Is this passage offensive?

you folks have great points. apologies if any of you found my post offensive, I thought this was a space where we can talk about this kind of stuff. Still learning.

 

I think you nailed it spot on. Thank you. And thanks for doing it in a relatively kind manner.

 

excellent. well put. thank you.

 

Offensive material doesn't deserve to be talked about and should have no forum - the onus is always on the writer to have learned beforehand, and not to have written it
If writing offends people, on this topic, it isn't a point they have, or something they subjectively find. What they suffer is conceptually prior to the writing, realler than it, and utterly invalidates it

"if any of you found my post offensive" seems dismissive of posters who have found it offensive

"I think you nailed it" - when someone expresses they have suffered offense, to evaluate that... seems off
And to say "relatively" kind overlooks that - for an offensive description of the slave trade - even a forthright apology wouldn't have to be heard

 

Man, I can tell you're not from America!! I mean, yes, free speech is under attack even here, but so far anyway it's still alive and well for the most part.

Have you ever heard the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? It's because the right to speak freely is the most important right, and when it goes everything else crumbles. It's the road to tyranny.

The idea is that when bad ideas come along, you don't shut them down (that raises the question of who gets to decide what's a bad idea), instead you let all ideas be tried in public discourse where they'll show their true colors (like what happened here). The good ideas will prevail and the bad ones will be seen to be bad. It's the only basis for a free society. Once certain ideas are outlawed and made unspeakable, that's when you get jackbooted enforcers kicking in doors in the night and people disappearing for reasons nobody dares ask about. It's how you get witch hunts and lynch mobs and gulags and concentration camps. Free discussion of ideas is how you maintain a free society.

Once open discussion is gone, what's left?

 

Honestly, I think it's fine to talk about offensive/uncomfortable stuff in literature here. Better ask here than publish a book that readers find racist later. You asked if we found it offensive, and most of us have answered the question. I think the problem here stems from the fact that:

1. Inaccuracy--The passage was so inaccurate it was clear that the reader would assume it either the character or the author didn't do their research.
2. No Broader Context--Because you didn't provide a broader context for the story and your goal for the scene/passage -- was the character meant to be someone likable? Someone portrayed as wise? Or just an asshole -- it was, and still is, hard to determine if it was just you or the character who didn't do the research. I think that in most cases if you're asking for help with anything, you should provide as much background info as to what your goals for the passage are so we don't get confused.

Either way, an important rule of thumb to remember is to do at least basic research before asking someone to look over your work. Especially, if it's already broad-knowledge or controversially charged like the American Slave Trade both are. I learned about the American Slave Trade in, what? Eighth grade? I think anyone who has gone through the American education system would balk at the idea of pilgrims being "forced to enslave other people".

Take it this way, right? You wouldn't ask someone to look over your manuscript if it had no paragraph breaks or indents, right? It's like, "Oh, you want me to look at this 100-page manuscript that you haven't even put in the effort to make paragraphs for and tell you how I feel about it?"

It's that but, "Oh, you want me to look over this excerpt about the American Slave Trade that sounds 'profound' but is 90% of it wrong, and you want me to tell you what's wrong with it even though most of this is learned in 8th grade and we have things like Google, also without telling me what you're aiming for?"

All in all, with no broader context, I think some people would, and have, taken it as willful ignorance at best, racist at worst.

Honestly, I kind of disagree with the notion that offensive material doesn't deserve to be talked about. As stated above, I agree on the second part that writers should learn somewhere in the process of writing whether their writing is offensive or not and if they want it to be offensive before posting, BUT some of the best things I've read have been offensive/uncomfortable in a purposeful way. Some people want to be offended/uncomfortable, especially those who love the horror genre, and sometimes being uncomfortable/offended by a book just shows how great it is because it's evoking strong emotion.

Sometimes a character's offensiveness adds another layer to their character. Sometimes the offensive racism is a reflection of real life. If I was reading a tough nitty-gritty historical fiction revolving around the 1800s and I didn't stumble across at least one racist/offensive scene, I'd wonder if it's really the 1800s. Heck, if I was reading a modern fiction set up in the south where the protagonist was POC and they didn't go through at least one casual racism scene, I'd wonder what nice fantasy town they're living in and if I can move there.

Gonna repeat myself again: the difference between a bad scene involving racism and a good scene involving racism is research, purpose, and execution.

 

@Giacomo

I’ve a good knowledge of the Caribbean slave trade and its development with politics and war just to clarify. Your short piece of three bits of dialogue certainly comes with talking points. However, was it you or your editor that highlighted just this short piece?

I’m trying to look at it from the editor’s point of view, and if I may say she maybe pointing to the wider work? I may be wrong here...

Timeline here is important as the use of language confuses the message. It’s after 1805 and before 1865 or modern day?

The second speaker as a huge problem with history. This highlighted already, but educational history is poor in many parts of the world. However, it’s his dialogue that confuses the reader giving mix messages in his story telling.

I’ve read it a few times now. The original idea in my head was the founding fathers at James Town. Then the Irish after the potato famine in Ireland. The Old World and promise of salvation with a fantastic new reality? This is modern speak. We go onto now when they made landfall in North America, they found it dire and became a prison complex... who the Founding Fathers, the Irish or the African slaves (never mentioned) ... and the last bit only allows me to think its African’s your characters talking about masters convinced...

This middle bit, whole middle bit needs a rework. It was the demand pull of sugar tobacco and cotton from Europe that created an intense need for labor. The most efficient and profitable form of man power is slavery. This second generation of born American farmers.... dah dah dah

Now the third chat makes much more sense, but you need to drop colony powered by slaves, for slaves. These words need changing. Also research the two links below and Toussaint Louverture.

