When your friends write troubling stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.

little_e

Trust: that most precious coin.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
508
Location
USA
Eh. One of my pet peeves is white people getting offended and lecturing other white people on behalf of POCs, over stuff the POCs in question don't even care about.

Take Speedy Gonzales. They don't show Speedy cartoons in the US anymore because whites are scared that Speedy is racist. Mexicans, meanwhile, LOVE Speedy Gonzales, because he's quick, clever, and Mexican.

Or white people who are like, "I don't believe in race, so I'm not going to teach my kids words like 'black' or 'Asian'. We're all just people." What's up with that? Black people are proud of being black. Asians are proud of being Asian. Jews are proud of being Jewish. Mexicans are proud of being Mexican. Ethnic and cultural identities are hugely important to people. History is important to people. Ignoring that doesn't make racism go away.

So, to the OP, if you have a problem with something, or you think a subject needs to be handled with delicacy and tact, by all means, mention it to your friend. But a Hindu deity manifesting as a white person? That by itself is not problematic. Hindu deities have already done that, because (according to monotheistic Hinduism,) all deities are just different manifestations of Vishnu. I have a Hindu friend who is a Christian because he believes in Jesus: Jesus is a manifestation of Vishnu (this is his own statement of belief). Likewise, all gods of all religions.

Not to mention that Hindus are Caucasian, so they might not have a problem with this at all. I'd worry more about the colonial history of England having conquered large parts of India than about an Indo-European deity appearing as another sort of Indo-European. Would it have been a problem if the deity had shown up in a Chinese body? There's a long history there, too, and probably violent future.

Your friend probably chose a white person because this is what her life experiences have equipped her to write. (I mean, have you read stories set in cultures the authors don't know very well? They tend to be terrible. It takes a TON of research to write another culture well, and sometimes you just want to write your story.)


So long as the deity is being portrayed consistent with the mythology, in a way that does not demean the deity or their followers, I don't see a problem. So, yeah, if she named her deity Kali and then had her cuddling kittens, that could be a problem. If you take a religion's most beloved prophet and declare them the anti-Christ, that is really darn problematic. Remind her to be careful and respectful when dealing with something beloved by another culture. But a deity manifesting outside of the geographic area their main worshipers live in? I wouldn't sweat it. Omnipotent deities are not limited by race or culture, and someone showing an interest in other cultures is a good thing.
 
Last edited:

little_e

Trust: that most precious coin.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
508
Location
USA
She's not a friend, she's a member of another writing board where I mostly lurk but sometimes post. She is white, and she self-published this book.
LOL. That looks pretty bad. But honestly, don't waste your time. Even the "review" is transparently by the author.
 

WaveHopper

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
576
Reaction score
136
Location
Ireland
LOL. That looks pretty bad. But honestly, don't waste your time. Even the "review" is transparently by the author.

The whole thing is like it was mocked up for an edgy comedy sketch.

From the blurb:
The jealous rejected suitor causes his victorious rival to be abducted, dipped in a staining solution and sold South into slavery.

From the review:
Filled with beautifully drawn characters and well-researched, plausible situations...
 

Rachel Udin

Banned
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
133
Location
USA... sometimes.
Website
www.racheludin.com
. But a Hindu deity manifesting as a white person? That by itself is not problematic. Hindu deities have already done that, because (according to monotheistic Hinduism,) all deities are just different manifestations of Vishnu. I have a Hindu friend who is a Christian because he believes in Jesus: Jesus is a manifestation of Vishnu (this is his own statement of belief). Likewise, all gods of all religions.

Just a heads up note... From what I understand from my Hinduism class, there is a sect (or sub sect depending on how you class Hinduism, since there are two major branches) that believes that *certain* gods are the incarnation of Vishnu. (Incarnation is not reincarnation).

Vishnu, in turn is part of the Trimurti. (In general Hinduism mythos). Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Because of the similarities between Krishna and Christ, there is some speculation in the Hinduism community that maybe some Hinduism spread to Christianity... (Christianity, despite what adherants think has been accursed several times of taking in other religions earlier than speculated, among which are Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism) The speculation is for the unaccounted years of Jesus' life.

Here, Krishna is said to be an incarnation of Vishnu and then Jesus is also an incarnation of Vishnu. Jesus, BTW, was a Jew and definitely not white. (He was part Egyptian since he came from the Levite line through Mary.) Incarnations can be simultaneous...

