Allegorical racism being justified by setting

[Adam Reynolds]

Having just seen the movie Zootopia this issue comes to mind. While it is an effective way to discuss the issue of racism without real life prejudices coming to mind, it does lead to a problem. Many of these settings in effect justify the racism they decry. In the case of Zootopia, it is somewhat justified for a bunny to be afraid of a lion or bear. Unlike real life racism, in which there is virtually no genetic difference between members of the same species, having a degree of racism within the setting genuinely makes sense.

The setting of X-Men is an even more justified version of this. The setting portrays humans as wrong for wanting to do something like registering mutants, despite the fact that many of them effectively carry lethal weapons on their person at all times.

Even something like Mass Effect, which has an undercurrent of being anti-racism, in some ways leaves it feeling justified. Given their quick reproduction and short lifespans, is a salarian life as valuable as an asari? Is krogan bloodrage genetic? If so, is it wrong to naturally be afraid of them?

[Purple]

The short answer is you can't.

The long answer is that if you take issues such as racism out of context and put them into an allegorical setting than that's a sign you are not seriously intent on tackling the problem. It's like you really want to address racism and all that but you don't want to get into an argument because those upset people. So you're just going to put out enough content to make them think but leave enough rope for them to shrug it off if they don't feel like entering the discussion. And that obviously won't work with anyone who is not already inclined that way.

[Thanas]

The setting of X-Men is an even more justified version of this. The setting portrays humans as wrong for wanting to do something like registering mutants, despite the fact that many of them effectively carry lethal weapons on their person at all times.

Well it does not help that every time registration was just a precursor to banning or even exterminating them (there is a gun control joke in there).

[Zixinus]

Racism does not just mean legitimate fears. Avoiding a ethnic-majority neighborhood that are factually established to have low common security (ie. has good likelihood of being mugged or robbed or something) is not racist, that's just common sense. Racism comes into play when you see a member of the same ethnicity and assuming that they are from that neighborhood and/or that they are criminal.

Of course the issue boils down to what is a demonstrable trait versus what is an assumed/implied trait that has weak or questionable basis. Assuming that a rabbit is afraid of bigger co-workers is reasonable, especially when the bigger co-worker is a predator. Assuming that rabbits are perverted nymphomaniacs that want to have sex with anyone they see and thus secretly want to have sex with said co-worker is veering down very much into what can be more accurately labeled racist.

But I don't think most creators really think about this. Adding more species can increase variety and sometimes it is done for its own sake.

[Lord Revan]

there's also the matter of how relevant or to date those beliefs are, say for example to belive that a large number native american's in a single location is a warband set to raid a near by settlement and thus should violently suppressed is racist as there hasn't been native american warbands since what the late 19th or very early 20th century at latest, so assume one would appear these days is not reasonble

As for allegory meaning you're not seriously intending to adress the matter, I disagree. People are very good at lying to themselves and sometimes you need to an allegory to show these their behaviour in a way that doesn't cause them to become defensive. Basically if show them direct depiction of racism they'll get defensive and claim it's not relevant to them, but you can use the allegory to get a foot in so to speak because they're more willing to accept the indirect depiction and consider the implications of it, people are after not always rational with their actions and pretty much never rational when it comes to things like racism.

[Joun_Lord]

If its meant to be allegorical then there is no way around the real life prejudices. Thats usually the point of allegorical stories is to have it compared to real life things.

If I made some space opera about space aliens being forced to ride in the back of the space ship as an allegory for Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights struggle, its going to have people injecting their real world opinions and prejudices even if in the setting it was justified. Say the back of the ship aliens had to be in the back of the ship because the thrust of the ship would kill them if they were in the front or the back had a specialized atmosphere for the aliens. It already invoked the story of Rosa Parks and that struggle, the story cannot be divorced from people opinions on Parks, the Civil Rights, or seating arrangements.

Of course even non-allegorical stories people will inject their prejudices into it even if their is no basis for the interpretation. I remember when Episode 2 and 3 came out there were a ton of people trying to say it was an allegory for the Iraq War, for the stem cell debate (because cloning), for immigration (on account of the faceless army of brown guys), and probably other dumb shit. The Iraq War allegory that people were trying to say was there was especially dumb because unless Lucas was able to see into the future, Ep2 dropped a full year before the Invasion of Iraqistan.

