about working with images like this one is that the intent of the photographer can overpower evidence of the experience of the subjects themselves, particularly when those photographed were so young.  We must even question the authenticity of their clothes, since we have evidence of nineteenth century photographers dressing working-class children more tattered garb than they actually wore, for visual effect or propaganda purposes.  Given the poverty in which so many former slaves lived, these could well have been their everyday clothes, but we cannot say for sure.

What we do know is that in 1860, more than half of the enslaved population was under the age of twenty.  This simple statistic taps millions of stories still needing to be told by historians.  But many of them have been told.  It is up to us to listen.  With careful reading, we can find them in the narratives of ex-slaves (collected by the Federal Writers’ Project in the 1930s) most of whom were children at the start of the Civil War.  And with rigorous interpretation and cross-documentation, we can find stories in photographs.  With texts as well as images, our understanding of the history slavery and emancipation in the United States, and children’s important role within it, becomes a little clearer.

Related Links

via hnn.us

 

INTERVIEW + INFO: Camille T. Dungy

Camille T. Dungy

In what ways might you consider yourself an American poet?

There's the obvious answer that I was born here in America (in the American West, at that), that my parents and their parents and their parents' parents were born in America, that I have very straight teeth via juvenile orthodontia, and that only once in my world travels have I tried to pretend I was from another country (Canada, due to the convenience of the accent) in order to avoid the embarrassment of having to answer to decisions made by the nationally-elected government leaders of the United States. Despite the fact that my parents and their parents and their parents' parents were born in the United States, as African Americans they and I have lived both as outsiders and insiders in this nation, a nation whose identity, though in some ways entirely stable, is also in a state of continuous flux based on patterns of immigration, migration, radically shifting socio-economic roles, and other dynamic variables. My writing, like much American poetry, resists stasis even is it strives to build traditions. The outsider/insider status fostered by, among other things, facts of my race and gender, provides me a view of this dynamic culture and means my poetry is likely to simultaneously embrace and reproach the nation I am to greater or lesser extents encouraged to call home. When I write, I write out of these realities.  

 

Do you believe there is anything specifically American about American poetry past and present? Is there American poetry in the sense that there is said to be American painting or American film?

There are American poetries.  There is no one American poetry. There are those who will have you believe there is one American poetry, but I would argue they are not usually very widely read individuals. I argue this at my own peril, as they are often very powerfully placed individuals. There are too many communities in America that do not share regular discourse but do produce individual poetries for me to believe in anything like the concept of One American Poetry. And I have read too many Top 5, Top 10, Top 100 lists that do not include representatives of decidedly American communities from which can be gathered devastatingly wonderful poetry. Perhaps there is an American film, though if this is true it won't be true for long with growing access to independent means of production and distribution. And though "there may be said to be American painting" there is no more truth in the idea that there is One American Painting than it is true that there is One American Poetry. I'd argue, again possibly at my own peril, that the graffiti art of the Los Angeles basin is the basis of a viable version of American painting  (note how the style has crept into popular cultural, museums of modern art, etc.). I could argue the same for a variety of other "folk arts" that represent other American cultures and which, to my thinking, are therefore versions of American painting. I would argue as broadly about the places in which we can find poetries that are distinctly American, that are truly and carefully crafted, but that will be a long time in arriving in the pages of many Norton anthologies. 

 

What role do historical and geographical factors play in American poetry and in your work specifically?  What other aspects of your life (for instance: gender, sexual preference, class, ethnicity, religious beliefs) relate to your sense of being a poet in America?

All these things play a role in my poetry as they play a role in everything I do every day of my life. They play a role in how I approach a loan officer, how I approach my students, how I approach my own family, my friends, the man whose car idles beside mine, the produce at the grocery store. Why wouldn't they play a role in my poetry?  "Poetry," said the great late Gwendolyn Brooks, "is life distilled." Where I have lived, who I have been (in my own mind and in the eyes of others), these all direct the ways I do and can and will live my life. Therefore, they all direct the ways I do and can and will write my poems. I don't think this is any different for any person.  It may only be more obvious because I am and have been and can be who I am in relation to this particular society. What to Eat, What to Drink, What to Leave for Poison (Red Hen Press, 2006) and Suck on the Marrow (Red Hen Press, 2010), are both books that look at African Americans within historical contexts (the mid-20th century and the mid-19th century respectively) and investigate the ways in which the subjects made lives for themselves in light of often horrific restrictions. My next collection, Smith Blue, is a decidedly 21st century collection, and though at times African Americans figure in it, and though at times there are horrific restrictions imposed on the subjects of the poems, the book is a collection of decidedly American meditations on personal and political conflict, marking the transformations of individuals and ambitions as they record and predict changes in our personal, cultural, and natural environments. History, geography, identity, all these things and more played a role in how and why I wrote these poems. 