So I'd say *some* but not all believe this to be true, more than likely *some* but not all Hare Krishna.

That given, still making the person born white is dicey business mostly because of the overall history of how it was done and used by white people. (See the fail in Katana, though that was just plain funny as a huge fail.)

Not to mention that Hindus are Caucasian, so they might not have a problem with this at all.
Not necessarily--definitely we are all African. But the point of dissemination can be argued to be around the South West Asia point as well. Which means the Aryan push doesn't necessarily come from Europe. (As I understand it.)

Plus not all Indians in India look white, even in the North. There is a wider range of skin color than the stereotype reported, though. And definitely not all Hindus are necessarily from the Caucuses either.

Indo-European is the language group... but it's only one language group in India which has close ties to Sanskrit. There are still other languages such as Tamil that aren't related.


Would it have been a problem if the deity had shown up in a Chinese body? There's a long history there, too, and probably violent future.
I'd be against this too, though I'm giving slack for how it's handled in either case. Especially since Tibet comes into question with fighting over Buddhism... plus there is less history of Chinese trying to systematically take over and "discover" Indian history and overwrite it with such things as wars and slanted histories/long movies about their own superiority through demeaning all of India as a homogeneous culture.

Yeah, I know I'm slicing differences very closely, but the thing is that many people look at Hinduism and only see the reincarnation part of it. Which is fine, but I think also that you need to understand the regionalisms, the complexity and some of the really awesome beauty of what the base philosophies say. (I tend to favor more towards the sects without the gods and more towards the philosophies, such as Vedanta.) Plus I dislike the definition of karma which puts it that good deeds instantly pay off in this life... not the point.

Anyway, this is to say, put in the work to understand what you're writing about.
 

Polenth

Mushroom
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
735
Location
England
Website
www.polenthblake.com
Eh. One of my pet peeves is white people getting offended and lecturing other white people on behalf of POCs, over stuff the POCs in question don't even care about.

So, to the OP, if you have a problem with something, or you think a subject needs to be handled with delicacy and tact, by all means, mention it to your friend. But a Hindu deity manifesting as a white person? That by itself is not problematic. Hindu deities have already done that, because (according to monotheistic Hinduism,) all deities are just different manifestations of Vishnu. I have a Hindu friend who is a Christian because he believes in Jesus: Jesus is a manifestation of Vishnu (this is his own statement of belief). Likewise, all gods of all religions.

Not to mention that Hindus are Caucasian, so they might not have a problem with this at all. I'd worry more about the colonial history of England having conquered large parts of India than about an Indo-European deity appearing as another sort of Indo-European.

That's the same logic that's used to justify a lot of whitewashing. People from this area might possibly be lighter, so they might look like a darker Southern European. As Southern Europeans are European, any European will do. Therefore, we'll use a Northern European with pale skin, blue eyes and blond hair.

It's a way of trying to make it sound logical that the world is turned blond. All the while, it ignores that if you place the Northern European next to the person from the original area, they don't look anything alike, and no one's going to mistake them as being from the same community. This isn't something that white people decided to complain about and no one non-white cares about. It's frequently discussed, and even if you don't personally believe it's a problem, it doesn't mean others don't see it as a problem (or that they must be white if they don't like it).
 

little_e

Trust: that most precious coin.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
508
Location
USA
That's the same logic that's used to justify a lot of whitewashing. People from this area might possibly be lighter, so they might look like a darker Southern European. As Southern Europeans are European, any European will do. Therefore, we'll use a Northern European with pale skin, blue eyes and blond hair.

It's a way of trying to make it sound logical that the world is turned blond. All the while, it ignores that if you place the Northern European next to the person from the original area, they don't look anything alike, and no one's going to mistake them as being from the same community. This isn't something that white people decided to complain about and no one non-white cares about. It's frequently discussed, and even if you don't personally believe it's a problem, it doesn't mean others don't see it as a problem (or that they must be white if they don't like it).
It would be very silly to cast a blonde-haired person as an Indian in a movie. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing an Indian deity--which are depicted as having all sorts of skin tones, from actual white to blue to red to green to actual black. Not to mention Ganesha with his elephant head and Hanuman, who looks rather like a monkey.

