# Do You Worry About Creating (Or Not Creating) Minority Characters?



## Trollheart (Sep 4, 2019)

Touchy subject perhaps, but when you write, do you a) find that you only write one ethnic class (yeah, I mean white) b) deliberately write minority characters into your stories so that you can't later be accused of being racist c) not give a toss or d) write characters with little attention to what race they are?

I just wonder, because I've noticed myself doing a) and then trying to do b), and I would imagine for the wrong reasons. I'd like to be able to write a black or Asian etc character without any ulterior motive, but for me there always seems to be an underlying agenda, even if it's only in my head.

I know; most of you will say stop worrying about what people think and just write your damn characters, but I've found it coming back to bite me. I wrote in an African-American woman because I realised I had none in the story, and now need her to be white, for various reasons. This has taught me not to pander to political correctness and only write those sort of characters when they're needed and have a function in the story. Yet I still wonder, if (after pigs learn to fly and it stops raining in Ireland) I ever became a published author, would this accusation be levelled at me? 

Anyone have any thoughts? Please be very clear: I am not calling anyone racist who does not use non-white characters, not even me. I'm just wondering if anyone wrestles with the perceived need to be more, ah, cosmopolitan in your character creation?


----------



## Umree (Sep 4, 2019)

When I begin writing I generally picture characters and locations first. Everything from their faces to their mannerisms and clothing --I try to imagine all of their aspects before writing about them. Their races/genders vary widely even though I'm Caucasian. I think it's likely because I live in Los Angeles and its extremely diverse. I do sometimes ask myself these kinds of questions as well (is it ethical for me to write about another race? what if the work comes off as offensive?). The way I get around these issues is by placing the characters in situations that having nothing to do with race and avoiding writing "accented" dialogue. I would never write a story about an African-American struggling with identity, for example. I have no idea what that's like, so I don't think I'm qualified to write about it.

I think that if a work is straight up racist, then a publisher is unlikely to touch it. If a work gets published and it includes some themes that may be seen as racist, you can always defend yourself by saying that the racism is the narrator's/protagonist's (at least that's probably what I would do). Generally, I think a work is always apt to receive some negative criticism regarding race or politics or whatever. Look at _American Psycho_, it's full of racism, sexism, gore, and all kinds of foulness. Yet, that book is in print and has been generally well received (except by a minority of feminists and concerned parents). Bret Easton Ellis doesn't seem to care about negative press. Like Warhol said, don't worry about bad reviews (or in this case, allegations), just count the critics' lines.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 4, 2019)

I try not to assign my characters any ethnic or racial identity unless it’s needed - if the story requires it. 

Privately I always imagine them as looking a certain way (I’m not here to spout the “I don’t see race!” crap) but there’s a difference between imagining your character as a black woman or whatever and actually trying to write her as one. 

The latter is where you can run into problems. It’s just difficult, even if your intentions are good, because a lot of these terms are incredibly loaded or form part of a stereotype. Or it’s just...cringe. 

I would personally like to see the next white man who feels the need to write a description of a woman’s “cocoa nipples” or “skin the color of caramel” getting a vomit sandwich delivered to his door.


----------



## Emmeran (Sep 4, 2019)

A good rule is:  "Don't pander to ethnicity, it's insulting"  Do your research and use minority characters in keeping with era and location.  For example:  Anglo-Saxons were a minority outside of their enclave during the Boxer Rebellion era in China.  However we established Viet and Hangul neighborhoods in US cities in the 70's.

Research your story environment, stick with it and add outside ethnicity's with a purpose and in keeping with reality and the story line.  But your ethic character even if minor should have a back story and future dreams even if you don't put those out they need that to be a real character and not just an adornment to meet a ethnic quota.  Keep in mind that often times the best parts of the story may hide within a minor character...

As always be true to the story first and consider everything else after.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2019)

I am a big believer in a thing called* Inclusion Rider*.
Not only do I try to accurately represent the ethnic groups that you would be likely to see in a geographical area, but also gender inclusion. 
I try to avoid Disney Princesses (women who ultimately let a man solve their problems) as well as using women as plot devices.

See, the neat thing about including different types of people is that your dialog does not suffer from '*sameness*'.
People from different neighborhoods will speak and act differently, which makes their dialog markedly different.

Ideally, you should be able to tell who is talking, just by the way they talk, before you even get to the attribution.


----------



## CmdrTrailblazer (Sep 4, 2019)

It's a tricky balance. Like Emmeran said, do research (if you're writing a real world setting) about the racial demographics of you setting, keeping in mind that the era of which you're writing is equally as important as the place. In my opinion (as a white guy) would be insulting to a minority if you included them for the sake of including them. Racial diversity is not something that you can mark off like a checklist. Include race to make your world more realistic, to the extent you're comfortable with it.

A trick I do is avoid detailed descriptions of my characters if at all possible. I'll admit, it isn't a fix all, especially for novels and long stories. And in some cases, it would be better to give a description of the person than go leave it vague. But if you are worried about representation and/or want to appeal to your reader, leaving it vague will allow may allow your reader to better visualize themselves, no matter their race, as the character in question.

As for specific ethnic (as in, non-American) characters, you seriously need to do your research. Making sure those characters are as accurate as you can make them is not optional. Anything less would be demeaning to them and their culture. But remember that they're still human, and not some alien creature (unless you're a scifi writer), and share the same thoughts and emotions that you do.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 5, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> Touchy subject perhaps, but when you write, do you a) find that you only write one ethnic class (yeah, I mean white) b) deliberately write minority characters into your stories so that you can't later be accused of being racist c) not give a toss or d) write characters with little attention to what race they are?
> 
> I just wonder, because I've noticed myself doing a) and then trying to do b), and I would imagine for the wrong reasons. I'd like to be able to write a black or Asian etc character without any ulterior motive, but for me there always seems to be an underlying agenda, even if it's only in my head.
> 
> ...



I've actually come to the conclusion that unless a character has a really good reason for looking a certain way, I probably shouldn't describe their ethnic traits. I'd rather the best actor get cast in the role, so to speak. If a reader wants more Asian roles filled, I'd like them to be able to picture said character as Asian. 

I'd initially not described David Surrey, the POV for Pinocchio, because I wanted people to picture him any way they wanted to see him. Turned out there were plot reasons not only for how I'd pictured him but also for why he refuses to be described. But even then, the reader can picture him as black or Asian or Latino because he doesn't see himself how he actually looks to other people anyway. Other MCs are white, but they're all from rural Pennsylvania or some such, and the book's got a small cast (though I have specified at least one woman as being a fluffy black nurse). 

I also stick to writing a lot of sci-fi and fantasy, and some stories don't even have humans. Wrote an engineered soldier race in a sci-fi series. Instead of being "black and white" like humans are "black and white," these guys were grayscale and had no respect whatsoever for human racism (being a slave race and not human). Lots of them had racial slurs as nicknames/names because the whole concept of humans judging each other based on skin color was so ridiculous to them, so they demeaned racism and humanity by taking such monikers as jokey names.


----------



## Pete_C (Sep 5, 2019)

I tend to not think about it. Characters are who they are and who they need to be. I do have a tendency to use females as the more dominant and aggressive characters, but that's probably because I like the idea of attack nuns!


----------



## Emmeran (Sep 5, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I am a big believer in a thing called* Inclusion Rider*.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Agreed but the Inclusion Rider should accurately reflect three elements of your story:  Story Reality, Geographic Location, Story Era.

It's cool to create as you go but be mindful of the back-edits that may be required to maintain overall story integrity.


**Note:  When I mention "Story Reality" I'm referring directly to the reality you have created where you story occurs.**


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 5, 2019)

Thanks guys.
Generally, I find I default to writing white characters, perhaps because that's my own ethnicity, and living here in Dublin, though you see some other races/religions/classes, the overwhelming majority are white. If I take a walk down O'Connell Street on a Saturday afternoon, other than tourists I'm almost certainly likely to see at least eighty percent white men and women. And as someone said, I don't know enough about other races to be able, perhaps, to accurately depict them.

I've honestly only dipped into "black" characters as minorities, unless you count one Jew in one of my stories, and it kind of didn't matter that much that he was a Jew. The reason I use them in my story "Get Your Filthy Hands Off My Planet!" is because the main character, a sort of anti-hero, has every bias going: xenophobe, misogynist, racist, religion, you name it, and I wanted him to not partner up (cos that would be too obvious) but share a friendship with a black woman, to add a bit of tension and maybe have him rethink his ideas. Unfortunately, now that storyline has changed and she needs to be white, so I have to think of other ways to get him to realise he's being a dick, if he ever does.

My main worry was appearing on something like "The South Bank Show" to plug my latest novel and Melvyn Bragg asking me "why are there no black/Asian/other  characters in your books?" 

And then of course, I wake up...


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 5, 2019)

I've had this exact same argument with myself. In the end I made my MC a black slave from Africa. After his ship crashes in Europe he is picked up and thrown into a gladiator arena. He survives, escapes and dedicates his life to God becoming a knight so he can help others. He lives in France and is an adopted son of a new age church for all races. Now I didn't make him black just because. His story came to me and I felt like writing it. Plus I really do want to see more variety in your standard fantasy setting. I know the standard is European but there are plenty of dark skinned Europeans around now and even in the days of King Arthur.


----------



## Sam (Sep 5, 2019)

The intimation that it's racist to not include minority characters is head-warpingly stupid. 

I don't include characters based on physiognomic traits. My characters are there because the story requires them to be there. 

I don't think about race or skin colour, nor does their sex ever cross my mind.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2019)

Sam said:


> The intimation that it's racist to not include minority characters is head-warpingly stupid.




Nobody said it was racist to not include a multi-ethnic cast.
But thanks for calling us stupid. I love the smell of _ad hominem_ attacks in the morning. :grin:


*"I don't think about race or skin colour, nor does their sex ever cross my mind."*
But if you don't take these things into consideration, how do you fully develop these characters?
How can you write a character if you don't even factor in things like race or gender?


----------



## Emmeran (Sep 5, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> ...
> 
> My main worry was appearing on something like "The South Bank Show" to plug my latest novel and Melvyn Bragg asking me "why are there no black/Asian/other  characters in your books?"
> 
> And then of course, I wake up...



Writing outside of your sub-culture and your culture is very difficult and you need an editor that is part of that different sub-culture if you wish to accurately represent.  

This is best represented by one of my own quotes about Japanese culture.  "The more you learn about the Japanese the less you understand"   There is massive truth in that, so if you want to include an immigrant in your story then find an immigrant to bounce dialogue and actions off of, people love to help and you might get introduced to some tasty food in the process.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 5, 2019)

To answer your questions -- I worry constantly.

In a group of people with bit parts, I will often include a token minority, identified only by name. ("Haseem asks me ...") They act just like everyone else. (sometimes by dialect.)

I have started including minorities as main characters in my short stories just because it's interesting to do. And then the minority-ness (black, muslim) becomes part of the story. With all the dangers thereof. But it would be like a Muslim girl who has probably lived her entire life in the US.

I will avoid mention of any minority if I think it contributes to stereotypes. So, far or not, my bad guys are all white (or undisclosed)


----------



## ironpony (Sep 5, 2019)

I usually don't describe what races the characters are.  Since I'm into screenwriting, I figure by not having specific races, then it leaves more casting options, unless that's the wrong way of looking at it?


----------



## Cephus (Sep 5, 2019)

Nope. I don't care. I have no checklists and I have zero respect for anyone who does. Write what you want to write. Now I do write a lot of non-white characters, but I don't do it because I have to, I do it because, when I'm creating a character, they just seem to be whatever they are. It's part of the creation process. If they seem black, I make them black. If they seem Asian, I make them Asian. I don't consider for a second what ratios I have in any of my stories. Some are all white, some are all non-white. It shouldn't mean a damn thing to anyone.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 5, 2019)

Cephus said:


> It shouldn't mean a damn thing to anyone.



But it does matter to lots of people...

Most writing is a spectator sport. If the spectators don't like the smell in the stadium, if it stops them from paying the money to see the game, the guy who owns the stadium probably ought to think about fixing it, even if he himself smokes 20 Camels a day and can't smell a thing...right?

That's all this thread seems to be about. I don't think it's terribly objectionable nor obscure to at least think and talk about this stuff. Obsess? No. But think and talk, sure.

What does it mean to 'seem black' anyway? Black African? Black Caribbean? Black from Alabama? Black from the Bronx? Black British? Black French? Black Russian? I don't think it's majorly of interest either and its been talked about before...however, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to, on the one hand, accept the existence of a minority identity while, on the other, finding discussing how to represent it correctly a source of annoyance. 

I guess this is kind of the point of the conversation, isn't it? Nobody would talk about a character 'seeming white' - white is basically the default for most of us in the west. Yet black (and Asian, etc) comes with stereotypes, with baggage, with expectations. Writers should not be falling foul of those. If for no better reason than...it's really boring.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 5, 2019)

I'm actually surprised a lot of people care about that, I go into a story, for a good plot and character development and some good themes.  But the race of the characters is one of the things, least on my mind, unless the race is significant to the story of course.


----------



## Sam (Sep 6, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Nobody said it was racist to not include a multi-ethnic cast.
> But thanks for calling us stupid. I love the smell of _ad hominem_ attacks in the morning. :grin:



You should go back and re-read the first post. 

*



			"I don't think about race or skin colour, nor does their sex ever cross my mind."
		
Click to expand...

*


> But if you don't take these things into consideration, how do you fully develop these characters?
> How can you write a character if you don't even factor in things like race or gender?



All characters have the same underlying motives: dreams, goals, ambitions -- and all characters should find every obstacle possible in their way to stop them achieving whatever it is they're supposed to achieve. That's how character is built. 

And all characters, equally, have flaws or 'demons' that equate to the same obstacle on a much more personal level, whether that be upbringing, where they came from, how they were raised, or any number of other socio-economic factors. Developing characters fully means getting them to tackle these 'demons' head-on and become a better version of themselves. 

So whether they're white or black, man or woman, every character should have these things by default -- as all humans do.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 6, 2019)

I wouldn't worry too much about writing characters who align with your culture/ethnicity/sexuality. It's quite natural to do so. It's also the very thing that might make readers who align with _other_ cultures/races/sexual identities find your writing so fascinating.

Personally, I'd be more worried about going the _opposite_ route (intentionally pandering to certain groups of readers). I've come across a few stories where it felt like the author was plowing through a "checklist" when it came to their characters, and it pulled me right out of the story in every case.

