[HPFGU-OTChatter] assumptions of race

[Ebony Elizabeth Thomas]

--- Scott <insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > So my question is what do we assume when race isn't given? The race
> > of the author? Our own race? It's not always a clear cut question.

Interesting question!  I had to strain my brain to think of the last time 
that I've had absolutely no "racial" or ethnic clues while reading 
something.  I still can't think of a time, really... I do know for some 
strange reason, it didn't surprise me in GoF that Angelina was black.  (I 
was quite surprised that she actually got a date for the Yule Ball, though.) 
  I'd been shocked about Lee, Dean, and Parvati in book 1, then again in 
book 3 that Cho was Harry's first crush.

When I first read SS, with Dean, Lee, and Parvati, I was shocked... and had 
to actively remember that there is a nonwhite population in England. I'd 
known this of course (we had a biracial exchange student from Liverpool 
attend our high school during my junior year), but being quite honest, 
multiculturalism is *not* the first thing that comes to mind when we think 
of England over here.

Going back to the question... not thinking about race and ethnicity is not a 
luxury that some of us have.  <g>  Even my youngest students have their own 
stories about race (usually focused around times when they were with Mom and 
Dad and something bad happened... or playing at a park/swimming at a pool 
and something bad happened... and so on).  Already they are aware that they 
are "different" than the American norm.  When we did Census 2000 lessons, 
and it was mentioned that black Americans are no longer the 
"majority-minority", one of my kids whispered to me, "Do you think they want 
us to all disappear?"

I said, "Let's hope not..." and moved on.  For I honestly didn't know what 
to say.

If it seems that ethnic minorities can be sometimes obnoxious about 
demanding fair representation, it is only because we have been invisible for 
so long... and when we did appear, the voices that represented us were not 
authentic.  Slavery only ended 100-150 years ago in the Western world (and 
continues in certain parts of the world), widespread colonialism only 40-60 
years ago, and de jure segregation only 10-30 years ago.

These institutions were in place for over half a millennium, helping to 
shape the Western world into what it is today.  It'll take generations for 
us to mold the way we deal with each other now into something better IMO.

Back to books...

Usually, I go by the race of the author, since people mostly write what they 
know.  It's usually easy for me to pick up subtle clues.  An easy one is 
blushing... I think it's fair to say that most people of African descent do 
not appear to blush.  (We do, really--the same thing happens--you just can't 
see it!)  If we're fair enough to do so, we almost never say the person in 
question blushed, we invariably say they "turned red" (and in certain parts 
of the South, lighter-skinned blacks are called "redbones" because of this). 
  The way we handle our hair is different, too... the majority of black 
girls don't toss their hair, or fluff it, or do anything to it but leave it 
the heck alone unless we're getting it done... it most likely took a 
Herculean amount of effort to get it like that in the first place. <vbg>

Telling the race of the author is not always easy, but sometimes it is 
easier to tell what the writer is *not*.  A usual clue that an author is not 
of African descent is when they describe our teeth or eyeballs as being 
unusually white, or describe eyes and teeth in contrast to our skin.  Never 
in my recollection do I recall a black writer doing this.  *Especially* not 
the teeth thing... too many uncomfortable echoes of the auction blocks, 
y'know?

Another thing I've noticed is that with white writers and characters, the 
description seems to focus a lot on the hair and eyes (especially in 
romances and women's fiction), whereas a modern black writer describing 
black characters will concentrate on the skin color... whether the 
character's skin is ivory, cafe au lait, toast, cinnamon, honey, golden, 
sepia, mahogany, milk or bittersweet chocolate, or deepest charcoal.  This 
is because one of the purposes of description is to differentiate characters 
one from another... and since most blacks have brown to black hair and dark 
eyes, the hair/eyes convention doesn't do much for us.

There are lots of other subtle clues that one can pick up on.  And white 
writers aren't the only ones guilty of stereotyping... in modern Af-Am lit, 
whites are very often stereotyped as well.  Which is just as wrong.  Not all 
whites are racist.  Not all white families will disown their children if one 
or more of them marries outside of her race.  Not all white women are 
deathly afraid of black men.  Not all whites are punctual, hard-working, and 
play by the book, always ready to blow the whistle.  Not all white cops are 
candidates for the Ku Klux Klan.  Yet these are all common stereotypes 
you'll find in the current bestsellers by black writers.

As a child growing up in a majority-black environment, whenever I read in a 
book that a character was "dark" as opposed to being fair, I automatically 
assumed they were black.  When I learned that this meant only that the 
character had dark hair and eyes, I was a little disappointed.  You see, I'd 
had to image myself out of some of my favorite children's stories!

--Ebony AKA AngieJ
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com