More Race Fail

[shadydave]

You know what sucks? Finding out that an author that you like has jumped headlong into writing race FAIL. It's bad enough READING it, but at least in some cases you can MAYBE attribute it to carelessness or ignorance (HAI THAR TOLKIEN) as opposed to active malicious intent. Whereas this is just so shockingly insensitive, if not purposefully offensive, I don't even know what to say. Actually, I do: if ORSON SCOTT CARD can address this "problem" SO CAN YOU. Granted, I think that was pre-radical/CRAZY Orson Scott Card, but STILL.

In conclusion: please don't buy "The Thirteenth Child" by Patricia C. Wrede. I love her other books, but this is unconscionable. (And while we're at it, don't contribute money to The Last Failbender either.)

Dear Entertainment:

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ENTERTAINING, NOT PERPETUATING HARMFUL SOCIAL PREJUDICES AND INEQUALITIES. STOP THAT RIGHT NOW.

Sincerely,
Dave

ETA: Here's an archive of the discussions.
SON OF ETA: ::headdesk:: ARRRRRRGH WHYYYYYYYY FOR GOODNESS' SAKE LISTEN TO YOURSELF WOMAN ::headdesk:: ::headdesk::

Comments

[naturalblue208.livejournal.com]

NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU NOT PATC!!!!!!!!

[naturalblue208.livejournal.com]

well, she is actually referencing a legitimate debate that's going on about how we perceive native americans both now and historiographically. it's a total cop-out for her to erase native americans, but if what she's trying to say is that she wants to have a settling the frontier book with an actual frontier as opposed to an invasion of an area already settled by tons of sophisticated societies, then it does make sense.

in conclusion: yes, it's a cop-out. a very inappropriate statement, certainly, but i don't think it's malicious.

Now malicious race fail would be statements like:

"The Iroquois, as they were named by the French, or the Five Nations as they called themselves, hung like a cloud over the whole great continent.... War was their business, and cruelty their amusement."

[Dialogue from a Jesuit who's been scalped] "Ah, you have observed my little injuries, then! They know no better, poor souls. They are but mischievous children--merry-hearted but mischievous."

"Two men had emerged from the bushes, one of whom might have passed as a full-blooded Indian, had it not been for these courteous words which he uttered in excellent French. He was a tall slight young man, very dark, with piercing black eyes, and a grim square relentless mouth which could only have come with Indian descent."


which are the sorts of things that made me put down The Refugees. i don't care if it's the 1890s, ACD knew better than that. now that i'm rereading bits of it he does try to play with different perceptions of native americans and colonization some, but all VERY heavily colored with tremendous race fail.

[shadydave.livejournal.com]

in conclusion: yes, it's a cop-out. a very inappropriate statement, certainly, but i don't think it's malicious.

I don't think it's malicious, but to basically say "this is too hard to figure out, so I'm not going to bother" in reference to peoples who have been steadily marginalized for 500 years is, at the very least, incredibly disrespectful. Especially since she's writing an AU, where she could get some leeway in whichever view she decided to go with. Plus there's always the option of writing the best you can, and, I don't know, ASKING people if they feel they've been fairly represented. You might not please everyone, but at least you'll have made an effort!

In conclusion: EPIC FAIL. And it's even more upsetting because she does such good things with her other books :(

[naturalblue208.livejournal.com]

another interesting chapter in the debate. people took offense at the fact that he made native americans into centaurs (which he did because they are "close to the Earth" and because centaurs are renowned for their wisdom, which he felt was also true of native americans) and had this sort of neighing song. in fact the lyrics he uses are an actual native american song, and a really beautiful one at that-- and so the question is about these two perceptions that we have historically had about native americans-- as either "savages" or as people deeply connected with the Earth and steeped in the wisdom of the ancients, like the centaurs of myth. the second viewpoint has lasted a lot longer, but many people find it just as inappropriate.

