![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think I'll quote somebody out of context, because that's always worked really well for me in the past.
Saying "black characters are written too broadly in New Who, making them resemble stereotypes" rather ignores the fact that white characters are treated the same way.
Look. This is the problem with trying to raise white people on Sesame Street in order to cure racism: you get a generation of white people who think it's to their credit that they hold everyone to the same standard, and run around operating like the world is one big, happy block party -- people who think they're complementing themselves when they say they're "colorblind."
BLIND is not a moral positive. BLIND is an inability to perceive what the non-blind people around you can clearly fucking see. My grandfather was red/green colorblind. His family also had a strawberry farm. His father used to beat him for not obeying instructions to pick only the RED strawberries and leave the GREEN ones on the bush.
Now, I'm not recommending regular beatings for the colorblind. That wasn't a nice thing to do (my great-grandfather was not a nice person in general, for oh so many reasons). But the thing is, my grandfather's colorblindness? Was a problem, because there is actually such a thing as color when it comes to strawberries, and it's easier to work on a strawberry farm when you can see it.
And there is actually such a thing as race. If you can't see it, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors. There are cases where you can give the EXACT SAME script/character arc/iconography/etc. to a white performer and to a performer of color, and the overall effect WILL BE DIFFERENT. Race is real. People respond to it, often on levels they aren't entirely aware of. So it actually misses the whole entire point of discussing race and racism if your sole defense is "but we're just treating them the exact same way we treat white characters!" It may be true, or it may not be true, but either way it's singularly useless.
Some fans seem to find gender easier to understand than race, so think of it this way: if there's a character that isn't very bright but always uses sexuality to manipulate other people, does it make a difference if that character is a man or a woman? Isn't it more of a stereotype in one case than in the other? And if some writer or producer said, "Oh, it's not sexist -- this is just what we were going to do, and we thought we might hire a male actor, but we went with a woman instead, so we kept the same stuff!" that doesn't magically make her not a sexist cliche, does it? If they'd cast a man, the character would read one way; when they do cast a woman, it reads differently. Same character. Different, because of the baggage we bring surrounding gender. If you were somehow magically oblivious to any and all gender issues, you might not notice that. But you wouldn't thereby be a better person than the rest of us. You'd just be oblivious.
Unfortunately, in our culture, we are conditioned to see white people as Real People, and black people as sort of thin slices of people, operating in one of a very few available modes and with only a very few emotions and interests. Therefore it's just different to write a white character "broadly" versus a black character. It's not enough to write the black character "just like" all your white characters, because race is not invisible to most of us and it doesn't have no consequences. In order to challenge people's already racist assumptions about black characters, writers have to work that much harder, and they have to work not blind. They have to work with their eyes open and their brains engaged and with the awareness of subtle signals and context and connotation that anyone who writes for a living should damn well be conversant with. To do less than that is to write lazily, to write foolishly, to write contemptuously of one's characters and one's craft, and to do all that because you can't or won't go the extra mile to bring race into the universe of stuff that factors into your writing does, in fact, have racist implications.
"Colorblindness" may be one's reason for making all of those mistakes, but it isn't an excuse, and it doesn't magically make the product impervious from criticism. Be less blind.
Saying "black characters are written too broadly in New Who, making them resemble stereotypes" rather ignores the fact that white characters are treated the same way.
Look. This is the problem with trying to raise white people on Sesame Street in order to cure racism: you get a generation of white people who think it's to their credit that they hold everyone to the same standard, and run around operating like the world is one big, happy block party -- people who think they're complementing themselves when they say they're "colorblind."
BLIND is not a moral positive. BLIND is an inability to perceive what the non-blind people around you can clearly fucking see. My grandfather was red/green colorblind. His family also had a strawberry farm. His father used to beat him for not obeying instructions to pick only the RED strawberries and leave the GREEN ones on the bush.
