# data[].attributes.body
Great blog post by Chad Everett

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you have ever attended any session where I have presented and the topic of diversity has come up, you know I am quick to tell attendees that I do not give out diverse book lists. Here is my reason why: there are no diverse texts. It is in the transaction (Rosenblatt, 1986) between the reader an

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Black Kids Don’t Want to Read About Harriet Tubman All the Time (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They need to see themselves reflected in stories that celebrate everyday beauty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Click here to download a printable version of the DIG Checklist.

High-quality digital content for children supports learning and literacy, reflects diverse experiences, feeds curiosity, develops empathy, and provides accurate information in a creative way.

All Content

Who is the narrator? What is the point of view?

Can kids select or customize the point of view?

Is the content, including the setting and characters, free of stereotypical representations?

Does the content include atypical settings and/or underrepresented life experiences which both allow more kids to see themselves in the media?

Can kids explore an unfamiliar location, region, or situation?

Does the content introduce experiences in ways that entertain and teach about a topic in a creative way?

Does the media include links to additional content or opportunities within the media itself for curious families to learn more about a topic, setting, culture, or experience which is new to them?

Are characters diverse in their culture, ethnicity, language, gender, age, social classes, physical features, sexual orientation, and ability, reflecting today's diverse families?

Are diverse characters meaningfully integrated as individuals?

Stories and Tales

Is the story original or is the story a retelling of a traditional tale?

If the story is a retelling of a traditional, indigenous tale, is a member(s) of the team an authority on the subject?

Do the creators have permission to retell the story, if applicable?

Does the story diversify the media offerings for children? Or is it similar in its setting, plot, characters, activities, and information to what is already widely available?

Does the media offer historical, cultural, or social context for the story that is different from the traditional offerings?

Non-fiction/Informational Media

Is the content accurate?

Is a member(s) of the team an authority on the subject?

Are references included and easily accessible?

Does the content provide a different perspective on a topic or share information in a new way?

Is the content updated to reflect current research?

Does the content support critical thinking skills?

Is the content searchable?

Activity/Game

Does the activity's setting(s) include multiple living situations, playspaces, or other meeting places? Or does the media acknowledge in some way that the one setting is one of many alternatives in a creative way?

Is the activity unique to a particular audience? Are there appropriate instructions for those unfamiliar with the activity?

Does the activity encourage creativity, making, and self-expression?

Does the activity encourage multi-generational coviewing, coplay, and joint media engagement?

Does the activity inspire connection with family and/or community members?

Are there recommended resources, books for example, included with the media that extend the activity's learning experience?

High-quality images, illustrations, video, and animations help create a richer experience for the user.

Does the media include authentic visual representation of culturally and ethnically diverse characters, environments, and experiences?

Do the artwork and images provide historical, social, or cultural context for the story, information, or activity?

Do kids see themselves, their families, and/or their communities authentically depicted in the artwork and images?

Are characters with different body types and abilities featured in various roles?

Can kids customize characters' appearance?

Can they create their own avatar or choose from multiple characters?

Can they choose ethnicity, physical features, clothing, and accessories?

Can they choose gender or create a gender-neutral character?

High-quality digital media features music, narration, and sound that enrich the media experience.

Does the media include multiple language options which are written and spoken by native speakers?

Can children easily select and change languages while using the media?

Does the narration align with the text and illustrations?

Does the app feature a voice record option to support family participation in a variety of home languages?

Does the media include music or sound effects culturally appropriate for the content?

Does the music have any historical, social, cultural context?

Can the music and sound effects be turned on/off to modify the experience for individual children?

High-quality digital media provides age-appropriate experiences for the intended audience. Some media addresses the specific needs of a particular, underserved audience while other media aims to include a wider audience in a common experience.

Who is the intended audience?

Are diverse families authentically represented in the media?

Does the audience have opportunities to see themselves reflected in the content of the media?

Does the audience have the opportunity to learn about and experience another culture, region, language, or ability in the content of the media?

Does the media address the specific needs of a particular, underserved audience?

Does the media include a wider audience in a common experience?

Are the experiences age-appropriate for the intended audience?

Are diverse families used in advertising/marketing images and messaging?

Are the media's descriptions and ads available in multiple languages?

High-quality media aims to inform, entertain, teach, connect, and inspire all kids from all backgrounds.

What is the media's purpose?

Is authentic representation of diverse backgrounds, traditions, abilities, and rituals a part of the purpose?

Is accessibility addressed in the media's purpose?

Is the purpose, at least in part, to encourage multiple kids or multiple people to explore, learn, share, and create together?

