# Character Race



## Tiamat (Sep 12, 2020)

I'm curious what everyone thinks about writing characters who are a different race than yourself. Specifically real-life characters--not fictional races such as elves and goblins and the like--but real people with real history that's different from yours. There's always the old adage of "write what you know" but in my case, the straight, white female viewpoint (although less prevalent than its male counterpart) is quite well-represented as is. On the other hand, I feel like trying to write another race or culture makes you run the risk of appropriating stories that aren't yours to tell. I know there was quite a bit of outrage about the Jeanine Cummins novel "American Dirt" for exactly that reason. 

The specific question here is: Do you feel it's possible to write a story about a character that is racially or culturally different than yourself without crossing the line into cultural appropriation?


----------



## Cephus (Sep 12, 2020)

I write what I write. I don't give a damn if it offends anyone. Whatever race a particular character seems to me to be, that's what they are. Same with gender. Same with sexual orientation. Anyone who doesn't like that is free not to read my books. Writing via checklist is idiotic.


----------



## Joker (Sep 12, 2020)

Honestly, I think writing a man of another race is far easier than writing a woman of my own. There are slight cultural differences but I'm largely going to think pretty similarly to a man, even if he's brown.

But women... women are aliens.

Anyways, you should always do a little digging into other cultures, but it's really not as complex as Medium or Buzzfeed would have you think. 

I think Khan from King of the Hill is a pretty good example here. On the surface he appears to be a caricature of well-to-do Asian-American men, but once you actually get to know him his character flaws stem more from his family history and bipolar disorder than his cultural background (although that's still relevant). And his youth spent as a delinquent is subversive of the model minority stereotype.

Khan is a character written as Asian, not the other way around.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 12, 2020)

Yeah, I wrote a short story about a jazz musician in the mid-fifties. Obviously black. He was in Paris a number of years and when he came back to the states his music was a little out of date -- and in contrast to Paris, had to deal with segregation again. These are underlying elements, because it's mostly about his relationship with a singer who he helped make famous, but now he's getting second billing to her. I also wrote it using jazz lingo and slang associated with the era. The prose is stylized too, to kind of capture a jazz feel. 

So my usual readers seemed to like it, but one basically implied what you said -- it wasn't my story to tell, because I'm not black. I think I did justice to the characters to the music and the era, and I think if a reader didn't know I was some white guy in the suburbs, it wouldn't matter. I could probably sub the story and it would be fine, but in the very unlikely scenario that it would ever reach a wider audience, I'd probably catch some flack these days. Should I care? I'm honestly not sure...


----------



## Joker (Sep 12, 2020)

TheManx said:


> Yeah, I wrote a short story about a jazz musician in the mid-fifties. Obviously black. He was in Paris a number of years and when he came back to the states his music was a little out of date -- and in contrast to Paris, had to deal with segregation again. These are underlying elements, because it's mostly about his relationship with a singer who he helped make famous, but now he's getting second billing to her. I also wrote it using jazz lingo and slang associated with the era. The prose is stylized too, to kind of capture a jazz feel.
> 
> So my usual readers seemed to like it, but one basically implied what you said -- it wasn't my story to tell, because I'm not black. I think I did justice to the characters to the music and the era, and I think if a reader didn't know I was some white guy in the suburbs, it wouldn't matter. I could probably sub the story and it would be fine, but in the very unlikely scenario that it would ever reach a wider audience, I'd probably catch some flack these days. Should I care? I'm honestly not sure...



Those types are just looking for a reason to label you. Who cares what they think.

That honestly sounds like a very cool story.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 12, 2020)

Joker said:


> Those types are just looking for a reason to label you. Who cares what they think.
> 
> That honestly sounds like a very cool story.



It's pretty wild now. People on both sides of the political divide are susceptible to some kind of cancellation -- although one side thinks only the other side does it.  But I ain't getting into that...

It didn't occur to me that I shouldn't write the story -- and some people might claim, that's the problem. Oh well.

Anyway, I've been messing with it. Maybe I'll post it here.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 12, 2020)

I think people have a more productive time "writing up" than "writing down".


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2020)

Tiamat said:


> The specific question here is: Do you feel it's possible to write a story about a character that is racially or culturally different than yourself without crossing the line into cultural appropriation?



I certainly hope so, because all of the MCs of my current WIP are different races than me. The protagonist is bi-racial. My intention was to create a character that didn't fall into a stereotype, and I thought this would be a good basis for an original character, although only one small part of it, I know. 

I think people who believe in such a thing termed "cultural appropriation", and that it is a negative thing are part of the problem.  If you believe that something of your culture is so appealing that others want to adopt it, or write about it, then, then why would you see that as a problem? 

For example, if a non-Aborignal sculptor was inspired by Aboriginal art, and learned how to carve in a traditional First Nations style, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, provided they were transparent about it.    Art is for human enjoyment.  If an artist has a pure heart and wants to express that, why should they be limited to certain styles or personas for fear of offending someone.  And if someone is offended, they don't have to buy it or look at it. 

 When I look for a good fiction book, I don't check to see if the author is qualified to write the book.


----------



## Joker (Sep 12, 2020)

Taylor said:


> I certainly hope so, because all of the MCs of my current WIP are different races than me. The protagonist is bi-racial. My intention was to create a character that didn't fall into a stereotype, and I thought this would be a good basis for an original character, although only one small part of it, I know.
> 
> I think people who believe in such a thing termed "cultural appropriation", and that it is a negative thing are part of the problem.  If you believe that something of your culture is so appealing that others want to adopt it, or write about it, then, then why would you see that as a problem?
> 
> ...



Literally everyone has "culturally appropriated" someone else.

English culture is just a mix of Celtic, Scandinavian and French.

The Japanese ripped-off Chinese calligraphy.

The Turks and Arabs stole Hindu numerology and Chinese gunpowder and then had it stolen from them by Europeans.

And so on.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2020)

Joker said:


> Literally everyone has "culturally appropriated" someone else.
> 
> English culture is just a mix of Celtic, Scandinavian and French.
> 
> ...



And of course you know the story about spaghetti too right?


----------



## Joker (Sep 12, 2020)

Taylor said:


> And of course you know the story about spaghetti too right?



Chinese, right?


----------



## Tiamat (Sep 12, 2020)

Taylor said:


> I think people who believe in such a thing termed "cultural appropriation", and that it is a negative thing are part of the problem.


I guess I'm part of the problem then. At least to some. But in the interest of not turning this thread into the sort of mess reserved for the Dante's Inferno section of the boards, I'm curious what kind of research you did on your protagonist. I say research because biracial folks often do have a number of stereotypes associated with them (depending on which two races and such) and often have a lot of specific irritations regarding how they're perceived. The more I think about this the more I want to say that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed, but that if done correctly -- which is to say with proper research and respect -- then there's no reason a writer of a certain race can't write a character of a different one.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2020)

Joker said:


> Chinese, right?



Yup...Marco Polo


----------



## Lee Messer (Sep 12, 2020)

Tiamat said:


> I guess I'm part of the problem then. At least to some. But in the interest of not turning this thread into the sort of mess reserved for the Dante's Inferno section of the boards, I'm curious what kind of research you did on your protagonist. I say research because biracial folks often do have a number of stereotypes associated with them (depending on which two races and such) and often have a lot of specific irritations regarding how they're perceived. The more I think about this the more I want to say that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed, but that if done correctly -- which is to say with proper research and respect -- then there's no reason a writer of a certain race can't write a character of a different one.



Date enough outside of your race, or at least befriend outside of your race. Don't change your own culture in doing so. You'll get more respect that way. I'm a white man. I still love you anyway sister or brother. I'll make love to you if you like, or we can just be friends, or if you are the same gender I'll at least get drunk with you.
But I will not change my identity... that is something I didn't have a choice on. I respect the way you talk, and so you should respect that I keep my personality as well.
When we go out together, we are together... understand? You watch my back, and I watch yours.

I'm sorry dude, I'm not letting you beat up my friend today.
I'm sorry dude, I really need to defend the her honor. Push on, or your losing some teeth today because I'm going to make sure she sees what happens.
Got a gun? You'll never pull it... and God help you you if you try to get up.

Point is, make these friendships. Ask them what is correct.

[video=youtube;UprcpdwuwCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UprcpdwuwCg[/video]


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2020)

Tiamat said:


> I guess I'm part of the problem then. At least to some. But in the interest of not turning this thread into the sort of mess reserved for the Dante's Inferno section of the boards, I'm curious what kind of research you did on your protagonist. I say research because biracial folks often do have a number of stereotypes associated with them (depending on which two races and such) and often have a lot of specific irritations regarding how they're perceived. The more I think about this the more I want to say that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed, but that if done correctly -- which is to say with proper research and respect -- then there's no reason a writer of a certain race can't write a character of a different one.



I have been very interested for some time in the backgrounds of certain people or races that have had to flee from other countries to the USA to either seek asylum or enter illegally.  Probably the last twenty years or so, I have been reading various either fiction or non-fiction on the subject.  It's a secondary theme to my story which takes place in New York and Washington and is based on a true crime.  

As someone who has been the target of discrimination, it has been a big part of who I am, to foster inclusion and compassion.  I base my characters on real people, either those I have met, or those I have researched.  There is a strong educational component to my story, so I hope that is what people focus on.  But you can't please everyone.  So if people find it irritating, they don't have to read it. 

I know you are a really good technical writer, and as you know there is an expectation that in technical writing you will strive to get it correct.  Although in my experience, that is almost impossible.  Even legislation goes through numerous amendments, because the drafters didn't capture the intent of the law.  So I guess, I will throw a question back at you.  Do you think when you write fiction about another race and you don't get it correct, that people will get irritated, or will they just accept that there are certain limitations to authors, and still enjoy the story?


----------



## Lee Messer (Sep 12, 2020)

Taylor said:


> I have been very interested for some time in the backgrounds of certain people or races that have had to flee from other countries to the USA to either seek asylum or enter illegally.  Probably the last twenty years or so, I have been reading various either fiction or non-fiction on the subject.  It's a secondary theme to my story which takes place in New York and Washington and is based on a true crime.
> 
> As someone who has been the target of discrimination, it has been a big part of who I am, to foster diversity and compassion.  I base my characters on real people, either those I have met, or those I have researched.  There is a strong educational component to my story, so I hope that is what people focus on.  But you can't please everyone.  So if people find it irritating, they don't have to read it.
> 
> I know you are a really good technical writer, and as you know there is an expectation that in technical writing you will strive to get it perfect.  Although in my experience, that is almost impossible.  Even legislation goes through numerous amendments, because the drafters didn't capture the intent of the law.  So I guess, I will throw a question back at you.  Do you think when you write fiction about another race and you don't get it perfect, that people will get irritated, or will they just accept that there are certain limitations to authors, and still enjoy the story?



