I think the word politics applies to governing systems of all nations, and using a definition that so obviously excludes a huge chunk of the world is a mistake. But, ehhh, I'm ok with your definition for the purposes of this conversation...it's just not the same one I'm using.
However, I'll note that you (and others) are angry at this story for implying that race relations in this country are so simple (though, personally, I don't believe the story implied that) and not big and complicated the way they are in the real, external world and so on and so forth but then you've turned around and used a definition of politics that's very basic and doesn't encompass the complex nature of geopolitics, and in fact, looks only to the (so-called) first world as its operating basis and generalizes from there.
That absolutely is notable, and I appreciate you correcting me on it. I'm certainly not above privileged thinking (no people of privilege are), even as I want to talk about and address it. When I talk about transformative conversations about race, I'm thinking the West and civil rights and democratic process, yes - I didn't think consciously about that, but it's what I was doing. I don't have any other knowledge base to work from. (Racial landscapes in particular are different all over, Haiti and the Dominican Republic for example.) I also don't see personal politics/ideals as equivalent or interchangeable with Western lawmaking, more that they are integral in shaping each other. As far as more universal, worldwide political landscapes and the place in stories of ANY topic on a worldwide scale, I've done no reading on the subject yet to give an opinion. There are far too many complexities there, as you said.
Actually, no. And this conversation will go better if you quit presuming what I presume (this is not the first time, but I've been letting them slide).
I'm responding to what I read in your words, but misunderstandings happen. I should have qualified that it was what you SEEMED to be presuming, but I don't see why we have to worry about whether this conversation "goes better" when we're being respectful (I hope I am, anyway, and apologize if I'm not), I have no emnity towards you at all, and I feel like we're both saying useful things. (Even if everyone making Wookie jokes is probably tired of my pretentious ass right now.
)
I was presuming any change at all to be unlikely. It's my opinion that most dialog (and stories) do not change a static condition. I don't preclude that change is possible, however incremental, I just believe it to be extremely unlikely. I don't believe, for example, that my telling you your view of politics is way too zeroed in on the US will change your view of politics. At all. Not even a smidge. And at the risk of sounding all confirmation biasy, I have had hundreds of conversations just like this one and probably only a half dozen ever changed anyone, and most of those were with kids. This force of inertia is the process that causes the creation of stuff like the race bingo card. The change doesn't happen, and every encounter is a square one encounter and most of the time people walk away with zero idea of what the big deal is about and zero change. Which is totally exhausting. Though perhaps not futile.
And yet I acknowledged your comments and looked at the angle from which I approach politics and why, and although I am trying to justify myself somewhat I also plan to remmeber myself for the future. I don't think I'm in any way special or smart for that, just open on this particular subject. Will I make the mistake again? Probably. Will I remember this and use it to avoid the mistake as often as possible until it's worked out of my personal baggage? I hope so. I agree it's zilch without effort, and the race bingo card is coming from people who are more concerned with being smug or "right" than having a discussion. But I don't think those people are transformed by a protest rally or a democratic process either. The personal experiences that those changes in law create? Yes, but not always.
I learned my small vocabulary of anti-racism theory through a cultural competency class on the road to being a social worker, K. Tempest Bradford's blog The Angry Black Woman, and a lot of discussion caused by whitewashed movie casting for Avatar the Last Airbender, as well as posts that popped up and were passed on throughout the blogosphere. Among the tools that helped were diagrams, comic strips, and personal anecdotes. I'd say those all have elements of story in varying ways. But certainly change of my way of thinking emerged over a few years, though by no means a complete or perfect change (and I have no idea how well I'm putting it into practice).
And your basis for your interpretation is all about what the author intends (to teach, or to send a message) which I can't grant, even if my interpretation is wrong, because it implies you're a mind reader. And I don't think you are.
I'm not. But I think readers have a right to comment on possible intent as long as they're open to the possibility they may be wrong. Otherwise what's the point? Should the author come and explain some other meaning or mechanism to the story - and he's in no way obligated to - then my opinion may well change. But it'd change to whether his intent was executed well, and the unintentional message he sent instead, and how in my opinion (for what that's worth) he could have executed his intentions better or worse.
I'll note that while I preferred "I'll Gnaw Your Bones" on almost every level, if you go look in the discussion thread for that story, most of the listeners did not think it was a story about race. To me it clearly, undeniably, obviously was, but that's not the takeaway most people walked away with. At least in this story, no one is wondering or debating whether the story is about race. People are mad that it's about race, people are offended, people are bored, people are skirting right up to the line of telling the author he had no business writing this story, but no one is like "Oh really? Race? I didn't see it." I think we need the more blatant stories, too. I'm glad Kosmatka wrote it. I'm glad EP ran it.
You could interpret a few things in "I'll Gnaw Your Bones," which I loved, and I was surprised that people seemed to find NO meaning in it when I could see race and eugenics (although problematic in that POC = nonhuman way I talked about earlier) or animal rights in equal stretches. Maybe even an intent to invoke both. But I disagree that we need a blatant story because no one saw the racial elements in a subtler one. Not when the blatant story isn't any good. But I'd never say Kosmatka shouldn't write about race, even if I think he did poorly at it, because first of all no one is going to agree on how to have this conversation, including people of color. Second, like I said, you don't know the best way to write about a big issue right away, if ever. You learn. I certainly wouldn't have a snowball's chance of getting it all "right" either.