helpful hint for the colorblind: BE LESS BLIND

[hth]

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.

Comments

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I can categorically state that Britain has had, and continues to have, major issues with racism

There is racism everywhere, but every nation has a different way of dealing with it, and different issues that come with it.

I lived in England for a year, and wow, I didn't realise how differently you guys handle race.

From one perspective, the use of the word Asian. You refer to Indians and Pakistanis as Asian, that confused me, in Australia Asians are Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese etc. That's just a matter of language, but I found that you guys are very casual in the workplace about being bigoted about the Irish, or the Welsh, or the French. I had no idea that there was such animosity, I'd never pick that up if I didn't live in the country.

Racism in Australia is different from the US. For instance, the major minority is indigenous, so there are land rights and cultural differences to consider. In the US, it seems to be all about the 'African American' which confuses me a little, because they get a lot of coverage about their rights, but nobody talks about the indigenous Americans, it's like they don't exist. I think that's so unfair, everyone in the US is came from other places, and the Indigenous Americans had their land taken away from them (just like here), but it's not even a big issue in the country.

It's certainly a huge one here. I think the person above wasn't saying that there is no racism in the UK, just that it's handled differently.

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

I'm confused about the "african american" rights coverage too, believe me.

Also, ignoring Native people in the US serves a very specific purpose of marginalization, particularly when Indian lands hold so many energy and other natural resources that non-indians are very eager to exploit.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I'm not very familiar with the treaty system in the US, but I think that legally the indigenous tribes in the country lost out. That might have a lot to do with natural resources, it's certainly an issue here.

In Australia we've enacted Native Title Law, which *theoretically* recognises the land and sea rights of indigenous peoples if they still live on land, (which is another kettle of fish) unless existing freehold extinguishes the title. 53% of my State is under native title, but I'm not sure about how many are in mediation process, or in litigation.

It's a slow process, going to take decades to sort out. It's such a mess, and there are so many issues that are going to ages to resolve, but I think land rights is something that my country is doing right, if....a little slowly and sometimes unevenly.

[cofax7]

I could give you a ton of background on Native American treaty rights in the US. It's... complicated. Depending on the language of the treaty, the cultural context, when the treaty was signed, what the tribe thought they were getting when they signed it, whether Congress actually approved the treaty, and what Congress changed (unilaterally) since the treaty was signed, the tribes retained anything from fee title to everything, including water and mineral rights (this is very rare), to ... nothing. Most tribes have equitable title to at least some land within the reservation boundaries, checkerboarded with fee-title-held allotments belonging to tribal members (often partitioned into tiny percentages), and even fee title parcels belonging to non-tribal-members. Property held in trust for the tribes by the federal government is supposed to be managed for the tribes' benefit, but that isn't working out so well (google "tribe trust lawsuit" for more information).

Because tribes are considered legally sovereign, unlike states, they have different legal status and can do things that states can't--which is one of the reasons why casinos have taken off so much in the last 2 decades.

Very very complicated, and the land rights issues are never going to be resolved, because (for instance) there's no way in hell the Lakota are ever getting the Black Hills back. They won the lawsuit (the US broke the treaty with the Lakota when gold was discovered in the Black Hills), but what they got was cash, and they refused to accept it, and it's been gathering interest in a bank back east for going on thirty years now, IIRC...

Anyway, complicated.

[florence-craye.livejournal.com]

I think that's so unfair, everyone in the US is came from other places, and the Indigenous Americans had their land taken away from them (just like here), but it's not even a big issue in the country.

Sadly, I think it's because there are so few Indigenous Americans left, that most Americans see them as non-existant or hardly even an issue. When you kill most of the population, it's as if they don't exist. Since they are not the major minority, their issues don't get as much coverage.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

When you kill most of the population, it's as if they don't exist. Since they are not the major minority, their issues don't get as much coverage.

Yes, but they aren't dead. They still exist, and that's such a great example of the strength of the human spirit, that against all odds people and their cultures can survive.

Indigenous rights in Australia is such a big political issue, and has always been one my entire life I don't understand how Americans seem to ignore it, or disregard it. It's the people who came first, it's the people who knew the land best.

And it's not a contest of 'who suffered the most' but I think the Indigenous people should get more acknowledgment because we have taken away their land. This is pretty much a universal issue, not just western, there is the same issue with the Indigenous people in Vietnam and Japan.

[florence-craye.livejournal.com]

Most of them are dead, unfortunately. This is a result of hundreds of years of genocide. I agree that their issues should get more attention here, but you wanted a reason and there it is. Most of the populations of Indigenous Americans are no longer with us. The few who survive are shoved onto reservations and ignored because it is easier to forget about them than to deal with the guilt caused by our ancestors' deeds.