For that matter, I have a Japanese female assassin working for the C.I.A. in one of my stories. I'm looking for a Japanese female raised in America that has some ties to Japanese culture. I need this because of the history of Japanese assassins in ancient Japanese culture, but I would like some authentic dialogue. It's Sci-Fi, so don't worry about a hijacking of culture. This is as if I were making anime. I need an extraordinary character's comments for this as the character is the most deadly, but still a support character due to the purpose of the novel (She even kills the main character).


----------



## Cephus (Sep 12, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> I think people have a more productive time "writing up" than "writing down".



Most people are just writing. Whether it is "up" or "down" is often in the opinion of later readers who had no part in the construction of the story in the first place.

Screw those people.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> I think people have a more productive time "writing up" than "writing down".



Forgive me, but what does that even mean?


----------



## Tiamat (Sep 12, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Do you think when you write fiction about another race and you don't get it perfect, that people will get irritated, or will they just accept that there are certain limitations to authors, and still enjoy the story?


I think, as a whole, people are hard on authors. Artists in general, really. It's easy to crap on people you don't know, especially when you're consuming their art and it ruffles your feathers. Ultimately I think it depends on your target audience and how much you care about the opinions of those not in your target audience. "American Dirt," I believe was written for a white audience, about a Mexican woman who fled to America as an undocumented immigrant. I've not actually read it. I only know that a lot of people called it "brown face" and said that it was not the author's (a white woman) story to tell. Some of the criticism also mentioned stereotypes and trauma porn. I would prefer to avoid that in my own fiction. But I guess we'll see whether I stepped out of my lane when you and the others judge my LM piece.


----------



## Sir-KP (Sep 12, 2020)

It's a good excuse why I never mentioned race or ethnics. The only ones that I ever mentioned are Japanese and White, which both aren't mine. The rest are fictional / never mentioned.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 12, 2020)

"Writing up" means you write about a group that's more privileged than yours. Think of the relative grace with which women write men versus the common hilarious ineptitude of the reverse.

When men fail to write women well, the result is usually just a laugh.

But when a cis author tries the write about trans topics, for example (writing down) the result can be really gut-wrenching.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 13, 2020)

Whenever this topic comes up it usually doesn't go down very well because it's not something you can generalize or try to create rules for and god knows people want to constantly try to do that. 

No, sharing a skin color doesn't, in itself, grant a free pass to quality of authorship. I am white and I write shitty white characters all the time. Once in a blue moon, I write a really good non-white character. In general, the best characters I write are ones that I understand, in some way. 

Understanding is the crucial component here. The simple fact is, it's harder to write characters -- any characters -- whose imagined life experiences are vastly out of whack with your own than ones who you identify with more closely. This is a difficulty that goes way beyond race. It's in gender (see the epic 'Writing Women' thread), it's in disability, it's in education level, disability or lack of. I presume this is similar to why most writers don't feel drawn to writing, say, blind characters either...because if you're not blind then imagining that you are, that you have always been, is just really difficult to do. 

 What about class? Culture? A writer of _any_ race who comes from a middle or upper middle class existence in a major city, surrounded by white collar or urban blue collar types of people, will likely find it difficult to write about _any _race growing up on a farm in the middle of Iowa. Because that, too, is a *life experience* the writer does not *understand*.

So without getting into political or sociological stuff, I think it behooves us to think of race in similar terms. It's not writing the race itself which is the problem, it's writing the experience that goes with the race that _might _be, especially if the non-black or non-hispanic author refuses to immerse themselves into the historical and cultural context of what those experiences mean.


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 13, 2020)

> The specific question here is: Do you feel it's possible to write a story about a character that is racially or culturally different than yourself without crossing the line into cultural appropriation?


The real conversation happens when we extend said principle beyond race and culture. Ergo, can an author truly transcend the boundaries of their own experience? That question cuts pretty deep with regards to what art/literature actually is. Is it autobiography, remix, or true creation? (Creation defined as bringing something truly new into existence.)

Personally, I tend to believe the third. However, there is a great passage from the Great Divorce with which I would temper my standpoint. Essentially, it addresses how the artist must first observe, absorb and experience before he can create. I think that connects to our own status as both created beings and creators. In my own artist experience, I feel I am both conduit and craftsman. They are equally wonderful. 

Okay, crazy 1AM thought experiment: So, if I write an Asian character (I'm not Asian); perhaps a 'real' Asian would argue "that's not what it truly means to be Asian." But one thing such voices never address is how I might not be actually trying to portray what it means to be Asian in the 'real' world. I might be portraying (and in my opinion this is just as legitimate) what I believe being Asian _should _be, or what it _could _be. There are many possibilities. Race has remained rooted in 'reality' for far too long. This is why the diverse voices thing is so bogus. It doesn't take into account the _should _or _could_, which is part of what makes speculative fiction so interesting. It also refuses to take into account that a member of an oppressed group might take a very bad view on their own oppression--see _Night_ by Elie Wiesel. And it _also _also refuses to take into account the fact that humans are social beings, capable of sharing experience. 

I guess that's a whole lot to say, I see no reason why a vision of what something could be must necessarily be limited to the perspective of the thing itself. 



> Most people are just writing. Whether it is "up" or "down" is often in the opinion of later readers who had no part in the construction of the story in the first place.


For once, I actually agree with Cephus. I really believe the whole matter is largely a false construct. Besides, whether it is 'up' or 'down' has no bearing on whether the story/perspective is valuable in the first place. Art must be judged on its _own _merits, independent of the author. I understand Marx argued those of the oppressed class had generally greater insight into the system of oppression than those of the oppressor class, but I think that view was exaggerated. To me, it's a just-so story. I see no reason why the reverse might also be true. The oppressors did design the system, after all.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 13, 2020)

> Do you feel it's possible to write a story about a character that is racially or culturally different than yourself without crossing the line into cultural appropriation?



Race and culture are not synonymous. I have a character whose antecedents are black and white, arriving here from the West Indies and Ireland before the second world war, so although his racial experience is different his cultural experience is pretty much the same, he was a trade unionist with London transport.

I have about as much experience in this as I do of his friend at the old folks home, and upper crust old white lady who was disowned when she became pregnant and worked as a dominatrix, but what would be the fun in simply restricting myself to my personal experience? If I had to do that it would be a dull book indeed.


----------



## Joker (Sep 13, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Race and culture are not synonymous.



Someone please tell the devs for Crusader Kings 3!


----------



## Tettsuo (Sep 16, 2020)

That's what research is for. Anyone can write about anything or anyone so long as it rings true. Robert Downey Jr. played the best black guy ever in Tropical Thunder and very few people complained. Why? Because he actually did research and played the character with respect, even in a comedy. Folks actually ignored that he was in "blackface" because of the accuracy of the portrayal. So long as you're accurate, people will appreciate it.

Also, if you've ever watched the movie Bamboozled, you'll see a portrayal that left me in tears... and not from laughter. There was more backlash with black people in black face, than Tropical Thunder having a white guy in black face.

Respect people enough to give an honest look into that world.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 16, 2020)

_Bamboozled _is a great movie.

Regarding _Tropic Thunder_, there was and continues to be backlash, but I think that’s the kind of backlash that misses the point of actual criticism surrounding issues like this. There are times when appropriating things is offensive and doesn’t work, and there are times, if well done, when it does. What people shouldn’t do is make blanket statements about some of these trickier, nuanced issues.


----------



## Sir-KP (Sep 16, 2020)

Tettsuo said:


> Robert Downey Jr. played the best black guy ever in Tropical Thunder and very few people complained.



Tropic Thunder was released back in 2008. I guess that helped. 

Keep in mind there's Alpa Chino, the rapper character with "I Love Tha Pussy" song for Booty Sweat Energy Drink, as well as him portraying as a gay guy who didn't want to admit it in front of his colleagues because "I love da pussy!"

Lastly, no prominent female characters. Bonus: villain kid smoking cigar scene, Satan's Alley trailer

Definitely not gonna survive well if it was released in recent years.


----------



## Deleted member 64995 (Sep 17, 2020)

To limit myself to personal experiences only, is wrong for me.
Being a writer, for me, is:
Research, Research, Research, experiment, and know.
It fails, it tries again.


I don't think we can talk about cultural appropriation.
Cultural Appropriation for me and:
Stealing a tradition etc. and say "it's mine".


I wrote some time ago, a short story, the protagonist was Cuban, and another short story, where the protagonist was a Transsexual ..
For this reason, I don't think I can be accused of
"cultural appropriation".


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 18, 2020)

It depends on why you chose for them to be a different race.  If you're making a point about a stranger in a strange land, then it's important to understand and present the racial and cultural differences accurately.  If, on the other hand, you picked a different race because you understand that not everyone is white and not everyone is male, it's less important - because everyone IS human, and people are people no matter their race or gender.


----------



## TripleFade (Sep 21, 2020)

I tend to think of it "if I represented this race, what would I expect from this character?"

A good example, Japan:

If I write a samurai character as a white guy, I would probably be rolling my eyes if I were Japanese. Mostly because it's a real Weeb (Weeaboo) thing to write about unless I do something unique with it.

If I write about some poor bastard burned out and falling asleep on the train home in Tokyo, it says I know a little of what I'm talking about. I've been there, and I've seen it. Tokyo is special in the fact I see incredibly well-dressed (the rains in Japan go straight through cheap clothing, so they usually have a nice coat, and are dressed for business) people who look like they are so overworked they have lost touch with reality on their way home. I didn't see that so much in Osaka or Kyoto. Each area of Japan is a bit different and to bulk them all together is doing them a disservice.

So I guess my answer is "hey, maybe have someone of that race give it a read and see if they feel it's a fair representation". I'd rather get called out by one person than have the thing published and have groups of people howling for my blood or telling me I'm full of it.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 21, 2020)

Individuals do not represent races or anything else besides themselves.