the strange thing is that authors 1. don't tend to show that the collective term "native americans" is about as much of a misnomer as "africans" and 2. don't really show societies that, although they had very different structures (such as dual kingship), were in many ways pretty darn familiar when it came down to it. people are people no matter where they are, yknow?

i think it comes from the small amount of documentation that we have-- and the sort of mythology that has been growing up about native americans as a group over the past 400 years. mom's writing a paper on medicine and she talked about how people would go to native american healers for cures because native americans were viewed as mystical and capable of magical healing. -- and those are the documents that we have. and that's where linguistics and archaeology have to come in and say hang on guys, these documents are TREMENDOUSLY biased in either direction (and sometimes both at the same time, ie. "noble savage" etc) and we're really going to have to reconstruct these societies in other ways as well. and that's the only bit that's fairly new, yknow?

i am very disappointed in patc for not taking it on-- but i think i see what she may be trying to say and saying badly. if she truly wants a frontier book jules verne style that isn't a huge tragedy like what happened historically, other people really can't figure in it. cos they either have to be the enemy defending their lands from invasion, or the "noble savages" happily welcoming the invaders and kowtowing to a "higher" culture, or the wise and earthy people who help out the main characters and then dwindle and fade away into the forests. and *all* of those depictions are racist. cos frontiers involve settlement, and a widespread settlement of a land already inhabited by people is by nature an invasion. and invasions are pretty much awful.

maybe that was what she was trying to get at? an alternate universe with a New World that was actually new-- and not just new to Europeans, but ancient to the bajillions of people who'd been living there for thousands of years?

[shadydave.livejournal.com]

For Dreamland, it would all depend on how metaphorical it all is. Like, if you have various races/ethnicities (INCLUDING Europeans) who got equated with mythological creatures, or something similar, then it still might be problematic but at least American Indians aren't being singled out, you know? But if it's just them, then he just made a whole bunch of people NOT HUMAN and you can see how that's a problem, regardless of how otherwise apt the comparison may be. Basically, art should not trump being a decent human being.

and that's where linguistics and archaeology have to come in and say hang on guys, these documents are TREMENDOUSLY biased in either direction (and sometimes both at the same time, ie. "noble savage" etc) and we're really going to have to reconstruct these societies in other ways as well. and that's the only bit that's fairly new, yknow?

Considering I've come by this information via LJ COMMENTS (well, besides from my linguistic-anthro class with Prof Bragdon ;P) it is indeed possible to find up-to-date and about-as-unprejudiced-as-we-can-currently-produce information about European-settlement-era American Indians if you expend some effort. (Wow, that was a lot of hyphens.)

if she truly wants a frontier book jules verne style that isn't a huge tragedy like what happened historically, other people really can't figure in it.

But that's the problem -- you're erasing entire cultures because they'd change the tone of your book! It's like re-writing World War II as a political thriller and getting rid of the Holocaust and Hiroshima/Nagasaki because they'd make things too depressing. Ignoring the blatant suffering of thousands of people because they are a plot inconvenience is much worse than trying and failing to create a balanced AU representation with the best resources you can find.

maybe that was what she was trying to get at? an alternate universe with a New World that was actually new-- and not just new to Europeans, but ancient to the bajillions of people who'd been living there for thousands of years?

? ::confused::

[naturalblue208.livejournal.com]

well, the thing about dreamland is that there are fairies and elves and things, and the elves are white, the mermaids are green, and the fairies are pink. also there's trolls and things too. so it's not like they are the only culture-- but people object because they are the only "non-white" (aside from pink, green, and grey) culture in Dreamland so far.

isn't that the point of alternative history? to say "what if this happened in a different way?" and what could be more different than colonization in a new world that was actually a frontier? i mean it's kind of like saying that phillip pullman erased protestants and all the things they suffered at various times in history as a plot inconvenience. that's not his goal; his goal is to explore a world that happened differently.