High-quality digital media for kids includes technical features that support accessibility, successful learning, privacy, customization, and joint media engagement.

Is the media glitch-free?

Are in app-purchases, sharing features, and external links locked behind a "parental gate"?

Is the media free of advertising?

Is the media easy for kids and their grown ups with diverse abilities to use? Can they access all of the content?

Was Universal Design for Learning a part of the overall design process?

Does the media integrate age-appropriate cues for meaningful interactivity?

Is the functionality connected to any representation of backgrounds, traditions, rituals and if so, is that representation authentic?

Does the media allow the user to change settings or other elements, allowing the user to customize the experience?

Do the technical features encourage coviewing and shared play?

Can kids navigate to specific parts of the media, for example the home screen, favorite page or scene, specific part of a puzzle?

High-quality digital media for children includes tips, instructions, or a guide for grown-ups with suggested activities that make the media more accessible to more kids and potentially increase the educational value.

Does the media offer grown-up tips, instructions, extension activities, or a guide?

Are the tips, instructions, extension activities, or guide available in multiple languages?

Do the supporting materials provide tips for encouraging bilingual development?

Do the instructions and support materials feature a range of diverse characters?

Does the guide offer suggestions on how to use the media to teach kids about diversity of all kinds?

Do the instructions and support materials provide any historical, social, or cultural context for the content?

Does the media protect kids' privacy?

A diverse team of creators, designers and developers with an array life experiences may design and develop a broader assortment of content that feature a variety of perspectives, characters, and settings.

Who are the members of the creative team? Who is the author, illustrator, developer, educational or cultural consultant?

Is information about the creators easily accessible?

Is the artwork, story, music, and functionality created by a diverse team?

Is a member of the team trained in Universal Design for Learning standards?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diverse and Inclusive Growth (DIG) Checklist - KIDMAP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Click here to download a printable version of the DIG Checklist. High-quality digital content for children supports learning and literacy, reflects diverse experiences, feeds curiosity, develops empathy, and provides accurate information in a creative way. Who is the narrator? What is the point of view? Can kids select or customize the point of view?

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Trans Themes Matter in Children's Books

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Trans Themes Matter in Children's Books

# data[].attributes.body
via @Vice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I Am Jazz cover via Penguin Young Readers Group

Last weekend my four-year-old son came to spend the weekend with me and my partner. Battening down against the absurd cold of the Midwestern winter, we spent all of Saturday indoors. After breakfast, we all curled up on the couch with some new picture books. I felt nervous.

It's been almost a year since I came out as transgender, and even longer since his mother and I divorced, but my son and I are only just getting into a comfortable visitation rhythm. Reluctant to pile disruption on disruption, I'd previously stayed quiet about my identity, answering his questions only as they infrequently arose.

The picture books I'd chosen all address trans or gender-nonconforming (GNC) identity in one way or another: I Am Jazz, by Jazz Jennings and Jessica Herthel; Jacob's New Dress by Sarah and Ian Hoffman; and Red: A Crayon's Story by Michael Hall. Two of the books, Red and I Am Jazz, were recently involved in a kindergarten classroom scandal in Sacramento.

I Am Jazz recounts the childhood experience of Jazz Jennings, a by-now seventeen-year-old transgender girl and activist with her own reality TV show. In the book, she lists her favorite girly colors, clothes, and daydreams as concrete proof of her identity. Her parents encourage her to "be who you are." Despite some resistance from her school and classmates, she proudly declares herself "transgender"-making the book an identity primer as well as a personal story.

In Jacob's New Dress, Jacob, after some dress-up with his kindergarten friends and some symptoms of dysphoria, asks for a "real" dress, which his mom makes for him on her sewing machine. A classmate called Christopher voices the standard "boys can't wear dresses" objection. Jacob's New Dress suggests children should play with toys and wear clothing that makes them feel affirmed in their identity, although unlike with I Am Jazz, colors and clothes are less about gender than personal expression, acted out under a blanket of general acceptance.

In Red: A Crayon's Story, a gender allegory, Red is a blue crayon with a red factory-assigned label. Although his fellow crayons suggest (very familiar) cures, such as hard work, Red can't stop drawing in blue. The solution, offered by Berry, is to celebrate his blueness instead of trying to change it.

Despite their controversial subject matter, these books haven't walked far off from other picture books. Their celebration of simplified difference is familiar. They exude a progressive attitude that says "[you] can be whatever [you] want to be" (from the cover flap of Jacob's New Dress), alongside stories of fixed identity (Jazz's assertion that she "was born this way!"). They're coming-of-age stories, fast-forwarded and hit with glitter, taking place in a falsely simple world where similarities and acceptance will always win out in the end.

