|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Not everybody knows, uses, or assumes the shorthand stereotype. To put this in another light. The word "queer" originally meant weird or odd, then it became a polite euphimism for homosexual, then an offensive slur for the same. Then in recent decades there has been a movement to "take back" the term, both to return it to it's original usage, and more prominently as a proud label for certain members of the LGBTQ+ community. Today, there are so many new terms and coined slang, depending on who you're talking to, and who's using the word, you're likely to have no idea what it means. It could be positive, negative, or neutral. Context matters.
In the same way, someone may use the big nosed greedy guy as a character, with no negative connotations beyond the greed of the singular character. It is the context that indicates meaning or intent.
Just to be a bit preemptive, I am a homosexual. Not that that should in any way matter. I think it's a bunk argument that people try to own words and ideas. But since that kind of thinking flies with too many people, especially on the internet, "queer" is one of my words.
I make that last statement with deepest contempt and sarcasm. If you don't care, I really don't either. But, if you want to try and come after me as a homophobe or somehow privileged, then there's my minority/victim flag/shield. And, I still don't care.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: To establish the connection in the first place, they needed to make it explicit. Once the connection has been made, the explicit labels can be dropped. As it became less socially acceptable to make the propaganda explicit, it was easy enough to rely on the established stereotype without the explicit labels and not only would the people targeted know what was meant, but there was plausible deniability.
It becomes a shorthand. Show the big nosed merchant and the audience fills in the stereotype for themselves. So, why use it, if you don't want to rely on the shorthand?
Not that I’m agreeing with Sysryke, but, this is incredibly wrong.
If it isn’t acceptable to show the full thing, only the shorthand- which if the shorthand was the full thing, wouldn’t be racist since there is nothing linking it to anybody- then the simple fact of the matter is, new generations of humans aren’t going to actually know that the shorthand is racist, since they’ve never seen the full thing, and thus WON’T link the shorthand as a racist depiction of a certain group, since it doesn’t have the clear connections of the full thing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Reksew_Trebla wrote: thejeff wrote: To establish the connection in the first place, they needed to make it explicit. Once the connection has been made, the explicit labels can be dropped. As it became less socially acceptable to make the propaganda explicit, it was easy enough to rely on the established stereotype without the explicit labels and not only would the people targeted know what was meant, but there was plausible deniability.
It becomes a shorthand. Show the big nosed merchant and the audience fills in the stereotype for themselves. So, why use it, if you don't want to rely on the shorthand?
Not that I’m agreeing with Sysryke, but, this is incredibly wrong.
If it isn’t acceptable to show the full thing, only the shorthand- which if the shorthand was the full thing, wouldn’t be racist since there is nothing linking it to anybody- then the simple fact of the matter is, new generations of humans aren’t going to actually know that the shorthand is racist, since they’ve never seen the full thing, and thus WON’T link the shorthand as a racist depiction of a certain group, since it doesn’t have the clear connections of the full thing. It's entirely possible for one person to not know and for others contemporary to the first to be offended or even threatened by it. See: dressing up in blackface, or idiots in Nazi regalia.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Reksew_Trebla wrote: thejeff wrote: To establish the connection in the first place, they needed to make it explicit. Once the connection has been made, the explicit labels can be dropped. As it became less socially acceptable to make the propaganda explicit, it was easy enough to rely on the established stereotype without the explicit labels and not only would the people targeted know what was meant, but there was plausible deniability.
It becomes a shorthand. Show the big nosed merchant and the audience fills in the stereotype for themselves. So, why use it, if you don't want to rely on the shorthand?
Not that I’m agreeing with Sysryke, but, this is incredibly wrong.
If it isn’t acceptable to show the full thing, only the shorthand- which if the shorthand was the full thing, wouldn’t be racist since there is nothing linking it to anybody- then the simple fact of the matter is, new generations of humans aren’t going to actually know that the shorthand is racist, since they’ve never seen the full thing, and thus WON’T link the shorthand as a racist depiction of a certain group, since it doesn’t have the clear connections of the full thing. Sure, if no one ever actually makes the connection explicit. If no one reads the histories. If the racists don't pass it along to each other. If some of them don't use it openly. If the targets of the racism don't pass it along to themselves as a warning.
Sure, eventually it goes away. Everyone forgets and it loses its power. But that's a long term process and in the meantime, the dog whistles work.
avr wrote: It's entirely possible for one person to not know and for others contemporary to the first to be offended or even threatened by it. See: dressing up in blackface, or idiots in Nazi regalia. That's the idiots who dress up in Nazi regalia for Halloween parties or cosplay, right? As opposed to the idiots who dress up in Nazi regalia for protest marches.
Reksew_Trebla wrote: thejeff wrote: To establish the connection in the first place, they needed to make it explicit. Once the connection has been made, the explicit labels can be dropped. As it became less socially acceptable to make the propaganda explicit, it was easy enough to rely on the established stereotype without the explicit labels and not only would the people targeted know what was meant, but there was plausible deniability.
It becomes a shorthand. Show the big nosed merchant and the audience fills in the stereotype for themselves. So, why use it, if you don't want to rely on the shorthand?
Not that I’m agreeing with Sysryke, but, this is incredibly wrong.
If it isn’t acceptable to show the full thing, only the shorthand- which if the shorthand was the full thing, wouldn’t be racist since there is nothing linking it to anybody- then the simple fact of the matter is, new generations of humans aren’t going to actually know that the shorthand is racist, since they’ve never seen the full thing, and thus WON’T link the shorthand as a racist depiction of a certain group, since it doesn’t have the clear connections of the full thing. We don't have to agree, but on your statement at least, we do. Once again, you are someone who can more clearly state, with fewer words, the point I try to convey. Cheers! Feel free to disagree with me any(or every)where else.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Reksew_Trebla wrote: thejeff wrote: To establish the connection in the first place, they needed to make it explicit. Once the connection has been made, the explicit labels can be dropped. As it became less socially acceptable to make the propaganda explicit, it was easy enough to rely on the established stereotype without the explicit labels and not only would the people targeted know what was meant, but there was plausible deniability.
It becomes a shorthand. Show the big nosed merchant and the audience fills in the stereotype for themselves. So, why use it, if you don't want to rely on the shorthand?
Not that I’m agreeing with Sysryke, but, this is incredibly wrong.
If it isn’t acceptable to show the full thing, only the shorthand- which if the shorthand was the full thing, wouldn’t be racist since there is nothing linking it to anybody- then the simple fact of the matter is, new generations of humans aren’t going to actually know that the shorthand is racist, since they’ve never seen the full thing, and thus WON’T link the shorthand as a racist depiction of a certain group, since it doesn’t have the clear connections of the full thing. Sure, if no one ever actually makes the connection explicit. If no one reads the histories. If the racists don't pass it along to each other. If some of them don't use it openly. If the targets of the racism don't pass it along to themselves as a warning.
Sure, eventually it goes away. Everyone forgets and it loses its power. But that's a long term process and in the meantime, the dog whistles work.
If you blow the dog whistles every time though, regardless of context, then how is anyone supposed to ever forget?
I would argue, that if we are supposed to learn from history, that we should never forget. However, we can change, we can adapt, and we can transmute. Take what was bad, break it down, and make something good from the pieces. Take those things that were good and became corrupted, cleanse them in the light of education and fellowship, and make them good again. Are all caricatures racist/prejudiced? It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but for those who do appreciate its abstract or comedic forms, caricature is an art form, and it predates the racist corruptions that were applied with it. Save art, save language, save discourse, save humanity.
Racism is a spoiled screaming child. You know it's there, but the best way to handle it is ignore it until it loses its breath. However, if the child starts breaking things or trying to hurt someone, then it's time to paddle that little hell raiser (or time out, depending on your generation). . . . . . Huh, that metaphor works for the barking dog too.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
avr wrote:
It's entirely possible for one person to not know and for others contemporary to the first to be offended or even threatened by it. See: dressing up in blackface, or idiots in Nazi regalia.
Hypothetical: Prefacing this with acknowledging that I'm not super familiar with this Shakespearean piece, but it's the first literary example that came to mind.
You have a school where the entire student body is white, or maybe even a mix of ethnicities, but no black students. There are schools where this is true, that's just demographics of different regions. Let's place the school somewhere in Europe, so we can avoid the whole racism in the U.S. derail.
The English/Drama/Theater department is putting on a play, and this year's performance is "Othello". It's pretty well known, and I think significant to the story (??), that Othello is black, specifically a Moor, and most, if not all, of the rest of the cast is not. In this circumstance, where the visual distinction of race is an integral part of the play. Is it racist, or even wrong, for the leading male actor to be done up in stage make up to make him appear dark?
There's no implied/intended racism. The students and faculty aren't declaring that one ethnicity has greater value than another. No black student was passed over for the part. Rather, you have a bunch of students and educators working to study and share a piece of classic theater. Should this not be allowed? Or can literally no ethnic group ever participate and share in the stories, culture, and art of anybody but those who's skin tone matches their own?
I am NOT saying black face performance is always okay. Nor that many black face performances and/or performers were not racist. Once again, the point is that context matters.
Sysryke wrote: avr wrote:
It's entirely possible for one person to not know and for others contemporary to the first to be offended or even threatened by it. See: dressing up in blackface, or idiots in Nazi regalia.
Hypothetical: Prefacing this with acknowledging that I'm not super familiar with this Shakespearean piece, but it's the first literary example that came to mind.
You have a school where the entire student body is white, or maybe even a mix of ethnicities, but no black students. There are schools where this is true, that's just demographics of different regions. Let's place the school somewhere in Europe, so we can avoid the whole racism in the U.S. derail.
The English/Drama/Theater department is putting on a play, and this year's performance is "Othello". It's pretty well known, and I think significant to the story (??), that Othello is black, specifically a Moor, and most, if not all, of the rest of the cast is not. In this circumstance, where the visual distinction of race is an integral part of the play. Is it racist, or even wrong, for the leading male actor to be done up in stage make up to make him appear dark?
There's no implied/intended racism. The students and faculty aren't declaring that one ethnicity has greater value than another. No black student was passed over for the part. Rather, you have a bunch of students and educators working to study and share a piece of classic theater. Should this not be allowed? Or can literally no ethnic group ever participate and share in the stories, culture, and art of anybody but those who's skin tone matches their own?
I am NOT saying black face performance is always okay. Nor that many black face performances and/or performers were not racist. Once again, the point is that context matters. Well, things can become offensive long after the fact. Israel has not been receptive to performances of Wagner in that country. Even playing his music on the radio has created controversy. This seems silly to me but I'm not part of that group. My family wasn't wiped out in the Holocaust. I have no idea what my sensibilities would be if it had been.
A lot of interesting points and valid threads of logic. Unfortunately, none of this has anything to do with the original subject matter and seems to be in violation of forum guidelines.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quixote wrote: A lot of interesting points and valid threads of logic. Unfortunately, none of this has anything to do with the original subject matter and seems to be in violation of forum guidelines. Obviously here at the Thread Necromancer's Guild we support the supernatural extension of life of all threads... along with all living being via Necromancy.
But dear dark gods, we're willing to make an exception here. Anyone know an overzealous paladin?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thread Necromancers' Guild wrote: Anyone know an overzealous paladin? Isn't this a pleonasm?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Agénor wrote: Thread Necromancers' Guild wrote: Anyone know an overzealous paladin? Isn't this a pleonasm? Ooh, new vocab word for the day. Thanks for that.
Sysryke wrote: Agénor wrote: Thread Necromancers' Guild wrote: Anyone know an overzealous paladin? Isn't this a pleonasm? Ooh, new vocab word for the day. Thanks for that. Seconding that!
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The bar for categorizing something as racist should be rather high for a number of reasons.
1) For a deep overview I recommend Behave by Robert Saplosky, but in America and most regions of Europe the term is a very harsh judgement. Harsh enough that it is fundamentally a hostile act. The book provides some background, but our behavior is heavily influenced by the hormones released by any hostile act. Put a different way if you want less violence (yes) reducing those types of stressors is key.
2) All of the scenarios being described are using qualitative data. Without a lot of diligence qualitative data quickly degrades into read whatever you want into it territory.
3) The examples under consideration so far have been heavily Eurocentric types of racism, I don't claim to be remotely an expert on it's global consequences, but it is widespread and the characters that have negative associations are culturally specific and widely varied. In short it is a huge moving target, with the likelihood that negative traits in situation may well be positives in others. Alternatively the number of potential negative traits gets very large, large enough that if your standard for evidence is only 1 or 2 traits for a stereotype you become increasingly more likely to stumble into something if the bar is low.
4) For some level of comparison a high percentage of posts in the thread could be criticized as having a couple of hallmarks of anti-science reasoning and propaganda. I certainly don't think that is consciously true of any significant number of posters, but that is kind of the point lobbing that into the discussion is problematic. If your curious The War on Science by Shawn Otto is a solid starting point, but there are a lot of relevant dimensions a single book could never cover.
5) To be transparent while point 4 is undoubtedly true, it also nicely mimics the rhetorical structure of the "why don't you go educate yourself on...." posts. There is absolutely a place for putting that responsibility onto individuals, but it needs to be strongly counterbalanced by an expectation of what can one person reasonably be expected to keep track of. For some perspective in my work I have to be prepared for upwards of 100 different languages that may be spoken, and the varied cultural sensitivities that go with it. During my career even the more common minority languages have continually shifted around. This understates the cultural diversity as the widespread nature of English and Spanish ignores key differences between people from different regions.
Restating my original thesis, it is critical to have a reasonably high bar before attaching the word racist to anything, or you raising the temperature of the discussion at best. At worst those pesky stress hormones have a tendency to amplify violence, and other counter productive behaviors.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Davor Firetusk wrote: The bar for categorizing something as racist should be rather high for a number of reasons.
1) For a deep overview I recommend Behave by Robert Saplosky, but in America and most regions of Europe the term is a very harsh judgement. Harsh enough that it is fundamentally a hostile act. The book provides some background, but our behavior is heavily influenced by the hormones released by any hostile act. Put a different way if you want less violence (yes) reducing those types of stressors is key.
Restating my original thesis, it is critical to have a reasonably high bar before attaching the word racist to anything, or you raising the temperature of the discussion at best. At worst those pesky stress hormones have a tendency to amplify violence, and other counter productive behaviors.
If we need a high bar for discussing racism, then we need another term to talk about the subtler forms or stuff that otherwise doesn't clear that bar, because there's a lot far below wearing white hats and burning crosses that's still quite damaging.
That might actually be a good idea. I tend to think of racism as a scale rather than just a binary, but if different terminology makes it easier to deal with productively, that would be good.
Just not talking about it isn't an answer though.
This is just off the cuff, but what about terms like disenfranchisement and alienation or even the milder off putting? That doesn't cover everything, but there are other words that can more specifically define what is bad about an action. By breaking it apart I think it is easier to identify cause and effect and craft solutions. As it relates to tropes and stereotypes to keep it somewhat on topic framing the discussion around something like alienation is a better starting point for determining how to proceed in specific cases.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
To be honest, I'm not inclined to coddle people whose bigotry doesn't yet rise to the level of klan hoods and cross burning. A lot of people who believe some really horrible things get to hide behind "I don't specifically hate [whatever] people" when called on it and that's a problem as far as I see it.
Like sure "racist" might be a really harsh judgement, but I'm more concerned about how "shame" appears to be simply ineffective against a great number of people who believe and are actively engaged in bad things.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
One way for fantasy game worlds to make better ethnic areas that maybe feel less "appropriation" and more appreciation, would be to hire people who actually full understand and are of said ethnic race. People who really know the culture you are putting into your fantasy world. Even if you are only somewhat mimicking, you are taking SOMETHING, from it. Make it feel more authentic. Don't just have a bunch of white dudes writing everything.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Freehold DM wrote: Sysryke wrote: thejeff wrote:
Sure, eventually it goes away. Everyone forgets and it loses its power. But that's a long term process and in the meantime, the dog whistles work.
If you blow the dog whistles every time though, regardless of context, then how is anyone supposed to ever forget? Dog whistles are not meant to be forgotten. They are meant to call a dog quietly without anyone noticing. It isn't about power, it's about reaching out to people who think like you. Exactly. And to be clear, because it's not in Sysryke's response, it's not calling out the subtle racism that's the dog whistle. It's using the shortcuts as signals in the first place. Letting the racists signal to each other and to the groups they're prejudiced against without the masses in the middle realizing. Let's them play the innocent victims when anyone calls them out.
But not calling them out doesn't work either. That just lets them pass.
Aviel wrote: ... Don't just have a bunch of white dudes writing everything. One reason Paizo continues garner my respect.
|
