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

[Drekinn]

3 hours ago, Crixus said:

I think this is a good topic and like some others, I'm surprised at such vehement reactions against merely discussing an idea that Martin has himself brought up. 

 

Actually, I'm not surprised at all. 

And here's why things get heated right there. Don't agree with a topic? Get labeled as a bigot. You kill any possible civil argument with snide remarks like that.

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

28 minutes ago, Drekinn said:

And here's why things get heated right there. Don't agree with a topic? Get labeled as a bigot. You kill any possible civil argument with snide remarks like that.

It's not about civil argument, it's about virtue-signalling. Just as a knight needs a dragon against which to prove his valour, so the progressive/SJW/student (delete where appropriate) needs a racist/sexist/homophobe to demonstrate their moral superiority.

Without dragons to slay, a knight must climb down off his high horse and beat his sword into a ploughshare, which is a bummer if he likes fighting. And so, given that his noble anti-racist counterpart likes demonstrating moral superiority, and given that there aren't so many racists around these days, then it becomes necessary to invent new ways to be racist. This is how people end up getting raked over the coals for saying "all lives matter", or, as one commenter upthread did, for merely appearing to say something analogous to same.

I'd also like to point out that it's absurd that the preferred nomenclature is now "person of colour" when "coloured person" is still considered offensive. It's the same goddamn thing!

Anyway, all that is why people are having "vehement reactions" as someone else said. We've all seen this trap before, and it's annoying to see it getting set once again. I'm sick of it.

[BricksAndSparrows]

2 minutes ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

I'd also like to point out that it's absurd that the preferred nomenclature is now "person of colour" when "coloured person" is still considered offensive. It's the same goddamn thing!

That has been driving me NUTS! I wanted to say something, but I thought, "why bother?"

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

1 minute ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

That has been driving me NUTS! I wanted to say something, but I thought, "why bother?"

Well, when grammar itself has been declared racist, you know you're not dealing with entirely rational people

[thewolfofStarfall]

22 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I cannot understand what you mean.

Okay basically if GRRM had decided to make the Targaryens black, some fans suspect that Robert's Rebellion would look like a race war between the (black) mad King Aerys and the (white) people fighting to overthrow him such as Ned Stark, Robert Baratheon, and Jon Arryn.

[thewolfofStarfall]

1 hour ago, Drekinn said:

And here's why things get heated right there. Don't agree with a topic? Get labeled as a bigot. You kill any possible civil argument with snide remarks like that.

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? 

4 hours ago, Crixus said:

I think this is a good topic and like some others, I'm surprised at such vehement reactions against merely discussing an idea that Martin has himself brought up. 

 

Actually, I'm not surprised at all. 

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...

[thewolfofStarfall]

On August 9, 2016 at 2:43 AM, must needs the rushes said:

I disagree , taking a noble and advanced mindset like true racial colorblindness and putting it in a world as backwards and savage as Westeros is a disservice, devaluing the social value such ideas hold.

 

So, are you saying the philosophy behind color blindness would be tarnished if it were put in a world as fucked up as Westers? That's an interesting point, could you elaborate more on why you think this? 

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

1 minute ago, thewolfofStarfall said:

How the fuck is this "uncivil"?

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

[kimim]

At the risk of insulting people, I'd say racism is alive and well in most societies. I'd also say that it's healthy to point that out. I think the same about sexism, xenophobia and homophobia, with deepest apologies to those who might take issue with that. I'm progressive, so make of it what you will. 

Having said that, no writer has a responsibility to take on any sort of social injustice. Blaming GRRM for failing to take on racism is insane. GRRM does take on sexism and misogyny, and he is very aware of the suffering of common people, though he tells his story from the pov of various nobles. I think that's enough. All I demand of GRRM is Winds, SOON!!!

[thewolfofStarfall]

On August 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Well, maybe I could convince other people that the topic wasn't worth "liking". Not everybody thinks a good thing would be improved if it were adulterated with politics, even if it's done subtly.

(And it never is. If you're going to shoehorn in a political message, you want to make sure people notice it, or else what was the point? The readers won't be improved by a lesson they don't get, and the author won't get his brownie points either. Thus the story is not only adulterated with politics, but sublimated to it.)

But that's not an attempt to "shut the debate down". "Who cares?" is a valid contribution to any debate.

Mostly, though, I just thought it was funny that anybody would use the word "subtle" in connection to this hoary old message fiction arseache. Oh my xorx, these elfin fantasy characters are black! I can feel my whole worldview changing. All my paradigms are shifting! As soon as I finish this book I'm going straight down to the Grand Wizard's house and handing in my robes. Lo, the power of fiction to change hearts and minds!

Really, you actually you could convince people to stop talking about something, simply because because you don't want to participate in the conversation? Are people on here really that pathetic?

[thewolfofStarfall]

3 minutes ago, kimim said:

At the risk of insulting people, I'd say racism is alive and well in most societies. I'd also say that it's healthy to point that out. I think the same about sexism, xenophobia and homophobia, with deepest apologies to those who might take issue with that. I'm progressive, so make of it what you will. 

