Is 'A Song of Ice and Fire' racist?

[AndPeggy]

Baelor wrote: Write a book depicting "people like you" then. Stop arguing that authors must or must not do particular things in their particular books in order to satisfy some nebulous checklist to avoid being labeled a "racist." Talk about silencing.

Or I can both write books depicting like me and engage in conversations about other books and stories that I like and how they may or may not employ certain tropes and stereotypes, and hope that in the future artists stop and consider how they can make their worlds more diverse and if the storylines they use might reinforce certain stereotypes or if their minority characters might be cardboard cutouts. In addition, not everyone is a writer or director or casting director. Therefore, while we do not all have the ability to produce certain representations, we can discuss with fellow fans, and let artists know, what we hope to see in media and stories.

I have made no attempts to get GRRM to stop writing or to take up a new storyline for Dany, nor have I suggested his books are stupid and pointless and that people should stop reading them. There has been no silencing in that regard. Which still leaves me wondering why some people seem so devoted to trying to shut down conversations regarding issues such as racism, sexism, ableism and homphobia when they think the conversations are trivial.

What is the problem with silencing, if the topic in question ought to be silenced? You appear to assume that mere interest in a topic validates it as a productive use of time; I challenge that premise vehemently.

People decide for themselves how they wish to use their time. Sometimes they wish to use it discussing books and shows that interest them. You do realize you are registered on a site that is in large part dedicated to discussions of books right? It is presumptive for anyone to set themselves up as the arbiter of what others should and shouldn't discuss. Even if you do not consider it productive, so what? People can decide if they want to spend their time discussing tropes and stereotypes or if they want to discuss how much they despise Littlefinger.

I disagree that they are more nuanced; I would say they receive more character development because of greater authorial attention. Even if they were, that has nothing to do with their race: Martin's protagonists are white. Of course the protagonists have more focus in the book. Again, what is the actual problem here?

I believe I argued that the fact he chooses to focus on the white characters as protagonists and give them greater attention was a deliberate choice. A deliberate choice that is often made in fiction. As a result, we once again get a fantasy world where white-skinned characters have gotten more development of their personalities and world. Had their been a choice to focus more on other groups of people, then what many people are arguing is the White Saviour trope might have been avoided, and the cultures of non-white people in the book might have been more fleshed out. Of course GRRM can choose to focus on whatever characters he wishes and base them on whatever culture he wishes, I do not see anyone contesting that. However, it can be argued that this is a artistic decision that has once again regulated non-white people to the sidelines within the story so far.

[Michele]

But many of the arguments here are using the "He CHOSE to make the brown people slaves and Dany white," statement. As in, he could have made the decadent easterners and their slaves any race or color of the rainbow, therefore by choosing as he did he is fostering racist ideas. Discussions of how he is basing his story on the true history of the War of the Roses get shot down by this - "it's a fantasy, so why didn't he change it?"

Just like the sex scenes have people calling him a dirty old pervert, the images of white Dany saving the brown slaves have people implying that his choice makes him a racist. Or maybe an idiot, if he didn't see what he was doing there.

I think the main problem with this discussion is the definition of racism. Is any situation where a white person helps out people of color racist? I don't think so. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe any picture of Audrey Hepburn or Angelina Jolie surrounded by brown-skinned children as they work to relieve suffering in third world countries is racist. I thought racism meant showing that people of color were inherenly inferior - physically, mentally, genetically lesser than whites.

Are only the darker skinned people being shown overall in a negative manner - inherently stupid, savage, lesser? No. There are plenty of horrible white people doing horrible things. Does Dany consider herself superior only to the darker skinned people? No, she considers herself superior to every people everywhere, but that the slaves are just as deserving of her attention as anyone else. The fact that they live in a climate that has made their skin darker is meaningless to her, she would have freed them no matter what.

