You are viewing [info]shweta_narayan's journal

 
 
06 July 2008 @ 03:24 am
Positions on Race in Fiction 101: final grades  
The race thread on AW has died down for now.  My community was mostly supportive, thoughtful, and open through the discussion, though it had its rough spots.  I learned a lot from the various reactions and conversations, and consider it an overall plus. 

But there were of course the ObExceptions. I and others were called racists over it at least once. We were told we hate white people and we're picking on them.  Now, I see myself coming at this as someone questioning her own privilege, not so much as one of "the oppressed" speaking up (I've been the picked-on PoC before. But not nearly so much in the US, to the point where I used to think the "colorblind" thing was okay myself); but apparently if a PoC supports the point of view of another PoC, it must be because of her race. Also, apparently it's counterevidence to the whole argument, rather than further proof of need-for-discussion, if there are oppressed white minorities too. Oh, and color terms are a bad way to talk about this so we just should stop.

This race thing, it's complicated, and the I think the ObExceptions are well-meaning people who do not want it to be so.

Posting about this here for two reasons. 1) Because it's over for now over there. 2) Because, as a forum moderator, I am nervous about making any thread about myself and my opinions over there. 3) Because... I want to hear what my friends here think.  Even if that is "Your breakdown is wrong!" or "You are overthinking this waaay too much girl".

So! Culled from that discussion and several other places (including the notorious Fantasy Mag Gypsy Thread TM) I hereby present a final grade breakdown for a class that does not exist.

(Full disclosure: I've been guilty of some of the ones that I'm giving low grades, some of my comments are things I'm only just learning myself, and I have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy books with monoculture casts.  This race thing, it is complicated.)

Positions on Race in Fiction 101: Final Grades

Position: "Stereotypes exist for a reason."
Grade: F
Comments: Completely missing the point. Wilfully so. In a way that displays deep racism.
Edited to add: The position might be better characterized with, "I'm not racist, it's true."  But the other is as close as I remember to a quote.  I'm not denying that there are reasons (cultural, historical, power-dynamic, cognitive) behind stereotypes and stereotyping. 

Position: "My lizard-people are lazy and bad parents because they're lizards. They're just dark-skinned by coincidence, since it doesn't matter what they look like."
Grade: F
Comments: ...For reals?
Edited to add: I have nothing against lizard-people.  I'd love to read about lizard-people, and I'd expect them to bask in the sun a lot and be more self-sufficient at birth(hatching) than humans.  What I'm objecting to here is having a characteristic (dark skin, as opposed to green scales) that does not match the race well and makes the whole closer to a nasty racial stereotype than a reasonable non-human group, "just because".  I'd treat that "just because" with deep suspicion. 

Position: "You're racist and hate white people and infringing on my freedom to write whatever I want." (response to "You might want to check your own privilege.")
Grade: D
Comments: Completely missing the point in a way that displays defensiveness of said privilege, but not necessarily racismblatant racism or intent.
Edit: cf nojojojo's comments below on blatant racism vs internalized racism.

Position: "If you mention Race, the story should be about it. Otherwise it's irrelevant."
Grade: D
Comments: Completely missing the point in a way that displays stunning lack of awareness, but not necessarily racismblatant racism or intent. Considered consistent with the idea of mentioning the hero's blond hair and blue eyes, which are totally not indicators of race or anything.

Position: "I like writing Fantasy because then I don't have to deal with race."
Grade: D+
Comments: Hey, I like reading fantasy, and I'm dealing with race every time another novel tells me that I'm a freak of nature and fictional people can't look like me.

Position: "I need to put a character of color into this novel."
Grade: C-
Comments: Acknowledging that there is a problem, good. Tokenizing, bad.

Position: "My character of color will be a wise Native American named Runs With Scissors / exotically beautiful Asian woman named Mi-so Cyoot / clever Indian engineer-doctor named Vecannotpronouncethis Patel Singh, etc"
Grade: D+
- Position: "...who dies, motivating the hero to save all."
- Grade: D-
Comments: Stereotyping, bad. Lack of research, bad. Exoticizing, bad. Magic Negro Syndrome, bad. Attempt to use "positive" stereotypes doesn't get you a gold star.

Position: "I feel that {I understand other cultures/anybody questioning me is bigoted/nobody is affected by race unless they choose to be/anything I write is accurate because it's drawn from my experience} therefore that is objectively true."
Grade:C-
Comments: Your privilege is showing.

Position: "My characters all look different but act the same." (the same generally means white-middle-class here but not always.)
Alternative statement: "My characters' races don't affect how they act."
Grade: C
Comments: At least you're trying.  But really.  You're saying, "I'm so accepting! Everybody can be like me!"

