Image taken from tumblr.
Recently, SFF author Tansy Rayner Roberts wrote an excellent post debunking the idea that women did nothing interesting or useful throughout history, and that trying to write fictional stories based on this premise of feminine insignificance is therefore both inaccurate and offensive. To quote:
“History is not a long series of centuries in which men did all the interesting/important things and women stayed home and twiddled their thumbs in between pushing out babies, making soup and dying in childbirth.
History is actually a long series of centuries of men writing down what they thought was important and interesting, and FORGETTING TO WRITE ABOUT WOMEN. It’s also a long series of centuries of women’s work and women’s writing being actively denigrated by men. Writings were destroyed, contributions were downplayed, and women were actively oppressed against, absolutely.
But the forgetting part is vitally important. Most historians and other writers of what we now consider “primary sources” simply didn’t think about women and their contribution to society. They took it for granted, except when that contribution or its lack directly affected men.
This does not in any way mean that the female contribution to society was in fact less interesting or important, or complicated, simply that history—the process of writing down and preserving of the facts, not the facts/events themselves—was looking the other way.”
The relevance of this statement to the creation of SFF stories cannot be understated. Time and again, we see fans and creators alike defending the primacy of homogeneous – which is to say, overwhelmingly white, straight and male – stories on the grounds that anything else would be intrinsically unrealistic. Contrary to how it might seem at first blush, this is not a wholly ironic complaint: as I’ve recently had cause to explain elsewhere, the plausibility of SFF stories is derived in large part from their ability to make the impossible feel realistic. A fictional city might be powered by magic and the dreams of dead gods, but it still has to read like a viable human space and be populated by viable human characters. In that sense, it’s arguable that SFF stories actually place a greater primacy on realism than straight fiction, because they have to work harder to compensate for the inclusion of obvious falsehoods. Which is why there’s such an integral relationship between history and fantasy: our knowledge of the former frequently underpins our acceptance of the latter. Once upon a time, we know, there really were knights and castles and quests, and maps whose blank spaces warned of dragons and magic. That being so, a medieval fantasy novel only needs to convince us that the old myths were true; that wizards and witches existed, and that monsters really did populate the wilds. Everything else that’s dissonant with modern reality – the clothes, the customs, the social structure – must therefore constitute a species of historical accuracy, albeit one that’s liberally seasoned with poetic license, because that vague, historical blueprint is what we already have in our heads.
But what happens when our perception of historical accuracy is entirely at odds with real historical accuracy? What happens when we mistake our own limited understanding of culture – or even our personal biases – for universal truths? What happens, in other words, when we’re jerked out of a story, not because the fantastic elements don’t make sense, but because the social/political elements strike us as being implausible on the grounds of unfamiliarity?
The answer tends to be as ugly as it is revealing: that it’s impossible for black, female pirates to exist anywhere, thatpixies and shapeshifters are inherently more plausible as a concept than female action heroes who don’t get raped, and that fairy tale characters as diverse as Mulan, Snow White and Captain Hook can all live together in the modern world regardless of history and canon, but a black Lancelot in the same setting is grossly unrealistic. On such occasions, the recent observation of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Junot Diaz that “Motherfuckers will read a book that’s 1/3rd elvish, but put two sentences in Spanish and they (white people) think we’re taking over” is bitingly, lamentably accurate. And it’s all thanks to a potent blend of prejudice and ignorance: prejudice here meaning the conviction that deliberately including POC, female and/or LGBTQ characters can only ever be a political action (and therefore an inherently suspicious one), and ignorance here meaning the conviction that the historical pervasiveness of sexism, racism and homophobia must necessarily mean that any character shown to surpass these limitations is inherently unrealistic.
Let’s start with the latter claim, shall we?
Because as Roberts rightly points out, there’s a significant difference between history as written and history as happened, with a further dissonance between both those states and history as it’s popularly perceived. For instance: female pirates – and, indeed, female pirates of colour – are very much an historical reality. The formidable Ching Shih, a former prostitute, commanded more than 1800 ships and 80,000 pirates, took on the British empire and was successful enough to eventually retire. There were female Muslim pirates and female Irish pirates – female pirates, in fact, from any number of places, times and backgrounds. But because their existence isn’t routinely taught or acknowledged, we assume them to be impossible. The history of women in the sciences is plagued by similar misconceptions, their vital contributions belittled, forgotten and otherwise elided for so many years that even now, the majority of them continue to be overlooked. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie are far from being exceptions to the rule: Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, Leise Meitner and Emmy Noether all contributed greatly to our understanding of science, as did countless others. And in the modern day, young female scientists abound despite the ongoing belief in their rarity: nineteen-year-old Aisha Mustafa has patented a new propulsion system for spacecraft, while a young group of Nigerian schoolgirls recently invented a urine-powered generator. Even the world’s first chemist was a woman.
