Saturday Book Discussion: Interrogating the Text from the Wrong Perspective

[inverarity]

Authorial intent, race!sex!class!fail, and the historical defense. Anyone who unironically uses the words 'Political Correctness' shall be ruthlessly mocked, on bookish.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You actually make some good points in your original critique, though I would question the assumption that non-white people are less capable of judging a book by its historical times than are white people. That is "polylogism," the assumption that there is more than one kind of logic, which is not the same thing as assuming that there is more than one point of view, and you are assuming that points of view are racially limited. That is, amusingly, exactly the same assumption which Margaret Mitchell made in Gone With the Wind when she presented her "simple, frightened darkies" -- the only difference is that you're assuming that black people are more likely to be honestly offended by offensive material than are white people, rather than assuming that they are simple and childlike.

"They" are "us." We're all the same species. And the relevant question here is cultural background, not genetic background.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I don't know where you saw me making that assumption.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I think black people are more likely to be offended by offensive material than white people are. Not because of any genetic thing, but because racism actually negatively impacts them personally (whereas it positively impacts white people personally), so they are quite understandably more aware of racist aspects to a book and less likely to overlook them. This isn't a defect--quite the opposite, actually; if white people were more attuned to racism the world would be a better place.

(Disclaimer: I am myself white.)