The Rain Review of Books
Box 2684 Station Terminal, Vancouver, Coast Salish Territory BC/CA V6B
3W8 | 604-682-3269 ext 7326 | books@rainreview.net
Leslie A. Robertson and Dara Culhane, eds., In Plain Sight:
Reflections on Life in Downtown Eastside Vancouver. Vancouver:
Talonbooks, 2005.
Reviewed by Margot Leigh Butler
The Rain 3:4 (November 2005-January 2006): 4-5
Leslie: Tell me about the title of your
story.
Laurie: “Hiding in Plain Sight” is an excellent title. See, the buses
come and go down here, and you see people looking. But they don’t see
nothing. All they see is the dope. People can hide in plain sight: they
can be about this far away from you. Like when they put that new sci-fi
movie on TV, The Invisible Man—the thing is, these people they’re
invisible to society. Everybody looks for one thing and that’s the
dope. Not the people—the dope. They look at you but they’re not looking
at you, they’re looking through you. (60)
In Plain Sight is an engaging,
moving and difficult book to read. As creative and critical research
and narration produced by nine women living and/or working on
Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (seven dwellers and two researchers), it
draws attention to the politics of representation in very many ways,
and is especially tuned-in to the politics of editing and of creating
composite texts—two of the techniques through which the seven
narrators’ accounts are carefully produced. The authors’ methods and
structures are discussed and made apparent throughout the book; they
embody a significant alternative to—and critique of—many other methods
of research and representation. As is outlined in the book’s
introduction, constructing the stories involved one-to-one dialogues
between narrators and researchers. Together, they re-worked the
dialogues into single, edited, composite, written accounts which the
narrators formally approved for this publication, and which they
rounded off with an afterword.
Narrator’s
Afterword June 2003
Leslie: Why do you want to publish your story?
Sara: I have a whole bunch of reasons for publishing this. For once, I
get to say my piece. I’ve done a lot of interviews on this and that
around my life, around things from downtown like the missing women. A
lot of stuff that I said was taken out of context or wasn’t portrayed
properly, and in the end it looked like non-truths. So this is finally
my chance to say something and for it to be accurate. If it helps
people who are in my situation, or who have somebody in my situation,
of if it just helps them to understand a little better about people in
general, without misconceptions and stereotypes, then I’ve accomplished
something. But my main thing is if it’s going to be said, it’s going to
be true. (125)
Sara: I did a TV interview with --------- on the missing women. They
should’ve done a lot of things they didn’t do. I wasn’t very happy with
it in the end. They cut out PHN (PACE Health Network), and anything
about PACE (Prostitution Alternatives Counselling Education). They
showed people full-face who had asked not to be shown, and they called
them “ex-hookers”. They even showed us in [another] piece on harm
reduction, but I didn’t want to be on TV. I’m the only one who voted
no, because automatically people associate harm reduction with using.
I didn’t want my son to see that on TV, and that’s exactly what
they did. What did they do before they showed us? They showed skid row
and people working and people dealing. So I thought that was really
rude. In a way, they took something positive and made it negative.”
(122-3)
While editing the taped dialogues into written accounts, the narrators
decided to retain their use of slang, local terms, and the qualities of
spoken language and embodied voice—especially intonation, hesitation
and laughter (expressed through different font styles, punctuation and
spacing)—rather than translate or buff them into more formal or
authoritative written texts.
Laurie: The first trafficking charge I
got was not here in B.C. My lawyer at that time said, “Well, the
prosecutor is asking for two years and up and the best I can do for you
is two years less a day.” I said, “Well, the best I can do for you is
fire you!” So I fired him. I represented myself and got four months.
(43)
Pawz (for a moment): I got a letter from the government telling me to
go to work or I’ll get cut off social assistance. I believe it. It
states that welfare’s only temporary and that there are jobs available.
Look! My hand is itchy. Money’s coming! Oh, wait, that’s the left hand.
It’s right receives, left leaves. (30)
Unlike many representations of the Downtown Eastside, In Plain Sight
contains no
photographs of the area or people, yet offers verbal/written images
which readers may picture for ourselves: Pawz’s hands picking up the
letter, opening it to discover the threat and fact of (yet another)
government cut couched in the “promise” of available jobs, and her
itchy palms figuring its meaning in personal and critical terms. There
are many written images which visually invited readers in (for
instance, looking down at your own hands, like Pawz), and some
which—like Laurie’s below—provide strong images of encouragement to
readers.