Position: "My characters are a girl with a stutter, a gay boy, a left-handed black girl, a diabetic hispanic boy, and Native American twins."
Grade: C (B-  if by some miracle you get them right.)
Comments: 1) Characters are people, not Pokemon (unless you're writing for Pokemon).  You don't have to catch 'em all.  2) If "black" and "hispanic" and "Native American" are worth noting, so is the ancestry of the other kids.  (And what's with the capitalization? And er, which tribe(s)?) 3) "Gay" is not like those other descriptors.  It is neither an illness nor an adorable quirk.

Position: "Nothing human is alien to me."
Grade: B-
Comments: It's a lovely notion, and if you mean that you can understand anybody to some extent with enough work, well done (but phrase it better next time).  If you mean you don't need to work at it, and nothing human could be really different from your experience, get thee to an anthropology library.

Position: "I don't need to think about this stuff to write, because I'm colorblind."
Grade: B-
Comments: You mean really well.  I get that.  And you're trying to live an ideal where nobody faces bigotry.  I get that.  But you're denying that anybody faces bigotry and is affected by it now.  Which just makes it harder for people who do and are.  If the PoC around you say this is hurtful, try listening.  Give them the respect you demand for yourself.  They're not calling you a racist.  They're telling you that problems that don't affect you nevertheless still exist.
To quote [info]nojojojo, Race is not the problem.  Racism is the problem.

Position: "I have no right to write about the Other.  I don't want to appropriate anyone's culture, and I only know my group.  So I'm done."
Grade: B
Comments: Full points on awareness.  But points lost on positivity.  Your knowledge can change!  Go make friends with people whose life experience is different from you.  Talk to them and listen to them.  It's not only your writing that will be richer for it.

Position: "My Ethnic Friend told me about this race, so I can write it now."
Grade: B+
Comments: Good start, but that's only enough (at most) to write your Ethnic Friend's point of view.  Not the whole culture or race.  Do some other research too.  Look at the culture's history.  Look at their art.  Visit a community if you can, and try to visit it respectfully.
Having said that, I am totally willing to be an Ethnic Friend, if anyone wants Indian-pseudoscot-from-California.

Position: "This real-world based setting, necessary to the story, happens to be monoculture/segregated for <reasons>."
Grade: A-
Comments: I would enjoy this, so long as it doesn't happen to be true for every different setting you ever use.  Or at least, so long as I don't notice.

Position: "I write about a variety of people because I know and listen to and hear and care about the stories of a variety of people."
Grade: A
Comments: I care about the stories of a variety of people too, so I look forward to yours.  I wish I could claim this myself; I'm far too middle-class to do so (yet) with any truth.

Position: "I write about other races by knowing people of other races, hearing their stories, thinking out the consequences, researching and visiting other cultures, reading up on their history, their art, their points of view.   And I know I'll get some things wrong, because I'm human and we all have filters -- but when I do, I'll listen openly to what they say and do my best to fix what I have wrong."
Grade: A+
Comments: OMG I am in love, can I beta-read your babies?
Tags: ,
 
 
( 50 comments — Leave a comment )
Dichroic[info]dichroic on July 6th, 2008 11:06 am (UTC)
I hate to get an F but .... many stereotypes do exist for a reason. Granted it's a cultural/historical rather than a physical one in all cases of behavioral stereotypes I can think of. And they're generally historical ones not necessarily affecting people now, but sometimes the the cultural features are still in evidence. Take ones from my own group. "Jews are rich, Jews are stingy, Jews are smart." The first two may stem from poverty but I think they're mostly from being shut out of almost all professions except money-lending in many European countries. And the third one is from having a culture that values and rewards learning and study. They're not wrong, if you think about them as statistical traits of a group rather than traits every member of that group *must* display.

Sometimes the stereotypes are not cultural but are results of imposed conditions: the moneylender ones above are like that. And so are all the ones casting aspersions on the intelligence of African-Americans: everything from laws forbidding teaching slaves to read to substandard schools in mostly-black neighborhoods and the complex relationships between color, culture and poverty in the US have had their effects, statistically, but that doesn't mean my friend Kevin isn't a brilliant mathematician or my acquaintance Ebony a brilliant teacher and excellent writer. (It does mean Ebony tells a heartbreaking story of when her mother broke down in tears on being told her daughter was gifted, realizing she wouldn't be able to give her all the resources and schooling she would need.)
shweta_narayan[info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 12:29 pm (UTC)
(response try 2)
I think I have failed to communicate the position I'm characterizing with this one. Like all the positions here, it consists of more than the words I'm using to characterize it. For the most part, I've tried to use phrases that are evocative, and this one seems to have evoked something I didn't intend.