To go back to the back of the ship aliens, if I made the story without trying to make it an allegory for Rosa Parks people would still compare it to Rosa Parks even if that was never my intention. People will find unintentional allegories in most anything, they interpret the stories through their worldview and prejudices.

A story series that to my knowledge has no intended allegories, Lord of the Rings, has people seeing metaphors in the works throughout its publication history. Some people say its an allegory for World War 1 or 2, some say its a metaphor for Christianity, some imply with implications that its aboot racism (but then what isn't about racism these days?) and probably a ton other supposed allegories that LOTR is supposed to represent. When people read the story or watch it they see no really the authors intent but see it through their own filter, through the lens of theirs lives experiences.

So no, I do not think people can leave their real world prejudices at the door for an allegorical story as they can't even for a non-allegorical story.

[Civil War Man]

The setting of X-Men is an even more justified version of this. The setting portrays humans as wrong for wanting to do something like registering mutants, despite the fact that many of them effectively carry lethal weapons on their person at all times.

Besides Thanas's point about mutant registry typically being used as a way for the human villains to try to sneak in, at best, legalized discrimination akin to the McCarthy-era Hollywood Blacklists and, at worst, a database that could be used to conduct a second Holocaust, not all mutant powers are potentially lethal. Would Cypher, for instance, have to register for being omniglot? How about mutants with purely defensive powers, like Darwin's ability to change his body in order to survive the environment he's in?

If they do, then the argument that the registry is because of the danger mutants pose is not true, because you're requiring mutants who are not dangerous to register, which means it serves no purpose other than to give bigots a tool to discriminate.

If they don't, you raise the question of why only potentially dangerous mutants are required to register. If Beast is required to register for having superhuman physical capabilities, why isn't a non-mutant but equally dangerous person like, say, the Punisher not required to register? It undermines the stated purpose of the registry by singling out dangerous mutants over dangerous non-mutants, and gives bigots a way to perpetuate mutant stereotypes by pointing at a database populated entirely by mutants with dangerous powers and going "See? All mutants are dangerous!"

It also is undermined by the fact that the truly dangerous mutants (the ones with lethal powers and ill intent) are not law-abiding and would therefore not register, rendering the whole exercise pointless.

In essence, it's like when right-wing politicians claim they want to fight terrorism and propose creating a database of Muslims as part of their plan, even though a) not all Muslims are terrorists, b) not all terrorists are Muslims, and c) actual Muslim terrorists wouldn't register anyway.

So the parallels are sometimes a bit more on-the-nose than you might think.

[TheFeniX]

Having just seen the movie Zootopia this issue comes to mind. While it is an effective way to discuss the issue of racism without real life prejudices coming to mind, it does lead to a problem. Many of these settings in effect justify the racism they decry. In the case of Zootopia, it is somewhat justified for a bunny to be afraid of a lion or bear. Unlike real life racism, in which there is virtually no genetic difference between members of the same species, having a degree of racism within the setting genuinely makes sense.

It's not a good metaphor usually because as you point out: races comes in all types and sizes. Black/white/hispanic/asian people come from 4' to 7' and can be in great shape or rounder ones. With a lot of fantasy settings, there are obvious physical differences which can rationalize fear.

For instance: based on the game rules in Shadowrun, the weakest able-bodied Troll is as strong as the most physically fit human that isn't a body-builder. The average Troll would sweep the Strong Man competition easily and can shrug off bullets (they have armor plates in their skin) and physical damage most humans couldn't dream about doing. This also makes them fairly laid back because they rarely have to fight if they don't want to. That said, the game tries to present people as people, not caricatures. You have Troll Combat mages, Elven go-gangers, Orc pop-singers.

Then you get into Sci-Fi like Star Trek where everything we know about a race is true among nearly all the people and those stand-outs are just weird and looked at as oddities. Klingons are warriors, Vulcans are in control, etc.

The setting of X-Men is an even more justified version of this. The setting portrays humans as wrong for wanting to do something like registering mutants, despite the fact that many of them effectively carry lethal weapons on their person at all times.

