This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
To the exclusion of all else. That's what I'm complaining about. It's to the exclusion of all else. Representation of families like ours, the majority of my nation, if this semi-random sampling of search engine recommended examples is to be believe, have been all but completely extirpated from contemporary children's book.
If representation matters, as the people advocating inclusion of interracial or LGBT families claim it does, why have they erased my family?
My guess is that there's still going to be great amounts of older children's books available representing in the great majority heterosexual families of your country's majority ethnicity (or animals obviously intended to represent that ethnicity like Berenstain Bears in US etc.), no? At least when I go out in bookstores to check what they have, they usually have reprints of old classics front and center.
My guess is that a lot of modern children's books authors specifically think about the great majorities of existing children's books not showcasing groups other than heterosexual families of a country's majority ethnicity, and thus go above and beyond the call of duty to increase the general representativeness.
Wait what? How are bears intended to represent an ethnicity? Their clothing seems to be generic American farmer, to my non-American eyes based mainly on the father wearing overalls. Are overalls restricted to farmers of some particular ethnicity in the US?
What could make a family of bears represent a non-white family? All I can really think of is eating ethnic food instead of honey, or perhaps wearing clothing of a very specific ethnicity instead of generic farmer.
Is it impossible to create a generic family of animals who might represent any family of any group?
If they are brown bears native to Europe (with European names) it is obvious whom are they supposed to represent.
Being species of bear originating from other part of the world?
Their names are "papa bear", "mama bear", "brother bear" and "sister bear". "Berenstain" is the name of the authors, not the bears, but Dr. Seuss (who assisted with the creation of the series) described them as "Berenstain bears" later to distinguish from other bear books after they became popular. I do not understand how you've determined they are Eurasian brown bears (which range from central Europe to Japan) instead of North American brown or grizzly bears (which was my assumption).
One possible way I can interpret this argument: any character, unless explicitly characterized as non-white, is assumed white and anthropomorphic characters of no particular ethnicity are impossible? E.g., baby shark is white (not Korean?!?) since it's a yellow shark of indeterminate gender who sings a 3 word song.
If the story is set in completely fantastic world unrelated to anything IRL, you are right that assigning RL racial identity to characters is absurd.
If the characters live in world that is just like our (North American suburban) world, except that the people are funny furry animals, assigning RL racial identity to characters is unavoidable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Skidoosh.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As an American, the Berenstein bears are clearly intended to be white, exurban, and southern/lower midwestern.
What makes them white and exurban (as opposed to rural)? What would a black exurban (or rural) southern/lower midwestern family of bears look like?
Again - my question is how to make anthropomorphized characters (that fit the constraints of children's media, i.e. nothing complex) non-white? In India this could theoretically be accomplished by exploiting ethnic dress (e.g. Sindhis wear very distinct clothing, at least for special occasions) for characters that actually wear clothes. But as far as I'm aware the US has almost no ethnic dress - the only ones I can think of are either for obscure groups (Amish, American Indians) or racist stereotypes that would be poorly received ("gangsta" clothes, sombreros).
So lets make it very concrete. Here's monkey mechanic. He's a monkey and he likes to help people by fixing their cars (with a monkey wrench). His only non-fixing stuff interest that I've observed is bananas. How do you make Monkey Mechanic non-white? (Or feel free to make other characters non-white, e.g. the giraffe who keeps hitting his head on the roof of his car.)
Their neighborhood is depicted as exurban/far suburban, their clothing(particularly the hats) is distinctly white, semirural, and working class, and the way the very special episodes on diversity are framed is clearly white and southern/lower midwestern.
A black coded southern bear family would probably be black bears to begin with, with a few other aesthetic distinctions(eg clothing), but you'd also probably be looking at more emphasis on sport and probably older-behaving cubs, without getting into obvious stereotypes.
I admit, I am unfamiliar with the particular style of hats from 1962 so I'll have to take your word for it. What kind of hats did black exurban working class people wear? Or were there no exurban black people in the midwest?
Also, is it impossible to have anthropomorphic children's characters that are simply not coded as anything? Is it impossible for Baby Shark to simply have no attributable human ethnicity? Would the Berenstain bears no longer be white if they were nude and hatless?
Further question, is Babar white or black? He was born in Africa but raised in France and adopts thoroughly western behaviour and dress, and maintains them even when he returns to Africa to rule the elephants (or maybe all animals, it's been a while since I read it.)
Well, biologists group pachyderm species into the broad categories of "African elephant" and "Asian elephant." Given that, Babar being white seems just silly
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Really? I was sure they were supposed to be a suburban Jewish family—but that might be because every time he hears the books mentioned, my dad exclaims, "They don't go to synagogue either!"
But there may not be textual evidence for his reading. I've mostly been able to avoid mentioning books since childhood
Aren't they shown celebrating Christmas?
Probably, but maybe it's a Jewish Christmas.
Do the books depicts a traditional Thanksgiving meal shared with Momma Bears family, then the traditional menorah lighting at least three states away from Papa Bear's nearest relative, and also show a Christmas Day where the bears unwrap the presents that are obviously books first spend hours of reading in silence, briefly thanking each other, then reading while they eat enchiladas?
If I could have my mom back for one holiday, it would probably be Christmas.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This has already been done. Hood Berenstain: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0NN0gtBcxtk
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But that creates its own problem, the way that the actual percentage of any minority population within the general population is misrepresented. Whether that be thinking that black people are a greater share of the US population than they are, or LGBT people (especially trans). If people are presented with "Should we make sweeping social changes to accommodate 2% of the general population?" they are much less likely to say "yes" than if they are presented with "Should we make sweeping social changes to accommodate this sub-population (which you think is 10-20% of the population rather than 2%, because you've been deluged with books and social media where in an ensemble case of five, at least one is this particular sub-population)?"
