Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
The Waterbearers
Camille Billops
This excerpt from the Waterbearers by Sasha Bonét tells part of the story of artist and filmmaker Camille Billops. Told as a series of “tributaries”, the Waterbearers is a transformative work of American storytelling that reimagines not just how we think of Black women, but how we think of ourselves—as individuals, parents, communities, and a country. Published September 2025 by Penguin Random House.
Tributary #88
I
In 1961 at six o’clock on a spring morning in Los Angeles a group of Black women convene at the middle-class home of the family matriarch. There was probably tea and hushed whispers so as to not wake the child who rested in the next room. With all of their morning responsibilities abandoned and hair still tied back in rollers beneath silk scarves, they’ve gathered to convince one member of their tribe not to give her four-year-old child up for adoption. As they heard a car door shut in the driveway, one of the women peeped through the closed curtains to confirm the arrival of the member in question. Twenty-seven-year-old single mother Camille Billops entered, stoic and searching for her daughter, Christa Victoria. If, in fact, she housed any shame or doubt inside of her, there was no evidence of this on Camille’s being. The women—her mother, her mother’s sisters, and a few cousins—all made dibs on the child, as if she were up for auction. The strongest offers were that of Camille’s sister Billie and her mother, Alma, who had raised the child up until this point while Camille studied art and childhood education for physically handicapped children at Los Angeles State College at night and worked at the local bank during the day. Alma, too old and too tired, and Billie, married to a man whom Camille was suspicious of being unpredictable and unfit. “I’m going to take her. She’s mine,” Camille said, “and there’s nothing any of you can do about it.” Known for her smart mouth and uncompromising nature, Camille woke Christa up and walked her to the black Volkswagen Beetle and drove directly to the Children’s Home Society of California. She let go of Christa’s hand and told her to go to the bathroom; when Christa returned, searching for her mother, she looked out of the window, grasping her small teddy bear, and watched the black Bug drive away.
Camille had met Christa’s father, Stanford, through a mutual friend and their brief yet intense courtship ended abruptly. Stanford, a tall striking lieutenant in the US Air Force was stationed in California. A few months into their relationship Camille was pregnant, despite her realization at the age of ten that she didn’t want to be a mother, but abortions weren’t legal in California until 1969. If they were going to do this, they had to do it traditionally, and Stanford consented. Five hundred shotgun-wedding invitations went out and before the guests received them by mail, he was gone. Camille called around searching for him and the Air Force informed her of his military discharge. When Christa was born on December 12, 1956, Camille received a postcard, “Wishing you well, Love Stanford,” with no return address. He continued these cruel communications for years until he mistakenly wrote his return address; he was living in New York City on Pitt Street. With three-year-old Christa on her hip, Camille booked a flight across the country and sat on the stoop waiting for him to arrive home. Stanford pulled up in a Cadillac convertible, wearing sunglasses and a slight smile. He greeted them like old friends. Invited them in for beverages and shortly after showed them to the door, wishing them both all the best. Camille never saw him again. Christa reunited with this stranger three decades later and asked him if he was her father, and he replied, “I suppose so,” to which she said, “I’m glad we got that squared away.”
II
Was it in this moment that Camille decided to abandon motherhood? Or was it many moments that led to her dropping Christa off and speeding away? Christa, along with Camille’s family, believe it was an affair she was having with a White man named James Hatch. Her stepsister Josie was his student at UCLA in the theater department in 1959, and she introduced Camille and Jim. Knowing that Camille was single, she said, “He’s ready.” Camille was teaching then in the public school system and making ceramics at home. She asked Hatch to come over and take a look at her pots and he asked her to audition for a play he cowrote with UCLA colleague C. Bernard Jackson inspired by the Greensboro, North Carolina, student sit-ins, Fly Blackbird. She was never quite as good at acting as she had hoped and was selected for the chorus, but she was onstage at the Metropolitan Theater in LA. Jim was the first person to tell Camille she was a good artist. “I will always love him for that,” she says. His support provided her with permission to be whoever she pleased in any given moment, even if that meant not being pretty, what her family said a woman must be at all costs. This introduced Camille to a new way of being. A world of artists and activists, organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, who began protesting school segregation and Black oppression. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Camille was the mistress of a White man who believed in her, and despite Los Angeles being on the precipice of the Watts Uprising, she was not deterred by the vile language and glares thrown at them by strangers. Camille began slowly shedding the cultural influences of middle-class Black America. Her parents had come to California during the Great Migration, like many Southern Blacks who moved west in search of opportunity and the possibility of providing their family with security from the violence inflicted on Black bodies. In LA they worked in service to White folks, therefore it wasn’t necessarily work that they couldn’t attain in the South, it was their dignity. Her father, Luscious, from Texas, was a cook and her mother, Alma, from South Carolina, was a domestic and seamstress. However, escaping the South in physicality doesn’t remove the emotional traumas of being Black in America; their White ideals were held firmly intact and their Southern traditions folded neatly within. Whiteness was still seen as superior in eloquence and refinement and the Billopses would emulate this in their home, for appearances’ sake, but when the burlap curtains closed at night, Luscious drank like a fish until he passed out and his wife carried him to bed each night. Alma bestowed these beliefs of Black female servitude on her two daughters, and they consented, but the youngest child will always rebel, and for Camille, Jim was the catalyst. She had been taught that motherhood and womanhood were inextricable. If you were not a mother, then what would you be? Mother is to be a woman’s highest title, and anything that takes precedence, even your own dream, is deemed selfish. Images of Camille with baby Christa show a polished and respectable young lady with permed hair and slicked-down edges. But in the images with Jim, you can see the physical transformation. She cuts off her permed roller set curls and has a small perfectly picked Afro. The hairs along her top lip thicken and grow wildly, untamed. Camille preferred to be called artist, not mama. She had never allowed Christa to call her Mama, she was to call her Bootsie, like all of her closest friends and family. Jim also suspected that Camille was giving up Christa for him and offered just enough discouragement to absolve himself of responsibility, “Don’t give Christa up for me.” When Jim was offered a Fulbright appointment to teach at the High Institute of Cinema in Cairo, Egypt, the center of the 1960s Pan-African movement that brought over many young American artists and activists like Maya Angelou and Malcolm X, he asked Camille to come visit before his wife and kids arrived, and without hesitation she went. But before departing Cairo, she told him she would not return unless he left his wife and children. “He met me at the airport and his wife left,” she says, “we chose each other and entered into another life. That’s when the world opened.”