There is nothing I have seen which indicates that these deities are supposed to look like real real humans of *any* particular ethnic group.

Not to mention that in (some branches of) Hinduism, the entire universe is a manifestation of one thing, Brahman. The Brahmanda Purana says that Vishnu is the whole universe--which includes all of the people in it, no matter what skin tone they are.

These are gods, not people, and they have believers of all skin tones and can manifest as anything they want.

Even arguments of 'cultural appropriation' fall flat, because white folks are not culturally dominant over Indians (and that is assuming that Indians even see themselves in this way, and don't have their own complex view of global ethnic groups and their position/s among them.) India has over 1.2 billion people. The entire US has only about 300 million (many of whom are not white). The UK has 63 million.

And no, I really don't see a bunch of Hindus (even on the internet) discussing the problem of white folks white-washing their gods. I've seen Muslims complaining quite vocally about Western depictions of Islam and unflattering depictions of the Prophet Mohammad, but never Hindus.
 

little_e

Trust: that most precious coin.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
508
Location
USA
Just a heads up note... From what I understand from my Hinduism class, there is a sect (or sub sect depending on how you class Hinduism, since there are two major branches) that believes that *certain* gods are the incarnation of Vishnu. (Incarnation is not reincarnation).

Vishnu, in turn is part of the Trimurti. (In general Hinduism mythos). Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. ...
To be fair, there are a lot of different beliefs which fall under 'Hinduism'. So it is very easy to oversimplify, and I do not make any claim to be an expert. But inasmuch as Brahman is (in some traditions) the entire universe, all gods, or at least all stories about gods, are part of Brahman.

(And yes, I know that the historical Jesus was a Semite, [assuming he was real], though there are religious traditions which claim otherwise.)

That given, still making the person born white is dicey business mostly because of the overall history of how it was done and used by white people. (See the fail in Katana, though that was just plain funny as a huge fail.)

Sorry, I think I'm missing the antecedent for 'it', unless gods have been manifesting as white folks a lot more than I'm aware of!
There's a big problem with assuming that something is dicey because of X that white folks have historically done to POCs, is that the experiences of, say, black people in the US and the depiction of their culture by whites and of Indians and their experiences with the British are completely different. Different people, different cultures, different politics, different time periods, etc. Just because something is (or isn't) problematic in one culture doesn't mean that it is (or isn't) in another culture. Assuming it is (or isn't) is oversimplifying the world, not to mention ethnocentric.
(And katana? Do you mean the traditional Japanese sword? The Wikipedia disambiguation page is failing me.)

I don't think it really matters where group FOO came from--my point is that ethnicity is complex and people around the world don't necessarily see themselves in terms of typical American or Western racial norms. I honestly don't know what a Hindu would think of the book, but I'd guess 'factual inaccuracies about Hinduism' or 'history of British colonialism' would be more likely problems than 'god manifested as white person.'
If I were concerned, I'd ask an actual devotee of the religion or mention to the author that they should talk to an actual devotee about the book/plot ideas in order to make sure they don't accidentally say or do something stupid or offensive--a pretty good idea whenever writing about someone else's culture/beliefs, since 'the book says X' may have very little relation to reality.
 

Kim Fierce

Attack me with everything you have.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
129
Location
Indiana
Website
kimnflowers.blogspot.com
Or white people who are like, "I don't believe in race, so I'm not going to teach my kids words like 'black' or 'Asian'. We're all just people."

.

Whoa I've never heard that one lol. I have heard other white people say things like "We don't see color." Even though I'm white I think that's ridiculous, because to me it's implying that other colors are bad or wrong, so we just need to pretend they don't exist!
 

little_e

Trust: that most precious coin.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
508
Location
USA
Whoa I've never heard that one lol. I have heard other white people say things like "We don't see color." Even though I'm white I think that's ridiculous, because to me it's implying that other colors are bad or wrong, so we just need to pretend they don't exist!
Oh, this is definitely A Thing.

Bronson and Merryman devote a section to it in Nurture Shock, if you want to read some of the data on how it doesn't work. (Basically, it's because kids ain't stupid and will start figuring out pretty quickly on their that social/cultural groups exist, and then start wondering why their parents won't talk about it.)