Now, I'm not recommending regular beatings for the colorblind. That wasn't a nice thing to do (my great-grandfather was not a nice person in general, for oh so many reasons). But the thing is, my grandfather's colorblindness? Was a problem, because there is actually such a thing as color when it comes to strawberries, and it's easier to work on a strawberry farm when you can see it.
And there is actually such a thing as race. If you can't see it, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors. There are cases where you can give the EXACT SAME script/character arc/iconography/etc. to a white performer and to a performer of color, and the overall effect WILL BE DIFFERENT. Race is real. People respond to it, often on levels they aren't entirely aware of. So it actually misses the whole entire point of discussing race and racism if your sole defense is "but we're just treating them the exact same way we treat white characters!" It may be true, or it may not be true, but either way it's singularly useless.
Some fans seem to find gender easier to understand than race, so think of it this way: if there's a character that isn't very bright but always uses sexuality to manipulate other people, does it make a difference if that character is a man or a woman? Isn't it more of a stereotype in one case than in the other? And if some writer or producer said, "Oh, it's not sexist -- this is just what we were going to do, and we thought we might hire a male actor, but we went with a woman instead, so we kept the same stuff!" that doesn't magically make her not a sexist cliche, does it? If they'd cast a man, the character would read one way; when they do cast a woman, it reads differently. Same character. Different, because of the baggage we bring surrounding gender. If you were somehow magically oblivious to any and all gender issues, you might not notice that. But you wouldn't thereby be a better person than the rest of us. You'd just be oblivious.
Unfortunately, in our culture, we are conditioned to see white people as Real People, and black people as sort of thin slices of people, operating in one of a very few available modes and with only a very few emotions and interests. Therefore it's just different to write a white character "broadly" versus a black character. It's not enough to write the black character "just like" all your white characters, because race is not invisible to most of us and it doesn't have no consequences. In order to challenge people's already racist assumptions about black characters, writers have to work that much harder, and they have to work not blind. They have to work with their eyes open and their brains engaged and with the awareness of subtle signals and context and connotation that anyone who writes for a living should damn well be conversant with. To do less than that is to write lazily, to write foolishly, to write contemptuously of one's characters and one's craft, and to do all that because you can't or won't go the extra mile to bring race into the universe of stuff that factors into your writing does, in fact, have racist implications.
"Colorblindness" may be one's reason for making all of those mistakes, but it isn't an excuse, and it doesn't magically make the product impervious from criticism. Be less blind.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-14 10:28 pm (UTC)From:I... honestly, I think laziness is responsible for at least 60% of it. Examining your own privileges and prejudices is hard work.
I just think of all the missing Chinese people in Firefly. Everyone speaks Chinese and eats Chinese food and writes in Chinese, but where are the Chinese people? Whedon defended this with the old "we cast the best actors" line, which just isn't good enough. I mean, even if you let the politics alone (which, heh, I was raised by a lecturer in development studies, so that's not going to happen): on the level of simple logic, it makes no sense. But, well, prejudice defeats logic like rock defeats scissors. *sigh*
*Which results in different cultures drawing the lines in different places. American racial politics confuse me. But then, in Ireland we have the Travellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Traveller)... to an American, a Traveller would most likely just register as "white", but they have none of the privileges attached to that category.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 12:58 am (UTC)From:It confuses me as well, and I wish I could articulate why, because as it stands I just sound stupid when I say that. Some people believe that when I say 'it confuses me' that I'm making out that my country is all 'happy, happpy' and that there is no racism, which is so not true.
It just, it's different. And race politics in the US is a bit of a minefield for me, because I'm not sure what is the correct thing to say, or the incorrect thing to say. And heh, I've spent years watching American television, but that hasn't given me a clue (I suspect the Americans are pretty schizo on the issue as well).