So, I say: write the story the way you envision it—whatever that may be. Then it'll come out in its purest form. :encouragement:


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 6, 2019)

Characters are written as they appear in my mind rather than for any sort of quota. As such my main is mixed race (based on someone I know) and I have a supporting character that is black. How and why they get in my mind I don't really know, though I am glad they appear organically - I suppose, having lived in London, one comes across a variety of ethnicities and invariably some of them will germinate in the thoughts. Mostly everyone else - maybe a cast of about 12 characters all in, are caucasian like myself. I do worry somewhat that a lot of my characters are very middle class, but I dunno, write what you know, I guess  But if a character "insists", if you like, that they are white, or female, or whatever thing you may not have had them as first, I listen. It's their story after all, not ours


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 6, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Nobody said it was racist to not include a multi-ethnic cast.
> But thanks for calling us stupid. I love the smell of _ad hominem_ attacks in the morning. :grin:



Nobody _here _said it. But I have heard it said or intimated elsewhere - Twitter comes to mind.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 6, 2019)

bdcharles said:


> Nobody _here _said it. But I have heard it said or intimated elsewhere - Twitter comes to mind.



Personally I mentally sign off the moment  “I read it on Twitter...” is uttered in conversation. Might as well get writing advice from an audio recording of Stephanie Meyer’s farts.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 6, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> If I take a walk down O'Connell Street on a Saturday afternoon, other than tourists I'm almost certainly likely to see at least eighty percent white men and women.



I'm the same. I live in small English village where 95% are white. Especially over this, I think you either write what you know, or you extensively research what you don't. However, in the romance genre, racism and diversity has been/is a long-standing issue. I think it's good if you can portray accurately, but only 'if'. It should never be forced. As an ex-editor for a few romance publishers (Dreamspinner Press etc), I've seen a few other publishers fail miserably on this and get it very, very wrong. From this link:



> *[one of the proofreaders] made several insensitive comments* such as questioning if a Haitian American of vodou faith was capable of making literary and metaphorical references to Greek mythology, and questioning the “unnecessary” mention of dark skin during intimate scenes.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Personally I mentally sign off the moment  “I read it on Twitter...” is uttered in conversation. Might as well get writing advice from an audio recording of Stephanie Meyer’s farts.



Precisely.


----------



## Sir-KP (Sep 6, 2019)

The only race or ethnicity that I ever include/have to mention are Japanese, Chinese, and Caucasian. The rest are either fictional or unmentioned.

I do have my worries as of late about NOT having the so-called diverse roster of characters considering they, as I designed them myself, are mostly pale, some are yellow and tan/brown skinned. Not only that, but also about sexual orientation, just saying.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 6, 2019)

I often write characters from a variety of races. My main characters tend to be white, as I am, but they aren't always.

I've written... I don't know, more than thirty novels by now. Most of my novels have at least two main characters, sometimes more. It'd be kinda boring if all sixty-plus of them had the same ethnic heritage.

I try to respect the Own Voices idea by not writing books where the character's race is a central theme. Like, I'm not likely to write a book about a black character struggling against racism, but I'm okay writing a book with a black character struggling against cancer.

Just curious, though... is there no one on this board who isn't white? Everyone who's commented so far has made it sound like white is the default, but I assume it wouldn't be if the author wasn't white...


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 6, 2019)

Bayview said:


> Everyone who's commented so far has made it sound like white is the default



It's a good point. But I don't think it's done to say they _are_ the default.

I'm going to say I'm answering from a white female perspective, because that's what I am, one who lives in a village that is 95% white. I'm not going to pretend otherwise: I need to know my limitations as a writer. (My village is actually atypical, though, because go outside of that, that percentage dances). But tying it in with 'write what you know/learn what you don't', my point means I have to reserach further afield, nothing more. I'd be stupid to think I could just step into someone else's shoes without listening to own voices first.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 6, 2019)

I think more nuance is needed.

It’s not sufficient to talk in terms of “black”, “white” identity. Black identity itself means nothing, it’s *just* a skin color. A black experience of somebody who grows up in the Bahamas is going to be totally different to the black experience of somebody who grows up in Alabama for lots of socio-economic reasons. Same deal comparing white people. A white person from a small village in Northern England may well have more in common with a white person (or indeed a black person) who grows up in a small rust belt town in Wisconsin, than somebody from London or New York. Intersectionality is also a thing. Geography, climate, culinary, religion, language, etc...so many things unite and divide people as acutely as their race. What about shared interests? A white person from Russia may feel they have a great deal in common with an Indian person from Bengal if they both happen to play the same obscure online video game or whatever.

The reason and ethnicity get special treatment is because in certain (important) spheres they are massively important. That needs to be reflected in writing, but it probably should be reserved for those situations. It’s probably not necessary to include minority characters in a kitchen sink drama set in rural Maine - because there aren’t many minorities in that location and it certainly looks odd having a bunch of different ethnicities living in the same house! So, that’s an example of a story when inclusivity would be less relevant. On the other hand, if you are writing about social unrest in New York City, having an all white cast (or an “all” anything cast) is obviously a problem because we know how diverse New York is and how prominent racial issues are in areas like housing, crime, etc. 

so it really depends on what you’re trying to say, doesn’t it? There’s an opportunity for common sense here: Tokenism is obviously silly....but so is pretending like minorities don’t exist as minorities. Figure out what you’re trying to say, why you’re saying it, and what characters are needed to build the reality.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 6, 2019)

Bayview said:


> Just curious, though... is there no one on this board who isn't white? Everyone who's commented so far has made it sound like white is the default, but I assume it wouldn't be if the author wasn't white...



Ethnically I am a POC.
But culturally I am as white as rice.
Twas raised as an Arizona redneck. Country boy.

Which actually leads to an even more important component of writing characters: Being brown doesn't mean you necessarily ACT or TALK brown.
My girlfriends were always white chicks.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 6, 2019)

As someone who's comes from a very mixed background I'd say do your homework even if you come from the same race as your characters. Just because I'm black dosent mean that I know a thing about how slavery went. Just because I'm Irish doesn't mean I know a thing about potatoes. I have Japanese and French ancestry in me which means didily squat when I want to write about yoki, or how the French can make damn good lovers in bed. It all comes down to your story, your characters, and your research. Your readers will either gravitate to your story or not.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> But it does matter to lots of people...
> 
> Most writing is a spectator sport. If the spectators don't like the smell in the stadium, if it stops them from paying the money to see the game, the guy who owns the stadium probably ought to think about fixing it, even if he himself smokes 20 Camels a day and can't smell a thing...right?
> 
> ...



And those people have severe problems. Now I don't want to turn any of this political, but it simply is an issue. Far too many of those people who it matters to, those are white people with white guilt and political blinders, who feel they have to be offended for the "poor minorities", who never asked them to be offended in the first place. Playing the oppression Olympics and virtue signalling up a storm shouldn't be impressive to anyone. It's a book. Read it or don't. Stop trying to change it.

And you're wrong. I think plenty of characters "seem white". When I try to picture them in my head, that's the image that I get. The same is true of black characters. That's how they feel to me. But I'm not considering the political ramifications of making them black or white or green or blue because that's irrelevant to anyone I give a damn about. They are characters in a story. They exist to serve the story, not some political agenda. Nothing I write comes with baggage except by people who bring it with them. I have no respect for those people.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 6, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> *Ethnically I am a POC.*
> But culturally I am as white as rice.
> Twas raised as an Arizona redneck. Country boy.
> 
> ...


Piece Of Crap? :lol:
Sorry, sorry...


----------



## Cephus (Sep 6, 2019)

Bayview said:


> Everyone who's commented so far has made it sound like white is the default, but I assume it wouldn't be if the author wasn't white...



In the West, that's because most people are white. In the U.S., more than 60% of the population is white. That means, demographically, the majority of writers are white. None of this ought to be a surprise, nor should it matter to anyone. The fact that it does, the fact that race and gender and sexual orientation are all some people think about, that's the problem, but it's a problem most people just don't want to talk about.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 6, 2019)

Cephus said:


> And those people have severe problems. Now I don't want to turn any of this political, but it simply is an issue. Far too many of those people who it matters to, those are white people with white guilt and political blinders, who feel they have to be offended for the "poor minorities", who never asked them to be offended in the first place. Playing the oppression Olympics and virtue signalling up a storm shouldn't be impressive to anyone. It's a book. Read it or don't. Stop trying to change it.
> 
> And you're wrong. I think plenty of characters "seem white". When I try to picture them in my head, that's the image that I get. The same is true of black characters. That's how they feel to me. But I'm not considering the political ramifications of making them black or white or green or blue because that's irrelevant to anyone I give a damn about. They are characters in a story. They exist to serve the story, not some political agenda. Nothing I write comes with baggage except by people who bring it with them. I have no respect for those people.


Yeah but someone (Lucky or Ralph I think) made the point, and a good one, that you have also to be realistic. You wouldn't write a story set in Nigeria with too many whites, just the same as you wouldn't write a story set in Scandinavia with many blacks (no matter what Matt Groening would have us believe). So you have to populate your stories with the kind and race of characters you might expect to find there. It's not racist, but I think it is naive to consider any area where there's a mixed racial demographic and only write about, say, white people (or black). 

The reason I started this thread was that it occurred to me that, once I stepped away from the fantasy genre and began writing stories set in the "real world", I realised I had not really written any black or other race characters, that my default was almost always to white, and usually white males. And that kind of worried me, not just for future publication/review problems, but as a person. Do I see the world as a white one? Rather unsettlingly, I kind of find I do, and I'm trying to redress that, but not by going the other end of the spectrum, piling black, Asian, Hispanic and Eskimo characters into my story for the sake of it. Where one of those, or other, races would work though, I try to include them, if only to make the story more realistic and authentic.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 6, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> Yeah but someone (Lucky or Ralph I think) made the point, and a good one, that you have also to be realistic. You wouldn't write a story set in Nigeria with too many whites, just the same as you wouldn't write a story set in Scandinavia with many blacks (no matter what Matt Groening would have us believe). So you have to populate your stories with the kind and race of characters you might expect to find there. It's not racist, but I think it is naive to consider any area where there's a mixed racial demographic and only write about, say, white people (or black).
> 
> The reason I started this thread was that it occurred to me that, once I stepped away from the fantasy genre and began writing stories set in the "real world", I realised I had not really written any black or other race characters, that my default was almost always to white, and usually white males. And that kind of worried me, not just for future publication/review problems, but as a person. Do I see the world as a white one? Rather unsettlingly, I kind of find I do, and I'm trying to redress that, but not by going the other end of the spectrum, piling black, Asian, Hispanic and Eskimo characters into my story for the sake of it. Where one of those, or other, races would work though, I try to include them, if only to make the story more realistic and authentic.



Of course not, but you wouldn't set a story in medieval England with a lot of non-whites either. It makes no sense. But we all know that there are people out there, very vocal people, who would get up in arms if Merry Old England wasn't racially diverse or didn't include openly gay characters or whatever, even if it is historically nonsense. Because there are people for whom, if reality isn't emotionally comforting, it  can't be reality. These people have serious problems.

Like I've said before, the characters must serve the story. If the story is about a tribe in Africa, then the characters must be primarily black. That ought to be the expectation. But beyond story-related concerns, race and gender and sexual orientation and all of that, it should be entirely irrelevant. There should be absolutely no checkboxes. There should be no concerns over artificial diversity. If you don't like the story that's being told, don't read it. It really can't be that hard.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 6, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Of course not, but you wouldn't set a story in medieval England with a lot of non-whites either. It makes no sense. But we all know that there are people out there, very vocal people, who would get up in arms if Merry Old England wasn't racially diverse or didn't include openly gay characters or whatever, even if it is historically nonsense.



But this isn't historical nonsense. There were black English way back when as well as gay's and people of other sexual orientation. They might not have been all that prominent back then because the ruling class, upper class white people, didn't care about them. All's they cared about was keeping there title's and wealth safe. If people today want a historical story set around these types of characters then that's great but just because people want more stories like this doesn't mean that they have issues.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 6, 2019)

To some degree, it's the same argument about that guy Jesus something-or-other, isn't it? Clearly, assuming he actually existed (whether or not he was the Son of God is another matter, and not a subject for this thread) he was NOT white. How could he be? He was born in the Middle East. He HAD to be at least some sort of dark-skinned tone, what we call today, um, Middle Eastern. Yet, both to satisfy popular opinion in paintings and statues and such, and because really, few white people can or could conceive of the Saviour of Man being other than white, he gets depicted as white.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 6, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> But this isn't historical nonsense. There were black English way back when as well as gay's and people of other sexual orientation. They might not have been all that prominent back then because the ruling class, upper class white people, didn't care about them. All's they cared about was keeping there title's and wealth safe. If people today want a historical story set around these types of characters then that's great but just because people want more stories like this doesn't mean that they have issues.



Read what I said, not what you interpret what I said. The words were very clear.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 6, 2019)

I think the point Cephus is making, and that you may have misinterpreted, is that, while there may have been black people in England, there would have been very few (where, after all, would they have come from? England didn't even start exploring new worlds till, what, about the 16th century?) and as for OPENLY gay, well, do that in King Richard's time or whoever and you would be denounced by the Church as being possessed by the devil, or some nonsense. So while some people may have been gay or even lesbian, you would without question not have known it, and they would have taken great pains to conceal their nature. So, writing an Openly Gay Character in King Arthur's Court, for instance, would be ridiculous.
Nobody's denying they may have been there, but other than themselves and maybe their lovers, nobody else would know about them.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 6, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> I think the point Cephus is making, and that you may have misinterpreted, is that, while there may have been black people in England, there would have been very few (where, after all, would they have come from? England didn't even start exploring new worlds till, what, about the 16th century?) and as for OPENLY gay, well, do that in King Richard's time or whoever and you would be denounced by the Church as being possessed by the devil, or some nonsense. So while some people may have been gay or even lesbian, you would without question not have known it, and they would have taken great pains to conceal their nature. So, writing an Openly Gay Character in King Arthur's Court, for instance, would be ridiculous.
> Nobody's denying they may have been there, but other than themselves and maybe their lovers, nobody else would know about them.



Which is why I worded it the way that I did. I said a "lot of" non-white characters. It is a simple historical fact that the vast majority of people in that time period were white. It's not a good thing, it's not a bad thing, it's just reality. Nobody cares if you like it or not, it simply is. But far too many people think they get to revise history to fit their own politically and emotionally motivated views. They tear down the historical monuments because if those are gone, then history never happened, unless it's politically expedient to use it for their own purposes. You can't just wish away the facts because they make you feel bad. That's not how adults operate.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 6, 2019)

Cephus said:


> In the West, that's because most people are white. In the U.S., more than 60% of the population is white. That means, demographically, the majority of writers are white. None of this ought to be a surprise, nor should it matter to anyone. The fact that it does, the fact that race and gender and sexual orientation are all some people think about, that's the problem, but it's a problem most people just don't want to talk about.



