Did GRRM miss an opportunity to send a subtle message about race in ASIOAF

[No One of Importance]

1 hour ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

1. He was calling people's mild disagreements as "vehement reactions" against even discussing the idea

 

To be fair, multiple people on this thread have said, some repeatedly, that the thread should not be allowed to exist.  That seems kind of silly.  This one discussion can't exist amongst the thousands on this site?  Because some people don't like?  Hell, I can't stand the "What would you do/who's your favorite character/what if" threads, but I just avoid them; I don't try to shut them down in their entirety.

[No One of Importance]

26 minutes ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Well:

1. Why would it be interesting?

2. Switching white characters, or characters that people would expect to be white for one reason or another, to be black, is so old hat at this point as to be a trope all of its own.

3. I don't get your point about it being relatable.

4. Here we get to what I suspect is the nub of it: politics. The idea that an author has the power or the moral obligation to improve the world by sublimating their fiction to political messaging. Why is it important for authors to "cross racial barriers" with their fictional characters? Do you think that it makes for a better society? Because I don't: the constant barrage of messages unsubtly embedded in fiction to improve the great politically-incorrect unwashed has correlated neatly with an observable decline in social harmony, and I don't think the two are unrelated.

Put it another way: take a look at the Lady Ghostbusters film that just came out. (Not literally, because it's probably terrible.) The very presence of the unsubtle pro-feminist messaging in that movie is an insult to men. [Edit: and older feminists.] It's implicitly saying that men are all unreformed sexists, as if the previous 100 years of social progress hadn't happened. Naturally, everybody ended up arguing with each other about feminism and gender. Do you think, after all that arguing, that men and women are on balance more divided than before, or less?

I think it drove a wedge between the sexes, however small, and racial critiques in fiction tend to have the same effect on race relations.

Unless there's a compelling dramatic reason for race to be a factor, I think it can be safely neglected. It profits us not to fixate on it all the time.

Seeking an answer to #1 here is why the thread was created, I think.

#2 - agreed, but that doesn't mean there's not room for the idea to function in different ways.

#3 - not sure here

#4 - I don't think that the OP was saying at any point that GRRM had an obligation to do anything.  He was taking a comment that GRRM made and asking this community of fans to contemplate it.

 

In terms of the rest of what you wrote here, sure, everything would be more peaceful if nobody ever questioned the status quo.  You can definitely achieve social harmony for those in power by ignoring those not in power.  The idea that things might be better today than 100 years ago doesn't mean that they can't still be improved. Nor do I agree with the idea that discussing such issues equates to "fixating" on them.  Again, there are thousands of threads on this site.  There should be no reason why one can't address concerns like this.

 

Also, I'm sorry for responding to three of your posts in a row; that probably seems aggressive, and I don't mean it to be.  Just catching up with the discussion. 

 

[NorthernXY]

Getting off the direct race questions.  If the comments about Valyrians being black with purple eyes and silver hair are true.  Then they'd either be from Sothoryos or the Butterfly Islands.  Just like the Valyrians, their skin tone doesn't make the most sense given their neighbors are much lighter skin tones just like Valyrians skin tones are way to light for being that far south and not being a colony from Westeros.

This would negate any possibility of House Dayne sailing from Westeros after the Long Night to found a colony away from the Others, to make dragonsteel swords and tame dragons to combat Others in the future.  Then the occasional violet eyes and silverish hair because over expressed thanks to inbreeding.

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

5 minutes ago, No One of Importance said:

In reference to the bolded portions:

1) Yeah, there actually are.  They might not be wearing sheets and hoods as much, but they are still alive and well and thriving.

2) The difference is that the former was applied to a group of people by others, while the latter was applied by a group of people to themselves.  That might seem like an insignificant difference to you, but to the people who actually get to choose what their identifying nomenclature would be, it's kind of a BFD.  So it's actually not about grammar; it's about agency.