Throughout In Plain Sight,
the narrators voice their experiences, insights and informed criticisms
of many practices and institutions. Through their detailed
knowledge—based in personal experience and reflection—they discuss
situations, social practices, ideologies and institutions as experts.
Sara: I’ve had three dates that were
bad enough they had to be reported to the cops. Not that I had any
faith they were going to do anything, but they were actually really
good with me. They took me to a quiet spot and they gave me the benefit
of the doubt. It wasn’t, like, “Well, we’re here to listen to you,” but
they basically told me—“We believe you, and if you help us, we’ll do
our best to help you back.” I believe one or more people are targeting
women in the Downtown Eastside. A couple of these women on the missing
women list I’ve know for many years. They weren’t dope simple; they
would turn people down if they had second thoughts. They had to have
felt comfortable, and they would have been taken off guard because they
just weren’t dope simple, they wouldn’t overlook things like the guy
acting strange. Near the end, the girls that have gone missing were
very street smart. What’s worse it they have no idea; they’ve got no
evidence. They’ve got nothing, and nothing to build on. (122)
The narrators comment on local, provincial and federal government
priorities and policies, public spending and poverty; work and
community activism; mental illness, survival, health and housing;
mothering, foster care and self-sufficiency; colonialism, racism,
violence and past sexual abuse; policing, criminalization, sex trade
work, drug use and the possibilities raised by Vancouver’s safe
injection site. And they want to tell readers lots about media
representations of themselves and their communities, and about the ways
in which they’re stereotyped.
Leslie: Why do you want to make your
story public?
Laurie: Everybody’s been stereotyped to hell!
I’m a person that has HIV—that has hep C and a lot of other things that
go with it. I have to learn to deal with it. I want people to know that
I come from a broken home, that my mother abused me, but that things
don’t always have to go that way. Things can change. It took me getting
HIV and actually getting right down—sick, to actually take a look and
say “Hey, not everything is bad.” Things that happened in the past, you
can’t let go of, but there is a brighter future out there. There is.
Some people look for it forever and some don’t. I think I found it. I’m
still here and, technically, I should be dead. Each person, I want them
to know that they’re here for a purpose. They’re here for a purpose.
Some are learning, some aren’t.
I’m mostly getting sick and tired of kids coming down here and thinking
it’s okay. They come from a broken home—and this and that. I want those
kids to know that I have a Grade 12 education; I hold two jobs; I have
four beautiful kids; I have two beautiful grandchildren. I could have
got married but I had a different calling. My calling may not have been
the best, but, at the same time, it has taught me so much. Some will
make it out of here; some will go down to this pit. Some will crawl out
and some won’t. I want them to see that it’s not a bleak as it looks.
If there’s a wall there, you’re the ones who can take the stones out
one by one. When you’ve got a big enough space to go through, you go
through. It may scare you, but the thing is; you know it’s there and
then curiosity will grow, everything is new. That’s what I want them to
know. Life doesn’t end just because somebody branded you an addict or
an AIDS victim. It’s not an ending. That why I want to publish my
story.” (60)
In Plain Sight narrators and
editors are well aware of the circumstances in which they speak, and
what it could mean to publish their own stories.
Leslie and Dara: Compiling the stories
was complicated not only by the editing process, but also by the daily
realities of the women with whom we worked. Their seven accounts emerge
from under very particular regimes of silence that the narrators well
understand; their speech is constrained by official and unofficial
systems of surveillance; by sanctions governing how information
circulates in the courts, through the media, and on the street; and by
social stigmas attached to certain taboo topics. The storytellers are
dependent on diminishing and fragile public services for basic
subsistence: food, clothing, shelter, and health care. They live in a
milieu significantly ordered by health and social services, wherein
their narratives provide cues for diagnoses or for the implementation
of policies that greatly influence their lives. By speaking of certain
events, they risk legal repercussions as witnesses to or participants
in illegal activities, and further risk the withdrawal of services and
support from families, agencies, and government offices. Telling is a
courageous act for women so vulnerable to the (mis)judgments of public
and professional power. (9)
The women are aware that the ways in which they “speak” really matter.
For instance, all through the book, the authors are addressing and
interpellating their readers, sometimes imagined and sometimes
known.
Leslie: Who do you want to read your
story?