And nor is female achievement restricted to the sciences. Heloise d’Argenteuil was accounted one of the brightest intellectuals of her day; Bessie Coleman was both the first black female flyer and the first African American to hold an international pilot’s licence; Nellie Bly was a famed investigative journalist, not only travelling around the world solo in record time (in which adventure she raced against and beat another female reporter, Elizabeth Bisland), but uncovering the deplorable treatment of inmates at Blackwell Asylum by going undercover as a patient. Sarah Josephine Baker was a famous physician known for tracking down Typhoid Mary, tirelessly fighting poverty and, as a consequence, drastically improving newborn care. And in the modern day, there’s no shortage of female icons out fighting racism, sexism, homophobia and injustice despite the limitations society wants to impose on them: journalistMarie Colvin, who died this year reporting on the Syrian uprising; Burmese politician and activist Aung San Suu Kyi, who spent some 15 years as a political prisoner; fifteen-year-old Malala Yousafzai, who survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban for her advocacy of female education; and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakul Karman, who jointly won last year’s Nobel Peace Prize for their work in support of women’s rights.
But what about historical women in positions of leadership – warriors, politicians, powerbrokers? Where do they fit in? The ancient world provides any number of well-known examples – Agrippina the Younger, Cleopatra, Boudica,Queen Bilquis of Sheba, Nefertiti – but they, too, are far from being unusual: alongside the myriad female soldiersthroughout history who disguised themselves as men stand the Dahomey Amazons, the Soviet Night Witches, thefemale cowboys of the American west and the modern Asgarda of Ukraine; the Empress Dowager Cixi, Queen Elizabeth I and Ka’iulani all ruled despite opposition, while a wealth of African queens, female rulers and rebels have had their histories virtually expunged from common knowledge. At just twenty years old, Juana Galan successfully lead the women of her village against Napoleon’s troops, an action which ultimately caused the French to abandon her home province of La Mancha. Women played a major part in the Mexican revolution, too, much like modern women across Africa and the Middle East, while the Irish revolutionary, suffragette and politician Constance Markievicz, when asked to provide other women with fashion advice, famously replied that they should “Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank, and buy a revolver.” More recently still, in WWII, New Zealander Nancy Wake served as a leading French resistance fighter: known to the Gestapo as the White Mouse, she once killed an SS sentry with her bare hands and took command of a maquis unit when their male commander died in battle. Elsewhere during the same conflict, Irena Sendler survived both torture and a Nazi death sentence to smuggle some 2,500 Jewish children safely out of the Warsaw ghetto, for which she was nominated for a Nobel peace prize in 2007.
And what of gender roles and sexual orientation – the various social, romantic and matrimonial mores we so frequently assume to be static, innate and immutable despite the wealth of information across biology and history telling us the opposite? Consider the modern matriarchy of Meghalaya, where power and property descend through matrilineal lines and men are the suffragettes. Consider the longstanding Afghan practice of Bacha Posh, where girl children are raised as boys, or the sworn virgins of Albania – women who live as and are legally considered to be men, provided they remain chaste. Consider the honoured status of Winkte and two-spirit persons in various First Nations cultures, and the historical acceptance of both the Fa’afafine of Samoa and the Hijra of India and South-East Asia. Consider the Biblical relationship described in the Book of Samuel between David and Jonathan of Israel, the inferred romance between Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, and the openly gay emperors of the Han Dynasty - including Emperor Ai of Han, whose relationship with Dong Xian gave rise to the phrase ‘the passion of the cut sleeve’. Consider the poetry of Sappho, the relationship between Alice B. Toklas and Gertrude Stein, the tradition of normative, female-female relationships in Basotho, and the role of the Magnonmaka in Mali – nuptial advisers whose teach women how to embrace and enjoy their sexuality in marriage.
And then there’s the twin, misguided beliefs that Europe was both wholly white and just as racially prejudiced as modern society from antiquity through to the Middle Ages – practically right up until the present day. Never mind that no less than three Arthurian Knights of the Round Table – Sir Palamedes, Sir Safir and Sir Segwarides – are canonically stated to be Middle Eastern, or the fact that people of African descent have been present in Europe since classical times; and not just as slaves or soldiers, but as aristocrats. The network of trade routes known collectively asthe Silk Road that linked Europe with parts Africa, the Middle East, India and Asia were established as early as 100 BC; later, black Africans had a visible, significant, complex presence in Europe during the Renaissance, while much classic Greek and Roman literature was only preserved thanks to the dedication of Arabic scholars during the Abbasid Caliphate, also known as the Islamic Golden Age, whose intellectuals were also responsible for many advances in medicine, science and mathematics subsequently appropriated and claimed as Western innovations. Even in the eighteen and nineteen hundreds, it’s possible to find examples of prominent POC in Europe: Alexandre Dumas, author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, was of Creole descent, as was Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, the famous British composer, while Jamaican nurse Mary Seacole was honoured alongside Florence Nightingale for her work during the Crimean War.
