kass_rants

My goodness. You actually went and found out what really happened.

How terribly buzz-kill.

Revolutionaries hate it when you actually show the truth, because the truth usually gives the lie to their propaganda. So have fun wading through the vitriol. I'll make you a cup of tea.

What do you want from me? I'm a researcher. I'm an analyst. I don't believe what I heard about Race Fail '09 any more than I believe what I heard about "What the Irish wore" in the 16th century. I go to the source and dig out the original, PRIMARY documentation. I read the post that started it all. And this is as stupid as the idea that leinte had drawstrings!

I won't be responding to any vitriol. Don't even know if I'm going to read the responses here today.

Read me! Read me!

:)

Just wanted to say "Go you!"

*sigh* Glad I'm not involved in that whole silliness, but thanks for putting this out there.

And now, I expect most of us have _real_ things to do with our lives..... fething bread and circus people....

I second this.

Thanks for the links. They were good summaries.

However, that's NOT the "post that started it all", except in the "Ur" sense. The current situation has more to do with this post, which is on "big bad white authors writing about a world where there are no non-whites." You'll note that there's a massive drop-off on posts in the timeline you posted before that post went up on May 4th, and it's the reactions to the discussions spinning of that, as well as the memories of discussions just a few months old, that spurred today's actions -- which you'll note, I am not part of.
And yes, you and I will differ, mightily, on what Elizabeth Bear's post means, and why there's an issue with it. Moreover, the very timelines you link to, and the posts therein, make clear that much of what is occurring is NOT in the original post, but in cmments to those posts, as well as other posts all over the 'net, and their comments. There were serious concerns with the original post, indeed. But as you read through the timelines, did it not occur to you that they were illuminating how the discussion spread into a myriad of other topics, including the ones you derided as "not the point of Bear's original post?"

I've talked about these issues at some horrific length, including having read the same essay from Elizabeth Bear that you just read. Suffic to say there are, from my perspective, issues with her viewpoint, and they are NOT simply me looking for a reason to rant.

Granted I don't know you long, Asim, but I've never known you to just rant for the sake of ranting.

As I read it, Willow took some serious pot-shots at Bear that were unwarranted. Perhaps the two have a history? Perhaps Willow has issues with Bear's writing in general and was just waiting for a good time to voice her concerns? I have no knowledge of either of these people outside of this discussion so perhaps I'm missing an undercurrent that is not apparent to an outside observer.

I've read your posts on the subject and found them enlightening. But the question has always been in my mind: "What started all this?" So I went to what everyone was saying was the beginning of the problem. And I just don't understand why it exploded. The more I read, the more I just don't get it. What tripped the trigger? Can you explain it to me? Because I really want to know.

I understand the problem people have with Wrede's book. But isn't the point of alternate history that it's different from reality? I don't read it as "erasing" an entire culture as much as imagining a history where they didn't come to this continent. After all, if there were no land bridge, the people who became Native Americans would have lived in Asia and presumably their culture would have developed there. Can we not also imagine an America that wasn't invaded by Europeans? Would a story about the "West" which included Native Americans but not Europeans be somehow more palatable?

("Fen" for me is a new plural in the lexicon meaning "collections of different fandoms", btw, as well as the original topographical feature definition. Because yeah, the plural of "fan" is "fans.") I believe that you're familiar with my own views about racism so I won't go into that.

I just realized that my own post about it today appears to spring from just the things you're talking about when in fact it springs from different tacks involving the reactions of actual frequently-published writers and large publishing houses to the idea that more non-white, well-written, non-stereotyped characters would be welcome. In some cases? Flat out denial. And now, recently, some fans of sc-fi defending that viewpoint because they personally never see non-whites at cons. Because cons are the end all be all of proving that you're a fan, evidently, instead of things like simply buying the books (and replacing the worn copies with new) for years. (Shit, after the "any excuse to feel up yer bewbs" thing a couple of years back, I was uncomfortable going to cons if for no other reason than because of the freaks I knew at cons who would jump on the chance.)

Hopefully I'll be able to edit my entry to make a bit more sense and include a bit less slavering. Racism is a sore point and a really hot button for me because I can't make it go away for my sister and my dad.

I didn't think your post came out of this one -- kinda sensed that something else was going on there. And publishers shouldn't assume that fan attendance = readership. But I'm not surprised by the prejudice among publishers. After all, it was these same publishers that forced JK Rawling not to use her name for fear her readership would think she was *shock* a girl.

