Seeing the chamber pot

I was recently asked to write about a memory of my mentor and friend Buzz Alexander for a book being compiled for his upcoming birthday.  (I don't believe he reads this blog so I'm not worried about it spoiling the surprise!)  Buzz is the founder of the Prison Creative Arts Project (PCAP), whose mission is to collaborate with incarcerated adults, incarcerated youth, urban youth and the formerly incarcerated to strengthen our community through creative expression.  I know them as the organization that gave me the gift of being a part of workshops working with women in a prison and girls in a juvenile detention center to create theater art.

Here is my Buzz memory.  Happy birthday, Buzz.

I can't remember the exact moment I first met Buzz Alexander, but I do know that by the time I met him, he'd already been way talked up by my friends Megan and Molly.  And he definitely exceeded expectations, which is usually hard to do. 

I had just joined PCAP for the summer, since I had found out I didn't need to be a University of Michigan student to join in a training session to lead workshops in Michigan prisons and juvenile detention centers.  Molly and Megan told me all about their experiences and I knew I wanted in.  I participated in an orientation and training session and the next step was to shadow an existing workshop and I would then be assigned my own workshop as a co-facilitator for the summer season.

For my shadowing session--the first time I'd ever entered a prison and the first time experiencing a PCAP workshop, I had the good fortune of being placed with Buzz and Suzanne's group, and then I think someone dropped out or they needed a third person for some other reason and... I got to stay in their group, in addition to working with another workshop at Vista Maria.  It was incredible. 

I experienced not only what I'd expected--Buzz as skilled workshop facilitator, but also all of the less tangible things.  The things you can't learn from reading a handout or hearing someone lecture.  I witnessed the care Buzz showed and enacted with each and every participant in our workshop.  The way he clearly demonstrated that none of us was better than another, whether we were incarcerated or not, whether we were "leading" the workshop or "participating" and no matter our gender, race, class or age.  We were all participants and all bringing genuine pieces of ourselves to the work.  This experience has influenced me in everything I've done since.

During that summer workshop, the play "Urinalysis" came into being.  The play focused on a group of aging people in a nursing home who realize their urine was being secretly collected and sold to a manufacturing plant, after the head of the home stumbled upon it's value as a radioactive fuel.  The nursing home residents quickly realized they were being exploited and given no part of the proceeds.   It was hilarious.  It was allegorical.  It was deep.  And most importantly, it was good. 

On the day before the play was to be performed in the prison rec room for other prisoners and a few select people from outside the prison, we found out the warden was reversing a ruling that we could bring in props, all of which had been meticulously sorted and approved by the prison.  We faced a dilemma of what to do.  We'd planned on those props and rehearsed with them in mind, from mumus to chamber pots.  Could the show go on? 

No one who has ever been involved in PCAP will be surprised to hear that of course the show went on.  And it went on stronger and ever more heartfelt.  There was a sense of emotion in the air from all of us performing that day because we knew we were creating together.  We could all see the mumus and chamber pots and I feel confident our audience could too.

And this is what Buzz is all about.  The ability to inspire each of us to bring the pieces of ourselves to the fore who can see the chamber pot even when systems of oppression have taken them away.

Thank you Buzz.  And happy birthday!

With love,
Heidi Rosbe (PCAP, summer of 2004)

Clap your hands if you believe in international law

We in the United States appear to be hurtling fast down the proverbial slippery slope of what is consider OK.  Torture, extrajudicial imprisonment, and now the recent leak of a memo on the use of drones for targeted killings of suspected terrorists, including those with American citizenship.  I remember my very first class in graduate school was International Law and our first assignment was to read John Bolton's critique which basically said "there is no international law."  While I am no Bolton fan, I understand his point--a legal system is only as good as both it's buy in from the governing body and a mechanism of enforcement, both of which have increasingly been called into question.  However,  on the contrary, there's actually a strong case to be made for international law and for its existence.  Those of you who believe in fairies, clap your hands. Because believing in it, in many respects, makes it so.

We, at least in many countries including the United States, live in a world in which it there is general consensus even around rules during war, a time when moral codes seem even more likely to break down.  It is generally deemed illegal to take prisoners and starve them or kill them.  It is broadly seen as illegal to rape, to take slaves, and to kidnap people and transport them across international borders.  There is an increasing understanding that it is the right of all people in the world to food, to safety and to a nationality.  And you would be hard pressed to find Americans who would argue against these fundamental nature of these rights.  Believe it or not, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is part of our collective psyche.  Not for all people, and not for all Americans.  But for most.

So why is it that our government continues to turns its back on these basic rights and basic rules, whether you call them "international law" or not.  And why does the populace who at this point can no longer claim any credible modicum of ignorance, not rise up to demand a return to our agreed-upon ethics?   The answer is clear--fear, and with it, the buzz word security.  Anything in the name of security.  We are willing to set aside our principles if we believe it is in the interest of security.

Now, I understand.  And I understand the debate, for example, over torture that has come to the fore again with the Hollywood hit Zero, Dark Thirty.  I understand the feeling of being torn over use of torture. It's horrible what happens to those men. But what if that torture saves the lives of my children?  But at what cost?  Do we want to live in a world where our actions as a nation sanction torture of American citizens upon capture?  Do we want to live in a world where there are now international laws, or generally agreed up codes of action?  Do we want to live in a world in which human rights are eroded to the point of nonexistence?

In large part, the American government has in fact acted believing in fairies.  We make terrible, reprehensible missteps every day, but on the whole--and yes I'm going to say it--the United States has also serves as a leader in setting a human rights agenda worldwide.  And we could be doing so much more.  I hear in the back of my head, the litany of abuses by the US government and a chorus of those who would argue, not incorrectly, that much of our work on human rights globally has been simply political posturing.  But I'm not willing to throw out the good with the sometimes bad intentions.  And I look forward to the day when a memo is leaking demonstrating how the US government legal team determined torture and targeted killing are illegal.  And when there's no longer a debate about whether or not international law exists.

Women and issues in the international forum

The New York Times came out with an article today "The Internationalization of Women's Issues". In the article Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile and current executive director of UN Women, is quoted as saying: "Women issues are world issues... Today there is greater awareness than ever before that women’s full participation is essential for peace, democracy and sustainable development." What does it mean to frame "women's issues" as "world issues"? And is there a difference between "women's issues" and "women issues"?  Bachelet may have misspoken or been misquoted but may can also be a distinction here: the difference between issues that are only relevant to women and issues that are related to women but relevant to all.

Take the issue of violence against women or femicide. Increasingly, groups of women and men are speaking out against it. This is evident in the reaction in India against the recent brutal gang rape of a young college student in Delhi. And crucial work is being done in Jordan by journalist Rana Husseini, who has made incredible strides in educating both women and young men--who are often called upon by their families to commit the acts of violence--about rights and laws, teaming up with local imams to spread the message.

What will we herald next year as we usher in 2014? Perhaps that we no longer need to even have this conversation, because it is a given that women issues are issues of importance to all.