fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4912 ]

[ SECRET POST #4912 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4912 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #703.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I wouldn't trust a western POV alone about anything from the east, but I think in the type of shallow cultural divide you're talking about it's less about his book than about the typically white rage that also doesn't care about his book but wouldn't necessarily like him to success regardless.

That said, leftist and liberals in the US are particularly weird about China and Chinese material no matter if you're left or liberal so.....

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making here, would you mind elaborating a bit?

Sure, when you have a cultural divide along one axis from one perspective, here racism/sexism/homophobia and transphobia in the US, a lot of time people aren't really examining content so much as drawing lines on who they think is most vulnerable. So regardless of who this guy is and what he writes, the ~liberal side is going to see him as more vulnerable to the way some super racists SF content creators have targeted what they see as non-traditional books (non-traditional because the subjects or the authors are marginalized). The subject of the books aren't really what is being protected so much as it is marginalized voices in SF. eta: and this is marginalization as understood in a US context.

As for the last sentence, leftists tend to take a dim view of capitalism and imperialism which as of now tends to be spearheaded by the US in the West. China is very obviously resistant to Western but also US-ian presence in the East, so you'll see some leftists praise say, the government's response to Covid-19 in comparison to the US for instance (not necessary the response as a whole, but in comparison). You'll also get a group of leftists who will actually go into validating the Chinese government with far less criticism than the Chinese government deserves. Like overkill for US-ian ills. Liberals on the other hand tend to focus China as an authoritarian government so they will talk about the massacre of the Uyghurs and be supportive of the Hong Kong protests (so will so leftists, but I'm talking about the weirdness), but also will do no critical thought on the sources they're getting their information from about China and will sometimes verge into repeating US-ian propaganda or straight up anti-asian racism. There are plenty of leftists and liberals who are more thoughtful about all of this, but at the shallower end of the pool it's like people can't reconcile how a country can be very ethically complicated AND that you have to be careful about how you talk about such complications when you're in different environments where people have bad faith about those conversations.

Edited 2020-06-18 02:09 (UTC)

Please stop saying US-ian. It makes it impossible to take you seriously.

People flipping out over "USian" is so weird and overly defensive to me. It's not any more artificial or made up than any other demonym. I don't use it myself but it's incomprehensible to me that people seriously object to it.

Yes, but generally people use the country names that the country calls themselves. Specifically choosing not to in this case when most of the world has agreed to call people in the US Americans, even most people who are on the left, is a weird hill to stand on.

Yes, but generally people use the country names that the country calls themselves.

This is straightforwardly untrue!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_exonyms

Okay, yes. You are right. Most of those seem language differences to me? How many of them are deliberate choices to tell people of that country they aren't who they say they are and made the wrong choice about their own name the way USian is.

USian in particular is a deliberate choice to say that "American" is the wrong way to refer to people from the US. I still don't think that happens that often except for things like telling people from Tibet that they are Chinese, or the government of Myanmar refusing to use the name Rohingya to refer to those people.

There are definitely some country names that are just different - off the top of my head, we call Nihon Japan and we call Deutschland Germany.

And I think the case for why some people don't want to call people from the US "Americans" is pretty easy to comprehend. Like, I get where they're coming from. OK. And people respond like it's a slur. It's disproportionate.

I've used USian for a while because I was told by middle American people to stop using American when referring to people from the US because the continent is America and they, as fellow continental Americans, didn't want to be associated with US Americans.

It isn't a slur. At all. That's an overreaction and a ridiculous response. But I do think it is rude, I do think that any points in its favor are outweighed by that rudeness, it is needlessly antagonistic, and I also think that most of the time people using it have actual good things to say that are missed because they use that term.

in general I refuse to let someone who's motivations I can't determine tell me what to say, but also I should get to call the US whatever I fucking want I live here.

Okay. Not telling you what to say. I just personally find it a bit rude to use it and I don't think it serves any useful purpose that would offset that rudeness. I don't think it is discriminatory, and anyone who says it is doesn't understand what discrimination is given that the US happens to be one of if not the most powerful countries in the world and really can't be discriminated against. I just think it is rude and pointless and pointlessly antagonistic.

And the other thing is that I usually agree with everything else people who use it say, and I think that by using it they antagonize and miss out on the chance to get the rest of their message heard. Of course there is a place for just anger, but people using USian aren't just using it to rant about the US, they want it to be used as a substitute for American and are using it in general conversations. And therefore their other, generally good, points often get lost.

Edited 2020-06-18 21:31 (UTC)

This perspective....