We see a lot of higher-class mutants in the X-Men comics and movies, but from what I know a vast majority of them have minor mutations that don't qualify them to wear spandex. For one with a name: look at Angel. He has wings. He can fly. I guess he could lift people up and drop them from heights. But, what about all poor slobs who get stuck with the ability to grow their fingernails on command? What if your mutation is the ability to make your poop glow? Why are you getting lumped into the same group as people who shoot lasers beams from their eyes?

I mean, imagine they come for all the guns and you're being led into a black van because you had a Nerf Bow and Arrow. The movies took Rogue as the "bad end" of mutation, but she was still a vampire that could kill anyone with a touch. The movies could have shown at least a few mutants with hilariously bad powers.

Anyway, you really can't pull real-life experience out of movies, but fiction is just generally not a great place to tackle tough issues. At least not in the story itself. I doubt Uhura and Kirk kissing meant anything in the Star Trek universe even though it had real-world implications. People are going to look for parallels to help them connect with the fiction they are trying to enjoy. And they're going to bring their own expectations and prejudices into it. I recall Mass Effect taking some heat because the Krogan were a parallel for African-Americans. Who's projecting their prejudice here?

[Starglider]

Racism in fantasy settings doesn't have to be allegorical. It can just be a challenge for characters to overcome, a motivation for villains or gritty background flavour.

[Adam Reynolds]

The long answer is that if you take issues such as racism out of context and put them into an allegorical setting than that's a sign you are not seriously intent on tackling the problem. It's like you really want to address racism and all that but you don't want to get into an argument because those upset people. So you're just going to put out enough content to make them think but leave enough rope for them to shrug it off if they don't feel like entering the discussion. And that obviously won't work with anyone who is not already inclined that way.

The advantage is that allegorical stories force one to consider an alternative perspective without realizing it initially.

The setting of X-Men is an even more justified version of this. The setting portrays humans as wrong for wanting to do something like registering mutants, despite the fact that many of them effectively carry lethal weapons on their person at all times.

Well it does not help that every time registration was just a precursor to banning or even exterminating them (there is a gun control joke in there).

That is true, but at the same time, Magneto has a habit of reacting in a manner that somewhat justifies the prejudice in the first place. A mutant even nearly assassinates the president in a manner that normal security is virtually useless against.

It's almost akin to a pro-gun movement wanting to protect their beliefs by staging a mass shooting anytime someone mentions gun control.

Of course the issue boils down to what is a demonstrable trait versus what is an assumed/implied trait that has weak or questionable basis. Assuming that a rabbit is afraid of bigger co-workers is reasonable, especially when the bigger co-worker is a predator. Assuming that rabbits are perverted nymphomaniacs that want to have sex with anyone they see and thus secretly want to have sex with said co-worker is veering down very much into what can be more accurately labeled racist.

This is indeed the problem. Though it is debatable as to whether we see any cross species romances in the setting of Zootopia. In particular it is debatable as to whether Judy and Nick have a romantic relationship or just a friendship.

Though in the case of Zootopia, the aggression is actually a assumed trait. Generally speaking, a lion is no more a threat than an elephant. That fear is also shown to be largely irrational as well.

As for allegory meaning you're not seriously intending to adress the matter, I disagree. People are very good at lying to themselves and sometimes you need to an allegory to show these their behaviour in a way that doesn't cause them to become defensive. Basically if show them direct depiction of racism they'll get defensive and claim it's not relevant to them, but you can use the allegory to get a foot in so to speak because they're more willing to accept the indirect depiction and consider the implications of it, people are after not always rational with their actions and pretty much never rational when it comes to things like racism.

Indeed. On the flip side, nearly everyone sees themselves as aligning with the heroes regardless. I'm sure than an ISIS member would seem themselves as the Rebel Alliance if offered the comparison. In the case of Zootopia, someone could argue that the predators are Muslims terrorists and the prey are the helpless Trump supporters(or whatever other narrative one wants to construct that doesn't actually fit the story).

To go back to the back of the ship aliens, if I made the story without trying to make it an allegory for Rosa Parks people would still compare it to Rosa Parks even if that was never my intention. People will find unintentional allegories in most anything, they interpret the stories through their worldview and prejudices.

Though if you made something like that for an American audience, that would be an obvious thing to note. Though the fact that people find unintentional analogies in things like this is part of the point of them, it makes one think about things in a new light, even if that was not entirely the original point.