[Baelor]

@Denise@Gary:

You seem to want to argue that only racist people are capable of doing racist things or invoking racist tropes. That is not the case. It is not the case in my view or likely the views of those who write articles like the one linked

Since you have not actually defined "racist" or "racism," then it certainly can be the case. The most sensible definition of "racist" to me is "one who does racist things." Until you provide alternate definitions, you have no grounds whatsoever to tell me that my definitions are wrong.


Making such an argument allows people to escape addressing the effect their actions had by arguing that they are not racist, and therefore their actions could not have been such.

Not at all, because Gary and my definitions of "racist" and "racism" may be radically different from yours. You yourself are now confusing your definitions with those of others. Making such an argument would not necessarily allow such an escape, for example if they use the definition of "racist" I mentioned earlier.

[Baelor]

@Denise:

Or I can both write books depicting like me and engage in conversations about other books and stories that I like and how they may or may not employ certain tropes and stereotypes,

Such a course of action would be ill-advised unless you are sufficiently discriminating in your choice of texts. The fact that you think Martin includes problematic content in his work proves that you are not.


and hope that in the future artists stop and consider how they can make their worlds more diverse

A superficially diverse cast may not be the goal of
every author.


and if the storylines they use might reinforce certain stereotypes or if their minority characters might be cardboard cutouts.

1) The fact that a text may reinforce stereotypes among some persons should be irrelevant to the author, who is obviously unable to predict and conceive of every possible reading and interpretation of every element of his text.

2) There is nothing wrong with including characters who happen to be stereotypes or cardboard cutouts.


Which still leaves me wondering why some people seem so devoted to trying to shut down conversations regarding issues such as racism, sexism, ableism and homphobia when they think the conversations are trivial.

No one is arguing that they are always trivial. But you STILL have not defined "racism" or any of the other terms, so your treatment remains inanely superficial.


It is presumptive for anyone to set themselves up as the arbiter of what others should and shouldn't discuss.

I disagree.


Even if you do not consider it productive, so what?

People should use time productively. That is what. Am I in a position to tell other people what to do? Insofar as I am a firm believer in an absolutist morality, yes, as a disciple of that moral system. But I digress indeed.


I believe I argued that the fact he chooses to focus on the white characters as protagonists and give them greater attention was a deliberate choice. A deliberate choice that is often made in fiction.

A choice that is not problematic.


As a result, we once again get a fantasy world where white-skinned characters have gotten more development of their personalities and world.

Again, not a problem.


However, it can be argued that this is a artistic decision that has once again regulated non-white people to the sidelines within the story so far.

Which is not a problem.

[Gary]

Denise wrote: "First, the title of this thread does not relate to the article linked, and the first poster seems to disagree with the premise of the title chosen. The title-choser of this thread asks if the entire series is racist based on the discussion of one particular storyline. Even then, there is still no accusation of GRRM as racist."

Frankly, that's nonsense. The title of the thread is implying that he is a racist just as the entire point of the article was that there is a racist theme going on in the TV show. This whole dodge is really just an attempt not to face the results of a negative answer to that question, because if A Song of Ice and Fire is not racist, and the images in the TV show are not actually messed up then those who raise the objection are alarmists and overly-sensitive to imagery when taken out of context, and are raising the issue for reasons having little or nothing to do with the actual product they are describing.

Making a statement in the form of a question is a time honored rhetorical way of dodging responsibility for making an accusation. Oh, I'm not saying he's gay, I'm just asking if he is gay. I'm not saying he steals from his friends, I'm just wondering if you think he steals. I'm not saying he's a liar, but I wonder about how honest he is....

Most of the people in this thread haven't had the courage of their convictions--and the article the OP referenced was something of a satire, the irony of which seems to have been missed--but this whole "Nobody has said he's a racist, we're just bringing up the argument that he employs racist tropes and stereotypes in his work" is a namby-pamby way of making an accusation while dodging responsibility for it.

In any case, if you really are unaware of the accusation, this discussion is not limited to this thread and this article. There are people chiming in to make the accusation directly all over goodreads, not just implying it. GRRM routinely gets accused of some sort of anti-social behavior on this site and any number of others.

