The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
A Song of Ice and Fire
George R.R. Martin Threads
>
Is 'A Song of Ice and Fire' racist?
Mysterio2 wrote:Let me ask you a question: do you believe that there are such things as institutional/cultural racism/classism/sexism? Or do you think these attributes can only be assigned to individual actors? "I think noone is honestly going to deny that there is. I'm from Germany and here we have still a difference between male/female payment in many jobs.
The whole 99% movement shows that we have a huge classisism issue.
And sadly studies show that between 20-25% of the german population have latent racist behavioral tendencies. And this in a society that is highly sensible regarding racism, due to WWII.
The amount of anti-racist education is extremely high and nevertheless racial stereotypes prevail.
And as I said before, if something really is offensive is not determined by an inter-subjective criteria.
If somebody feels offended, then it is offensive.
And there is no discussion about the Dany-scene in the tv show. I felt awkward too, watching it.
But at the moment I just have a difference of opinion regarding the book.
I think one stregth of the book is that we see certain characters, places and cultures through narrow view in the first place, but then as we come closer always see that there is a huge diversity.
And especially with Arya's chapters in book 4-5 and Tyrion's and Dany's chapters in book 5, I had a feeling of a really diverse characters and groups represented in the free cities.
On the question of institutionalised -isms, I would make two points.The first is that what people call 'racism' in a person and what people call 'racism' in an institution are two totally different things, and I think it's misleading to discuss them interchangeably. Since -isms are generally psychological dispositions, which institutions cannot have (except as, as it were, the average of individual psychologies), I would prefer to keep to the older and more precise meaning - so I would say that institutions cannot be racist. I would, however, say that institutions CAN be either substantively (i.e. as a result of the dispositions of the individuals) or structurally (i.e. as a result of the operations of the institution without regard to the psychologies of the individual actors) discriminatory, and one form of possible discimination is discrimination on the grounds of race. Structural discrimination need not be intentional, or malicious, or require any form of chauvenistic, or factional, or or dictatorial attitude or behaviour. In this regard, it is quite different from racism in the normal sense.
The second point I'd make is that you cannot legitimately transfer the qualities of an institution to its members. Somebody who is part of a discriminatory institution is not necessarily discriminatory themselves - and if you insist on calling an institution 'racist', that does not mean that any individuals in that institution can also be fairly called 'racist'. To take an extreme example, if healthcare professionals are allocated to regions in a way that fails to reflect the intensity of healthcare needs in those regions, the healthcare system could fairly be called discriminatory. If the unjustness of allocation corresponds to some difference in race - eg, areas with more black people have fewer doctors per capita - the system could be called racially discriminatory. The existence of a racially discriminatory system may invite us to wonder whether those responsible for the system may be, or may have been, racist - but there can also be innocent explanations (eg if a minority is found mostly in rural areas, they may be harder to provide coverage to, or if a minority is hostile to the government they may not communicate as openly and so their needs may be underestimated, or if a minority has been relegated to an undesirable area it may be difficult to persuade healthcare professionals to move to those areas).
In any case, whatever the reason for the systemic discrimination, that doesn't make the individuals discriminatory. The doctors in the local clinics may all be passionate about helping people, may all be completely free of bigotry, may even be away of the systemic discrimination and work extra hard to try to compensate for it. These people are not racists - even if you think the system is. [In fact, I think that the more you study institutions, politics, sociology and so forth, the more you come to see that institutions can often be and do all sorts of negative things without ANY of the individuals concerned being to blame, and that no matter how hard individuals work to change the system, sometimes the system does not change, or changes only at extremely slow rates]
So in the case of Martin, I don't believe that the literary industry is racist (because it has no mind of its own to harbour such attitudes), but I could be persuaded that it was racially discriminatory. Doesn't mean I am, mind you - to show that, it's not enough to show the output, you have to compare it to the input. Is it the system that's resulting in an excess of 'white' writing, or is it just reflecting the volume and quantity of the writing people submit to it? And it if is racially discriminatory, to what extent is that just reflecting the tastes of the readership? Publishing, after all, is a commercial activity.