What I want to see more of in fandom, is more discussion about the cultural differences. Everyone talks about race, and gender, but nobody talks about the problematic, and mostly sub consious imposition of values on characters and countries which aren't American. But I'm afraid this won't happen, partly because Americans and others will be afraid it will go down to another round of 'american bashing' which it could, like every other contentious issue, and partly because the fandom is dominated by American fans, who don't see an issue with it, because their entire world is American.
Some nice, civil conversation would be fantastic.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 04:35 am (UTC)From:A big problem with saying this is that *not* everyone in fandom talks about race and gender. A relatively few people bring up those issues because they're personally bothered enough by how they're handled that they want to encourage discussion and change. A lot more people then try to stifle that discussion. They respond that race and gender are not issues or that they are problematic issues but that fandom's not the place for discussing them.
Certainly, US cultural imperialism is also a problematic issue. And I agree that it'd be terrific to see, for example, storylines on SGA that dealt with conflicts between different nationalities on an international mission. It'd be cool if, in at least some of the many pieces of SGA fanfic that have an American or Canadian referring to "Earth culture," another person from Earth got after them about the generalization. But bringing up the issue of US cultural imperialism in a discussion of race ends up being just another way to stifle the discussion that some people want to have about race.
It *would* be good to see more people realizing that US cultural imperialism is problematic in fandom. But the way to do that is to make one's own post about that and try to encourage discussion there, not to to tell people who are discussing race that they ought to discuss something else. Otherwise, no matter how nice and civil one's tone is, it sounds like, "People should be talking about cultural differences instead of race and gender, because that's more interesting and important to me," and that'll get up the hackles of people who are already discussing something they find important.
In contrast, I think there are people--including many of those who are concerned with race and gender--would be glad to participate in a separate discussion that started, "I'd like to see more fannish discussion of cultural differences than I've seen thus far. Here are my thoughts about why the issue's problematic and how I think the it could be handled better." (And this, of course, would also apply to other problematic issues in fandom, like class.) Now, sure, there could be end up being a lack of response to such an overture for discussion or there could be a very negative response from people denying that it's a worthy topic of discussion. But that's also what could happen to people who bring up race or gender or class--it's the risk people take when trying to start discussions about issues that are important to them.
I do agree that cultural differences influence how people view issues of race, gender, class and so on. When people from the US start talking about the ways something is racially problematic, people who aren't from the US can't necessarily participate in the discussion in the same way. However, that doesn't mean those discussions are unfair. The reason people bring up those issues is because, based on the cultural connotations that they know, the issues are hurtful and offensive. The best response there is not to say, "Well, based on my background, here's why I don't think that's hurtful and offensive," even if that background is based in perfectly legtimate cultural difference rather than the blindness of unjust privilege. Not finding something hurtful and offensive, for whatever reason, doesn't make it less hurtful and offensive to people with other experiences. If someone felt compelled to participate in a discussion that involved issues about which they had little knowledge, instead of just listening and learning, a truly nice, civil contribution would be something more like, "Oh, I'd had no idea that was problematic. I'm going to be more aware of that now and try to avoid it."
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 04:43 am (UTC)From:I'm bringing this up, not to stifle the conversation, which is totally not my intention, bu to point out that race issues in America are unique to America. And there is no recognition that race issues in the UK are different, and that perhaps we shouldn't impose values on another culture. Or think more about how race issues are different in other nations.
And that's how I went off onto the other topic over how generally, a lot of issues are imposed culturally.
Does that make sense?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 05:55 am (UTC)From:I do think it's true that there are times, in fannish discussions of race, that people from the US--who are the majority in many segments of fandom and so they get unfair privilege in knowing that they can be understood without having to explain their US-based assumptions and perceptions--seem to assume that anyone who doesn't see a racial problem doesn't see it because of white privilege. And when the issue is racially charged to people from the US due to US-specific experiences, that's not fair to people from other countries.