Someone I knew argued that Zootopia was about feminism as much as it was about racism. Judy's struggle after all does largely fit the girl power narrative, of learning to beat up the boys in their own game. It also raises a question that exists with the real life military in that context, should women be expected to meet the same standards in the same fashion(with inspiration from the fact that Judy beat all of her challenges at the academy by cheating rather than winning directly)?

There was also the fact that almost all of the prey animals(exempting Judy's father) were female and almost all of the predators were male.

In essence, it's like when right-wing politicians claim they want to fight terrorism and propose creating a database of Muslims as part of their plan, even though a) not all Muslims are terrorists, b) not all terrorists are Muslims, and c) actual Muslim terrorists wouldn't register anyway.

So the parallels are sometimes a bit more on-the-nose than you might think.

That is an interesting way to look at it, and not one that I had initially thought of.

Then you get into Sci-Fi like Star Trek where everything we know about a race is true among nearly all the people and those stand-outs are just weird and looked at as oddities. Klingons are warriors, Vulcans are in control, etc.

That was one element that was nice in Mass Effect, with an underlying theme that aliens are people too. You saw a great deal of diversity among members of a race. While krogan as a group were more aggressive, and asari as a group were more inclined to negotatite than fight, you still saw krogan diplomats and engineers and ruthless asari soldiers.

I mean, imagine they come for all the guns and you're being led into a black van because you had a Nerf Bow and Arrow. The movies took Rogue as the "bad end" of mutation, but she was still a vampire that could kill anyone with a touch. The movies could have shown at least a few mutants with hilariously bad powers.

Rogue was on the bad end because she had abilities that prevented her from living a normal life more than because she was weaker than average. As for a powerless character that is likely because it wouldn't be as interesting to see someone with useless abilities.

On the issue of truly useless abilities in a more general sense, presumably useless abilities simply aren't noticed.

Racism in fantasy settings doesn't have to be allegorical. It can just be a challenge for characters to overcome, a motivation for villains or gritty background flavour.

The problem is that even if not intended this way, it will be seen this way in some fashion.

[Thanas]

That is true, but at the same time, Magneto has a habit of reacting in a manner that somewhat justifies the prejudice in the first place. A mutant even nearly assassinates the president in a manner that normal security is virtually useless against.

Magneto is a dangerous criminal/terrorist (or possibly a freedom fighter). Still, he is just one man. Maybe a dozen at best counting all his allies. A registry based on that is useless and the epitome of racism given how the movies show there to be thousands, if not millions of mutants.

[madd0ct0r]

And we're back to allegory, since if you take the civil rights movement reading of the Xmen, the philosophies of Magneto and Xavier are extensions of Macolm X vs Martin Luther King.

[Elheru Aran]

Well the X-Men are easily interpretable to fit a lot of minorities. If it's not blacks, it's gays (the movies are intentionally supposed to have that interpretation, according to Bryan Singer IIRC-- it's not a coincidence that they hired Ian McKellan for a major role). I'm not sure what the original idea was, but Stan Lee has never been really specific about it, likely because he's savvy enough to recognize the obvious allegorical value.

[Channel72]

Having just seen the movie Zootopia this issue comes to mind. While it is an effective way to discuss the issue of racism without real life prejudices coming to mind, it does lead to a problem. Many of these settings in effect justify the racism they decry. In the case of Zootopia, it is somewhat justified for a bunny to be afraid of a lion or bear. Unlike real life racism, in which there is virtually no genetic difference between members of the same species, having a degree of racism within the setting genuinely makes sense.

I don't really see much difference. While there's certainly a huge strength disparity along species lines in Zootopia, there's also a strength disparity along gender lines among humans. Males on average have something like twice the upper body strength as females, due to larger muscle fibers. Or even forgetting about gender specifically, certain humans are simply much larger and stronger than others. But the idea is that this should be a complete non-issue in any civilized society, because we have laws and institutions which (in theory) should enforce equal treatment and opportunity regardless of physical differences.

With something like Zootopia, the physical strength disparity is way more pronounced, obviously, to the extent that certain forms of job discrimination along species lines would probably be inevitable, but that's basically a complicating factor - it doesn't justify blanket racism (or speciesism as the allegory would have it), especially considering that Zootopia seems to imply that all species have equal brain capacity somehow.