BUT: even if publishing/literature/etc WERE 'racist', that doesn't make Martin racist. The putative 'racism' in Martin is not a matter of the content itself, but of the place of that content within the context of literature as a whole - the worry that too many books have this trope or that, or these characters and not those, and so on. But the individual cannot be held responsible for the statistical distribution of everyone else. Saying that Martin should have avoided this trope or that is like saying that doctors working in over-staffed rich white areas should move to poor black areas. Well if a doctor does that, I can applaud that - but it's also completely legitimate if the doctor says 'but my family are here, this is the town I've always loved, I know nothing about the place you want me to move to, I wouldn't fit in!'. He's not being racist to live in his home town - just as we're not all racists for not moving to Chad, or rural India, or wherever, and devoting our lives to working in leper colonies or eye clinics or the like.
If the health system has too many doctors in one place and not enough elsewhere, it should try to improve itself. Governments may have to step in to try to improve it. Perhaps incentives should be offered to encourage doctors to move, or to recruit more doctors from certain areas. But it's nobody's place to call the individual doctor who lives in his ancestral town a racist, and I don't think it accomplishes much to do so. Nor is the fact of his working in that town, for those patients, racist, nor is his work racist. Just so, Martin is not racist for working in the area of fictionalised European mythic history, nor is his work in that area racist.
[Of course, the irony here is that those calling Martin racist for his alleged 'white saviour' trope are effectively calling for Martin to BE a white saviour. The problem is that there isn't, apparently, enough fiction being written showcasing non-European perspectives, or, if it is being written, it's not being published.... so you want the white anglo-saxon author to nobly step in to fill the breach? It's like a white doctor from Edinburgh moving to Chad because there aren't enough good local doctors - it's the white western 'civilised' 'expert' waltzing in to rescure the poor benighted natives. And of course there are good reasons to want that, because white western civilised experts waltzing in to rescue the poor benighted natives have actually accomplished a hell of a lot of good in the world. But there are also reasons not to want that, because sometimes those people have ended up doing more harm than good. And similarly, I'm skeptical of the idea that a white European-history enthusiast taking it on himself to write the novel-based-on-the-history-of-Kanem-Bornu that nobody else has written (or even just to put a little bit more Kanem-Bornu into his Lancashire) is really going to do more good than harm, and not come off looking like an ignorant outsider writing patronisingly about things he has no feel for. Skeptical, but not dismissive - maybe someone can write that novel, and maybe it'll be a great thing. Certainly I'd welcome fantasy writing that was more diverse - and not just the phony superficial diversity of 'inverting' some skin colours as people here have asked for, but actual diversity of culture to reflect the immense potential of humanity and the immense sociological variety already reflected within human history. But it's not my place to demand that any author do that if they don't think it's what they should be doing - both because I have no right to, and because I should hardly be convinced that him trying to write that book at my behest would be a good thing. It's certainly not anybody's place to call the author or his book 'racist' just because they, like all the other authors and books, aren't the book that a particular reader is looking for. If there aren't enough doctors in Newcastle, that's not because all the doctors in Guildford are bigots. Likewise, if there are too many European fantasies with European heroes, that's (usually) not because those authors are racist.]
Mysterio2,Thank you for your response.
"What do *you* personally do with the negative feelings you experience when you see the group with whom you identify denigrated in media portrayals? Surely such negative feelings must arise, even if only occasionally from the most egregious representations. Do you tell yourself those feelings are just not legitimate? If you do tell yourself this, how do you convince yourself it is true? I have never had much success with getting myself to change the way I feel about things by sheer force of self-directed will."
I honestly do not focus on it that much. It is generally an issue of knowledge (or lack thereof), so I take the opportunities that present themselves in daily life to correct/educate others as appropriate (friends, people on fora, etc.).
When it pops up in a work of fiction, what can I do? Write to the author? Write to the publisher? Sometimes I talk about it with friends/family in order to clarify my own thought process and refine it (especially if my interlocutors push back!).
Other than that, it pushes me to action, as it clearly does you, and inspires me to create art to bring another point of view into the public forum. But generally, I attempt to let rationality prevail -- there is no point in getting angry at a book that has already been published without channeling that anger to constructive ends.