For example, it's not really fair to expect someone who has little experience with US culture and American-English to know without being told that the phrase "colored people" almost always sounds offensive in the present day to racially-conscious people in the US, while "people of color" does not. Without all the US cultural and historical baggage, it'd be logical to assume the phrases are simple synonyms. They're not, though, and using the phrase "colored people" while talking to or about people from the US when there was no intent to give offense would be an example of ignorance. At the same time, an assumption that it's an example of racist ignorance would certainly be an example of US privilege. And, apparently, if at some point a US fan who got after a South African fan for using the label "coloured" to describe a character, the US fan would be displaying just as much cultural ignorance as the South African, plus would be trying to exercise the privilege of being in a fannish national majority to control the discourse. (Because of my own ignorance, I have to rely on my dictionary when it just told me that coloured is a perfectly legitimate, nonoffensive ethnic label in South Africa.)
However! It's important to note that not all race issues in the US are unique to the US. And white privilege is a pernicious force in other countries, too. So when someone from another country says, "Well, the Americans love to complain about this, but it just isn't problematic here," that's not necessarily true. (For example, some fans of color from Britain have said they also find problematic what happened with Martha in Doctor Who, not just fans from the US.)
It's also important not to conflate discussion of issues that people find racially problematic, offensive and/or hurtful with the imposition of values on another culture. I don't think many fans who bring up issues that bother them in fannish sources from another country think they can impose any change in how the show's made or how it's received by people with a very different cultural background than their own. However, that doesn't mean it's illegitmate for them to discuss how the material affects them.
Finally, even when one doesn't mean to stifle discussion of race, going off on another topic--even when it's interesting and there was a logical segue to it--does end up having that effect. It's true that in most conversations, letting the discussion flow to a new topic would be unproblematic. Of course, though, that tendency is curtailed in discussions more formally dedicated to particular topic--which are the kinds of discussions that structured meta-type posts are often meant to inspire). And with discussions on race in particular, because so many people are already so anxious about discussions of race and so eager to change the subject every time it comes up, even a natural and innocent change of subject can be upsetting.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 02:30 pm (UTC)From:Um. Or at least, race issues in America are not directly transferable to race issues elsewhere.
Because I think that's a very important point, and a discussion we need to have, but I still think we can learn from US discussions of race, and besides, I don't want to let RTD off the hook just yet.
continued...
Date: 2007-07-15 04:40 am (UTC)From:There are some added bonuses to doing this too. For one thing, it means one doesn't make a mistake in assuming that some issues are problematic only to people from the US, when in fact those issues also bother people from other cultures (e.g., Martha's treatment and character arc in Doctor Who). For another, it gives one the moral weight to expect that people from the US will do the same when one says, "You know, people who aren't from Country X might not be aware of this, but portrayal Y and phrase Z have a long negative history that make them pretty offensive." In that case, it wouldn't be surprising if there were people acting as though it weren't fair to bring up that issue, just as when someone from the US brings up problematic issues, but the people who really do care about not being racist will make note to be more aware of that issue and to avoid giving offense because of it.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 05:19 am (UTC)From:I mean, really, there are so very many issues, old and new, that I think fandom *should* be talking about seriously. Fandom doesn't handle inclusion and privilege well. I mean, not that fandom is unique in that, by any means; it's just a place full of people, like all the other places full of people that handle inclusion and privilege badly.
Hell, I still don't think we've dealt with misogyny in fandom, and I know that's been a subject of discussion for the ten years that I've been here. It's better than it used to be, but we're still so far away. And we've really only gotten serious about race in the last year, and there's so much yet to be said there. And I think you're quite right, American privilege within the international world of fandom has hardly been touched on in any serious way yet. I don't doubt that there are other realms that won't even occur to me at all until someone finally brings them up.