 

1. This isn't an argument so much as an article of faith, and thus impossible to refute. "Just because you can't see all the racists, doesn't mean they aren't there."

2. This is wrong on multiple levels:

• The people choosing their own identifying nomenclature used to be perfectly fine with "coloured" - it's the "C" in NAACP. Evidently the fashion has changed since then, but to pretend that it was only ever applied to them instead of chosen by them is to deny them their agency.
• I've only ever seen "POC" used by university types, so my guess is that most people of any race are fine with the normal terms, e.g. black people are just fine with being called "black". You might even say that "POC" is being applied to a group (all non-whites) by others (political activists).
• Let's grant, for the sake of argument, that "coloured person" was imposed from outside and "person of colour" was chosen by the people of colour themselves. That still doesn't explain why the adjective is worse than the noun. It's absurd.

[No One of Importance]

21 minutes ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

1. This isn't an argument so much as an article of faith, and thus impossible to refute. "Just because you can't see all the racists, doesn't mean they aren't there."

2. This is wrong on multiple levels:

• The people choosing their own identifying nomenclature used to be perfectly fine with "coloured" - it's the "C" in NAACP. Evidently the fashion has changed since then, but to pretend that it was only ever applied to them instead of chosen by them is to deny them their agency.
• I've only ever seen "POC" used by university types, so my guess is that most people of any race are fine with the normal terms, e.g. black people are just fine with being called "black". You might even say that "POC" is being applied to a group (all non-whites) by others (political activists).
• Let's grant, for the sake of argument, that "coloured person" was imposed from outside and "person of colour" was chosen by the people of colour themselves. That still doesn't explain why the adjective is worse than the noun. It's absurd.

1. So is your original statement.  But seriously, I have seen them.  It's not an article of faith; it's a lived experience.  

2. This is also wrong on multiple levels.  Seriously.  Do some research into the NAACP (five of the six original board members were actually white people) and into the origins of the phrase "people of color."  It might help if you not rely on vague notions of "university types."  

ETA: You're right that most people probably don't care what terms are used as long as they're not blatantly offensive (although I'd argue about what "the normal terms" are); so then why do you?

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

26 minutes ago, No One of Importance said:

1. So is your original statement.  

2. This is also wrong on multiple levels.  Seriously.  Do some research into the NAACP (five of the six original board members were actually white people) and into the origins of the phrase "people of color."  It might help if you not rely on vague notions of "university types."  

1. No, it isn't.

There are plenty of ways we can measure the decline of racism: changes in political rhetoric; decline of racist organisations; increase in interracial marriages; etc, etc. It's also observably the case that racism is now socially unacceptable in a way that it wasn't in the past. Ask an old person for confirmation.

The problem with the notion that racism hasn't declined is that it most, if not all, of the observable data goes against that position, and so you're forced to enlarge your definition of racism and/or commence to reading people's minds.

2. No, it isn't.

Are you saying the thousands of black Americans supporting the civil rights movement were all secretly chafing at the term "coloured person", because they hadn't picked it themselves - and then, when given the opportunity to choose a term for themselves, they picked "person of colour"? Do you realise how silly that is?

Are you saying that the NAACP is somehow invalidated because white people were involved at the start? Or that the black people involved didn't have agency themselves?

Per your recommendation I looked up the wikipedia article, and "person of colour" gained currency in the 70's among "racial justice activists" and "radical theorists". You may chafe at the term "university types", but it's plainly accurate that that's who popularised the term, and who still uses it today.

And that still doesn't answer why the adjective should be racist and the noun not so.

42 minutes ago, No One of Importance said:

Seeking an answer to #1 here is why the thread was created, I think.

#4 - I don't think that the OP was saying at any point that GRRM had an obligation to do anything.  He was taking a comment that GRRM made and asking this community of fans to contemplate it.