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 21, 2020)

> If I write a samurai character as a white guy, I would probably be rolling my eyes if I were Japanese. Mostly because it's a real Weeb (Weeaboo) thing to write about unless I do something unique with it.


Why though? This is one of those things that people just say, and I'm not sure it's true. If you are looking for 'inaccurate' depictions of Samurai, look no further than how the Japanese _themselves _portray them. If you are concerned that your voice doesn't seem 'genuine' to the Samurai experience, daily reminder that _nobody's_ been a Samurai for nearly a century. Or flip it around. Is anyone in the West hemming and hawing about how 'inaccurate' Japanese depictions of the Catholic Church are? No. Because here's the deal: there's the Catholic Church as a real institution that actually exists, and the Catholic Church as an artistic motif. The Japanese aren't trying to make a story about the _real _Catholic Church. They are taking the emotions that both the Church and its various depictions have inspired in them and using those feelings to create fiction. I am not saying any of this is good or bad. I am describing, somewhat simplistically, the process of inspiration and creation. 

As I said earlier in this thread, all noise about race and culture aside, the real question here is if we are actually capable of writing outside of our own experience. I restate my previous point: I see no reason why being distinct from an object should somehow preclude a genuine depiction of said object. The Empire State Building is still the Empire State Building whether viewed from within or without. 

Extrapolating on this idea, I wonder (again) whether those of us outside the Empire State Building have illegitimate visions of its future merely because we've never actually seen the inside. I don't know. But daily reminder that the goal of Speculative Fiction is to _speculate. _The idea that 'First Voices' somehow have a monopoly on envisioning their own future seems patently onanistic.


----------



## Greyson (Sep 22, 2020)

> If I write a samurai character as a white guy, I would probably be rolling my eyes if I were Japanese. Mostly because it's a real Weeb (Weeaboo) thing to write about unless I do something unique with it.



Not to mention that books like Shogun exist and are generally well accepted, despite some historical inaccuracy. The motif of samurai vs actual samurai is quite stark, and as Born said, even the Japanese create unrealistic samurai characters regularly. If you are able to harness the energy associated with samurai and tie it into a white character, that's not necessarily bad. You'll have people who accuse you of being a weeb, but as long as you're faithful and create a good character who doesn't wear the mantel "just cause it's cool," who cares? you'll find just as many people inspired by the depiction. (again, if you do your research and ensure your character has _reason _for being a samurai that are believable, not just 'japanese=cool'). And at that point, some people can hmmm and haw as much as they want, but you've accomplished what you set out to do, so ... who cares?


----------



## Turnbull (Sep 22, 2020)

It's only about creating a good character.  Don't worry about people judging you for it.  If you've created a good character and done the research, you're fine.

One of the more frustrating things about "cultural appropriation" is that it means you can't just write about other people's cultures.  It's somehow "stealing" to talk about other people's cultures?  What are we supposed to do, sit on our hands and forget about history?  As if.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 22, 2020)

TripleFade said:


> A good example, Japan:
> 
> If I write a samurai character as a white guy, I would probably be rolling my eyes if I were Japanese. .



There would also be a Japanese author somewhere who didn't have a job as a writer because you insisted on telling their own stories for them.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 23, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> There would also be a Japanese author somewhere who didn't have a job as a writer because you insisted on telling their own stories for them.




That's not how reality works.


----------



## CyberWar (Sep 23, 2020)

The way I see it, humans of different races and cultures aren't that different to begin with. They all have the same basic needs and desires, and they all experience the same range of emotions. A good character, whether a protagonist or villain, must be first and foremost relatable by the reader, and the way to make the character relatable is do a good job at portraying these fundamental aspects of humanity that are universal across cultures and historical periods. Only when that is done should the author start worrying about an accurate portrayal of the character's culture. Even the most meticulous attempt at portraying a culturally and historically-accurate character will fail miserably if it lacks in basic humanity.

To put it shortly, I would suggest to start building your "ethnic" character around the things that unite all humans, and only then add the things that divide them as a finishing touch.


----------



## Joker (Sep 23, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> There would also be a Japanese author somewhere who didn't have a job as a writer because you insisted on telling their own stories for them.



Hahaha, lolwut?

Writing isn't a zero-sum game.


----------



## Xander416 (Sep 23, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> There would also be a Japanese author somewhere who didn't have a job as a writer because you insisted on telling their own stories for them.


Complete and utter nonsense.


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 23, 2020)

> There would also be a Japanese author somewhere who didn't have a job as a writer because you insisted on telling their own stories for them


I was going to ask you to substantiate this claim, then decided not to because I didn't want to start a fight. I now regret that decision, as the highly unproductive 'wow I can't believe you'd say something so stupid' responses have begun rolling in. So now, I ask: could you please substantiate this claim?


----------



## Joker (Sep 23, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> I was going to ask you to substantiate this claim, then decided not to because I didn't want to start a fight. I now regret that decision, as the highly unproductive 'wow I can't believe you'd say something so stupid' responses have begun rolling in. So now, I ask: could you please substantiate this claim?



_Mea culpa_, my phone's autocorrect did its thing. I didn't mean to up and tell her to log out.


----------



## Joker (Sep 23, 2020)

My point is, I don't think that perspective has been thought out very well.

Should I, a straight white male, limit myself to the perspective of straight white men?

Or do you have to accumulate enough disprivilege points to write certain minority perspectives? Can white women write the perspective of black men?

It's absurd and divisive.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 23, 2020)

You have to look at it from both sides, Joker. Wouldn't you be upset if a black, lesbian French woman wrote a novel about you?  

I have been described as 'A vanilla', sticking to what I know first hand might be just a bit bland.


----------



## Joker (Sep 23, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> You have to look at it from both sides, Joker. Wouldn't you be upset if a black, lesbian French woman wrote a novel about you?
> 
> I have been described as 'A vanilla', sticking to what I know first hand might be just a bit bland.



Yes.

I don't like the French very much. >:[


----------



## Cephus (Sep 23, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> You have to look at it from both sides, Joker. Wouldn't you be upset if a black, lesbian French woman wrote a novel about you?
> 
> I have been described as 'A vanilla', sticking to what I know first hand might be just a bit bland.



I wouldn't. I wouldn't care. Whether I would read it or not depended on the book, but I wouldn't get up in arms if anyone wrote about any group of people. Because that's the thing. Nobody is writing about "you". They are writing about someone who happens to share the same skin color. That's not you. It's why this whole thing is so absurd. One side of the political divide is actually being racist, insisting on stereotypes, demanding that nobody can write about anything they don't personally experience, all the while white-knighting and telling minorities that they're not smart enough to make their own decisions, and the other... well... isn't.

It's why when these questions come up, I quite firmly say to ignore the whiners. Who cares what they have to say? Write what you want to write. Why? Because the people who are crying and kicking their feet like spoiled, immature children, they aren't going to buy your book regardless. Paying them any mind at all does you no good. They just  don't matter. Write the book you want to write and anyone who tells you that you can't, give them the three-finger salute and get back to work.


----------



## RadioFerret (Sep 23, 2020)

You know, I'm interested in this topic myself. I can't say I swing either way, so I read through the thread just to get a general idea of what everyone else thought. Honestly, I think I'll just stick to my strategy of keeping my character's races ambiguous, like what Sir-KP said. That way I can let my readers imagine them. What are y'alls thoughts on this approach?


----------



## Greyson (Sep 23, 2020)

Cephus said:


> They are writing about someone who happens to share the same skin color. That's not you. It's why this whole thing is so absurd. One side of the political divide is actually being racist, insisting on stereotypes, demanding that nobody can write about anything they don't personally experience, all the while white-knighting and telling minorities that they're not smart enough to make their own decisions, and the other... well... isn't.



so, to an extent this is true. but race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, can all be weaponized as well. I don't think OP plans to do that, nor anyone else in this thread, but a blanket statement such as this can create misunderstandings. as has been said, do your research, represent the experiences/struggles well, and you're good. just be sure you're making the decision to represent from a place of actually representing, not stereotyping, straw-manning, etc. etc. 

also, at risk of bringing in politics -- and strike me down if this crosses that line -- i don't think that second sentence accurately represents those who might take issue. the more vehement, perhaps, but censorship seems patently contradictory to the goals such movements are setting. any way, well developed characters aren't defined by only their skin color or nationality. that's a good metric to use, i'd say.


----------



## Greyson (Sep 23, 2020)

RadioFerret said:


> You know, I'm interested in this topic myself. I can't say I swing either way, so I read through the thread just to get a general idea of what everyone else thought. Honestly, I think I'll just stick to my strategy of keeping my character's races ambiguous, like what Sir-KP said. That way I can let my readers imagine them. What are y'alls thoughts on this approach?



personally i'm a fan of ambiguous characters. i even go so far as to avoid naming them, sometimes.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 23, 2020)

Joker said:


> My point is, I don't think that perspective has been thought out very well.
> 
> Should I, a straight white male, limit myself to the perspective of straight white men?
> 
> ...



I think most sjw’s like myself would say you can write what you want so long as you can write it in an authentic way. The problem is most stories in the past that have depicted non white characters have been at best, bad, and at worst, damaging.

For the record, I don’t agree with those who say you can ONLY write about your own race/gender/etc. But the historical precedent that’s been set makes me understand why those people feel the way they do.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 23, 2020)

I would look for people who have the qualities depicted by the writer. If you write about Thailand's community like in the wind-up bird. You better respect the historical facts people and culture off a place. Same goes for minorities because it becomes more interesting to depict them with respect than it is to write a negative portrayal. (this last sentence was inspired by Philip Lopate who is well known and teaches non-fiction in Columbia University. I own one of his books which I bought to learn how real life and fiction connect.) There's no better time to write about any minority just do it with respect and you will earn points with readers. Whatever this entails is something to strive for. Sympathy is earned that way.


----------



## Lee Messer (Sep 24, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> I think most sjw’s like myself would say you can write what you want so long as you can write it in an authentic way. The problem is most stories in the past that have depicted non white characters have been at best, bad, and at worst, damaging.
> 
> For the record, I don’t agree with those who say you can ONLY write about your own race/gender/etc. But the historical precedent that’s been set makes me understand why those people feel the way they do.



... and the clouds parted, and the angels sang... Hallelujah. So it was that logic came from the heavens as much as the word was God.