Black Widow: Well, I don’t really know my daughter because—whatever,
whatever, because—but maybe she can sit down one day and read about her
mom’s life. (77)
Leslie: Who do you want to read this?
Pawz: I want someone with curiosity to read this, hopefully somebody
who’s never been through this and never will go through it. But if they
do have to, then maybe they will remember that I survived and so they
can, too... I got introduced to pain medication after an accident. When
I came here, I was introduced to something that was “pain enlightening”
and I ended up getting caught in it.
I could never foresee any of this happening to me.
Speaking as someone who’s now lived both sides of the coin—rich and
poor, wearing both shoes—you are treated so differently when you have
no money. God forbid you ever have to walk on the other side.
A lot of people, when they get down here, they start thinking suicide.
I wouldn’t cop out that easily. I thought about it a couple of times,
but I knew I was better off to fight than to give in. I think I’ve
withstood the test of time (laughing).
Being here has made me stronger, and it’s made me more in touch with
myself, more aware of other people and their plight. I’m not the only
one in this position, and I won’t sit in a corner going, “Poor me, this
shit happened to me.” Down here a lot of crap happens to a lot of
people, it’s not just me.
If this story applies to you, don’t lose hope. (33-4)
In Plain Sight is clear and
adamant about how and why it was researched, written, organized and
edited, and what some of its implications may be.
Dara and Leslie: We understand that
ineffective presentation by we editors or failed witnessing on the part
of some readers may result in further recriminations. In ultimately
deciding to publish, we—editors and narrators—returned to the women’s
motivations, their desire to be heard and seen, to tell their own
truths in their own words. Now that this book has been published, will
telling their stories put women at greater risk of local reprisals, of
further stigmatization, of increased social exclusion? Will speaking
frankly about hard times and hard choices reinforce rather than
challenge negative stereotypes? Will the narrators’ courage in
acknowledging their mistakes be used as evidence to hold them
responsible for poverty, the legacies of colonialism, and the
denigration of women, all of which shape their lives but are not of
their own making? Is publishing this book yet another act of voyeurism,
no different, really, from the media sensationalizing we criticize? How
do we responsibly present and understand narratives about lives not
typically valourized by history, biography, or community memoir? These
questions will remain open and troubling. (169-70)
In Plain Sight makes apparent
the authors’ commitments regarding what needs to be considered and
meaningfully taken into account when creating responsible
representations and self-representations by women often figured as
“Others” who are devalued through power relations. Cultural figures of
“Otherness” are produced—not natural—and they have different
histories
and are part of specific discourses; they can very easily be put into
play to do ideological, social and psychical work, and they can also be
analyzed, resisted and productively contested from within and without.
This entails not reducing, simplifying or fixing—stereotyping—people
according to certain culturally-highlighted, often disparaged,
characteristics or ways of being. Through their research and accounts,
the authors of In Plain Sight
reflect upon and, in my view, unpack and undo the stereotyped cultural
figures of the junkie, criminal, “heroine”, diseased, prostitute, unfit
mother, homeless, dispossessed, underclass—what one theorist has
described, for better or for worse, as “the socially disprized and
unloved”. In some of the narrators’ accounts, they comment on what
happens when these figures, sometimes combined or intersected, are put
into play.
Laurie: For Aboriginal people, okay.
“You’re Native, you’re drunk, you’re lazy. You’ll never amount to
anything.”
And you know what? You’re actually considered the lowest of the low.
With white people, society still will help you because of [your]
colour. Okay, you’re an addict, but that’s only one of the problems.
They don’t think of other things that go with being Native. They have a
lot of issues, like always being told you’ll never amount to anything,
always being told that you’re nothing but a dirty Indian or a drunk.
People will take advantage of you because of the colour of your
skin—guys, white guys. The things you see on TV don’t help you either,
and some of them are close to home, and it really makes you think. And
if your parents are alcoholic, you want to hide the fact that they are.
So you hide in your own world, and when you get in that little world
the things that really shouldn’t be bothering them, they let bother
them. I just said, “Okay, I’m Native. It’s not going to change just
because I do a fix. I’m still going to be Native.”
All the way through, as far as I can remember, as far as I’ve
seen—like, Saskatchewan is a very racial province, very racial.
[Natives and whites] have got this big racial thing between them.
“You’re an Indian; I don’t like you! You’re a white; I don’t like you.”