[Firstname]

Gary wrote: "Denise wrote: "First, the title of this thread does not relate to the article linked, and the first poster seems to disagree with the premise of the title chosen. The title-choser of this thread as..."

Actually, I'm with Denise on this one. People who aren't racist can certainly behave in racist ways, or fail to challenge racist behaviors when they see them. I have no problem saying Rudyard Kipling's work is incredibly racist now, but since at the time he was pretty much a liberal (!) in that aspect, I don't think it's fair to call him (the person) a racist.

It's sort of like saying you can't choose not to eat meat while still denying the label "vegetarian". If meat isn't available at all, then you're not making a conscious choice not to eat it, it just isn't there.

[Mysterio2]

Baelor wrote: "Accuracy. Does that not matter to you?"

This will, in all likelihood, be my last post on this thread. Engaging one who focuses *entirely* on narrow, technical issues of *accuracy*, pedantic issues of term definition, etc., while refusing, seemingly willfully, to consider the possibility that his approach might reasonably be seen as intended to obfuscate discussion of larger or more significant questions is tiresome and banal to me.

[David Sven]

Mysterio2 wrote: "Baelor wrote: "Accuracy. Does that not matter to you?"

This will, in all likelihood, be my last post on this thread. Engaging one who focuses *entirely* on narrow, technical issues of *accuracy*, ..."

I don't get it. You are accusing Baelor of asking you to define your position clearly? And in doing so he is muddying the waters? Perhaps he is simply pointing out that the churning waters are already muddy to the point of being unintelligible .

[Firstname]

Mysterio2 wrote: "Baelor wrote: "Accuracy. Does that not matter to you?"

This will, in all likelihood, be my last post on this thread. Engaging one who focuses *entirely* on narrow, technical issues of *accuracy*, ..."

Indeed. Pathology more than philosophy.

[Hesper]

Or casuistry. Take your pick.

[Firstname]

Hesper wrote: "Or casuistry. Take your pick."

I can go with that, too.

[Bargain]

Hi all.

I think I've found an example of what some people would call systemic or institutional racism: test results that have been moderated for socioeconomic status still come out unfavourably for certain minorities in America. The majority of examples of institutional racism are to me the product of individual racism interacting on a large scale. I'm not sure about this one. I'm not sure I would call it racist, however, as it muddies the water. It's certainly got racial outcomes, however.

I still think that perception is the main issue.

I have been trying to engage with this topic to learn more. I am interested in the all the concepts mentioned. I've just been waiting for someone to be specific rather than just claiming racism isn't the product of individuals.

Anyone want to point me to a source? Firstname? Denise? Mysterio? Sean?

I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

[Bargain]

The counter-points I made ARE relevant, but I don't want to discount the rest of the stuff that has been posted here. I believe there is some merit in most of the views presented.

[Baelor]

@Mys.

Engaging one who focuses *entirely* on narrow, technical issues of *accuracy*,

OMG. Too good. This is awesome.

You are correct. Instead, we should focus on making extremely vague statements full of jargon that we refuse to explain or define.

Actually LOLing.


pedantic issues of term definition, etc.,

Do you mean the simple process that any person with any sort of experience whatsoever in legitimate argumentation or reasoning will perform before actually stating an argument? I would hardly call that pedantic. I would call that intellectually responsible. Perhaps you would rather just say whatever you want and have it go unchallenged, though. I guess that is why you should not post here anymore.

Defining terms is both standard and necessary. The internet has certainly made it easier for hoi polloi to pontificate, but that does not mean that ranting should be considered an appropriate substitute for reasoned dialectic. Which, of course, mandates a definition of terms so that obfuscation and dishonesty and equivocation (that means changing the definitions of things in the argument, by the way) are not possible.

I guess it is good to know that none of those things are important to you, though.


while refusing, seemingly willfully, to consider the possibility that his approach might reasonably be seen as intended to obfuscate discussion of larger or more significant questions is tiresome and banal to me.

Perhaps you should go argue with persons who are willing to tolerate flaccidity and disingenuous rhetoric.