In Cairo, Camille began experimenting with sculpture and her first solo exhibition at Gallerie Akhenaton was a small collection of ceramic pots and sculptures of those close to her, like Jim, who would serve as her constant muse, benefactor, and advocate. Their intimacy and artistry were to always exist intertwined given the racially charged political unrest that they protested in their life and through their creations. They dared to love each other in a time when interracial relationships were still considered criminal in the United States. Their first collaboration was a book of poetry called Poems for Niggers and Crackers, published in Cairo in 1965, with poems written by Jim and American poet Ibrahim Ibn Ismail; Camille created the illustrations. Driven by all that she had sacrificed, Camille explored any medium she could get her hands on, photography, painting, printmaking, and eventually film, which would be her most critically acclaimed work. She spent many years creating and showing work in Egypt, Germany, and China before returning to her homeland after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, to find her own countrymen not so welcoming to Black women artists. They settled into New York City’s East Village where the Armenian American English professor and author Leo Hamalian helped Jim secure a teaching position in theater at City College while Camille taught ceramics there. As with all great artists, there comes a time when you must turn inward and begin dissecting yourself, to become the subject of your own examination. This led Camille into filmmaking.
III
Camille tells me:
“I was with all of the various Nigga bitches. Emma Amos, Faith Ringgold, Elizabeth Catlett. They had Black night at museums like the Whitney where they would let us in the building but not show our work. We were fighting so hard to get into the Brooklyn Museum and they wouldn’t let us in. So we said, well fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I said, you know what, I’m making my own way. So we bought this big-ass loft a long time ago when it was cheap. I told Jim, why don’t we buy a loft, and we did it. Jim had most of the money. I had a little something to contribute. I told him I wanted my name on it, and he said okay, so we got married. We are all we have. I would have never ended up being a working artist if it weren’t for him. His favorite words were ‘Why not?’ and ‘Yes you can.’ We created a library space, a studio in the back, an archive, and the dining area is where we host salons for our publication Artist and Influence. Every Black artist of our time has sat right here in this living room, and we recorded it all—bell hooks, Julie Dash, Amiri Baraka, all the Niggas. We invited everybody here: friends, students, and White gallerists and curators. We sold art right off our walls. I stopped begging a long time ago when I discovered I could sell art without having to kiss booty. These alternatives made it possible. Bob Blackburn was very helpful, he taught me printmaking. There were many artists that I met at the print shop while I was working, like Romi [Romare Bearden]. This is what you do when people don’t let you into their playground. We did it out of defiance. I always did whatever I wanted to do.
“In the early ’80s Christa found me. It was a great shock to me. She sent a letter and a cassette tape with a song, asking me if I would see her. She was twenty-something. I was scared because I had already learned how to live with my guilt about giving her up. I wasn’t trying to come out from beneath the water. I was never a very good mother. I did what was best for both of us. I was twenty-three and I hardly saw her when she was little, she was always with my sister Billie or my mama. Mothers are supposed to protect, and the only way I could do that was by giving her up. I didn’t see this as feminist then, I just knew I wanted to reverse it, I wanted to be free of motherhood. I agreed to meet with her. Jim really liked her, and they got on. Naturally, she was an artist like me, it’s in her blood. When I started making films, she helped us. You can hear her voice singing on the opening scene of Suzanne, Suzanne about my niece’s drug addiction and her abusive father. People wasn’t talking about domestic violence back then. Our films had a tendency toward dirty laundry, they say it like it is, not like it’s supposed to be. It was hard enough being Black so everyone wanted to appear perfect, keep up appearances, you know. My sister wanted to take Christa but I didn’t trust my brother-in-law, Suzanne’s father. Her adopted mother, Margaret, was fabulous, a jazz singer. She was the little ship that helped me sail the dangerous night. Then we made the film Finding Christa. Christa stayed here with us for a while when we were making the film and then she moved to New York to study, so I could help her become a singer. We were always fighting because she wanted me to feel guilty. She kept asking me why I gave her away. It was always verbally violent, and guilt-ridden. I was all kinds of bitches to her. She wasn’t easy. I tried to explain to her that I didn’t want to be a mother. But it was complicated. Jim says we were too much alike. She’s a Sagittarius and I’m a Leo, too much fire. She was a star in Finding Christa. People say I show no remorse in the film, they say I’m cold, but if I had to do it again I would. I know I made the right decision, wouldn’t change a thing. Well, the only thing I would do differently would be to give her up earlier. But it was hard. Her father disappearing on me was a gift, otherwise if he had stayed, I would have just endured, that’s what Black women did in my family, endured. Christa was a very good actress, and this was a part of our competitiveness. She took up space in a way that was threatening to me. This caused a big friction when she was staying with us. Adoptees have what they call ‘the great wound,’ and it would always come back to, ‘Why did you throw me away?’ She would come and stay here and see everything that we have built and turn to me and ask, ‘Why wasn’t I here? Why wasn’t I a part of this?’ Jim welcomed her with open arms. But I didn’t like her taking up so much space here. I would correct her and let her know, ‘This ain’t your place. You don’t own this.’ She was even beginning to claim the film, saying it was her film. I said, ‘Now wait a minute, you didn’t shoot that film. I shot that film. I cut that film.’ She wanted to be a filmmaker but want and spit are two different things. Yeah, so I suppose there was some essence of competitiveness. She was difficult, I was difficult. We had an argument and then she walked out one day. Then one day she returned. It didn’t last. It became argumentative again. Then she left again in 2013. We didn’t talk again. I let it go. She had become ill and had to have an operation. Then she needed another one and she said she wouldn’t have it. She killed herself by not taking that operation. I wasn’t invited to the funeral. When she died somebody called to tell me. Who was it that called me? I don’t remember. It was early in the morning. Like a blast from the furnace. You have to stand very still and face it. Then I had to bury it. Jim and I both. And that was it. It has to have a place. I’ve accepted the guilt. I will carry it with me forever. Sometimes I feel her when I am working.”