Regardless, I can see your point that sometimes the details of an allegory about racism work against the allegory itself, because the racial/species*/gender differences actually are significant enough to make equality questionable, but I don't think the size/strength disparities among inhabitants of Zootopia disrupt the allegory too much.

A better thought experiment would be to consider how human society would deal with some human-like species of the homo genus, or even just a racial subset of homo sapiens, that actually was less intelligent on average. Like, let's suppose there was genetic proof that, say, Caucasians, as an example, actually were less intelligent on average than everyone else - and this was indisputable due to certain well understood biological factors (like smaller frontal lobe or whatever). Or suppose modern human society was composed of 50% homo sapiens and 50% homo erectus. Would it even make sense for a society like this to enforce equal opportunity across the board in this case?

* what the fuck is the adjective form of species anyway? Apparently it's special, which is pretty much unusable in practice due to being a homonym.

[madd0ct0r]

we already share the planet with several species as intelligent as a toddler. We study some, makes pets of others and farm and eat the last.
Chimps, dolphins, dogs, parrots, crows, pigs

[Kingmaker]

There was a fantasy novel I read a few months ago where a many members of race of elves (they weren't called elves, but they were magical and had Finnesque name and pointy ears) could mind control people by talking, with regular humans being especially vulnerable. That the regular humans of the setting didn't like them very much was understandable.

In a similar vein, vampires in pretty much anything they appear.

--

Species like Krogan strain racism allegories a fair bit: it's not just that Krogan are stereotyped as short tempered and violent, they really are. Even Krogan that have little/no prior contact with Krogan culture aren't exactly calm and peaceful.

[biostem]

There would be other concerns - if we exclude outlying cases of morbid obesity, for instance, the amount of food any one person consumes, (assuming necessities here, not all this "bored eating"), is pretty consistent - now try to square that between a shrew and an elephant in Zootopia. Does the elephant have to pay 1000 times the food budget of the shrew?

It's also difficult to figure things out if there is some magical/supernatural disparity between races. If elves lives to be 1000+ years old, could you place them into the same schools as humans? If you planned out employee payment schedules and advancement around a 20 or so year career, how would that work out for someone who could hold the same job for several centuries? Imagine an elf working 20 years in a government job, then expecting to collect a pension for the next 800.

What about things like disability - if you had an insectoid race that had 4 arms and 2 legs, would the loss of an arm be worth as much in a court settlement for disability?

What if you had vampires in your setting - if a person was turned, would they be considered a "trans species" and would they still be liable for all debts incurred by their previous persona. It would be interesting to see if businesses would arise where people would remain celibate to provide better quality blood, (and thus collect higher premiums - if that sort of thing played apart in the setting).

What if one species could only reproduce via a form of parasitism? Would people be required to act as hosts (assume it'd have to be another intelligent species).

[Channel72]

we already share the planet with several species as intelligent as a toddler. We study some, makes pets of others and farm and eat the last.
Chimps, dolphins, dogs, parrots, crows, pigs

I don't think dogs or parrots are anywhere near as intelligent as a human toddler. Dolphins or chimps certainly, but not dogs, parrots or pigs. I could be wrong about pigs, I guess.

[madd0ct0r]

It depends on the exact tests you use to define intelligence, but dogs (well, some breeds) do pretty damn well on some measures: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20140909 ... -than-dogs

I should have narrowed parrots to African Greys for specificity. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next ... -15955221/

Pigs - research in 2015 - 'promising but only suggestive' - http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4s79c#page-15
It's 1am here and i have work. I might have another go at this tomorrow. Defining intelligence is hard.

[TheFeniX]

You can find people right now justifying racism using pseudo-science that certain races are less evolved than others. Going back dozens to thousands of years "science" said the same thing. On the flip side, drawing parallels favoring the less advanced can fall flat, such as Picard comparing the Baku relocation to the trail of tears in Star Trek: Insurrection. Stewart delivers a dynamite performance, but Picard's reasoning falls incredibly flat. Just because they have certain similarities does not make them directly comparable.

