^^ 
"I wondered whether, in a majority white population, white readers prefer to read books by white writers (people more or less like them), regardless of subject matter. "
That is just silly, alh. Not every decision people make is based on race. How would I even know what color a book author was unless I made a special effort to find out? I resent the entire premise that because my skin is white, i “vet” people based on their whiteness.
I just saw the new Ron Howard Beatles movie on Hulu and Whoopi Goldberg was one of the people interviewed about “where you were when you first heard the Beatles.” She was a big fan and said - they were colorless. In the context that she used it, it was clear that she means this in the sense - it mattered not that she was black and they were white, they were united by the enjoyment of great music.
Can’t THAT be what we strive for, versus the silly and stupid picking-artists-to-enjoy by quota and background?
How about we all just be PERSONS instead of representatives of our own particular set of demographics? I am not a “half Catholic half Jewish person of German, Irish, Polish and Latvian ancestry who is cis female and heterosexual and a mother of twins and is from the east coast but has lived in the Midwest for 30 years now.” I am me. A person. And all of you are the same. You are people. With your own unique stories and perspectives. Not appointed representatives of anything.
I thought Lionel Shriver’s speech (the middle link) was excellent and well-articulated. She’s spot-on with the fenced “look but don’t touch” and she’s also spot-on that you can’t tell majority writers that they aren’t "allowed"to write about characters from other backgrounds and then simultaneously ding then for not having enough diversity in their writing. She’s also spot-on that this kind of preciousness is what leads to the backlash that leads to DJT.
I guess I’ll just go find some other silly folks to hang with today.
I didn’t call you silly. I said the notion that we either do or should pick the authors we read (music we listen to, etc) by race is silly.
“is a complicated question but I think it is possible to unethically appropriate a narrative. Should parents tell the story of their children or does that narrative belong to the child? Of course, parents have the right, but is it sometimes an abuse of power?”
Lionel Shriver was speaking specifically of fiction writing. She made a character in one of her book Armenian-American and got called to task by someone of Armenian descent for that!
“I don’t disagree with her walking out of the lecture. That is free speech. The speaker was deliberately provocative. The audience gets to decide how to respond. They don’t “owe” it to her to be polite.”
Of course she had every right to walk out. I thought it was amusing how she decreed the audience “compliant.” No, sweetie, maybe they either actually agreed with the speaker of their own volition, or maybe they didn’t but they desired to hear out a different POV. But that’s ok, pat pat condescension, you’re the only one who truly is Awake and everyone else is just a compliant sheep.
@alh,
We are gong to be grandparents soon.
Congrats to both of you
It occurs to me - someone who identifies as genderfluid or genderqueer can “borrow” from elements of traditionally male or female culture and that’s cool. I just read some great article where a mother in NC took her genderfluid son to Justice and the store clerks were totally cool in helping him try on skirts, dresses, sparkly things, etc. So one would argue that we are not “bound” by our own biology - that the presence of XY chromosomes did not preclude this young boy from experimenting with sparkles, and girls don’t “own” sparkles. (This is all totally cool with me.)
Yet when it comes to other personal identities it seems the rules change, and the powers that be have decreed that biology and DNA are destiny. Can’t wear dreadlocks unless you are fully African descent. Can’t put on a geisha-inspired robe unless you are Japanese. Can’t wear a sombrero unless you grew up speaking Spanish. Etc.
Why the differing standards? I dislike lack of consistency.
It also strikes me that it’s great and creative that:
A) the female Cate Blanchett portrayed Bob Dylan in a film a few years back (and I think got nominated for an Academy Award) and
B) people from diverse backgrounds are playing the white Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, etc on Broadway (and winning awards as well).
Make no mistake. If you subscribe to the SJW ideology and belief that “you can only try on your own hat,” as articulated by the woman in alh’s third link - that you can only creatively portray “your own kind” - then you simply cannot be in support of artistic endeavors like those I’ve stated above.
For clarity, what is the ideology of SJWs?
In response to the lack of consistency when it comes to people’s identities, I believe it differs due to the history of exploitation, abuse, and discrimination that some have faced. A little short on time right now, but for many people it comes from a place of fear and the desire to protect something of their culture and identity that holds value. I understand the feeling. Whether certain actions that come from the feeling is appropriate is something else.
The discussion about greater acceptance of White American/European authors as authorities on non-Western cultures/histories reminds me of some controversy surrounding a “trade” book I read when I was just out of undergrad.
It was Diana Preston’s “trade”* book “Boxer Rebellion: The Dramatic Story of China’s War on Foreigners that Shook the World in the Summer of 1900”.
From reading it was basically a repackaged rehash of accounts told almost completely from the dominant Western colonialist perspective while minimizing or even ignoring discussing the Chinese perspectives or Westerners…including a few missionaries who cited the high-handed attitudes of many Westerners against the indigenous Chinese population which played a critical part in sparking the rebellion.