But, after all, they're picture books. How astute can they actually be in writing about the knots that result from unmooring gender from biological markers? About how feelings often fail to lead to material or legal changes? About the tension between narratives of identity's social construction and its lived experience?

Jazz writes about herself, "I have a girl brain but a boy body. This is called transgender." But what, after all, is a girl brain? Does it come from a place like the mislabeling crayon factory in Red? In Red, Red is accepted as blue because he behaves in the "right" way, producing beautiful drawings. But what if Red insisted on making ugly drawings? Or if he couldn't make drawings at all? What use are these stories if they fail before they've even begun?

I put the books in a pile next to me on the couch. I'm wary of exhausting my son's attention before I can gauge his interest and understanding. He digs jets, trucks, trains, and sand. He already sports an insouciant James Dean cool in mini aviators and denim. No, I am the protagonist of these books. I am Jazz, who insists she's a girl. I am Jacob, who wants to wear a dress more than anything. I am Red, a crayon who is actually blue. Which casts my son as the person who needs to be persuaded into acceptance, to recognize the "reality" of a dress, a color, an interior identity-not a role I am eager to make him play.

I want him to understand the import of these books without pressuring him to immediately accept their stories and language. I start our reading with Red, the most innocuous and least preachy of the books, since the characters are crayons and their identities are colors. After finishing, I faux-casually asked him, "How did you like the crayon book?" He liked it. He asked me to read again. He said, "I think it's funny the factory gave the blue crayon the wrong wrapping."

I said, "Because they thought he was red?"

"He wasn't really red. I liked it when he drew blue strawberries."

My partner, beside him, asked, "If you were a blue crayon with a yellow wrapper, what would you do?" This question about active choice and behavior-What would you do?-seems to me as important as the question that drives all three books: Who are you?

He said, "I would go back to the factory and have them make me yellow."

"You don't think it would be easier to just have them change your wrapping color?"

"Oh yeah, I guess so."

He seemed reflective but ready to move on, so we started playing with cars.

I'm hoping that the books can be a perch from which to initiate conversations, or let them arise organically. In the kitchen while I was making lunch, he mused, "If girls couldn't wear pants, they'd have to wear dresses all the time!"

My partner protested, "But what if I didn't want to wear dresses? I feel more comfortable wearing pants. People are still uncomfortable with boys wearing dresses, but that's changing. You should wear what makes you comfortable."

I use a book character as a reference: "Did you like the new dress Jacob made? It made him feel comfortable, right?"

I took the opening and asked, "Do you want to help me shop for a dress later?"

Head shake no.

Again, I felt like I was pressuring him. I suggested a glass of chocolate milk.

The next day, Sunday, a few hours before the long drive back to his mother, I pulled nail polish out of a drawer. Watching me, my son commented, "Boys should wear their nails short."

My heart stuttered. "Where did you hear that?"

"My uncle. My mom cuts my fingernails short because I'm a boy."

Paraphrasing Jacob's New Dress, I explained, that there are lots of ways of being a boy. That I wear my fingernails short sometimes, even though I'm not a boy. That sometimes I wear them longer.

He didn't answer, but did insist on piling every single color of nail polish onto the table.

It feels like a seesaw. I paint my nails; his uncle tells him painted nails are for girls. I use my chosen name; most of his family on both sides use my birth name. I sleep in on Sunday; he and his mother go to church. But both his mother and I are reluctant to turn our child into an ideological war zone. And I'm not willing to sacrifice his comfort over ideas of gender mostly derived from other family members.

He told me multiple times over the weekend, "I'm learning how to be an independent thinker." And then, sadly, "Sometimes I forget to be an independent thinker." It's a mantra of his grandfather, a manufacturer. I'm happy with the philosophy, in its potential promise that he'll be able to think past the differences between how his mother and I talk about life. But all of us are dependent thinkers, dependent on our shared language, our communities, and the entanglements of social pressures. Here I am, dependent on picture books to talk to my son about who I am. Because it is easier to introduce concepts like gender to my son through these books, despite their limitations. They provide a source for language, images, and behavior outside the locked binary of his parents' lives, between which he pivots.

These picture books aren't so eager to immure gender, to make non-conformance a new form of conformity, as I thought they were. They have started to clear a space with someone I love that can foster more generous and fluid understandings of living an embodied, gendered life. At moments when ridicule seems inescapable-when a group of girls whisper about you at a movie, or when a man loudly says, "These people!" into his phone as you walk by-stories about simple acceptance are a salve against the anxiety of being an isolated mistake, turned out by some combination of chemical, social, and perverse imaginative pressures.