Excellent post... tolerance intermingled with enlightenment.
I wish that everyone's cognitions were as reasonable.
I can't stand pontifications of condemnation. People who have no empathy are disturbing, and yet they don't see that their body language mimics everyone around them.
Like brainwashed robots from a Heinlein book.


----------



## undead_av (Sep 24, 2020)

RadioFerret said:


> You know, I'm interested in this topic myself. I can't say I swing either way, so I read through the thread just to get a general idea of what everyone else thought. Honestly, I think I'll just stick to my strategy of keeping my character's races ambiguous, like what Sir-KP said. That way I can let my readers imagine them. What are y'alls thoughts on this approach?



This is just my personal opinion, but I don't prefer this approach. I like character descriptions a lot, and I like having a strong visual of a character. It helps me get into the story more and really visualize the story - I know some people might disagree, but that's my opinion. To me ambiguously-raced characters don't really solve the problem - I mean, races still exist. Also, another thing about not stating the race - A lot of readers are just going to imagine them white, because to a lot of people, that's the default. Like, that happens even when race is explicitly stated (e.g. Rue in Hunger Games. Rue was described with dark brown skin and people STILL imagined her as a little white girl). In my own stories I like to make it clear what race my characters are. I don't shy away from writing characters that aren't my race cause like . . . why would I? I don't wanna just tell stories with white people in them. 



> There would also be a Japanese author somewhere who didn't have a job as a writer because you insisted on telling their own stories for them



I've heard people say things like this before and like, even if it was true, isn't the solution not to write less stories about people of color, but to make room for more? If a Japanese author isn't getting a job because there's only room for a select few stories with Japanese protagonists, then instead of limiting our stories, we should work to change the publishing industry, which I think is already happening.


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> I think most sjw’s like myself would say you can write what you want so long as you can write it in an authentic way. The problem is most stories in the past that have depicted non white characters have been at best, bad, and at worst, damaging.
> 
> For the record, I don’t agree with those who say you can ONLY write about your own race/gender/etc. But the historical precedent that’s been set makes me understand why those people feel the way they do.



The problem is that, ironically enough, most SJWs have an extremely western-centric view of the world.

Many Japanese depictions of African-Americans have been extremely inauthentic. But these people wouldn't have any idea because the world is very arbitrarily white Western European men vs everyone else.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 24, 2020)

Joker said:


> The problem is that, ironically enough, most SJWs have an extremely western-centric view of the world.
> 
> Many Japanese depictions of African-Americans have been extremely inauthentic. But these people wouldn't have any idea because the world is very arbitrarily white Western European men vs everyone else.



You're painting with an unfairly broad brush here. Problems of representation and inauthenticity and injustice are contextual based on society and culture. The reason why so much criticism is focused on white portrayals of non white characters is because that’s predominantly been the issue in America, which is — you know — where we live.

But inauthenticity is inauthenticity no matter who is the one being inauthentic. The fact remains, though, that the western canon is the issue a lot of academic lefties like myself take issue with because — and this is undeniable — it is dominated by Western European and American white men.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 24, 2020)

Greyson said:


> so, to an extent this is true. but race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, can all be weaponized as well. I don't think OP plans to do that, nor anyone else in this thread, but a blanket statement such as this can create misunderstandings. as has been said, do your research, represent the experiences/struggles well, and you're good. just be sure you're making the decision to represent from a place of actually representing, not stereotyping, straw-manning, etc. etc.



I don't think for a second that the OP would be doing anything wrong. It's the responses that are wrong and we only give them illegitimate power by paying any attention to them whatsoever. Instead of quaking in fear, we ought to laugh and point out just how dumb it all is. It only harms writers to pay the regressive any mind. They are not your customers. They are an unruly mob.


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> You're painting with an unfairly broad brush here. Problems of representation and inauthenticity and injustice are contextual based on society and culture. The reason why so much criticism is focused on white portrayals of non white characters is because that’s predominantly been the issue in America, which is — you know — where we live.
> 
> But inauthenticity is inauthenticity no matter who is the one being inauthentic. The fact remains, though, that the western canon is the issue a lot of academic lefties like myself take issue with because — and this is undeniable — it is dominated by Western European and American white men.



Yes, that's exactly my point. Every culture ever is guilty of bad portrayals of the "other", not just the West. So playing the "stick to your own" game is a terrible idea.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 24, 2020)

I agree. But again, the real issue is the care one takes with a portrayal, not the act of portraying others itself.


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> I agree. But again, the real issue is the care one takes with a portrayal, not the act of portraying others itself.



Right but that goes beyond just gender and race. It goes into sub-cultures, age, occupation, and a so on. More attention could be paid to those.


----------



## indianroads (Sep 24, 2020)

I find culture more interesting than race. Neil Degrasse Tyson and Snoop Dogg don't have much in common other than race. A rich white man in San Francisco isn't much like a rancher in Co. Donegal Ireland.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 24, 2020)

Joker said:


> Right but that goes beyond just gender and race. It goes into sub-cultures, age, occupation, and a so on. More attention could be paid to those.



I 100% agree. I’m sure we disagree on the societal implications different kinds of misrepresentation can influence, but I think this is a good place to find common ground.


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2020)

indianroads said:


> I find culture more interesting than race. Neil Degrasse Tyson and Snoop Dogg don't have much in common other than race. A rich white man in San Francisco isn't much like a rancher in Co. Donegal Ireland.



At the risk of sounding like a Marxist, I find class to be far more important when it comes to relating to people. I'd much rather hang with a working-class black or Hispanic dude than some rich white asshole.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 24, 2020)

Wow, Joker. You've seen the Marxist light.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 24, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> You have to look at it from both sides, Joker. Wouldn't you be upset if a black, lesbian French woman wrote a novel about you?
> 
> I have been described as 'A vanilla', sticking to what I know first hand might be just a bit bland.



I know the question was not directed at me, but I would be upset (that may be a bit too strong of a word, but certainly alienated) if a black, lesbian French woman wrote a novel about me (or, let's say, non-black, non-lesbian, non-French men) that felt inauthentic.

I take my 'SJW' cues not from a basis of 'this side is right, that side is wrong' but more from a standpoint of 'who tends to fuck up most and what are the comparative ramifications of such fuck ups?'

The cold, factual reality is, is that when a white person writes a bad take on a black person it tends to be more insidious than vice versa. Not because it's *worse* but because, in the context of society, it is more damaging. You can do this for anything. When a male writer creates a misogynistic depiction of a woman, that is a bigger deal than vice versa, because misogyny is generally a more widespread and more dangerous problem than misandry is. The worst aspects of misandry are men being unfairly treated. The worst aspects of misogyny are women getting raped, beaten, killed. Likewise, problematic treatments of white people by black people, however ignominious they are, do not result in the same social problems as problematic treatments of black people by white people tend to do. 

The only debate is to what extent fiction influences reality -- and that's a reasonable point of difference. The morality between racism, sexism, etc may well go both ways but the outcomes do not.


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> Wow, Joker. You've seen the Marxist light.



Everything the Marxists said about capitalism was true.

But everything the Marxists said about socialism was false.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 24, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> I agree. But again, the real issue is the care one takes with a portrayal, not the act of portraying others itself.




Or, people can just be adults and realize that whatever happens in a movie or in a book or anywhere else, they're not talking about you. You are not a representative of your race or your  gender or anything else. You are an individual and your immutable genetic characteristics do not color anyone's perception of you, not unless you make it a point to insist that they do.

And who in their right mind would do that?


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Some people are good at making bold pronouncements when they've got nothing at stake.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> I agree. But again, the real issue is the care one takes with a portrayal, not the act of portraying others itself.



This makes sense to me. It seems to underscore that it's about context and being astute, not fear. Sweeping statements that anyone can write about anybody and they should somehow be immune to criticism or the criticism doesn't matter seems pretty naive to me...


----------



## Taylor (Sep 24, 2020)

One thing we haven’t discussed yet, and maybe it should be another thread, but it does relate to race and culture and that is religion.  The story _Unorthodox_ comes to mind.  It is based on author Deborah Feldman's memoir _Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots_. If you haven’t read it or watched the series, the title tells you what it is about.  

I think it would be problematic to tell a story like this and not be of Jewish heritage.  It’s not that I think an author couldn’t research and come up with a good portrayal, I just think the Hasidic Jewish community would find this portrayal highly offensive coming from a gentile.  

The author is now agnostic, so if you read or watch it, be prepared that she tells it from that point of view.  Personally, I found she missed out on many of the positives of the Hasidism, and provides quite a bleak viewpoint.  But she writes her own story and makes no promises to do anything else.  

So, at the end of the day, fiction is fiction, and as long as you find an audience and are not afraid of backlash, I guess you can write what you like.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Taylor said:


> One thing we haven’t discussed yet, and maybe it should be another thread, but it does relate to race and culture and that is religion.  The story _Unorthodox_ comes to mind.  It is based on author Deborah Feldman's memoir _Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots_. If you haven’t read it or watched the series, the title tells you what it is about.
> 
> I think it would be problematic to tell a story like this and not be of Jewish heritage.  It’s not that I think an author couldn’t research and come up with a good portrayal, I just think the Hasidic Jewish community would find this portrayal highly offensive coming from a gentile.
> 
> ...



This is a very reasonable take -- and it's not so much about religion, but the depth of experience and whether or not people are going to take the story seriously. Regardless of what anyone says, you've got to get to the point where people are actually reading your novel, so from a practical standpoint, it's really about how many barriers you want to put up for yourself. 

If the story really is the hill you want to die on and you feel your take on it is as significant or more so than the  people who have lived it -- well then knock yourself out...


----------



## Taylor (Sep 24, 2020)

TheManx said:


> This is a very reasonable take -- and it's not so much about religion, but the depth of experience and whether or not people are going to take the story seriously. Regardless of what anyone says, you've got to get to the point where people are actually reading your novel, so from a practical standpoint, it's really about how many barriers you want to put up for yourself.
> 
> If the story really is the hill you want to die on and you feel your take on it is as significant or more so than the  people who have lived it -- well then knock yourself out...



Well put Manx.  Great way to identify it as "barriers".   And I would add, that those who play it too safe and remove all barriers could end up with a very boring story indeed!


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Well put Manx.  Great way to identify it as "barriers".   And I would add, that those who play it too safe and remove all barriers could end up with a very boring story indeed!




