[HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences)

[Bernadette M. Crumb]

No: HPFGUIDX 40503


----- Original Message -----
From: "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at comcast.net>

> Bernadette wrote:
>
> > Cindy, what is at issue here is that ONLY the U.S. editions
of
> > HPPS/SS have been changed to emphasize the point that Dean
Thomas
> > was black.  The original Brit versions just mentioned him by
> > name, not putting in any reference to his skin color.  It
really
> > has nothing to do with what JKR originally intended the books
to
> > describe as far as racial and ethnic diversity goes.
>
> You know, Bernadette, I really do understand what you are
saying.  I
> just find the argument rather unpersuasive.

Then I think that you are seeing a different issue here than I am
seeing.  I'm not seeing it as a bunch of people saying "How dare
you make a character black," but rather as "How dare you make
changes from the original text just to appease a particular group
of people."

> Let's assume the absolute worst.  Let's assume that some U.S.
> publicist type contacted his or her counterpart in the U.K. and
> said, "You know, we would reach a broader audience here in the
U.S.
> if we made a character black.  How about Dean Thomas?"
>
> If I understand your argument, Bernadette, it sounds like this
would
> be a bad thing.  Tokenism, reverse discrimination or some such.
Yet
> you indicated that you already viewed the wizarding world as
> racially diverse in your own mind.  So why would this change
bother
> you?  What I can't quite figure out is why it makes *any
difference*
> to someone who says she viewed the books as multi-racial in the
> first instance?  If it were me and I already assumed that the
> wizarding world were diverse, I would merely shrug at the
change in
> Dean Thomas' race (I say "change" assuming, of course, that he
> wasn't always intended to be black).

I was not saying that _I_ perceived tokenism in the addition of
racial detail in Dean Thomas' description, but that there are
others who do.  A friend of mind dislikes tokenism, because, to
her mind, it's like a giant neon sign flashing "Look!  We're good
guys because we are consciously promoting a minority cultural
character to prove that we don't discriminate!"  She said that it
implies that unless she proves by specifying a particular
character as being of color or other ethnic difference, then she
is guilty of discrimination, even if in her head when she created
the characters, she didn't see them as non-racially/ethnically
diverse.  It doesn't make any difference to ME, but it apparently
does make a difference to other people, and the particular
reasons that the race is made so obvious seems to be a part of
what bothers those folks.  Some reasons are more acceptable than
others, depending on who you talk to.

> Bernadette:
>
> > Many people are bothered by the change that Scholastic did
when
> > they published the books in the U.S. because they deem it as
the
> > company toadying to the people who want everything, including
> > children's literature to be "politically correct" in that you
> > must show that there are (token) members of various
ethnic/racial
> > groups, sexual preference groups, genders, etc., even if the
> > story doesn't necessarily rely on whether a person has dark,
> > light or even purple skin.
>
> "Toadying?"  Having a desire that a book reflect or appeal to
the
> potential audience is "toadying?"  And if the story doesn't
> absolutely *require* that there be racial diversity, then
including
> racial diversity is some misguided effort to be politically
> correct?  Characters in stories should be 100% the majority
race
> unless it is *absolutely necessary* to include racial diversity
for
> a story-related reason?

I should have phrased it as "a sector of the potential audience."
As a PR student, I tend to use the term audience to describe
individual divisions of the overall readership, rather than an
inclusive term--the way that most laymen read it--I was referring
to the "PC audience" among the various other audiences of the HP
books.  My mistake for being unclear.

And, I didn't say that a book had to be 100% homegenous.  It's
just that, sometimes, the mentions of aspects of racial/ethnic
diversity in publications appear to be "self-conscious"
insertions that don't appear to have an intrisic purpose in the
story rather than a natural part of the work.  When I write,
there is racial diversity because it is MY intent, not the intent
of outsiders who think that they know better than I do what
people ought to be reading.

> Maybe some people (I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it
> as "many" people) are irked by Dean Thomas' race being made
explicit
> in the U.S. edition.  Some of us view it differently, though.
Some
> of us approach it from the viewpoint that it would be ideal and
> inclusive and realistic for there to have been racial diversity
in
> the books (assuming that this was OK with the author) *from the
> start.*  That this diversity was added a little late in the
game
> does not make it less valuable or legitimate.  I somehow
suspect
> that if JKR thought it important that Dean Thomas be white,
he'd be
> white.

Of course it's ideal and inclusive and realistic to have racial
diversity at Hogwarts and within the Wizarding World.  But what
bothers me (and others) is that if it wasn't necessary to make
that specific description in the original work, why the heck did
it HAVE to be changed for JUST the U.S. audience?  It implies
that readers in the U.S. are incapable of imagining a group of
people in a book as being diverse without having it shoved down
the throat.  THAT seems to be the sticking point.... it's
insulting to a proportion of the U.S. readership, including
people who are all for diversity in life and literature.  If JKR
had put the line in the British version, we wouldn't be
discussing it now.

> > Some people are so tired of the PC people using social
pressure
> > to force these kinds of changes that they seem (IMO) to feel
> > threatened that these pressures will in turn become reverse
> > discrimination.
>
> Well, Darrin already said it quite well.  Everyone in the U.S.
gets
> to vote with their wallet.  Literature, TV shows, movies etc.
that
> include only the majority race in our diverse culture may find
less
> of an audience.  Members of minority races have every right to
> choose what to read or watch, just as those of the majority
race do,
> I would say.  So if anyone is deeply troubled that Dean Thomas
is
> black in the U.S. edition, they have the right to vote with
their
> wallet and decline to purchase the books.

I NEVER said that I was troubled by Dean Thomas being black... I
am troubled by the publishers making a distinct change in an
author's original work that had already been published in the UK
with text that didn't explicity express the racial
characteristics of Dean Thomas.  I was expressing an opinion on
WHY the publishers may have felt it necessary to make that
change.

> I fail to see the reason for the irritation people express over
a
> decision to make a character of a minority race in this
instance,
> which leads me to worry that something deeper may be at work.

And I fail to see the reason why people keep missing the point
that it's not whether the character is black, white, or of any
other color that is the problem here, but that only in the United
States was it felt necessary to PUSH the idea of the character
being of a non-majority race.  We simply don't know whose idea it
was that Dean be a person of color.  If it was JKR, then I have
no problem with it because it was her intent that he be that way.
But the implications of only having the U.S. text explicity
stating Dean's race sounds to me as if the change in text was
actually a change from what JKR had originally envisioned Dean
Thomas to look like, simply to appease a noisy section of
audience who want to dictate what people are shown in regards to
race or ethnicity in books or films, no matter the original
intent of the author.  That's where I--and other people--have a
problem.

I'm not going to be able to discuss this further as I have to go
out of town for a week and won't have internet access.  Have a
good week everyone and I look forward to seeing how the
discussion has grown when I get back.

Bernadette/RowanRhys

"Life's greatest happiness is to be convinced we are loved."
- Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, 1862