EG: The parent of one of my kids' friends made a post the other day about how difficult she found explaining "Black History Month" to her kid because she doesn't "use words like 'black' and 'white' to describe people." (Her kid had heard about it on the TV, because Nick Jr. does little segments featuring black inventors, scientists, leaders, etc., in Feb.) So she's trying to explain the history of racism without talking about races, and I'm thinking 1984. They want to make racism go away by erasing race itself, and with it culture, history, pride--all of the good things people have done and loved, not to mention the memories of the tragedies people endured and histories we must not repeat.

To be generous, I think it is a withdrawal, a sort of 'coping with something which makes someone uncomfortable by not going anywhere near it'. They figure that if the don't say anything at all, then they can't accidentally say something wrong. If a white person sticks to talking about white people and white history and white culture and white deities, then no one can accuse them of cultural appropriation, or white-washing, or any other stuff.

Less generously, there are a bunch of people who really just don't care about others and can't be bothered.

So when I see someone taking an interest in other people, other cultures, wanting to learn and think and talk about them, even if they're doing it clumsily or their writing is atrocious, I see that impulse as basically good.
 

Kim Fierce

Attack me with everything you have.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
129
Location
Indiana
Website
kimnflowers.blogspot.com
Oh I can believe what you say that this is A Thing . . . the weird thing is that I had the government basically do that in my book The Divide, though I had never heard of it really being done IRL by anyone (albeit on a smaller scale). Almost all my characters are multi-racial since it's 200 years in the future, and I just believe this is inevitable for the US, but this doesn't mean it's impossible for people to know their roots. But the government withholds information, including the truth about some of the past in the US such as racism, so I think I should definitely read your link! Because in Book 2 I want to make it clear that the main character in my book had very limited knowledge, that it's the government's fault, and that I do not condone that system. There are going to be other rebel characters who do have more knowledge and will educate my other MC further. So to research this failed method will help!

It just seems very misguided to use such a tactic, even if it seems on the surface ok to say "We're all just people", yes that's true, but it's ok for us to acknowledge and celebrate our differences, while also acknowledging and celebrating our similarities and getting along.

ETA: I read about that Nurture Shock book and it sounds very interesting. I'd definitely like to read it.
 
Last edited:

Rachel Udin

Banned
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
133
Location
USA... sometimes.
Website
www.racheludin.com
To be fair, there are a lot of different beliefs which fall under 'Hinduism'. So it is very easy to oversimplify, and I do not make any claim to be an expert. But inasmuch as Brahman is (in some traditions) the entire universe, all gods, or at least all stories about gods, are part of Brahman.
Which is the point-- the whole problem with racism is the reductive quality of it. The failure to see the diversity within the diversity and acknowledge it. Acknowledging it in simple words such as, "In this particular sect that my friend believes, they believe X" is better than saying, "Well all of Hinduism is like this." I picked on the factual inaccuracies because I dislike reductive statements, especially when it comes to things we don't know... Even a simple, "I don't know it all," or a "I'm not sure." would help.

(And yes, I know that the historical Jesus was a Semite, [assuming he was real], though there are religious traditions which claim otherwise.)

I'd be familiar with the Bible which says Jesus was from the Levi side of the line, which you can trace back to Moses. So, he'd definitely be darker. They can discount the Bible itself, but it's in there and they should actually read the thing sometime. (They referring to the people who are thinking that he's not a Semite--at least by half.)

On Absolute Write in this section there is a thread on a book called "Katana" which goes over some really bad blunders with a Japanese girl being reincarnated into a white girl. (With a really horrible cover since it makes me nervous) and the contents of the book have a "Japanese" guy named "Kim" (Which if you know any Japanese, you will know the huge issues with that.)

Apparently, in the WEST, it is common. The book, if being published, say in England and in the US will have those issues. (Not to mention I've watched some really horrible movies to that effect--you have no idea) (And, yes England has race issues... I have a linky to prove it) The impact is where and when it's published. The history of Europeans in general trying to erase or take claim to culture is pretty universal through history... (And that's not an all statement, that's a tends to statement). Indian history is very similar. (Watch a few BBC documentaries lay claim that British Archaeologists "Discovered" "real" Indian culture... --;; Can someone gag me yet?)