now i would rather see patc explore a different fallout with native americans in her book. but it would by definition be an invasion, not a frontier-- the only reason anybody's got away with calling america a frontier to begin with is because they ignored native americans as people when they were, in fact, very much there. her *goal* is to write a frontier into an alternative history, and the only real frontier there is in this world is antarctica. so wherever she has her characters go, there will have to not be people there, whether it's Asia or Africa or Australia or the Americas, or other parts of Europe. and if she's vaguely following an anglocentric history, she's talking the americas.

i think she's trying to write something interesting, but very foolishly not taking into account the history behind it and current events in the writing world.

what would be *smart* if she wants a frontier story would be for her to create an entirely new, uninhabited continent, because that would bypass the problem entirely. and be really interesting. and that could be her New World that wasn't only new to Europeans :)

[shadydave.livejournal.com]

well, the thing about dreamland is that there are fairies and elves and things, and the elves are white, the mermaids are green, and the fairies are pink. also there's trolls and things too. so it's not like they are the only culture-- but people object because they are the only "non-white" (aside from pink, green, and grey) culture in Dreamland so far.

I'm still confused -- do the pink, green, and grey cultures reflect real world cultures also? Or are the centaurs the only ones?

isn't that the point of alternative history? to say "what if this happened in a different way?" and what could be more different than colonization in a new world that was actually a frontier? i mean it's kind of like saying that phillip pullman erased protestants and all the things they suffered at various times in history as a plot inconvenience. that's not his goal; his goal is to explore a world that happened differently.

Completely isolated from real world history, there's nothing wrong with it in theory. The problem is that it's NOT isolated from real world history, so in simply vanishing all those American Indian cultures, Wrede is carrying on the attitude of the Americas' European colonizers, who by spreading disease, invading, breaking treaties, or deportation tried their damnedest to make all those inconvenient native peoples get out of the way of their Manifest Destiny. I sincerely doubt that was her goal, but she did not consider the issue with nearly enough sensitivity.

The comparison with Protestants isn't really very good, because while various groups of them have been oppressed throughout history, currently they are also some of the most powerful and wealthy people on Earth, which cannot be said for most American Indians or their cultures.

her *goal* is to write a frontier into an alternative history, and the only real frontier there is in this world is antarctica.

Yes, but it's a bad goal because it means erasing an already marginalized group, who played a significant role in American history that is still typically glossed over.

what would be *smart* if she wants a frontier story would be for her to create an entirely new, uninhabited continent, because that would bypass the problem entirely. and be really interesting. and that could be her New World that wasn't only new to Europeans :)

I know! It would be totally cool. It's just very upsetting because I KNOW she's a good enough writer to have come up with several alternatives that don't perpetuate such an unsavory ideology, but she didn't make the effort.

[naturalblue208.livejournal.com]

hehe, that's why i said i think she's trying to write something interesting, but very foolishly not taking into account the history behind it and current events in the writing world. :)

current wealth in some parts of the world doesn't negate past suffering, miss. that's kind of like saying that because there are wealthy and powerful african-americans (like the president of the US) slavery doesn't matter. it certainly affects how people are treated, and it provides the opportunity to move forward as a culture, but it doesn't make it go away. also it's not like Christians of various denominations don't face persecution in lots of places other than America nowadays-- look at ireland, for one. And there are huuuuge problems in china. and in the middle east, as well, and in areas of africa. people still get tortured and killed and marginalized, and just because it doesn't happen so much here doesn't devalue the fact that it does happen. anyway maybe it wasn't a perfect direct analogy, but the point i was trying to make is that i can see what she's trying to do. and like i said, what she's trying to do is actually very interesting; the problem is the historiography.