Not going to change it though, because it's as close as I remember to a direct quote. I don't believe the person saying it meant what you're saying at *all* -- I'm reading it more as the "It's not racism, it's true" sort of view. The reason implied is a grounding in simple fact.

What you're saying is quite different -- that stereotypes exist for a *number* of reasons. You allude to history, culture, tradition, and power dynamics; I'd add another one: human cognition, especially categorization, lends itself to stereotyping.

So you might use the same words - but I clear you of the F :)
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 06:38 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 06:44 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 07:00 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 07:20 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 07:31 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 11:11 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 12:23 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 12:25 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 01:00 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 01:11 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Marissa Lingen: winter[info]mrissa on July 6th, 2008 12:12 pm (UTC)
So I'm writing a contemporary fantasy with a non-white protag for the first time at book length right now. In some ways Tam does act like -- not all my other characters, certainly, because they are insane, but like a white reader could imagine themselves acting. He is an ordinary American young man. But playing hockey in a minor-league team in small-town Minnesota is not, in fact, a statistically normal thing for an ordinary Chinese-American guy, and that's where he runs into bumps in the road. It would be totally disingenuous of me to say, "Oh, yeah, Thomas Alan Lin, Chinese-American but it totally doesn't matter," because it totally does. And it's not even that the other people in my book are using ethnic slurs about him. It's more complicated than that. Instead it's that people assume he's more exotic than he actually is. Or they assume that he knows all about Japanese culture, or Hmong culture, because all of eastern Asia is the same place, right? Or they apply the dumbass things they think they know about China to him, which would be bad enough if he was from China, but he's from Fridley, MN.

And the thing is, I think it makes the book a lot more interesting to have Tam be actual honest-to-God Chinese-American. I think it makes it more interesting to acknowledge that in hockey he both can and can't "act like everyone else." It lets me look at him being set aside as the teind through a slightly different lens, at the same time as (I hope! we'll see when it's done, what the beta readers think) he is in some ways the least "other" of the main characters for the reader.

It's not a book About The Chinese-American Experience. But I can't say what this book would be like if Tam was white, because...it just wouldn't. It just...he's not. He's not, and the book would be less interesting if he was. Blander, with less thematic resonance.

And, y'know. Less humor at clueless white people's expense. Which has to count for something.
shweta_narayan[info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 12:15 pm (UTC)
I had no idea Tam was Chinese-American from "Carter Hall Recovers the Puck". Did I miss it?
Cause that is awesome.

And yeah, that's the sort of nuance that makes a book for me. He's American. But he looks different from the default, so he'll be treated differently, and... yeah. You just made me want to read this novel *even more*.

*happy fuzzy thoughts*
Marissa Lingen[info]mrissa on July 6th, 2008 12:23 pm (UTC)
The short stories are more about Carter than about Tam and Janet, so I don't think it's immediately obvious in all of them. But yah. Tam's Chinese-American, so Jessica Laird Lin will be bi-racial/multi-ethnic when we get to her stories, which is also not a thing that can be completely ignored at all times. I get frustrated when having a multi-racial/multi-ethnic character is like having a character with violet eyes: "It makes her exotic! But not too exotic! Now on with the book!" Blarg, no; we will not be doing that.
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 12:31 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]mrissa on July 6th, 2008 12:57 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 10:28 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]mrissa on July 7th, 2008 01:45 am (UTC) (Expand)
sdn[info]sdn on July 6th, 2008 01:16 pm (UTC)
My character of color will be a wise Native American named Runs With Scissors/exotically beautiful Asian woman named Mi-so Cyoot/clever Indian engineer-doctor named Vecannotpronouncethis Patel Singh, etc.

this made me burst out laughing. thank you!
N. K. Jemisin[info]nojojojo on July 6th, 2008 02:24 pm (UTC)
Ditto. =)
shweta_narayan[info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 12:59 pm (UTC)
*grins*
Julie Andrews[info]julieandrews on July 6th, 2008 02:12 pm (UTC)
Thank you for making me think.

Even if it is early on a Sunday morning when thinking should neither be required nor allowed. ;)
N. K. Jemisin[info]nojojojo on July 6th, 2008 02:34 pm (UTC)
One quibble in your grade system above -- in a couple of places you mention that something displays problems but not "racism or intent". First, intent has nothing to do with racism. In fact, the worst racism after blatant stuff like lynching, slavery, etc., is unintentional, internalized racism. That's the kind of racism that you don't question, because you mean well. Or because you don't wear a white sheet and advocate for separate-but-equal laws. But if you mean well and yet assume Latino boys can't be sexually assaulted because of machismo, or you mean well and think nothing of it when endless Missing White Women get profiled in the media even though 2/3 of missing women are women of color... these are problems. "Meaning well" is what allows otherwise intelligent people to get away with some of the D and F thinking you mentioned above -- no one calls them on it because they're obviously not racist; they meant well.