I'd happen to be very aware of the impact of English rule on India. I made allusions to it. I researched it quite a bit too. So I'm pretty confident that the meaning of someone white writing about that would be the same meaning as in the West. It has the same ugly flavor of imperialism to it, and probably more so out of Great Britain. Now if people within India know it or not, it doesn't mean it's less racist. The hubrous lies on the person writing and delivering it. (I was researching it so I could avoid doing the same stupid patterns.) It's not ethnocentricism. I know my crap.

Such as Japanese people didn't know that stereotypes about black people were destructive when they imported the ideas from the US to Japan on TV in such a way that makes me wince. (Someone clued them in since... but still) Just because they don't know, doesn't mean it's not racist.

I got racist comments I didn't understand until later. Does that make it less racist? I don't think ignorance of the receiver is an excuse for it to be OK.

Yes, check with a person, but at least put some of the work to not get foot in mouth syndrome first. (Which is what I was trying to do by watching Bollywood movies, reading books, watching documentaries with a wary eye.) My friend also helped by piling on documentaries made by Indians, making recommendations of Bollywood movies, and I went and read the religious texts and studied my butt off. When I got stuck, that's only when I asked her a question. And I'll get a group to check the whole manuscript for inaccuracies. No amount of research can substitute for people who lived and grew up with the culture.
 

Kim Fierce

Attack me with everything you have.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
129
Location
Indiana
Website
kimnflowers.blogspot.com
On Absolute Write in this section there is a thread on a book called "Katana" which goes over some really bad blunders with a Japanese girl being reincarnated into a white girl. (With a really horrible cover since it makes me nervous) and the contents of the book have a "Japanese" guy named "Kim" (Which if you know any Japanese, you will know the huge issues with that.)

.

I was trying to look this up, because my Japanese exchange-student friend preferred to call me by a nickname instead of Kim, and she just said it was easier to pronounce and I never questioned that until I read your statement! But I can't find anything about Kim and the Japanese meaning, I only know the Korean and English meanings.

I agree Rachel that just because a person may not immediately realize something is racist doesn't mean it's ok. I don't know all the details of this book in question, but I would think it would be really cool to make the character look even more obviously like the Hindu gods, and if they don't blend in, oh well, they have supernatural powers! But that might be a different story lol.
 
Last edited:

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,618
Reaction score
4,031
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
But I can't find anything about Kim and the Japanese meaning, I only know the Korean and English meanings.


I think Rachel means that Kim, while common in China and Korea, is not a native Japanese name, rather than referring to translation issues. It's a symptom of the idea that every thing "Asian" is interchangeable, be it names, culture, clothes, or the (very odd to me) belief that all of Asian = Buddhist.
 

Kim Fierce

Attack me with everything you have.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
129
Location
Indiana
Website
kimnflowers.blogspot.com
Oh, that makes sense! :) (I must have read that wrong, because I didn't think Kim was a Japanese name, so thought perhaps she meant a translation thing.)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Oh, that makes sense! :) (I must have read that wrong, because I didn't think Kim was a Japanese name, so thought perhaps she meant a translation thing.)

And as for preferring your nickname to Kim due to pronunciation, it's because the sounds to make "Kim" exactly as it's pronounced don't exist in Japanese. The closest you can come sounds like "Kii-mu."
 

Little Ming

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
753
I think Rachel means that Kim, while common in China and Korea, is not a native Japanese name, rather than referring to translation issues. It's a symptom of the idea that every thing "Asian" is interchangeable, be it names, culture, clothes, or the (very odd to me) belief that all of Asian = Buddhist.

Assuming Kim = 金, then the Chinese (Mandarin) pronunciation would be Jin. I don't think "Kim" is a word in Mandarin pinyin. Other dialects... :Shrug:
 

the wrong idea

but it feels so right
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
66
Reaction score
13
And as for preferring your nickname to Kim due to pronunciation, it's because the sounds to make "Kim" exactly as it's pronounced don't exist in Japanese. The closest you can come sounds like "Kii-mu."

Roughly speaking, Japanese "syllables" always end in vowels, with two exceptions--the nasal "n" and the... however you describe the first half of what's romanized as a double consonant. Of those, only the "n" can appear at the end of a word. The phonetic scripts reflect this, with glyphs corresponding to full morae rather than individual sounds.

In other words, not only is kuwisdelu correct about the phonetics here, the same applies to the written language. There is literally no way to even write "Kim" in Japanese that is exact and unambiguous (though in practice it's pretty obvious what キイム is trying to be). This fact is painfully obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Japanese language.
 