I feel like it's a bit of a jump from 60% to 100%, don't you? That is, while the majority of writers may be white (assuming writers exist in the same proportions as the US population), 40% of writers are NOT white. So it still seems strange, to me, that the thread was making it look as if 100% of board members were white. We've now seen that isn't the case.

And, of course, there's a difference about being aware of these things and discussing them as one topic among many discussed on this board and "all some people think about". I suppose there may be people, somewhere, who only think about these things, but I haven't seen any of those people taking part in this thread, so I'm not sure why you're referencing them...


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 6, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Which is why I worded it the way that I did. I said a "lot of" non-white characters. It is a simple historical fact that the vast majority of people in that time period were white. It's not a good thing, it's not a bad thing, it's just reality. Nobody cares if you like it or not, it simply is. But far too many people think they get to revise history to fit their own politically and emotionally motivated views. They tear down the historical monuments because if those are gone, then history never happened, unless it's politically expedient to use it for their own purposes. You can't just wish away the facts because they make you feel bad. That's not how adults operate.



First of all no one here is attempting to tear down history so ending all of your posts thus far with this is utter nonsense. My point is that while it wasn't common there have been plenty of accounts of both black europeans and gay europeans throughout the history of europe.

 You seem to think that just because someone writes a story set in some historical time period that if they happen to have a black or openly gay character that there somehow trying to destroy the fabric of history. I'm telling you as someone who reads, writes and has done thorough research on this very subject that you are wrong. 

It's like a certain group of people who love Japan complaining about there being a black samurai. News flash there was a black samurai. He lived in Japan for quite some time and became a very prominent figure in there culture even rising to become a body guard to the emperor himself. 

My stance on the OPs main post is this, don't get bogged down by race, gender, or creed. Someone will always find something to complain about for some reason. If your character better fits the story because there African, Caucasian, Latino, or Chinese then just write the story with them at the helm.


----------



## Ma'am (Sep 6, 2019)

I've noticed in recent years that probably every novel I've read contains one or more characters who are not the white, straight, able-bodied etc. person. So, all else aside, it's also something to look into if you plan to try to try for an agent or trade publisher.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 6, 2019)

Ma'am said:


> I've noticed in recent years that probably every novel I've read contains one or more characters who are not the white, straight, able-bodied etc. person. So, all else aside, it's also something to look into if you plan to try to try for an agent or trade publisher.



Honestly I've run into the opposite of this. Every single story I read the main characters are Caucasian, strong enough to take out anything with a gun or hand to hand and just in general they seem to represent humanity as a whole. That's actually one of many reasons I am going for amore diverse cast of characters with my own writing. I really  want to see more fantasy stories with African Americans or Chinese, or even Eskimos. I've had enough of the great white heroes of old. Learn to mix it up when it comes to main characters people. The world I more than the tough Caucasian male hero/anti-hero.


----------



## MichelD (Sep 6, 2019)

I grew up with First Nations people and in my last two unpublished novels they play prominent parts in the story.

That may hamper my chances of publication in the current political climate of white guilt, reconciliation, political correctness and accusations of cultural appropriation but  I say to hell with worrying about it. I grew up with these people and though I am not of that particular ethnicity, I have grown up with, lived and worked with many and do not feel inhibited in creating characters based on members of that group.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 6, 2019)

I have to ask whether there's a reason for any given character to be white, cishetallo, able, and Christian. Usually there isn't, so they get some variance. Whether it gets highlighted much isn't always clear if you don't look for it, one of my side characters in the last book says "Oh my heck" twice and another character just has an offhand mention that her relationship (with the aforementioned, actually) was interracial. I don't write about racism.

Also, there were a lot of POC and LGBTQIA people in history. Omitting them is actually historical inaccuracy.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 6, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Honestly I've run into the opposite of this. Every single story I read the main characters are Caucasian, strong enough to take out anything with a gun or hand to hand and just in general they seem to represent humanity as a whole. That's actually one of many reasons I am going for amore diverse cast of characters with my own writing. I really  want to see more fantasy stories with African Americans or Chinese, or even Eskimos. I've had enough of the great white heroes of old. Learn to mix it up when it comes to main characters people. The world I more than the tough Caucasian male hero/anti-hero.



Mainstream, literary fiction - the stuff that's winning Pulitzers and Pushcarts and whatnot - is definitely much more focused on diversity and representation these days than ever before. 

Hence all the bitching and ranting on this forum.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 6, 2019)

Good, it's about time literature became more realistic and representative of the people in the world. 

In the Raiders of the Lost Ark series, Indy gets the book he is carrying signed by Hitler as he encounters a mass book burning. The picture of this mass book burning is shown to probably every school child in the United States.
Normally, though, nobody explains what books those were, or why. The contacts is very specific. Those were the books from The Institute of Sexuality (I don't recall the exact name but it's easy to look up) in Germany where they were doing groundbreaking research on gender confirmation surgery, psychological analysis of transgender people, and similar. All of the records and collected works from the library were publicly burned, after being scoured through to pull out the names of all of the patients there so they could be sent to the death camps.

Dr. James Miranda Barry, 1795 to 1865, was a Doctor who was historically important in certain historical contexts. He was involved in legal action to force people to recognize him only as male, destroy any evidence to the contrary, bury him only in male attire, Etc. His written orders to bury him in the clothing he died in, unexamined, were ignored, revealing that he was assigned female at birth. The one modern author who finds him interesting insists on writing about him as a woman who bucked tradition and a feminist hero.

Albert Cashier, a civil war hero, after being highly commended, live much of his life as Albert. It was only when, in his old age, he was injured and had to be sent to a hospital that he was forced to wear dresses. After his death, his fellow soldiers retrieved his body from the institution, and buried him under his real name rather than his birth name.

I am not nearly as familiar with history for other minorities, however, they all had very extensive histories, much of which was intentionally removed from the historical record that most people encounter. 

In short, the perception of people that historical settings were predominantly white, straight, Christian, and male is in fact a result of propaganda. It isn't REAL, any more than Eastasia has ALWAYS been at war Eurasia.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 7, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> Good, it's about time literature became more realistic and representative of the people in the world.
> 
> In the Raiders of the Lost Ark series, Indy gets the book he is carrying signed by Hitler as he encounters a mass book burning. The picture of this mass book burning is shown to probably every school child in the United States.
> Normally, though, nobody explains what books those were, or why. The contacts is very specific. Those were the books from The Institute of Sexuality (I don't recall the exact name but it's easy to look up) in Germany where they were doing groundbreaking research on gender confirmation surgery, psychological analysis of transgender people, and similar. All of the records and collected works from the library were publicly burned, after being scoured through to pull out the names of all of the patients there so they could be sent to the death camps.
> ...


No, no, you couldn't be more wrong! Eurasia is our ally! Eurasia has always been our ally! Haven't you seen the latest reports from the front? :lol:

Seriously - and this addresses all, or most, replies here - I think some people seem to think I was trying to be controversial, discuss racism or, worse, imply that anyone who didn't use multicultural characters in their writing was racist. Please believe this was, and is, not my intention.

All I wanted to know was, for publication or reputation or review purposes, did anyone feel as I did, that it's not really right or fair to use only white characters (or mostly white ones anyway) and did anyone else struggle with the dilemma of needed versus perceived need? In other words, were they writing black or other characters because they fitted into the story, or were required to move it along, or were they doing it out of a sense of feeling they had to, pandering, as it were, to public opinion?

It's got a little out of hand, with some pretty heavy accusations flying, and I suppose you have to expect that in any thread that tackles, even in a minor way, the issue of race. However I would like to formally apologise if I insulted or offended anyone by my comments, or if, through my making this thread, the comments of others offended anyone else. Obviously, I can't control what other people say, but I would like everyone to know and understand the spirit in which the thread was started, not as a debate on racism (though there's nothing wrong with that) but as a discussion on the need for different racial characters in fiction, and how we as writers deal with that.

Hope that clears things up, and please stop sending dog mess through my letterbox. Thanks. :lol:


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 7, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> No, no, you couldn't be more wrong! Eurasia is our ally! Eurasia has always been our ally! Haven't you seen the latest reports from the front? :lol:
> 
> Seriously - and this addresses all, or most, replies here - I think some people seem to think I was trying to be controversial, discuss racism or, worse, imply that anyone who didn't use multicultural characters in their writing was racist. Please believe this was, and is, not my intention.
> 
> ...



It’s a topic that tends to go off the rails in this day and age.

Anyway, to answer your question more specifically: The short answer is yes. I think most writers are either blissfully ignorant or being dishonest if they say they don’t consider the issue of “proper representation” somewhat when writing. 

Sure in an an ideal world it would be nice not to give a damn but people do. For reasons good and bad, people do notice and assess the validity of fiction that takes its cues from reality in part on how well it includes the full variety of different people and their cultures. 

One of my slight issues with Stephen King is that up until relatively recently I found his work very demographically safe - one might say “white-bread” -  almost all his characters are WASPs, almost all his stories are set in America (usually the same regions) and there are virtually no LGBTQ characters. Now, that’s not a reflection on the man’s motivations, I assume it’s a “write what you know” thing, and I don’t particularly fault him for it  - only to say that King’s selection of characters do not reflect the full scope of modern American, much less world, society. It should be said you could make the same argument about many African American authors like Toni Morrison. These people tend to constantly revisit the same character types and themes. 

Which, you know, fine. But I do think these days there is a greater emphasis on diversity, and I personally do like to embrace that where I can. So, I try to look for opportunities, that’s all. I don’t obsess over it in the manner you describe and certainly don’t shoehorn or stoop to tokenism. But, if I can possibly write a character being something other than white/male/straight I absolutely do. Eagerly. 

Because why the hell not? If there’s an opportunity to give a voice to a minority group and possibly challenge oneself to write a character who may not look or speak or think like just another version of you, you’d have to be something of an a-hole not to take it. I certainly try to be conscious of not making my work seem demographically dated or blind to what society actually looks like.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 7, 2019)

Trolls, if it makes you feel better, my first thread here was a doozer. I asked whether it was okay to use racial slurs in a book given the period I was writing about (the Jim Crow fifties) and boy did the fur fly. Somehow it devolved into a spirited discussion about whether the Washington Redskins should change their name. I was mortified when people got time outs over it. The consensus thought my question was proper given I was writing about something that could have happened (and, of course, did in real life), but it was an eye opening experience. This thread seems to be relatively civil at first glance. I doubt if anyone thinks you're bigoted. Even in my thread I was never accused of being a racist though I think other people were :lol:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 7, 2019)

When I read a book, I can learn what it's like to be someone who isn't me. Black, gay, fluid, handicapped, famous (sad to say), poor, Japanese, in a dysfunctional family, _anything_.

That's really powerful. I think. Do we really want to say that books aren't important, that they're just a story, that they don't mean anything?

My current opinion is that authors should make their own decisions about how to accomplish this, and how much they want to accomplish this. Because there's no one right answer. (And the people doing the attacking aren't necessarily right.)

But for that to work, we authors do have to be at least asking, as Trollheart did, about the effects of our writing.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 7, 2019)

One book is about a character who does graffiti. Against-the-law graffiti. That's a really interesting idea to explore. I want to read about why someone would do graffiti. I want to read about that sub-culture.

The main character was female, which actually was just a little jarring, speaking of true stereotypes. But okay, that's in the realm of possibility. Marketing decision? But it was a different topic -- changing bffs, guys being jerks, etc.

The main character was deaf. IMO that gave the author too much to do -- it was also a book about what it's like to be deaf. That didn't improve the graffiti part of the story, or even interact with it. To me, it was like adding diversity so a library would buy the book.

She had two mothers and was of Indian descent. I rest my case.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 7, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> I think some people seem to think I was trying to be controversial, discuss racism or, worse, imply that anyone who didn't use multicultural characters in their writing was racist.


They _are_. That's a non-controversial, non-offensive statement. That's like saying that people are mammals. Always quest to do better. You will never arrive, but the closer the better, and that takes eternal vigilance. 





Trollheart said:


> .. did anyone feel as I did, that it's not really right or fair to use only white characters (or mostly white ones anyway) and did anyone else struggle with the dilemma of needed versus perceived need?


My main struggle is with trying to justify any given character being white. What purpose does it serve in the story to make this character white, or straight, or cis, or allo, or able, or whatever? Is that character white just to pander to public opinion? That's really the question here. People are writing white dycishetallo Xian-passing characters to pander to public opinion and have for a long time. Now that's starting to ease off and people are acting like it's a burden to write a similar variety of people as they would see out and about. 

If all your characters are dycishetallo WASPs, then you have failed to meet more people. Very likely because you scare them for some reason. Sad to say, I spend a lot of time being scared of people. Less now. There's a lot of things that I can't do because people are scary, so I blend in. There's a lot of subtle things that people do that makes me file them into the category of "Not Safe", and lots of my life is off limits to unsafe people. 

My last book is 49,000 words. Of named characters who appear in scenes and have recognizable tags, it contains two black characters, one of whom is in a same-sex relationship with a white ex-LDS, another wlw couple that includes a Latina woman, a pacific islander, two NDN characters, and a total of four transgender characters who appear on page. That... Honestly is fairly normal of my IRL social circles for me and my friends, and I didn't shoehorn any of that diversity in. I live in a red state. There's character notes for an mlm character, but that never ended up on the page.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 7, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> No, no, you couldn't be more wrong! Eurasia is our ally! Eurasia has always been our ally! Haven't you seen the latest reports from the front? :lol:
> 
> Seriously - and this addresses all, or most, replies here - I think some people seem to think I was trying to be controversial, discuss racism or, worse, imply that anyone who didn't use multicultural characters in their writing was racist. Please believe this was, and is, not my intention.
> 
> ...