Mysterio2 wrote: "Katie wrote: "As for the question that "if skin color doesn't matter than why isn't Dany colored and the Dothraki white?"...if skin color doesn't matter than it doesn't matter that she IS white...or is the solution to racism just reversing it's direction?"When discussion of race comes up in mixed company, it is not uncommon to see some utopian expression along the lines of "I don't even see skin color when I look at people! Martin Luther King, content of their character, argle bargle!"
I have never heard someone who was not white say something like this. I wonder why. Maybe there's something about non-white people that causes them to be irrationally preoccupied with matters of race? Nah, it'd be stereotyping to think such a thing."
I guess I wasn't being clear. I was definitely not trying to claim that I don't see color, just trying to point out that for us to have truly 'made it' to that 'color-blindness' we'd have to be blind to whiteness as well.
I may be white but should that exclude me from this discussion and should the only argument against those who don't see Martin's work as racist be "well you don't get it, you're white"? Should I have to bring up the pervasive sexism and rape culture in our society that I experience as a woman to try to earn the right to participate in the discussion? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your tone but it felt a little snarky at the end and got under my skin a bit.
To sum up my viewpoint I do not think the text points to Martin being racist and I don't see Dany of the books as being a white savior, but it does sound like the show used imagery that is problematic (haven't seen the episode so can't really speak to the specific scene.)
Wastrel wrote: "On the question of institutionalised -isms, I would make two points.The first is that what people call 'racism' in a person and what people call 'racism' in an institution are two totally differe..."
Fantastic points.
Isn't Dany really 'from' the East anyway? Argument ends.
Bargain wrote: "Isn't Dany really 'from' the East anyway? Argument ends."GRRM has commented that she's from the setting's equivalent of Atlantis. One could still argue that that evokes things like the White Savior trope, though it seems to me that kind of ignores that such an argument extends "white" to include mythological civilizations and beings.
The characters who are from cultures that are nominally "white" in the real world sense are also amongst those who basically worship her, so I think the racist arguments (as regards that character) are missing the point. She's white the way Peter Pan, Luke Skywalker or Narnia's White Witch are white....
Gary wrote: "Bargain wrote: "Isn't Dany really 'from' the East anyway? Argument ends."GRRM has commented that she's from the setting's equivalent of Atlantis. One could still argue that that evokes things li..."
Cheers.
It's all rather silly white and black are opposites in the mystical sense. They cancel each other out. White people are not white and black people are not black. Both are lazy terms that have nothing to do with mythical tropes in my opinion. Sometime people read too much into where filming is located and extras that are used as a result. Essos seems about as 'civilised' as Westeros to me anyway. Both have their good and bad characters.
Perhaps northerners should be offended because the evil is coming from the north. Perhaps all white people should get angry because the white walkers come to obliterate everything. I mean the list of contrary points is pretty long...
Sigh.
Bargain wrote: "It's all rather silly"Ugh, Racefail 2009, redux.
Firstname wrote: "Bargain wrote: "It's all rather silly"Ugh, Racefail 2009, redux."
Haha.
Bargain wrote: "Gary wrote: "Bargain wrote: "Isn't Dany really 'from' the East anyway? Argument ends."GRRM has commented that she's from the setting's equivalent of Atlantis. One could still argue that that evo..."
Damn, that was one of most cringe-inducing posts I've read recently.
Kevin wrote: "Damn, that was one of most cringe-inducing posts I've read recently. Ahh, but don't you see, enforcing the white male perspective at all times is funny.
Bargain wrote: "Haha."
'Those people' should get over the idea that what they think matters. Hilarious.
There is no such thing as a white male perspective. There are only a multiplicity of views. Simplifying it into race is prejudice.
Firstname wrote: "Kevin wrote: "Damn, that was one of most cringe-inducing posts I've read recently. Ahh, but don't you see, enforcing the white male perspective at all times is funny.
Bargain wrote: "Haha."
'T..."
What do you mean those people? People are individuals. Race is a myth.
Much ado about nothing. Some people could find racism in a bowl of cereal. Here's the simple solution: don't like the books? Don't read them!
Hudson wrote: "Much ado about nothing. Some people could find racism in a bowl of cereal. Here's the simple solution: don't like the books? Don't read them!"Here's an even simpler solution: don't like discussion threads? Don't click discussion links!