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,618
Reaction score
4,031
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
Assuming Kim = 金, then the Chinese (Mandarin) pronunciation would be Jin. I don't think "Kim" is a word in Mandarin pinyin. Other dialects... :Shrug:

I thought Kim was Cantonese, but the bounds of my knowledge on that one are a girl I knew in high school over ten years ago, so not exactly proficient. I defer to those who actually speak the language.
 

Little Ming

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
753
Roughly speaking, Japanese "syllables" always end in vowels, with two exceptions--the nasal "n" and the... however you describe the first half of what's romanized as a double consonant. Of those, only the "n" can appear at the end of a word. The phonetic scripts reflect this, with glyphs corresponding to full morae rather than individual sounds.

In other words, not only is kuwisdelu correct about the phonetics here, the same applies to the written language. There is literally no way to even write "Kim" in Japanese that is exact and unambiguous (though in practice it's pretty obvious what キイム is trying to be). This fact is painfully obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Japanese language.

Cool, I'm learning so much from this thread. Thanks. :)

I thought Kim was Cantonese, but the bounds of my knowledge on that one are a girl I knew in high school over ten years ago, so not exactly proficient. I defer to those who actually speak the language.

The best way I can spell/pronounce 金 in Cantonese here is Gum, as in chewing gum, but with a harder, sharper tone at the end.

As for "Kim".... if I squint really hard it might sound like "sword" in Cantonese. Though I've never met anyone with that as a surname... Given name, maybe, though it would be a bit dated. :Shrug:

But my problem with Cantonese to English pronunciations is I don't know if there's an "official" translation guide, like pinyin for Mandarin, so whenever I try to explain it over the internet, it always comes out as "This is what is sounds like to me..." though I could completely wrong.
 

Rachel Udin

Banned
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
133
Location
USA... sometimes.
Website
www.racheludin.com
I'll clarify with what I *do* know. Keep in mind my Mandarin/Cantonese isn't stellar. I strongly defer.

김 (Pronounced keem, short ee, which is not k-short i-m of Kim as in Kimberly) is a Korean surname. It means, as mentioned, gold. 金

In Japanese the word "Kim" is impossible because it becomes Kimu, キム (キイム) In Japanese the character for gold is pronounced "Kin" and is in no shape or form a native Japanese name. (There are Koreans who are living in Japan from the occupation, but that doesn't really count.)

Technically neither language has a short i sound like in English. (Lee, of Korean is really ee 이, so Koreans are trying to make you feel better when you mispronounce it. ^.~)

The problem with the book mentioned is that the guy is *assumed* to be 100% Japanese with a given name of "Kim" (as in not a surname). Not only is it impossible in Japanese because of the syllabary system, but that's no given name.

It's problematic. Shows absolutely no look at research and probably, as I surmised at the time was pulled from some random newspaper which had "Kim Jong Il" on it kidnapping Japanese. (Which is why you do your research when you pull names).

As for 金 in Cantonese and Mandarin surnames... I, personally, with my limited knowledge have never seen it. I *have* seen it rendered Jin (excuse the lack of pinyin) as a given name. (Taiwanese show) But there is no way it would be rendered "Kim" There is a slight probablility that Koreans living in China (which there are some) might use "Jin" as a surname, but that would be highly selective of yet, again, Koreans. (Even in China, itself, it is ethnically diverse... but I think that you'll find that with every country you pull up... the US does not corner the market on this factor--I think a good book can play to the majority culture. A great book can nod to the fact there are sub cultures within that.)

I'm working in Mongolian language knowledge, too, but it's slow. (Book research)

Linguistic nerdiness aside, mixing cultures when you don't know your stuff is usually bad. East Asia is a subsection of defined territory, not a country. Even if it were, it would still have sub populations. And with several languages and countries vastly divided by climate, geography, history and language, it's really worth it to get at least a basic overview before mixing it up and pulling from the culture before making a new one (though I, personally, prefer deeper digging.)-->loosely referring to the other disaster of a book discussed last year, also set in an "asian" setting. Which was basically Meiji Japan with characters saying "Aiyo" occasionally. --;;

I'd also say to not *default* to the only thing that you know about the culture for the main plot.

