Esoterica's avatar

Esoterica

sumney
I hear the diversity criticism. However, to suggest that “Girls” — a show whose charm lies in part in its documentary-like feel — presents the universe these young women inhabit, working in publishing and the arts, as rich in racial diversity, would be, sadly, to lie. Besides, did anyone ever kvetch about Jerry Seinfeld’s lack of Asian friends?

Elissa Schappel, in the articulately-titled Salon.com article, Stop dumping on Lena Dunham!

So there you have it. Let’s be real, guys! People of color do not work in the multi-faceted fields of publishing or “the arts.” Nope. No Asians, no Blacks, no Latin@s. That would be unrealistic. But you’ll see some diversity — lots of people with old British ancestry, Swedish ancestry, Nordic ancestry, even French! Right? 

BTW. Many people have “kvetched” over the absence of diversity in Seinfeld. But clearly, some white ears don’t hear voices of color.

(via sumney)

Depicting people of color working in publishing and the arts in New York would be, sadly, to lie.

Wow. Woooowwww.

(via zuky)

pssst. Anybody surprised?

(via lavienoire)

wow, defenders of lena dunham: YOU ARE NOT HELPING.

how about, “man i enjoy the show and it’s a good thing about white upper class urban women and all but that shit is racist”

there. that’s all you have to say. that’s it. copy and paste as you need.

(via couldbeyourlife)

Good LORD.

To suggest that publishing and the arts could do more to foster voices from people of colour is entirely fair.

To suggest that there isn’t any racial diversity to speak of in those fields, and certainly none that could appear in a show with a “documentary-like feel” is so entirely stupid and inaccurate I feel really sorry for the writer. And also, very, very angry that she is promulgating the kind of nonsense that erases the existence of, for example, my current Little, Brown editor, my former Little, Brown editor, and my current Little, Brown editor, all of whom are women of colour, respected in their field for their achievements, and valued members of their publishing house.

Real women. Who really exist.

How’s that for documentarian?

(via karenhealey)

(via karenhealey)

aamerrahman

lifeisliterallylimited:

aamerrahman:

Yes, it was that bad.

(via hamburgerjack-deactivated201404)

a-spoon-is-born

"Stay Away From My Elves": Racism in Epic Fantasy Fandoms-Damned if you Do, Damned if You Don’t.

aimalyn:

girljanitor:

aimalyn:

ai-yo:

girljanitor:

image

Wistful POC make a photoset POC fancast for Lord of the Rings. White people :

Like I said before, I think adding poc into things JUST for the purpose of inclusion is just as bad. But I don’t think adding them in to a fantasy story that has been around for decades with a very strong and dedicated following is the right way to do it. This isn’t about racism, this is about fucking with my fandom.

Stay away from my elves.

image

An author of color writes a book featuring POC protagonists. White People:

I’m all for being happy that a black person wrote a fantasy book with black protagonists, just as themselves, largely (though not entirely) away from any color related power struggles, letting them exist on their own merit and showing the obvious fact that fantasy characters don’t all have to be pale.

It would be nice if the responses weren’t “FUCK YEAR! FINALLY A BOOK FOR US! TAKE THAT YOU HORRIBLE, BORING WHITEYS”.

However I do fail to see how ‘race isn’t a conflict’ as someone (I think) mentioned above, when it’s really just about black supremacy, not white supremacy. BUT HEY DON’T MIND ME. I prefer not to read fantasy with an agenda, even if it’s in my favor.

I’ll reserve my adulation for a black writer who is above being racist entirely. I do not withhold judgment based on skin color.

Making it clear that White villains are only bad if the Protagonists are POC:

You know, I kinda have a problem with this, as well. I’m white, but one thing I’ve made a major point in my life is to never see skin color. If you had told me this book was part of a wonderful fantasy series that would have been fine. If you had told me the protagonists were people of color and the antagonists where white: still fine. But you had to drive home the thought that it’s so superior just for those reasons, and that’s unsettling.

imageimage

A white author writes black characters which are subsequently whitewashed by white fans. White people:

I mean seriously, you SJS Skidmarks whine and bitch about how authors don’t include enough “non-white” characters in their books. Then when an author DOES do so, you whine and bitch because they aren’t the star or the main character. And when an author makes one a pretty important character you complain about THAT.

Seriously, kindly write “racist” on a club and beat yourself to death with it. It’s what you want, anyways, but no one would likely care enough to humor you. You can make the club any color you want, though I think we can all guess what color it’d be. Funny thing is, regardless of that? It’d still be stupid and incredibly ironic.

Ursula K. LeGuin writes a Black main character in The Left Hand of Darkness, a seminal Gender studies text and all-around awesome sci fi book. White people:

image

Ursula K. LeGuin writes an entire World full of people with “reddish-brown” or “blue-black” skin. There is quite literally only ONE white character (Tenar). White people make a TV miniseries:

image

image

image

I take it that everyone remembers the racist shitstorm over Rue and Thresh? No?

“Naturally Thresh would be a black man,” tweeted someone who called herself @lovelyplease.

“I was pumped about the Hunger Games. Until I learned that a black girl was playing Rue,” wrote @JohnnyKnoxIV.