I would rather reach actual conclusions on serious issues. We all have our interests.



Also, I am quite amused by the fact that racism has STILL not been defined.

[Bargain]

There are three types it would see, mostly stemming from individual prejudice or perception. Personal, institutional and systemic. I have yet to see a really clear view of these that doesn't in the end tie it all back to the personal. Cultural bias is an issue and can lead to outcomes that may impact on a specific 'racial' group more than another, but I'm struggling with the term racist for it.

No one has really put up a sound argument - here at least - that there is much more to racism than prejudicial views and the relationships created between individuals that lead to the formation of 'cultures'

[H.t.]

I sometimes feel that people overplay the racism card. I am non-white and believe that everybody is inherently racist to a certain point, despite our best intentions and education. This may sound like a blanket statement, but anyone who says they are completely race-blind is lying.
That said, I actually find both the books and the series quite free of racial prejudices. GRRM is a westerner who studied extensively the European medieval period, and therefore I think it isn't strange that he writes from similar perspective in his book.
Summer Islanders are considered well-cultured and good archers, Dothraki are good nomadic fighters and the Ancient Valyrians, who weren't white in the Westerosi sense, were expert builders and great warriors. In fact, what actually did strike me was the almost unrealistically low levels of racism exhibited by the characters themselves. Robert Baratheon never discriminated the exiled Summer Islander (I forget his name) who was basically mooching in his court. The Dothraki are surprisingly tolerant of the Targaryen siblings' skin colour. The Unsullied are all trained and castrated regardless of race. No one really seems to have preconceived ideas based on skin colour, but rather about another's customs, history and relationship with their tribe or kingdom.
So no, I don't think there were any overtly racist elements and it certainly wouldn't have been better if , for example, all Westerosi were Asian, the Dothraki were white, and the slave traders of Astapor were black.

[Clyde]

H.t. wrote: "I sometimes feel that people overplay the racism card. I am non-white and believe that everybody is inherently racist to a certain point, despite our best intentions and education. This may sound l..."

Very good. I second what H.T. said.

[Firstname]

H.t. wrote: "I sometimes feel that people overplay the racism card. I am non-white and believe that everybody is inherently racist to a certain point, despite our best intentions and education. This may sound l..."

I find it interesting that after the caveat that "everyone is racist" you go on to say ASIOAF isn't. Well, if everyone is inherently racist, then GRRM would be, and so would his work, as we all would be with all of our works.

It seems to me you have an inherent conflict in your POV. Which is it, everyone is racist therefore GRRM is, or racism isn't inherent, therefore we get to have the debate?

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

It seemed to me that H.t. was saying that while everyone is, in some way, racist, and thus one could reasonably expect racist themes to have slipped into the series in question, the books actually feature far fewer racist stereotypes than might have been, and display characters who have a far less prejudice approach to skin colour than people of the times which inspired the books.

I don't 100% agree, but I don't see that there is any contradiction here.

[Firstname]

Ruth wrote: "It seemed to me that H.t. was saying that while everyone is, in some way, racist, and thus one could reasonably expect racist themes to have slipped into the series in question, the books actually ..."

It's a counterfactual. "It could have been worse" is not that great a commendation imho. Also, this is an imaginary period in time. Are we really supposed to believe Moors and Arabs didn't exist in the circa 1500's? Because they did. I don't know that anyone's done the definitive treatment of "racial attitudes in the Dark Ages" but I do for a fact know that they were not 100% populated only by Caucasians/Anglo-Saxons.

There is no period in time that I'm aware of where there was only "one kind" of people and therefore everyone respected each other and everything was hunky dory.

[Gary]

Firstname wrote: "There is no period in time that I'm aware of where there was only "one kind" of people and therefore everyone respected each other and everything was hunky dory."

I've never been to "Burning Man" but I'm told that's what it's like.

[Michal]

I don't know that anyone's done the definitive treatment of "racial attitudes in the Dark Ages"

There are some great articles in this issue of The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmems/to...