I could go on. As exhaustive as this information might seem, it barely scratches the surface. But as limited an overview as these paragraphs present, they should still be sufficient to make one very simple point: that even in highly prejudicial settings supposedly based on real human societies, trying to to argue that women, POC and/or LGBTQ persons can’t so much as wield even small amounts of power in the narrative, let alone exist as autonomous individuals without straining credulity to the breaking point, is the exact polar opposite of historically accurate writing.
Which leads me back to the issue of prejudice: specifically, to the claim that including such characters in SFF stories, by dint of contradicting the model of straight, white, male homogeneity laid down by Tolkien and taken as gospel ever since, is an inherently political – and therefore suspect – act. To which I say: what on Earth makes you think that the classic SWM default is apolitical? If it can reasonably argued that a character’s gender, race and sexual orientation have political implications, then why should that verdict only apply to characters who differ from both yourself and your expectations? Isn’t the assertion that straight white men are narratively neutral itself a political statement, one which seeks to marginalise as exceptional or abnormal the experiences of every other possible type of person on the planet despite the fact that straight white men are themselves a global minority? And even if a particular character was deliberately written to make a political point, why should that threaten you? Why should it matter that people with different beliefs and backgrounds are using fiction to write inspirational wish-fulfillment characters for themselves, but from whose struggle and empowerment you feel personally estranged? That’s not bad writing, and as we’ve established by now, it’s certainly not bad history – and particularly not when you remember (as so many people seem to forget) that fictional cultures are under no obligation whatsoever to conform to historical mores. It just means that someone has managed to write a successful story that doesn’t consider you to be its primary audience – and if the prospect of not being wholly, overwhelmingly catered to is something you find disturbing, threatening, wrong? Then yeah: I’m going to call you a bigot, and I probably won’t be wrong.
Point being, I’m sick to death of historical accuracy being trotted out as the excuse du jour whenever someone freaks out about the inclusion of a particular type of character in SFF, because the ultimate insincerity behind the claim is so palpable it’s practically a food group. I’m yet to see someone who objects to the supposed historic inaccuracy of, for instance, female cavalry regiments (which – surprise! - is totally a thing) raise similarly vehement objections to any other aspect of historically suspicious worldbuilding, like longbows in the wrong period or medical knowledge being too far advanced for the setting. The reason for this is, I suspect, simple: that most people with sufficient historical knowledge to pick up on issues like nonsensical farming techniques, the anachronistic presence of magnets in ancient settings and corsetry in the wrong era also know about historical diversity, and therefore don’t find its inclusion confronting. Almost uniformly, in fact, it seems as though such complaints of racial and sexual inaccuracy have nothing whatsoever to do with history and everything to do with a foggy, bastardised and ultimately inaccurate species of faux-knowledge gleaned primarily – if not exclusively – from homogeneous SFF, RPG settings, TV shows and Hollywood. And if that’s so, then no historic sensibilities are actually being affronted, because none genuinely exist: instead, it’s just a reflexive way of expressing either conscious or subconscious outrage that someone who isn’t white, straight and/or male is being given the spotlight.
Because ultimately, these are SFF stories: narratives set in realms that don’t and can’t exist. And if you still want to police the prospects of their inhabitants in line with a single, misguided view of both human history and human possibility, then congratulations: you have officially missed the point of inventing new worlds to begin with.
If Kanye and Kim don’t get married BEFORE Kim has this child will y’all jump down her throat, condemn her, and say that she’s a bad woman because she “didn’t do it right”?
Cuz a lot of people jumped down all of the throats of black women who had children out of wedlock when Beyonce announced her pregnancy.
But, then again, I don’t think people will since Kim’s not a black woman and apparently only black women need to be chastised for having children out of wedlock *sarcasm*
Why ask questions we already know the answer to though? I mean, no one is chin checking rappers (including Kanye), for having kids without the benefit of clergy. People don’t give a tiny tin fuck about policing the sex lives of anyone but black women.
I’m sorry I was born light skinned.
No, I’m not sorry I was born lighter than most. I will not apologize for something I had no control over. Im just so sick and tired of darker skinned PoC trying to make me feel bad for something I HAD NO CONTROL OVER. I didn’t ask to be born light skinned.