In terms of the rest of what you wrote here, sure, everything would be more peaceful if nobody ever questioned the status quo.  You can definitely achieve social harmony for those in power by ignoring those not in power.  The idea that things might be better today than 100 years ago doesn't mean that they can't still be improved. Nor do I agree with the idea that discussing such issues equates to "fixating" on them.  Again, there are thousands of threads on this site.  There should be no reason why one can't address concerns like this.

Also, I'm sorry for responding to three of your posts in a row; that probably seems aggressive, and I don't mean it to be.  Just catching up with the discussion. 

Who the hell would think that's aggressive? Good lord.

Re: #1: no shit, but I'm curious what his answer would be. I asked what he thought would be improved by black Valyrians and he said he thought it'd be interesting. That's kind of a non-answer, right?

Re: #4: that's twisting my words and missing my point. It may well be possible for things to improve, but it's also possible for things to get worse. There's a lot of people out there who are determined to pick away at society's scabs under the pretense of good intentions - but does it not say in The Way of Mrs. Cosmopolite, "It won't get better if you pick at it"? Pointing that out does not make one a tool of the powers-that-be.

And I can't speak for those who want to shut the thread down - I disagree with them, for what it's worth - but just because you have the discussion doesn't mean people who disagree can't chime in. But I'm sure you know that.

 

Edit: you added something:

Quote

But seriously, I have seen them [racists].  It's not an article of faith; it's a lived experience.

I've seen racists too. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying there are fewer today than there were, at least in the west. One's lived experience doesn't refute that point unless one is old.

[No One of Importance]

1 minute ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

1. No, it isn't.

There are plenty of ways we can measure the decline of racism: changes in political rhetoric; decline of racist organisations; increase in interracial marriages; etc, etc. It's also observably the case that racism is now socially unacceptable in a way that it wasn't in the past. Ask an old person for confirmation.

The problem with the notion that racism hasn't declined is that it most, if not all, of the observable data goes against that position, and so you're forced to enlarge your definition of racism and/or commence to reading people's minds.

2. No, it isn't.

Are you saying the thousands of black Americans supporting the civil rights movement were all secretly chafing at the term "coloured person", because they hadn't picked it themselves - and then, when given the opportunity to choose a term for themselves, they picked "person of colour"? Do you realise how silly that is?

Are you saying that the NAACP is somehow invalidated because white people were involved at the start? Or that the black people involved didn't have agency themselves?

Per your recommendation I looked up the wikipedia article, and "person of colour" gained currency in the 70's among "racial justice activists" and "radical theorists". You may chafe at the term "university types", but it's plainly accurate that that's who popularised the term, and who still uses it today.

And that still doesn't answer why the adjective should be racist and the noun not so.

Who the hell would think that's aggressive? Good lord.

Re: #1: no shit, but I'm curious what his answer would be. I asked what he thought would be improved by black Valyrians and he said he thought it'd be interesting. That's kind of a non-answer, right?

Re: #4: that's twisting my words and missing my point. It may well be possible for things to improve, but it's also possible for things to get worse. There's a lot of people out there who are determined to pick away at society's scabs under the pretense of good intentions - but does it not say in The Way of Mrs. Cosmopolite, "It won't get better if you pick at it"? Pointing that out does not make one a tool of the powers-that-be.

And I can't speak for those who want to shut the thread down - I disagree with them, for what it's worth - but just because you have the discussion doesn't mean people who disagree can't chime in. But I'm sure you know that.

I was never making the argument that racism (at least of the blatant sort) hasn't declined, but rather that it still exists, that it still impacts people's lives in significant ways on a daily basis.  If I misrepresented your position, apologies.

In terms of "colored people" versus "people of color," are you actually arguing that people shouldn't have the right to choose how they're identified, regardless of how "silly" it might seem to you?  Yes, the preferred nomenclature changed.  It changed first, not surprisingly, among people who study and discuss race and racial issues.  I guess I'm not seeing your point here.

Yes, that's kind of a non-answer.  I can't speak for him, but I think the goal was to see how other people felt about it, what their thoughts were, etc.  That is, to discuss the series through that particular lens.