For most people, racism is a bad habit; it's a tic of thinking and behavior that recurs whenever people stop thinking about what they're doing. So I think intent should be taken out of the picture altogether.

Anyway, that said, I had fun on the AW thread. Not planning to talk much there in the future, but I'll pop in from time to time to see if there's anything else going on. =)
shweta_narayan[info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 10:02 pm (UTC)
Hm.
You're right, of course, and "racism" covers a much broader range than what I mean here. I'm using the wrong word here; perhaps I should be saying "racial hatred" really, not "racism", in the above?

'cause Ithink I'm using the wrong word for an actual distinction, rather than drawing a false distinction.


(And do pop into AW sometimes when you are cat vacuuming. We have fun discussions on things other than race, we do, and it was great to see you there!)
N. K. Jemisin[info]nojojojo on July 6th, 2008 11:48 pm (UTC)
No, it's racism. To call it anything else is soft-pedaling it. But the term I've most often heard is "internalized racism", versus "blatant racism", which is probably what you're thinking of as "racial hatred". Internalized racism doesn't usually manifest as hate -- but it's almost as bad, because instead we get pity and contempt, and worst of all apathy. That's where a lot of that D and F thinking comes from, I think.


Y'know, I didn't mention it on AW, but you might want to check out Angry Black Woman, where we actually discuss SF a lot (because at least three of its contributors are black SF fans/writers, including me).
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 12:07 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 12:12 am (UTC) (Expand)
Dichroic[info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 06:52 am (UTC)
Question on the internalized racism: when you are talking to someone online, and they have never seen a picture of you, and you're discussing - well, anything where race has not come up, or not yet - do they tend to assume you're white? The subquestion to that is, if so, does the frequency of that assumption vary according to the ethnicity of the person you're talking to?

The biggest culture shock I ever had in the US was moving from Philadelphia to Houston after I graduated college. For one thing I'd always been in areas with a large Jewish population and suddenly I wasn't. One thing I noticed was that people tended to assume I was Christian. Now, that's not a bad statistical assumption to make there anyway, especially for someone with pale skin, but I don't think that was the main reason. I think people met me, thought of me as a good person, more or less, and so automatically assumed I must be like them.

Someone who looks like they have mostly African ancestry isn't going to get that face to face, but I was wondering if you do get it online. And whether you get that sort of assumption from those who are people of color themselves, in that odd "default" assumption that popped up in the AW discussion.

(In my case, other Jews don't assume I'm Christian, not in face-to-face settings at least, because my name and face are clear indicators. People here in Asia do make that assumption, but since Christianity is a minority religion here I think it's more about general statistics of western expats here.)
N. K. Jemisin[info]nojojojo on July 7th, 2008 11:28 am (UTC)
It doesn't happen to me a lot online, but then I tend to stick in circles where I'm pretty known -- the SF world, the writing world, etc. But when I do go into a new space, people tend to assume I'm white until I identify myself. I think this happens to most PoC, which may be one reason why there are so many "kerfuffles" over race in fandom on LiveJournal -- white fans say incredibly asshatty things, then react with surprise when they discover there are PoC in their audience. (e.g., a recent example, wherein a Stargate fan says that dredlocks look alien; reactions here) But they seem to react even worse when the realize there are anti-racist white people in the audience. So what I think the default assumption is not just "everyone on teh internets is white" but "everyone on teh internets is white and holds the same racist assumptions."

I imagine you get a lot of this too, since the default assumption tends to be white, Christian, and racist.
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 12:18 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 12:58 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 01:08 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Shveta, bursting with stars ॐ: Party in India[info]shveta_thakrar on July 6th, 2008 03:51 pm (UTC)
This post = A+
*love*
Angelic Eye for the Gendered-Species Individual: ancient of days[info]rysmiel on July 6th, 2008 04:51 pm (UTC)
Most of this needs more thought than I have the brain for today.

However,

Position: "My lizard-people are lazy and bad parents because they're lizards.

if one is doing people of lizard and making them behave like actual lizards, whether that is bad parenting by human standards or not (I'm not entirely sure I would buy an ectothermic sentient, but if there was one, it could plausibly need to do enough basking in the sun to easily become stereotyped as lazy by such humans as are minded to think in stereotypes) I would not of necessity take that as intended to reflect on any given human ethnicity; mind you, that would also involve making them lizard-coloured rather than colours suggestive of any human ethnicity, but to me at least default lizard-y green or blue is not suggestive in this direction.