 

Is there something formally distinctive about American poetry?

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. I know plenty of American poets who take their cues from countries other than America. Are these poets therefore not American poets? I know contemporary American poets who rigidly adhere to conventional forms and others who religiously reject such forms. In 2009 Persea released From the Fishouse: An Anthology of Poems That Sing, Rhyme, Resound, Syncopate, Alliterate, and Just Plain Sound Great. If I learned anything co-editing this anthology of 100 of America's most exciting younger poets it's that today's generation of American writers have read widely and eclectically, draw upon huge varieties of traditions, take what they need and need what they take. It's hard to say that there's any one thing this generation does or does not do since, as a whole, we are doing a little bit of everything. As a collective, we seem to have embraced that rallying cry from one of the films of our youth, "No one puts Baby in a corner." 

 

What significance does popular culture possess in your sense of American poetry?

I'll point out that an awful lot of American poets don't own televisions. Of all the sub-groups in America, perhaps the non-TV-owning poets might be among the least influenced by popular culture. Plenty of us still write about the same things Dickinson wrote about and would argue that nothing could be more immediate than the concerns conveyed in the poems of Emily Dickinson. Poets of this sort have no plans to refocus their attentions toward Lady Gaga or Tiger Woods or whoever/whatever it is the airwaves are spinning over today. That said, of course, we're a society steeped in popular culture, and there are plenty of poets who directly and indirectly incorporate popular music, film, art, and concerns into their work. I realize I'm being rather contrary in my responses to these questions. I have a distaste for categorization because I know, from repeated personal experience, that categories always fail to reveal the whole truth.

When you consider your own "tradition," do you think of American poets, non-American poets? Which historic poets do you consider most responsible for generating distinctly American poetics?

As you must understand by now that I don't believe there is any one version of distinctly American poetry, you may understand my difficulty responding to this question. There are poets I place in my personal pantheon. My tastes, in this sense, are quite ecumenical, not at all solely American, nor limited to any one century, nor even millennium. There are poets I deeply revere who have made it into our general canon.  Aren't two of the standard answers to this question Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson? That is as it should be.  From their pens emerged new ways of organizing language whose influences still resonate today. There are also plenty of non-American poets who have radically influenced American poetics, my own included, (Basho, Senghor, Rilke, Lorca, Sappho, Li Po). Finally, there are poets whose work I believe is currently overlooked and under-appreciated. Paul Laurence Dunbar springs immediately to mind, but I just released Black Nature (UGA, 2009), an anthology that radically reexamines the position of African Americans in the nation's nature poetry canon, so I could name over 90 other writers whose work I believe has or should be influential to American poetics. My job as a teacher, writer, editor, reader, is to think beyond what I receive as given knowledge and to help extend the realm of what and who and how we know. 

 

What are your predictions for American poetry in the next century?

If higher education does not completely shut down again (which it may do in light of national budget cuts radically reducing access to state colleges and universities as well as the reduction in scholarship opportunities for America's private institutions), if higher education remains accessible to a broad range of talented young minds, and from these ranks we establish a wealth of talented young teachers, and scholars, and poets, my prediction is that American poetry will continue its dynamic growth, shifting and changing and accommodating new voices and perspectives more and more regularly. The decline of major publishing houses and rejuvenation of independent publishers might mean that these voices do not have adequate opportunities for conversation. My hope, however, is that the presence of a variety of minds and talents in our colleges and universities, fed by the explosion of the increasingly diverse creative writing programs we've seen in the last decade, coupled with increased dissemination opportunities made possible by the internet and other technologies, will mean continued cross-pollination and growth.