You also have the problem of being incredibly patronizing to the "lesser race." Such as Palin taking a jab at the writers of Family Guy for "exploiting" the mentally handicapped. Meanwhile, the voice actress called her out because she doesn't need her help in this area. Right now, there's millions of people smarter than you and dumber than you. You could meet an adult that barely has the reasoning of a 5th grader. And there's people out there who's brains are working on a level you'll never achieve. Hell, just people with more money, no matter if they half-killed themselves for it or live off a trust fund, think they are better than people with less money. You've already got some pretty good modern-day examples of how people would treat an under-class.

At best, they'll be extremely patronizing and think they have the right to make pretty much all the important decisions for the underclass and said underclass will have to hope they are in enough numbers and have the support and reasoning skills to fight for their equal rights.

Dogs are kind of a good example though. They can't communicate with us directly, but many breeds can be trained to perform a multitude of tasks above that of a toddler. Rescue dogs and assistance dogs for just two. I went dove hunting once and I watched a dog give orders to other dogs and physically move another dog into position to flush out birds. There was a chain of command: human > lead dog > 2 flush dogs. I'd rather watch that all day than shoot birds. Anyway, even though they might not know exactly why they are doing what they are doing: it's pretty amazing what you can train a dog to do.

[Civil War Man]

I don't think dogs or parrots are anywhere near as intelligent as a human toddler. Dolphins or chimps certainly, but not dogs, parrots or pigs. I could be wrong about pigs, I guess.

Dogs in particular are actually capable of some fairly advanced cognition. They and humans are both social animals, and have basically been in a symbiotic relationship for millennia, and there can actually be a remarkable amount of understanding between the two despite the lack of a shared language. Dogs, for instance, are considered to be one of the few species that understands pointing, which requires enough empathy to recognize that the person who is pointing has a different viewpoint than you, and is therefore seeing something different.

We've seen similar things in other species. Everything from primates learning rudimentary sign language, to various species that recognize that the image in a mirror is a reflection of them, to several more that employ tools to accomplish specific tasks, to a video that was linked here a few years back of an elephant painting a picture of an elephant. All of those things require a certain level of abstract thought that make a very strong case that most animals are a lot smarter than we give them credit for.

I even have an anecdote regarding an animal that is widely considered to be fairly dumb. I grew up near a dairy farm (a fairly small farm in the grand scheme, the farmer's part of an independent state-wide dairy co-op), and I remember one instance several years back where several of his cows escaped and started roaming around the yards of the surrounding neighborhoods. When the farmer showed up to bring them back, he didn't even have to say a word. As soon as the cows saw him, they lined up single file and marched right back to the farm. They all understood that he was the boss, and that they were someplace they weren't supposed to be.

[TheFeniX]

Even non-dog owners can understand the difference between the barks and growls of most dogs. I think it's something like an 85% accuracy. Dogs can understand a few hundred words and pickup on tone-of-voice and body language quite well. There is a language there. Honestly amazes me how much the dog has been ignored by science up until this century. I remember reading even up into the 70s, scientists didn't think dog barks meant anything. Do educated people just not own dogs? WTF? Also, LEGO genetics.

Our cocker (Jake) must have spent most of his early life with little interaction with people because he opens doors with his nose. Our King Charles (King) opens doors with his paws because he learned from us. Jake barely understands pointing as well, but some of that might be brain-damage from his malnutrition before we got him and his seizures. King picked it up immediately. They are like little dumb children: if you're willing to put in the time, you can teach them all manner of crazy shit.

But if you treat them like a lapdog to only convert food into poop: of course they've going to be slow, just like a human would be.

And they pick-up shit on their own too: Both the dogs get bathed in the sink, but they've also worked out when a bath might happen. If I'm doing dishes, they will hover around me with no issues. I can even reach to pet them with wet hands. But if I'm filling the sink in some way I can only assume they pickup on: I find them cowering somewhere. I have to do dishes before I bath them, so what are they picking up on? They were batting about 100 up until we got the baby, who is also bathed in the sink. They haven't worked a new system out yet.

[Darth Yan]

with the xmen it's somewhat complicated in that shit like registration can easily lead to rounding up into death camps and a lot of the anti mutants are more "KILL THEM ALL GAS THEM EXTERMINATE THEM." So in that case yes the racism angle is still legit.