I’m also tired of darker skinned PoC trying to make ALL lighter skinned PoC the bad guys. I’m fucking tired of people assuming I think I’m better than you because my skin is lighter. I don’t think I’m better than anyone. Hell, I wish we could all be treated equally.
I’ll admit, lighter skinned PoC do have it way easier than most darker skinned PoC. I say most because not all dark skinned PoC have lived a hard life.
I don’t wish to be brown skinned or dark skinned because I love my skin color. However, I fucking love brown skin & dark skin. There’s just something sooooooo sexy about darker skin. Lol, I still have love for the light bright boys tho.
Another thing before I end this little rant… Can we please learn the difference between brown skin and dark skin -_- most of the who claim they’re dark are actually brown.
My black is beautiful and so is yours and his and hers :-* black is ALWAYS beautiful no matter the shade.
Chile, this sounds like it came from the Derailing for Dummies playbook. If White folks said this shit to PoC to get us to quit complaining about racism, we’d be so far up their asses they may actually get rhythm and learn how to twerk!
Light-skin folk won’t hesitate to use the same tools against dark folk that they complain that Whites use against them.
this is actually really funny because it just goes to show that people care less about racism than racists
when racists are called out it’s bullying! how dare you! fighting fire w/ fire!! hate speech is freedom of speech waaaaah
see the thing is no one doxed anyone, this is simple digging around on facebook which is still public information. if you don’t want to be called out for your racist actions, then don’t be a racist.
obvs there’s a difference b/w harassing and posting public information to a future employer, and if you consider the fact that someone writing the n word or threatening violence on the president of the united states isn’t bullying itself, heaven help you why are you even here
none of these people get pitchforks for anything except those darn sjws
who are sjws? oh right, just pocs who just want to see racist people get consequences. half of the people who reblogged that post hate sjers themselves so what are you doing
i have had public information about my sex life sent to my mother. i have been victim to these stalkers and uggh it is really fucking demeaning to the rest of the people who have been harassed online to even compare it to something like this
thank you, juthika. people do not understand this, and it is infuriating to keep getting notifications from these no name assholes who always show up to yell BUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS JUST AS BAD
is it? is it truly just as bad?
if that’s the case, then how come I haven’t seen you post one single reaction to people saying racist shit online?
and that’s the key here: these people never, ever, EVER react this angrily to racism happening, or to bullying of PoC. and to me, that speaks volumes about what they actually believe. they can sit there and say that they hate racism, that they’re not racist, that they want racism to end, but when you only speak up to decry the way PoC fight back against a system of violence and bigotry, i will absolutely conclude that you don’t give two shits about racism
let me also share this: i have been fired before in my life, and during my firing, I was accused of stealing. it was false and just an excuse for my district manager to get me out of my job, but the people who made claims of my theft all said shit like, “Well, just look at him. it’s clear he steals.” one of my own employees at the time actually wrote in their complaint that I had a lot of “suspicious friends” who spoke in “gang language” and wore “sagging pants.” all coded language for “people who aren’t white.”
i had no recourse. no one cared. i felt less than a person. and that’s the reality of our lives. people can use this built-in prejudice without any recourse, and that’s the way it goes, time and time again.
so i give zero fucks that this racist shit got fired. bring it on. fire more of them. and stop coming to me and other people of color to criticize us for fighting back when you are silent as a parishioner at mass. because if you are fucking silent, you are allowing it to happen.
Bolded mine cuz A-FUCKIN-MEN!
The Sundance Institute has a program called Film Forward, which Advances Cultural Dialogue. Check out the number of poc directors.
The international touring program offers film screenings, workshops and discussions with filmmakers in eight locations in collaboration with local institutions and US Embassies. Film Forward’s aim is to foster dialogue, inspire curiosity and advance cultural understanding and awareness.
The films participating in the third year are Behn Zeitlin’s “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” Stacy Peralta’s “Bones Brigade: An Autobiography,” Jeff Orlowski’s “Chasing Ice,” Patricia Riggen’s “Under The Same Moon,” Julia Meltzer and Laura Nix’s “The Light in her Eyes,” Nancy Buirski’s “The Loving Story,” Jerry Rothwell’s “Town of Runners” and Musa Syeed’s “Valley of Saints.”
Now note how many of these people are apparently now expert at advancing cultural dialogue using poc stories. Yeah. There was only ONE poc director who made ANYTHING that could “advance cultural dialogue” this year apparently. Hisses teeth.
Sundance is the worst when it comes to things like this. These things meaning supporting the work of POC trying to tell stories about POC. But I do think that there are three directors of color on that list, not just one. Jeff Orlowski, Musa Syeed, and Patricia Riggen, yeah?