on defending raw nerve books or white racial solidarity building

on 7 september 2009 raw nerve books announced that the edited collection "Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality" (2008) was out of print alongside a correction and apology to infamous white gay activist peter tatchell. tatchell, for those who dont know, has long been criticized by queer activists of colour and other anti-islamophobic individuals and communities for his liberal human rights discourse which continually demonizes islamic values and practices. for a quick peek go to www.islamophobia-watch.com and search 'tatchell.' in short, tatchell has warned against "...the muslims'...grand plan to promote fundamentalist Islam in Britain. The Islamists want to undermine liberal humanitarian values, which they see as corrupt and decadent". of course tatchell will be the first to point out that he qualifies his claim by asserting that, "Not all Muslims support fundamentalism. Many share our human rights agenda" (www.petertatchell.net).

according to tatchell, muslims - both "fundamentalist" and "moderate" - need to be ushered into the enlightened place of western liberal values. tatchell propagates and extends imperialist islamophobic groundwork by constructing islam as an unchanging, monolithic, homophobic, sexist, and distinctly barbaric worldview. for tatchell, discrimination is inherent to muslim ontology. as a result, muslims are hopelessly backward and need the saving hand of a gay white human rights activist to show them the way towards freedom offered through united nations charters and annual pride parades.

but tatchell is not my point of focus here.

raw nerve books describe themselves as "...an independent, not-for-profit feminist press publishing controversial, under-represented and experimental work." they published the book and then issued it "out of print" after tatchell cried wolf over content in one of the chapters which characterised him as islamophobic. in an apology that could only have been written by tatchell, raw nerve disgustingly retracts such allegations (made by the authors) and then re-frames tatchell as distinctly anti-racist, listing a smattering of work he has done in "africa" (ignoring the 'public statement of warning' written by african lgbti human rights defenders about working with tatchell) and with anti-fascist groups in the uk. might i just say, great "anti-racist" work there tatchell, actively silencing queers of colour who dare challenge your politics.

some have claimed that raw nerve was in a tricky position because of the potential threat of possible legal action* which, if they had had to fight, could have cost them the press itself due to their meager economic positioning. this argument supports raw nerve's decision as a strategic way of ensuring the longevity of other alternative publications that the press will continue to print long after this whole "nasty" affair has blown over. as a result, what we see here is not the "publication of controversial work" but the publication of work that is distinctly not controversial - work that fits the mold of the established white liberal feminist and queer movements. moreover, this is not just the come-to-be-expected institutionalized publication scheme that continually publishes largely white middle class feminist academics. raw nerve actively hung these authors out to dry. and unfortunately for those hoping this will all just go away, this episode stands as a poignant analogy for the close relationship between racism and contemporary queer and feminist politics. dissenting voices of queers of colour are silenced for what is always characterized as the "larger" goals of the "movement". the argument that defends raw nerve books in their decision is part and parcel of a technique of white racial solidarity building.

i started writing this post with the view to discuss the importance of publishers who understand the significance of standing by their authors and of feminist and/or 'alternative' independent publishing for the dissemination of critical dissent. raw nerve claims to operate on these principals but buckled when push came to shove. of course, some may say that we shouldnt expect institutionalized publishers to be anything other than a state apparatus, bowing down to the threat of legal action or monetary pressure in the service of state-endorsed dissent (aka tatchell's liberal human rights discourse). but if we believe in "asking questions that might indeed touch a 'raw nerve'" - which might include challenging white racial solidarity building practices of queer and feminist movements - we must demand it to be so.

for a great response to the censorship, read xtalk's statement.

* tatchell has publicly claimed that he did not threaten raw nerve with libel but merely "objected" to the contents of the chapter in question. the possibility of legal action was purely speculation on these commentators' parts.