Ah, prejudice...how far we haven't come.
I have something of an addiction to old books, which is why I bought an obscure mystery novel from 1929 a couple days ago. I'd never heard of the authors or the book before (and googling them didn't make much difference), but I have old book addiction so I bought it and read it. Card 13 was an all right story, but suffered rather from blatant sexism and racism, which may explain why it and its authors have vanished into the ether. The love interest gives up all thought of career when she falls in love with the main character. The murder is pinned on a dead Chinese immigrant to save the (also dead) murderer's family from scandal. All Chinese people are involved in Chinese Gangs. People casually use ethnic slurs. People from India are mysterious and mystical. Basically, the book had a bad case of "we haz prejudice, yay."
And yet, when I thought about it, I realized that the book was also a great example of "the more things change, the more they stay the same." The main character actually came off far less ethnically prejudiced than his world - he didn't seem entirely comfortable with the framing of the dead immigrant (who the book portrayed as more a victim of circumstances) and he was the only character who treated the Indian as a person, not just a mystical odd bit. Disturbingly, I think the book could be re-written slightly (drop the ethnic slurs and re-phrase a line here or there) and no one would notice. Women in books still give up their desire for a career when they find love, Chinese immigrants still tend to be portrayed as members of Chinese Mafia groups (and/or have super martial arts skills just 'cause), and the mystical Indian stereotype is also still alive and well.
In a way, the blatant prejudice in this old book is easier to deal with than the more subtle prejudices in modern books, precisely because it is so blatant. You can't miss it. You can't not acknowledge that it's there. You have to address it. Subtle prejudice can slip under the radar and color one's thoughts in ways one is less aware of. Oh, I'm not saying that anyone should start slathering their prejudices all over the printed page or that we should bring back ethnic slurs or anything like that. Those are all bad, bad things. But so are the subtle prejudices that haven't gone anywhere. Or rather, I'm afraid the prejudices haven't gotten more subtle over the years - what's gotten more subtle are the words used to transmit those prejudices. Honestly, the book did a better job of pointing out what's so bad about using stereotypes than any modern book (that I can think of) could. Not that the book meant to, of course.
I know I have prejudices, I think everyone does, but I don't want to spread them. Hell, I try very hard to squelch them in myself when I do stumble across them. After reading Card 13, I'll be trying even harder. And, considering stereotypes (which are damn hard to kill), I think I'll add an ethnic stereotype test to my gender stereotype test. "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different ethnicity?" (To go with "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different gender?")
It's still funny that it took an old book's blatant prejudices for me to see just how bad stereotypes are. Not that I ever thought they were good, mind you, but there are different levels of bad. And the damned things haven't improved in 80 years! 80 years!
And yet, when I thought about it, I realized that the book was also a great example of "the more things change, the more they stay the same." The main character actually came off far less ethnically prejudiced than his world - he didn't seem entirely comfortable with the framing of the dead immigrant (who the book portrayed as more a victim of circumstances) and he was the only character who treated the Indian as a person, not just a mystical odd bit. Disturbingly, I think the book could be re-written slightly (drop the ethnic slurs and re-phrase a line here or there) and no one would notice. Women in books still give up their desire for a career when they find love, Chinese immigrants still tend to be portrayed as members of Chinese Mafia groups (and/or have super martial arts skills just 'cause), and the mystical Indian stereotype is also still alive and well.
In a way, the blatant prejudice in this old book is easier to deal with than the more subtle prejudices in modern books, precisely because it is so blatant. You can't miss it. You can't not acknowledge that it's there. You have to address it. Subtle prejudice can slip under the radar and color one's thoughts in ways one is less aware of. Oh, I'm not saying that anyone should start slathering their prejudices all over the printed page or that we should bring back ethnic slurs or anything like that. Those are all bad, bad things. But so are the subtle prejudices that haven't gone anywhere. Or rather, I'm afraid the prejudices haven't gotten more subtle over the years - what's gotten more subtle are the words used to transmit those prejudices. Honestly, the book did a better job of pointing out what's so bad about using stereotypes than any modern book (that I can think of) could. Not that the book meant to, of course.
I know I have prejudices, I think everyone does, but I don't want to spread them. Hell, I try very hard to squelch them in myself when I do stumble across them. After reading Card 13, I'll be trying even harder. And, considering stereotypes (which are damn hard to kill), I think I'll add an ethnic stereotype test to my gender stereotype test. "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different ethnicity?" (To go with "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different gender?")
It's still funny that it took an old book's blatant prejudices for me to see just how bad stereotypes are. Not that I ever thought they were good, mind you, but there are different levels of bad. And the damned things haven't improved in 80 years! 80 years!