It's also easy and lazy, and may be down to "do I want my book to be published?" even more than "do I want to be Diverse and Inclusive?" because see the YA fiction kerfuffles over race and transgender. Publishers nowadays may be more inclined to go for "we want DEI" and to not even consider a book that has all-white family, so if you're a kids' book author and you want a career, be darn sure to mix up the races and orientations of your characters.
There's also the stupid partisan political stuff, like the gay White House rabbits. No kid is going to read those books, but adults who want to feel like they're sticking it to the Man will fall over themselves to buy those kind of books. Personally I think the whole mania around the kind of pets the Presidents and Vice-Presidents own is crazy, but people do get all worked up over it. So the Pences had a pet rabbit, one of their daughters wrote kids' books about it, and of course this had to get political, because the fussbudgets can't let anything lie:
I don't know how many 6-8 year olds were longing for a book about a rabbit getting gay married, but hey, John Oliver is a hack and this let everybody show off how progressive they were. And it wasn't even thinly-disguised, the first page outright states that this rabbit is part of the Pence family. Haw-haw, Pence is anti-gay and wants gay conversion torture camps set up everywhere, let's make his daughters' pet rabbit gay and get gay married, that'll show him!
(How old is Oliver, again? I think 6-8 years of age is too high for his mental age).
I dunno, what amount of children's books would you surmise are about gay couples? We have a bunch of old and modern ones at our house, and leafing through them, I've spotted some cases where some background couple might be gay, but obviously since they're background they're not being featured in a major role.
I have perhaps more experience in watching kids' TV, and out of all the children's shows I've seen, I've seen one instance where there's a bit player gay couple (for the record it would be Chip & Potato, where the main character's family's (which is as traditional a straight 3-child family with a cop father and, for the most of the series, homemaker mom you could imagine) neighborhood also has a couple of smartly dressed male zebras who appear to have adopted children. They don't actually go "we're gay and have gay zebra sex in our bedrooms" or anything like that and feature in maybe two episodes. This is my understanding of the general extent of representation in this field, at the moment.
I think that John Oliver thing can indeed be marked in the category of "it's a bit, not actually intended for children's books oeuvre", as you indicated.
I wouldn't freak out about things like "fleeting background gay kiss" in a movie, even a kid's movie. I think the recent flop by Disney, Strange World, is being presented as (by both sides) "it was because it was gay/inter-racial/strong women" but I think mostly it was probably awful (I'm just going by the trailer and the synopsis in Wikipedia).
Funnily enough, had they made a movie about the family patriarch, Jaeger Clade, and his adventures in the Strange World, I think it would have been a lot better. He seems the most interesting character in the trailer; his grandson, Ethan, is only there to be Gay Teenager First Out LGBT Character in a Disney Movie, and Searcher (Jaeger's son, Ethan's father) is insufferably wet. Look at the trailer and see if you agree.
The art style is also terrible, I've read it described as "Cal Arts style" but I don't know if it's so. It's that recent style where all the faces look the same (big eyes, potato nose, small chin, generally expressions of surprise or anger) like the female faces in "Frozen" all being identical, and the male and indeed female faces in this one being the same. Black, white, male, female, all have the 'big eyes, potato nose, big open-mouth expressions'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you feel particularly erased, seeing as you're the majority of your nation?
The greater the percentage of some demographic in the country that isn't represented, the greater the number of people erased.
Only if the demographics of the books constitute "erasure" in the first place. You are begging the question.
Surely then nonwhite people shouldn’t complain about erasure of their experiences if people of their skin tone aren’t represented, then, if demographics of characters in books don’t count as erasure?
I was not aware that I had argued otherwise.
I assume you agree, then, that the progressive push towards showing disproportionately more minorities in media for representation and to combat erasure, etc etc., is similarly ill-argued.
I actually didn't express an opinion that the claim was ill-argued, but rather that it was not argued at all. I suppose that 30 years ago the existence of certain groups was probably ignored by children's literature, though I don't know that "erasure" is the best term to describe that phenomenon. Regardless, that is no longer the case. Nor is it likely to be the case that OP's demographic is ignored in the children's literature currently available for sale.
BTW, is it safe to assume that you agree that complaints about Halle Bailey being cast as the Little Mermaid are misplaced, as well?
On the Little Mermaid, I actually don't really have much of a slant either way on that issue. My first reaction was "who gives a shit?" and I didn't dig further afterwards; "Black Little Mermaid" is literally all I know about it.
On further inspection, I think explicit race-casting is cringey as hell, and that there's a little bit of dissonance with what is a very European trope - merfolk, esp. that particular sort -being brought into a deliberately race-agnostic environment.
At the same time, I believe history and mythology belong to the entirety of humanity, and really, as long as you can make it internally consistent (which isn't necessarily a given) who gives a toss? I'm not white, though, which gives me a different vantage point on this whole affair.
It reads much better than the travesty that was the Ghost in the Shell Hollywood adaptation, which was just schizophrenic in how it wanted to approach race, for example. I'd argue it's probably better than if you did a brownwashed Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, or whatever the Fate franchise does to historical figures.
Honestly my entire point is - I just think telling people who are complaining that they aren't being properly being represented that they make no sense, when the reason for that misrepresentation is due to a push by another group to overrepresent themselves for similar reasons, reads like intentional selective blindness with how the context is just ignored.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link