"We in the writing profession Have a technical term for people who believe that the authors believe everything their characters believe. We call them 'idiots'." -- Larry Niven(Not pointing at anyone in particular in this thread, but some of the comments, well ...)
Clyde wrote: ""We in the writing profession Have a technical term for people who believe that the authors believe everything their characters believe. We call them 'idiots'." -- Larry Niven(Not pointing at any..."
Thank you! Absolutely true. If authors only ever wrote characters who believed the same things they did, books would be very boring indeed.
Hudson wrote: "Much ado about nothing. Some people could find racism in a bowl of cereal. Here's the simple solution: don't like the books? Don't read them!"There's a vast, chasm-y difference between not liking a book and liking a book but recognizing its weak points or problematic themes. That's what reviews and discussion threads are for. If everyone was just a blind fanboy/girl there wouldn't be a point to this *discussion* group.
Bargain wrote: "What do you mean those people? People are individuals. Race is a myth."No, race is a social construct, and one that many individuals believe in. When those beliefs are common enough that it affects how other individuals of different races are treated or, in this case, portrayed in fiction, it's called "racism."
Clyde wrote: ""We in the writing profession Have a technical term for people who believe that the authors believe everything their characters believe. We call them 'idiots'." -- Larry Niven
(Not pointing at any..."
That would be an excellent point if anyone here were criticizing Martin for having characters express racist views. But we aren't. The issue is how Martin chooses to portray different races irrespective of character POV.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Bargain wrote: "What do you mean those people? People are individuals. Race is a myth."No, race is a social construct, and one that many individuals believe in. When those beliefs are common enou..."
Thanks Sean. You're just fleshing out what I'm saying. So not really a no. Myth, belief, social construct: all terms denoting the same basic thing. To say there is a white, male perspective is to generalise by gender and race. In other words it is partly racist.
To me Martin's story is about the outsiders/oppressed being the source of revolution, of victory: the dwarf, the bastard and the woman. I might be wrong, but that's the sense I get from the narrative drive. Essos is full of different races and colours, some of them more civilised than the west. I just don't buy the simplification that it is racist.
I mean Star Wars was racist because Darth Vader was black, but then Storm Troopers were white, Darth Sidious was white and the entire Empire was filled with white extras. If anything the rebellion was filled with more races than the Empire. The good guys were mixed. Things like this can only be deemed racist if all (and there are many) exceptions are ignored.
That would be an excellent point if anyone here were criticizing Martin for having characters express racist views. But we aren't. The issue is how Martin chooses to portray different races irrespective of character POV.But no compelling description of how his portrayal is problematic has been presented.
Baelor wrote: "That would be an excellent point if anyone here were criticizing Martin for having characters express racist views. But we aren't. The issue is how Martin chooses to portray different races irrespe..."http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php...
Bargain wrote: "Thanks Sean. You're just fleshing out what I'm saying. So not really a no. Myth, belief, social construct: all terms denoting the same basic thing. To say there is a white, male perspective is to generalise by gender and race. In other words it is partly racist. "And to say there's not is ignoring reality. In an ideal world "race" would be indeed a myth and everyone would be indeed judged by their own personality and achievements, not by their origin. But wanting it to be like that or just saying it is, doesn't magically make it so. Race *is* a real thing, because people believe it to be real thing. People act according to it, structure their lives and society according to it. That is fact. That is basic sociology.
Claiming that race isn't real because you don't believe it should be is saying that religion isn't real because you don't believe in God.
Bargain wrote: "I mean Star Wars was racist because Darth Vader was black, but then Storm Troopers were white, Darth Sidious was white and the entire Empire was filled with white extras. If anything the rebellion ..."I don't see anyone here claiming any of that.
Bargain wrote: "Things like this can only be deemed racist if all (and there are many) exceptions are ignored. "
This however is false. It is perfectly possible for something to be perfectly not racist except for that one issue where it is.
KevinB wrote: "Baelor wrote: "That would be an excellent point if anyone here were criticizing Martin for having characters express racist views. But we aren't. The issue is how Martin chooses to portray differen..."I want to make sure I understand your point. Please pick one of the two following options, or express your position in your own words, succinctly, in a way that makes clear how your position differs from the following two:
1) It is generally impermissible for an author to have a white character liberate/save/etc. non-whites in any way that leads to that character being viewed as a figure of liberation/salvation/etc.