The fact Preston studied history as an undergrad at Oxford made this doubly disappointing as her book failed to cover many critical factors and details that someone of her educational background and publisher resources should have found with a smidgen of research.
Ironically, UCSD Professor Joseph S. Esherick’s book “The Origins of the Boxer Uprising” which was published more than a decade before Preston’s book did cover both perspectives along with connecting the dots of the factors and reasons which sparked the uprising.
After reading both books, I was glad I borrowed Esherick’s book from the local library and that I received the Preston book as a free gift from a roommate who thought it was a definitive account of the Boxer Rebellion(HA!).
These examples also show why there’s some wariness about writers from the dominant majority discussing non-Western cultures/historical events…especially considering trade books like Preston’s tend to be ones which dominate the popular memories/discussions rather than more substantive ones like Prof. Esherick’s.
And from reading both, this wariness is unfortunate for Prof. Esherick as he did put in the effort to learn the language, understanding the Chinese culture/society in some depth, and do the in-depth research required to cover such a monumentous history which affected both the Chinese and Western societies and how it colored perceptions and interactions between them afterwards.
- A term used by academics to denote a non-fiction book written to cater to the mass market which provides a limited shallow introduction rather than one for serious scholars/students genuinely interested in learning more in depth about a given topic.
So some ‘white’ authors write good books and China, and some write lousy ones?
Some ‘white’ authors write good books about western topics, and some write Iousy ones.
Some Chinese authors write good books about China, and some write Iousy ones.
Some Chinese authors write good books about western topics, and some write Iousy ones.
Better to judge the book itself.
While that’s great, that doesn’t work so well when there is a systemic tendency within many areas of our society to give those from the dominant majority far greater preference and a greater benefit of the doubt when their works fall short than would be the case with folks who aren’t from the dominant majority. This affects many areas of our society including mass media industries.
One stark case of this is how many movie/tv executives/casting directors have had a long history of preferring White actors even for non-Western roles and casting of non-White actors in an extremely limited number of roles…including many of a stereotypical nature.
This continues to recent times as far too many movies/TV shows such as the TV series “Girls” portray NYC as being far less diverse than it is in real life. And that’s only one example among many many others.
Some of the best books on China are written are written by the ‘dominant majority’, if you can call the Dutch dominant:
^ ^
Seems like Frank Dikötter attracted serious criticism for “Patient Zero” and “Narcotic Culture” as the following critique by another historian Kathleen L. Lodwick who reviewed those works:
Seems like his issue is not limited to being a “bad writer”, but also arguing against the voluminous documentary records available that the British, European, and American* opium traders weren’t responsible for the burgeoning social and economic problems of China from their efforts to effectively dump an exponentially greater amount of opium in China than had been the case before.
Especially considering when British opium traders were confronted by resistance from some Chinese officials for their drug pushing efforts in the 1830’s, the British started a war complete with soldiers and Naval warships to effectively force China to stop resisting their efforts to dump vast quantities of opium in China at gunpoint.
- Part of the fortunes of many multi-generational wealthy Americans such as the Forbes and Roosevelts were built on the Opium "trade":
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/5-elite-families-fortunes-opium-trade
It is normal for books to be criticized by other academics. If you think that makes him a bad writer, you don’t know much about academia.
Also, note I referred to his book ‘Mao’s Great Famine’, and you come up with a critique of another book. And a critique written by seemingly another ‘dominant majority’ affiliate. What’s more, Kathleen Lodwick writes about missionaries and the opium trade, so she may have her own angle to push.
Maybe you can suggest a book on China by a Chinese author which has been acclaimed by all other historians as unimpeachably correct and totally lacking in bibliographic errors?
“This continues to recent times as far too many movies/TV shows such as the TV series “Girls” portray NYC as being far less diverse than it is in real life”
The point made by Ms Shriver was that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that people are wrong to try to write fictional characters of backgrounds they don’t personally share, and then say the same people are wrong for not portraying sufficient diversity in their work.
“So some ‘white’ authors write good books and China, and some write lousy ones?
Some ‘white’ authors write good books about western topics, and some write Iousy ones. (etc).”
Perhaps to forestall this problem, we should make sure that only people of Asian descent ever study Asian studies. For that matter, what are Caucasians doing learning Mandarin or Japanese? For shame.
There are so many ignorant people in this thread…
Also, can we not pit different ethnic minority groups against each other? LAME
In my experience, the opposite seems to be the case. If you are black and wear dreadlocks, you are seen as unprofessional and possibly dangerous. Whereas if you are white and wear dreadlocks, people think you are cool and edgy. Obviously the people who hold these opinions are not SJWs. But most people I encounter do not care about cultural appropriation, and I run in very liberal circles.