Race, Representation, and White Saviours

This picture of Fagin is a silent comment on the 'progress' made in discussions about inclusion.

Inclusive writing appears to be all the rage these days. All sorts of advice is available to the aspiring or established author as to how to represent people from different races, sexual orientations, and socio-economic brackets, in a 'sensitive' and 'inclusive' manner. I suppose this reflects the recent discussions around cultural appropriation and controversies surrounding various authors presuming to write, with greater or lesser success, from within a skin colour which was not their own.

As an ethnic Chinese in a majority white country, I have personal experience of the impact of representation and inclusion, having been brought up in the long, long shadow of Bruce Lee, Fu Man Chu, and Charlie Chan. So why is it, then, that the idea of creators making deliberate efforts to include me makes me so uncomfortable? Sticking with the idea of the representation of ethnic Chinese, there are a few aspects of this whole culture of affirmative action which are highly distasteful.

First of all, the whole idea underpinning the concept is fundamentally racist. The assumption that my skin colour dictates the shape and nature of my mind is no different, in essence, to the kind of social Darwinism which informed much of the racial hatred and prejudice of the twentieth century. The idea that Chinese people exist in some kind of ethno-cultural quarantine zone which can only be explored with special sensitivity training strikes me as a rather stupid and counter-productive inversion of the whole concept of pluralism. The point of a pluralistic society is that difference of any kind, while interesting and potentially productive of corporate advantage, should be largely irrelevant. For difference to be elevated to the status of some kind of sacred cow is simply moronic - it misses the entire point and purpose of key liberal values.

I'm aware that much of the model for 'sensitivity' and 'inclusiveness' is driven by ethnic minorities themselves, but this is, if anything, even more offensive. The belief in some sort of yellow, black, orange, or rainbow privilege speaks to a belief in the fundamental difference of these people, which is all kinds of wrong. Common courtesy dictates that we not deliberately offend each other, but common sense equally dictates that packing a given segment of society in victim grade cotton wool is offensive in itself.

And then there's the whole idea of patronage. The strong implication of all of this effort is that I should be somehow grateful. Look at all the effort those lovely white people are making to ensure that I feel included. Which is also deeply unintelligent - whether it's positive or negative, division is division. Also, anyone who's ever been picked for a team because the teacher has insisted that the fat and the uncoordinated should also be given a go, understands exactly what this kind of treatment feels like. My ethnicity is not a disability, and even if it were, simple courtesy demands that I not have it thrown in my face in a patronising manner.

I was once asked whether I included 'diverse' characters in my writing, and whether I thought this was a good thing to do. My response was that people, and types of people, occur in my work for the simple reason that they occur in the real world. Because all fiction, regardless of the height of its brow, depends for its validity in the reflection of some sort of truth. If any author is unable to understand a person as a person, regardless of their ethnicity or their walk of life, they simply have no business writing them. This isn't political, it's a fundamental principle of art.

The Real Whitewashing Is Not In Casting

To my mind, the whole issue of 'whitewashing' misses the point. I honestly don't give a flying toss what colour actor is cast in the role of Othello, Major Kusanagi, or whatever - a faint whiff of racism seems to me inherent in the idea that skin colour is the only reliable indicator of culture. What does bother me, however, is the whitewashing of meaning.

Let's take Mulan as an example. Mulan, in either of its original forms, is a fable about self sacrifice for communal or family goals, as well as the absolute requirement to preserve both male and female honour. In both versions of the original story, there is a strong ethic of service - the obligation to serve their lord is never questioned, and much more is at stake than just her aged father's welfare. Mulan risks her future and person to preserve not just her father's head, but the honour of her family and community, the idea being that failure to fulfil their obligation of service would be shameful. And then there's the question of marriage - there are two variants of the story, but both involve Mulan refusing marriage as the specific offers (one from an enemy, the other as part of a more or less financial transaction) would be dishonourable.

Now let's compare this with the Disney version. As far as I can make out, what passes for deep messaging in this inane mash-up is the idea that feminism means proving you can do whatever boys do, and then ending up in a princess gown anyway. The other values which come through most strongly are those of individual liberty, individualism just generally, and the absolute comitment to make snide comments about anything that isn't an exact analogue of western parliamentary democracy. In short, the story of Mulan has been deliberately warped in order to deliver unmistakably western values. Whitewashed, in fact, in the only way that really matters.

This leads to me to ask several questions. Firstly, is this a conscious process? Are these people deliberately appropriating an alien culture in order to peddle their own values in an annoyingly superficial way, or is it possible that they just haven't understood - couldn't understand - the tale's more alien elements? A quick reading of the promotional bumf answers that question - it's deliberate. Which then leads to the next question, which is: If the intention was to deliver a western message to a western audience, why then was it necessary to piss all over a Chinese cultural product?

Surely, if the message one wishes to deliver is so inconsistent with the material, the sensible thing to do is to just use other material, right? Wrong. The fundamental factor at play here is deep racism. It's my impression that adaptors like Disney actually believe they're making stories like Mulan and Alladin and so forth better by ignoring the cultures from which they originate, and warping them into carriers of western values; western values presumably being the only valid values around.

And now I hear that the ABC is producing a re-telling of 'Journey to the West', the seminal tale of Buddhist sacrifice and self-denial, for kids. 

"The 10-part half hour series follows a teenage girl and a trio of fallen gods on a perilous journey as they attempt to bring an end to a demonic reign of chaos and restore balance to their world."

Seriously? A teenage girl in the Tripitaka role? And this nonsense:

"The Legend of Monkey is big budget fantasy drama series that will surprise and delight family viewers globally and locally. We’re a business built on highly original content and this ticks all the boxes: it’s a tremendous tale, visually imaginative and made by talented people. Kids are going to love it."

I believe that I can translate this. It would read:

"We have ripped out the deep messaging of the key foundation story of an entire religion and culture in order to make a sort of mediaeval cross between 'Kung Fu' and 'Power Rangers'." 

Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I can't help but think that if all you're trying to achieve is the creation of an entertaining kids' fantasy series, it would be eminently possible to do this while simultaneously leaving the deep fables of my culture the hell alone.