Their people and cultures can survive in a small number, but since their cultures are purposely pushed out of the way in American life it is harder to get word out about their plight here. I don't say it's right, but that is likely the reason for the lack of action and/or concern from most Americans. That is what I was trying to make clear. It's sad, but most Americans are not sensitive to issues that aren't reported by the major news media or personally encountered by them.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

It's sad, but most Americans are not sensitive to issues that aren't reported by the major news media or personally encountered by them.

I think that might be true everywhere.

It must be so frustrating to be an Indigenous person where nobody recognises or understands your culture (which also happen here). Or frustrating for everyone who wants justice.

It's something we discussed quite a bit at work, comparing Indigenous issues between different political systems across the world. I keep meaning to look up how things work in the US, but I get so busy with other things :(

[nell65.livejournal.com]

If you ever do get around to looking things up, a few helpful google phrases that would capture the ways that Native American issues *are* frequently, seriously, several times a month or more even in my local paper, and much more often in election cycles, in the news around the US - other than indigenous peoples, which isn't a phrase used particularly much in the US to describe Native-Americans or native american issues - would be "casinos," or "indian gaming" or some combination of the two, and "fishing rights."

These issues - at least in my part of the US - are constant fodder for politics, news, and debate. But I am not surprised that internationally they don't flag as what they are. They sound like local government. Which, they also are, with all the pettyness and soap opera qualities one ought to expect!

Also - as a result of a variety of influences, right now - and again I'm speaking mostly from my part of the US - many Native American people are *extremely* wary or even outright opposed to sharing much of their remaining culture with outsiders, despite being the minority group most likely to marry outside their own.

Many elders choose silence, actively and consiously, when dealing with the outside world.

[florence-craye.livejournal.com]

In my part of the US, they are not so well-reported. We have many organizations fighting for NA or IA rights, but I think the media here still just don't get it. (In my state we have no casinos, so there isn't much to report in that respect.)

In our part of the US, the few stories are about burial grounds and the legislation protecting them when a construction company finds one on the property they want to build on.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I live in the upper midwest - so casinos *and* fishing rights (and burial issues and treaty rights and reservation-buy backs) are pretty steadily in the news and part of the constant negotiations that make up local and state-level politics.

Which is part of my frustration when even local people -who should know better!- dismiss Native-Americans as a 'mostly-deal' people, safe to regret sadly.

There is a native-run casino right in the middle of our downtown!!

[florence-craye.livejournal.com]

Hi, I thought I'd replied to this earlier! Thanks for sending me some needed info on NA issues. I apologize for contributing to your frustration with my replies. I was meaning to say that because their numbers are smaller, which makes them less visible, that we should pay more attention to their issues than we do as NA issues need as much pushing for change as possible. I hope it didn't come across otherwise.

[florence-craye.livejournal.com]

It is very frustrating! It's frustrating for all minority groups to be heard, especially with the current administration (and the administrations around the world). I imagine it's even more insulting and frustrating if your people are the original inhabitants of the land.

Re the US: It's also very confusing for people who live here, and it can vary from one part of the country to the next. So it depends on where you look, I suppose. (See nell65's comment and my reply to it.)

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Weellll, I wouldn't be so quick to frame Native Americans as 'mostly dead' (Princess Bride reference intentional!). Their numbers have rebounded dramatically in the last census cycle, in part because of a change in terminology, which allowed for respondents to select multiple categories, which in turn is begining to allow for the possiblity of a clearer view of the very long existance of peoples of mixed Native-American-Something-Else heritage. Native Americans also don't all live on reservations. A significant minority (at least, I don't have good stats and I'm not sure anyone else does either) live off reservation, where they are often near invisible - in part by their own choice.

The myth that Native-Americans are 'mostly dead' is in itself a problem when trying to really get a handle on how people in the US deal with Native-Americans and Native American issues.

[florence-craye.livejournal.com]

That's good news! Although, I doubt their numbers are quite what they were before the white settlers came in.

I would choose to be invisible as well, if this country treated my people they way it has.

I suppose the next question is: what can we do next to ensure continuing progress?

[rydra_wong]

It's certainly a huge one here. I think the person above wasn't saying that there is no racism in the UK, just that it's handled differently.

I agree that racism here manifests differently in a number of ways, and it can be problematic if people view things exclusively in US terms.

But I don't remotely think that it means anyone over here can "afford to be colorblind", which was the claim I was replying to.

And plenty of things really aren't that different.

For example, the term "Mammy" may be a specifically US inflection of a stereotype - but I can certainly tell you that the "black women as destined to be domestics and clean other people's houses" stereotype exists here.