Haiti - Wikipedia

Haitian Revolution - Wikipedia

Your editor was right in her opinion, for what it’s worth regarding the apology stance. It didn’t offend me just needs a tidy up. I think she wasn’t further in detail as it needed tightening up with a more direct tone.

Just my thoughts...


MartinM.

 

I was trying to draw attention to the description-under-which and regret I over-egged it.

It wouldn't be fair to say that one of WritingForums.org's aims is "providing forums for offensive material" (qua offensive). That would be to reverse the purposive emphasis, and the OP's most recent comments disturbed me because they seemed to involve a similar twisting: from an assumed right to free speech into a presumed privilege for white-biased revisionist history - he hasn't found these ideas in any history book, but to him they are of such manifest truth and importance that he believes: the reader should "learn" from his speaker; they should be exempt from his editor's attention; and any offense caused is subjective on part of the other person.

These things are sometimes hallmarks of revisionist history.

Another worry I can't shake is what if the whole story is a revisionist history of the slave trade, and the reason this passage absolutely can't be toned down or defused (which I've tried to show the OP could easily do) is that it's going to be key to decoding the alien race's enslavement of the "Black Satyrs"?

 

I think it's already been said, but it bears repeating: there's nothing inherently offensive in having a character be offensive, whatever they say, and I don't believe any character's words should be stricken simply because it may well be offensive to a reader. The character says what they say -- and it's possible that the character(s) will act in accordance with their belief, even if it's mistaken. Books should sometimes be offensive and stir up discussions. As someone said, the problem would arise if your book is construed as advocating that theory, in which case it could serve as a dog whistle to racist folks.

I am reminded here of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, how Huck -- and Tom Sawyer -- accept slavery as a given part of southern American life. It's the courage and inherent wisdom of the escaped slave Jim that makes clear how wrong slavery is. One could take excerpts from Huck or Tom or most of the other white characters, and deem the book to be supportive of slavery. But it's anything but that.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's okay for your character to be offensive, but the book ought not rest on the premise that he is correct; at least if you want to appeal to the non-racist reading public.

 

I think it's perfectly fine from my point of view, it's totally not offensive IMO. Just a bit suspicious that the dialogue decides to go out of its way to show it's not trying to excuse slavery, try to slip in the acknowledgement a bit less obviously.

For example, I wouldn't think you need this part, more or so just present it a bit less obviously:

-Now, I’m not excusing slavery here in the slightest, Mitch. I’m just saying It was a shitty situation then, and it’s going to be a shitty situation now if we don’t learn from the past real soon.-

Again, this is my personal opinion, you can do whatever with this.

 

Oh, diddly doo! This is a heated forum, how could I forget! Better head out.

 

Late to the party; I see the points already having being made about how it's of course fine to have characters who have views that could be considered offensive. We just have the one snippet to go by though, so it's hard to form an opinion without more context.

I'll just add that having discussions like these is a healthy thing. It doesn't help anyone if a conversation is shut down with the command to "Educate Yourself." That's what the person asking the questions is trying to do. Help them learn.

 

Ok I'm triggered, so i'll try not to lose my rag.

As others have pointed out, your understanding of the real slave trade is not great. However, that aside, lets say you were an expert in the matter and got every detail 100% accurate, you are still going to offend people who disagree with you. People who have been fed a particular narrative and have been socially conditioned to react negatively and aggressively towards anything that suggests slavery didnt play out in exactly the way they've been told it has. Your editor sounds like one such person. Giving a reason why something happened is not the same as apologising for it, or trying to excuse it in some way.

I would stay away from certain emotive subjects like the slavery in America and try an make your comparisons more generic - or - find a society where it did happen like you say. Wokies wont care if you start talking about slavery in mongolia in the 11th century, because they cant see beyound the transatlantic slave trade.

 

I don't claim to be an expert about much of anything but, as a result of my efforts to emulate my grandfather, I try to learn as much as I can about as many things as I can. Earlier this year, as it happens, I was doing some research into the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I just dredged up a snippet from my notes that I think tends to run counter to the misinformation (my evaluation) presented in the passage we were asked to comment on.

 

No one forced people to buy slaves. The colonists bought slaves because it was beneficial to do so and when people tried to take their slaves away they went to war over it, so dont be blaming the British for your lack of moral behaviour. We fought a war so we could get rid of you immoral peasants

 

Technically the English had slaves before America even existed, but we won't hold that against you. They were also beating their indentured servants, largely the Irish. Glass houses man, glass houses...

 

Great Britain succeeded in getting rid of the American peasants by the classic expedient of losing the war ...

And let's not forget that when slavery was introduced in the colonies, they were British colonies.

But I think we're getting off-topic. However, the detours and side trips serve to reinforce my opinion of why the passage that was central to the opening question is offensive. It's not that the subject of slavery is offensive -- it should be remembered and discussed, just as the holocaust should be remembered and discussed. The passage is offensive to historical accuracy.

 

Of course, the character themselves might be naive and misinformed, and the reality of what happens to them therefore shocks him.

 

The point is you cant discuss transatlantic slavery or the holocaust, you can only regurgitate an acceptable narrative or you get attacked. As such they are topics you should stay away from unless you can draw a comparison without having to draw a comparison. Let the readers mind make the jump, then its on them, If you make it for them, they'll feel they have the right to attack you because YOU said it.