IV
Before Christa’s death she shared a letter on her Facebook page in 2014 titled “Given up Twice—Is It All Worth It?” In the letter she speaks about calling her stepfather, Jim, on Father’s Day 2013 and Camille also picking up a receiver in a different room and abruptly hanging up when Christa announced herself. Half an hour after the call Christa receives an email from Jim stating that she should never call or visit their home again. Christa suspects that this email was written by Camille, as it contains a “callous” brashness that isn’t indicative of Jim’s character toward her. The email stated that both Jim and Camille were “cutting all communications” with her, including “telephone, letters, on the internet and personal appearances on the tai chi court,” as she was causing too many disruptions in their lives. The email was signed by Jim and sent from his account, but the statement “four-year-old child continues to protest her mother’s decision for giving her up” were words that she had heard endlessly from her biological mother. Christa never spoke to Camille again, but after seeing a therapist, she concluded that Camille was uncomfortable with Christa’s intimate relationship with Jim. Thirty-two years after reuniting, Christa was dismissed. This three-thousand-word letter is filled with discreet anger, confusion, hurt that reads like a muffled scream into the abyss of social media. She signed the letter, “Christa Victoria (my name since birth).”
In the film Finding Christa, which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, making Camille the first Black woman producer/director to be awarded this prize, Christa says that she felt like an octopus, wanting to extend all parts of herself around the woman who birthed her, but Camille felt like a cactus, sharp and defensive. Christa also states that meeting her birth mother and biological family saved her life, but one may consider their final split to be the event that led to her demise. Camille challenged assumptions about what a Black middle-class woman had to be and chose her artistry above all else; despite her family’s beliefs that she chose Jim, she was choosing herself. To assume that Camille prioritized her relationship with her life partner seems misplaced and in contradiction to her radical act, which was to choose herself even when everything around her said that her purpose was to serve, soothe, and comfort, a rejection to the concept of Mammy.
Camille’s genius lay in her ability to imagine Black futures in a country that did not value Black life and the expression of that life through art. Before Roe v. Wade, before the Loving v. Virginia ruling, she made decisions that seemed improbable.
The future that Camille envisioned was one that benefited the well-being and advancement of not just one individual being that she birthed but an entire generation of artists and scholars who were nourished by her contributions as an artist and archivist. Christa, unfortunately, was a casualty in Camille’s ambitious defiance.

{
"article":
{
"title" : "The Waterbearers: Camille Billops",
"author" : "Sasha Bonét",
"category" : "excerpts",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-waterbearers-camille-billops",
"date" : "2025-09-08 10:04:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Camille-and-Christa.jpg",
"excerpt" : "This excerpt from the Waterbearers by Sasha Bonét tells part of the story of artist and filmmaker Camille Billops. Told as a series of “tributaries”, the Waterbearers is a transformative work of American storytelling that reimagines not just how we think of Black women, but how we think of ourselves—as individuals, parents, communities, and a country. Published September 2025 by Penguin Random House.",
"content" : "This excerpt from the Waterbearers by Sasha Bonét tells part of the story of artist and filmmaker Camille Billops. Told as a series of “tributaries”, the Waterbearers is a transformative work of American storytelling that reimagines not just how we think of Black women, but how we think of ourselves—as individuals, parents, communities, and a country. Published September 2025 by Penguin Random House.Tributary #88IIn 1961 at six o’clock on a spring morning in Los Angeles a group of Black women convene at the middle-class home of the family matriarch. There was probably tea and hushed whispers so as to not wake the child who rested in the next room. With all of their morning responsibilities abandoned and hair still tied back in rollers beneath silk scarves, they’ve gathered to convince one member of their tribe not to give her four-year-old child up for adoption. As they heard a car door shut in the driveway, one of the women peeped through the closed curtains to confirm the arrival of the member in question. Twenty-seven-year-old single mother Camille Billops entered, stoic and searching for her daughter, Christa Victoria. If, in fact, she housed any shame or doubt inside of her, there was no evidence of this on Camille’s being. The women—her mother, her mother’s sisters, and a few cousins—all made dibs on the child, as if she were up for auction. The strongest offers were that of Camille’s sister Billie and her mother, Alma, who had raised the child up until this point while Camille studied art and childhood education for physically handicapped children at Los Angeles State College at night and worked at the local bank during the day. Alma, too old and too tired, and Billie, married to a man whom Camille was suspicious of being unpredictable and unfit. “I’m going to take her. She’s mine,” Camille said, “and there’s nothing any of you can do about it.” Known for her smart mouth and uncompromising nature, Camille woke Christa up and walked her to the black Volkswagen Beetle and drove directly to the Children’s Home Society of California. She let go of Christa’s hand and told her to go to the bathroom; when Christa returned, searching for her mother, she looked out of the window, grasping her small teddy bear, and watched the black Bug drive away.Camille had met Christa’s father, Stanford, through a mutual friend and their brief yet intense courtship ended abruptly. Stanford, a tall striking lieutenant in the US Air Force was stationed in California. A few months into their relationship Camille was pregnant, despite her realization at the age of ten that she didn’t want to be a mother, but abortions weren’t legal in California until 1969. If they were going to do this, they had to do it traditionally, and Stanford consented. Five hundred shotgun-wedding invitations went out and before the guests received them by mail, he was gone. Camille called around searching for him and the Air Force informed her of his military discharge. When Christa was born on December 12, 1956, Camille received a postcard, “Wishing you well, Love Stanford,” with no return address. He continued these cruel communications for years until he mistakenly wrote his return address; he was living in New York City on Pitt Street. With three-year-old Christa on her hip, Camille booked a flight across the country and sat on the stoop waiting for him to arrive home. Stanford pulled up in a Cadillac convertible, wearing sunglasses and a slight smile. He greeted them like old friends. Invited them in for