(no subject)

[boxofdelights]

Thanks to vito_excalibur I know that David Levine has thought more about RaceFail09 and come to different conclusions.

First, and most important: Taking seriously the possibility that you might be wrong is praiseworthy, and I praise it.

Also, I agree with David Levine that human communication can only be understood in context. I said earlier that PNH's participation in RaceFail09 was like a guy who walked into a room of people who burst out laughing at him because they had been talking about Repo Man and he was carrying a plate of shrimp.

And I contend that this viewpoint-neutral way of talking about communication in context is true. But it isn't complete.

Most people don't get to assume that their context is the context. If you do (and anytime you argue that what you meant is what matters, you do), then your privilege is showing. And you should pull your pants up. Nobody wants to have to look at that.

Comments

[bibliofile]

That's a pretty good way of putting it: that yes, context matters.

[schemingreader.livejournal.com]

I...but...I don't get this. The original context was a white writer claiming that she had figured out how to write people who are different from her (the Other) and get it right, every time, because (she argued) "it's very simple." There is no way that couldn't be challenged, no matter how good a writer that person was. RaceFail was also IronyFail -- insisting that race isn't important and that readers of color were not smart enough to read the book when the original context was a discussion of how to write characters who are different from us--I still haven't gotten over how friggin' stupid these folks sounded. (And apparently, still sound.)

My husband, who has done a lot of freelance journalism about incidents of racial violence and murder, thinks I'm foolish to expect people not to have racist ideas.