Durrrhhhh Samurai, Meiji, Geisha, sushi, Red district for Japan.
How about tsukemono (which has a rich history), Poets, contemporary times and times before Meiji... and the shop owners. (Shop owner culture in Japan, I really like.)

For example... which is my other problem with Katana. (Is that really the *only* thing you could learn about Japan?)

Minority Pathology Porn, as it was nicely put...

Be nice not to see the default of the othering cycle. Like us with different coping mechanisms and sometimes same coping mechanisms for the things we all face as humans.

But that's hard to convince someone otherwise about once they have a story idea. However, I think we can do better, especially the insiders to not default that way.
 
Last edited:

the wrong idea

but it feels so right
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
66
Reaction score
13
As for "Kim".... if I squint really hard it might sound like "sword" in Cantonese. Though I've never met anyone with that as a surname... Given name, maybe, though it would be a bit dated. :Shrug:

But my problem with Cantonese to English pronunciations is I don't know if there's an "official" translation guide, like pinyin for Mandarin, so whenever I try to explain it over the internet, it always comes out as "This is what is sounds like to me..." though I could completely wrong.

The usual term for that is romanization, and Wikipedia apparently has a whole category about romanizing Cantonese.

There are a huge pile of methods for romanizing most east Asian languages, some of which prioritize avoiding ambiguity over avoiding mispronunciation by English-speaking people. And just because the romanized forms of names or words may look similar doesn't mean the original versions were similar at all. Complicating matters further is that immigrants to countries that use the roman alphabet may pick a spelling for their name based on whatever romanization system was popular at the time in whichever location(s), including some systems rarely used today. Given those inconsistencies, "Kim" could very plausibly be anything resembling "velar stop, front and/or closed vowel, nasal consonant".

This is very much a case where writers should have at least a rudimentary understanding of things, and should get feedback from someone who would know. It's all too easy to screw up with unfamiliar languages. Then again, I couldn't even read a Japanese children's book without a dictionary and many hours of effort, but most of the mistakes discussed here were still blatantly obvious to me.

I think Rachel means that Kim, while common in China and Korea, is not a native Japanese name, rather than referring to translation issues. It's a symptom of the idea that every thing "Asian" is interchangeable, be it names, culture, clothes, or the (very odd to me) belief that all of Asian = Buddhist.

Yeah. Since the book in question is blatantly a case of "everything Asian is interchangeable", I'm guessing it was just a bizarre misuse of the most common Korean surname, making this sorta like having a major character be a French guy whose first name is "Smith". Anything beyond that is probably giving the author of aforementioned book too much credit. (EDIT: Oops, I walk away for a while in the middle of writing a post and Rachel responds to this in better detail.)

김 (Pronounced keem, short ee, which is not k-short i-m of Kim as in Kimberly) is a Korean surname. It means, as mentioned, gold. 金

In Japanese the word "Kim" is impossible because it becomes Kimu, キム (キイム) In Japanese the character for gold is pronounced "Kin" and is in no shape or form a native Japanese name. (There are Koreans who are living in Japan from the occupation, but that doesn't really count.)

Technically neither language has a short i sound like in English. (Lee, of Korean is really ee 이, so Koreans are trying to make you feel better when you mispronounce it. ^.~)

The problem with the book mentioned is that the guy is *assumed* to be 100% Japanese with a given name of "Kim" (as in not a surname). Not only is it impossible in Japanese because of the syllabary system, but that's no given name.

Aren't kun-yomi (in this case, "kane") readings more common in names? Anyway, the dictionary I checked mentions 金 as a surname and female given name, but that's probably uncommon at best (and could be due entirely to modified foreign names).

Linguistic nerdiness aside, mixing cultures when you don't know your stuff is usually bad. East Asia is a subsection of defined territory, not a country. Even if it were, it would still have sub populations. And with several languages and countries vastly divided by climate, geography, history and language, it's really worth it to get at least a basic overview before mixing it up and pulling from the culture before making a new one (though I, personally, prefer deeper digging.)-->loosely referring to the other disaster of a book discussed last year, also set in an "asian" setting. Which was basically Meiji Japan with characters saying "Aiyo" occasionally. --;;

You mean this mind-boggling trainwreck?

I'd also say to not *default* to the only thing that you know about the culture for the main plot.