I got very angry not so long ago, and actually remain a little angry, about what seemed to a lot of people to be a very trivial issue of fan politics, but in its essence, my anger was (is) primarily about the way that fandom (like any other culture/subculture) seems to me all too ready to embrace its instincts toward pack mentality -- well, this is US, this is who WE are and what defines us -- and not half ready enough to listen to all those other fans who are saying in a million different ways, "Hello, hello, I'm right here along with you, but that doesn't cover me, that's not who I am as a fan." The answer to those fans who have said exactly that in the context of race has largely been go away, I'm comfortable with the "we" that I believe in already, and you don't fit in. My shock and sadness and anger over the way fandom has handled this issue is truly beyond my ability to express.
So I don't know how much faith I have in the ability of civil dialogue to fix fandom -- at least not very quickly! But I think people have to keep trying, and what you're bringing up is one realm where I'm sure we could all use some reality checks. I'm wary of any sense that the discussion of race is being hijacked or coopted to remove the focus from people of color ("yes, yes, we've heard your problems, now let's go on to something that matters to me!"), but I would love to be able to further incorporate nationality into the discussion -- particularly with Dr. Who, I feel much more strongly about seeking out the perspective of British fans of color, than I maybe do with, say, Supernatural, which takes place largely in the American midwest, allowing me to feel like the Primary Expert on my own regional culture. But that in itself is perhaps a limited way of looking at it: why would it only occur to me to seek an international perspective when it's a "niche issue" like an overseas show, and not just because nationality, like race, exists and should be able to inform American tv just as well?
Ah, there is indeed so much to talk about, and so little time. That's what keeps life interesting, I guess.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 07:29 am (UTC)From:Exactly. And I really wasn't trying to co-opt the conversation away from race overall, it's just when the person above was talking about how she was confused by some of the issues in the US, it was like 'Yeah totally, I so agree with you', it was more like an opportunity situation where I got caught up in another tangent.
And yeah :) That's about it. I wish I had more time to talk about this, but I'll be working tomorrow and life doesn't give me as many opportunities to post exactly my thoughts on various things, and when I just go for the knee jerk quickie post I'm not doing justice to the OP, myself or anyone else.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 02:27 am (UTC)From:Agreed. It's not because people don't want to become more aware, but that they just don't want to examine themselves and their world in different terms. It is hard work, and most are not willing to put in that time needed to look within themselves.
American racial politics are confusing, even to Americans.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 04:58 am (UTC)From:Sadly, I think a lot of people would probably embrace something like this statement inside their own heads, even though it's a logical mess, you know? Like, "I want to become more aware! But not see anything differently from the way I see it now! Basically, it's very important to change! Any and all change threatens me!" So...bzuh? Sigh.
It's kind of like all those people who want to *have written* a novel, but don't want to actually bother writing the thing. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to them, but it sadly can't really be done like that! You can't *have learned* something without going through the process of learning it, which means letting go of outdated ideas or those that were simply wrong to begin with.
All of that's basically to say -- you're so right. Change is hard, and most people feel they work hard enough as it is. They're not looking to take on more educational projects. Sadly, when your desire not to work very hard has real and massive costs for other people, you can't always in good conscience follow through with that desire.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 03:34 pm (UTC)From:I love puritybrown's quote as well. "Well, I don't want to and I can stop anytime, so I obviously must not be racist. That was easy."
BTW, awesome post. Sorry I didn't say it before.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 05:37 am (UTC)From:That's a perfectly brilliant way to put it, and it's a thought I've had about sexuality and never thought to apply in just that way to race. I'm often uncomfortable with the "is it genetic or not genetic?" question regarding sexual orientation, because the subtext seems to be, "because if it's not entirely, 100% coded into your DNA from conception, then it's up for grabs!" When I really think that sexuality is *constructed* from a number of component parts, *including* genes and received ideas about beauty and desire and one's sense of what masculinity and femininity mean and the connections you do or don't make between emotional closeness and sexual attraction, which themselves may come from taught or inborn sources, and obviously social expectations and pressures toward conformity -- but that doesn't mean you can just up and change your mind about it. Saying something is (wholly or in part) "socially constructed" can be *entirely true* and still not mean that it's a Tinkertoy structure that we can knock down and rebuild on a whim.
