Afraid of not being politically correct

Yeah but I'm a chicken online. In real life I do not mind being offensive, but online I could start a war.

 

I suspect that historical accuracy might require some fairly intensive and fairly decade-specific research. I may be mistaken, but I believe that attitudes toward blacks changed fairly rapidly after the Civil War. I have a vague notion that for a brief period blacks had the political power that was associated with having gotten the vote, and that then, fairly quickly, it was systematically stripped away. I may be completely wrong, but that's why I'm suggesting some research.

 

I keep meaning to note: The very phrase "politically correct" has a strong political nuance--it is often used by people who disapprove of anyone needing to change their phrasing or behavior to avoid offending others. So someone who says "politically correct" is usually saying it to disapprove of anything that they think of as politically correct.

I'm suggesting that you may want a different phrase.

 

I had no idea. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Can you suggest some alternative phrases?

 

Yes, the time you refer to is Reconstruction. I'm very familiar with the Civil War period--I have done much research on it before I even thought about this book.

Again though, none of this has a DIRECT impact on my story or characters. My story doesn't take place in the post-war south. Neither of my main characters have even been to the South. Miles was born in a smallish town in New York State, and Bridie lived in New York City for most of her life. My novel takes place in Nebraska. Settlers flocked to the plains regions after the war. Many wanted a fresh start in life--to put the war and all their losses behind them. They were too busy struggling to get by in a harsh environment to be terribly concerned with what was going on in other states. I have a notion of putting in a black family, because many of them ended up in this region as well. I'm hesitant to do that though, because I am really uninterested in treading on that very delicate ground (and this post has me pretty well convinced it would be a bad idea).

 

I was reading earlier this week that, in the South, some Cherokee were slave owners (pre-Civil War obviously). It strikes me that there would be lots of potential for some great stories there, but talk about a minefield in terms of present-day political sensitivities. Those kinds of stories, and the kind the OP is talking about, are stories writers should not be afraid to tell.

 

At the end of the day, your story is fictional, and your character is obviously going to be different from you. Most people are going to realize that your protagonist isn't you wearing a costume. Her belief system will have been nurtured based on her surroundings, and a lot of people back then weren't exactly nice to black folks. To them, calling black people 'Negro' was being nice.

If you're worried about your MC sounding like a horrible racist, have another character condemn her for this statement. Maybe she realizes what she said was wrong and promises to do better next time. Just make it clear that at the very worst, she's kind of clueless about the whole thing, she's not trying to go out of her way to being a racist bigot. She's learning.

<-- I'm just as sensitive as you are about the whole thing, so don't worry. You're not alone.

 

Oh yes, that would be quite a minefield to walk into.

Right now, I'm not interested in stirring up controversy (it seems I have done so a bit with this post, however). I just want to tell a story. I want it to entertain readers--that's it. I want my characters to be as real to them as they are to me. So I'm a chicken writer, and I'm just going to stay away from anything divisive. I think if I just delete that line and be very vigilant, that will solve all problems and avoid all headaches.

 

Nothing wrong with that. You're just sticking to your vision and purpose. You just want to tell an entertaining story and not derail it with controversy. I think that's fine. And if you wanted to raise controversy I think that would be fine too

 

I agree. Sometimes it's best to not paint a target on ourselves if we can help it. You can always have her not be quasi-racist, and have her stand up to injustices when she sees them. That wins people over big time.

 

I was trying to think of some general ones, and I failed. I think that all we have is dictionary words--sensitive, respectful, and all those.

 

I don't know why you're so sorry... I wasn't offended. But thanks. The empathy with this one is strong it is (read in yoda voice).

 

Oh good--I thought for sure that I had. Just my anxiety I suppose. So glad to know that I didn't upset you!

And the Yoda voice is much appreciated.

 

Never.

And this:

reminds me of this:

 

Unless you are writing the equivalent of a fairy tale or fantasy, history is history. If a character would have spoken in a certain way, then that's how it should be. Deliberate censoring for the sake of political correctness is simply bowing down to the opinions or feelings of others. If authors all cower in fear of every social fad, then we might as well just write nursery rhymes. See my sig.