Edited at 2008-07-06 04:52 pm (UTC)
shweta_narayan[info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 10:09 pm (UTC)
Like dichroic, you're thinking about a much more nuanced position than I intended to evoke :)

I'd have no problem with your version, apart from the evidence that says you need social interaction/learning to develop a society. And once you have that, the lizard people are not terribly lizardy any more (though I love the notion of a society that moves verrrry slooowly, sort of like Pratchett's Counting Pines).

But yeah, even if they existed, and the humans in their world thought said were lazy/bad parents, I'd be okay so long as the *author* didn't.
Angelic Eye for the Gendered-Species Individual: moon dragon[info]rysmiel on July 6th, 2008 05:10 pm (UTC)
To quote [info]nojojojo, Race is not the problem. Racism is the problem.

The place where this statement tips over into not working for me, fwiw, is where contemporary USAn definitions of "race" are universalised into other contexts; USAn writers writing about slavery in the Roman Empire as if it were exactly the same social dynamic as slavery in the southern states of the US, for example. As I mentioned before, that paradigm does not accept the reality of such things as anti-Irish racism in Britain or the Catholic/Protestant radar one develops in Ireland, which are issues I've been on the sharp end of. I now live somewhere that Anglophone/Francophone is the biggest filter in most people's minds, and such local (by US definition) people of colour as I have spoken to about it seem to generally be in agreement that this is how it reads to them too; that black Anglophones here get much more noticable issues with black Francophones than with white Anglophones. (One could claim that of course that's what they would say to me, given that they are reading me as white, but I remain unconvinced that going into a state of reverse solipsism where it is necessary for me to assume every single person not my visible ethnicity is lying to me out of fear, in order to make the evidence support a certain paradigm of "privilege", is more accurate than actually listening to what people say and taking them at their word.)
shweta_narayan[info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 10:16 pm (UTC)
I don't see why this makes the statement not work, unless one presupposes a US definition of race rather than a contextual one. (Because "race" is a big messy category, and racial difference could consist I think of *any* cue that says You Are Not My Group.)

I can see why it makes a lot of fiction not work. IMO this is all a subset of "poor research", albeit an emotionally loaded one. A US writer assuming that the issues in Northern Ireland must revolve around skin tone would just be.... laughably clueless.

But I gotta say, even where it's not the main issue, I have never lived anywhere that skin tone wasn't *an* issue. And I've lived in rather a lot of places at this point.
Dichroic[info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 06:55 am (UTC)
What was your impression of the Netherlands? I'm not speaking of recent immigration - I know there's bad feeling there - but of people whose forebears came from Indonesia or Surinam a generation or three ago and who now speak, eat, and identify as Dutch. I get the impression that there may be some issues there, but that skin color is not as big a divider as "Dutch " and "not-Dutch".
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 07:24 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dichroic on July 7th, 2008 07:38 am (UTC) (Expand)
Jo Walton[info]papersky on July 6th, 2008 05:48 pm (UTC)
Oh dear, I was totally going to post something defensive about my lizardpeople, but I see [info]rysmiel got in first.

They're lizard coloured, and actually they're great parents, except for the slavery thing sometimes being a problem for them.
shweta_narayan[info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 10:18 pm (UTC)
Doesn't sound to me like your lizardpeople are anything like the lizardpeople above.
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 6th, 2008 10:26 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]papersky on July 7th, 2008 07:51 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]shweta_narayan on July 7th, 2008 11:07 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rysmiel on July 7th, 2008 02:21 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Sherry Vernet: o rly?[info]evilprodigy on July 6th, 2008 08:44 pm (UTC)
exotically beautiful Asian woman named Mi-so Cyoot / clever Indian engineer-doctor named Vecannotpronouncethis Patel Singh, etc"

For the serious win.
A Wandering Hobbit[info]redbird on July 8th, 2008 11:53 pm (UTC)
Tangential, but I wonder how the sort of person who asserts "stereotypes exist for a reason" would react to "Yes, and the reason is that people are lazy, and stereotypes are harder than observing and thinking." (I am reasonably sure that rephrasing that as "...people like you are lazy..." would raise the temperature of the conversation; I do not know whether it would help the point get across.)
shweta_narayan[info]shweta_narayan on July 9th, 2008 02:33 am (UTC)
I would love to know!
Can't see myself doing that, though. Not to somebody's face.
( 50 comments — Leave a comment )