Things I have been thinking about.
Aug. 10th, 2009 10:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
supermouseI'll do a 'how my day went' post if I can scrape together the spoons. Two articles pleased me today, for very different reasons.
This post by Neesha Meminger on Justin Larblestier's blog addresses the pervasive whiteness of just about every form of media. I disagree with one premise stated, 'white people can only write white characters' - I don't claim this is Neesha Meminger's view, just one put forward in the article.
What the article talks about is how both sides in the race discussion cannot do the same thing to achieve equality. It's clear on what the differences are, and exactly why, for example, calling a white woman a 'honky' is so very different in impact to calling an Asian woman a 'Paki'. It was a question one white commenter asked on here, when I was having the Racefail 09 discussions, and it was one I didn't have enough elegance of words to say 'this, this is why there is no 'reverse discrimination''. I beg that commenter to read this, it's a very clear answer.
This report of an interview opportunity by a 'terrified' 11 yo and how Danielle Radcliffe handled it gave me the warm fuzzies. Warning: contains children.
This post by Neesha Meminger on Justin Larblestier's blog addresses the pervasive whiteness of just about every form of media. I disagree with one premise stated, 'white people can only write white characters' - I don't claim this is Neesha Meminger's view, just one put forward in the article.
What the article talks about is how both sides in the race discussion cannot do the same thing to achieve equality. It's clear on what the differences are, and exactly why, for example, calling a white woman a 'honky' is so very different in impact to calling an Asian woman a 'Paki'. It was a question one white commenter asked on here, when I was having the Racefail 09 discussions, and it was one I didn't have enough elegance of words to say 'this, this is why there is no 'reverse discrimination''. I beg that commenter to read this, it's a very clear answer.
This report of an interview opportunity by a 'terrified' 11 yo and how Danielle Radcliffe handled it gave me the warm fuzzies. Warning: contains children.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-11 12:19 am (UTC)