Well, to a point. I'm a white guy who lives in the suburbs. I could (and have) written strictly from that point of view -- so then it's about how I'm going to go about not playing it safe from that perspective -- and there are lots of ways to do it that aren't about race or gender etc.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 24, 2020)

TheManx said:


> Well, to a point. I'm a white guy who lives in the suburbs. I could (and have) written strictly from that point of view -- so then it's about how I'm going to go about not playing it safe from that perspective -- and there are lots of ways to do it that aren't about race or gender etc.



I'm curious now.  What other risk of barriers would you take?


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2020)

It's also important to keep in mind that race matters more for some characters than others.

Peter Parker could be a black dude and it doesn't really change the story at all. But Bruce Wayne being black? Yeah, doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 24, 2020)

Joker said:


> It's also important to keep in mind that race matters more for some characters than others.
> 
> Peter Parker could be a black dude and it doesn't really change the story at all. But Bruce Wayne being black? Yeah, doesn't make much sense.



I'll admit I don't know much about super heros, but I don't follow your logic.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 24, 2020)

Taylor said:


> One thing we haven’t discussed yet, and maybe it should be another thread, but it does relate to race and culture and that is religion.  The story _Unorthodox_ comes to mind.  It is based on author Deborah Feldman's memoir _Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots_. If you haven’t read it or watched the series, the title tells you what it is about.



Unfortunately, it's really difficult to talk about these subjects without interjecting politics and ideology into the mix and then we stop talking about writing. It starts to go pretty far afield and that has never been my intention, but it's also impossible to avoid. Therefore, I'm going to say my bit and then try to aim it back toward the subject at hand.

Once  you start to talk about identity politics or identitiarian belief systems and collectivism, you run into trouble. It's when you get people trying to stereotype all people based on certain characteristics that you really start to be racist or sexist or whatever-ist. People are not X. People are individuals. They may have a lot of characteristics, some of which they choose like religion and some of which they do not, like race and gender, but they are not automatically part of some grand collective that all act the same and have the same wants and desires. Just because they may share some of those characteristics with others does not make them suddenly identical. You are not automatically part of a "black community" because you happen to have a dark skin pigment. You are not suddenly part of a "Christian community" because you happen to hold specific religious beliefs. You remain an individual.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people are terrified to be individuals. It is easier and safer to just sign on to a collective so that you can be cared for, but that's foolish. You give up your rights and your freedom and as Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That is absolutely true, but what we've seen in the last couple of years especially is that some groups have insisted on group-think. If you are a part of a particular ethnic or religious group, if you are a particular gender or have a specific sexual orientation, you are all the same, you must react the same way, so that the "defenders" of that group can pretend they have a massive following behind them to quell all dissenters. That is not how reality works. You are not part of a group unless you voluntarily join said group, and it's interesting that the "defenders" are very rarely part of the group in question, is it not? It is usually people who have none of these characteristics, thinking they get to speak for the grand collective because somehow, they know what's best for them. Usually, they are wrong.

When it comes to writing, which is supposedly what we're here to talk about, virtually every case that we see, it's these "defenders" that are getting offended on behalf of this group that they pretend to represent. It usually isn't the group itself and there really shouldn't be a group at all because these are all individuals that should have the right to make up their own mind and act in their own best interests, but you notice that when some don't toe the party line, they get called Uncle Toms and "tokens". Why? Because the so-called "defenders aren't actually representing individuals. They aren't representing people. They are representing interests. They are representing ideologies. They don't really care what the individuals think. They care what their own mental image of these individuals ought to think. That's a problem.

If someone doesn't like your book, then that's fine. It's their right to like what they like and dislike what they dislike as an individual. However, that's not what we see. We are seeing people screaming to the sky that anything they do not like, often because they're trying to "defend" some group who they never actually consulted in the first place, that said book should not exist at all. It must be scrubbed from existence, the author must be destroyed, their friends and family must be forced to abandon them and they must lose their jobs and be forced to grovel in the gutter for all time. This is the kind of world that this kind of ideology demands and it should legitimately make each and every one of us angry. With this kind of irrational ideology, the winds change and tomorrow, they might be coming for you.

It is our fault, as writers, that this has become the problem that it is. We have allowed people to screech their disapproval and harm our right to free speech because they are angry about something that doesn't even apply to them. And none of it actually applies to them. If I write a black character in a book, it is not meant to be representative of all black people everywhere. Only a complete idiot would think that. It is a character. It's made up. It's experiences never happened. It is fiction. Why would anyone in their right mind get upset over fiction? Because there's an agenda behind it all. It's to force ideological conformity. That's the last thing anyone ought to want.

We have rights as authors to write what we wish, to find an audience who enjoys our writing and to please them. If you don't like my book, don't read it. If you want to speak out against my book, make sure your objections make any kind of rational sense, but by all means, do. But your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and there are particular political and social interests out there who have completely overstepped their bounds. These people should be ignored, their complains, unless absolutely valid, discarded and their endless whining and political maneuvering pointed out as faulty. Mature adults do not sit there and scream at the sky because they don't get their way. They can move on with their lives and handle the momentary disappointment of encountering something they didn't like.

Maybe that ought to be the standard instead of children throwing temper tantrums and trying to force others to do what they want. We've seen where that goes and none of us should put up with it.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Taylor said:


> I'm curious now.  What other risk of barriers would you take?



Well, I often have main characters that are pretty unlikable for a variety of reasons -- people who are active in their addictions for example. The risk is that I ask people to relate to them on some level despite their bad behaviors. 

I wrote a story about a guy who kills someone who he _thinks _sexually assaulted his friend. His actions were wrong -- but somehow I'm asking people to put themselves in his shoes. 

I don't know -- do those sound like risks to you?


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2020)

Taylor said:


> I'll admit I don't know much about super heros, but I don't follow your logic.



Which proves my point. People are nuanced and individuals.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 24, 2020)

Joker said:


> It's also important to keep in mind that race matters more for some characters than others.
> 
> Peter Parker could be a black dude and it doesn't really change the story at all. But Bruce Wayne being black? Yeah, doesn't make much sense.



Why not?


----------



## Taylor (Sep 24, 2020)

TheManx said:


> Well, I often have main characters that are pretty unlikable for a variety of reasons -- people who are active in their addictions for example. The risk is that I ask people to relate to them on some level despite their bad behaviors.
> 
> I wrote a story about a guy who kills someone who he _thinks _sexually assaulted his friend. His actions were wrong -- but somehow I'm asking people to put themselves in his shoes.
> 
> I don't know -- do those sound like risks to you?



Yes!  I applaud your creativity and courage to portray unlikeable characters and ask people to relate.  In the big picture, you are contributing to humanity.  Because nothing is black and white, people aren't all good or all evil, and as authors, I feel it should be our duty to somehow educate. 

Bravo Manx!!


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Cephus said:


> Unfortunately, it's really difficult to talk about these subjects without interjecting politics and ideology into the mix and then we stop talking about writing. It starts to go pretty far afield and that has never been my intention, but it's also impossible to avoid. Therefore, I'm going to say my bit and then try to aim it back toward the subject at hand.
> 
> Once  you start to talk about identity politics or identitiarian belief systems and collectivism, you run into trouble. It's when you get people trying to stereotype all people based on certain characteristics that you really start to be racist or sexist or whatever-ist. People are not X. People are individuals. They may have a lot of characteristics, some of which they choose like religion and some of which they do not, like race and gender, but they are not automatically part of some grand collective that all act the same and have the same wants and desires. Just because they may share some of those characteristics with others does not make them suddenly identical. You are not automatically part of a "black community" because you happen to have a dark skin pigment. You are not suddenly part of a "Christian community" because you happen to hold specific religious beliefs. You remain an individual.
> 
> ...




Oh, that sounds grand! Now write the story and then tell us all about it.

P.S. And I say this, because this ain't Facebook -- it's a writing site.


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> Why not?



Because Peter Parker is a working-class everyman from an extremely racially diverse neighborhood.

Bruce Wayne's family has been wealthy since the 1600s.


----------



## Xander416 (Sep 24, 2020)

Greyson said:


> so, to an extent this is true. but race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, can all be weaponized as well.


Name one thing that _can't_ be weaponized.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Xander416 said:


> Name one thing that _can't_ be weaponized.



Cute little puppies? Banana pudding?


----------



## Xander416 (Sep 24, 2020)

TheManx said:


> Cute little puppies?


Rabies and disease.



> Banana pudding?


Allergy to bananas.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Xander416 said:


> Rabies and disease.
> 
> 
> Allergy to bananas.




Heh. You are right on top of things. Good job!


----------



## Cephus (Sep 24, 2020)

Joker said:


> It's also important to keep in mind that race matters more for some characters than others.
> 
> Peter Parker could be a black dude and it doesn't really change the story at all. But Bruce Wayne being black? Yeah, doesn't make much sense.




Why not? There have been plenty of successful and wealthy black characters in comics out there that could easily do the Batman shtick.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 24, 2020)

Cephus said:


> Or, people can just be adults and realize that whatever happens in a movie or in a book or anywhere else, they're not talking about you. You are not a representative of your race or your  gender or anything else. You are an individual and your immutable genetic characteristics do not color anyone's perception of you, not unless you make it a point to insist that they do.
> 
> And who in their right mind would do that?



I mean if you can’t even concede that identity is multifaceted and that representation in media does have tangible effects in the real world, then there’s no conversation to have because we aren’t even going to agree on basic reality.


----------



## Lee Messer (Sep 24, 2020)

Joker said:


> Because Peter Parker is a working-class everyman from an extremely racially diverse neighborhood.
> 
> Bruce Wayne's family has been wealthy since the 1600s.




Working class is usually diverse if your talking about hard work. Like when the court of law sentences you to hard labor kind of work. Most my life, and most my family works hard be it military or not. Were all blue collar though. It's diverse because rich people can afford to be individuals, yet us blue collar people have to work as a team to get paid. It is what it is.
Remember once I had a coworker tell me I had it better cause I was white.
I told him, "I'm digging this ditch right next you. Don't come to me with that bullshit."
He laughed at my response.
One time he saw I had the shit in hand, I mean I was on the ball about getting the job done, I had blueprints and operations all printed up and ready to go to do something we had never done before.
He says, "You the man."
I said, "Down with the man."
He laughed again. Blue collar people... who work hard.