in fact i think she could make some very cogent points about how important native americans were and are to american and world cultures if she wrote a book they weren't in. so much of american and world culture comes from native america: maize, tomatoes, peanuts, potatoes, capsaicin peppers, the word "wow" (it's Powhatan), etc. and those are just things that are documented. the early colonies could not have survived without native american assistance-- there would be jillions of "lost colonies," not just one. would we have ever got over the idea that tomatoes are poison? would tomatoes even exist uncultivated? think what an impact the introduction of tomatoes made on world foodways. and the cultural impact that even the stereotypes of native americans have had has still been an important influence on american culture. they're tremendously central to the way the world is now. i mean seriously; even aspirin is a native american derivative, because they used the willow bark it's derived from as a painkiller. the ancient greeks knew about the properties of willow bark and wrote about it, but it didn't occur to anybody to actually do anything about it for 1700 years-- until they saw native americans using it medicinally. and what would modern medicine be like without the advent of aspirin? it was a huge breakthrough. and in the canary islands there are pyramids with ties to absolutely nothing except Mayan culture, and so there are huge studies going on about the fact that it's very possible that the Mayans came over to Europe long before we thought there was any contact. And that begs the question-- how much of European technology is, in fact, Mayan?

what would the world be like without native americans? it's a very interesting question, because they are soooo important, and have contributed more than anyone gives them credit for.

now whether patc will actually write something that interesting remains to be seen. but she does have the opportunity to make that point, and people are pointing out to her how stupid her comment was. i highly doubt when she wrote it she wanted to get involved in racefail; i think she was just being dumb. now she is a part of the discussion, though, and she seems to be a reasonable person. we know she's written insightful things before, and i'm sure she's capable of learning. i'm glad they called her out and i'll be interested to see how it affects her views and her book :)


as far as dreamland goes, the culture that pretty directly reflects europe is populated by furries :) and they're the bad guys ;)

[shadydave.livejournal.com]

current wealth in some parts of the world doesn't negate past suffering, miss.

And I'm not saying it does! My point is that the comparison to Protestants is a bad one because in the West, which is mainly where Philip Pullman's series takes place, the oppression of all Protestants everywhere is not a widespread problem (though yes, there are several places where religion plays a role in continuing conflicts), so leaving Protestants out of His Dark Materials is not contributing to and perpetuating an entire history of cultural suppression.

(And in any case, they haven't been erased -- all forms of Christianity have been subsumed under the Magisterium, and we don't get enough info to determine which denomination they resemble theologically, though hierarchically they appear Catholic.)

that's kind of like saying that because there are wealthy and powerful african-americans (like the president of the US) slavery doesn't matter.

Fortunately, that wasn't what I was saying at all.

in fact i think she could make some very cogent points about how important native americans were and are to american and world cultures if she wrote a book they weren't in.

She could! But unfortunately that does not seem to be the book she is writing, and therein lies the problem. I haven't read the book, so obviously I could be wrong, but reviews like this (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2QNWP1K8YZQJ3/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=054503342X&nodeID=283155#wasThisHelpful) seem to indicate that it is indeed about an American frontier appearing as Eurocentric histories portray it, with little or no involvement of native peoples.

i highly doubt when she wrote it she wanted to get involved in racefail; i think she was just being dumb.

I doubt it too! But the fact remains that her comment and her book are very troubling, which ignorance does not excuse when she is so obviously not an ignorant person. Also troubling is that this issue is not mentioned by official sources ANYWHERE, which means they didn't see it as a problem.

Obviously, I'm not going to judge her personally until she has a chance to respond and apologize, but I'm definitely not going to promote her book when it eliminates an entire continent's worth of civilizations because they interfered with the story and contributes to the ongoing marginalization of American Indians with no acknowledgment that this is a huge problem.

[naturalblue208.livejournal.com]

oh i didnt think you were saying something silly-- but i wanted to make the point anyway :)

aww, that original piece made it sound like she hadn't written it yet. sniff sniff patc make me sad :( i love new world type stories (hence why i like jules verne) but her book sounds bothersome in a lot of ways. sounds like there's more race fail than native americans going on as well.

i still totally want to see somebody write a story with no native americans in it that shows how completely bizarre the world would be without them. it'd be a neat and i think very powerful response to the whole erasure thing, reverse-psychology style :D