No offence taken here. I for one was rather curious about the state of writing about minorities either as MC's or extras in fiction. I don't like the fact that some here have tried to blow the issue out of proportion but hey it's the internet.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 7, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> They _are_. That's a non-controversial, non-offensive statement. That's like saying that people are mammals. Always quest to do better. You will never arrive, but the closer the better, and that takes eternal vigilance. My main struggle is with trying to justify any given character being white. What purpose does it serve in the story to make this character white, or straight, or cis, or allo, or able, or whatever? Is that character white just to pander to public opinion? That's really the question here. People are writing white dycishetallo Xian-passing characters to pander to public opinion and have for a long time. Now that's starting to ease off and people are acting like it's a burden to write a similar variety of people as they would see out and about.
> 
> If all your characters are dycishetallo WASPs, then you have failed to meet more people. Very likely because you scare them for some reason. Sad to say, I spend a lot of time being scared of people. Less now. There's a lot of things that I can't do because people are scary, so I blend in. There's a lot of subtle things that people do that makes me file them into the category of "Not Safe", and lots of my life is off limits to unsafe people.
> 
> My last book is 49,000 words. Of named characters who appear in scenes and have recognizable tags, it contains two black characters, one of whom is in a same-sex relationship with a white ex-LDS, another wlw couple that includes a Latina woman, a pacific islander, two NDN characters, and a total of four transgender characters who appear on page. That... Honestly is fairly normal of my IRL social circles for me and my friends, and I didn't shoehorn any of that diversity in. I live in a red state. There's character notes for an mlm character, but that never ended up on the page.



I think the OwnVoices movement does add some different shading to this. Honestly, I've pulled back from writing as many characters of colour lately because I've felt as if it's probably not my place. I mean, I still write them, but as I was writing the Sikh MC for my most recent novel, I was VERY aware that I'm not an OwnVoices writer for this character, and I pretty much resolved that he should be my last non-white MAIN character.

(Meanwhile, I still write m/m and I'm not a gay male, so obviously my philosophy isn't too consistent...)


----------



## Irwin (Sep 7, 2019)

I didn't really think about intentionally creating minority characters until I saw this thread, although they have been integral to my stories.

My first novel (not yet finished) has several minorities--one Hispanic guy (Puerto Rican, I believe) and about a half-dozen Black guys. One of the main characters is Jewish. The story takes place in southern NY State, so that's reflective of the demographics in that area.

My WIP was mainly white males, and this thread got me thinking that maybe I should mix it up a bit, so I changed the gender of one of the MCs, which, I believe, makes the story more interesting--not simply because that person is now a female (from birth, that is--not from surgery), but because it adds more variety and another POV. Since it takes place in Colorado (albeit in a fictional town), there need to be some Hispanic characters. I'm not sure what roles they're going to play yet.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 7, 2019)

My MC for my first story was always going to be black due to the story itself. It's a fantasy/alternate history series set in the late middle ages. I may even set it in an alternate reality were the world hasn't quite broken up like it has here. There are so many possibilities it's almost maddening. But hey for to put some kind of creative buffer so as not to go completely overboard. I may just plop the characters somewhere in Europe and see what happens.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 7, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> *They are. That's a non-controversial, non-offensive statement. That's like saying that people are mammals*. Always quest to do better. You will never arrive, but the closer the better, and that takes eternal vigilance. My main struggle is with trying to justify any given character being white. What purpose does it serve in the story to make this character white, or straight, or cis, or allo, or able, or whatever? Is that character white just to pander to public opinion? That's really the question here. People are writing white dycishetallo Xian-passing characters to pander to public opinion and have for a long time. Now that's starting to ease off and people are acting like it's a burden to write a similar variety of people as they would see out and about.
> 
> If all your characters are dycishetallo WASPs, *then you have failed to meet more people. Very likely because you scare them for some reason. *Sad to say, I spend a lot of time being scared of people. Less now. There's a lot of things that I can't do because people are scary, so I blend in. There's a lot of subtle things that people do that makes me file them into the category of "Not Safe", and lots of my life is off limits to unsafe people.
> 
> My last book is 49,000 words. Of named characters who appear in scenes and have recognizable tags, it contains two black characters, one of whom is in a same-sex relationship with a white ex-LDS, another wlw couple that includes a Latina woman, a pacific islander, two NDN characters, and a total of four transgender characters who appear on page. That... Honestly is fairly normal of my IRL social circles for me and my friends, and I didn't shoehorn any of that diversity in. I live in a red state. There's character notes for an mlm character, but that never ended up on the page.


First bolded: I can't in any way agree with that. That is far too (excuse the possibly racist connotation) black and white. You can't say that anyone who doesn't use black (as an example) characters is racist. That's just silly. There could be lots of reasons why they don't: they aren't comfortable writing something they have no experience of, they're not talented or experienced enough to do that, or - and here's a thought - maybe they just never considered or realised this was what they were doing. To say anyone who doesn't use other than white characters is racist, and try to make that an absolute statement, is like saying every person who refuses to consider the plight of abused animals is an animal abuser. I can't understand why you would say that, and more, why you would think it is correct. It's not.

Bolded two: the reason I don't get to meet people isn't cause they scare me or I scare them. It's simply that I'm tied to the house, being a fulltime carer for my sister. I did work for nearly 30 years, but in that time I met maybe three black and dealt with a handful of Asian people. Living in Ireland, especially during the 1980s to 1990s, was not a good way to meet other races. I seldom went on holiday and when I did it would only ever be to Europe, usually England, always on my own, and usually to see airplanes, as I used to be a plane spotter.

So in conclusion I think it's very unfair, and possibly even verging on bigoted, to imply that anyone who doesn't use or hasn't considered using other than white characters (can this become an acronym now: OTWC?) is racist, which is nearly the reverse of what I was saying in the OP.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 7, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> You can't say that anyone who doesn't use black (as an example) characters is racist.... I can't understand why you would say that, and more, why you would think it is correct. It's not.


I say it because _100% of people are racists_, including myself. The goal is to try to minimize that and not parade it in public where can hurt people. It's a negative trait that everyone has. In this case the worst effects come out from people that assume that since there are people who are more monstrous that they can let their instincts go completely unwatched, with no effort to check their own stuff.
As an aside, card-carrying KKK members literally wearing hoods and burning crosses respond to the question indignantly, declaring that they don't have a racist bone in their body. Maybe self identification isn't the greatest criteria here. 


Trollheart said:


> the reason I don't get to meet people isn't cause they scare me or I scare them. It's simply that I'm tied to the house, being a fulltime carer for my sister... I seldom went on holiday and when I did it would only ever be to Europe...


.. In short, as I said, you have deficiencies in your research? Read books from POC, LGBTQIA, etc authors. Make the effort to expand your digital social sphere a bit. We have a lot of trouble getting on the bookshelves with openly biased gatekeepers, so you might have to try to compensate for that consciously.
... Which is kind of my earlier key point that the world you see has had other people scrubbed from it, and you have to actively compensate for that to find the real world. 



Irwin said:


> because that person is now a female (from birth, that is--not from surgery)


Dearie, surgery has nothing to do with it.  I understood the point though. Appreciate the observation!


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 7, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> I say it because _100% of people are racists_, including myself. The goal is to try to minimize that and not parade it in public where can hurt people. It's a negative trait that everyone has. In this case the worst effects come out from people that assume that since there are people who are more monstrous that they can let their instincts go completely unwatched, with no effort to check their own stuff.



"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." That is the definition of racism and I am sorry to say that no, everyone is not racist. As an example "Jesus is not an exception in this case as he is not the only human being to accept that there are other people living on this planet and that Jews are somehow superior to everyone else." It in not a negative trait that everyone has and to speak for everyone in existence and make such a bold face claim is more than a little ignorant on your part. The only truth to your statement is the fact that people can and will let there baser instincts take control of them and even then racism is more of a factor of how a person is raised not some ingrained trait that we all have.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 7, 2019)

You'll not be surprised to hear I agree with Rojack. I don't know how you can say everyone is racist. Everyone? Mother Teresa? Saint Francis? Donald Tr - um, well, some obviously are. But my mother certainly was not, and my sister isn't, and I am not. Can you please stop painting everyone with such broad brush strokes that they obscure the entire picture? Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can speak for the world. Some people are not racist: fact. Some people say they are not, but are: fact. Some people are racist: fact. Everyone is racist: opinion, based on what, I don't know.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 7, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."


You simmer in a racist world, read racist books, watch racist TV, and study racist history books. 
Lim>100%* of the problems faced by minorities is caused by people who say they aren't racist. They're just 'following orders'. It's 'just how we've always done it'. 'Something about that guy just bugs me'. 'I'm not racist, but..' 
There is literally no way you could have avoided getting it on you. 


Rojack79 said:


> To speak for everyone in existence and make such a bold face claim is more than a little ignorant on your part. The only truth to your statement is the fact that people can and will let there baser instincts take control of them and even then racism is more of a factor of how a person is raised not some ingrained trait that we all have.


You just told me that I was wrong, then restated and agreed with my thesis statement. Some people are better at recognizing that they need to compensate for their baser instincts than others.. People who believe that they don't HAVE baser instincts always have those instincts come out in nasty ways.
In short, everyone is racist, some people recognize it in themselves and compensate for it better than others.

* Everybody except that one freakishly bizarre exception. You know the one, you were probably about to quote it at me thinking it was a good argument.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 7, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> You simmer in a racist world, read racist books, watch racist TV, and study racist history books.
> Lim>100%* of the problems faced by minorities is caused by people who say they aren't racist. They're just 'following orders'. It's 'just how we've always done it'. 'Something about that guy just bugs me'. 'I'm not racist, but..'
> There is literally no way you could have avoided getting it on you.


First off "Following order's" is a valid reason for someone, anyone really, who's in the military to kill someone else. Those other two example of yours are only validating my point that i made about how a person is raised and where they grow up can and does reinforce bad and negative behavior in an individual. Please do not try to drag military personnel through the mud for the sake of proving your invalid point.



Dluuni said:


> You just told me that I was wrong, then restated and agreed with my thesis statement. Some people are better at recognizing that they need to compensate for their baser instincts than others.. People who believe that they don't HAVE baser instincts always have those instincts come out in nasty ways. In short, everyone is racist, some people recognize it in themselves and compensate for it better than others.


 Once again no. My point is that there are people who let there instincts control them instead of the other way around. That is not validating your severely under researched opinion.



Dluuni said:


> * Everybody except that one freakishly bizarre exception. You know the one, you were probably about to quote it at me thinking it was a good argument.


Is it a good argument. Jesus is a perfect example of how wrong you are. The fact that there are literally millions of devout follower's of Christianity around the world disproves your "100% of the world is racist" delusion. If that doesn't make sense to then here's an even more recent example, Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 7, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> I say it because _100% of people are racists_, including myself. The goal is to try to minimize that and not parade it in public where can hurt people. It's a negative trait that everyone has. In this case the worst effects come out from people that assume that since there are people who are more monstrous that they can let their instincts go completely unwatched, with no effort to check their own stuff.
> As an aside, card-carrying KKK members literally wearing hoods and burning crosses respond to the question indignantly, declaring that they don't have a racist bone in their body. Maybe self identification isn't the greatest criteria here.



Firstly and most obviously, if 100% of people are racists it makes no sense to use the term 'racists'. You might as well just say 'humans'. And no, its not like saying 'people are mammals' because the term 'mammal' is only relevant when there are non-mammals, which there are. 

As it stands, it's a pointlessly inflammatory term. One that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread other than to rile people up. You should be ashamed of yourself. 

By the way, I don't even necessarily disagree with the underlying sentiment. I do think we probably are mostly all prejudiced to _some extent. _But I don't _know_ that...and neither do you. Nor would it be correct to say '100%' in any case: I'm pretty sure those that are born totally blind aren't racist. I'm very sure newborn babies aren't racist. Are those who teach and campaign and devote their lives to eradicating racism racist? I am not sure. Either way, it serves no purpose to lump the entirety of humanity together. It erodes the meaning of the word 'racist' to set a equivalency in language between ordinary people who are slightly confused or naive to those who actively hate or hurt others.

I also have to say, for *somebody who talks about respecting the right of people to self-identify their own gender to then say 'Maybe self identification isn't the greatest criteria here' is deliciously ironic.* If I'm not allowed to self-identify as a non-racist without having you tell me I'm wrong, what the heck makes you think you're allowed to self-identify as a woman without having the world tell you you're wrong? Makes no sense.

I don't have more to add - this thread doesn't need to get shut down over this crap. It's just sad.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 7, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Are those who teach and campaign and devote their lives to eradicating racism racist? I am not sure.


I _am_ sure. All of those people I have encountered have openly stated that they are racists with lots of racist biases that they consciously work to overcome. It's always the people who claim not to be racists who cause the problems, because they don't devote any work to overcome their worst impulses.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 7, 2019)

Nevermind.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 7, 2019)

Recognised as non racists:
Steven Biko (RIP)
Mother Teresa (RIP)
Leonard Nimoy (RIP)
MLK (RIP)
Sting
Bono
Bob Geldof
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Tom Waits
Dalai Lama
Bruce Springsteen
and a cast of thousands
perhaps even millions

Also, me. If I were racist, I'd be very averse to allowing black carers in to look after my sister, and have a problem with black or Filipino nurses tending her when she is in hospital. But I get the feeling arguing with you may be similar to banging my head against a wall, so I'll just leave it at that. I heartily disagree with your claim. Can't disprove it definitively, but neither do I believe you can prove it. Just saying it's so and referencing some people you've talked to is not proving your point.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 7, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> I _am_ sure. All of those people I have encountered have openly stated that they are racists with lots of racist biases that they consciously work to overcome. It's always the people who claim not to be racists who cause the problems, because they don't devote any work to overcome their worst impulses.



I can't even think of a rational response to this oxymoron of a post. So I'm simply going to ignore it and get down to the crux of the OP. I might have stated my opinion of the matter before hand but I think I can speak for all of us in saying that you shouldn't worry about portraying minority characters in your story. It's your story to write so write away, If you still have doubts then do several things.

1) send your story to a friend that is a part of the minority you want to appeal to. See what they think.

2) do your research on the minority in question. See what commonality's they have in there culture that may not be apart of your culture and see what you can do with that.

And 3) If all else fail's put it up here for us to read and critique. We (or at least I) will give you feedback on some areas that could use some improvements and you can take it from there.

As long as your not spouting racist gibberish or touting the KKK as role models for society then you should be good.

Trust me on this I've got a lot of experience with regards to researching racism. It's one of the defining themes of my book that i'm writing. Been working on it for over 10 years now so if you still have any burning questions then ask away and I'll get back to you with an answer. Also if you feel if something is really taboo then just let me know. I've been down just about every rabbit whole you can think of and lived to tell the tale.