2) Martin's portrayal of a white character saving non-whites was incidentally problematic because [insert reason].
KevinB wrote: "Bargain wrote: "I mean Star Wars was racist because Darth Vader was black, but then Storm Troopers were white, Darth Sidious was white and the entire Empire was filled with white extras. If anythin..."Kevin, I disagree with you in regards to Martin. White Walkers are shown to be evil. Is this a racist comment on whites? To isolate parts from a whole is to cherry pick.
The Star Wars argument has been made before and is a cherry picked view, much like this and Martin.
KevinB wrote: "Bargain wrote: "Thanks Sean. You're just fleshing out what I'm saying. So not really a no. Myth, belief, social construct: all terms denoting the same basic thing. To say there is a white, male per..."And again no. Imagining race does not make it real. It may have real impacts but this does not prove it exists. That was a terrible use of the metaphor regarding religion and god. Claiming race does not exist does not imply racism doesn't exist. Just as claiming god does not exist (a futile claim) does not mean religion is unreal.
Bargain wrote: "And again no. Imagining race does not make it real. It may have real impacts but this does not prove it exists."And those real world manifestations are called...?
I'll give you a hint -- it starts with an "r" and ends with "ism".
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Bargain wrote: "And again no. Imagining race does not make it real. It may have real impacts but this does not prove it exists."And those real world manifestations are called...?
I'll give you a..."
I'm trying to work what you think I disagree with you about. Racism exists. Race does not. Pretty simple. Racism is the product of dim minds, the simple scapegoating of those that cannot take responsibility.
Basically, if you the post you quoted in an undefensive manner you'd soon notice I said racism is a reality based on an unreality.
Bargain wrote: "I'm trying to work what you think I disagree with you about. Racism exists. Race does not."Exactly right. The anti racism message has been watered down today to mean that hating other races or discriminating other races is wrong - while ignoring the underlying core of racism which is the belief that race is a real thing - ie the idea that Caucasian, Mongol, Negroid, Asian etc are more than superficial differences of culture and skin pigmentation but rather denote different orders of human being with some humans being more evolved than other humans. One can happily go along believing such nonsense provided one does not hate or discriminate against other people.
That's why this accusation annoys me a little because it is so far removed from the real issue and in fact reinforces stereotyping. Now GRRM may very well be racist - I don't know. And his writing may be partly at least a product of racism - again I don't know. But the idea that I must make certain association in his book based on skin colour is certainly racist. Why should I associate brown people people in his books with brown people today? If I truly believe colour is rather insignificant then there is no good reason for me to make that association. The association between brown people in GRRM's books and brown people today is only reasonable if you subscribe to the premise that skin colour is significant and denotes Race. But such an association is at it's core racist - and categorizing all those associations into their respective literary tropes is itself an exercise in stereotyping and is rather unhelpful in combating racism because it reinforces the core philosophical underpinnings of racism.
Bargain wrote: "I'm trying to work what you think I disagree with you about. Racism exists. Race does not. Pretty simple.Race has no objective reality, you are correct, but that does not mean race doesn't exist. If society divides people into class [A] and class [B] and treats those in the latter group with less privilege, then that distinction is real whether it's based upon a quantifiable trait or some arbitrary assignment. You cannot say, "Well, the distinction between [A] and [B] is made up, therefore [A]s really aren't privileged."
Racism is the product of dim minds, the simple scapegoating of those that cannot take responsibility."
No, you're trying to portray racism as the view of individuals while denying the aggregate effect. If you are a white person in our society, you get privileges that are not afforded to other races, even if you yourself have never had a single racist thought.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Race has no objective reality, you are correct, but that does not mean race doesn't exist. "It actually does. If race has no objective reality then that means it does not exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for race - but that it is a biological/genetic fact that all humans belong to the same race - all cultures. If society chooses to believe otherwise, it does not for that reason cease to be an objective fact. That's what objective reality means.