But you know what? You get another colour in there, and you see these
two combine, and they go against this other, this other race.
I was totally blown away! I saw it when the Spanish came. There was a
group who came here and nobody wanted to serve them, nobody wanted to
rent to them, so they were more or less getting pushed out of here.
I’ve seen that big time. When you’re a kid, especially in the
seventies, basically they wanted to stick you with your own kind. There
are also different issues because there’s so many different nations and
Native cultures here.
They’ve got more agencies that are willing to help the one race than
the others. The Aboriginal agencies [didn’t] really start popping up
until a couple, three years ago. Every counsellor that an Aboriginal
person had to deal with was white! “Why should I be talking to you? You
don’t know what it’s like being me! You haven’t walked in my moccasins,
so how can you tell me you know how I feel?” You can’t tell a black
guy, “Okay, I know what it’s like to be a slave,” I seriously can’t. Of
the Japanese people, when they got stuck in those little camps, you
can’t say you know what they felt like! You can probably try, but you
don’t’ know what it’s like, and so everything has basically been sent
on from generation to generation to generation.
We’ve got our grandfathers’ burdens; each one of us. (55-6)
In In Plain Sight, the
narrators are active and informed participants, telling readers
(imagined and known) what they want us to know, and with time built
into the book’s research, writing method and structure for the authors
to consider and reconsider, edit and re-edit, before going public—in
this way, they criticize and provide lived and hoped-for alternatives
to conventionalized, idealized and demonized figures of “Otherness”.
Black Widow: I really like ---------
[Centre]. It’s only for women, but it’s nice because people talk about
things. People, like, they’re for real; they talk about things. They
have a little newsletter. They did a newsletter on me. I didn’t even
know they did it (laughing). It was cool. I volunteer once a
week. They
give me two bus tickets and a ten-dollar gift certificate for Safeway.
I’m saving them up and I’m giving them to my mother-in-law for
Christmas. I just do the dishes, clean the floor and stuff; for three
hours, ten bucks—not bad. You have to work for five hours just for a
pack of cigarettes when you volunteer somewhere else. That’s almost
like the joint, because if you work in the joint you have to wait for
canteen days, which are Wednesday and Sunday.
But I’m not going back to jail! I’ll volunteer!
I like VANDU too, VANDU’s cool (Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users).
The first time you get a job there, it’s always an office job. You just
putt around this office for four or five hours, answer the phone,
whatever you have to do. Then the next week you go on alley patrol,
where you go with the nurse from Victory Park and you do all the alleys
all up around Oppenheimer [Park], all the way back to the office. It’s
about three or four hours. You’re picking up the rigs in the alleys,
and you’re giving people new rigs and if they need medical attention,
the nurse is with us so she will patch them up along the way.
It’s all right; it’s okay.
Tonight I’ll work under the tent in front of Carnegie, and that’s from
eight to twelve—hand out water and some condoms and syringes,
band-aids, stuff like that. It’s all free. I don’t know, I just figure
I don’t want to be too greedy so I don’t take too many shifts. (69-70)
In Plain Sight is a work of
ethnography—both editors are anthropologists—which shows up how, and
how frequently, public discourses on the Downtown Eastside (and more)
are shaped. While the Downtown Eastside is heavily researched by funded
academics (for instance, see the Canadian
Medical Association Journal online, Downtown Eastside Vancouver),
it would seem that they mainly keep their work “in-house”, presenting
it at conferences and in trade journals and scholarly texts. It’s
notable that so few academics bring into public discourse their
long-standing disciplinary concerns and ethical research methods which
may help to produce better representations and knowledge; and that they
seem so rarely to feel compelled to engage publicly, themselves. With
their absence—and especially for those of us who are uninvolved and/or
unaware of alternative community, academic and cultural work on the
Downtown Eastside—the public is inundated by largely unchecked
mainstream media “reporting” which relies on the instrumental use of
quick-grab, often unattributed quotes and jarring (yet predictable)
visual and verbal “snapshots” tailored to a thirst for local “hits” of
what we’re watching on “reality TV”, for starters.