----------



## Lee Messer (Sep 24, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> You're painting with an unfairly broad brush here. Problems of representation and inauthenticity and injustice are contextual based on society and culture. The reason why so much criticism is focused on white portrayals of non white characters is because that’s predominantly been the issue in America, which is — you know — where we live.
> 
> But inauthenticity is inauthenticity no matter who is the one being inauthentic. The fact remains, though, that the western canon is the issue a lot of academic lefties like myself take issue with because — and this is undeniable — it is dominated by Western European and American white men.



It is...
Best way to get us all together though is to have a common cause. Let's say China steps up and blows up one our air craft carriers in the South China Sea. Conversation changes due to current events.

What to do to solve this issue... hmmm.
Maybe we should hang out more often. Get drunk together without killing each other? Have fun together?
Date outside our race? There was a beautiful song made by some band...

[video=youtube;KQmJ3PVtB7c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQmJ3PVtB7c[/video]

... and no, you don't have to reject your own culture to do so. That ruins it.


----------



## Lee Messer (Sep 24, 2020)

Joker said:


> The problem is that, ironically enough, most SJWs have an extremely western-centric view of the world.
> 
> Many Japanese depictions of African-Americans have been extremely inauthentic. But these people wouldn't have any idea because the world is very arbitrarily white Western European men vs everyone else.



Adult Swim-"The Boondocks"
I still think it's hilarious though. Gotta have some humor about it.
But yeah, after watching "Afro-samurai", I get it.

It's apparently quite popular though. They even cosplay that stuff at the conventions. Never been there, but stumbled on it in my research. Hilarious stuff.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 25, 2020)

Cephus said:


> Once  you start to talk about identity politics or identitiarian belief systems and collectivism, you run into trouble. It's when you get people trying to stereotype all people based on certain characteristics that you really start to be racist or sexist or whatever-ist. People are not X. People are individuals. They may have a lot of characteristics, some of which they choose like religion and some of which they do not, like race and gender, but they are not automatically part of some grand collective that all act the same and have the same wants and desires. Just because they may share some of those characteristics with others does not make them suddenly identical. You are not automatically part of a "black community" because you happen to have a dark skin pigment. You are not suddenly part of a "Christian community" because you happen to hold specific religious beliefs. You remain an individual.



The problem is we get into such strawman stuff. Nobody is saying that any characteristics bind people into grand collectives of homogenous behaviors or motivations.

I do agree that groupthink is a problem, one that goes way beyond identity politics. We agree on that. The problem with your view, and this is something I get a lot from your posts, is that you tend to treat it as a total zero sum, a kind of brainwashed zombie-ism. To you, it seems, any acknowledgement of racial differencemust equal loss of individuality. 

And, that's nonsense, it really is. Was Martin Luther King not an individual? Of course he was, but he also identified himself (strongly) as part of the black community -- and also 'the American community', for that matter.. It's possible to be both, to see yourself (and everybody else) as members of various groups, with various degrees of legitimacy, and still be an individual. It's not only possible, in fact, it's totally normal and healthy. 

Individuality really has nowt to do with it. Yeah, certain people can take things too far. Yeah, certain communities built on identity aren't good for the people in them nor society at large. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Acknowledging differences in race and responding reasonably to those differences is totally fine and important. 

Being a white male, of a certain class, from a certain geographical region, is part of my identity just as if I were a black guy from Detroit. I don't get overly hung up on it to the point it dominates my day or anything, but I would certainly feel able to incorporate it into my writing -- and I do -- without any loss of 'individuality'. There's no reason everybody cannot do the same.


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 25, 2020)

*Mod note:

It's been a while since I checked in to this thread and see that it's drifted in and out of and skirted the edge of political discussion.  Could participants please remind themselves of the thread's original purpose here?
I do appreciate that it's difficult to leave politics completely alone in such a thread, so my thanks for bringing it back on track when it meanders.

Thank you.*


----------



## Cephus (Sep 25, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> I mean if you can’t even concede that identity is multifaceted and that representation in media does have tangible effects in the real world, then there’s no conversation to have because we aren’t even going to agree on basic reality.




You know that comes off as "I'm right, you're wrong, so there!" right?


----------



## Cephus (Sep 25, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> The problem is we get into such strawman stuff. Nobody is saying that any characteristics bind people into grand collectives of homogenous behaviors or motivations.



Yet in reality, that's not how it works. Now to take a real world example, my next door neighbor is black. As far as I know, he's never lived in Detroit, as you used later in your post. He's a middle-class conservative black man with a Trump sign in his yard. Now, if I were to create a fictional black character in a book based, in general, on him, I would likely get attacked because, as a white writer, I am not portraying an authentic "black experience". Except there is no monolithic black experience! To claim that there is, that's racist! It's an attempt to stereotype people into a monolithic view that assumes they are all the same and we can clearly see that there are people in the real world who fall outside of that. There is no black experience. There are only individual experiences.

From a writer's perspective, it is no different if I create a fictional black person that says and does what I need them to do in a story, than it does if I create a fictional white person that does the same thing. Or if I create an alien or a  talking dog or whatever else. It's a work of fiction. Anyone who can't deal with that has some serious problems.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 25, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Being a white male, of a certain class, from a certain geographical region, is part of my identity just as if I were a black guy from Detroit. I don't get overly hung up on it to the point it dominates my day or anything, but I would certainly feel able to incorporate it into my writing -- and I do -- without any loss of 'individuality'. There's no reason everybody cannot do the same.



But that's true of anything that makes up your identity.  I live in the Midwest, so my upbringing included a lot more farm life than most peoples'.  As a child, I lived in the country, so now I prefer those regions to big cities.  Where I live, we have regional food and drink favorites, certain entertainment that's distinct from other places, and so on.  For a more serious example, my father took off when I was young, so I grew up without a prominent male example in my life.

All these things, simple or complex, define who I am now, and none of them were related to my race, gender, or religion.  When I'm at work, I interact with my coworkers the same way whether they're white, Asian, or Indian.  When I played touch football on a team with mostly black players, I treated them (and they treated me) the same as everyone else - short, of course, of my flubbing a couple of fancy high fives.  We all have unique perspectives on life based on where we came from, sure, but we're all also still human.

When writing, pick the story you want to tell first, and let the characters follow.  I think of the Disney movie _The Princess and the Frog_.  The original story probably didn't have a black princess, but Disney didn't want another European fairy tale, so they chose New Orleans as the setting because they liked the city.  After that, it was reasonable to make the protagonist black (but also reasonable to make the supporting cast largely white).  They didn't start by saying, "Let's tell a story about a black princess."  They chose a black character because it fit the story they wanted to tell.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 25, 2020)

Cephus said:


> Yet in reality, that's not how it works. Now to take a real world example, my next door neighbor is black. As far as I know, he's never lived in Detroit, as you used later in your post. He's a middle-class conservative black man with a Trump sign in his yard. Now, if I were to create a fictional black character in a book based, in general, on him, I would likely get attacked because, as a white writer, I am not portraying an authentic "black experience". Except there is no monolithic black experience! To claim that there is, that's racist! It's an attempt to stereotype people into a monolithic view that assumes they are all the same and we can clearly see that there are people in the real world who fall outside of that. There is no black experience. There are only individual experiences.
> 
> From a writer's perspective, it is no different if I create a fictional black person that says and does what I need them to do in a story, than it does if I create a fictional white person that does the same thing. Or if I create an alien or a  talking dog or whatever else. It's a work of fiction. Anyone who can't deal with that has some serious problems.



Again, it's a massive strawman. Nobody is saying that there is a monolithic black experience. Nobody assumes black people are all the same. If they did, that would indeed be racist, but I have no idea why you keep arguing with a point nobody (at least here) is making.

Data and science says while your black next door neighbor does not have the same experience as _all _other black people (i.e. a monolithic black experience) he nevertheless has a different experience in _certain _aspects of his life _because _of him being black. When we talk about 'writing a black experience' the word experience is key. We are talking not about grouped racial characteristics or beliefs built into genetics (a racist idea) but common racial experiences, which themselves may or may not create a vague correlation in characteristics or beliefs, but by no means universal or at the cost of the individual.

So, what are those truths? Like everything else, it's debatable. We can certainly incorporate certain things with a higher degree of likelihood (not certainty). Take something relatively uncontentious like geographical origin. Any heat map will show that there are certain states, cities, and parts of cities, where demographics are massively weighted toward one racial group -- there aren't many black folks from rural North Dakota, for instance. OTOH, there are entire swathes of Mississippi which are 90+ percent black. 

Is it not fair to say that these geographic differences (regardless of race) probably contribute to the experiences of each individual within? To deny that, would be to deny the importance of geographical origin, wouldn't it? So then it's not totally incorrect, right, to describe the rural North Dakotan experience as a type of 'white experience' (not all white experiences, but certainly united-in-whiteness, it's certainly not a 'black experience', since there are no black people there) while a Mississippi Delta experience could be described equally as a type of 'black experience' (understanding that not all black people/black experiences come from the Mississippi Delta -- that this is just one iteration, but black nevertheless)?

So, something a writer may want to keep in mind, if they are uncomfortable engaging with _racial _group identity as a concept, is to consider _geographical_ identity as, in lots of cases, they will likely cross-over and this will avoid the problem of exceptions? You could do this for certain occupations, too. Some jobs are skewed massively toward certain racial groups -- look at your 'average' group of hotel housekeepers and compare them to your 'average' group of Wall Street Bankers and it's pretty obvious. Since most Wall Street Bankers are white men, why not cut through the crap and say that the Wall Street Banker experience is a one iteration of a white male experience? Not ALL white male experiences, obviously, but certainly it isn't really a Native Hawaiian Woman experience. You can do this for anything for which disparities exist. Class, income, incarceration rates, etc.

I understand that switch from "Wall Street Bankers" to "White Men" makes people uncomfortable and that's totally understandable. It's not easy to reckon with the fact that racial disparity exists for no reason. But, unfortunately, it remains true and, as long as it is true, we probably should call a spade a spade a bit more, no? Regardless, it's pretty clear that groups _in some form_ exist and that they are not self-chosen, regardless of whether that's *right*, unless you really want to suggest that the Walton Family have individual experiences utterly unrelated to and their grouping in the mega rich.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Sep 25, 2020)

Cephus said:


> You know that comes off as "I'm right, you're wrong, so there!" right?