Sean O'Hara wrote: " If society divides people into class [A] and class [B] and treats those in the latter group with less privilege, then that distinction is real whether it's based upon a quantifiable trait or some arbitrary assignment. "
This is a rather poor and unnecessarily complicated analogy/description of racism. If the distinction between A and B is objectively real then it is real regardless of whether you assign different privileges to one group or not. Simply assuming one group of people is biologically different to another group of people provides an underlying warrant for treating both groups differently regardless of whether or not you actually treat those groups of people differently. ie It is possible to feel superior to another group of people while "graciously" affording them the same rights and privileges as yourself. It's still false and it's still racism at heart.
Also if instead of dividing [A] and [B] into "race" we say Class [A] represents law abiding citizens while Class [B] represents convicted pedophiles - is there then a problem with assigning less privilege to class [B] than Class [A]? I don't think so. Why then would it be any different if we make [A] white people and [B] black people unless we first acknowledge that the distinction is objectively false in the first instance?
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Bargain wrote: "I'm trying to work what you think I disagree with you about. Racism exists. Race does not. Pretty simple.Race has no objective reality, you are correct, but that does not mean rac..."
The idea of race exists. That is real. I'm not sure I ever said otherwise. And I'm not and never did downplay and cultural or aggregate impact. Racism clearly has a huge impact on the structure of all societies.
I'm guessing you think I'm a privileged white male. Would that be prejudice?
Hey let's watch white people pretend racism doesn't exist...just as they have for 600 years.
@Firstname:Stahp troll. Please provide the relevant quotations from white individuals on this thread who deny the existence of racism.
David Sven wrote: "It actually does. If race has no objective reality then that means it does not exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for race - but that it is a biological/genetic fact that all humans belong to the same race - all cultures. If society chooses to believe otherwise, it does not for that reason cease to be an objective fact. That's what objective reality means."Reach into your wallet and take out a dollar bill. Look at it. It's a scrap of paper with some pictures on it. It has no objective value. And yet because society agrees that the numbers printed at the corners represent a value, we can trade that scrap of paper for goods and services. If people stop believing, it just becomes a worthless scrap of paper, as happened in the Confederacy towards the end of the Civil War, and Germany in the 1920s and Zimbabwe over the last decade.
But by your logic the value of money can't exist because it has no objective reality.
This is a rather poor and unnecessarily complicated analogy/description of racism. If the distinction between A and B is objectively real then it is real regardless of whether you assign different privileges to one group or not. Simply assuming one group of people is biologically different to another group of people provides an underlying warrant for treating both groups differently regardless of whether or not you actually treat those groups of people differently. ie It is possible to feel superior to another group of people while "graciously" affording them the same rights and privileges as yourself. It's still false and it's still racism at heart.
You're missing the point. Even if membership in [A] and [B] is assigned completely at random, the fact that [A] is treated differently from [B] makes the groups real. Likewise, while race has no basis in objective reality, the fact that people considered white have privileges that others don't means that white people have a different experience of the world than everyone else.
@SeanBut by your logic the value of money can't exist because it has no objective reality.
The analogy falls apart because of the power of belief. Belief in the value of money actually creates an objective reality because the value of money is, as you say, completely dependent on belief. The same holds true for definitions, which have no meaning outside of semantic identities established by speakers.
Racism is different. The belief that there is a scientific and empirical difference between individuals of different "races" does not mean that those scientific differences exist. It simply creates very real social categories of race, which is something different entirely.
The analogy fails because in the case of race, there is a belief in something that can be proven wrong scientifically.
Similar reasoning applies to the groups A and B. You are simply erecting straw men because you are not actually representing David's argument, but rather a perversion of it.
Likewise, while race has no basis in objective reality, the fact that people considered white have privileges that others don't means that white people have a different experience of the world than everyone else.
Has anyone denied this?
Sean O'Hara wrote: "the fact that people considered white have privileges that others don't means that white people have a different experience of the world than everyone else."Which is fine, in and of itself, the problem arises when they insist theirs is the only valid experience.
Sean O'Hara wrote: " Likewise, while race has no basis in objective reality, the fact that people considered white have privileges that others don't means that white people have a different experience of the world than everyone else. "Of course not - because though race has no basis in objective reality it is still entrenched in Western thinking that race is an objective reality - that white people are more evolved than black people. So there are a lot of people who do in fact believe race is based in objective reality - and those that don't believe so at an intellectual level still seem to not be able to help but engage in language that reinforces and perpetuates the idea - even while seeming to combat racism. I believe this thread is an example of just that.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "If people stop believing, it just becomes a worthless scrap of paper, as happened in the Confederacy towards the end of the Civil War, and Germany in the 1920s and Zimbabwe over the last decade."
