IBARW 2: Final thoughts

[keilexandra]

In the extended debate recently at John Scalzi's blog, a slightly-disturbing thought came to me. Regarding anti-racism, it's "with us or against us." Being passively not-racist does nothing, and so those people are criticized for it and they get defensive. (I'm not speaking about Scalzi specifically, because he's been a great sport about everyone yelling at him to get a clue.)

It's just... sad. I wish the battle wasn't divided along such solid lines--and maybe I'm misreading everything and it isn't, but it feels like it is.

As I said to sethdickinson, and as I now say to everyone out there: Life isn't fair.

Comments

[sethdickinson.livejournal.com]

Isn't the goal to create a world of passively not-racist people?

[keilexandra]

Bleh, I say to you. Bleh. Or maybe even blargh.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

I think the problem with John Scalzi's approach, and the reason that he's getting criticized for it, is that he believes his passive not-racism is a form of active anti-racism. But I haven't read the entire comments thread, so maybe I'm missing your point?

[keilexandra]

That's basically it. He writes race-not-specified, talks about how the characters are POC in his head, and is surprised when everyone jumps on him for it.

But as I said, he's been an incredibly good sport about being told repeatedly to get a clue.