Unintentional Prejudice in Fiction

[Nerds_feather]

Speaking as a (much-faded) redhead....

While I wouldn't say that having (naturally) red hair in the UK has, or has had, the same disadvantages** as having, say, dark skin, it is something that's the result of one's DNA and so cannot be helped. And yet at the same time as attacks*** on red-haired people were being seen as nothing to worry about (by people whose hair wasn't red, naturally), the previous government was trying to say that believers should be protected in the same way as ethnic minorities. (Of course, people should never be attacked for what they believe, any more than they should for being who they are, but ideas should never be protected from criticism.)

.

I think the major difference I see between, say, prejudice against red-headed and prejudice against, say, blacks, is that red-headedness often doesn't pass from one generation to another (even if two red-heads have children together). So it never quite has the same "groupist" dynamic. But otherwise it sounds like it can get pretty awful over there.

As far as religious-based prejudice goes, well, it can be nearly the same as racism or ethnocentrism--where one ascribes an "essence" to all members of a faith or sect and then uses the assumption of that "essence" as a rationale for treating individuals from that faith or sect poorly. Or it can be quite different. Unfortunately, there are some people who use "I'm just criticizing the idea" as cover for the blanket prejudice thing. This is why I think the smell test is often necessary--it's a bit more complicated in this case than with straight-up racism, but I think it's often quite clear.

That said, of course I believe in the legal right of people to say whatever they want--including hateful speech (short of that which explicitly incites violence). I find it abhorrent, but I see a degree of abhorrent opinion-making as a necessary evil in an open society. (In private settings, there's no such guarantee of protection.)

 

[Ursa major]

I think the major difference I see between, say, prejudice against red-headed and prejudice against, say, blacks, is that red-headedness often doesn't pass from one generation to another (even if two red-heads have children together). So it never quite has the same "groupist" dynamic. But otherwise it sounds like it can get pretty awful over there.

Third generation (at least ). But the key thing, to me, is that individual instances of discrimination shouldn't be tolerated, whoever ever the victim is and whoever the perpetrator is. And the nature and scale of the individual act of discrimination (which could be against a whole group) should be a factor in determining what's done about it.

Unfortunately, there are some people who use "I'm just criticizing the idea" as cover for the blanket prejudice thing. This is why I think the smell test is often necessary--it's a bit more complicated in this case than with straight-up racism, but I think it's often quite clear.

Sadly, this is a two-way street, where those disagreeing only with a religious tenet or activity can be accused of attacking the believers of such tenets and activities. Changing the law with the effect of bolstering the latter at the expense of the former was not, and is not, the way to go, IMHO.

That said, of course I believe in the legal right of people to say whatever they want--including hateful speech (short of that which explicitly incites violence). I find it abhorrent, but I see a degree of abhorrent opinion-making as a necessary evil in an open society. (In private settings, there's no such guarantee of protection.)

I'm fine with that, only the changes to the law were moving the UK away from that position. (I think that it's no coincidence that the Prime Minister of the time appears to have believed that he was doing God's work, at least in some policy areas.)

 

[Nerds_feather]

This is a musing, rather than my actual opinion: is 'straight white man' more likely to not find anything offensive because there rarely is anything prejudiced written about 'straight white man'?

I hear lots of stuff about women that I find offensive. Sometimes I can't be arsed with it, sometimes I get wound up by it.

That's an important point. Straight white male is the default category. If no information is forthcoming about a character, it's the assumed category. Obviously not the case in, say, Indonesia, but in the West it absolutely is.

It's the default category because straight white males sit in the dominant position in all Western countries. To use the dreaded term, straight white males enjoy privileges that others don't, and sit in a privileged position in our societies--including the privilege not to have to think about these things, because we are least affected by them. Scalzi put it well a couple years back in this piece.

But when people do say offensive things about straight white males, straight white males tend to react the same way anyone else does--by taking offense. See, for example: the way people have reacted to Requires Hate, when she deliberately said offensive things about straight white males and then made it explicitly about those group identities.