Sure, it's possible for things to get worse.  But we'll never know either way if we don't have the discussions.  Let's bring it back to the books for a second.  If Ned had simply ignored what he discovered about Cersei's kids, the realm would probably have enjoyed more social harmony.  Would that have been better?  Sometimes you have to pick at the scab because what's underneath is not actually healing, but only obscured.  So, yeah, having discussions about race, about inequality, about injustice can upset social harmony, but the alternative - ignoring it - doesn't improve anything in any real sense - except for those who are not affected by those injustices or inequalities in the first place.

And it wouldn't be much of a discussion at all if everyone agreed.  I appreciate your engagement and thoughtful replies.

 

[John Doe]

2 hours ago, No One of Importance said:

2) The difference is that the former was applied to a group of people by others, while the latter was applied by a group of people to themselves.  That might seem like an insignificant difference to you, but to the people who actually get to choose what their identifying nomenclature would be, it's kind of a BFD.  So it's actually not about grammar; it's about agency.

 

I never chose to be called white. Shame on all who call me that, damn racists.

[the trees have eyes]

9 hours ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Edit: when I said "progressive" before, I was using the term loosely. I know there are some progressives who aren't keen on political correctness, but there isn't a universally-accepted and neutral term for "politically-correct wankers". The closest is SJW but people still seem to get upset about that one.

Edit: let me ask the OP (and others): in what way would the series be improved if the characters had a different skin-colour?

This made my day!  Not because I am particularly identifying for or against anything here, it's just your turn of phrase.

The general debate in this thread - and I didn't read all of it, just the start and end of it - makes me rather glad GRRM didn't do as the OP suggested as it seems far too charged a subject to have allowed ASOIAF to secure the sweeping success it has.  Maybe that's more the current climate than that of 20 years ago but still.

So I don't find it problematic that the Targs / Valyrians can be portrayed as monstrous slavers and incestuous madmen & women, believing in their special destiny because it makes for great reading.  It also echoes a number of real world cultures and societies (Rome, Egypt off the top of my head) so well that I imagine you could find this kind of behaviour present in pretty much every part of the world at some time in our past and practiced by people of every race.  Not universally or completely but you could find examples of it.

I do find it problematic that we are invited or assumed to be okay with having the Targs as monstrous slavers and incestuous madmen & women, believing in their special destiny as long as they are white, but we are invited or assumed to regard the portrayal of such people as black as contentious.  The point is that the Targs were sometimes good, sometimes bad and it's what's in the human heart and mind that matters not the Targaryen blood (or the skin tone)

[kimim]

11 hours ago, thewolfofStarfall said:

Perhaps, you have misinterpreted my post, but I was never trying to fault GRRM for not taking on racism or crititizing his work.  I wanted to discuss the implications for the series if Martin had decided to make the Targaryens and Valyrians dark skinned. He states he would have in retrospect, however the idea came to him 20 years too late.  Though, it wouldn't effect my feelings towards the series because it is brilliant, I do think it would made an interesting twist. I should of probably made title: "Do you think it would be a good idea if Martin had made the Targaryens black"? That's truly what the question is centered on. The only racial message that would be worked into this  the idea of "color blindness".

Point of the Targs is to stand out like sore thumbs because of their appearance. I don't consider hyper-pale skin, silver hair, and purple eyes to be "white" in the way we think of the term; it's more alien than anything else. I agree that GRRM could have created the same effect with very dark skin as with very light skin. I'm imagining a Targ with onyx skin, dark-silver eyes, dark-silver hair...it would have been very cool. Actually, I might have preferred that. On the other hand, like its pale version, that Targ would look so inhuman that "race" would not come into the equation.