In contrast, In Plain Sight
aims for responsible representation at each step in the construction of
the narrators’ stories and the book. For me, their practice raises
questions about the politics of representation of writing—and perhaps
reading—book reviews. Trying to follow the methods and commitments
involved in In Plain Sight
while writing this review entails not excerpting quotations—clipping
sentences, paring sentence fragments, and quoting stand-alone
keywords—from longer sections in which their contexts and placement
matters; and not removing deliberately written words—which have gone
through a careful process of co-editing between narrators and
researchers—and replacing them with my own … ellipses. In relation to In
Plain Sight (and perhaps
elsewhere) both of these practices—excerpting and editing quoted
passages—have ethical valence in terms of the politics of
representation, and they are deservedly uncomfortable. So, following
the In Plain Sight women’s
lead, I’m including whole passages which are from longer chapters, and
which are bounded by spaces which indicate that the narrator considered
them to be complete. As well, I hope not to contribute to stereotyping
but instead to de-stereotyping, and so include passages in which the
narrators voice their own experiences, insights and informed criticisms
of such normative practices. This is my decision as a reviewer; I have
no doubt that it would also be possible to select passages from this
book which corroborate with, and even further develop, such
stereotyping.
Another convention of reviewing may be important to consider here:
often reviews involve the reviewer’s interpretation of the work, and/or
are evaluative, indicating whether or not it’s a ‘good’ work, and this
may stop writers from reviewing books—or other works of art—on
Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside because they’re concerned that a ‘bad’
review of the work will be read as a negative judgment about the
subjects, the people, represented. In contrast—and perhaps in response—In
Plain Sight encourages readers
to be aware that they’re reading a book filled with representations
which have been purpose-made. These are just a few considerations which
arose while writing this review, and I suspect that there are many
more; in short, my review is inflected and implicated by this book.
Each In Plain Sight account
is a complete chapter, titled with the narrator’s name—Pawz (for a
moment), Laurie, Black Widow, Anne, Sara, Dee and Tamara. Editors’
introductions to each narrator’s chapter contextualize and widen the
parameters for consideration; this often includes unexpected questions
or information, and—in concert with the narrators—very often points out
the implications and effects of funding cutbacks imposed by local,
provincial and federal governments, and other factors.
Dara and Leslie: In the midst of war or
extreme hardship, for instance, parents sometimes surrender their
children to the care of others who can offer peace, food, and the
possibility of a secure future. Stories about such tragedies often move
more fortunate people to lament the painful choices faced by parents
who are victims of human cruelty and avarice. Sara’s mothering is not
impacted by bombs, troops, or famines. Rather, the options Sara chooses
concerning the welfare of her children are shaped by being poor,
female, and troubled in contemporary Canada. (103)
The introductions are followed by a titled main section—Pawz: Back and
Forth and Forth and Back, Laurie: Hiding in Plain Sight, Black Widow:
Why Me?, Anne: Making Dreams Come True, Sara: Dust Yourself Off. Pick
Yourself Up, Dee: Fears, and Tamara: Changes.
Anne: My name is Anne. I live on the
east side of Vancouver. I am a survivor of incest and sexual assault
and a consumer-survivor—of the mental health care system. I have lived
in poverty most of my adult life and hope that this part of my life
story will help you to understand what it’s like to recover from
trauma, cope with mental illness, and raise a child—all while living in
poverty. I am now in my mid-forties. (80)
Anne: I’ve been poor most of my adult life, but it’s harder as a
parent. You can go without but you want your kid to look nice, to go to
a movie now and then and have a bike. To play at an outdoor camp. So
many things are beyond poor parents now. No dental care, no money for
medication. I know a mother who had to borrow someone’s inhaler for
asthma because she couldn’t afford to pay for the hundred-dollar
prescription. It’s tough, and the cuts keep coming. They are cutting
back essential services like funding for mental health advocates who
help you with welfare and other services. I feel like it’s a litany of
complaint. I love my kid. I didn’t think I’d have to fight just to get
the basics for her.
I think single mothers living in poverty don’t exist in the
consciousness of the world. We need a bigger presence. We do exist, and
we are struggling to raise healthy children who will grow up and be a
credit to our society and our community. At this point we’re trying to
do this with the most minimal resources imaginable.