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 8, 2019)

Whilst accepting that there are many degrees of racism and that much of it is hidden, even from the person themself, it seems a pretty big stretch to label everyone a racist.  I acknowledge that only a tiny minority would go around killing, maiming, and generally abusing someone due to their ethnicity.  I also acknowledge that it has insidious ways of coming out - perhaps someone being regarded less favourably at a job interview because their ethnicity differs from the interviewer's, and even the interviewer isn't aware of it.  Some people may even do very "non-racist" things to hide from themselves the parts they cannot accept.

But some people have been through the processes of honest self-examination, perhaps even becoming aware of accidental racism within themselves, and remedied their less conscious thought and actions.  Such people are not racists.

I wouldn't even decry the accidental racist who is appalled when they start to realise, because they are open to making the necessary adjustments.

Not so much racism, but more strangerism, I believe, is linked to the survival instinct.  This is probably the strongest instinct along with procreation.  When humanity lived in small tribes that knew nothing or little about each other it might have been appropriate.  Even in more recent centuries, imagine the stereotype of a few guys sitting in a bar in the Old West and some stranger struts in.  Faces turn, either towards or away from him.  He's an unknown quantity.  He might be someone who wants to doss down for a few nights before moving on, or he could be some hellraiser with a keen shooting eye.  Everyone slips briefly into survival mode, whether that be a bit of grovelling or by puffing out their chests to show they're not to be messed with.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 8, 2019)

Phil Istine said:


> Not so much racism, but more strangerism, I believe, is linked to the survival instinct.  This is probably the strongest instinct along with procreation.  When humanity lived in small tribes that knew nothing or little about each other it might have been appropriate.  Even in more recent centuries, imagine the stereotype of a few guys sitting in a bar in the Old West and some stranger struts in.  Faces turn, either towards or away from him.  He's an unknown quantity.  He might be someone who wants to doss down for a few nights before moving on, or he could be some hellraiser with a keen shooting eye.  Everyone slips briefly into survival mode, whether that be a bit of grovelling or by puffing out their chests to show they're not to be messed with.



This is a really important point. 

A lot of people (usually fairly racist people) like to point out that young children are racially aware because in blind studies Caucasian babies have been found to show preference for Caucasian faces and so on. And so the argument is made that the concept of racial tribalism is innate.

But that's bullshit, of course. Small children aren't racially aware. They don't know what 'race' means. What they are is biased in favor of things that are more visually recognizable. People that resemble their parents or people they see every day. It's got nothing to do with race and everything to do with basic familiarity: What aversion a white child may seem to have toward a black person is no different than that which they might have toward trying a new food. It doesn't _look _the same as what they are used to, and therefore they are more cautious on approach. 

Hence the white kid will be more likely to choose the white Barbie doll, the black kid the black one, and the bigots will pretend that means something. But it doesn't. For one thing, that preference is easily overcome through simple immersion - once most kids are helped to understand the irrelevance of skin color they are usually happy to play with any Barbie without prejudice.

I think that's generally the case with most 'racism' in adults, too. Most adults aren't inherently _racist_, what they are is _tribal_. The difference is a racist believes the worth of people to be greater or lesser on account of their skin color, whereas tribalism simply means you notice and identify with such traits because they are more familiar.

Often the consequences appear the same, but the motivations aren't, and it's important to credit that I reckon. I remember being in Yemen fifteen years ago (don't ask) and feeling slightly uncomfortable, because I was the only western, white person there in a sea of dark-skinned folks in sandals, robes and turbans eating weird food and talking in a weird language. 

Is that a _racist _reaction? Some would probably say so these days, but for me it was only about being noticeably different. It wasn't about thinking they were a bunch of uncivilized savages. It wasn't that I thought I _should_ feel uncomfortable, I was just a kid being acquainted with broccoli for the first time. And, as it turned out, I got to like my Yemen broccoli very much.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 8, 2019)

I tend to wonder too, now that I think about it, about dlunni's statement in the previous quote. It seems odd to me that people he (she?) meets would come right out and say they were racist. I have to ask, did dlunni ASK them, and if so, was the question loaded in such a way as the likes of survey questions can be, so that you can only answer them the way the survey taker wants? If someone asked me, for instance, are you racist, I'd say no, but if they said do I think I might be racist, deep down, not even know it, be trying subconsciously to pretend I wasn't, then maybe I might concede that possibility. I mean, I don't know what that member does for a living, but it seems unlikely that the question of race would come up in every conversation or encounter with every person they meet, to the extent they could make the claim they did. 

But hey, what do I know? All I do know is that I believe myself not to be a racist, don't exhibit any racist tendencies, and some of my best friends are actually quite nice people. As, I think, I hope, am I. In the end, that should be all that matters, regardless of skin colour or religion, yes?

Rojack, thanks for the offer. My main issue with that black character was do I make her speak in urban speak, or is that just a device invented by TV and movies? It's not a huge issue, to be honest, but I don't want her to come across as a caricature. At the same time, there's no point in her speaking in a way that doesn't identify or confirm her as being African American is there? I read Cyberwar's excellent "Scions of the New Age" last night and he casually tossed in a black character, gave him a few words of idiosyncratic dialogue, and yet without drawing a large red arrow over him saying BLACK GUY he was able to show me the guy's ethnicity. I'd like to emulate that kind of skill some day.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 8, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> I tend to wonder too, now that I think about it, about dlunni's statement in the previous quote. It seems odd to me that people he (she?) meets would come right out and say they were racist. I have to ask, did dlunni ASK them, and if so, was the question loaded in such a way as the likes of survey questions can be, so that you can only answer them the way the survey taker wants? If someone asked me, for instance, are you racist, I'd say no, but if they said do I think I might be racist, deep down, not even know it, be trying subconsciously to pretend I wasn't, then maybe I might concede that possibility. I mean, I don't know what that member does for a living, but it seems unlikely that the question of race would come up in every conversation or encounter with every person they meet, to the extent they could make the claim they did.
> 
> But hey, what do I know? All I do know is that I believe myself not to be a racist, don't exhibit any racist tendencies, and some of my best friends are actually quite nice people. As, I think, I hope, am I. In the end, that should be all that matters, regardless of skin colour or religion, yes?
> 
> Rojack, thanks for the offer. My main issue with that black character was do I make her speak in urban speak, or is that just a device invented by TV and movies? It's not a huge issue, to be honest, but I don't want her to come across as a caricature. At the same time, there's no point in her speaking in a way that doesn't identify or confirm her as being African American is there? I read Cyberwar's excellent "Scions of the New Age" last night and he casually tossed in a black character, gave him a few words of idiosyncratic dialogue, and yet without drawing a large red arrow over him saying BLACK GUY he was able to show me the guy's ethnicity. I'd like to emulate that kind of skill some day.



Honestly yeah. I can see the character talking like that. I've grown up around all manner of people and in certain neighborhoods that's just how people talk. I've found that while that style of speech is called "ghetto" and for some reason mostly due to stereotypes it's associated with African Americans it is at the very least true even today.

 Although an interesting note is that while I grew up in a ghetto neighborhood it wasn't the African Americans talking like that. It was the Vietnamese of the neighborhood that had the slang language going on. So in reality it has to do with where you grow up and how you are raised, not your race. Now are African-Americans more prone to talking ghetto? In my experience, yes. 

So have him speak in what ever way you want and just let us read it as you go. We'll let you know if something is to stereotypical or to "racially charged" to go into a book. Granted I don't really care about if something is racist or not. It's fiction so for me the sky's the limit. I see racism as a means to an end to help tell a good story because conflict. It's the main point of fiction writing used to get characters from point A to B. No story can go without it and be successful in my opinion but hey if anyone can pull it off then let me know. 

Besides I will tell you right now that I'm currently in the process of writing what I call "the worst story ever told." It's pretty much every single cliche, trope, meme, and just the worst parts of humanity all rolled into one big troll fic. So if you can somehow top all of that craziness in your story then your doing great.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 8, 2019)

Thanks for that Rojack. I just wanted to avoid being cliched in a very obvious way, the same as, but nowhere near as offensive of course, as having an Asian character pronounce r's as l's etc and bowing when meeting someone. All of which may be things that they do, but perhaps not all of them. Or, to bring it closer to home, I would never write an Irish character who was constantly drunk, looking for fights and said things like "Bejaysus I'll mallovegue ye, just see if I don't ye English bastard!" I've heard things like this of course, and Irish people CAN talk this way, but most of us talk "normally", so while this might be idiosyncratic speech for an Irishman or woman, you won't find everyone talking that way.

Interesting that you mention the "Worst Story Ever Told", as I was just, about two hours ago, about to make a thread inviting people to either collaborate on or present their own examples of the most cliched stories ever. I decided against it, but hell of a coincidence, eh?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 8, 2019)

I think y'all have gone off the rails here, starting with Dluuni's assertion that all people are racists.
There is a big difference between being awkward around people of different culture/ethnicity, and being a racist.

This was something I saw a lot of in the Army.
Imagine yourself a hillbilly from Arizona who has lived in a whitebread community your whole life.
And there you are living in a barracks with people from all over the country.
In my platoon there were blacks from the deep south, Jews from Brooklyn, white guys from the midwest, and even a few non-citizens.
It was a culture shock. I was so green I didn't even know why all the black guys wore dew-rags...I had to ask my squad leader.
It didn't make me a racist...it just meant I was ignorant.



rac·ist
/ˈrāsəst/

_noun_


a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 8, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> But that's bullshit, of course. Small children aren't racially aware. They don't know what 'race' means. What they are is biased in favor of things that are more visually recognizable. People that resemble their parents or people they see every day. It's got nothing to do with race and everything to do with basic familiarity: What aversion a white child may seem to have toward a black person is no different than that which they might have toward trying a new food. It doesn't _look _the same as what they are used to, and therefore they are more cautious on approach.



I'm going to disagree with this just slightly. I've got fours kids, all at different ages, my youngest being 8. I'm still at the stage where I'm collecting him from the playground. Going back to how 95% are white in my small village, when I saw a young Indian lad crying up in the corner of the playground, my first thought was "Christ, what have the kids been saying to him..." When I said to my kid: "Has anyone been picking on him because of his skin colour?" I got a very strange look off my kid, and he said "What's wrong with his colour?"

He didn't see it an issue because he's not been in an environment where bias has been instilled in him to see it as an issue. Parents... school... all of the social context will influence a kid's perception. Racism isn't innate, it's taught and driven in by social context, and a lot of that will come from parents and how they've been brought up, their prejudice. So a kid will see the racism as the norm if that's the environment he's brought up in.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 8, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> Thanks for that Rojack. I just wanted to avoid being cliched in a very obvious way, the same as, but nowhere near as offensive of course, as having an Asian character pronounce r's as l's etc and bowing when meeting someone. All of which may be things that they do, but perhaps not all of them. Or, to bring it closer to home, I would never write an Irish character who was constantly drunk, looking for fights and said things like "Bejaysus I'll mallovegue ye, just see if I don't ye English bastard!" I've heard things like this of course, and Irish people CAN talk this way, but most of us talk "normally", so while this might be idiosyncratic speech for an Irishman or woman, you won't find everyone talking that way.
> 
> Interesting that you mention the "Worst Story Ever Told", as I was just, about two hours ago, about to make a thread inviting people to either collaborate on or present their own examples of the most cliched stories ever. I decided against it, but hell of a coincidence, eh?



Yeah. This little story idea is new. I've had on simmer for a little over a month now and it just keeps giving off a more and more offensive oder with age, punk totally intended by the way, so yeah I really wouldn't worry to much about being offensive unless your intentionally doing so. And even it could be fun to let it loose upon the world and watch it burn for a little while before it implodes as people go insane from reading whatever toxic drool one has placed on the page.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 8, 2019)

If you write safe, then your work will likely be boring.

Write big or go home.
Challenge yourself to write outside of your comfort zone, to say the things that need saying.
Don't limit your cast just because you are worried about offending some politically-correct assumptions.
Write real people, even if it hurts.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 8, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Don't limit your cast just because you are worried about offending some politically-correct assumptions.



But also, don't add things to your story in a bid to please the politically idiotic. Write the story you want to write with the characters you want to write. Anyone who doesn't like it? Fuck 'em.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 8, 2019)

Cephus said:


> But also, don't add things to your story in a bid to please the politically idiotic. Write the story you want to write with the characters you want to write. Anyone who doesn't like it? Fuck 'em.




Correct.
But limiting your cast, both ethnically and in gender, can limit your audience and lead to boring interactions.
Adding characters that ere not only ethnically diverse, but culturally diverse, is like adding spice to dinner.
Ever eaten rabbit without salt? Hint: it sucks.


I don't make my casts diverse to be PC. I do it because it makes for a better story that appeals to a wider audience.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 8, 2019)

This is all true. In "Get Your Filthy blah blah" I have a reasonably progressive president who just happens to have to work under the heel of an alien invasion force, and so is restricted in what he can do. Nevertheless, even in the likes of Trump's WH you'll get a lot of diversity, if only because it looks bad if your whole cabinet is staffed by white males. So I have an English ex-pat there, really so far only to allow me to impart to the reader that the whole of southern England was destroyed by floods when the aliens attacked, and Ireland is gone altogether (farewell, me!). I'm not sure yet what part he is to play, but perhaps he may wish to exact retribution upon the aliens who destroyed his homeland, even though he works for a president (black, as it happens - thanks, Obama! You took that literary shock device away from us!) who has to work with the aliens. I have black and Asian staffers as well as white, but so far they're just there to show that this president is an inclusive one, whereas his predecessor had mostly whites. I'm sure I'll find something for them all to do, and I'm working on it at the moment. The fact that my MC is a bigoted, racist, homophobic misogynist and is forced to work with these people will, hopefully, create at least some conflict.


----------



## Winston (Sep 8, 2019)

> ...is forced to work with these people will, hopefully, create at least some conflict.



Conflict is good.  In writing, and in life.
Without conflict, we become a bunch of risk-adverse head-bobbing sheep.  No one ever did great things when aspiring to conform.  
Everyone should work with, and write about people they are 'uncomfortable' with.  That's diversity, not melanin.


----------



## CyberWar (Sep 11, 2019)

I write minority characters if the storyline merits their presence somehow. For example, it would only make sense to include ethnic minority characters in a story set in modern America, but certainly not in a story set in Medieval Europe, like Hollywood is so fond of ham-handedly doingin just about every medieval/fantasy flick that comes out these days.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 11, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> I write minority characters if the storyline merits their presence somehow. For example, it would only make sense to include ethnic minority characters in a story set in modern America, but certainly not in a story set in Medieval Europe, like Hollywood is so fond of ham-handedly doingin just about every medieval/fantasy flick that comes out these days.