You might want to look at Robin Hobb's "Realm of the Elderlings" trilogies. The Farseers and the citizens of Buck are the focus of her stories, and they're dark skinned, dark eyed, dark haired. Depending on your preference, you can interpret them as falling anywhere between sub-Saharan African to Arabic to Asian Indian. That our hero is probably not "white" becomes clear after a while, as Hobb isn't making a point with his appearance. btw the book covers rarely depict the Buck folk as anything other than white.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, kimim said:

 I'm imagining a Targ with onyx skin, dark-silver eyes, dark-silver hair...it would have been very cool. Actually, I might have preferred that.

Except that he'd be accused of stealing from the drow.

[Crixus]

11 hours ago, thewolfofStarfall said:

Please explain to me... Who was calling you a bigot and how was what @Crixus said in any way, shape or form a "snide" remark? 

How the fuck is this "uncivil"? I'm really to start loose my faith in humanity because of some of the people in this fandom...

Yes, this. Who did I call a bigot? How overly defensive to think so! It's rather odd to see people throwing around labels like SJW/progressive etc., implying extreme sensitivity on the part of those they've labelled, only to get so defensive/extremely sensitive in turn. Weird, that. 

I find this (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) to be in a similar vein to 'the default setting is always white' and 'why change anything?!': the implication seems to be that non-white people shouldn't ever want representation in pop culture or even dare to suggest or discuss such a concept. On a fan board that's discussed all manner of ludicrous, far fetched shit related to ASOIAF, this is somehow a step too far. At least, if you look at some posts that outright want the thread closed.

Pretty self evident, IMO. 

 

 

[Crixus]

11 hours ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

1. He was calling people's mild disagreements as "vehement reactions" against even discussing the idea

2. "I'm not surprised at all" is his theatrical world-weary shrug of disappointment

Taken in context it's plain he's trying to characterise people as frothing-at-the-mouth racists

I'm a she, FYI. And LOL at your exaggerated interpretation of my post.

'Vehement' is pretty accurate if you look at the posts demanding the thread be locked. Asking for a shut-down doesn't equal 'mild disagreements'. In fact, it stinks of some imagining they decide what is discussed and what isn't. I was under the impression that was the mods' domain, myself. 

I'm not surprised at all: I'm not.

A pretty GIANT leap from my mild snark to 'frothing-at-the-mouth' racists. And I'm the theatrical one? 

It's almost as though you feel you're the only one who can overreact or be 'sarcastic' while posting. Unfortunately, I disagree. 

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

8 hours ago, No One of Importance said:

In terms of "colored people" versus "people of color," are you actually arguing that people shouldn't have the right to choose how they're identified, regardless of how "silly" it might seem to you?  Yes, the preferred nomenclature changed.  It changed first, not surprisingly, among people who study and discuss race and racial issues.  I guess I'm not seeing your point here.

No, of course I'm not arguing against people's right to freedom of speech. Just because I think it's absurd and ought to be changed doesn't mean I think that change ought to be imposed upon people.

It's my contention that "person of colour" has gained currency only among racism "experts", and that the vast majority of the actual "people of colour" weren't consulted and don't care. To me, this is exactly what you claimed the term "coloured people" was: a name imposed on a group by outsiders. It's just that in this case the outsiders aren't whites but academic elites.

And the point of this is that "person of colour" isn't so much a genuine group name as it is a trap to catch those unschooled in the ways of racial issues so they can be accused of racism. (Please note: I'm not positing an actual conspiracy here.) In this way, it's in keeping with the spirit of the modern anti-racism movement, at least as I see it, which, as I said earlier, is mostly about virtue-signalling. The absurdity of having two near-identical terms carry opposite connotations - of having racism hinge upon the difference between a noun and an adjective - is thus not a bug but a feature.

Or maybe I'm just a grammar nazi, I don't know.

8 hours ago, No One of Importance said:

Sure, it's possible for things to get worse.  But we'll never know either way if we don't have the discussions.  Let's bring it back to the books for a second.  If Ned had simply ignored what he discovered about Cersei's kids, the realm would probably have enjoyed more social harmony.  Would that have been better?  Sometimes you have to pick at the scab because what's underneath is not actually healing, but only obscured.  So, yeah, having discussions about race, about inequality, about injustice can upset social harmony, but the alternative - ignoring it - doesn't improve anything in any real sense - except for those who are not affected by those injustices or inequalities in the first place.