beverages and shortly after showed them to the door, wishing them both all the best. Camille never saw him again. Christa reunited with this stranger three decades later and asked him if he was her father, and he replied, “I suppose so,” to which she said, “I’m glad we got that squared away.”IIWas it in this moment that Camille decided to abandon motherhood? Or was it many moments that led to her dropping Christa off and speeding away? Christa, along with Camille’s family, believe it was an affair she was having with a White man named James Hatch. Her stepsister Josie was his student at UCLA in the theater department in 1959, and she introduced Camille and Jim. Knowing that Camille was single, she said, “He’s ready.” Camille was teaching then in the public school system and making ceramics at home. She asked Hatch to come over and take a look at her pots and he asked her to audition for a play he cowrote with UCLA colleague C. Bernard Jackson inspired by the Greensboro, North Carolina, student sit-ins, Fly Blackbird. She was never quite as good at acting as she had hoped and was selected for the chorus, but she was onstage at the Metropolitan Theater in LA. Jim was the first person to tell Camille she was a good artist. “I will always love him for that,” she says. His support provided her with permission to be whoever she pleased in any given moment, even if that meant not being pretty, what her family said a woman must be at all costs. This introduced Camille to a new way of being. A world of artists and activists, organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, who began protesting school segregation and Black oppression. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Camille was the mistress of a White man who believed in her, and despite Los Angeles being on the precipice of the Watts Uprising, she was not deterred by the vile language and glares thrown at them by strangers. Camille began slowly shedding the cultural influences of middle-class Black America. Her parents had come to California during the Great Migration, like many Southern Blacks who moved west in search of opportunity and the possibility of providing their family with security from the violence inflicted on Black bodies. In LA they worked in service to White folks, therefore it wasn’t necessarily work that they couldn’t attain in the South, it was their dignity. Her father, Luscious, from Texas, was a cook and her mother, Alma, from South Carolina, was a domestic and seamstress. However, escaping the South in physicality doesn’t remove the emotional traumas of being Black in America; their White ideals were held firmly intact and their Southern traditions folded neatly within. Whiteness was still seen as superior in eloquence and refinement and the Billopses would emulate this in their home, for appearances’ sake, but when the burlap curtains closed at night, Luscious drank like a fish until he passed out and his wife carried him to bed each night. Alma bestowed these beliefs of Black female servitude on her two daughters, and they consented, but the youngest child will always rebel, and for Camille, Jim was the catalyst. She had been taught that motherhood and womanhood were inextricable. If you were not a mother, then what would you be? Mother is to be a woman’s highest title, and anything that takes precedence, even your own dream, is deemed selfish. Images of Camille with baby Christa show a polished and respectable young lady with permed hair and slicked-down edges. But in the images with Jim, you can see the physical transformation. She cuts off her permed roller set curls and has a small perfectly picked Afro. The hairs along her top lip thicken and grow wildly, untamed. Camille preferred to be called artist, not mama. She had never allowed Christa to call her Mama, she was to call her Bootsie, like all of her closest friends and family. Jim also suspected that Camille was giving up Christa for him and offered just enough discouragement to absolve himself of responsibility, “Don’t give Christa up for me.” When Jim was offered a Fulbright appointment to teach at the High Institute of Cinema in Cairo, Egypt, the center of the 1960s Pan-African movement that brought over many young American artists and activists like Maya Angelou and Malcolm X, he asked Camille to come visit before his wife and kids arrived, and without hesitation she went. But before departing Cairo, she told him she would not return unless he left his wife and children. “He met me at the airport and his wife left,” she says, “we chose each other and entered into another life. That’s when the world opened.”In Cairo, Camille began experimenting with sculpture and her first solo exhibition at Gallerie Akhenaton was a small collection of ceramic pots and sculptures of those close to her, like Jim, who would serve as her constant muse, benefactor, and advocate. Their intimacy and artistry were to always exist intertwined given the racially charged political unrest that they protested in their life and through their creations. They dared to love each other in a time when interracial relationships were still considered criminal in the United States. Their first collaboration was a book of poetry called Poems for Niggers and Crackers, published in Cairo in 1965, with poems written by Jim and American poet Ibrahim Ibn Ismail; Camille created the illustrations. Driven by all that she had sacrificed, Camille explored any medium she could get her hands on, photography, painting, printmaking, and eventually film, which would be her most critically acclaimed work. She spent many years creating and showing work in Egypt, Germany, and China before returning to her homeland after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, to find her own countrymen not so welcoming to Black women artists. They settled into New York City’s East Village where the Armenian American English professor and author Leo Hamalian helped Jim secure a teaching position in theater at City College while Camille taught ceramics there. As with all great artists, there comes a time when you must turn inward and begin dissecting yourself, to become the subject of your own examination. This led Camille into filmmaking.IIICamille tells me:“I was with all of the various Nigga bitches. Emma Amos, Faith Ringgold, Elizabeth Catlett. They had Black night at museums like the Whitney where they would let us in the building but not show our work. We were fighting so hard to get into the Brooklyn Museum and they wouldn’t let us in. So we said, well fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I said, you know what, I’m making my own way. So we bought this big-ass loft a long time ago when it was cheap. I told Jim, why don’t we buy a loft, and we did it. Jim had most of the money. I had a little something to contribute. I told him I wanted my name on it, and he said okay, so we got married. We are all we have. I would have never ended up being a working artist if it weren’t for him. His favorite words were ‘Why not?’ and ‘Yes you can.’ We created a library space, a studio in the back, an archive, and the dining area is where we host salons for our publication Artist and Influence. Every Black artist of our time has sat right here in this living room, and we recorded it all—bell hooks, Julie Dash, Amiri Baraka, all the Niggas. We invited everybody here: friends, students, and White gallerists and curators. We sold art right off our walls. I stopped begging a long time ago when I discovered I could sell art without having to kiss booty. These alternatives made it possible. Bob Blackburn was very helpful, he taught me printmaking. There were many artists that I met at the print shop while I was working, like Romi [Romare Bearden]. This is what you do when people don’t let you into their playground. We did it out of defiance. I always did whatever I wanted to do.“In the early ’80s Christa found me. It was a great shock to me. She sent a letter and a cassette tape with a song, asking me if I would see her. She was twenty-something. I was scared because I had already learned how to live with my guilt about giving her up. I wasn’t trying to come out from beneath the water. I was never a very good mother. I did what was best for both of us. I was twenty-three and I hardly saw her when she was little, she was always with my sister Billie or my mama. Mothers are supposed to protect, and the only way I could do that was by giving her up. I didn’t see this as feminist then, I just knew I wanted to reverse it, I wanted to be free of motherhood. I agreed to meet with her. Jim really liked her, and they got on. Naturally, she was an artist like me, it’s in her blood. When I started making films, she helped us. You can hear her voice singing on the opening scene of Suzanne, Suzanne about my niece’s drug addiction and her abusive father. People wasn’t talking about domestic violence back then. Our films had a tendency toward dirty laundry, they say it like it is, not like it’s supposed to be. It was hard enough being Black so everyone wanted to appear perfect, keep up appearances, you know. My sister wanted to take Christa but I didn’t trust my brother-in-law, Suzanne’s father. Her adopted mother, Margaret, was fabulous, a jazz singer. She was the little ship that helped me sail the dangerous night. Then we made the film Finding Christa. Christa stayed here with us for a while when we were making the film and then she moved to New York to study, so I could help her become a singer. We were always fighting because she wanted me to feel guilty. She kept asking me why I gave her away. It was always verbally violent, and guilt-ridden. I was all kinds of bitches to her. She wasn’t easy. I tried to explain to her that I didn’t want to be a mother. But it was complicated. Jim says we were too much alike. She’s a Sagittarius and I’m a Leo, too much fire. She was a star in Finding Christa. People say I show no remorse in the film, they say I’m cold, but if I had to do it again I would. I know I made the right decision, wouldn’t change a thing. Well, the only thing I would do differently would be to give her up earlier. But it was hard. Her father disappearing on me was a gift, otherwise if he had stayed, I would have just endured, that’s what Black women did in my family, endured. Christa was a very good actress, and this was a part of our competitiveness. She took up space in a way that was threatening to me. This caused a big friction when she was staying with us. Adoptees have what they call ‘the great wound,’ and it would always come back to, ‘Why did you throw me away?’ She would come and stay here and see everything that we have built and turn to me and ask, ‘Why wasn’t I here? Why wasn’t I a part of this?’ Jim welcomed her with open arms. But I didn’t like her taking up so much space here. I would correct her and let her know, ‘This ain’t your place. You don’t own this.’ She was even beginning to claim the film, saying it was her film. I said, ‘Now wait a minute, you didn’t shoot that film. I shot that film. I cut that film.’ She wanted to be a filmmaker but want and spit are two different things. Yeah, so I suppose there was some essence of competitiveness. She was difficult, I was difficult. We had an argument and then she walked out one day. Then one day she returned. It didn’t last. It became argumentative again. Then she left again in 2013. We didn’t talk again. I let it go. She had become ill and had to have an operation. Then she needed another one and she said she wouldn’t have it. She killed herself by not taking that operation. I wasn’t invited to the funeral. When she died somebody called to tell me. Who was it that called me? I don’t remember. It was early in the morning. Like a blast from the furnace. You have to stand very still and face it. Then I had to bury it. Jim and I both. And that was it. It has to have a place. I’ve accepted the guilt. I will carry it with me forever. Sometimes I feel her when I am working.”IVBefore Christa’s death she shared a letter on her Facebook page in 2014 titled “Given up Twice—Is It All Worth It?” In the letter she speaks about calling her stepfather, Jim, on Father’s Day 2013 and Camille also picking up a receiver in a different room and abruptly hanging up when Christa announced herself. Half an hour after the call Christa receives an email from Jim stating that she should never call or visit their home again. Christa suspects that this email was written by Camille, as it contains a “callous” brashness that isn’t indicative of Jim’s character toward her. The email stated that both Jim and Camille were “cutting all communications” with her, including “telephone, letters, on the internet and personal appearances on the tai chi court,” as she was causing too many disruptions in their lives. The email was signed by Jim and sent from his account, but the statement “four-year-old child continues to protest her mother’s decision for giving her up” were words that she had heard endlessly from her biological mother. Christa never spoke to Camille again, but after seeing a therapist, she concluded that Camille was uncomfortable with Christa’s intimate relationship with Jim. Thirty-two years after reuniting, Christa was dismissed. This three-thousand-word letter is filled with discreet anger, confusion, hurt that reads like a muffled scream into the abyss of social media. She signed the letter, “Christa Victoria (my name since birth).”In the film Finding Christa, which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, making Camille the first Black woman producer/director to be awarded this prize, Christa says that she felt like an octopus, wanting to extend all parts of herself around the woman who birthed her, but Camille felt like a cactus, sharp and defensive. Christa also states that meeting her birth mother and biological family saved her life, but one may consider their final split to be the event that led to her demise. Camille challenged assumptions about what a Black middle-class woman had to be and chose her artistry above all else; despite her family’s beliefs that she chose Jim, she was choosing herself. To assume that Camille prioritized her relationship with her life partner seems misplaced and in contradiction to her radical act, which was to choose herself even when everything around her said that her purpose was to serve, soothe, and comfort, a rejection to the concept of Mammy. Camille’s genius lay in her ability to imagine Black futures in a country that did not value Black life and the expression of that life through art. Before Roe v. Wade, before the Loving v. Virginia ruling, she made decisions that seemed improbable.The future that Camille envisioned was one that benefited the well-being and advancement of not just one individual being that she birthed but an entire generation of artists and scholars who were nourished by her contributions as an artist and archivist. Christa, unfortunately, was a casualty in Camille’s ambitious defiance."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "What We Can Learn from the Inuit Mapping of the Arctic",