I‘m sorry you feel that way. Wasn’t my intention at all.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 25, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Again, it's a massive strawman. Nobody is saying that there is a monolithic black experience. Nobody assumes black people are all the same. If they did, that would indeed be racist, but I have no idea why you keep arguing with a point nobody (at least here) is making.
> 
> Data and science says while your black next door neighbor does not have the same experience as _all _other black people (i.e. a monolithic black experience) he nevertheless has a different experience in _certain _aspects of his life _because _of him being black. When we talk about 'writing a black experience' the word experience is key. We are talking not about grouped racial characteristics or beliefs built into genetics (a racist idea) but common racial experiences, which themselves may or may not create a vague correlation in characteristics or beliefs, but by no means universal or at the cost of the individual.



No, you've got the massive strawman. Here you are, promoting an indemonstrable stereotype that all black people are alike while denying that you're doing it. Please produce your objectively verifiable evidence that my neighbor has those experiences. Prove it. Because if you can't, then you're the problem. You and people who think like you. You just assume these things without having any way to verify it, then you hold others accountable to your faulty imagination.

I don't know what else there is to say. Let's get back to talking about writing.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 25, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> I‘m sorry you feel that way. Wasn’t my intention at all.




I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out an attitude that I observe on that side of the political aisle regularly. Many think they just  get to make unsupported proclamations and have them accepted as law. "We say it, you have to believe it." People have to be able to back up their claims if they want to engage in any kind of productive discussion. Making declarations doesn't make truth. It's sad that doesn't resonate with a lot of people.

Can we get back to talking about writing now?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 26, 2020)

Cephus said:


> Here you are, promoting an indemonstrable stereotype that all black people are alike while denying that you're doing it.



I absolutely did not and if you think I did then I'm afraid you failed the comprehension. No point in discussing further.



> Please produce your objectively verifiable evidence that my neighbor has those experiences. Prove it. Because if you can't, then you're the problem. You and people who think like you. You just assume these things without having any way to verify it, then you hold others accountable to your faulty imagination.



I said nothing about your neighbor (who I have no reason to believe exists, much less trusting your account of his entire life -- why are you bringing up somebody only you know, exactly?) other than it is likely -- based on data -- that he has experienced racial discrimination at least once in his life, on some level. If by some miracle he hasn't, good for him, or maybe he just didn't tell you about it (because why would he?). Regardless, anecdotes don't prove or disprove group experiences, much less statistics. And this is the problem: You are treating it as a zero sum, is-or-is-not. It's complicated. There are no absolutes. There are only facts and generalities.

This is all I will say on the matter of your logic. Regarding writing, you said this...



> We have rights as authors to write what we wish, to find an audience who enjoys our writing and to please them. If you don't like my book, don't read it. If you want to speak out against my book, make sure your objections make any kind of rational sense, but by all means, do. But your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and there are particular political and social interests out there who have completely overstepped their bounds. These people should be ignored, their complains, unless absolutely valid, discarded and their endless whining and political maneuvering pointed out as faulty. Mature adults do not sit there and scream at the sky because they don't get their way. They can move on with their lives and handle the momentary disappointment of encountering something they didn't like.




While I agree with a _lot _of this, I think it's reasonable to point out that in 2020 part of finding an audience is trying not to piss people off unnecessarily over stuff like race. The question is, where should the line be drawn?

As an expensively educated person who has traveled the globe and tried hard to be 'enlightened', I still fail this shit all the time. Fortunately, I can usually now tell when I am failing it, but I couldn't always. And I still do. I often find myself writing a character who is another race and the lazy part of my brain incorporating stereotypes because, well, it's easier. 

I think that's kind of human nature? Ask your average joe to tell you a story about Native Hawaiians, I would bet that nine times out of ten he's going to start with grass skirts and 'ALOHA!' He may not end there, but that is the immediate thing. The prior, if you will.

Now, I'm sure writers who are NOT average joes can do a bit better, but the sad fact is I have yet to read a SINGLE book written by any author about another race or culture that didn't incorporate at least some reversion to stereotype. Whether it's Stephen King's sinister gypsies in 'Thinner' or the stuff in Memoirs of a Geisha or even benign stuff like Americans trying to write books set in Britain, these inaccurate stereotypes and assumptions regarding other cultures do weasel into books by even excellent writers. And these are just the ones we can spot. There's probably a ton more that are apparent to people who are actually _from _those communities.

So what? So, well, I think it's a valid concern, that's what. Not that it should be an obsession, but something to think about most definitely. I generally support the idea of people writing outside their comfort zone with race (as with anything else) but the reality is that power comes with responsibility. Having the power to write 'whatever you want' means you need to be held to account for screwing stuff up and be willing to listen. That doesn't mean being totally servile to such criticisms, but absolutely listening to them and, where it rings true but perhaps not _provably _true (you can't prove a lot of this stuff), then having the humility to grant such feedback the benefit of belief.

Understanding you probably wont listen, I have to say I also think you're grossly hyperbolizing the issue. I have yet to hear of a writer being physically attacked for their depiction of anything, even when it was really bad. I get that you're passionate about this issue and that you see it as this major problem in society, but let's not go overboard with the 'swinging fist' stuff and acting like this is some mass conspiracy to squash creative talent in any sort of literal sense. It isn't. Most of it is just people not liking lazy, shitty writing and calling it out. Which is entirely fair, even if you don't agree with them.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 26, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I absolutely did not and if you think I did then I'm afraid you failed the comprehension. No point in discussing further.



After watching that attempt at spin, you're right, no point in discussing further.


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 27, 2020)

> Data and science says while your black next door neighbor does not have the same experience as _all other black people (i.e. a monolithic black experience) he nevertheless has a different experience in certain aspects of his life because of him being black. When we talk about 'writing a black experience' the word experience is key. We are talking not about grouped racial characteristics or beliefs built into genetics (a racist idea) but common racial experiences, which themselves may or may not create a vague correlation in characteristics or beliefs, but by no means universal or at the cost of the individual._


This statement, taken on its face, is kind of missing the point. No one is arguing that anyone believes all black people have the exact same experience. The argument is over whether there are _specific _experiences that are universal to being black. The 'data and science' bit confused me. Do you mean that statistically, certain traits predict certain outcomes? The problem with this argument is that it is inherently heuristical. In the sense that, unless a specific trait (black) can be demonstrated to not only predict certain outcomes (experiences of racism, etc), but inherently produce said outcomes, it is merely equivalent to saying 'if you are black, it is quite probable that you will experience racism.' Which is a far cry from some kind of 'universal' black experience. 

It is probably valid at this point to begin examining the idea of culture. When I say I am in a 'culture', what I really mean to say is "I find myself in a place where certain values and beliefs are generally, but not universally, held." It then follows for us to attempt to discover what fuels the propagation of such values, and in my opinion, this is where things become tricky. The concept of 'culture' has sort of overgrown its moorings in recent years, to the extent that I feel it has become disconnected from what actually creates culture, namely individuals making individual decisions regarding what they believe. I understand such decisions are not made in some kind of social vacuum. That is not my point. My point is that it is still _entirely _fueled by the beliefs and attitudes of real people who actually exist. There is not some mystical force called 'culture' running around wrecking havoc independent of the individuals who hold its values. 

And this goes back to what on earth it means to 'be black.' Whenever someone says 'being black,' it is almost immediately followed by the word 'in.' Meaning, in a white culture, a racist culture, a Eurocentric culture, etc. The problem is, as previously established, no such culture is universal. So while the _experience _is valid, the argument that it _must _be universal seems to me to be patently false. With regards to culture, we are constantly in a place of shifting boundaries and definitions. So I feel highly uncomfortable saying certain things _must _be universal because they are cultural. It seems like another form of environmental determinism, AND REMEMBER. The problem with environmental determinism is not that we aren't products of our environment, it is that our environment is in constant flux.


----------



## Joker (Sep 27, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> This statement, taken on its face, is kind of missing the point. No one is arguing that anyone believes all black people have the exact same experience. The argument is over whether there are _specific _experiences that are universal to being black. The 'data and science' bit confused me. Do you mean that statistically, certain traits predict certain outcomes? The problem with this argument is that it is inherently heuristical. In the sense that, unless a specific trait (black) can be demonstrated to not only predict certain outcomes (experiences of racism, etc), but inherently produce said outcomes, it is merely equivalent to saying 'if you are black, it is quite probable that you will experience racism.' Which is a far cry from some kind of 'universal' black experience.
> 
> It is probably valid at this point to begin examining the idea of culture. When I say I am in a 'culture', what I really mean to say is "I find myself in a place where certain values and beliefs are generally, but not universally, held." It then follows for us to attempt to discover what fuels the propagation of such values, and in my opinion, this is where things become tricky. The concept of 'culture' has sort of overgrown its moorings in recent years, to the extent that I feel it has become disconnected from what actually creates culture, namely individuals making individual decisions regarding what they believe. I understand such decisions are not made in some kind of social vacuum. That is not my point. My point is that it is still _entirely _fueled by the beliefs and attitudes of real people who actually exist. There is not some mystical force called 'culture' running around wrecking havoc independent of the individuals who hold its values.
> 
> And this goes back to what on earth it means to 'be black.' Whenever someone says 'being black,' it is almost immediately followed by the word 'in.' Meaning, in a white culture, a racist culture, a Eurocentric culture, etc. The problem is, as previously established, no such culture is universal. So while the _experience _is valid, the argument that it _must _be universal seems to me to be patently false. With regards to culture, we are constantly in a place of shifting boundaries and definitions. So I feel highly uncomfortable saying certain things _must _be universal because they are cultural. It seems like another form of environmental determinism, AND REMEMBER. The problem with environmental determinism is not that we aren't products of our environment, it is that our environment is in constant flux.



The whole American idea of "white" and "black" people is really absurd to begin with. Maybe it has some bearing here, where there has been so much ethnic intermixing, but it must look patently ridiculous to the rest of the world. Applying generic ideas of "whiteness" to Spaniards and Russians equally or generic "blackness" to Nigerians and Ethiopians is wrong on so many levels...


----------



## Cephus (Sep 27, 2020)

Joker said:


> The whole American idea of "white" and "black" people is really absurd to begin with. Maybe it has some bearing here, where there has been so much ethnic intermixing, but it must look patently ridiculous to the rest of the world. Applying generic ideas of "whiteness" to Spaniards and Russians equally or generic "blackness" to Nigerians and Ethiopians is wrong on so many levels...




