Lemma Soft Forums

This is something that's been nagging me for a bit. On one of my projects, there are parts that flash back to points where people...weren't so nice. (As in discrimination and the like) So I'm wondering if I should take into account the readers of those groups and be politically correct or bite the bullet and keep the history as it happened?

_________________

MESI Games/Personal Twitter/Death Rule: lost code Demo

Keep it as it happened. If you are referencing actual history, then why lie about it? Also, I'm heavily against misinforming people about stuff like that. If it's AU, go for it, but we shouldn't be lying about our own past, it's not healthy.

_________________
The other 1/2 of Cyanide Tea l My Deviantart Account I My Tumber Account I Break Chance Memento I Ristorante Amore

it really depends. If you are creating a story about discrimination and it plays an important part in your story, you'll probably want to use some of that too your advantage.
However, if its not a central part of the story and adds nothing to your plot ( I highly doubt this or else you wouldn't be asking), then i think toning down the discrimination, but not taking it all away would be best.
For example, Echo Bazaar, which is sort of a steam punk browser game thing, calls chinese people "chinamen" or "oriental". Obviously now that would be offensive, but it was set in the Victorian era, so that's what they said. As long as you are conscious of the implication and deliberately using phrases or actions to further your story immersion, I cannot see people getting offended.

100% agreed. White-washing history is dangerous. There will always be someone in the audience who is seeing or learning about that time period for the first time ever from your work. A lot of people will think you did the research on behavior if everything else is well-researched, so they'll think people actually acted politically-correct during that time period.

You get the theme park version of the past - history viewed through rose-tinted glasses with all the uncomfortable parts removed. People already do this when they "remember" the good old days. They are ascribing to a past that never actually happened that way, and that is DANGEROUS. It lets people make arguments like, "Everything was so much safer in the 1950s. You could lead your front door unlocked and be perfectly safe." And people believe this (even if they lived through the era) because only their positive memories are being reinforced through sanitized and scrubbed fare like 1950s sitcoms or feel-good movies set in the 1950s. In reality, there were more violent home invasions in the 1950s than today - by a lot. But people see home invasions happening TODAY, and when they look at the white-washed history the 1950s they see no home invasions and erroneously conclude that people got more violent as the years went on - when the OPPOSITE is true.

You can also get a skewed sense of people and characters if you make history politically correct. I'll give a very personal example: I was recently continuing the genealogy research my late grandmother had started, and with my knowledge of computers and doing historical research I could progress a lot faster than she did and find more information. I discovered a direct ancestor who had fallen on hard times in England (our family used to be a "seated" or noble family, and the end of feudalism hit them like a ton of bricks), so he joined up with one of the early voyages to the New World, nearly 400 years ago. He was a soldier and it was exciting to see how many people he came in contact with that ended up in the history books. It is highly likely, but unconfirmed that he at least met James Rolfe - and he probably knew Thomas Rolfe - the son of Pocahontas and James Rolfe. He helped settlers rebuild after an attack on their homes.

Why do I go into such detail? To prove a point. He sounds like an awesome and upstanding man, someone you could be proud to have in your family tree. He was a soldier, an adventurer, a good Samaritan. If I wrote a story about him using politically correct history, that is all you would know and see. That would be your final opinion on him. But let's look deeper. What were other soldiers doing in that location, in that year? Killing and stealing from Native Americans. One has to conclude that my ancestor committed the same despicable acts as his fellows. Well, that shades things a bit, doesn't it? Then I found an accounting of his household - several people are listed, including slaves. Some of the first slaves brought to the New World. Leaving out the fact he was a likely racist who thought it okay to kill Native Americans and own people would be dishonest and present a distorted impression of his character.

If you are going to use history, I believe you have a responsibility to use it as more than prop or a colorful stage - it should be educational to your audience and it should inform your characters' actions. History is medicine that protects the future from repeated mistakes - don't sugar coat it into syrup.

As a misanthrope, I am really entertained by depictions of raw, corrupt human nature (Game of Thrones Season II FTW!). I was late in finishing up The Tudors and it was one of the best shows I've seen in years.

I've already read an editorial somewhere that despite the terrorists and world wars, the 20th-21st centuries are actually the most peaceful and humane in all of human history. It kinda puts things in perspective the next time I visit Sankakucomplex and marvel at the latest otaku antics that make me facepalm.

Nowadays, what I essentially seek are FLAWED characters in stories.

Whitewashing history is dangerous. On the other hand, people's ideas of what life was like in the past are often equally incorrect on the OTHER side. Most of the time situations are much more complex than a quick sum-up will give you. The same person might both own slaves and free slaves. There were still female business owners thousands of years ago. There were still (a very small number of) black people in England centuries ago.

For that matter, there's still a good deal of discimination _today_. It's not like everything was all mean people in the past and all hunky-dory now. Whenever you have mass prejudice you also have some people who think it's wrong and argue against it.

Not trying to get into a huge political derail, just saying that it's worth being nuanced. Keep the bad with the good and remember they're both there.

_________________
Hanako Games

Honestly, given the amount of fear people have on trying to be politically correct, I'm not surprised we haven't fully censored the Diary of Anne Frank to be about some girl growing up a normal life and discovering womanhood as her body matures.

It's completely disgusting.

While we're throwing TV Tropes links around, might as well go for some good old Deliberate Values Dissonance. That way, you get an accurate portrayal of the past while simultaneously showing that bad things that happened in the past were, well, bad.

