[ SECRET POST #2324 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4324 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #619.
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)]

"Sure it's a stereotype but there's truth to it" is kind of a dangerous road to go down, because everyone that uses stereotypes does so because they think there's some truth to them. And the problem with using stereotypes, even if it's not innately a negative stereotype that you're using, is because it's reductionist, it simplifies a culture to the outsider perspective of that culture while ignoring the internal parts of it. It's outsiders claiming a truth about a culture without having any insight into that truth, assuming that their own experiences are more important in how to present a culture than that of someone from a culture. (Not saying that it's consciously the goal or idea, but rather that there's a subtext there whenever a presentation leans on stereotypes.)

Easy example: creating a work with a single East Asian character, and having their most prominent characteristics be that they're really polite and good at math, is still bad even if those are erstwhile positive characteristics in the abstract. Because the portrayal is still founded in how people outside the East Asian culture view East Asians rather than how East Asians view East Asians; it's still based in reducing them to how others see them. And while acknowledging the external view can be important, it shouldn't be done in a way that dismisses the internal view, because that's essentially communicating that the culture is only valuable in a given work in terms of what outsiders get from it, that the actual internal truth is irrelevant. That it's only being used in your work in so much as people can react to it; using the culture as a prop.

That's why it's different when, for example, someone within a culture is commenting on their own culture in generalities; because at least in that case, it's coming from an internal perspective rather than an external one, it's still coming from the voice of a member of that culture. (Even that can be questionable and potentially inauthentic, of course, but it's at least a step.)

A stereotypical portrayal doesn't have to be explicitly insulting or bigoted against the culture to be bad, it doesn't even necessarily have to be untrue, because what makes stereotypical portrayals bad isn't (entirely) the quality of accuracy of what stereotype you're presenting, but the fact that stereotypes are innately reductionist and external. It almost doesn't matter if many convenience store clerks actually are South Asian, because even if it is true, it's still oversimplifying things to lean on that. Simplifying is fine, but oversimplifying is the problem. And even just including a single Indian voice in writing Apu would help, because then you could get authentic humor coming from both the external and the internal. Simplifying things down in a way that doesn't exclude the internal, but allows it to complement the external instead.

[(Anonymous)]

Fantastic post! Great stuff. Really great.

[cakemage]

I know I'm late to the party, but this is really well said.