============================

Camille T. Dungy

BIOGRAPHY

Camille T. DungyPoet and editor Camille T. Dungy was born in Denver but moved often as her father, an academic physician, taught at many different medical schools across the country. She received a BA from Stanford University and an MFA from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

 Dungy’s full-length poetry publications include Suck on the Marrow(2010) and the sonnet collection What to Eat, What to Drink, What to Leave for Poison (2006), which was a finalist for both the PEN Center USA Literary Award and the Library of Virginia Literary Award. Describing the poems in What to Eat, What to Drink, What to Leave for Poison as “rogue sonnets,” Dungy said of the poems’ speakers in a 2007 Boxcar Review interview with poet Sean Hill, “These are folks who take the restrictions and traditions that have been handed to them and they do what they can to make beautiful things with their lives […] so the fact that the sonnets follow some rules and flaunt others is a direct reflection of their subjects.” In a 2009 review of the same collection for Pembroke Magazine, Tara Betts observed that the collection “offers a number of ways to look at what is considered to be a part of nature, whether it is a part of the plants or the people that inhabit a place.” As Betts later noted, “This tension of living close to passion and death simultaneously creates urgency in these quiet poems.”
 
Addressing the paucity of African American poets in anthologies of nature poetry, Dungy stated in a 2010 interview for the Oakland Tribune, “I miss seeing writers of color in the conversation. Until we have greater variety in the conversation, it is not a conversation—it is a monologue.” To that end, Dungy edited Black Nature: Four Centuries of African American Nature Poetry (2009), which was nominated for an NAACP Image Award. She was also co-editor ofFrom the Fishouse: An Anthology of Poems that Sing, Rhyme, Resound, Syncopate, Alliterate, and Just Plain Sound Great (2009), and assistant editor for Gathering Ground: A Reader Celebrating Cave Canem’s First Decade (2006). 

 Winner of the Dana Award, Dungy has also received fellowships and awards from the National Endowment for the Arts, the American Antiquarian Society, the Virginia Commission for the Arts, Cave Canem, and the Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference.

 Dungy lives in Oakland, California, and has taught at San Francisco State University and the University of North Carolina.

===========================================

Ark

BY CAMILLE T. DUNGY

I will enter you as hope enters me,   
through blinding liquid, light of rain, and I   
will stay inside until you send me out;   
I will stay inside until you ground me.   
We cannot outrun the rain.   So many   
summers I have tried.   So many summers.   
But when the rumble calls after the spark   
there can be no escape.   No outstripping   
the drench soak, the wet sheath, the water caul.   
This is more than you want to hear.   Much more   
than I want to tell you.   Tabernacle   
transporting my life from the desert, you,   
the faith I am born and reborn into,   
you, rescuer, deliverer of rain.

============================

 

EVENT: New York—A Is For Anansi Conference - Literature for Children of African Descent

A Is For Anansi: Literature for Children of African Descent
October 8-9th 2010

 
presented by 

Institute of African American Affairs – New York University
Location for all programs: Kimmel Center-NYU,
60 Washington Square South Rm. 914-Silver

Please RSVP at (212) 998-IAAA (4222)

A Is For Anansi will cover the history, criticism and theory of contemporary books for and about children of African descent, as told by its most influential critics, scholars, teachers and producers. The need for more in-depth analysis and for more information, critical evaluation, and publications on this topic still remain. The conference will look at these and consider other questions and issues as well.

Schedule:
Friday, October 8th, 2010 – Opening Reception
6-6:30 pm
● Opening KEYNOTE
6:30-8:00 pm
● History/Significance/Meaning of Writing/Publishing/Selling Literature for and about Children of African Descent (importance of bookstores; going beyond the obvious that it’s good for other people to learn about other people)

Saturday, October 9th, 2010
Breakfast – 9-9:30 am
9:30 – 11:00 am
● Issues of Identity & Representation (historical overview, phenotype-illustrating the books, role of language, look beyond books: cinema, advertisement, TV)
11:00 – 12:30 pm
● Let the Children Speak (roundtable of kids discussing children’s books, “books that have had a profound effect on me and why” video games vs. reading, why don’t I read, use of social media like Twitter, Facebook, blogs, video blogs and more, audience can include children, parents, teachers)
Lunch – 12:30 – 1:30 pm
1:30 – 3:00 pm
● Critiquing & Evaluating the Books/Content (stereotypes, censorship, violence, raw images in picture books, depictions of the black family, political correctness in writing for children in terms of its ability to stimulate imagination as well as enhance cognitive and cultural development)
3:00 – 4:30 pm
● Literacy & Education for/of the Black Male
4:30 – 5:00 pm
CLOSURE/ROUND UP/SURVEY
5:00 PM
RECEPTION w/PERFORMANCE
● Tribute to Virginia Hamilton, Tom Feelings, and Leo and Diane Dillon
Space is limited. Free and open to the public.
Please RSVP for A Is For Anansi at (212) 998-IAAA (4222)