Yes. And if people stop believing that race is real? What justification then is left for racism or even the othering of different cultures?
But your comparison of the money system to race and racism as you have used it fails for the reasons Baelor articulated (a lot better than I could have)
The idea of money is not predicated on the belief that the paper it represents has intrinsic value comparable to what it represents. While it is often the case that the idea of racism is predicated on the belief that Race is a genetic/biological reality.
But we can still use the analogy to observe what happens to money when you start treating it as though it does in fact have intrinsic value. We have real life examples happening in governments all over the world of exactly that. For example The US can't pay it's bills. It is short of money. Solution - print more money. Now that's treating money as though it had intrinsic value even while simultaneously still knowing that it does not. Or maybe they don't know. It's all going to end in tears either way I think.
Anyway - my point was to distinguish between race(an objective falsehood) and the idea of race(racism - and very real) - which I believe you are blurring. By doing so you are able to attack manifestations (very real) of racism (like discrimination and hate) while ignoring the heart of racism - ie that some races are superior to other races at a core biological/genetic level ie more evolved.
Firstname wrote: "Hey let's watch white people pretend racism doesn't exist...just as they have for 600 years."Not exactly my thoughts but I admit I couldn't help this idea from crossing my mind while reading last 2-3 pages of this discussion either. No offense to anyone participating but it is suprising to see the intellectual lengths some fellow commenters have gone just not to admit obvious textbook racial and cultural clichés in G.R.R.Martin's works. I mean you guys don't need to take it so personally. Nobody is accusing you. Liking Martin does not make you a racist or something. I am "Essosi" and I like him too.
Actually, we "oriental"s developed thick skins for this kind of situations. We're pretty much used to it. Seeing your people as terrorists, barbarians and bad guys in movies for decades make you pretty numb to that. But it doesn't mean that we are supposed to deny to notice it's existence either.
Just look at works of R.E.Howard, H.P.Lovecraft, C.S.Lewis, J.R.R.Tolkien(I can put thousand more names here including Shakespeare or Byron). These are my most favourite authors but it doesn't mean I will deny to see the orientalism and sometimes racism in their works. I just acknowledge the bias and move on. In that regard, Martin is just lightweight next to these guys.
Only thing that I am curious about is, how come a true literary intellectual like Martin failed to recognize those old and tired "Noble Savage", "Great White Saviour" Rich Degenarete Slaver Brown People" stereotypes? He is after all famous for reversing all tropes of the genre, turning them upside down, inside out. But when it comes to orientalism, he played it straight. I wished he adressed that issue at an interview or something.
Anyway, not a big deal...
P.S. If anyone feel offended, I apologize in advance. Just as G.R.R.Martin, I meant well :)
He is reversing them in a sense. Did Dany not make things worse? The traditional trope would just march on through.I'm also inclined to believe that the most 'civilised' people come from the east in regards to the whole story.
I get why people see the things they see. I just think abstraction leads to omissions. Looking at the big picture allows this debate because there are contradictory threads within the narrative. So, in my mind, this discussion is more than just denial because the white saviour motif can be seen quite obviously. I'm not sure separating it from the white menace is fair, however. It's not like the majority of the white characters are better than the non-white ones. Anyways, there's been loads of great posts and I thank you for it. Mostly, pretty civil.
Firstname wrote: "Hey let's watch white people pretend racism doesn't exist...just as they have for 600 years."Rasnac wrote: "Not exactly my thoughts but I admit I couldn't help this idea from crossing my mind while reading last 2-3 pages of this discussion either. No offense to anyone participating but it is surprising to see the intellectual lengths some fellow commenters have gone just not to admit obvious textbook racial and cultural clichés in G.R.R.Martin's works...."
Very close to my thoughts. Long, detailed explanations of why people who apply race-based critical approaches to social/cultural content are mistaken/misguided, why things that seem racist to some people really aren't, why the very concept of racism per se is misguided, etc., almost invariably come from white people in my experience.