I just think it's funny that the kind of stereotyping that I accused that side of doing, not only does it get denied, but immediately, they engage in it, thus proving my point. All black people are not the same. All black experiences are not the same. All white experiences are not the same. People are individuals and by accusing white writers of not understanding the "black experience", that is engaging in blatant racism that they are too blind to see that they're doing it. Ultimately, it comes down to "you can't write what you want because you're not being racist in the same way that I am!"

And that's utterly bizarre.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 27, 2020)

Cephus said:


> I just think it's funny that the kind of stereotyping that I accused that side of doing, not only does it get denied, but immediately, they engage in it, thus proving my point. All black people are not the same. All black experiences are not the same. All white experiences are not the same. People are individuals and by accusing white writers of not understanding the "black experience", that is engaging in blatant racism that they are too blind to see that they're doing it. Ultimately, it comes down to "you can't write what you want because you're not being racist in the same way that I am!"
> 
> And that's utterly bizarre.



Uh, nah. Because there is a UNIQUE overall or underlying experience common to most black people that has to do with racism—and that is an experience imposed by white people. Are you saying that doesn't exist? I think it does—it's just more subtle these days. And I think it affects black people in unique ways that might be difficult for white people to understand. 

Is it possible for a white person to write a "black story"—for lack of a better term? Probably. But if the story is specifically about or involves racism or the unique experiences that arise from it (and that covers a whole lot of ground in ways that might be obvious or more subtle) I'd have to see some compelling reason why it's not a story better left for black people to tell. 

Again—I see a lot of bold pronouncements from you about how people should write whatever they want, but until you write the story and deal with any backlash or controversy—it's all talk. 

Yawn.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 27, 2020)

TheManx said:


> Uh, nah. Because there is a UNIQUE overall or underlying experience common to most black people that has to do with racism—and that is an experience imposed by white people. Are you saying that doesn't exist? I think it does—it's just more subtle these days. And I think it affects black people in unique ways that might be difficult for white people to understand.



That's your  claim. Back it up. Because there are black people who have never been overtly affected by racism, who have never had ancestors who have been slaves, who have never been affected by Jim Crow laws, who have never lived in poverty, etc. What you're doing is saying that some black people are X, therefore *ALL* black people are X.

That is wrong.



> Again—I see a lot of bold pronouncements from you about how people  should write whatever they want, but until you write the story and deal  with any backlash or controversy—it's all talk.



The point being, there should be no backlash or controversy. What we're really seeing here is one side of the aisle bullying people who don't toe the party line. It comes very close to the definition of terrorism, which is defined as "the unlawful use of force and  violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a  government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in  furtherance of political or social objectives."


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 27, 2020)

> Because there is a UNIQUE overall or underlying experience common to most black people that has to do with racism—and that is an experience imposed by white people.


It seems to me that you are saying 'there is an experience, that while not universal to black people, can only be undergone by black people.' I think I can agree with that, at least theoretically. The disagreement then, at least in the context of writing, is that white people have some kind of unique difficulty understanding an experience differentiated from themselves. There is a difficulty, but I see no reason why it should be any greater than that I undergo when parsing out my own experiences. As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, it seems to me self-evident that human beings, as creatures both distinct and communal, are capable of understanding that which is external from our own wills, emotions and consciousnesses. So there is no _inherent _reason that I can see why my perspective as an 'outsider' is somehow invalid. Neither do I see any reason why the perspective of an insider is inherently valid. And I especially don't think that any one person within a racial group (or even the group itself) has some kind of monopoly on how people in their group 'should' act within fiction. 

And to really bring it back to writing, I would feel very uncomfortable if I tried to say: "this person should feel like this, or be treated like this, or is being treated like this because of the socio-racial context the author found herself in..." etc. Oftentimes, it feels like nothing more than the imposition of the reader's own personal perspective upon the characters. I understand it is very vogue right now to say, for example, that men "don't understand" the "female perspective" and that's why they write bad female characters. Reality check: THE NUMBER OF FEMALE WRITERS WHO WRITE UTTERLY ATROCIOUS DEPICTIONS OF WOMEN IS ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDING. The fact that they are 'inside' the female experience seems to have provided them absolutely no armor regarding the worst of its depictions. It's honestly shocking how much poorly-written women's fiction can be easily interpreted as the misogynistic thought processes of a miseducated male...until you realize that the work you are reading is actually by a woman. Point being, and I really believe this in my heart of hearts: bad writers produce bad writing. It honestly has very little to do with 'perspective' or 'education' or what have you. Perspective is nice. Education is nice. It won't do _anything _if the viewpoint of the author themselves is twisted. It will only ever produce _falsehood_, whether you are part of the ingroup or the outgroup. 

Flip this around: an intimate portrayal of the male psyche, if written by a women and poorly constructed, can feel highly insulting. However, one properly constructed can be incredibly enlightening. Why? Because it shows what _they _see in men, whether positive or negative. They can actually speak _my _truth over _me. _That's incredible. That should make all your heads spin, that something like that can actually happen. But it does. It happens all the time. In healthy marriages, in healthy male-female friendships. In the same sense, blacks can speak truth over whites, and whites can speak truth over blacks. And we should. It's incredibly redemptive.

Edit: Okay, another anecdote, because I find this topic really interesting. The white kid running around my neighborhood stealing recycling containers and picking fights with my friend because he 'hates' white people 'like him.' Should we lend his perspective _any _credence, merely because it happens to be an ingroup critique? I think not. I think he is simply a drug-addled college student who needs Jesus. My core point, and this is the last time I will state it in this thread: whether part of the ingroup or the outgroup, statements must be evaluated purely on their truth merit. Nothing more, nothing less. The mouth of the speaker does not matter. Only his words.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 27, 2020)

Cephus said:


> That's your  claim. Back it up. Because there are black people who have never been overtly affected by racism, who have never had ancestors who have been slaves, who have never been affected by Jim Crow laws, who have never lived in poverty, etc. What you're doing is saying that some black people are X, therefore *ALL* black people are X.



Nope, I don't have to back it up, because I didn't say that. I said "most" have been affected in some way. I didn't say or imply ALL black people have been affected or that they have been affected in the SAME way. I've gone through the thread and you seem to have a problem with  assumptions based on exactly how people qualify things. It's tedious and something you shouldn't have to deal with on a writing site. 



Cephus said:


> The point being, there should be no backlash or controversy. What we're really seeing here is one side of the aisle bullying people who don't toe the party line. It comes very close to the definition of terrorism, which is defined as "the unlawful use of force and  violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a  government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in  furtherance of political or social objectives."



The hyperbole doesn't enhance the discussion. It hardly amounts to force and  violence—more like, if you write a black story, it may come under scrutiny regarding authenticity etc. There's just more at stake than other stories where people write outside their experience—for all the reasons stated. It's heightened now because of current events. If you fail, there's going to be backlash and controversy, if you're prepared to deal with that, knock yourself out. If you're not, then maybe take up some other hobby.

I think the difference between you and I—where you see coercion that verges on terrorism, I see deference and some caution—all based on something that I have not experienced.

In the end, this should be about our own writing, and what we're willing to write, what we HAVE to write—or genuinely feel we can't write. With some kind of CONTEXT. Otherwise, we might as well be on Facebook engaged in some inane political pissing contest. Oh well...


----------



## TheManx (Sep 27, 2020)

BornForBurning, I didn't see your comment before I posted. What I'm seeing is something about what is almost always missing from these conversations—SOME kind of context. 

I'll get back to you...


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 27, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> No one is arguing that anyone believes all black people have the exact same experience.



Cephus literally is arguing that. Hence his accusation of 'stereotyping'. Here, I will quote it for you:



Cephus said:


> That's your claim. Back it up. Because there are black people who have never been overtly affected by racism, who have never had ancestors who have been slaves, who have never been affected by Jim Crow laws, who have never lived in poverty, etc. *What you're doing is saying that some black people are X, therefore *ALL* black people are X.*



Cephus is wrong, nobody (well, not me) is saying all black people are X. We are simply saying there is a trend and preponderance of evidence that should not be ignored.



> The argument is over whether there are _specific _experiences that are universal to being black. The 'data and science' bit confused me. Do you mean that statistically, certain traits predict certain outcomes? The problem with this argument is that it is inherently heuristical. In the sense that, unless a specific trait (black) can be demonstrated to not only predict certain outcomes (experiences of racism, etc), but inherently produce said outcomes, it is merely equivalent to saying 'if you are black, it is quite probable that you will experience racism.' Which is a far cry from some kind of 'universal' black experience.



No, I am saying certain life experiences predict likelihood of certain outcomes. 

This is fairly well established, at this point. A black person who has spent their entire life on a desert island is probably going to be more or less no different to a white person with that same experience. Fine. The problem is, we know that in a society (at least, in American society) race goes beyond basic pigmentation in terms of how other people may treat you. We know that the way people treat you then impacts your life and development. This becomes simple deduction.

I am white, nobody has ever racially abused me. My best friend in college was Filipino and got called 'chink' frequently. Unless you want to deny that difference in experience has any impact at all, it can only make sense to talk about such things as part of a 'Filipino experience' because, while they may not apply to ALL Filipino-Americans they certainly apply to a lot more of them than white Americans. We can debate individual cases and their frequency within groups and how valid they are. Fine. What we cannot do is dismiss the existence of racial disparity as a concept and that certain groups are more likely to suffer or not suffer certain treatment.

To be clear: It's not the skin color itself that matters, it's what becomes _attached _to the skin color and how ubiquitous those experiences are, and how common they are to each other.

You say *"it is merely equivalent to saying 'if you are black, it is quite probable that you will experience racism.' Which is a far cry from some kind of 'universal' black experience. *

If 'blackness' equals 'more likely to experience racism' that *IS* a common experience, whether we want to call it one, whether or not we ascribe 'universal' to it (I don't agree in universal experiences, so let's not do that). 

That is not the same as saying it may apply to every single individual, like Cephus is fixating on, but so what? I am not speaking about every individual. I am speaking about broad sweeping generalities across populations of millions and that is OK, so long as I am open and clear that I am not applying it to every _individual_. I made this very friggin' clear the entire time: There are always exceptions, but for something to be exceptional it must be against the common rule.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 27, 2020)

Cephus said:


> ...no point in discussing further.



Probably the best point you've made so far. Good job!


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 28, 2020)

*MOD NOTE:  Locked pending staff discussion.*


----------