As for your example, if it makes you feel better, plenty of Americans are confused about other Americans' racial assumptions in exactly that way. It came as a complete shock to me, in my late 20s, to learn that there were people who didn't view Italians as white! I had *no idea!* I grew up near Kansas City, which has a pretty significant Italian-American history, but I'd never heard anyone speak of "Italian" as a *racial* distinction, merely an ethnic one. Then you get into the questions of, say, light-skinned Hispanic people -- white or non-white? Barack Obama -- kind of black, *really* black, or just not white? Nobody can agree! Is Jessica Alba an actress of color, and ergo is her relationship with wossisname on Dark Angel an interracial one? Is Jason Momoa a white guy with dreads or an Asian-American or just sort of generically a person of color? Is The Rock a black guy? I have *been part of* debates on every one of those questions, where Americans just simply don't agree because they've been taught to mentally construct those categories differently from one another.
It's not just you -- we really are a hot mess on the subject!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-16 07:26 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-18 05:06 pm (UTC)From:Just wanted to comment on this bit... GOD, YES.
The only reason I give "Firefly" as much slack as I do on this point (and I and my friends were making this criticism aloud from about the 3rd ep, once we'd figured out what was going on with the world) is the fact that it's only 13 eps and a movie -- and I like to pretend, somewhere in the back of my head, that had the show been given, say, 3 seasons, it might have shown us things that it didn't show us in those 13 eps... or, it might have corrected missteps that it made in its first season, that kind of thing.
However. Joss using the old chestnut of "we cast the best actors" to defend even the background composition of Firefly crowd scenes makes me want to throttle him -- and I *like* him, heaps. But. DUDE.
"We cast the best actors" is, AT BEST, shorthand for, "we cast who happened to catch our eye". And you know -- I love that Gina Torres caught your eye! (Why the hell wouldn't she???) But, could you STOP for ONE MOMENT and maybe examine the fact that Asian actors... didn't catch your eye? Why not? Are you saying... there aren't too many Asian actors who are as good as white actors? (Fail.) Are you saying... not that many Asian actors are charismatic enough to catch our eye? Fail.) Are you saying... a fairly small pool of Asian actors even showed up to try out for parts at all, including walk-on and cameos? Well, okay, but -- WHY IS THAT? (Could it be a vicious circle -- there's a small pool of Asian actors because Asians are not *encouraged* to go into acting because of the ATROCIOUSLY SMALL opportunities available for them?)
I would have had at least a little more sympathy for Joss if the answer had been, "We didn't get time to show more of the world, but -- up to the end, we had been exclusively showing fringe populations; all the Chinese people are on the most central, highest-class worlds, and we didn't get to them yet." Or *something*. (I still would have looked askance at such an explanation. Even had that been deliberate, there were more opportunities to show some Asians, to underscore the point. But it would be *an* idea. Somewhat akin to... I don't know... White people ruling all of Asia from Hong Kong, and then setting a handful of stories in Mongolia. You might see the echoes of the white rule in Mongolia, but you might expect to see only 1 or 2 white people, and all the rest, not-white. Whereas, if you finally got stories where the chars from Mongolia went to Macao, Canton, or Hong Kong, then finally you'd see more whites.)
Disappointed that it wasn't deliberate at all, I still would have had a tiny bit of sympathy for Joss if, when finally confronted with this rather salient point about his universe (i.e. "A world that is dolled up with Chinese curse-words, food, and characters on advertising, is about as 'progressive' and cool-looking as that white guy in your dorm who OMG LOVES SAMURAI and puts faux-Japanese decorations all over the place"), he'd THOUGHT for 2 seconds about it, and just said, "Huh, you're right -- big contradiction there. I'll have to put some effort into figuring out how to address that."
But, no. *SIGH*