 

i can think of a situation where cultural sensitivity trumps historical accuracy. i'm doing a drug counseling gig at a school where there are mostly native american kids. one of the white kids says something about native americans that is historically true, but it hurts their feelings. it actually gets them lashing out. since i know this population of kids is at a much higher risk for substance abuse and suicidality i'm not going to side with the kid and be like "yeah, our archaeologists can confirm it you ingrates." i'm going to side on the side of cultural sensitivity. yes, i'm choosing that term over political correctness, because i find the latter to be a loaded and pedantic one used to silence and invalidate people's often legitimate concerns.

 

But could pandering to distorted world views actually contribute to the tendency for substance abuse and suicide? I'm not saying you should be rude or insensitive, but finding a way for them to see the world from an alternate view might actually be helpful.

 

Personally I'd find a better word than "successful". Just my two cents on it otherwise I think it's fine.

 

yes, but if the alternative view is one that adds more negative associations to their already battered self concept, which is inextricably linked to what actually happened historically, then i'd prefer to focus on something else. for people to have healthy self esteem they must have a positive story about themselves as individuals and the groups they've been assigned to. if a kid is at risk and trying to find a place in the world i'm much more interested in keeping the kid in a good place than bombarding them with historical accuracy. i would take a happy community of people who can get along over cold hard facts any day.

 

What would you say?

 

it depends on the nature of the group if we have specific tasks and topics to discuss and history is not one of them, i'd just say that we're getting off topic and maybe we can talk about that at another time. i would focus on the process more than the content of what's being said most likely. good counselors don't go for troll bait while facilitating groups

 

Fair enough. Reading your posts, especially "i would take a happy community of people who can get along over cold hard facts any day", it was hard to tell whether or not you would lie (or at least ignore the truth) to avoid hurting people's feelings.

But what you are really saying is not that cultural sensitivity can trump historical accuracy, but simply that not every time is the right time to bring up uncomfortable historical facts.

 

I know other people already said it but I agree. A time piece should use terms in relation to that time. Unless it is a gimmick. Like I remember a version of Cinderella that keep the old time look but modernized the speech. But this was done to be funny. Hence gimmick.

For the ascent. I think you are over thinking it. I want to give you an example. Because I was thinking of something very similar. In the possible offensive nature of it.

In a book of mine. It is speculative fiction that takes place 200 years in the future. In Modern Day China. Place is still called China but it is much different. It is a very harsh place. Cracked ground that is never fixed. People killing each other in broad daylight. I was afreaid calling this place China still might be offerensive but after much though. I think it is more offensive not to let them keep there name.

So my argument is this. If that is okay. Yours is definitely okay.

 

i might lie or ignore the truth to avoid hurting people's feelings in some situations but can't think of any situations where i would right now. oh well actually... i heard some native kid once talking about how natives were mostly peaceful and didn't cause wars and stuff like europeans. technically this is untrue but the kid was pretty riled up. when somebody is agitated like that i don't think it's the time or place to debate something like that. plus, i'm not sure what the point is in saying "no, your people were also violent in their own ways." that's a case where the truth should be ignored -- for now -- in my opinion. when there's serious abuse in a family you tend not to tell those stories to kids who will fill their heads with nasty things that could damage them, although hiding it all can be damaging true. there are lots of good reasons to ignore the truth, or even lie about it, when what is true and accurate can cause harm.

 

^ Guys, guys, we're kinda getting off track. I agree, there's a time and place for everything but...we're kinda getting off topic.

When in doubt, have your villains say all those horrible stuff. They're villains, after all. The fuck they care about sensitivity and other people's feelings? Your heroine may have certain prejudices against certain groups, but she might draw the line at actually abusing those people in any way. So if she hears the villain calling them ‘Negro’, she reacts with horror. Her mindset might be: Distrust is one thing, but treating them like this is another!

It's also possible that she simply isn't bigoted in any way. Not everyone in 19th-century America were racist assholes. Not everyone in the 19th-century world were horrible bigots. There were people who bucked the trend.