And, like LaWabbit said, people do have a tendency to think of the past as being not terrible for pretty much everyone.


I've always just assumed the people obsessed with trying to make everything politically correct were canceled out by the people who try to be all edgy and rebellious by making everything politically incorrect.

_________________
"So what do you think? If my past-self saw me now, would she praise me?" - Megurine Luka, "Double Lariat"

So, what do you guys think about using certain notorious words (racial slurs, etc) in stories, in the context as they would have been used at that time in history?

_________________
“When I stand before God at the end of my life,
I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left,
and could say, 'I used everything you gave me.'”
— Erma Bombeck

If the person or character would have used the slurs in a certain situation or context, then use them. Bur, I wouldn't go out of my way to use them when writing a story in the past - after all, there are other ways to show someone is racist without slurs. I think it was an old Tarzan story where a white man was on an expedition and one of his black guides fell off a cliff path carrying some supplies. The man remarks how fortunate it was that the mule managed to keep from falling, but the loss of supplies was regrettable. He never mentions the human being that fell and died. He didn't have to use slurs to show us he was horribly racist.

Keep in mind that people dislike racial slurs, so they'll dislike anyone that uses them. If you want to keep a character at all sympathetic, you'd best refrain from having them use slurs. There are other ways to show they share the racist views of their time without having them verbally assault other races.

It bothered me when Doctor Who glossed right over this issue when the Doctor got his first black companion, Martha Jones:

Says the man from a race of aliens that look identical to Caucasian humans. Thanks, Doc. I mean, his response was supposed to be funny, but it struck me as more than a little racist itself. (In the oblivious, passive racism sense.) The show writers even had Shakespeare openly flirt in public with a black woman (Martha). I don't know if Shakespeare himself was racist, but since most of his countrymen were at that time, I doubt he would flaunt his open race relations even if he believed in them. Of course no one comments on Martha being "dressed like a man" (in their eyes) either. The Doctor was obviously visiting Theme Park London 1599.

Speaking as someone who tends to be on the receiving end of...certain slurs, by virtue of my existence, I'm fine as long as it's a legit historical setting. If you have magic and stuff, then I'm probably not buying it and I'm calling shenanigans.

_________________
I lie awake at night wondering what fresh hell tomorrow will bring me.

***Say You Love Me***Human Enough***Cheerful!Polymorph [NaNo12][Complete!]***


*Website, yo*

I don't know why people don't want to use words that are offensive/racist now in works that are set in times where those words were definitely used by certain people or even considered polite. It's insulting to your story, because you evidently don't take your setting seriously enough to respect how people used language in that setting, and it's insulting to your readers, even people from those groups you're trying not to offend by avoiding those words. I really think it's even more offensive to not use those words. Even though it's not your intention, it's almost like saying, hey, racism never existed! From there, it's just a step away from saying stuff like WWII never happened...

It's important to take into account how we use language and how we represent certain groups of people in media; part of that is acknowledging the historical background that has resulted into the prejudice, discrimination, and stereotypes against those groups of people in the first place. Simply jamming our 21st-century sensibilities wholesale into an incompatible setting is just wrong, both as a creator and a moral person.





This. A thousand times this.

I'd recommend reading some awesome historical fiction set in the historical period you're writing about, to get an idea on how to handle issues like that in a more subtle, nuanced manner. Reading Toni Morrison is great if you're writing about black slaves in early US history, for example.

_________________
Adversity Comp (2012): Review Guide

Always, always, always represent history accurately. Glossing over history is always a bad thing, but it is important to remember that just because a time period contained a great deal of racism/sexism/what have you, it doesn't mean that the time period was all bad. Take the Nazi party for example. Granted, the leadership of the party committed horrible atrocities, but they also did great things for the German people (excluding Jews, gypsies, etc). What I am saying is that when you are portraying a certain time period you have to show both sides of the coin. It can't be all "BOO RACISM, THIS TIME PERIOD MUST BE AWFUL" nor can it be "This time period was filled with fluffy bunnies that shat rainbows and jellybeans." There is a great saying that you should also keep in mind "The situations in history never change, only the actors change".

@LateWhiteRabbit
I believe they cover the "dressed as a man" bit in a later episode where they state that the Tardis alters the perceptions of people so they view you as wearing time period clothes and speaking dialects native to the area (Though they continually break this continuity throughout the series because lets face it, Doctor Who is riddled with bad continuity) All your other points are spot on though

_________________
Visit my game development group's Facebook page : Timekeeper Games
Mutagen : Journey to Haven's Landing Facebook Page
Follow our Twitter feed too : TK Games

Figured this. I will keep it in mind.


I'm glad to have your input on this Mink
I tend to feel the same way too... if the setting is anything less than historical, I start to feel like the author just wanted to impart his/her own racism into the fictional world for kicks.


I agree with you entirely. The reason I asked in the first place is that I saw someone completely lose it over the fact that someone else mentioned a racial slur in discussion. It was a discussion about language usage, but this person was legitimately appalled at the fact that the word was even spelled out. IMO, the reaction was ridiculous, but I am still wary lest anything I write in the future trigger some kind of forum apocalypse.

_________________
“When I stand before God at the end of my life,
I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left,
and could say, 'I used everything you gave me.'”
— Erma Bombeck