Really which ones are you watching cause I've only really seen medieval fantasy from the perspectives of white europeans, with white europeans. Have yet to see any with say an African American, or a Latino, or even a Chinese individual in them an they were all around and in Europe at some point or another in the middle ages.


----------



## CyberWar (Sep 11, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Really which ones are you watching cause I've only really seen medieval fantasy from the perspectives of white europeans, with white europeans. Have yet to see any with say an African American, or a Latino, or even a Chinese individual in them an they were all around and in Europe at some point or another in the middle ages.



The 1992 _Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves _is perhaps the most egregious example of ham-handedly cramming a minority character along with plentiful diversity-is-good ideological drivel into a Medieval European setting. Same goes for the more recent and more fantasy incarnation of the same story. Another that comes to mind is _Kingdom of Heaven_ which didn't sin with misplaced minority characters but rather the depiction (and the underlying ideological message) of a prominent historical Crusader knight as a democratically-minded religiously-tolerant do-gooder from humble background. I could probably look up quite a few more, these being just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.


----------



## James Wolfe (Sep 11, 2019)

I use my own world where everyone is white because I am, and you can all... just kidding.  . 

But I do use my own world.  In the early days of my writing the humans have been white, because I am white, but have lately been giving it a bit of variety, even the other races of my world have their own varieties as well.  which outside of the Humans, the other races have show some elitism for their own "race" where one ethic see the other ethnics of their race as lesser or inferior, typically enslaving them. 

Though the majority of the humans are still white, I have added Asiatic and Indian looking people, as one of the later is the head-handmaiden for my MC, whose skin tone is a light-tan/olive. There was one region I wanted to include tanned or  darker skinned humans, since it was a harsh-arid wasteland, and thought it would fit, This area does give birth to a powerful empire, however, that empire and later a Theocracy, is a constant antagonist throughout the history of the planet. So I kind of shy way, though I still think the idea is cool.  It also conflicts with things that happen later

as others have said however, I don't force diversity and put what Is correct or just what ever I want to put.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 11, 2019)

1992?
Dood that was the last century. 

Actually there has been a lotta whitewashing in historical fims.
People of color were not invented at the same time as Technicolor; they have been around longer than Caucasians.
Sure, they may not have been running the show, but they were around, even in Europe.
https://www.thewrap.com/mary-queen-...as-queen-elizabeth-ambassador-actually-black/


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 11, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> The 1992 _Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves _is perhaps the most egregious example of ham-handedly cramming a minority character along with plentiful diversity-is-good ideological drivel into a Medieval European setting. Same goes for the more recent and more fantasy incarnation of the same story. Another that comes to mind is _Kingdom of Heaven_ which didn't sin with misplaced minority characters but rather the depiction (and the underlying ideological message) of a prominent historical Crusader knight as a democratically-minded religiously-tolerant do-gooder from humble background. I could probably look up quite a few more, these being just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.


I too thought of _RH, PoT_, but to be absolutely fair, we're talking here about a Moor, a Saracen who came back with Robin from the Holy Land. He would be darker, being of Middle Eastern origin. Even in the superlative _Robin of Sherwood _(for my money, the very best retelling of the legend, bar none) Nasir is a ME guy, though perhaps a little whiter than the actor who plays his role in the movie. I don't think it was so much shoehorning in a "diverse" character in either case (though I'm sure it was on the minds of the backers) but more a case of accurately depicting the situation, which might have been "whitewashed* out of history" in most of the tales of the legend.

_* Pun intended._


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 11, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> The 1992 _Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves _is perhaps the most egregious example of ham-handedly cramming a minority character along with plentiful diversity-is-good ideological drivel into a Medieval European setting.



Can I ask what did you find so heinous about that movie particularly?

It's been awhile, but I don't remember any problem with it. The entire movie was pretty silly (there was a friggin' witch, if I recall correctly) and I don't remember any SJW stuff or anything. He was kind of just there, being Morgan Freeman. They came up with a semi-convincing reason for him being there, too. Wasn't like they were trying to say there were actually black guys wandering around medieval Nottinghamshire, right? 

Really interested that of all the examples you could have chosen that was what you settled on as 'most egregious'.


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 12, 2019)

Even long ago there were odd mixes around.  North Africans used to raid south-western England and take white Cornish people back with them - and that was only a decade after Shakespeare died.  They weren't isolated incidents either.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 12, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Can I ask what did you find so heinous about that movie particularly.



Oh boy, the movie sins in it were hilarious!

[video=youtube;zA2z-kHVfhA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA2z-kHVfhA[/video]


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 12, 2019)

There actually were black, gay, trans, etc. people in medieval Europe.
Do you spend time justifying each one of your white characters?


----------



## CyberWar (Sep 13, 2019)

It's really just the first obvious example that came to mind. There are no doubt plenty more flagrant examples of PC propaganda out there.

The simple fact of picking a Black person for the role of a Saracen (for which an actual Middle Easterner would be much better suited) already speaks "minority quota", because it's not like there aren't any actors of Middle Eastern ancestry and/or appearance available in Hollywood. The fact that Robin - a Crusader - befriends this heathen and treats him as equal is also extremely unlikely. Not to mention the obvious PC propaganda lines like: "Why are you black? - Because Allah loves diversity", and several scenes where the native Europeans are contrasted with the Saracen as way more illiterate and uncivilized than they actually were.

All things considered, it was still a pretty fun film to watch, and Gordon Freeman did a decent job portraying his character. The screenwriters, however, did a poor job by making the ideological message way too obvious.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 13, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> There actually were black, gay, trans, etc. people in medieval Europe.
> Do you spend time justifying each one of your white characters?



But Nottinghamshire is not 'Europe'. Europe's a very big place. 

That's like somebody saying there were not many Inuits in 18th century Florida and somebody else saying 'There were actually Inuits in North America'. Yes, but not many in Florida  And I doubt there were many - or any - black people in 13th century Nottinghamshire, either. Or white people in 13th Century Congo, for that matter. Because why would there be?



CyberWar said:


> It's really just the first obvious example that came to mind. There are no doubt plenty more flagrant examples of PC propaganda out there.
> 
> The simple fact of picking a Black person for the role of a Saracen (for which an actual Middle Easterner would be much better suited) already speaks "minority quota", because it's not like there aren't any actors of Middle Eastern ancestry and/or appearance available in Hollywood. The fact that Robin - a Crusader - befriends this heathen and treats him as equal is also extremely unlikely. Not to mention the obvious PC propaganda lines like: "Why are you black? - Because Allah loves diversity", and several scenes where the native Europeans are contrasted with the Saracen as way more illiterate and uncivilized than they actually were.
> 
> All things considered, it was still a pretty fun film to watch, and Gordon Freeman did a decent job portraying his character. The screenwriters, however, did a poor job by making the ideological message way too obvious.



Gordon Freeman is definitely a one of my favorite actors! So glad he gave up that silly cooking...

I'm not an expert on the movie or anything, but I had the feeling it was more about really liking Morgan (sorry Gordon) as an actor. The nineties wasn't terribly big on diversity like now, so I doubt there was a whole lot of diversity quota-ing. And they did give him a decent backstory and explained why he was there. 

I agree maybe a Middle Eastern character would have been _slightly _more believable, but being that the crusades took place in the Holy Land - an area that has historically been a crossroads between civilizations and not far from Africa, I don't think it's terrible. There would doubtless been a lot more black people in that area than, say, England. If they'd tried to portray him as being from England, I think that would have been a _little_ more historically questionable.

It's certainly not Tom-Cruise-as-a-Samurai level of absurdity. Or Matt Damon in _The Great Wall. _Now there's a diversity quota in action!


----------



## Bayview (Sep 13, 2019)

There's also the element of having to bring something new to the story, surely. I mean, I've seen _Macbeth_ performed with characters in uniforms from WWI, with male witches, one version with a LOT of nudity... the play's been staged thousands of times and the producers are probably just looking for whatever fresh spin they can find. Robin Hood may not be quite THAT over-done, but it's been filmed a lot of times. Finding something new to try doesn't automatically translate to "PC Culture Run Amok".


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 13, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I mean, I've seen _Macbeth_ performed with characters in uniforms from WWI, with male witches, one version with a LOT of nudity... the play's been staged thousands of times and the producers are probably just looking for whatever fresh spin they can find.



This made me think... I used to work in a Shakespearean theater and have seen Macbeth probably at least a hundred times. One thing that was funny was I never saw a single 'Elizabethan' version of it, in 'realistic' or period costume and so on. Not once. The versions were all varying degrees of good, but they were all 'fresh spins'. That was for pretty much every play. I once saw a BDSM-inspired version of Othello, which was interesting.

But I sometimes wonder if part of the problem driving 'PC Gone Mad' mentality is that sometimes these kinds of revisions can become a little bit too common for some people. I'm not aware of any professional theater that does totally traditional Shakespeare on a regular basis - maybe the Globe in London, but I'm not sure. Like with Robin Hood, I've seen a lot of versions of that too - but one thing I'm not sure I have seen, at least not anytime in the last couple of decades, is a version that wasn't in some way bringing "something new to the table". Whether its cartoon foxes or black actors or whatever.

Now personally, I really like new and inclusive things, but I also understand a lot of people really don't - and I don't think that is necessarily motivated by bigotry - though, of course, it certainly can be. Some really do want historical accuracy, or at least the illusion of it, right down to the smallest detail. A lot of people do really like watching the same thing over and over. My Father-In-Law will still watch _The Fifth Element _every chance he can get, he doesn't really watch new movies. He loves James Bond, and I know would not like James Bond being portrayed as a woman (something being talked about lately), not because he is misogynistic, but because he has this idea of what James Bond looks like and it's a white British man. To him the idea of a woman playing James Bond is like if they remade Jurassic Park with purple dinosaurs - the fact nobody has any idea what color dinosaurs were doesn't matter. In his mind, they aren't purple.

For those people, male witches and so on when all they want to do is see Shakespeare done authentically, or at least the popular impression of it, is understandably an annoyance. Same with Robin Hood. And it definitely feeds into this whole myth of cultural destruction.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 13, 2019)

The BBC recently did a production of Shakespeare's Richard III. It involved several non-white actors in various roles. They didn't make any reference to the fact at all - they were just all thoroughly English or French. I think it's a good idea, Shakespeare is a difficult sell to kids at the best of times, so having characters everybody can identify with can only help. It's basically saying to any minority kids that European culture can be adopted by anyone. Maybe it will also help people realise that historical adaptations for book/film/whatever are not meant to be historically accurate. It does grate though when some convoluted plot is contrived to justify the presence a minority person in Celtic Brittania say. 

Not sure it's working though: went to see Midsummer's Night Dream, over half the actors were black meaning there were far more black people in the play than in the audience.




luckyscars said:


> But I sometimes wonder if part of the problem driving 'PC Gone Mad' mentality is that sometimes these kinds of revisions can become a little bit too common for some people. I'm not aware of any professional theater that does totally traditional Shakespeare on a regular basis - maybe the Globe in London, but I'm not sure.



Not the Globe either - but who can argue with tickets for a fiver. I agree though - as someone who only got into Shakespeare much later in life i'd like to see a 'standard' production. I don't mean the colour of people's skin - it's the costumes that really stand out to me. Fluorescent. 

Elizabethan jokes would probably fall flat though - apparently during plays at the Globe it was usual to have a bit of banter with an often raucous crowd. They still do that now, but they've had to adapt the jokes to include stuff we'll actually get - and any improv relating to the crowd is going to draw from the audience, which is modern. Difficult balance, but just once i'd like to see the 'originals'.

Speaking of which, does anyone know any good cartoon adaptations? I did see one for Macbeth, very good voice acting and excellent animation, and all by the standard story, but was only 30 minutes of the play.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 13, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> Elizabethan jokes would probably fall flat though - apparently during plays at the Globe it was usual to have a bit of banter with an often raucous crowd. They still do that now, but they've had to adapt the jokes to include stuff we'll actually get - and any improv relating to the crowd is going to draw from the audience, which is modern. Difficult balance, but just once i'd like to see the 'originals'.



Elizabethan jokes are usually terrible, but I would disagree with changing them because ultimately Shakespeare is Shakespeare and the jokes are a product of time and place. Anybody who goes to watch Shakespeare for comedy is a weirdo.

Yeah, I think the color of the skin isn't, or shouldn't, be such an issue It's a difficult line, though, when you get down to considering the conflict between authenticity and interpretation. Color of the skin might not justifiably ruffle traditionalist feathers...but gender? Having Romeo as a woman and Juliet as a man does seem like it would change the dynamic somewhat, right? Ultimately these scripts are written with certain character traits in mind. Falstaff is supposed to be a fat, boorish, perverse old man. You make him a younger, sleeker character or an attractive woman and suddenly it's a different kind of play entirely.

 Race is probably something that would be more readily distracting to some in a movie than a play because a play is more of an imaginative exercise. Stage actors are generally viewed from afar and the whole thing usually less focused on realism anyway. A play is normally based around symbols to trigger imagination, you can't exactly have a battle on a stage so you just try to capture certain trigger points, where a movie tries to actually recreate the image.  

But yeah, the costumes and sets are the main thing I regretted not seeing more of in all the Shakespeare plays I sat through. Just once I would have liked to have seen Henry V where Henry was actually wearing armor and there were sword fights, if for no other reason than to contrast with the sci-fi-esque rendition I watched where they had guns and the Battle of Agincourt was supposed to be in outer space. Just once.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 13, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Yeah, I think the color of the skin isn't, or shouldn't, be such an issue It's a difficult line, though, when you get down to considering the conflict between authenticity and interpretation. Color of the skin might not justifiably ruffle traditionalist feathers...but gender?



Funny you should mention that: i went with a Chinese girl so i was having interpret most of the play anyway - but Hermia's father was played by a women. Even confused me for a second, and with everything else happening on stage it took a while to explain everything to a non-native speaker. Also Puck was played by everyone at different points in the play, which just seemed unnecessary.



luckyscars said:


> Race is probably something that would be more readily distracting to some in a movie than a play because a play is more of an imaginative exercise.



Maybe. Which leads us back to the theatre of the mind: how to portray it in books. On stage/screen someone's skin colour is just there. In a book you have to take time, even if very little, to specifically point it out. My gut feeling says that if it's not relevant to the plot then i just don't mention it, although i will sometimes name characters to imply some ethnic heritage.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 13, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> Maybe. Which leads us back to the theatre of the mind: how to portray it in books. On stage/screen someone's skin colour is just there. In a book you have to take time, even if very little, to specifically point it out. My gut feeling says that if it's not relevant to the plot then i just don't mention it, although i will sometimes name characters to imply some ethnic heritage.



I totally agree. I almost never mention character's race. I've actually found descriptions of characters appearance generally to be quite pointless. I've personally found myself prone to either forget about them or even skip over them sometimes when they're very drawn out and dull.Unless they're really distinctive looking or its necessary to the plot. A book about racial issues would definitely need racial identification but besides that I find it pointless. 

The only other thing I'd say on that is that a characters race or ethnicity should probably, if well written, be made clear anyway through dialogue. There is a black vernacular here in the US. Not all black people speak with it, mind, but there are certain words and phrases that you don't really get white people using. So, the racial identity of a character would probably have to be decided on and revealed implicitly through dialogue choice, and perhaps more incidental things - a character from the Mississippi delta would almost certainly be presumed black because the demographics in that area are something like 90% black. Likewise, a farm boy from North Dakota or a Swedish fisherman or something like that is going to be white unless specifically shown otherwise because almost all of those demographics are white. 

So race does often slip out one way or another simply through these choices. And definitely through names. There aren't terribly many white men named Mohammad or Lu...


----------



## Cephus (Sep 13, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> The BBC recently did a production of Shakespeare's Richard III. It involved several non-white actors in various roles. They didn't make any reference to the fact at all - they were just all thoroughly English or French. I think it's a good idea, Shakespeare is a difficult sell to kids at the best of times, so having characters everybody can identify with can only help. It's basically saying to any minority kids that European culture can be adopted by anyone. Maybe it will also help people realise that historical adaptations for book/film/whatever are not meant to be historically accurate. It does grate though when some convoluted plot is contrived to justify the presence a minority person in Celtic Brittania say.



There's nothing wrong with that, depending on the reasons they did it. Were these the best actors they could get for the roles, or were they trying to make some kind of political statement? I wouldn't have a problem with the former. The latter, absolutely.


----------



## CyberWar (Sep 13, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> But Nottinghamshire is not 'Europe'. Europe's a very big place.
> 
> That's like somebody saying there were not many Inuits in 18th century Florida and somebody else saying 'There were actually Inuits in North America'. Yes, but not many in Florida  And I doubt there were many - or any - black people in 13th century Nottinghamshire, either. Or white people in 13th Century Congo, for that matter. Because why would there be?
> 
> ...



LOL, it took me a second read of your response to recognize my earlier typo.

But yes, in terms of historical authenticity, _The Last Samurai_ is a crime against humanity. Haven't seen _The Great Wall_, though I can probably imagine.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 13, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I almost never mention character's race.


If you don't mention it, people assume white. Which leads back to having to justify each white-etcetera character in the story. Remember the way people reacted to a black Hermione? No canon was violated, but people had a meltdown.
We can't even headcanon in minorities without being sneered at/corrected. Put it explicitly in the text! And if a character isn't a minority in at least one aspect, justify why you made that choice and what purpose it serves.


----------



## PiP (Sep 13, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> If you don't mention it, people assume white.
> s.


Not necessarily. It depends on location and context. Never ass-u-me. I don't think race, sexual pref, genre or colour unless it is relevant to the story.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 13, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> The BBC recently did a production of Shakespeare's Richard III. It involved several non-white actors in various roles. They didn't make any reference to the fact at all - they were just all thoroughly English or French. I think it's a good idea, Shakespeare is a difficult sell to kids at the best of times, so having characters everybody can identify with can only help. It's basically saying to any minority kids that European culture can be adopted by anyone. Maybe it will also help people realise that historical adaptations for book/film/whatever are not meant to be historically accurate. It does grate though when some convoluted plot is contrived to justify the presence a minority person in Celtic Brittania say.
> 
> Not sure it's working though: went to see Midsummer's Night Dream, over half the actors were black meaning there were far more black people in the play than in the audience.
> 
> ...


I used to love these.
[video=youtube;qfnUq2_0FOY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfnUq2_0FOY[/video]


----------



## Bayview (Sep 13, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> This made me think... I used to work in a Shakespearean theater and have seen Macbeth probably at least a hundred times. One thing that was funny was I never saw a single 'Elizabethan' version of it, in 'realistic' or period costume and so on. Not once. The versions were all varying degrees of good, but they were all 'fresh spins'. That was for pretty much every play. I once saw a BDSM-inspired version of Othello, which was interesting.



The Stratford festival in Ontario does traditional Shakespeare pretty often. They mess around with things sometimes, too, but I've definitely seen productions there with Elizabethan costumes and scenery.



> ...He loves James Bond, and I know would not like James Bond being portrayed as a woman (something being talked about lately), not because he is misogynistic, but because he has this idea of what James Bond looks like and it's a white British man. To him the idea of a woman playing James Bond is like if they remade Jurassic Park with purple dinosaurs - the fact nobody has any idea what color dinosaurs were doesn't matter. In his mind, they aren't purple.



I agree that this isn't a hateful, aggressive form of misogyny, but I would say that it does look like a less virulent form. I mean, really loving the status quo and being frustrated or even angry when the status quo is challenged is generally a sign that someone has benefited from the status quo, or at least made to believe that he has. You know? Like, if someone really thinks James Bond should only be played by a white man hears that the role has gone to a woman, then that person has the option of just not going to see the new version. But when people start getting ANGRY (or even just annoyed) about the changes, as if they have a right have characters always look exactly the way they want the characters to look? I think that suggests a bit of a problem. Again, not hateful and aggressive, just... not too open-minded in that area.


----------



## Chris Stevenson (Sep 14, 2019)

Since it's been brought to my attention over the years, I do and have had a good habit of including POC characters in my books. I have a Native American teenage girl as my FMC in my latest release and I couldn't be happier. But do I worry? Yes, I do, to be honest about it. I have to make a solid character game plan before I even start a book.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 14, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I agree that this isn't a hateful, aggressive form of misogyny, but I would say that it does look like a less virulent form. I mean, really loving the status quo and being frustrated or even angry when the status quo is challenged is generally a sign that someone has benefited from the status quo, or at least made to believe that he has. You know? Like, if someone really thinks James Bond should only be played by a white man hears that the role has gone to a woman, then that person has the option of just not going to see the new version. But when people start getting ANGRY (or even just annoyed) about the changes, as if they have a right have characters always look exactly the way they want the characters to look? I think that suggests a bit of a problem. Again, not hateful and aggressive, just... not too open-minded in that area.



Perhaps this will sound like I'm being defensive as a man, but I do think using terms like misogyny here isn't really helpful. Sure, there are plenty of outright misogynists, and those people need challenged at every turn..._however _equating a simple preference for a specific character in a specific story's appearance just doesn't seem like it fits with that problem.

I think there's probably room for a healthy balance with this stuff. A steady progression, a third way between pushing toward representation while accommodating some traditional reader expectations. Having a man of color play James Bond, for example, is something that most people - besides absolute racists obviously - would probably be totally okay with at this point. Somebody like, I don't know, Idris Elba, checks most of the other boxes of traditional Bond-ism: Good looking, well-groomed, charming, the right age, very British...but he's also very definitely not white. 

It seems the main problem with making Bond a woman is the changes would be quite extreme. You would likely have to reconfigure an awful lot about the character - starting with her name - which would probably mean changing the standard Bond-plot. At which point you could reasonably question whether there's any sense in even calling it a Bond movie at all.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

dp


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> The idea of preferring a character to look a certain way in a movie works a tiny bit like that, I think. Forming a picture of what we would like a character to look, sound, behave like, then feeling a little disappointed (I agree that anger is a stretch - and probably would imply a deeper issue, but I don't think I mentioned anger...) when the character we are presented with isn't what we had in mind, is something we don't necessarily have a whole lot of control over...is it? Criticizing people for lacking an open mind doesn't necessarily do anything. We know psychology says many, maybe most, human beings do tend toward some familiarity and repetition in what they read and watch. James Bond is a particularly acute example of that tendency, because rehashing the same themes, characters, and basic premise is sort of its raison d'etre: It's _supposed_ to be fairly predictable.
> 
> So...I think there's probably room for a healthy balance with this stuff, no? A steady progression, a third way between pushing toward representation while accommodating some traditional reader expectations. Having a man of color play James Bond, for example, is something that most people - besides absolute racists obviously - would probably be totally okay with at this point. Somebody like, I don't know, Idris Elba, checks most of the other boxes of traditional Bond-ism: Good looking, well-groomed, charming, the right age, very British...but he's also very definitely not white. It seems the main problem with making Bond a woman is the changes would be quite extreme. You would likely have to reconfigure an awful lot about the character - starting with her name - which would probably mean changing the standard Bond-plot. At which point you could reasonably question whether there's any sense in even calling it a Bond movie at all.



A man of colour will sadly or not never play James Bond for a simple reason: the novels have been set in the period of time when the British Empire was still alive.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> A man of colour will sadly or not never play James Bond for a simple reason: the novels have been set in the period of time when the British Empire was still alive.



#logic


----------



## Bayview (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> A man of colour will sadly or not never play James Bond for a simple reason: the novels have been set in the period of time when the British Empire was still alive.



?

For the novels, the Empire may have been alive, but it was on its death bed. And the movies have been set in the times they were produced, haven't they? They're not "period" pieces, they're modern.

I mean, I don't think there's any reason a person of colour couldn't have been a fantasy spy during the British Empire, but even if there were, I don't think the limit would apply to Bond.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Bayview said:


> ?
> 
> For the novels, the Empire may have been alive, but it was on its death bed. And the movies have been set in the times they were produced, haven't they? They're not "period" pieces, they're modern.
> 
> I mean, I don't think there's any reason a person of colour couldn't have been a fantasy spy during the British Empire, but even if there were, I don't think the limit would apply to Bond.



It's a the-British-are-still-in-control thing. Oh; that lovable British dandysm  I love it!


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> #logic


You can't see the wood for the trees.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 14, 2019)

Why couldn't they create a black or minority Bond? For one thing it would probably bring them quite a bit of publicity.


----------



## PiP (Sep 14, 2019)

My husband has watched all the Bond movies. When I asked him did he object to James Bond being black, he said he had no objections whatsoever. However, if the role was cast to a woman, he would object and no longer bother to watch the movies. If they want a woman spy, fine... just don't hijack the Bond profile.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 14, 2019)

mrmustard615 said:


> For one thing it would probably bring them quite a bit of publicity.



It's true it would net them publicity, but i personally hate it when films just jump on the bandwagon. 

Star Trek actually makes a statement by having one of the first mixed race kisses on TV. Star Wars nearly 50 decades later shouting 'look at us, we believe in stuff too', not so much. 

Studio Ghibli has a string of diverse female leads starting 3 decades ago, before it was fashionable. Disney screaming 'me too' now, after countless princess archetypes, just doesn't cut it. 

Having a minority James Bond would be entirely about maximising exposure. I wouldn't mind, but the track record of film studios late to the wakening is for them to smack you round the face with their diversity criteria. If you listen carefully you can hear someone ticking off the boxes. 

Why not start a new spy franchise based on minority character? 




Cephus said:


> There's nothing wrong with that, depending on the reasons they did it. Were these the best actors they could get for the roles, or were they trying to make some kind of political statement? I wouldn't have a problem with the former. The latter, absolutely.



No idea why they had so many black actors - they could all act and they didn't make a song and dance about it, so i don't care.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 14, 2019)

Bayview said:


> For the novels, the Empire may have been alive, but it was on its death bed. And the movies have been set in the times they were produced, haven't they? They're not "period" pieces, they're modern.
> 
> I mean, I don't think there's any reason a person of colour couldn't have been a fantasy spy during the British Empire, but even if there were, I don't think the limit would apply to Bond.



If we're going back to Ian Flemming's time when he wrote it (1959 onwards), MI6 and its other department (MI1,2, 3, 4, 5, 8 etc), plus also the GCHQ, started to employ minority races in minor positions: clerks... manual posts (1960s and onwards), but they weren't 'trusted' with secret documents and positions, or so the leaked documents point towards!! Although all of them now have one of the best records for gender and race equality, when Flemming wrote it, he wrote to reflect the time. Modern-day Bond would be very different, though, rightly so!!! 



PiP said:


> My husband has watched all the Bond movies. When I asked him did he object to James Bond being black, he said he had no objections whatsoever. However, if the role was cast to a woman, he would object and no longer bother to watch the movies. If they want a woman spy, fine... just don't hijack the Bond profile.



I think this is the point here. It's not like _Doctor Who_, where he regenerates and there's the possibility he can be a she at the flick of a coin: you don't get that with Bond. Even if all she's doing is taking his codename: 007 (which is the likely option). James Bond is.... James Bond.... He was written as a male, and I know I wouldn't like any of my male MCs pop up as female down the line. I'd much rather see the woman in her own right, with her own strengths, weaknesses, and codename. I mean, even just using the same codename would be off: codenames are usually chosen to be as inert as possible, so using 007... again? I'm curious to see how they'll do it, but I'm not really holding out much hope.

I'd love to see it come at the angle of the female codebreakers at Bletchley Park. That would be damn interesting!


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> If we're going back to Ian Flemming's time when he wrote it (1959 onwards), MI6 and its other department (MI1,2, 3, 4, 5, 8 etc), plus also the GCHQ, started to employ minority races in minor positions: clerks... manual posts (1960s and onwards), but they weren't 'trusted' with secret documents and positions, or so the leaked documents point towards!! Although all of them now have one of the best records for gender and race equality, when Flemming wrote it, he wrote to reflect the time. Modern-day Bond would be very different, though, rightly so!!



Cassino Royale, for example, was filmed after the Flemming's first JB novel. How could a man of colour star in such a movie?


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Cassino Royale, for example, was filmed after the Flemming's first James Bond novel. How could a man of colour star in such a movie?



I understand your point. Casino Royale was the 1st appearance for James Bond in Flemming's novels, but like any _movie_ portraying the book, it's a modern-day adaptation. It can bend rules.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Cassino Royale, for example, was filmed after the Flemming's first James Bond novel. How could a man of colour star in such a movie?



Is someone talking about going back and re-making the old movies with different actors? I'd assumed we were talking about future movies, set in the future...

And, honestly, in terms of realism, I'd find it much more believable that the name and number are both code names used for different spies over the years (some of whom may not be white men) than to believe that the same man could withstand a physically demanding profession from 1962 to 2019. Sean Connery was 32 when he played the first bond. He's 89, now. I don't follow the movies too closely, but they aren't all set in historical times, right? Google says James is going to be driving an Aston Martin Valhalla in the next movie, so clearly the CARS are modernizing, and the fashion seems to be modernizing... I think the movies are set in current day.

