A few days ago Scott Woods wrote a think piece on the “inherent problem with slam poetry.” I want to say from the start that I don’t know Scott (except for a few obligatory “what’s up, black” head nods at Nationals from back in the day), and that this piece is not an attack on him. This article is not so much a direct response to his think piece but rather a reflection on the subject he touched upon: the problem with slam poetry these days. One of the issues that Woods discussed in his article is the appropriation of marginalized voices by white male poets. Woods challenged white male poets to represent themselves in an honest light and not to play hero in an attempt to score points with Slam audiences. While the “I’m not a bad guy” card is a definite problem in the slam poetry community, it is hardly the only problem in the performance poetry game.

First I want to explore some real and concrete examples of what I and many poets consider inappropriate and inexcusable appropriation. A few months ago a poet in Seattle ran a poem appropriating the voice of a raped woman. I was not there to hear the poem but everyone that I talked with in the community reported the same thing, that it was a repulsive display of male privilege. Poets in the community spoke with the male poet, explained why the poem was offensive and inappropriate, and he still disregarded the views of others and later performed the poem at an event (where he was rightfully crucified on stage). The poem had nothing to do with the experience of the poet; he simply thought that he could tell this story through the lens of a woman better than a woman. Arrogance and insensitivity personified.

Another blatant example of appropriation is the infamous story of Michael Derek Hudson, who adopted an Asian pseudonym to get a poem published. Both of these acts are prime examples of stealing, appropriation, and even using art to intentionally hurt other people. This is the type of appropriation that men and Caucasians frequently engage in that is both dangerous and problematic. I can’t read minds, but I think most poets would agree that this kind of appropriation is purposefully and recklessly harmful.

Policing art is another dangerous practice. Indeed verbal censorship is in direct contrast to the spirit of poetry. Slam poetry was not built on telling people what they could and couldn’t write about. Slam poetry damn sure wasn’t built to be a platform for limiting free speech. The first sentence in the slam spiel tells us what slam is “a competition” started by Marc Smith (from what I know, a white cis gendered male) in the 1980s. So what? I repeat SLAM is a competition.

Now in every game there are rules and honor codes. I as a poet strive never to purposely appropriate someone else’s voice or intentionally cause someone pain with my words, because I want to do whats right and not harm people I care about. I’m not willing to support any movement, however, with well-defined subject lanes that every poet must stay in. I am not willing to say that only poets of color can talk about racism and only women can talk about sexism and rape culture. I’m not willing to say that skinny poets can’t talk about fat shaming. I do want to be clear Woods did not take this position in his piece, but I know that there are poets who do hold this view in the slam community.

Woods is absolutely right — many white male poets are only doing political poems to win slams. You know who else does poems about race, gender, and sexuality to win slams? Everyone. We say it’s not the points, but that’s the biggest lie in slam poetry. Don’t get me wrong, I love the community and I have started lifelong friendships, found mentors and peers, and met beautiful people from many walks of life, but there’s at least a little bit of glory/attention/affirmation-seeking in any poet who gets on that stage time and time again. We love the applause, the cash, the reassurance, the hugs, the features, the personal affirmation, and of course those lucrative chapbooks sales. But on a serious note, poets of color often perform poems on race if we have several judges of color or in front of an all white crowd when we know it will give us an advantage. We’re supposed to do what works (within the confines of not doing intentional harm). Or am I the only one that checks out the racial and gender dynamics of judges before a bout?

Slam is art.

And it’s a game.

Art doesn’t belong to people of a particular gender, race, or creed.

Art can be radical, but it doesn’t belong to radicals.

Two dangerous censorship movements come to mind that have infected the slam poetry community: the first view is that only certain poets can do certain poems and the other view is that only poets that agree with us should be welcome. My view is if a white poet gets up and does a dope piece in favor of Donald Trump and kills it, if I’m a judge on that night, I’m giving it a 9.7. If a poet that I agree with politically throws a mediocre BLM poem, 8.4 tops. You don’t deserve a 30 on a poem because you did a poem about something bad that happened to you. You don’t deserve a 30 on a poem because you did a poem about something bad that happened to all of us. The fact that the audience didn’t respond well to your poem doesn’t necessarily mean that patriarchy or white supremacy is running amok among the judges. Maybe you’re bad at storytelling.

To cite an earlier example, you may feel that the 100-pound poet doesn’t have the right to do a poem about fat shaming. But you don’t know how much that person used to weigh. You may ask, “why the hell is this white female poet lamenting that young men of color are not safe,” or “why is she exploiting our pain to score points,” with no idea that she has a husband or son of color and her fear is just as real as any of ours. We don’t know what’s in anyone’s heart or mind, so we should stop jumping at every chance to be offended. Boring, appropriating white males have hurt spoken word, but poets from marginalized communities playing the thought police are hurting art too.

It is a widely held opinion in the slam community that race and gender are socially constructed and yet so many of those same people will turn around and tell someone that they can’t do a poem because their race or gender doesn’t line up with the subject matter of the poem. Yes, the slam community should be a safe space from rape culture, institutional sexism, racism, and identity oppression. No one challenges this. Slam should not be a place, however, where most of our energy is focused on policing content. If you’re a man of color, and a white woman from the hills of Tennessee runs a better Nat Turner poem than you, don’t get mad. Get back to the damn lab.

If you enjoyed this piece, please check out my latest post: