Limyaael

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
11:05 pm: Writing fantasy about oppression
All right then.

Frankly, this rant was difficult to write. Part of it is simply that I’m afraid I’ll leave something important out. The other part is that I’m white, middle-class, and American, and so I’m approaching a lot of this in theory, not in the experience of living with it. Given the time period I live in, I don’t even have to deal with some things that would have been de rigeur for an American white, middle-class woman a few decades ago. So, if you see something in the rant you think is biased, ill-chosen, wrongly-worded, or offensive, please correct me. The nice thing about using an LJ post as a format for this rant is that I can clearly show the correction of mistakes by strikeouts.



1) Remember that people believe in this. This might seem like a really stupid thing to lead off with, but I’m thinking of the idea that some evil politician characters in fantasy don’t “really” believe the rhetoric they may use to gain power; they’re just using it as a front for their true goals of money, world domination, or revenge. Thus bigotry is sometimes treated as not real at all, because who would believe that shit, right?

Except that cheapens the exploration of oppression in fantasy. Oppressors in our own world have not solely consisted of cynical liars using the tools at hand to get what they want and the gullible fools who believe them. (See points 2 and 3). There have been many quite intelligent people who believed quite sincerely that people of a different class, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, or sexual orientation were inferior. They may have questioned certain specific beliefs—for example, many British scientists in the nineteenth century sought for a “natural” reason to believe that other races were inferior to whites, rather than relying on Biblical ideas—but that doesn’t make them free from bigotry. And in a fantasy world with a considerably different set of mores and values than our own, especially one based on alternative history, identical attitudes to twenty-first-century Western ones are going to be the exception, not the rule. (At least, I hope they are. I’m a bit sick of reading worlds that are different and people that are not, as if everyone in that fantasyland were adopted).

To write from inside the head of a person who believes like this is often disgusting, frustrating, and exhausting. It can also seem like an endorsement of the attitudes involved, which is a nightmare for many authors. Yet setting up differentials of power in your fantasy world and then insisting that no one really believes in the rhetoric that supports them is a cheat.

And, by the way, lack of true belief in a certain variety of bigotry is really not an excuse. (See points 4 and 5).

2) People in the oppressor class can have positive/”positive” traits existing side-by-side with the negative ones. All right, so there are people in your fantasy world who are sincere racists, or sexists, or whatever. Then the temptation comes along to dismiss them all as the stupid ones, the working-class people (hi, subtle form of classism on the author’s part), or the uneducated.

Which. Uh. Not really. After all, the British Empire, an enormous colonizing power, depended on the soldiers, but it also depended on the functionaries and bureaucrats, who were often middle-class and used to comforts and education. They had the traits that could, apparently, have carried them into egalitarianism. And yet most of them didn’t get there. Why? They tended to grow up in a culture that hardly encouraged it. As they grew more educated, they just invented new reasons to keep believing what they always had—thus the scientists in the first example—elaborated the old ones, or believed that their new technology and knowledge confirmed that, yes, British white males were the absolute center of the universe, because otherwise they wouldn’t deserve the blessings they had. Such closed-loop thinking is one of the reasons that power differentials can persist at all.

As for why people who believed otherwise tolerated it…well, consider people you may have known who believed something that drove you absolutely crazy. My father tends to be highly racist while insisting he’s not, to the point of believing that intelligence differentials exist between African-Americans and Caucasians. My brother is highly homophobic. My sister drove me nuts for a while by believing sincerely in the Rapture. That lessens my respect for them, but, on the other hand, declaring, “Get thee behind me,” is not an option. Characters who do want to change things in a fantasy novel, just like real people, can have ties of affection, blood, and duty to others who have beliefs that drive them crazy. That’s an extra level of verisimilitude there that I think is lacking when, somehow, the revolutionaries have (self)-righteously snapped ties with everyone who disagrees with them. The snapping of ties can also easily lead the revolutionaries towards caricaturing and dehumanizing their opponents, which are not attractive traits in heroes any more than they are in villains.

And it makes the story more difficult and complicated. And, in the case of writing about oppression, I think every level of added complication is probably necessary, to come somewhere close to representing the reality—even the reality in a different world.

3) Internalization happens, too. Someone who lives day and night with messages telling her that she’s inferior because of her gender can start believing those messages, not because she has some internal weakness, but because they’re so constant, and voices telling her otherwise are muted, not as common, or nonexistent in her personal sphere. To take a limited example, British women who did have an idea that they should be equal to men were often treated as if they were crazy before the nineteenth century, and even during it. The situation was worse if they were writers, because of the belief that writing put a woman out into public view—like a prostitute—and thus imperiled her chastity. Virginia Woolf, in A Room of One’s Own, quotes Dorothy Osborne, herself a letter-writer, on the subject of another woman’s book: “Sure the poore woman is a little distracted, shee could never be soe ridiculous else as to venture at writeing book’s and in verse too, if I should not sleep this fortnight I should not come to that” (62).

Likewise, people of another race living in a society of whites receive constant signals about their own inferiority, and it’s incredibly hard to resist that, to come out of it without self-doubt, or sometimes self-hatred. Else, why the need to begin a “Black is Beautiful” campaign, if dark skin was all along considered just as beautiful as pale skin? It can be worked against, but it’s so subtle and so pervasive that it can be hard to know when one is expressing an attitude of one’s own and when one is expressing something picked up from the dominant culture.

Bilingual American children and adults who receive the label of “dumb” because of an accent in their English may not think themselves dumb, but they will have native English-speakers speaking to them slowly and loudly under the impression that language is somehow linked to intelligence, and that impression persists into writing. (How many times has poor spelling or word use convinced you that the person who wrote what confronted you was not very smart? And yet, there’s no particular reason that intelligence or coherency of ideas should be correlated with written language skills). Such behavior naturally wears, and it’s a constant worry whether strangers will judge them by what comes out of their mouths.

Breakaways take an enormous amount of psychic work precisely because of such influence, everywhere. (See point 6). And in a fantasy society that’s relatively large, as empires will be, the same thing should happen. Characters reared outside the oppressive structure’s influence might be relatively free, but that doesn’t mean they can just march in and change things; there will be internal barriers among the people they want to help, too.

4) Institutionalized power is still power. Perhaps your protagonist in your fantasy novel truly believes all people should be equal. She speaks it, thinks it, writes pamphlets about it, dreams it. She goes into the working-class slums and encourages them to fight for their rights against the aristocratic class she was born into.

And yet, she never undertakes the chore of providing for herself, she’d be lost without the servants who know just how to tie her dress and braid her hair, and somehow her vision of working-class people fighting for their rights has never extended to what will happen if they do and suddenly the aristocrats are reaping what they’ve sown. She’s never had to live any other way. Meanwhile, in daily life, she makes constant small judgments about the intelligence, character, and morality of the people she passes in the street who aren’t as nicely dressed as she is, or who serve the cakes and tea at the dinner parties and charity balls she attends. Somehow they are less “real” to her, less “people,” than the ones she talks to at the meetings.

This character is not consciously being a hypocrite, but she’s still benefiting from the class structure she claims to want to tear down. Thus, she’s still wielding power she would not have if she were as working-class as she likes to think. She’s still classist in a way supported by, and which supports, the institutions of the society she lives in.

This is the same thing I referred to in the rant on gender-equal societies when I talked about noticing the small ways that your characters of different genders may not be equal, like insults and proverbs. The character can say and believe one thing all she likes. Her actions may say something quite different. And since so many of the characters in fantasy are (that world’s equivalent of) aristocrats or at least the upper gentry, this is a contradiction that needs to be taken into account if you’re going to write about oppression.

Does that apply to our own world? Of course—probably moreso, given capitalism and consumerism specifically, and how powerful institutions are in general. Individual members of the white race in the U.S. may have quite crappy lives, but they enjoy advantages, and lacks of disadvantages, that members of minorities do not. (For an example I think is especially important, see point 5). Cries of “reverse racism” tend to be a crock specifically because of this. As a race, American Caucasians do not suffer from oppression the same way. Besides, claims that they do tend to be aimed at rhetoric and actions that make them uncomfortable—like evidence of institutionalized racism. That does not mean those actions and that rhetoric are in and of themselves right; it’s simply stupid to claim that the discomfort of whites in general is equal to the suffering of others in general.

So, if your protagonist or viewpoint character is supposed to be a member of the dominant group but not involved in the oppression in any way, shape, or form, there are some snarls to work out.

5) Members of the oppressor class often have the luxury of being judged as individuals; members of minorities often do not. Thus, someone white called Bernard can be perpetually late to appointments and gain an individual reputation as lazy, but that does not generally lead the person expecting him to think, “All white people are lazy.” Instead, Bernard is the lazy one. Whereas, if someone African-American is late to an appointment, there is a stronger chance that the (white) person expecting him will decide that all African-Americans are lazy.

This leads to a very specific problem in fantasy novels: tokenism. Thus the writer includes a character of a different race, ethnicity, species, religion, sexual orientation, or what-have-you, but instead of being portrayed as an individual, that character gets heaped on them all the responsibility of standing in for their group. The single character of the outsider religion becomes All Members of That Outsider Religion, not herself. The single elf becomes Typical Elf. The bisexual character becomes The Author’s Views on Bisexuality, Right Here. This is especially bad in terms of race; since fantasy tends to be, still, a genre with both a lot of white authors and a lot of white characters, the number of non-white characters remains small, and when one does appear, they carry a freight that they would not if there were more of them. To a certain extent, the same thing happens with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered characters re: heteronormativity.

What can be done? Well, for one thing, increase the number. That helps lessen the freight. There’s no reason, in a fantasy world where there are large nations of dark-skinned people, that the reader should only ever see one person with dark skin.

For another, have that “difference” be an element of a character, not the whole thing. Are white characters defined by their whiteness, or heterosexual characters by the fact that they have heterosexual sex, or men by their penises? Not most of the time. (They have the luxury of conforming to the “normal” type). Yet for some reason, it’s often A Law that a gay character must be a ball of angst that goes directly back to the fact that he sleeps with other men. He can angst about other things. Really. Even more, he can be frequently bored, charming to random people he meets at dinner parties, have a love of betting on racehorses, be distinctly unenthusiastic about taking over his father’s business, and have a male lover. You know. Ordinary things. (This is another place where the common tendency to exaggerate a character’s emotions and personality traits in fantasy is fatal to nuanced characterization. People who do not go through only cataclysms and intense victories are better-suited to avoid tokenism. *waves ordinary characters banner*).

For a third, question the automatic tendency to set the story among those “normal” characters. Does it have to be true that your female protagonist sleeps with men only instead of both men and women, or women only? (There’s a distinct lack of lesbians in fantasy, still, even as gay male characters become more popular). In a world that does not share Earth’s history, must all the dominant nations be white? Or human, for that matter? Or practice a suspiciously Christian religion? Are the only interesting stories to be found among people who never have to work? (Hint: no). Does your protagonist only have to speak one language, or might she “code-switch” between one language at home and another outside it because her parents are immigrants? Changing the assumptions will, it is true, create new problems for you, especially because then the temptation to tokenize is there where it might not have been before, and maybe some stories have to be written with the “normal” characteristics intact, but I think it much better to ask the questions than never ask them.

For the fourth and fifth things that can be done, see points 9 and 10.

6) The influence of oppression is not confined to one corner of the culture. This is especially true if you have a society with advanced technology and communication systems. Unless the people spouting such beliefs are truly a fringe group—in which case, they’re not the majority and are unlikely to have much power, though they could take it—then the consequences, messages, and themes that support the power structures will be constant and easily available. They’ll be in literature, gossip, mass communication if it exists, nonfiction like conduct books and letters, behavior, gestures, proverbs, snap judgments, the arrangement of cities, transmitted history, music, art, and so on.

It’s not a conspiracy theory (and I think it loses something when it’s portrayed that way, as if one could solve every problem just by eliminating a small group of people). Oppression and its means of support evolved over time—which is why point 8 is so important—and they grew in mind after mind, the same way that religion grows. Some people will be more conscious of them than others. Some people will fight them more than others. Some people will reject certain parts of the belief structure utterly; others will accept them. But there should be no way to escape by just not reading certain books or talking to certain people, because, again, that cheapens the idea of oppression.

Writing characters who figure out the falsity of their own received beliefs, are appalled, and start struggling against them is fun! Because it’s complicated. Certainly more complicated than writing plaster saints who never let such an idea enter their heads.

7) Oppressions can be multiple. Thus the concept of “double jeopardy,” where, say, an Asian-American woman is oppressed by not just racism or sexism, but both. If she is a lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered as well, she may go through “triple jeopardy,” because heterosexism than joins the other two.

In a society that acknowledges concepts such as religion, race, ethnicity, linguistic difference, sex, sexual orientation, and so on, having just one system existing to oppress certain people while everything else is equal is silly. Why wouldn’t someone who is both a member of a despised race and a member of a despised religion have problems from both, instead of just one? She might feel one more than the other, say if she identified herself more with her religion than her race, but she wouldn’t cease to suffer the effects of racism because of that.

Now you put all these multiple oppressions into play at once in a created world.

Now it is a whole lot more complicated, and you’ve got a whole lot of balls to keep in the air.

But having multiple structures of oppression and exploring the effects of all of them is much more complex than just one. Just one can make a point, but it will not be as complex as two fully elaborated structures. Of course, maybe you’ve decided to banish a certain set of power differentials from your world altogether (in the world I’m writing right now, no one cares what gender you sleep with, but humans sleeping with members of other species nauseates two of my human viewpoint characters and a good number of other humans), but if they’re there, deal with them.

8) Know the history of ideas, institutions, and groups in your world, so you can decide what the oppression is like and how it arose. Say you have a racial minority in a country far from their point of origin. Did the minority arrive in that country as part of a wave of religious refugees? Were they forcibly brought there as slaves? Were they voluntary immigrants? What was their reputation as a racial group before they arrived? How long have they been there? How many are they? Do they/did they have a different language? What are the majority and minority’s attitudes towards interracial marriage, children, contact, schooling, church attendance, meetings on the road? How different is their culture, and what ideas have they retained in the new country, and what did they not? How strident is the fulmination against them in the minds of the majority? What was the most recent violent contact? Are there intelligent enemy minds peering at the country, and deciding to use the split in races as a neat little point of “divide and conquer”?

Alternate history may give you a baseline idea for this, if you’re following a particular country’s history, or dealing with a situation that closely parallels an Earth-specific one. That doesn’t mean you can get away with not thinking about it, and deciding how the differences in your timeline/otherworld affect events like this.

Building a fantasy society from the ground up and including ideas and history like this is an even bigger challenge. That’s because it deals with how people think, and I firmly believe that portraying how people in another world think is the greatest challenge that fantasy worldbuilding has to confront. Perhaps it will wind up paralleling an Earth-specific situation, too, but it has no particular reason to do so.

So. Get to thinking.

9) Be prepared to question yourself. Writing about a subject like this is fraught with tension. (Gee, you think?) You can do research; that’s always something to be encouraged, I think, if only for the stray fact that may become a key detail of a created world or character. But for a white First World author, or even someone who has lived through oppression and is facing it head-on now in a fictional context, writing fantasy with this kind of theme brings him or her face to face with his or her own thoughts on race, ethnicity, religion, class, gender, and on and on.

Does it have to be done? Yes. Otherwise I think a fantasy author can replicate stereotypes with the best intentions in the world.

Is it easy or comfortable? Not on your life.

Does it always work? No. I know I’m still excavating my own attitudes, trying to figure out whether particular thoughts I have are racist or sexist. (Some I know are). I’m fairly certain I’ll be doing this for the rest of my life.

Should it be done anyway?

Of course. If nothing else, it offers two inestimable advantages: greater self-knowledge and more notice when you’re twisting the conventions of a narrative to pander to “normality” and stereotypes. My default when I first imagine characters is to imagine them white, even when I know better, or when I’m creating a character I want to have a different skin color. Likewise, many conversations about race twist away from race as soon as they can to focus on white people. (Yes, this includes conversations about oppressed white minorities such as the Irish; the people in the conversation may still be discussing oppression, but they are no longer discussing people who are not white). It is damnably hard.

But that is no reason not to do it.

10) There are some tests through which only your own courage can carry you. Participating in a conversation this complicated does run the risk of offending people. And not always people who are oversensitive. Even the writer who questions her intentions, looks as hard as she can at ideas and stereotypes, and tries to write honestly and imaginatively can commit cultural appropriation, stumble and fall, recycle stereotypes, and extend the conversation in non-productive ways as well as productive ways.

What’s to be done?

Get up, talk to people about what went wrong, sift the criticisms, absorb the useful ideas, and try it again.

Avoiding the conversation, perhaps by avoiding the portrayal of, say, non-white characters altogether, may be a tactic some authors need or want to practice, but it does not solve the problem of the representation of non-white characters. Nor does demanding a way that certainly works before you try to write about oppression, because there is no way that certainly works. There’s only working as hard as you can to build your wings and then trying to fly, then getting up when they’re wrecked, as they certainly will be, and building a better pair.

There is no immunity from criticism. Really, a writer ought to know that, given what critiques books already get subjected to. Yes, you can be blamed if you never write about themes of oppression and you can be blamed if you do. This is not a Catch-22; it is an opportunity to keep trying, and keep trying, and keep trying, and maybe get better.



All right. After all, I am hardly immune from criticism, either.

Tell me what you think.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 12th, 2007 03:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I love your first point in particular. So many books, fics and just comments I see around the internet seem to imply that anybody who is prejudiced is "Oh my God evil" or else downright stupid and that normal people would never treat anybody like that, when in reality I doubt if I have ever met anybody who didn't have some prejudice.

Another point that occurred to me about prejudice is that people can be terrible hypocrites about it and not even notice. Recently my government here in Ireland was trying to convince the American government that illegal Irish immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country, while at the same time promising to deport failed asylum seekers to Ireland.

An awful lot of fiction seems to portray the oppressor and the oppressed, whereas in reality, it is a lot more complicated than that. The "oppressed" also have their own prejudices, sometimes against those oppressing them, sometimes totally different things altogether. I'm sure I have heard of woman's rights movements excluding working class or (in certain countries) minority women. Also, during a rising against British oppression in Ireland in 1798, a group of rebels rounded up Protestant (seen as representatives of the British in Ireland) locked them in a barn and burned them to death. These included children and elderly people. I'm not 100% sure exactly what I'm leading up to here, except that the innocent victims of oppression who would never opress anybody themselves or have stereotyped exaggerated views of those oppressing them is a little unrealistic.

I always find it-not surprising, because I have heard it often enough-but counter-intuitive, for want of a better word, to hear of black people being considered ugly or of the need for a "Black is Beautiful" campaign, because I remember thinking all black people beautiful during my childhood. (This was probably because there were hardly any black people in Ireland in those days, to the degree that I don't think I met a black person until I was fifteen, so I associated them with exotic places like America and Africa.)

I didn't totally understand your comment about conversations twisting away from discussing non-white people to discuss white minorities or rather I don't really understand why people want to. It doesn't make sense to me that the oppression of white people would be a more comfortable subject than the oppression of non-whites. *shrugs* I guess it is something like the way nobody ever wants to discuss the discrimination against travellers here. People are far more comfortable discussing the discrimination against the "working class", for want of a better word or ethnic minorities, mostly because most of us are ourselves prejudiced against travellers.

Ok, I think I'm on the verge of rambling now and some of this isn't even totally related to what you said, but anyway, I liked this rant.
-Margaret.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:April 29th, 2013 02:19 am (UTC)

You Poor Liberal

(Link)
I find it funny, or rather tragic, how the majority of so-called "writers" are liberal. In this sense, and in regards to all of you, you do not question the consensus nor provide any wisdom of your own. As a matter of fact, this is the final conclusion of liberalism: deny ALL race differences and say that we are all equal.

Fuck you. You're not a "writer". Now fair Lady Britain is being swarmed by immigrants and her white children are being groomed and raped in Muslim prostitution rings, all on the account of multiculturalism. THIS was the reason Babylon fell, and this is the reason why you fuckers are so weak.

"People are more comfortable discussing the oppression of ethnic minorities" - And why do you think that is? Do you think it is a systematic oppression, or a worthy oppression? Let's get this straight sugar-plum: RACE AND IQ EXIST. Fucking get over it. Whites are different than niggers.

And to the author: It's nice of you to say liberal shit that we already know. Whites back then knew their shit, and today we can't say anything for fear of being RACIST. So, you can take your petty words and little fantasy and shove them up your ass, because your advice is as useful as a rusty nail.

You girls - I refuse to call you women - live in a fantasy world, and therefore are not writers. I know your little kultur=kampf. I know the rules. Do you?
From:(Anonymous)
Date:April 29th, 2013 05:27 am (UTC)

@Author

(Link)
Homophobia? HA! Implying that homosexuality is perfectly fine and healthy.

Egalitarianism is killing the world. Glad to see you care for your beautiful Western culture that, when it collapses, you'll be tossed around like a piece of meat to your coloured friends.
From:[info]zhanglihua
Date:April 29th, 2010 08:35 am (UTC)

air yeezy

(Link)
Great articles and it's so helpful. I want to add your blog into my rrs reader but i can't find the rrs address. Would you please send your address to my email? Thanks a lot!
by air yeezy
From:[info]luloki
Date:September 3rd, 2010 02:12 am (UTC)

Air Force One

(Link)
What a superb web page! It's a pity that i can't find your rrs address. If you'll be able to offer rrs subscription service, i can track your website easier!Air force ones
From:[info]krkrjr
Date:September 14th, 2010 02:21 am (UTC)

Nike Dunk High

(Link)
I would definitely want to see your refrigerator as very well. Ours constantly appears to be like like a bomb went off in it! We're executing a cooking area remodel so that i will want every one of the support I can get with group. I'm also focused on the perfect way to arrange a cooking area pantry. Really enjoy your weblog!Nike Dunk High

From:(Anonymous)
Date:April 29th, 2013 05:04 am (UTC)

Oppression?

(Link)
To me, you would seem to have no authority whatsoever to write about something that you have no knowledge of. How can you, on one hand, openly admit that you have no experience, and yet try to write as if you are Nobel Laureate?

You are a blind, programmed Liberal who has never once read the truth. You garner your information from sources that can be considered anything but reliable.

You talk of slavery, a practice that ended over 150 years ago in America. Every black has the opportunity to become successful, a criminal, or, they are more than welcome to head back to their ancestors place of origin. Slaves were not "stolen" from Africa as the books would have you believe, but they were kidnapped during village raids by OTHER Africans, who then sold their own people into the practice. Who are the oppressors here? And with the opportunity to flee the current day 'oppressors' by heading back to Africa, why don't they take it?

Want more fact? Blacks in America are oppressed. But not by the "Bernards" as you put it. They are once again oppressed by their own. The black elite in America, notably the politicians, want them held down. What do you think keeps them in power? It is the so-called "Black Caucuses" that runs the show here. Why do you think such distinguished African Americans such as Dr. Ben Carson, Bill Cosby, Herman Cain, etc. are so REVILED by the Blacks and White Liberals alike? Because they preach personal responsibility and hard work. And if Blacks were to get the message of these types of role models, the so-called caucuses would be in serious trouble of losing their Kingdoms. And what would become of Al Sharpton?

I could go on and on. Because, unlike you, I have learned the facts. I have learned the sciences. And I have learned the statistics. Not you, or anyone else, will EVER guilt me simply because I am WHITE. This is the way I was born, and this is the way I will die. White. If you are so desperate to believe your own pettiness, then I suggest you pack up your middle class WHITE family and move to Detroit. I am sure only then will you, and the rest of the uninformed like you, learn who the oppressed truly are in America today. Oh, and there will be no candlelight vigil.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:April 29th, 2013 10:07 am (UTC)

Discussing subjects you know nothing about.

(Link)
You start out with. "I’m white, middle-class, and American" and then proceed to roll out drivel we are subjected to by pinheads working for what we laughingly refer to as the media.