“Why is Rue a little black girl?” @FrankeeFresh demanded to know. (she appended her tweet with the hashtag admonishment #sticktothebookDUDE.)

“Awkward moment when Rue is some black girl and not the little blonde innocent girl you picture,”@sw4q

“Kk call me racist but when I found out rue was black her death wasn’t as sad,” wrote @JashperParas

But wait! Let’s not forget the Fan-made movie that was uploaded and waddled its way around the internet well before the ACTUAL film came out, which has OVER 3 MILLION VIEWS AND FEATURES A BLONDE, WHITE RUE, AS WELL AS DOZENS OF COMMENTS REGARDING HOW MUCH “BETTER” IT IS THAN THE ACTUAL HOLLYWOOD MOVIE

image

image

According to the filmmaker:

I know that Rue is described as being dark skinned in the book, but I wanted to show Savanna’s acting. I think she would make a good Prim though.

The commenters:

Everytime I watch this, I always think it was so much better than the movie. This vid is just epic. It captures the whole feeling of the book. It’s realistic, and for that reason it’s completely awesome.

Personally, I like this version better than the one in the movie. It’s more emotional, it feels more realistic, and the actors here acted better, especially Rue.

Why is this better than the movie?! I cried! I didn’t cry for the movie.

This was more sad when rue died than in the actual movie! still loved it though!

rue is so beautiful

Okay, so….

Recap.

White people: “STAY AWAY FROM MY ELVES!!!”

White people: “I’ll reserve my adulation for a black writer who is above being racist entirely.”

White people:

image

White people:

image

image

image

I will admit, that the idea of POC in a LOTR movie makes me uncomfortable. I think that’s because I’m white and I’m not used to being unrepresented. I absolutely believe that we need more mainstream movies with POC protagonists, especially if the characters are written as white. That’s the history of the POC fantasy experience, folks. It’s time for us (as white people) to get a taste of it.

I find it really bizarre that for you “POC in a LOTR movie” immediately snaps to “white people not being represented.”

Like….seriously, how many people of color does it take in a movie for white people to feel “unrepresented”?

Well, if you go by responses to the casting of Heimdall in the Thor movie….just one.

It literally takes a single person of color for white people to feel “unrepresented”.

The fact that the idea of A person of color in a LoTR movie makes you uncomfortable…and that’s your idea of getting a “Taste of” the treatment POC have gotten in Epic and High fantasy is just……

I think this just taught me a serious lesson….like, I thought I had a pretty good grasp on just how racist Fantasy fandoms are…and then it’s basically the people who are considered “middle of the road” or even “enlightened” to make me realize just how much of a stranglehold whiteness has on this genre.

Oh no, I meant the entire cast, as the OP was “racebending” the casting, for me a movie where the entire cast is POC makes me uncomfortable, because I am white and privileged and have never really experienced that in fantasy. Because I am racist as a product of my privilege and upbringing in society. My post was an examination of my feelings in that arena, how they inform my perception of the POC experience, and how I, as a white person and consumer of media, reinforce that institutional racism.

Rue and Thrash in Hunger Games didn’t bother me. However, the whitewashing of Katniss didn’t bother me, either, because I had pictured her as white, even though she was clearly described as a POC. This is my privilege, my self-insertion of my race into literature, and non-awareness of white washing.

I am working to eliminate my racism, and to raise my children to be adults where the idea of whitewashing is abhorrent to them, and the reality of whitewashing jars their senses. The first steps, for me, are acknowleging my inherent racism; owning it in a public way, so that I can recognize those thoughts/feelings in the future and try to combat them.

So yes, in LOTR, I always expected all the characters to be white, because I am white and live in a white-directed society. I would be uncomfortable if the majority of the cast was POC, because I am not used to that and it highlights how racist I am. And those two facts make me feel terrible, and increase my desire to see more genre media containing majority POC casts.

….of all the posts to dump your guilt issues over your racism…you know what, not tonight Tumblr. My pressure can’t take it.

everminding
Hey, I’m not racist or anything, but I’m going to keep repeating all the same racist messages, words, stereotypes, and jokes that I’ve internalized since childhood. I’ve personally risen above it all though - I just do it because it’s absurd.

(via everminding)

LOL, this perfectly highlights why I side eye people who say “they aren’t racist” and are just being ironic.

(via evolutia)

(via womanistgamergirl)

spicyobsession

tiitime:

afunnyfeminist:

Bold Black & Bitchy: “Wanh, I’m a white woman, and I say we women are all oppressed the same way!”

spicyobsession:

Oh really now.

So do men call you a bitch or a n*gger bitch?

Do men put you on a pedestal because you’re a delicate flower or a delicate oriental lotus blossom?

Do men date you for your tits and ass or your spicy fiery chili pepper Latina tits and ass?

Do they brand you…

This is fucking ridiculous. Let’s just make a contest out of it, why don’t we, instead of all standing together for women’s rights in general. OR ACTUALLY EVERYONE’S RIGHTS IN GENERAL. This is what I don’t understand. I don’t get the ‘superior complex’ some people get because they’re a female minority. Grow the fuck up, we are all sisters in this fight. Just because we’re two different races doesn’t mean I wouldn’t stand up for you, but instead, because I’m a white woman, you verbally attack me? 