Months ago, after I had started wearing women's clothes full time, my son asked me, upset, to put on boy's clothes. Now he tells me to wear my pink purse, and offers casual opinions on clothes when we shop at H&M. At the table that Sunday, after watching me for awhile, he pointed to a bottle of sparkling red polish and spread his fingers for me to paint his kernel-sized fingernails. My hands shook as I applied the color, and I kissed his curls. There are, after all, many different ways to be a person. Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Trans Themes Matter in Children's Books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I Am Jazz cover via Penguin Young Readers Group Last weekend my four-year-old son came to spend the weekend with me and my partner. Battening down against the absurd cold of the Midwestern winter, we spent all of Saturday indoors. After breakfast, we all curled up on the couch with some new picture books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diverse BookFinder | Identify & Explore Multicultural Picture Books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you looking for multicultural children’s books? We’ve got you covered! You can search our circulating collection of picture books (2002-present), explore our quick lists, then borrow our books from your own library through interlibrary loan. We believe that too many children are left out of main…

# data[].attributes.headline
Do storybooks with anthropomorphized animal characters promote prosocial behaviors in young children?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do storybooks with anthropomorphized animal characters promote prosocial behaviors in young children?

# data[].attributes.body
Developmental Science, 2017. Below is a description of the research from the Guardian, which also includes a link to the paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Forget the morals that millennia of children have learned from the Hare and the Tortoise and the Fox and the Crow: Aesop would have had a greater effect with his fables if he'd put the stories into the mouths of human characters, at least according to new research from the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

In the Canadian study, researchers read one of three stories to almost 100 children between four and six years old: Mary Packard's Little Raccoon Learns to Share, in which anthropomorphic animals learn that sharing makes you feel good; a version of the story in which the animal illustrations were replaced with human characters; or a control book about seeds.

Before they were read the story, the children chose 10 stickers to take home and were told that an anonymous child would not have any stickers to take home. It was suggested to the children that they could share their stickers with the stickerless child by putting them in an envelope when the experimenter was not looking. After they had been read the story, the children were allowed to choose another 10 stickers, and again asked to donate to the stickerless child.

The study, which has just been published in the journal Developmental Science, found that those children who were read the book with human characters became more generous, while "in contrast, there was no difference in generosity between children who read the book with anthropomorphised animal characters and the control book; both groups showed a decrease in sharing behaviour," they write.

The academics, led by Patricia Ganea, associate professor of early cognitive development at OISE, said that existing studies using the same method showed that before they are six, "children share hardly any stickers with their friends, and even after age six, children keep most of the stickers for themselves", so the task "offers a lot of room for children to change their sharing behaviour after reading the story".

But reading a book about sharing "had an immediate effect on children's pro-social behaviour", they found. "However, the type of story characters significantly affected whether children became more or less inclined to behave pro-socially. After hearing the story containing real human characters, young children became more generous. In contrast, after hearing the same story but with anthropomorphised animals or a control story, children became more selfish."

Ganea said that while "a growing body of research has shown that young children more readily apply what they've learned from stories that are realistic ... this is the first time we found something similar for social behaviours".

"The finding is surprising given that many stories for young children have human-like animals," said Ganea.

From Aesop to the Gruffalo via Winnie-the-Pooh, talking animals play a major part in children's literature. A 2002 review of around 1,000 children's titles found that "more than half of the books featured animals or their habitats, of which fewer than 2% depicted animals realistically", the majority anthropomorphising them.

Ganea felt that it would be useful for children's authors to be aware of her research. "We tell stories to children for many reasons, and if the goal is to teach them a moral lesson then one way to make the lesson more accessible to children is to use human characters. Yes, we should consider the diversity of story characters and the roles they are depicted in," she said.

Chris Haughton, author and illustrator of animal picture books including Oh No, George! and Shh! We Have a Plan, felt that while "a simple instructional moral message might work short term", the stories that have longer impact are the ones that resonate deeply. "I read Charlotte's Web as a child and I know that made a big impression on me. I thought about it for a long time after I read the story. I identified with the non-human characters. That, among other things, did actually turn me into a lifelong vegetarian. I think a truly engaging and quality story that resonates with the child will be replayed in their mind and that has the real effect on them and the course of their life," he said.

Picture book author Tracey Corderoy said that in her experience, "where the main characters of a moral tale are animals as opposed to humans, the slight distancing that this affords the young child does a number of important things. It softens the moral message a little, making it slightly more palatable. Some would feel that this waters it down and makes it less effective. But the initial 'saving-face' that using animals brings quite often results, I feel at least, in keeping a child reader engaged."