Having said that, no writer has a responsibility to take on any sort of social injustice. Blaming GRRM for failing to take on racism is insane. GRRM does take on sexism and misogyny, and he is very aware of the suffering of common people, though he tells his story from the pov of various nobles. I think that's enough. All I demand of GRRM is Winds, SOON!!!

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".

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

27 minutes ago, thewolfofStarfall said:

Really, you actually you could convince people to stop talking about something, simply because because you don't want to participate in the conversation? Are people on here really that pathetic?

...I feel like you didn't really read or understand what I said.

Regardless, I don't think it's healthy to fixate on race, nor to sublimate all the good things in life to one's political concerns.

30 minutes ago, kimim said:

At the risk of insulting people, I'd say racism is alive and well in most societies. I'd also say that it's healthy to point that out. I think the same about sexism, xenophobia and homophobia, with deepest apologies to those who might take issue with that. I'm progressive, so make of it what you will. 

Having said that, no writer has a responsibility to take on any sort of social injustice. Blaming GRRM for failing to take on racism is insane. GRRM does take on sexism and misogyny, and he is very aware of the suffering of common people, though he tells his story from the pov of various nobles. I think that's enough. All I demand of GRRM is Winds, SOON!!!

I agree with both points: I would just point out that racism has diminished over the past 100 or so years, at least in the Western societies that I'm familiar with. If you don't believe me, build a time machine.

Of course, racism is just a form of prejudice, and prejudice is fundamental to human nature, so racism's decline has just lead to the growth of other prejudices. But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

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?

[thewolfofStarfall]

17 minutes 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

Well the disagreements were the fact the topic was being discussed, which is indeed a ridiculous reaction IMO. @YOVMO thinks he has a right to police what topics people are allowed to talk about the Internet.

And nope, he/she was never calling anyone of you a racist. It's pathetic how people think they are "victims" to political correctness nowadays. Even if he was implying you were racist, isn't that just his opinion based on what you were saying? Why do you guys care so much, while insist that you are right, and anyone who merely disagrees with you is a "crazy SJW"? 

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

4 minutes ago, thewolfofStarfall said:

Even if he was implying you were racist, isn't that just his opinion based on what you were saying?

Well, wasn't it just my opinion on his opinion based on what he was saying about what I was saying?

[thewolfofStarfall]

9 minutes ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

 

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

The series is brilliant, but personally think it would of made a an interesting twist. GRRM always like to subvert tropes, and I just see how super pale people ruling over less people is as "relatable" as another user as mentioned. Out of universe, it could encourage more writers to cross the  racial barrier in the characters they create. 

[thewolfofStarfall]

7 minutes ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Well, wasn't it just my opinion on his opinion based on what he was saying about what I was saying?

You are very clever

[John Doe]

2 hours ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

But the criticism and suggested revision does not end at Valyrians, because some of the posters have an issue with the Dornish and Summer Islanders. These characters are said to be overly sexual, which is funny because the Targaryens are so strongly associated with sexuality, from their incest to polygamy and promiscuity they are nearly defined by their sexuality.

Plus the dornish are pretty much white people, at least they are mostly based on europeans in terms of race.

36 minutes ago, thewolfofStarfall said:

Even if he was implying you were racist, isn't that just his opinion based on what you were saying?

Isn't racism just an opinion?

Bottom line, saying it's your opionion doesn't protect you from justified backlash.

31 minutes ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Well, wasn't it just my opinion on his opinion based on what he was saying about what I was saying?

Well said. 

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

1 hour ago, thewolfofStarfall said:

The series is brilliant, but personally think it would of made a an interesting twist. GRRM always like to subvert tropes, and I just see how super pale people ruling over less people is as "relatable" as another user as mentioned. Out of universe, it could encourage more writers to cross the  racial barrier in the characters they create. 

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.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, thewolfofStarfall said:

Okay basically if GRRM had decided to make the Targaryens black, some fans suspect that Robert's Rebellion would look like a race war between the (black) mad King Aerys and the (white) people fighting to overthrow him such as Ned Stark, Robert Baratheon, and Jon Arryn.

I am not sure that I agree, mostly because Aerys had also non Targaryen supporters and because in 300 years he had some Westerosi blood in his Valyrian blood.

[No One of Importance]

2 hours ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

It's not about civil argument, it's about virtue-signalling. Just as a knight needs a dragon against which to prove his valour, so the progressive/SJW/student (delete where appropriate) needs a racist/sexist/homophobe to demonstrate their moral superiority.

Without dragons to slay, a knight must climb down off his high horse and beat his sword into a ploughshare, which is a bummer if he likes fighting. And so, given that his noble anti-racist counterpart likes demonstrating moral superiority, and given that there aren't so many racists around these days, then it becomes necessary to invent new ways to be racist. This is how people end up getting raked over the coals for saying "all lives matter", or, as one commenter upthread did, for merely appearing to say something analogous to same.

I'd also like to point out that it's absurd that the preferred nomenclature is now "person of colour" when "coloured person" is still considered offensive. It's the same goddamn thing!

Anyway, all that is why people are having "vehement reactions" as someone else said. We've all seen this trap before, and it's annoying to see it getting set once again. I'm sick of it.

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.