Racism is everywhere. And a person of one colour telling a person of another colour that she isn't allowed to write about her colour because she isn't one of them is just as racist as a publisher refusing to publish books about people of colour.

I just want to make sure if people get their knickers in a wad, they get their knickers in a wad about the right thing. =)

Glad we understand one another, then.

And girls? Girls can't write fiction! What are we thinking?! Clearly we're delusional.

Racism is everywhere. And a person of one colour telling a person of another colour that she isn't allowed to write about her colour because she isn't one of them is just as racist as a publisher refusing to publish books about people of colour.

Uh, no, nothing like that.

The topic was, is and always will be;

that minorities are largely ignored in popular narrative (EG TV, film, novels).
If they do show up, they are very often treated as scenery, (EG Indian Guides, Indian Pashas, Ching-chong-chinamen, Black whores, Hispanic Gangbangers) while the white characters get the hero shots. This includes that other minority, known as women. You can drink shots to the tropes-- and take bets on when the Good Black guy will take a bullet for the white hero, and which of the token cast will be standing at the credits (usually the woman, unless she's also the Asian.)

And, that after a good half-a-century of Equality, racial and ethinc minorities still get treated, in the common narrative, as if they don't matter.

The point is not that whites shouldn't write black characters, it's that they should indeed add black characters into the default, all-white world of popular fiction, and that it's perfectly possible to do the research in order to get a black character right.

The other point is that this neglect has hurt and enraged more than one person past the point where she gives a flying whatsit any longer. That point right there is pretty salient, especially when you consider YOUR reaction-- arrived at in about two seconds, evidently-- and compare it with the LIFETIMe it's taken for someone else to finally get vocal about it.

I just want to make sure that if you get your knickers in a twist, you know what your wadding them up about.

it's nice for you, Kass, that you don't feel alienated in this culture, but it's not surprising-- after all, it's your culture, you swim in it like a fish. You might not notice the lack of Hispanic, or Asian, or Pakistani characters on your TV shows. It might not bother you that an Asian animated show, with Asian characters, is about to begin filming with cute caucasian kids in all the hero roles.
But many of us are on the outside looking in-- it's not such a nice view from here.

The blog I've link to goes on to talk about racism in sci-fi-fantasy, by the way. Please do some more investigating before you rant about this.

"Fen" is a really old neologism; it was defined in Jack Speer's 1944 Fancyclopedia I and was coined at Mecon in 1943.

Thank you. "Fen" has been the plural of "fan" in fandom ever since I got involved back in the late 1970s. I use it a fair bit and see nothing wrong as long as it's used in context.

Yep! Not a grammatical error.

::passes coffee::

*passes chocolate to go with the coffee*

Enough for all. :)

Could I have a nice cup of tea?....and a chocolate biscuit please.

*passes over the chocolate biscuit and a nice hot cuppa* :)

Sure thing! Enjoy! ;)

Thank you for posting this - I was unaware of any of it, and it is useful to me.

I have a theory that some people see sensitivity as a virtue, and to exhibit this virtue must find things to be offended about. There is a culture in which status is competed for in terms of being "more sensitive than thou". Finding ever more subtle and convoluted things to be offended by is a display of piety and gains a person kudos within that culture.

Of course, when expressing outrage to their freinds in full view of all, people from outside the "sensitive" culture will probably question the validity of the complaints, which the "sensitive one" will see as a brutal attack and they and other members of their culture will leap to their defence, the bemused outsiders react by saying "steady on... what's the problem?" and are perceived as insular, ignorant, hubristic... and it deteriorates from there.

Oh lawd, I've just ragged on sensitive people as a culture. I'm going to a special hell, aren't I?

I completely agree. That's what is really infuriating me about this. I think a bunch of people wanted to be pissed off about something and chose this. And then a bunch of people jumped on the bandwagon because no one had the guts to say, "Hey. This really isn't an issue."

I remember shit like this happening in college, and I hated it then too. If you look hard enough at anything, you can find a reason to be offended. But harmony and peace don't begin with finding offense; they begin with putting offense behind you and building bridges, not walls.

The "funniest" thing to remember is that there were black slave owners. But people who get their knickers in a twist over the slavery issue would prefer to keep that fact quiet or ignore it altogether.

*speechless*

Your post has been included in a Linkspam roundup.

Please do let us all know how your application to the Ignorant-Ass Cracker Society works out. I'm all aflutter on your behalf!