Kes Gray, the author of the bestselling rhyming animal series Oi Frog and Friends, was unperturbed by the researchers' findings. "Authors and illustrators have no need to panic here, as long as we keep all of the animal protagonists in all of their future stories unreservedly cuddly. Big hair, big eyes and pink twitchy noses should pretty much nail it," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children's books with humans have greater moral impact than animals, study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forget the morals that millennia of children have learned from the Hare and the Tortoise and the Fox and the Crow: Aesop would have had a greater effect with his fables if he'd put the stories into the mouths of human characters, at least according to new research from the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

# data[].attributes.headline
Oakridge Elementary School MOSAIC Project

# data[].attributes.subject
Oakridge Elementary School MOSAIC Project

# data[].attributes.body
Sydney Taylor Book Award

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Page not found – Association of Jewish Libraries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Leading Authority on Judaic Librarianship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Multicultural Children's Book Day - #ReadYourWorld

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sorry about the interruption, but we just need to do a quick check to make sure that you’re a human being. To do so, simply fill out the CAPTCHA below and you’ll be on our website in no time!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A note about the following: I wrote this post several months ago. It was originally scheduled to publish Thursday March 12; we decided not to post it then because the night before, COVID-19 news swept the nation and all attention was focused there.

I know that some of our readers, like me, have time and mental space to read this right now; some do not. Our email and DMs are open; please get in touch if there is any support we can provide, and take care.

On January 31, we published a Links Roundup post. While we published it under the group account, I (Allie) organized and posted it, so I'm primarily responsible for the mistakes therein-namely, that in promoting Lee and Low's writeup of the 2019 Diversity Baseline Survey, I failed to name and credit Dr. Laura M. Jiménez, as well as Betsy Beckert, as co-authors of the survey. My mistake was part of a pattern in this specific instance ( the Guardian also failed to credit Dr. Jiménez and Ms. Beckert for their work on this survey), but it is also part of a larger pattern of White erasure of BIPOC people and work. So with a healthy dose of humility that comes with recognizing myself as a big part of the problem, and with my (and our) sincere apologies to Dr. Jiménez and Ms. Beckert, that pattern of erasure is the subject of this post.

With full credit to the People's Institute for Survival and Beyond, we here at Reading While White define racism as "Race-based prejudice coupled with access to systemic, structural power." It is impossible to exist in the world without having internalized race-based prejudice, and Whiteness necessarily confers a privileged relationship to systemic and structural power upon White people. Therefore, under this definition, all White people are racist. And all White people working on anti-racist activism necessarily bring their racism into their anti-racist work.

It is an inescapable truth that I will bring my own Whiteness and my own racism into anti-racist spaces, and that I will often reproduce racism in those spaces. I can always work to do better, but part of doing better is accepting and sitting with the inherent contradiction of my being in these spaces at all, trying to do anti-racist work while not denying the fact that I am racist.

In a study on how White activists contribute to severe burnout among BIPOC activists, Paul C. Gorski and Noura Erakat identified patterns of White activists "undermining or invalidating the racial justice work of activists of color" and "taking credit for participants' racial justice work and ideas" as major contributors to BIPOC burnout (among others). According to Gorski and Erakat, "white activists derived benefits from their involvement in racial justice activism at the expense of activists of color who, in turn, were silenced, undermined, disrespected, and eventually burned out."

Specifically, in Gorski's and Erakat's study, BIPOC activists reported that White activists:

"appropriate antiracist organizations by usurping power from activists of color"

"Need... the spotlight, [which] led some to exploit activists of color either to acquire benefits-leadership positions or speaking invitations, for example-or to win validation from activists of color."

"take credit for ideas they previously dismissed from [BIPOC activists]"

"accept benefits, such as credit and recognition, for ideas and work produced by activists of color." (One interviewee offered, as an example, White Academics "who just want to get their name published with someone who is recognized for doing racial justice.")

"take the work developed by marginalized people and 'put their name on it.' [One interviewee] explained, 'I have white racial justice workers who ... even record me or photograph something I post and use it as if it's theirs, without giving me credit ... as they coopt it and reappropriate it in a way that is dangerous.'"

BIPOC activists in Gorski's and Erakat's study described these White-rooted, within-community conditions as more intense and potent than external causes of burnout: "The racism that propelled participants into racial justice movements was reproduced within those movements. For many participants, this was a particularly disappointing and stress-inducing condition because they had entered movements hoping for a reprieve from the racism with which they coped outside their movements...." It stands to reason that White activists (including us at RWW) have done as much to undermine the anti-racist movement as any external force, and we (White people, including us at RWW) inevitably continue to do so.
There are different levels of White erasure of BIPOC work, from just ignoring it to actively appropriating it. Failing to acknowledge or credit BIPOC people for their work and ideas also erases their very existence and presence in activist spaces, a particularly noxious form of racism.