I think, in the end, any kind of "groupism," which treats individuals as vessels for some ascribed values of the group, is problematic. In fiction, I think it's also often lazy. And unintentional. I think most people employ stereotypes because it sort of makes things easy--or they do so without even thinking about it, as these are things we sometimes pick up from the ether without even being all that aware that we have.

So I'd say: be reflective and aim for sophistication. This is different from "walking on eggshells so as not to offend anyone." You just do your best to create the most complex characters you can, and get the opinions of others to help you do so. But I'll wager a lot of people don't. So if we do, we're a leg up

 

[Nerds_feather]

Third generation (at least. ) But the key thing, to me, is that individual instances of discrimination shouldn't be tolerated, whoever ever the victim is and whoever the perpetrator is. And the nature and scale of the individual act of discrimination (which could be against a whole group) should be a factor in determining what's done about it.

Completely agree.

Sadly, this is a two-way street, where those disagreeing only with a religious tenet or activity can be accused of attacking the believers of such tenets and activities. Changing the law with the effect of bolstering the latter at the expense of the former was not, and is not, the way to go, IMHO.

I guess this side of the street isn't really an issue here, as US law is quite militant on both free speech and where its limits sit--much more than in the UK or France, from what I gather. An "anti-blasphemy" law could never be passed here for constitutional reasons, but neither could anything that restricts the free practice of religion outside the boundaries of what's enumerated in the constitution and codified by USSC rulings. (We also don't have "incitement" laws like in the UK.)

But I think if we move outside the confines of law and into discourse, then yes, we do have both sides of the two-way street.

 

[Mirannan]

Nerds_feather - You're quite right about sub-Saharan blacks. Something that some people (dare I say particularly leftists?) seem to forget is that there is a great variety in racial physical characteristics, language and culture among peoples who are often lumped together as blacks. The relatively recent problems in Rwanda are proof of that. It's also true of Zulus and Xhosa (and various other tribes all-too-often lumped together as Bantu) who see each other as highly distinct - and hate each others' guts.

Zulus are a distinct race. So are Scandinavians.

Incidentally, a somewhat more interesting example might be sub-Saharan blacks and Australian aborigines. Superficially, they are quite similar in appearance - but are separated by 40,000 years or so of separate development and there are quite a lot of other differences such as blood group and likelihood of sickle-cell trait. Their similar skin colour is no doubt a consequence of similar climate. South Indians, although they look generally Caucasian in facial features (for example) are just about as black as Africans and no doubt for the same reason.

The whole subject of human races is highly complex. Stating either that race is a social construct or that it's entirely genetic - and associated with a scale of fitness - are both overly simplistic.

One last thing. Many African blacks are highly contemptuous of American ones. The prevalent victim culture among the latter has something to do with that, no doubt.

Chris Rock - Black People VS. Niggaz (Bring the Pain 1996) - YouTube

 

[Nerds_feather]

Mirannan,

I'd reply, but at this point the fallout has gotten too much (and too depressing) to handle. This thread was meant to be an opportunity to have a civil and mutually respectful conversation about issues that are of major importance. The Chrons seems like a unique place to have that conversation, because it's one of the rare places in fandom that values civility and insists upon it from all its members. I think most of the exchanges did, in fact, reflect that.

So thanks to you and everyone else who took this to heart, and decided to contribute. There was actually some great discussion here. Maybe we can try it again some time in the not-too-near future.

 

[Kissmequick]

And so we conclude

a person is not just their culture

or their race

or skin colour

or their experience

or how they dress even

they are mix of every influence they have ever been exposed to, plus their own personality

We are all a mix of everything.

As long as we include that when we write, and recognise it in our characters...ie we develop our characters properly.. then we should be gold, right

So, er, write people well. as real peoples, empathise* with who they are and what the deal with you should be fine. And we should be doing that anyway so it's not a chore, right?

*empathy -- the ability to see another person's POV is a writer's greatest asset. Without it you can never write a sympathetic person who is different from you. Without that, you're just playing with words, or writing yourself into a story..

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

And I am going to close this thread, until further notice.