Well, in this instance I think we will know that it'll get worse, especially since I don't usually see too much discussion going on when the issue of race is raised. This conversation is a rarity: generally people just hurl insults at each other.

With regard to the books, if Ned had ignored the incest, the social harmony thus permitted wouldn't have lasted; he would've just permitted a regicide and the usurpation of the throne by a corrupt and tyrannical regime. Some scabs need picking.

But some don't. My problem with "discussions" about race is that they tend to involve racism that doesn't actually exist. By having discussions on those terms, we actually promote the idea that things are worse than they are. Look at what's happening in the US at the moment: the #BlackLivesMatter narrative is spreading in popularity, promoting the idea that blacks have more to fear from the police than other races do. That's not true, but enough people believe it that there are police officers getting murdered, and riots, and a general mistrust between blacks and police which is already manifesting itself in less policing of black neighbourhoods, and thus higher crime in those neighbourhoods.

I know I'm opening up a can of worms here and you probably don't agree with that assessment, but I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from with this.

8 hours ago, No One of Importance said:

And it wouldn't be much of a discussion at all if everyone agreed.  I appreciate your engagement and thoughtful replies.

No worries

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

This made my day!  Not because I am particularly identifying for or against anything here, it's just your turn of phrase.

Why thank you

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It also echoes a number of real world cultures and societies (Rome, Egypt off the top of my head) so well that I imagine you could find this kind of behaviour present in pretty much every part of the world at some time in our past and practiced by people of every race.

Yes, we most certainly could

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I do find it problematic that we are invited or assumed to be okay with having the Targs as monstrous slavers and incestuous madmen & women, believing in their special destiny as long as they are white, but we are invited or assumed to regard the portrayal of such people as black as contentious.  The point is that the Targs were sometimes good, sometimes bad and it's what's in the human heart and mind that matters not the Targaryen blood (or the skin tone)

I do understand what you're saying here, but it's unfortunately the world that we live in. If you touch a hot potato, you can expect to burn your fingers. And with this particular hot potato, even if you, er, put on some gloves and handle it correctly, there are people who'll insist that you handled it wrong and therefore your fingers ought to have been burned, and they've brought some cigarette lighters...

Alright, I think that metaphor went off the rails a little bit.

Anyway, in this particular instance I don't see what it would've added to the story, so I think it's for the best that Martin didn't think of it in time (assuming that he actually would've gone through with it). But I should also say that I'd frown on him for not including it if I felt that it had been necessary, even though he'd have copped some shit.

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

21 minutes ago, Crixus said:

I'm a she, FYI. And LOL at your exaggerated interpretation of my post.

'Vehement' is pretty accurate if you look at the posts demanding the thread be locked. Asking for a shut-down doesn't equal 'mild disagreements'. In fact, it stinks of some imagining they decide what is discussed and what isn't. I was under the impression that was the mods' domain, myself. 

I'm not surprised at all: I'm not.

A pretty GIANT leap from my mild snark to 'frothing-at-the-mouth' racists. And I'm the theatrical one? 

It's almost as though you feel you're the only one who can overreact or be 'sarcastic' while posting. Unfortunately, I disagree. 

Fair enough. That's the way it came off to me, but I guess I was wrong

[John Doe]

2 hours ago, Crixus said:

find this (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) to be in a similar vein to 'the default setting is always white' and 'why change anything?!': the implication seems to be that non-white people shouldn't ever want representation in pop culture or even dare to suggest or discuss such a concept. On a fan board that's discussed all manner of ludicrous, far fetched shit related to ASOIAF, this is somehow a step too far. At least, if you look at some posts that outright want the thread closed.