"author" : "William Rankin",
"category" : "excerpts",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/inuit-mapping-arctic",
"date" : "2025-12-02 12:49:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover%20-%20Radical%20Cartography%20%5B9780525559795%5D.jpg",
"excerpt" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.",
"content" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.In 1994, the Berkeley geographer Bernard Nietschmann made a famous claim about the power of mapping in the global struggle for Indigenous rights. It was a claim about how the tools of historical oppression could be reclaimed by the oppressed: “More Indigenous territory has been claimed by maps than by guns. This assertion has its corollary: more Indigenous territory can be defended and reclaimed by maps than by guns.” The idea was that by putting themselves on the map—documenting their lives and their communities—Indigenous peoples would not be so easy to erase. Nietschmann was working in Central America, often heroically, during a time of violence and displacement, and he inspired a generation of researchers and activists interested in flipping the power structure of state-centric cartography on its head.But despite the spread of bottom-up mapping projects in the past 30 years, perhaps the most successful example of Indigenous mapping actually predates Nietschmann’s call to action. Just one year prior, in 1993, the Inuit of northern Canada signed a treaty creating the territory of Nunavut—the largest self-governing Indigenous territory in the world—and mapping was central to both the negotiation and the outcome. It remains one of the rare cases of Indigenous geographic knowledge decolonizing the world map.So why hasn’t the Inuit project been replicable elsewhere, despite decades more work on Indigenous mapping? The answer lies in the very idea of territory itself, and in particular in one of the most threatened parts of the Inuit landscape today: ice. The winter extent of Arctic sea ice reached a record low earlier this year, and a new low is predicted for the winter ahead. Yet the shrinking ice isn’t just an unshakable sign of Arctic warming; it’s also a poignant reminder of what Nietschmann got right—and what he missed—about the relationship between cartography and power. In particular, it shows how Inuit conceptions of space, place, and belonging are rooted in a dynamic, seasonal geography that’s often completely invisible on Western-style maps.The story begins in the 1970s, when the young Inuit leader Tagak Curley, today considered a “living father” of Nunavut, hired the Arctic anthropologist Milton Freeman to lead a collaborative mapping project of unprecedented scope and ambition. Freeman taught at McMaster University about an hour outside Toronto; he was white, but his wife, Mini Aodla Freeman, was Inuit (she was a translator and later a celebrated writer). Freeman assembled a team of other anthropologists and Arctic geographers—also white—to split the mapping into regions. They called their method the “map biography.” The goal was to capture the life history of every Inuit hunter in cartographic form, recording each person’s memories of where, at any point in their life, they had found roughly three dozen species of wildlife—from caribou and ptarmigan to beluga, narwhal, and seaweed. Each map biography would be a testimony of personal experience.After the mapping was split into regions, about 150 field-workers—almost all Inuit—traveled between 33 northern settlements with a stack of government-issued topographic maps to conduct interviews. Each hunter was asked to draw lines or shapes directly on the maps with colored pens or pencils. The interviewers stayed about 10 weeks in each settlement, visiting most hunters in their own homes, and the final participation rate was an astonishing 85 percent of all adult Inuit men. They collected 1,600 biographies in total, some on maps as large as 10 feet square.Then came the cartographers, back in Ontario: one professor and a team of about 15 students. The first map below (Figure 1) shows how the individual map biographies were transformed into summary maps, one for each community. For every species, the overlap of all hunters’ testimony became a single blob, and then blobs for all species were overlaid to make a complete map. The second map (Figure 2) shows one of the finished atlas pages along the Northwest Passage. The immediate impression is that the Arctic is in no way an empty expanse of barren land and unclaimed mineral riches. It is dense with human activity, necessary for personal and collective survival. The community maps combined to show almost uninterrupted Inuit presence stretching from northern Labrador to the Alaska border.Figure 1: Top left is a simplified version of a “map biography” from a single Inuit hunter, showing his birthplace and the places he hunted caribou, fox, wolf, grizzly bear, moose, and fish at various points in his life. (The original biography would have been drawn over a familiar government-issued topographic map.) The other three maps show how multiple biographies were then combined into patterned blobs for all hunters and all species. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Figure 2: A two-page spread from the finished atlas showing the seven kinds of animals hunted from the settlements of Igloolik and Hall Beach, in an area about 500 by 300 miles: caribou, polar bear, walrus, whale, fish, seal, and waterfowl. (Because of the large number of individual species recorded in the map biographies, some species were grouped together in the final maps.) The blobs are a strong, even overpowering figure atop an unusually subtle ground. Notice in particular how difficult it is to distinguish land and water areas, since the dark shading extends beyond coastlines even for individual species. This map in fact includes the Northwest Passage—the famous sea route around the tip of North America—but the crucial Fury and Hecla Strait (named after the two British ships that first learned of, but did not navigate, the passage in 1822) is almost entirely obscured. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Nothing about the cartography was meant to be subversive—or even controversial. For the cartographers, the only message was that the Inuit hunted a variety of species over large areas. But look again at the finished map in Figure 2. Yes, a foreground is layered over a background in the usual way, but the visual argument is strikingly different from a typical layered map in, say, a census atlas, where the foreground data doesn’t stray beyond crisp pre-existing borders. Here, in contrast, even the basic distinction between land and water is often obscure. The maps’ content is the facts of species and area; the maps’ argument is that Inuit culture is grounded in a substantially different understanding of territory than the one Western cartography was designed to show.As a result, this new atlas shifted the negotiations between the Inuit and the Canadian government decisively. Not only did the maps provide a legal claim to the Inuit-used land, documenting 750,000 square miles—an area the size of Mexico—but also a claim to the sea, showing an additional 325,000 square miles offshore.It took many years for the full implications to play out, but the erosion of the land–water boundary became central to the Inuit vision. At the time, wildlife on land was managed by the regional Northwest Territories government, while offshore marine species were the responsibility of centralized federal agencies. The Inuit used the atlas to win agreement for a new agency with equal responsibility over both. At the same time, the Inuit also improved their position by offering their offshore claims as evidence the Canadian government would use—not just in the 1980s, but even as recently as 2024—to resist foreign encroachment in the Northwest Passage. The final agreement in 1993 granted the Inuit $1.15 billion in cash, title to about 17 percent of the land in the “settlement area,” representation on several new management agencies, a share of all natural-resource revenue, broad hunting and fishing rights, and a promise that the territory of Nunavut would come into being on April 1, 1999.It’s easy to count this project as a success story, but it’s also important to remember that it depended both on the government’s own interest in negotiation and on the willingness of Indigenous peoples, or at least their leadership, to translate their sense of space onto a map, solidifying what had previously been fluid. It also meant abandoning claims to ancestral lands that had not been used in living experience and provoking new boundary disputes with neighboring, and previously amicable, Indigenous groups. These tradeoffs have led some scholars to critique mapping as only “drawing Indigenous peoples into a modern capitalist economy while maintaining the centrality of state power.” But for the Inuit, the alternatives seemed quite a bit worse.With the more recent proliferation of Indigenous mapping initiatives elsewhere—in Latin America, Africa, and Asia—the tradeoffs have been harder to evaluate. Most governments have shown little interest in addressing Indigenous claims, and when bottom-up mapping has been pushed instead by international nonprofits interested in environmental conservation, the downsides of mapping have often come without any of the upsides.Yet it’s not just the attitude of the state that’s been different; it’s also the cartography. In nearly all these other cases, the finished maps have shown none of the territorial inversion of the Inuit atlas. Instead, Indigenous knowledge is either overlaid on an existing base map in perfectly legible form, or it’s used to construct a new base map of a remarkably conventional sort, using the same visual vocabulary as Western maps.Did the Inuit project just show the data so clearly that its deeper implications were immediately apparent? No, not really, since the great irony here is that the cartographers were in fact quite dissatisfied. Follow-up surveys reached the conclusion that the atlas was only “moderately successful” by their usual mapmaking standards.The Inuit atlas was a kind of happy accident—one that doesn’t conform to any of the usual stories about Indigenous mapping, in Canada or elsewhere. The lesson here isn’t that maps should be as Indigenous as possible, or that they should be as orthodox as possible. These maps were neither. My take is simpler: the atlas shows that maps can, in fact, support alternative conceptions of space—and that showing space in a different way is crucial.The possibilities aren’t endless, but they’re broader than we might think. Plotting different sorts of data is a necessary step, but no less important are the relationships between that data and the assumptions of what lies below. For the Inuit, these assumptions were about land, water, and territory. These were in the background both visually and politically, and they were upstaged by an unexpectedly provocative foreground. The layers did not behave as they were meant to, and despite the tradeoffs, they allowed an Indigenous community to fight for their home and their way of life."
}
,
{
"title" : "Malcolm X and Islam: U.S. Islamophobia Didn’t Start with 9/11",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/malcolm-x-and-islam",
"date" : "2025-11-27 14:58:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/life-malcolm-3.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Anti-Muslim hate has been deeply engrained and intertwined with anti-Black racism in the United States for well over 60 years, far longer than most of us are taught or are aware.As the EIP team dug into design research for the new magazine format of our first anniversary issue, we revisited 1960s issues of LIFE magazine—and landed on the March 1965 edition, published just after the assassination of Malcolm X.The reporting is staggering in its openness: blatantly anti-Black and anti-Muslim in a way that normalizes white supremacy at its most fundamental level. The anti-Blackness, while horrifying, is not surprising. This was a moment when, despite the formal dismantling of Jim Crow, more than 10,000 “sundown towns” still existed across the country, segregation remained the norm, and racial terror structured daily life.What shocked our team was the nakedness of the anti-Muslim propaganda.This was not yet framed as anti-Arab in the way Western Islamophobia is often framed today. Arab and Middle Eastern people were not present in the narrative at all. Instead, what was being targeted was organized resistance to white supremacy—specifically, the adoption of Islam by Black communities as a source of political power, dignity, and self-determination. From this moment, we can trace a clear ideological line from anti-Muslim sentiment rooted in anti-Black racism in the 1960s to the anti-Arab, anti-MENA, and anti-SWANA racism that saturates Western culture today.The reporting leaned heavily on familiar colonial tropes: the implication of “inter-tribal” violence, the suggestion that resistance to white supremacy is itself a form of reverse racism or inherent aggression, and the detached, almost smug tone surrounding the violent death of a cultural leader.Of course, the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad represent only expressions within an immense and diverse global Muslim world—spanning Morocco, Sudan, the Gulf, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, and far beyond. Yet U.S. cultural and military power has long blurred these distinctions, collapsing complexity into a singular enemy image.It is worth naming this history clearly and connecting the dots: U.S. Islamophobia did not begin with 9/11. It is rooted in a much older racial project—one that has always braided anti-Blackness and anti-Muslim sentiment together in service of white supremacy, at home and abroad."