Big names in the White Anti-racist movement necessarily play a role in this problem. Tim Wise has been rightly criticised for how he dominates, profits from, and moves in general through anti-racist spaces; Leslie Mac, creator of the Ferguson Response Network and much more, wrote: "From Tim Wise to Dixon White - our pain is used for profit. And repeating concepts created by Black folks thru a white lens will always sell." While I myself have learned deeply from, and am grateful for, the work of White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo, I recognize that she also benefits from White privilege within the anti-racist movement; the BIPOC people with whom she's collaborated don't have nearly the same level of national name-recognition, at least among White people (I saw Dr. DiAngelo present at a conference with Darlene Flynn in 2017; both were excellent, and I've been bothered ever since that Robin DiAngelo is a household name among White activists and Flynn is not).

We here at Reading While White fall into this category as well. Although we do not have the same level of mainstream attention nationally as Wise or DiAngelo, we do have a disproportionate degree of clout within the fields of librarianship and children's literature, given that some of our BIPOC colleagues have done this work for more than twenty years (and we turn five this Fall). Ironically, given how I subsequently erased her work, Dr. Laura Jiménez pointed this out to me when I interviewed her three years ago:

The one thing that frustrates me the most--and I'm glad that Reading While White is doing what it does--is that if I say something about a book, if Debbie or Edi says something, we're all told that we're not giving the author a chance. That they tried. We are not believed. If you look at the traffic RWW get vs the traffic I get or Edi gets, even though we've been doing this for longer, you get more, and the only difference is that you're White. To be honest, part of me resents that. And, I am glad that there are people willing to amplify our voices. If I write something, and you pick it up, that means so many more people will be willing to hear it. And that is paramount to my work. You get a lot of crap, the same criticism, but at the end of the day, you are heard and you are believed. Without White voices, our message can't be heard. We are not believed. It's good that your team realizes it.

I am glad that Dr. Jiménez was honest here, although she was much more generous with us than we deserve, i.e., we do NOT get the same crap; what we get is much smaller, and benign by comparison. I imagine there are many BIPOC people within the children's literature field who feel similarly-or more strongly-and for good, valid reasons aren't inclined to tell us that they feel that way (see: Gorski's and Erakat's study about burnout above).

You've probably heard that Black people-especially women-need to work "twice as hard for half as much" (mainstream White America can thank Scandal for bringing that maxim into our consciousness). Think about what this means for us as White people: We work half as hard, for twice as much.

How does this show up in children's literature? For one, the bar to be published is infinitely higher for BIPOC creators; and even if you are published, the level of attention and spotlight from the vast majority of bookstores and libraries is disproportionately higher for White creators. While perusing my local Barnes & Noble the other night, I was angered by the number of mediocre books by White people, mostly men, prominently on display in the children's section. There were several that I'd hazard would never have been published, let alone given the best display space, had a Black woman submitted the same text. This itself is a form of erasure-our insistence upon highlighting the same White men, over and over, causes and allows them to take up space that should belong to BIPOC creators, and by extension, BIPOC readers.

SCBWI Minnesota recently quite literally erased-that is, deleted-the work of Dr. Sarah Park Dahlen when she pointed out that the image they'd set as their banner was a stereotypical, racist image (link included with permission). They also erased the voices of many people who'd commented in agreement with Dr. Dahlen. Deletion of harmful posts is a common form of White erasure; in one fell swoop, the original poster can erase, rather than take ownership of, their mistakes, and can also erase the voices of any BIPOC critiquing racism. In this case, SCBWI Minnesota also decided not to clarify who was responsible for the deletions (link included with permission), thereby erasing their responsibility for that act of erasure and diffusing the blame for this act of racism. Such deletions gaslight the targets of racism (which compounds the initial racism). As Dr. Ebony Elizabeth Thomas noted in a thread about patterns of White erasure she noticed last year, "oppression justifies its violence and power by arguing that the oppressed's receipts are invalid" (quote included with permission).

(A point of clarification here: SCBWI Minnesota later posted screenshots of the deleted content. Another point of clarification: Screenshots that are not transcribed are not accessible to those who use screen readers.)