And the "black women are less desirable than blonde white girls" stereotype - hell, yeah.

So I really find it irritating when people automatically use "... but the UK is DIFFERENT!" as a "get out of accusations of racism free" card.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

Certainly it's not free of racism, and I'm totally convinced about the colour blind thing either, sorry, but I don't really want to get into a huge argument about that.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think of myself foremost as me, then I think of myself as Australian, then a women, then a person who has different heritages.

From my time in the UK I found that workers from Eastern Europe (mostly cleaners etc) and travellors were most discriminated against, and very much openly so. More then Indians, Pakistanis or African Carribean, although I'm aware of that as well and I only ever saw young Eastern European women in domestic service. Most of the doctors were Indian and Pakistani. (I worked in hospitals)

The friendliest people (other then other Aussies) in Manchester were the African Carribeans who I felt really easy talking to when I was lost, and weren't so reserved as the white British people.

I believe that the divide between nations is bigger then gender, race or class. Although I'm not blind to actual reality of the situation, my job doesn't allow me to be, even if I wanted to.

But I want to be treated like everyone else, I don't want to be treated better or worst and it frustrates me if I am (and it has happened, and I hated it, especially the difference you get when people find out about where you came from, or your heritage), and I treat other people on how I want to be treated, and then on who they are as a person.

And that's how I approach everything in life.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

But I want to be treated like everyone else, I don't want to be treated better or worst and it frustrates me if I am (and it has happened, and I hated it, especially the difference you get when people find out about where you came from, or your heritage), and I treat other people on how I want to be treated, and then on who they are as a person.

I respect what you're saying about your own efforts to treat everyone fairly as individuals but... Britain is a multicultural society with a long history of failed attempts to enforce monocultural assimilation (the Romans did it to the Britons; and the Normans did it to the Saxons, the Scots and the Welsh; and...) which has changed to become a successful multicultural society where an acceptance of diversity is a social strength. In a successful multicultural society, treating individuals differently from each other doesn't have to be the same as treating some people worse than others. :-)

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

Yes, Australia has also got a culture of cultural assimilation, we even had back in the 50s 'The White Australia Policy' where we would not allow anyone else in who was of a different race.

In a successful multicultural society, treating individuals differently from each other doesn't have to be the same as treating some people worse than others. :-)

I wonder if there is such a thing? Because it appears that the idea of a multicultural society means different things to different people, so by what yardstick do you measure a successful multicultural society?

But I digress. In the workplace, in social interactions I don't treat anyone differently, and how should I treat a person differently? You say that we should recognise everyone as different according to race, or heritage.

I don't see how I can approach anyone differently, or talk to anyone differently in any social situation based on race without causing offence. And what does that mean? Do I speak differently? I don't quite understand what the practical, every day application of what you're saying is, could you give me an example?

I work with people from different backgrounds and have done for years, and I've never been instructed on talk to anyone, or treat anyone differently according to where they were born, or where their parents were born.

[supermouse.livejournal.com]

One tiny, concrete example would be to learn which subgroups will find staring rude, and which expect to be looked eye to eye and find not staring to be, at best, shifty. How to learn this is something you'd have to work out for yourself, because it's such a diverse and individual thing. Other differences can be looked for and taken account of. Like learning to take off your shoes in some buildings, so as not to give offence. If you see everyone who enters taking off their shoes, it's a clue.

Another thing that is useful is to learn about white privelege - if you're in a majority, or a subset of people used to weilding social power, then this applies to you. Being in the subset in power means not having to think about difference, because it never effects you personally. Being able to ignore difference is, in fact, a privelege.

[vass]

For instance, the major minority is indigenous,

It is? *is Australian, and confused*

Can you please clarify what you mean there by major minority?

Here's the Census breakdown:
European - 89.3%
Asian - 5.1% (mainly Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese)
Middle Eastern - 1.2% (mainly Lebanese, Turkish)
South Asian - 1.6% (mainly Indian, Sinhalese)
Aboriginal - 2.3%
Maori - 0.5%
Latino - 0.2%

It'd probably look very different if you did it by nation, not by continent, but I don't think the Census could cope with that.

For interest, here's the breakdown on first generation immigrants:
Most of us were born here: 4/5s, roughly. That includes the 2.3% of the population who are Aboriginal Australian. The other fifth are mostly whinging Poms and sheep-fucking Kiwis people from the UK and New Zealand (tell me again about how it's the Brits who indulge in casual bigotry and name-calling?)

The majority of illegal immigrants are from the UK and the US, and are visa overstayers - I mention that because it's a big thing here, and because the popular belief is that 'illegals' are mainly Asian or Arabic.