If women will not stand together and help each other, then I really don’t know how far we’ll get in our battle for equality. 

Where are y’all finding these children? Why can’t they read for context or content?

(via belovedvillain)

Study: Male Jurors More Likely To Find Heavier Women Guilty | ThinkProgress

biyuti:

quaker-problems:

biyuti:

Wow.

And people are convinced that fatphobia isn’t a real thing. and. yeah, i wonder how this ties into race given the disproportionate numbers of Black people in the prison industrial complex.

I’d also be interested in how it ties into race because PoC are generally lower income / poorer and I’m pretty sure that poorer people are more likely to be fat.

right? 

I should maybe dig up the study to see what it was actually about. and how they did the study (parameters, what controls they had, etc.)

(via b-binaohan-deactivated20140530)

skogsraw

Cultural Appropriation

cruel-bloom:

(Clipped conversation FOR THIS RIGHT HERE - bankuei):

I am a HUMAN and not a “white girl”.

This is my favorite type of white tears, absolutely 100%. Because it always, always, always serves as an admission of unacknowledged privilege.

Know why you don’t like being called “white girl”? Because you’re used to being the default. You’ve always just been “a girl.” But for the rest of us, that qualifier has always been there. When you’re a POC, you’re not just “a girl.” You’re “that Indian girl,” or “the black chick,” or “the Asian guy, I think he’s Chinese or something?”

You can go on and on about how “we’re all human, race isn’t an issue!” but that’s not what this is about. Being called “white girl” tells you that the person you’re dealing with isn’t going to give you the free pass you’ve always received for being white, and that scares you.

bolded for emphasis. great reply/commentary. 

(via nethilia)

28 Common Racist Attitudes & Behaviors

evertheidealist:

justwordsandatune:

I thought this was very well-written and informative. 

I’m always saying “I’m sorry for what white people have done to you/continue to do to you” but I don’t always follow that with a solution to the problem at hand. 

Time to change that. 

Omg, I want to print this out and throw them everywhere, especially at school, so many people do these things and don’t understand that racism is at lot more subversive than someone just spewing racial slurs

(via moniquill)

fozmeadows.wordpress.com

PSA: Your Default Narrative Settings Are Not Apolitical

fozmeadows:

Victorian Women SmokingImage 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-GaposchkinLeise 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 YoungerCleopatraBoudica,Queen Bilquis of ShebaNefertiti – 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 CixiQueen 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.

(via tithenai)

skyliting
  • Prejudice:[PoC calls white person a cracker].
  • Racism:Two centuries of PoC being stolen from their homelands, driven out of their native lands, tricked, raped, infected with disease, and otherwise downtrodden so as to remove them from any chance of being the dominant race.
  • Prejudice:[PoC gives a white person a nickname playing on the fact that they're white].
  • Racism:PoC must, from the moment they realize a baby is on the way, worry about whether giving a child a name reflecting their heritage will affect their chances at a good life in the future. Hint: it will.
  • Not racism:Calling out that slavery lasted for two centuries, and civil rights did not happen for PoC until the 20th Century (you know, the century which only ended TWELVE YEARS AGO).
  • Racism:We should not talk about it, because it makes [non-PoC] feel bad.
  • Not racism:A non-PoC actor can get pretty much any role s/he wnats.
  • Racism:... including roles that were originally written as PoC. PoC actors must settle for roles making them servants, sassy women, jive turkey men, criminals, drug addicts, or abused downtrodden prostitutes, the better to reinforce the negative mental image of PoC in the minds of the zeitgeist, and hold up the excuse that "they bring it on themselves".
  • Not Racism:Flattering pictures of people used to represent them on the web.
  • Racism:Flattering pictures of Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Bachman. But the most unflattering pic available of Michelle Obama is used for the same article.
  • Not Racism:Articles about women's features.
  • Racism:Article purporting to have scientific "proof" that Black women are uglier than women of any other race.
  • Not Racism:America is where everyone is supposed to have equal chance.
  • Racism:Equal chance? Freed slaves were lucky if they got 40 Acres and a Mule, after working for free for generations for people who are now wealthy and offered no other reparations.
  • Not Racism:Irish History Month, Italian History Month, French History Month, German History Month, etc. All of which would, technically, qualify, btw, as White History Months.
  • Racism:It's not Cameroon History Month, Nigerian History Month, Egyptian History Month, Zimbabwean History Month, Zaire History Month, Somalian History Month, etc. It's BLACK History Month. Doesn't matter what country in Africa you come from. If you're Black you just all get lumped in together.
  • Not Racism:PoC describe their experiences.
  • Racism:Non-PoC interrupt, derail, silence, mock, deride, or cite "oversensitivity" because it makes them feel uncomfortable to know that PoC have endured this, and to have to acknowledge their privilege -- and their responsibility to do something about it if they really are as anti-racist as they profess.
  • ...add your own examples.
  • Not Racism:putting an Asian actress in a role not initially written for a POC.
  • Racism:crying foul because an Asian person couldn't possibly play that role.