If you have an author who himself is white and bases his story on the war of the roses, or in general the european medieval ages, it's not surprising you end up with main characters who are also white. Similarily I wouldn't be surprised if a south african author made a fantasy story based on, I don't know, Zulu folklore and the main characters there were black. Or if an asian made a fantasy story based on feudal china or japan with asian main characters. I'm of course not saying Martin couldn't have made the main characters black, just that representing minorities in pop culture is not his responsibilty, especially not in the setting he created. 

 

Of course we all know he does represent all sorts of cultures and races (if you want to apply that concept to his world), just not with the main characters. 

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

If you have an author who himself is white and bases his story on the war of the roses, or in general the european medieval ages, it's not surprising you end up with main characters who are also white. Similarily I wouldn't be surprised if a south african author made a fantasy story based on, I don't know, Zulu folklore and the main characters there were black. Or if an asian made a fantasy story based on feudal china or japan with asian main characters.

Hear hear. (Or is it "here here"?)

"The default setting is white" when white people write stories. We're all speaking English here. I'm sure if I read some Japanese-language novels I'd find that the default setting was Japanese.

[Crixus]

Again, Martin discussed the idea himself. So, it isn't as though the OP or anyone else came up with it and insisted Martin follow, or that he should change the story etc. I don't see the issue. 

The actual author found the idea interesting enough to discuss it, which means the default setting doesn't need to be white just because the writer's white. Are we saying 'write what you know' is the only acceptable way of doing it? Because if so, the implication is that Martin shouldn't write women, or Dothrakis and so on. 

Also, I thought the USA (where he is from) has Black, Latino and Asian minorities in significant numbers? I imagine Martin may even have had some interaction with some 'non-white' people in his 60+ years. So he can 'know' about more than 'white' stuff. 

Last, English =/= white. Perhaps it did before Britain colonised parts of the world; not now. It's funny how English is touted as being 'international', and comments here imply it's a 'white' language. If I'm mistaken, apologies. 

I live in South Asia, and English is the official language in this country. We are brown. So there's that.

[John Doe]

1 hour ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Hear hear. (Or is it "here here"?)

"The default setting is white" when white people write stories. We're all speaking English here. I'm sure if I read some Japanese-language novels I'd find that the default setting was Japanese.

I saw an interview once where the interviewer asked Martin why there were no black hobbits. I found the question weird back then, but based on this thread this doesn't even seem to be as unpopular as I thought. 

3 minutes ago, Crixus said:

Again, Martin discussed the idea himself. So, it isn't as though the OP or anyone else came up with it and insisted Martin follow, or that he should change the story etc. I don't see the issue. 

The actual author found the idea interesting enough to discuss it, which means the default setting doesn't need to be white just because the writer's white. Are we saying 'write what you know' is the only acceptable way of doing it? Because if so, the implication is that Martin shouldn't write women, or Dothrakis and so on. 

Also, I thought the USA (where he is from) has Black, Latino and Asian minorities in significant numbers? I imagine Martin may even have had some interaction with some 'non-white' people in his 60+ years. So he can 'know' about more than 'white' stuff. 

Last, English =/= white. Perhaps it did before Britain colonised parts of the world; not now. It's funny how English is touted as being 'international', and comments here imply it's a 'white' language. If I'm mistaken, apologies. 

I live in South Asia, and English is the official language in this country. We are brown. So there's that.

Again, he based his stories largely on european history, not on south asian history. So it's not surprising the main characters are similiar in appearence to europeans. His story is not based on modern day US or the english speaking world where there are many black, latino and asian people. 

[Crixus]

I'm not questioning why the story has mostly white people; I'm pointing out that there is nothing wrong with discussing other possibilities. Where did I say he should have South Asians or any other ethnicity?? 

Also it may be based on some bits of European history but that certainly isn't all the influence he uses, nor is fantasy the same as history or even historical fiction. The very term indicates the potential to do a lot more than stick to real history, subvert traditions and so on.