It's like you understand that the US has privilege and power, but divorce that power and privilege from our language regarding ourselves and have not stopped to consider or have actually rejected that the use has a nationalistic purpose in of itself. I for one think it's very important for me to refrain from that synecdoche the US uses because it services the centering of this country in the power structure of the colonialized west and the Americas in general as normalized rather than merely realistic if only for myself. You don't have to think that's a useful purpose, but hopefully you can understand why "that's rude and lack purpose" is wild when I'm talking about my country's sovereignty and its aims and its history and have not advocated that use for anyone else? Did you ask me my purpose or decide that I couldn't possibly have had one you would validate as legit? Don't you see that's dismissive in of itself in your judgment of politeness? Rude to who? The government? Do they deserve my respect? Come on.

This also the specifically leftist in me but imo you should question why you want to center politeness when talking about the imperialistic impulses of a country you completely recognize to have dominate power. Do you object when people in the US call the cops pigs? If not why, when that is you know, actually an insult?

For the record, I wasn't saying you were telling me what to say. the anon who replied to me definitely was tho and you were saying that was a weird hill so i clarified what hill was actually being stood on.

Okay, cool. I'm generally in the camp of call people what they want to be called, at least what that is in your language, except in certain contexts (anger reactions mostly, I think people's anger against oppression shouldn't be censored or "tone policed"). But I actually think I understand what your saying and I'm not going to tell you you can't use it. You are making a point in using it, and that is good. And maybe I'm just too comfortable with American, I don't know. You do you.

Edited 2020-06-18 22:13 (UTC)

(no subject)

meadowphoenix - 2020-06-20 20:52 (UTC) - Expand

Yeah, I just wanted to say that I get your point and also find it a little aggravating when people interpret eastern works with a western slant. But I suppose that process happens once something gets translated.

bb, if you don't want to take me seriously, I absolve you of having to, lol.

It's a mockery of a word we already have, "Asian." The damage is usually being done by white people lacking self awareness too.

What on earth? USian is not at all related to Asian, as far as I am aware that is completely and totally wrong

I have always found it wierd just how US readers tend to treat works of created in spaces where Asians are absolutely the privilaged majority as representations of minority voices. Of course, when such works get to the "West", they face racis assumptions, but that does not in any way negate the fact that their authors do not create from the underprivilaged minority POV.

/And if Liu Cixin was to be criticised for anything, I would start with more basic "carbon-cut characters and in some palces almost cartoonish male-centricity" than any "is his proposed vision of alien-human relations not liberal enough". (But I haven't read the third book in the trilogy)

Yeah, my friend liked his first book but hated the second one because (spoilers) the main character had his staff go out and find him a perfect wife who fit all the criteria he personally specified, who when they found this woman she had no reason to love this dude but for some reason she just did. Because she's just there to be the perfect wife, who cares about making her act like a real person. And then she was fridged to motivate him. Now go to the reviews of the book and find a billion stans defending this writing because it's only misogynistic from a western perspective and you shrill wimmins who don't like it are all racist actually.

Yeah, the first part had its issues in terms of characterisations and absence of women, but there was this interesting and important female character that the story starts with (and whose decision is so pivotal), that I let it slide, but the second volume was so cringe worthy - especially the first section of it which unfortunately focused on this awful main character and really dragged everything down (the second part had some interesting elements, but you had to wade through some 200+ pages to get to them). (Although I did have a laught at the Bin Laden cameo, but that wasn't intentional on the author's part). Generally speaking, the author is very much a big picture guy, which makes him interesting for "what would humanity do" discussions (even if I don't agree with a lot of his takes), but also in some cases pretty bad at describing anything to do with individual humans' relations.

It's a viewpoint which centralizes US social dynamics for sure, but I do understand a bit of this when it comes to US awards and commendations, because the US social dynamics there are actually relevant.

There's definately some significance in an Asian work getting recognised within the local US context for people who live within this context, but I find it strange how (what seems like) the vast majority of that work's recipients ignores the original context of the work and is completely unwilling (not just unable) to interrogate it in any way other than US-centric context. They books in question have their own good and bad points, but the mere fact that an Asian person living in an Asian country writes about Asian characters is not a sign of his great progressiveness.

It is strange but I'm going to be honest and say that even very educated people don't have the background to think about the original context of eastern work unless they go looking for commentary by people who do have the background. I think they should look for it, but imo most people couldn't tell you who Edward Said is, and his writing is basic if not seminal or wholistic.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only