Erasure also shows up in children's literature when White creators steal ideas from creators of color and present them as their own. This ranges from the constant entitlement White authors feel to tell BIPOC stories to outright theft and plagiarism. (If you haven't read Jacqueline Woodson's Who Can Tell My Story in a while, pause and re-read it now, and also make time for a re-read of Debbie Reese's An oft-posed question: "Who can tell your stories?"-and actually, also read Maya Gonzalez' My Story, Your Story, Their Story, Who Gets To Tell It before you read any more of my work). You may also have read David Bowles' recent, expert pieces on the "harmful, appropriating, inaccurate, trauma-porn melodrama" that is Jeanine Cummins' American Dirt, or Maya Gonzalez' careful documentation of how White authors Brook Pessin-Whedbee and Kelly Storck, as well as their publishers (Jessica Kingsley Publishers and Instant Help Books/imprint of New Harbinger Publications, Inc.) plagiarized her work. Recently, Tangerine Jones wrote about how authors Katherine Alford and Kathy Gunst, plus their publisher Simon and Schuster, coopted and profit from her work-and the White aggression Alford and Gunst brought against her. White plundering of Native stories and cultural content for profit also echoes the history of colonial invasion. As Professor Rebecca Tsosie says:

Indigenous peoples have property interests, even if they don't fall within the narrow definitions of Western law. This was a problem in the sixteenth century when the Doctrine of Discovery was applied as an international doctrine to validate the interests of European sovereigns in claiming property in the lands that were described as the "New World." They said that indigenous peoples don't really have property rights, they just kind of roam around on the land, and so it's okay for Europeans to go and appropriate the land and say that they have title. Now that's what we don't want to do with intellectual property rights in the modern era... [P]eople can go and basically steal indigenous songs and stories, and then they can copyright them... the harm's not merely economic, but it can be a cultural form of harm that could be very devastating.

(Many thanks to Dr. Debbie Reese for answering my questions on this subject, and for sending me that link.) All of the above are examples of the different forms that White appropriation and erasure of BIPOC work can take in the world of literature.

[CONTENT WARNING FOR THIS PARAGRAPH - discusses police killings of Black people]

But perhaps the most dangerous, destructive aspect of this erasure is the flipside. If White people leap to take credit and rewards for BIPOC work and ideas-and if we make those White names household staples, while erasing the names and existence of robbed BIPOC people-we also do the reverse, when it comes to blaming BIPOC people for their own murders while simultaneously erasing the White-owned guilt for those murders. I'm talking to White readers, now. You likely can name a slew of Black people murdered by police: Michael Brown. Eric Garner. Tamir Rice. Philando Castile. Alton Sterling. How many of their killers can you name, off the top of your head? They are: Darren Wilson. Daniel Pantaleo. Timothy Loehmann. Jeronimo Yanez. Howie Lake. Blane Salamoni. Yes, I had to look up most of those. No, they aren't all White, but their lack of mainstream name recognition still protects a White-dominant police force. None were held legally responsible for killing the above human beings. Why were their victims put on trial, their private lives plundered and exposed, by a White-dominant media and public desperate to find a reason to blame them for their own murders? Why have we (White people) done our best to malign their names and their legacies, exonerate their killers', and erase those of women and nonbinary BIPCOC victims? In the interest of Saying Her Name: Meagan Hockaday. Tanisha Anderson. Mya Hall. Alexia Christian. There are too many more. We should know them.

All of the credit for anti-racist gains, none of the blame for racism... this is still the dominant narrative in every sector of the White community, from open bigots with sheets and torches to the wokest of the woke.

At the White Privilege Conference in 2017, Darlene Flynn and Robin DiAngelo said that "getting educated just makes White folks better racists." BIPOC activists have raised concerns about White anti-racist activism for a long time; I recently re-read the famous excerpt from The Autiobiography of Malcolm X in which he advises "sincere" White people to "...find all other white people they can who feel as they do-and let them form their own all-white groups, to work trying to convert other white people who are thinking and acting so racist." This passage, among many other things, helped inform our thinking when we first launched Reading While White. I'd remembered the above words perfectly, but had conveniently managed to forget the following:

I have these very deep feelings that white people who want to join black organizations are really just taking the escapist way to salve their consciences. By visibly hovering near us, they are 'proving' that they are 'with us' ... generally whites' very presence subtly renders the black organization automatically less effective... I know that every time that whites join a black organization, you watch, pretty soon... a black may be up front with a title, but the whites, because of their money, are the real controllers.

What can we White people do, to be and do better? It's possible to get stuck in guilt, when we reflect on how we can aid and abet racism despite our best intentions. It's also tempting, while reflecting on this, to outright disengage from anti-racist efforts; and at times, we White people do need to step back, since our very presence can (as Malcolm X reminds us) automatically render BIPOC-led efforts less effective. And we should definitely remove ourselves when we're told that we're actively harming BIPOC activists.