It is extremely instructive, in an ironic sort of way, that the very people who make such arguments/assertions apparently cannot see how highly their views are correlated with their cultural/racial identity (note that my use of the singular case here is intentional).
Mysterio2 wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Hey let's watch white people pretend racism doesn't exist...just as they have for 600 years."Rasnac wrote: "Not exactly my thoughts but I admit I couldn't help this idea from cr..."
Well put. It also speaks to how tightly their self-worth as a group is invested in never acknowledging some very simple truths about history.
I've never understood how people who feel so proud about telling other people to "get over it" have never managed to do so themselves.
Rasnac wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Hey let's watch white people pretend racism doesn't exist...just as they have for 600 years."Not exactly my thoughts but I admit I couldn't help this idea from crossing my mind..."
Here's the truly weird part. If the responses were "Yeah, he does that, most Western writers do that to some degree because it is part of our shared culture as Westerners" there would be no debate, no hurt feelings, no flaming, no nothing. All it takes is getting to acceptance, rather than stagnating at denial, anger, bargaining, and depression.
Firstname wrote: Here's the truly weird part. If the responses were "Yeah, he does that, most Western writers do that to some degree because it is part of our shared culture as Westerners" there would be no debate, no hurt feelings, no flaming, no nothing. All it takes is getting to acceptance, rather than stagnating at denial, anger, bargaining, and depression.Agree 100%. As a black American man, I recognize some ways in which our common culture disadvantages me personally, but also some ways in which it has advantaged me personally.
The culture we have is the culture we have, one big sea we all swim in that affects us all in different ways based on where we stand in it.
It seems to me that if we could just accept this as the 'duh' truth it is, we wouldn't spend so much time and in nonsensical disputes like this. But then, if it were as simple as that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, I guess.
Firstname wrote: '...Well put. It also speaks to how tightly their self-worth as a group is invested in never acknowledging some very simple truths about history. 'I've never understood how people who feel so proud about telling other people to "get over it" have never managed to do so themselves....'
Thank you. Very astute comment.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
My Name Is Asher Lev (other topics)The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (other topics)
Writing the Other (other topics)
I see. You may be right. There is certainly an argument to be made that if we have any rights at all, the right to feel the way we feel is among the most fundamental, irrespective of whether those feelings might be judged to be legitimate by a disinterested, rational observer aware of all relevant facts.
So it may be the case that people can be said to have rights to feel 'illegitimate feelings' in a certain sense.
But then, we'd have to go into an exploration of what legitimizes a sentiment, or whether the issue of legitimacy/illegitimacy is even relevant with respect to purely subjective things like feelings.
It may be the case that, being purely subjective, there is no way to make objective judgments about the legitimacy of feelings. Even the 'rational observer, aware of all relevant facts' criterion has the taste of being at most broadly intersubjective.
So it may be the case that
'One has the right to assert that 2+2=5, even though it is not legitimate to do so'
is a true statement, and
'One has a right to feel angry, even though his feeling is illegitimate' is false, or is non-cognitive with no truth value (depending on one's theory of truth).
I don't know about this question at all. I'm going to have to think about it. So let's set it aside.
What do *you* personally do with the negative feelings you experience when you see the group with whom you identify denigrated in media portrayals? Surely such negative feelings must arise, even if only occasionally from the most egregious representations. Do you tell yourself those feelings are just not legitimate? If you do tell yourself this, how do you convince yourself it is true? I have never had much success with getting myself to change the way I feel about things by sheer force of self-directed will.
I would want an actual definition of institutional/cultural racism. My tentative answer is yes, but I do not want to agree that something exists when I am not yet completely sure of what we are discussing. Do you mean institutional discrimination? Common views among populations? etc.
Well, it's admittedly a rather nebulous topic. There are clearly empirical studies showing more or less conclusively that systematic, concrete discrimination exists in broad cultural ways, e.g., the old white/black switcheroo employment test, large-data studies of housing prices, mortgage terms (normalized for education, credit history, etc.) and market 'steering', crime sentencing patterns, etc.
But then there less empirically characterizable, experiential things like the greater likelihood of being followed by security guards in stores, driving while black, etc., many of which may not be accessible to those who don't experience them personally, but which, to those who experience them, provide quite convincing evidence that they are not regarded equally by others in the culture.