Durrrhhhh Samurai, Meiji, Geisha, sushi, Red district for Japan.
How about tsukemono (which has a rich history), Poets, contemporary times and times before Meiji... and the shop owners. (Shop owner culture in Japan, I really like.)

If someone wants to write a story set in historical Japan the least they could do is rehash the Sengoku period. Historically dubious sorta-fantasy set in the Sengoku period is nothing if not well-tread ground.
 

little_e

Trust: that most precious coin.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
508
Location
USA
Which is the point-- the whole problem with racism is the reductive quality of it.
I get what you're saying, but I think the real problem with racism is that it harms human beings.
The failure to see the diversity within the diversity and acknowledge it. Acknowledging it in simple words such as, "In this particular sect that my friend believes, they believe X" is better than saying, "Well all of Hinduism is like this." I picked on the factual inaccuracies because I dislike reductive statements, especially when it comes to things we don't know... Even a simple, "I don't know it all," or a "I'm not sure." would help.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't exactly see how this is relevant to anything I've said or the book described in the OP, since I did in fact do these things, and we have no idea if it's even relevant to the book or how much research the OP's friend did or didn't do.

I'd be familiar with the Bible which says Jesus was from the Levi side of the line, which you can trace back to Moses. So, he'd definitely be darker....
Jesus was divinely conceived (according to mainstream Christian tradition.) The Bible genealogies are only for Joseph, who is not his biological father, and there are many different traditions about Mary, whom I don't think Christians consider a biological parent, either. If Jesus received no DNA from his earthly parents, why should he look like them? Maybe he did, just because it would have been inconvenient not to. Or maybe he looked completely different. (Even if he was just a normal guy, having one ancestor generations back from place FOO does not determine what you look like. Inheritance doesn't work like that.)

That's the thing about gods. They (very often) don't have human DNA. Yahweh is not a Jew. Allah is not an Arab. Vishnu is not, as far as I can tell, an Indian. And for most religions, their followers can also be of any ethnicity. The Christians I know wouldn't care if you depicted Jesus as a Jew, an Egyptian, a Japanese person, or an Aborigine... (And the ones who would care aren't Christians I'd care to know.)

On Absolute Write in this section there is a thread on a book called "Katana" ...
Moral of the story: better to write the culture you know than to attempt one you don't and fail. If the OP's friend knows British culture, then she might as well write a book set in England.

Apparently, in the WEST, it is common. The book, if being published, say in England and in the US will have those issues. ...
I hate to say the same thing two posts in a row, but I don't know what the "it" you're referring to is. (I don't know which book, either--the OP's friend's book or the one in the other thread.)
The history of Europeans in general trying to erase or take claim to culture is pretty universal through history... (And that's not an all statement, that's a tends to statement).
Frankly, this is "noble savages" thinking in which Europe is demonized as the great big evil while everyone else is good and moral and above doing terrible things like conquering other countries. Europe is not special in this regard, and all groups, throughout history, have attempted to conquer their neighbors and adopt the useful or interesting bits of their cultures. It's an enormous jump to go from 'Europeans did (and still do) a lot of cultural appropriating' to 'therefore, a Hindu deity manifesting as an English person is racist'. It might be. It might not be. It depends on the way it's handled in the story. Maybe the deity wanted to convert the English to Hinduism, and saw this as the best way.

The difference between "appropriation" and "adopting" is that appropriation is done in the context of a more powerful group taking cultural elements from a less powerful group, especially in a way that interferes with the original cultural expression. For example, Hollywood has so completely dominated our images of Native American Indians, that people think headbands are a universal part of traditional Native attire. (They're not. Hollywood just used them to keep the wigs on.) In Australia, some people sell 'Aboriginal' art actually produced by white folks. Folks are being duped, and real Aboriginal artists aren't getting paid.

India, by contrast, is the world's second biggest country. It is a nuclear superpower. It is not a tiny ethnic group in danger of being overrun. Hinduism is not being destroyed by English folks writing urban fantasy about its deities. If someone says something racist, stupid, or incorrect about India/Indian culture, by all means, let's all stand up for what's right. But this is not cultural appropriation.

European super-dominance of the planet is, for the time being, basically over. India and China are the new super-powers.

(I'm pretty sure those racist Japanese depictions of black folks are actually racist, not just accidentally racist. All things considered, the Japanese probably knew about black people long before they heard about Americans, much less American depictions of black folks.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.