}
,
{
"title" : "The Billionaire Who Bought the Met Gala: What the Bezoses’ Check Means for Fashion’s Future",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-billionaire-who-bought-the-met-gala",
"date" : "2025-11-27 10:41:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_TBesos_MET_Galajpg.jpg",
"excerpt" : "On the morning of November 17, 2025, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos would serve as the sole lead sponsors of the 2026 Met Gala and its accompanying Costume Institute exhibition, “Costume Art”. Saint Laurent and Condé Nast were listed as supporting partners. To be clear, this is not a co-sponsorship. It is not “in association with.” It is the first time in the modern history of the gala that the headline slot, previously occupied by Louis Vuitton, TikTok, or a discreet old-money surname, has been handed to a tech billionaire and his wife. The donation amount remains undisclosed, but sources familiar with the negotiations place it comfortably north of seven figures, in line with the checks that helped the event raise $22 million last year.",
"content" : "On the morning of November 17, 2025, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos would serve as the sole lead sponsors of the 2026 Met Gala and its accompanying Costume Institute exhibition, “Costume Art”. Saint Laurent and Condé Nast were listed as supporting partners. To be clear, this is not a co-sponsorship. It is not “in association with.” It is the first time in the modern history of the gala that the headline slot, previously occupied by Louis Vuitton, TikTok, or a discreet old-money surname, has been handed to a tech billionaire and his wife. The donation amount remains undisclosed, but sources familiar with the negotiations place it comfortably north of seven figures, in line with the checks that helped the event raise $22 million last year.Within hours of the announcement, the Met’s Instagram post was overrun with comments proclaiming the gala “dead.” On TikTok and X, users paired declarations of late-stage capitalism with memes of the museum staircase wrapped in Amazon boxes. Not that this was unexpected. Anyone paying attention could see it coming for over a decade.When billionaires like Bezos, whose Amazon warehouses reported injury rates nearly double the industry average in 2024 and whose fashion supply chain has been linked to forced labor and poverty wages globally, acquire influence over prestigious institutions like the Met Museum through sponsorships, it risks commodifying fashion as a tool for not only personal but corporate image-laundering. To put it simply: who’s going to bite the hand that feeds them? Designers, editors, and curators will have little choice but to turn a blind eye to keep the money flowing and the lights on.Back in 2012, Amazon co-chaired the “Schiaparelli and Prada” gala, and honorary chair Jeff Bezos showed up in a perfectly respectable tux with then-wife MacKenzie Scott by his side and an Anna Wintour-advised pocket square. After his divorce from Scott in 2019, Bezos made a solo appearance at the Met Gala, signaling that he was becoming a familiar presence in fashion circles on his own. Of course, by that point, he already had Lauren Sánchez. Fast forward to 2020: print advertising was crumbling, and Anna Wintour co-signed The Drop, a set of limited CFDA collections sold exclusively on Amazon, giving the company a veneer of fashion credibility. By 2024, Sánchez made her Met debut in a mirrored Oscar de la Renta gown personally approved by Wintour, signaling that the Bezos orbit was now squarely inside the fashion world.Then, the political world started to catch up, as it always does. In January 2025, Sánchez and Bezos sat three rows behind President-elect Donald Trump at the inauguration. Amazon wrote a one-million-dollar check to Trump’s inaugural fund, and Bezos, once mocked by Trump as “Jeff Bozo,” publicly congratulated Trump on an “extraordinary political comeback.” By June 2025, Bezos and Sánchez became cultural and political mainstays: Sánchez married Bezos in Venice, wearing a Dolce & Gabbana gown Wintour had helped select. This landed Sánchez the digital cover of American Vogue almost immediately afterward. Wintour quietly handed day-to-day control of the magazine to Chloe Malle but kept the Met Gala, the global title, and her Condé Nast equity stake, cementing a new era of fashion power where money, influence, and optics are inseparable.Underneath all of it, the quiet hum of Amazon’s fashion machine continued to whirr. By 2024, the company already controlled 16.2 percent of every dollar Americans spent on clothing, footwear, and accessories—more than Walmart, Target, Macy’s, and Nordstrom combined. That same year, it generated $34.7 billion in U.S. apparel and footwear revenue that year, with the women’s category alone on pace to top $40 billion. No legacy house has ever had that volume of real-time data on what people actually try on, keep, or return in shame. Amazon can react in weeks rather than seasons, reordering winning pieces, tweaking existing ones, and killing unpopular options before they’re even produced at scale.Wintour did more than simply observe this shift; she engineered a soft landing by bringing Amazon in when it was still somewhat uncool and seen mostly as a discount retailer, lending it credibility when it needed legitimacy, and spending the last two years turning Sánchez from tabloid footnote to Vogue cover star. The Condé Nast sale rumors that began circulating in July 2025, complete with talk of Wintour cashing out her equity and Sánchez taking a creative role, have been denied by every official mouthpiece. But they have also refused to die, because the timeline is simply too tidy.The clearest preview of what billionaire ownership can do to a cultural institution remains Bezos’ other pet project, The Washington Post. Bezos bought it for $250 million in 2013, saved it from bankruptcy, and built it into a profitable digital operation with 2.5 million subscribers. Then, in October 2024, he personally blocked a planned editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris. More than 250,000 subscribers canceled in the following days. By February 2025, the opinion section was restructured around “personal liberties and free markets,” triggering another exodus and the resignation of editorial page editor David Shipley. Former executive editor Marty Baron called it “craven.” The timing, just months after Bezos began warming to the incoming Trump administration, was not lost on anyone. The story didn’t stop there: in the last few days, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance revealed he had texted Bezos suggesting the hiring of a right-leaning Breitbart journalist, Matthew Boyle, to run the Post’s political coverage. This is a clear signal of how staffing decisions at a storied paper now sit within the same power matrix that funds the Met Gala and shapes culture, media, and politics alike. It’s a tangled, strategic web—all of Bezos’ making.It’s curious that, in the same 30-day window that the Trump DOJ expanded its antitrust inquiry into Amazon, specifically how its algorithms favor its own products over third-party sellers, including many fashion brands, the MET, a city-owned museum, handed the keys of its marquee event to the man whose company now wields outsized influence over designers’ fortunes and faces regulatory scrutiny from the administration he helped reinstall. This is not sponsorship; it’s leverage. Wintour once froze Melania Trump out of Vogue because she could afford to.But she cannot freeze out Sánchez or Bezos. Nor does she want to.So on the first Monday in May, the museum doors will open as they always do for the Met Gala. The carpet will still be red (or whatever color the theme demands). The photographs of celebrities posing in their interpretations of “Costume Art” will still break the internet. Andrew Bolton’s exhibition, roughly 200 objects tracing the dressed body across five millennia, displayed in the newly renamed Condé Nast Galleries, will still be brilliant. But the biggest check will come from the couple who already control 16 percent of America’s clothing spend, who own The Washington Post, and who sat three rows behind Trump at the inauguration. Everything else, guest list tweaks, livestream deals, shoppable moments, will flow from that single source of money and power. That is who now has the final word on the most influential night in American fashion."
}
]
}