[ SECRET POST #2884 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2884 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #412.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think part of the problem is how the argument gets used on the Internet.

Specifically, it seems to come up a lot in this situation. Someone will lament the lack of POC characters in some popular media property, usually one set in a specific historical RL milieu, and perhaps even accuse it of being problematic. Someone else, to defend it, will address the historical plausibility of POC characters appearing in whatever setting we're talking about. And then a third someone will come out and make an argument about the possibility of POC characters existing in said setting in the historical record.

Which is a fine argument, and usually a pretty reasonable one. But the problem is that in that context, it becomes really easy to read it as a support for the first argument - that is to say, as an affirmative argument that POC characters ought to be included. So it's a bit tricky to distinguish sometimes.

[(Anonymous)]

Well put, that's how it goes, IME. The argument gets a little tiresome as a whole but I hope that writers take away the significant bits: POCs were/are everywhere, feel free to include them if you want.

The problem is that "but-but historical accuracy!" is often used as an excuse for why you can't possibly have POCs in a setting, and then people enter into some sort of weird Justify My White Characters Olympics where they try to come up with scenarios where there were definitely no POCs. Geez, why bother? If you want to write all white characters, do it. No need to pull up "evidence" to prove why that's justified. But also, realize that there are very, very few situations where POCs didn't exist and could not possibly exist in the context of a fictional story, so just let that argument die.