White activists won't, however, help matters by completely and permanently disengaging from the movement. We also won't help by self-flagellating-especially publicly, which puts a lot of pressure on the injured people to provide forgiveness and absolution. There is no perfect science to knowing when to step up and step back, but we have a responsibility to keep trying to show up when it's helpful to the movement, and to step back when it's not.

The study I cited above from Gorski and Erakat suggests that White activists can improve by "policing one another around concerns related to credit- and spotlight-grabbing behaviors (such as coopting the ideas of activists of color) so activists of color do not need to expend energy doing so." We must hold each other accountable to this, and we must fight the kneejerk defensiveness that so often comes when anyone-fellow White people included-try to hold us accountable. Inviting others to give us direct feedback (and sharing how they can do that easily) is a good first step here, and in that spirit, please always feel free to email us, readingwhilewhite@gmail.com. We must remember, also, that asking fellow White people to hold us accountable should not be an excuse to ignore or dismiss BIPOC people when they do choose to expend energy to hold us accountable, feedback to which we are not entitled but for which we should be grateful.

We can also correct ourselves and each other when we start to subtly usurp and take control of BIPOC-led organizations, as Malcolm X warns is our default. Making finances, funding, and decision-making processes in organizations transparent, and making transparency the norm, can help; we also must listen and act when BIPOC people voice concerns about White leadership or processes. Patterns of BIPOC leaving organizations are almost always a signal that something is rotten in the White culture of that organization, and when we notice such patterns, we must self-examine and ask for help and education from our White friends and community. And above all, when we're made aware that we're impeding anti-racist efforts, we must remove ourselves, and commit to change and accountability, before we continue to inflict harm on BIPOC activists and weaken the movement overall.

Gorski and Erakat also advise White activists to "prioritize movement goals over their needs for recognition and validation." Putting this into practice is easier said than done. Many White people are drawn to anti-racist work entirely for ego- or profit-based reasons; maybe a few are drawn to the work for entirely pure reasons and don't care about recognition at all. But most of us fall somewhere in between (I include myself in that group). I need to learn, and practice, checking my ego (and letting others check my ego). We White people need to help each other actually do that work of prioritizing movement goals over egos-and this involves having very clear goals, as well as people we trust to hold us accountable.
(A quick N.B.: This language-"prioritize movement goals over your need for recognition and validation"-should never be used as an excuse to give men credit for the work of women and nonbinary people, to give cisgender or heterosexual people credit for LGBTQIA+ work, to give nondisabled people credit for disabled work, or to justify oppression of any other intersecting identity.)

We must also work on doing the flipside of all this. In addition to giving full credit to BIPOC people for BIPOC ideas and work, we need to work to take responsibility for White-owned and White-originated mistakes, harm, and damage. This means making apologies that don't ring hollow, taking action to correct the damage we've done, and working to prevent similar mistakes in the future. This means we openly and eagerly educate fellow White people about our own mistakes, rather than covering them up from each other in an effort to be the best White person in the group.

Dr. Jiménez told us, three years ago, that one of the most useful things we can do at Reading While White is to pass the mic. We have to do a better job of passing that mic, and talk internally often about how we can do better (we're always open to criticism and suggestions on this subject, as well). Our White readers can also play a role in this, by making sure that you hear what our BIPOC colleagues have to say when we do pass the mic. Read our kindred spirits, and read them before you read us. We make it a point to link to BIPOC articles, essays, and blog posts as often as we can-click through those and read them. If it means you have to stop reading us so you can read them, please read them. Like them more than you like us on social media. Amplify them more than you amplify us. And when they call upon you to take action, listen to them. Don't wait for us to say "don't promote books with anthropomorphic monkeys"-believe Edi Campbell when she says it herself.

I'm sorry to Dr. Jiménez-I shouldn't have erased your work. All of us at RWW are grateful that Dr. Jiménez encouraged us to acknowledge and examine that act; it's given us a chance to reflect and learn. And in the spirit of this work, we hope that these reflections are useful to you, too.

-Allie Jane Bruce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A note about the following: I wrote this post several months ago. It was originally scheduled to publish Thursday March 12; we decided not to post it then because the night before, COVID-19 news swept the nation and all attention was focused there.

# data[].attributes.headline
American Indians in Children's Literature

# data[].attributes.subject
American Indians in Children's Literature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American Indians in Children's Literature (AICL)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Designed to help readers develop a critical eye about representations of American Indians in children's and young adult books