Single moms who would be better off going to school part-time, being on
social assistance, and raising children are now being forced to work at
menial jobs just so the system doesn’t have to pay them social
assistance. That’s a Victorian concept, not a twenty-first century
concept. (97-8)
And each chapter concludes with a Narrator’s Afterword—an interview
done after the narrators approved the final version of their story for
publication—in which women respond to the researchers’ questions: “Why
do you want to make your story public?” or “Why do you want to publish
your story?”; “Who do you want to read your story?”; “What do you want
people to get from hearing your story?” or “What do you want people to
hear in your story?”; and “What do you think is the value of telling
these stories?” or “Why do you think these stories are important to
tell?” These questions seem to round off the process of creating In
Plain Sight, and shift the focus
from the narrators to the readers, from the tellers to the told.
Narrator’s
Afterword June 2003
Leslie: Why do you want to make your story public?
Anne: I hope people learn that poverty and mental illness are just
factors in people’s lives; they don’t define human beings. They define
what I can do sometimes, but they don’t define who I am as a person;
they don’t define my child. That’s what people do; they define me. They
say you can’t possibly be a good mother. Who says?
We know what’s safe because we know what’s out there. We know the drug
addicts; we’ve been sexually abused. We know the dangers. I think we’re
much more aware of what can happen, yet we’re the ones that are looked
upon as fucked up. I know people who are no longer my friends who
believe I don’t have the right to raise a child that I can’t
financially provide for. I believe I have that right. I believe that’s
a human right. It’s a right. It’s a choice, and people get to make
those choices.
I think this whole book of our stories is saying, “We might be
recovering addicts, we might be recovering alcoholics, we might be
recovering from a number of different things. That doesn’t take away
anything from our ability to be great mothers.” That’s what I want
people to know. I want people to know that we’re intelligent,
thoughtful, and insightful people who care for our children. That we’re
careful with our children. That we do our best to allow them to grow
and develop to the extent that they can, even when our growth and
development is stunted because of our resources. There’s only enough
resources for one of us, either the child of the parent, to develop, so
it’s the child that’s going to get the resources and I’m just going to
have to live with the fact that this is where my life stops in some
ways. I think these are important concepts, important values.
I think single mothers living in poverty don’t exist in the
consciousness of the world. We do exist. As a society, do we accept
that children are valuable? If we accept that children are valuable,
then we have to value their mothers. There’s a big push to value
children, but if they come home to an unhappy mother—someone who isn’t
cared for and who doesn’t have the resources to be a good mother—then
it’s not going to work. (100)
Leslie: What do you think is the value of telling these stories?
Anne: What happens is that they fund group by group. Like, a whole lot
of attention is going to people who suffer from cancer—and that’s
great—but you don’t pay a whole lot of attention to people who are
suffering from mental health issues, which may or may not be
life-threatening. Mental health can be a life-threatening issue if a
parent is suicidal. Put these things into perspective; get us on the
map.
One of the things that I saw was significant with the Four Pillars was
that it changed Mayor Owen’s attitude to drug addicts. Prior to that he
had no association with those people, had no understanding of those
people. He didn’t see how those people were anything like him. Somehow
he made a connection with those people. I think that if we can do our
stories and that somehow somebody can make a connection with us, then
maybe they can also provide us with the resources to really evolve as
people and to provide for our children so that they can really
evolve.
I don’t know if our stories will help, but that’s my hope. I need to
leave my child a better place to live in. if I don’t actively work in
my community to change things and make them better, even to some small
degree, then I believe that, as a parent, I’ll have failed. (101-2)
The narrators’ words are also included in the book’s
introduction—there, constructed as a chorus of voices all speaking to
the same concerns. So, readers first meet the narrators briefly and
together in the introduction,
and then read their own individual words in depth in their own
chapters. Going back and re-reading the introduction after finishing
the book gives a different, fuller sense of the narrators’ lives and
concerns. And perhaps when In Plain
Sight readers are given yet another narrow, stereotyped image of
people who live and work on the Downtown Eastside, the narrators’ words
will continue to offer a different, more complex vision. In doing
this—and in many other ways—In Plain
Sight shares qualities with books such as Maggie de Vries’ Missing
Sarah: a Vancouver woman remembers her vanished
sister, the Woodsquat
issue of West Coast Line
edited by Aaron Vidaver, The
Carnegie Newsletter, DES Media’s extensive archives of
interviews with local residents, the annual Downtown Eastside “Heart of
the City” Festival, recent exhibitions like “Picturing the Downtown
Eastside” and Gallery Gachet’s “Safe Not Safe”, and the video Building
Bridge: A Housing Project for
Women (which, along with In
Plain Sight, was part of The Health and Home Research Project).