Pause for a moment and consider how much you, and all those poor little oppressed darlings have, thanks to the nasty oppressive types you revile.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:April 29th, 2013 10:32 am (UTC)

Really?

(Link)


First off, what the Hell is an African American? I have looked at the World Map and haven't found Africa America.

OK, All kidding aside, the only people who have the right to call themselves African American are those who just Immigrated here from Africa, not the Blacks that have been here for generations. It would be like me calling myself an Italian American because my Great Grandfather came her from Italy.

It's not correct to call them African American, and frankly it's getting really old. I am White, they are Black period! And if you want to be Scientific about it I am Caucasoid, and they are Negroid. ( Yes we are two different races.)

Secondly, Obviously you have little to no knowledge of History, especially American History. The first slaves in the U.S were the Irish, and they were treated worse than the Black slaves that came later on. The Irish were treated less than animals.

Meanwhile back in Africa, there was Tribal Wars going on and still is today. African Chiefs were already selling their captives as slaves to the tribes in the Middle East.

Later, the African Tribal Leaders decided to start selling their Black Captives to the U.S. And since Black Slaves were easier to obtain, and cheaper obviously they jumped at the option. Blacks slaves were transported to the coast by their Black captors and the Americans just posted anchor, went on shore, and made the purchase/trade. Regardless of popular belief, Whites did not go trudging through the jungles of Africa with nets to capture poor Blacks that were gallivanting through the woods collecting flowers. That's why Books and movies like " Roots" piss me off, they are so far from historical truths.

Blacks were treated pretty well considering. Black Slave housing wasn't much bigger than the common house of the day, they got free meals, health care, etc. Unlike in the popular books that depicted slave owners continually whipping and beating their slaves.

During this time, the first slave owner that owned Blacks was in fact... a Black himself. His name was Anthony Johnson. It was completely Legal for a Black to own slaves back then.

I will use this analogy.
If you owned a farm, and depended on your tractor to harvest your fields, etc. Would you neglect and beat on your Tractor? No you would not.

By 1699, there was a huge number of freed Black slaves, that many feared an uprising. ( Like Haiti, look that up). Abraham Lincoln feared this, and also was noted as saying that Blacks could never live in a Civilized world, he and many others wanted to send them back to Africa. blacks sold themselves to their former white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently send freed blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.

So, to sum it up, Blacks voluntarily stayed here, even given an option to be sent back. Blacks want reparations? They should hit up the African Nations for handouts.




From:(Anonymous)
Date:April 30th, 2013 03:47 am (UTC)

Re: Really?

(Link)
I'd like to expand on this.

The author of this fair blog assumes herself to be better than everyone else, i.e. the brave, 'intelligent' liberal who crusades against oppression and does the exact thing she condemns: lives in the first world country yet condemns its practices.

You, Miss Author, shit on the actions of your ancestors. Aside from your BAWW BAWW WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS RACIST SEXIST AND HOMOPHOBIC you absolutely have no fucking right to give people tips on "writing". This, my dear, is not writing but meaningless drivel put out by the grandest of universities, proclaiming yourself to be writer du jour while shitting on her ancestor's legacy.

Hilariously, you write any protagonist as "she", further demonstrating your feminist, anti-racist, egalitarian views.

"Fantasy is largely written by white people" - that's because fairy tales and folklore are strictly WHITE. Go to an Islamic country or a nigger country and compare their folklore to ours. You're basically complaining that fantasy is too pro-white and that it needs to be diversified, yet you would still complain about racism if any nigger was portrayed accurately: robbing, raping, murderous monsters. To you, egalitarianism is the way and that in modern times it is civilizing us.

Yeah, no. Your writing advice is as useful as a rusty handsaw. Those meanie, nasty white countries were the ONLY ones to create abolition parties and free those poor slaves. Muslims still treat them as slaves, yet you never once go near Islam or coloured people as bad, because only whites can be bad, am I right?

Fuck you. And shame on those cunts who believed this. You are a liberal who deserves to be put in the gulag.
Powered by InsaneJournal