Re: citing one’s sources, and related recent blogosphere drama (of which I’ve only been on the periphery, I admit; I haven’t had the time or interest, quite frankly, to follow it closely)…
I’m no fan of ‘X’ (not by a longshot!) but I think people are getting a tad carried away with this “she stole it!” thing. There are a lot of assumptions going on and they’re not fair ones. ‘X’ herself said she wrote the piece before she saw BFP’s speech… now I know we might not have reason to believe her wholesale, but why would she outright lie, either? I think she’s an asshole, but I can’t see her concocting this elaborate lie. I don’t think assuming malfeasance on her part is fair or productive. You know, zeitgeist and synchronicity do happen. And when dealing with more traditional media operations where there’s an editorial cycle, a pub schedule, etc., things get published weeks or months after they were written.
Is that so hard to believe?
Obviously, you should cite your sources; I would think everyone can agree on that. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to automatically assume that an instance of “wow, we both wrote about the same topic” is a case of copying without crediting.
READ ME: Disclaimer
6 Responses to "And another thing"
Two words: white privilege.
And now bfp is gone, and once again rwoc are being told that we’re “overreacting” by people who are supposedly our allies. That, in a way, stings a whole lot worse than whether or not somebody intentionally plagarised another’s work. bfp has been doing immigration as a feminist issue forever. marcotte just now comes out with how hey! she thinks immigration might be a feminist issue. You do the math.
Or, you know. Don’t.
The main problem, Amber, is that what Amanda did (sorry, but I don’t support sugarcoating her offenses by a pseudonym) was to take a subject that BfP and other activist women of color had been attempting to address the public with for years and years without the hint of a response, and exploit it for her own personal byline without giving just credit to the original sources. The parallel is Elvis making money off the song “Hound Dog” without first even acknowledging Big Mama Thorton’s original version of that song; or the many White artists making money off old Blues songs while the original Black creators get no recognition whatsoever.
I do understand what zeigeist and syncronicity can do…but in this case, since Amanda was indeed at the meeting and knew all about BfP’s history of activism, at the very least she could have in that article given some credit where credit is due.
The problem is, though, that Amanda has a history of dissing and dismissing the arguments of women of color, while simultaneously using their principles as her own. It’s her perogative to do so, of course; but it is also perfectly legitimate of women of color bloggers to call her out on this and simply ask for some legitimate credit and sourcing.
I’m not so down with Sara dismissing all White progressive criticism of WoC activism as “White privilege”, since any and all activism needs to be held accountable for their actions, and I’ve had my differences as well. And in NO WAY should you feel guilty or threatened for your dissent in any way; you have earned the right to dissent with your own progressive activist and anti-racist record.
On the other hand, I do think that Sara has a legitimate point in admonishing those who always respond to their legitimate criticism as “overreacting”. The fact that BfP is no longer here to defend herself as a result of all this is a testimonial to the dangers of expropriation of dissenting voices.
Anthony
Admittedly I don’t know all the full details of what happened… so my post should be taken with the appropriate serving of salt. My post does reflect how it appears to me as someone standing “outside the fray,” so to speak.
Over-reacting isn’t a word I’d use to describe the critiques I’ve seen (and in fact, I didn’t use that word). I don’t apprecaite having words put in my mouth, and the same thing happened w/ the FFF debate… as I’ve said many times, I do agree that there is far too much dismissal of legitimate criticism, by simply claiming it is WOC/feminists/whoever over-reacting. That’s bullshit, and needs to be called as such.
But as you said, Anthony, that doesn’t make anyone free from being fair game for critique; all movements need to be held accountable. My point is, regardless of what one thinks of Amanda (I originally used the pseudonym ‘X’ because that’s what BFP was using on her blog), I don’t think it’s reasonable to automatically jump to the conclusion that she was stealing content or trying to exploit someone else’s message for her own gain.
Now, did she exploit someone else’s message for her own gain? That part is debatable, and far more nuanced. But I think, honestly, it’s pretty ridiculous to go around making claims of “stealing,” and that kind of sums up most of the criticism I’ve seen of the situation.
As for BFP shutting down her blog… yeah, I think it sucks, but you know, she did that of her own accord.
amber; thing is, Amanda’s pulled this shit before. I remember, oh, an Amanda post about sex ed like, oh, 2 days after a certain carnival…she doesn’t just pull this crap with WoC…she does it to everyone she thinks she can…or so it would seem.
Anthony: “since any and all activism needs to be held accountable for their actions”
But holding white feminists accountable for their white privilege is something you’re “not down with?” Privilege is what’s allowing marcotte to get away with this; privilege is what’s enabling white bloggers like Amber to be able to stand “outside the fray” and comment without knowing the full extent of what’s going on; this whole affair is soaking in issues of privilege and power and oppression and you want to say you’re not “down with” me calling that out.
Also, Amber, no one is putting words in your mouth. Quote: “I think people are getting a tad carried away with this “she stole it!†thing.” Right there, in the first paragraph. “Getting carried away with” is the same thing as “overreacting,” just with an increased word count. Again in your words: “That’s bullshit, and needs to be called as such.” Therefore, I call bullshit.
There is a difference between “overreacting” and “getting carried away with”–let me ’splain:
you step on my toe.
Overreaction: I turn and punch you in the gut, followed by other acts of physical violence.
Getting Carried Away: I yell at you. Then I push you. Then I yell some more about how much you hurt me. Then I take my shoe off and hit you with it. Then I yell some more.
Overreaction is an immediate response of unequal weight to the original action.
“Getting carried away” is an initial response of proportion to the original action, followed by a snowballing of further reaction.
The distinction is less nuanced when observed in children’s interactions… which is where I learned it.
Leave a comment