So clearly there's not an actual person named James Bond who's now 89 years old but being played by a 50 year-old. Right? It's different people. I see no reason one of those people couldn't be something other than a white man.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> If we're going back to Ian Flemming's time when he wrote it (1959 onwards), MI6 and its other department (MI1,2, 3, 4, 5, 8 etc), plus also the GCHQ, started to employ minority races in minor positions: clerks... manual posts (1960s and onwards), but they weren't 'trusted' with secret documents and positions, or so the leaked documents point towards!! Although all of them now have one of the best records for gender and race equality, when Flemming wrote it, he wrote to reflect the time. Modern-day Bond would be very different, though, rightly so!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Bayview said:


> Is someone talking about going back and re-making the old movies with different actors? I'd assumed we were talking about future movies, set in the future...
> 
> And, honestly, in terms of realism, I'd find it much more believable that the name and number are both code names used for different spies over the years (some of whom may not be white men) than to believe that the same man could withstand a physically demanding profession from 1962 to 2019. Sean Connery was 32 when he played the first bond. He's 89, now. I don't follow the movies too closely, but they aren't all set in historical times, right? Google says James is going to be driving an Aston Martin Valhalla in the next movie, so clearly the CARS are modernizing, and the fashion seems to be modernizing... I think the movies are set in current day.
> 
> So clearly there's not an actual person named James Bond who's now 89 years old but being played by a 50 year-old. Right? It's different people. I see no reason one of those people couldn't be something other than a white man.



Valhalla? Driven by a black guy? It's not gonna happen, girls


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 14, 2019)

It's a paradox, isn't it? Flemming's James Bond is the same man in the novels. But with the movies? I find it hard to swallow that different men would share the same codename _and_ name... it would be detrimental to MI6 who have a use and dispose outlook on codenames.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 14, 2019)

PiP said:


> Not necessarily. It depends on location and context. Never ass-u-me. I don't think race, sexual pref, genre or colour unless it is relevant to the story.



Nor should you. You can't control what a reader is going to do in their own head and it isn't your responsibility to. But this is what happens when you get people who are obsessed with race and perceived racism. They can't just enjoy a story for the story. They have to interject their own racial biases into everything.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> A man of colour will sadly or not never play James Bond for a simple reason: the novels have been set in the period of time when the British Empire was still alive.



Yet there's a pretty solid fanbase for Idris Elba to play Bond. Imagine that.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 14, 2019)

mrmustard615 said:


> Why couldn't they create a black or minority Bond? For one thing it would probably bring them quite a bit of publicity.



They could. The real question is *WHY* they do it. Do they do it for publicity sake, to play to a political agenda, or do they do it organically, where the best actor they can find for the role just so happens to be black? Because the former is just pandering for a buck and the latter is entirely credible. Unfortunately, in Hollywood these days, the former is about all you see. If they made a black Bond, it would be because he was black, not because he was the best actor for the job. It would be their purpose, not a coincidence.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 14, 2019)

I think part of the problem with this is that if a black man or a woman was cast as Bond, people would bemoan it as a political casting no matter what. That's part of this problem: Whenever a POC or a women is cast in a role that has traditionally gone to a white man, people automatically blast it as political. No matter how much people scream that they just want the best person hired, they will inevitably call it identity politics when the person hired is not what they expect.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Yet there's a pretty solid fanbase for Idris Elba to play Bond. Imagine that.



There's a pretty solid fanbase for almost anything these days, yet...

All we can do is dream on...

*********

Come to think of it, there is a possibility of rioting on the part of the black community in the UK should a blackman take up a movie role of a governmental employee of a country guilty of so many attrocities commited against his race. And that's the cold hard truth. One can never be too careful.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> If we're going back to Ian Flemming's time when he wrote it (1959 onwards), MI6 and its other department (MI1,2, 3, 4, 5, 8 etc), plus also the GCHQ, started to employ minority races in minor positions: clerks... manual posts (1960s and onwards), but they weren't 'trusted' with secret documents and positions, or so the leaked documents point towards!!



They enjoyed as much regard as the US Buffalo Soldiers. That would be the status of Idris Elba among the members of the UK House of Lords for example.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 14, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Yet there's a pretty solid fanbase for Idris Elba to play Bond. Imagine that.



I have to admit I'd love to see Idris play bond. He'd be perfect for the role. 

Personally I think that a characters race should only play a role in the overall story, movie, ect. if it directly pertains to the story being told. For example if Idris did play James Bond them great no big snafu there.

 Yet as was pointed out to me in an earlier post of I say have a black character in a medieval european fantasy story then at least according to some on here I'm pandering because supposedly blacks weren't in europe during the middle ages which isn't true. They were around they just weren't prevalent.

 I think a lot of it has to do with what we as people are comfortable with. If a medieval fantasy star's a white MC then fine but throw a black MC into the mix and all of a sudden were pandering. I for one don't care to pander, to anyone. However I will say that having both European and African descent does make me want to buck traditional thinking and go outside the box.

 Personally I will say that If the author can at least justify an in universe reason for a minority to be present in a work of fiction the go ahead. And if they can't and just want to throw someone in there for the hell of it then go right ahead. I personally care more about a good story than the color of characters skin or were there race comes from historically.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Come to think of it, there is a possibility of rioting on the part of the black community in the UK should a blackman take up a movie role of a governmental employee of a country guilty of so many attrocities commited against his race. And that's the cold hard truth. One can never be too careful.



You're entitled to your opinion, but it's totally idiotic.

Idris Elba already played a 'governmental employee'. In Luther, he played a police detective. In Legacy, he played a spy, whose brother - also a black fellow - was a senator. He has played numerous roles of this type. 

 How many black actors have played police officers, military personnel, etc in movies and TV shows in both the UK and USA (a country undoubtedly guilty one or two 'attrocities' against black people)? Thousands probably.



Ken11 said:


> They enjoyed as much regard as the US Buffalo Soldiers. That would be the status of Idris Elba among the members of the UK House of Lords for example.



There already are numerous non-white people in the House of Lords, Ken. Just like there are black congressmen and senators - an entire caucus of them, actually. Have been for donkey's years now. Not enough, but it's not unusual.

I'd advise you consider what you say before typing it, just a little bit. But I suspect you wont.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Valhalla? Driven by a black guy? It's not gonna happen, girls



What are you talking about?


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Idris Elba already played a 'governmental employee'. In Luther, he played a police detective. In Legacy, he played a spy, whose brother - also a black fellow - was a senator. He has played numerous roles of this type.
> 
> How many black actors have played police officers, military personnel, etc in movies and TV shows in both the UK and USA (a country undoubtedly guilty one or two 'attrocities' against black people)? Thousands probably.
> 
> ...



As for Idris and the employees: you just have to admit that there is a difference between playing common directive, and spy, and playing 'the good-old-times' British icon.

As for the black US president in 24, I find it conspicuous that it was filmed as a means of propaganda for Barack Obama.

As for the non-white lords and senators, they have been considered traitors by their own oppressed minorities, and necessary evil by the whites, respectively.


----------



## PiP (Sep 14, 2019)

I have to ask: have you ever been to the UK, Ken?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> As for the black US president in 24, I find it conspicuous that it was filmed as a means of propaganda for Barak Obama.



That's an interesting comment considering that in 2001-2002, the only people that even heard of Obama were in Illinois.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 14, 2019)

Times change.

A century from now (or maybe longer), people will be arguing about whether or not artificially-intelligent robots should be allowed to star in lead roles. :topsy_turvy:


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 14, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> Times change.
> 
> A century from now (or maybe longer), people will be arguing about whether or not artificially-intelligent robots should be allowed to star in lead roles. :topsy_turvy:




You mean they're not already?  :glee:


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

mrmustard615 said:


> That's an interesting comment considering that in 2001-2002, the only people that even heard of Obama were in Illinois.



The high politics of the multipowerful countries just has to be planned decades in advance.
Obama is from Detroit, which also tells a lot.


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> As for the non-white lords and senators, they have been considered traitors by their own oppressed minorities, and necessary evil by the whites, respectively.



I don't doubt that some might view them as Uncle Toms or as begrudging acts of tokenism, but that isn't a popular view.  Indeed, it might be regarded as heading towards the extreme end in the UK.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> The high politics of the multipowerful countries just has to be planned decades in advance.
> Obama is from Detroit, which also tells a lot.




No he's not. He was born in Hawaii unless, of course, you think he was born in Kenya.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

mrmustard615 said:


> No he's not. He was born in Hawaii unless, of course, you think he was born in Kenya.


Personally I'm interested in neither democrats nor republicans. We're all human beings. But politically, Obama is from Detroit.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> The high politics of the multipowerful countries just has to be planned decades in advance.
> Obama is from Detroit, which also tells a lot.




How is he from Detroit? And if he were (which he isn't) what the hell would that tell?

Seriously, buddy, you're just spouting random nonsense and making insanely unclear conclusions based on the random nonsense. I think you should stop.

EDIT: Oh, I see now that he's _politically_ from Detroit? What could that possibly mean?

It's almost Trumpian, your ability to start somewhere weird, refuse to back down and instead double down on the weirdness...


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Phil Istine said:


> I don't doubt that some might view them as Uncle Toms or as begrudging acts of tokenism, but that isn't a popular view.  Indeed, it might be regarded as heading towards the extreme end in the UK.


You have a Muslim mayor of London, if I'm not mistaken?


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 14, 2019)

mrmustard615 said:


> You mean they're not already?  :glee:



Yeah I've been preparing for this for the past five years with a sci-fi story currently in the work's.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> The high politics of the multipowerful countries just has to be planned decades in advance.
> Obama is from Detroit, which also tells a lot.



I honestly can't tell if your being serious or trolling right now...


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Bayview said:


> It's almost Trumpian, your ability to start somewhere weird, refuse to back down and instead double down on the weirdness...


Trumpian  Thanks, I like Trump in fact, like, when he says "you're fake news"


----------



## Bayview (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Trumpian  Thanks, I like Trump in fact, like, when he says "you're fake news"



Do you want to try to explain how Obama is "politically from Detroit" or are you just going to spin off into some other absurdity instead?


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Bayview said:


> How is he from Detroit?



Politically, he's from Chicago, my mistake.

Which makes it even worse, because the shrewdest in the negativne sense US politicians come from 'the windy city'.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 14, 2019)

So when he was "from Detroit", that apparently told us something. What is it that we would have been told? (which we aren't now being told, since we now all know he's NOT from Detroit). But what was it you were trying to get at in the first place?


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Politically, he's from Chicago, my mistake.
> 
> Which makes it even worse, because the shrewdest in the negativne sense US politicians come from 'the windy city'.



Obama=Shrewd? Are you kidding me! He was one of if not the funniest presidents to ever step foot in the oval office. He had everyone in stickies at every single address he ever attended and was just all around fun. How is that in any way shrewd? In fact you know what here, this is the definition of shrewd, 
"having or showing sharp powers of judgment; astute." Now if you mean to say this as a way of demeaning him then you really need to brush up on your grasp of the English language and not just use any random word that sounds nice.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 14, 2019)

This is dumb.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

Bayview said:


> So when he was "from Detroit", that apparently told us something. What is it that we would have been told? (which we aren't now being told, since we now all know he's NOT from Detroit). But what was it you were trying to get at in the first place?



Politicians are corrupt. And even more so when they act as the whites' servants. I'm no racist, but Obama didn't even represent the Bantu sub-race which makes the bull of the US African-Americans. I ask myself why?

It all started with the arguing about Idris...one thing led to another, and...


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Politicians are corrupt. And even more so when they act as the whites' servants. I'm no racist, but Obama didn't even represent the Bantu sub-race of the US African-Americans.
> 
> It all started with the arguing about Idris...one thing led to another, and...



See my post below for my response to this comment.  I tried to be civilized but this is really taking it to far.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Politicians are corrupt. And even more so when they act as the whites' servants. I'm no racist, but Obama didn't even represent the Bantu sub-race of the US African-Americans.
> 
> It all started with the arguing about Idris...one thing led to another, and...



And this was, in your mind, because he's from Detroit?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 14, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Politicians are corrupt. And even more so when they act as the whites' servants. I'm no racist, but Obama didn't even represent the Bantu sub-race of the US African-Americans.
> 
> It all started with the arguing about Idris...one thing led to another, and...



And what has that to do with 'politically, he's from Detroit'?

I'll be charitable and allow you maybe didn't know what you were saying, that you were just talking gibberish in an effort to dig yourself out of a geographical mistake, but please appreciate that when you talk about a black President from Hawaii as being 'politically from [totally different city that happens to be heavily associated with black culture and also a lot of dysfunction]', it raises suspicions that no amount "I'm no racist but..." can resolve. 

This is fundamentally what people are talking about when they speak about embedded racism. You may not be trying to be racist, I'll accept that and I won't call you one, but you're certainly - it seems - prone to some pretty silly talk and I don't believe you know anything about this subject. 

I mean, what is the 'Bantu sub-race'? _What are you talking about?_ Bantu isn't a racial group, it's a linguistic group. There are very few speakers of Bantu languages among US-born African-Americans. This isn't especially obscure information, but you should at least know what these terms mean before you toss them out there. Your ignorance is astonishing.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 14, 2019)

You know what I'm done. Do us all a favor and don't talk about what you don't understand. My family and myself included have gone through quite a lot thanks to our African American heritage. Don't disrespect it by walking all over our culture trying to act like you know a thing or two about us. Obama wasn't campaigning for one race of people you nitwit he was running for office for the good of the whole country!


----------



## PiP (Sep 14, 2019)

*ADMIN NOTE: ENOUGH!!!! We do not allow debates on WF. Please refer back to the opening post and get this thread back on topic. Failure to do so will result in the thread being locked.*


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 14, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I mean, what is the 'Bantu sub-race'? _What are you talking about?_ Bantu isn't a racial group, it's a linguistic group. There are very few speakers of Bantu languages among US-born African-Americans.



I meant, Obama isn't racially relative to the American Sub-Saharan Africans. Why? Beats me.


----------



## PiP (Sep 14, 2019)

*This thread is now locked for 24 hours*


----------



## velo (Sep 14, 2019)

SUPERVISOR NOTE

There is too much personally-targeted commentary in this thread.  If the comments about other users continue the thread will be locked without further warning.  

This board is for WRITING DISCUSSION.  Therefore, if you want to discuss _writing about_ politics, please continue.  If you want to debate political views, please move the discussion to facebook. 


 EDIT- I see PiP beat me to it.  Leaving the warning anyway to show that we are all in agreement.


----------

