posted
I went to my local comic shop today to pick up "Ultimate Iron Man #1" but was stopped. I was told that Mr. Card is a "biggit", a racist. Can anyone shed light on this. I'm not a judgemental person, but I'm having a hard time finding info. on this.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, anybody. Is there any reason someone would think Card is a racist? I believe in God and his word. I just, would like to know where this veiw comes from.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card is anything but racist...I have no idea why they would say that. And besides, how can they prevent you from buying a comic just because they don't agree with the author? And if they were that serious about, why did they stock the thing in the first place?
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't prevent me from purchasing a comic book, though if someone says something like this, I personally would like to find out for myself before I buy this particular comic. Like I said, I'm not judgemental. As for them stocking it, it's"Ultimate Iron Man", it's kinda a big deal.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"shrugs* Maybe they disagree with some of his opinions, but they don't have firm grounding, so they label him with a generic "racist" title.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the word that the person you spoke to used was "bigot" then he/she was probably referring to Card's stance on gay marriage. He's against it, and adamantly so, and this gets him vilified by his political opponents on a pretty regular basis. I personally think that the word "bigot" is completely inappropriate in this context, but it has become the word of choice these days for gay-rights advocates to apply to opponents of gay marriage, whether they deserve it or not, specifically because it connects them to the segregationists of decades past.
If the word that he/she used was "racist" however, I can't think of any reason why that word might be applied to Card. The only thought that even occurs to me is that he/she might be applying common (and untrue) stereotypes of Mormons to him, despite the fact that Card has always been an adamant proponent for egalitarian and inclusive policies in that regard.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have some vague recollection that a discussion about Card's racism came up some years ago. It was based on the original short-story of Ender's game, in which some discussion about "slitty eyes" was made; Ender used it in trying to make clear all his team were equals, but it was misinterpreted as racist, so Card ended up taking out the reference as it was read the "wrong way round". There is also an article that he wrote, explaining his intent and horror at that misinterpretation. So if anyone has got a first-printing of the original "Ender's game" (short story), there is (apparently) a conversation in it that can be taken as racist - but isn't.
So i read, here, a few years ago :-o h.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The actual conversation (in Ender's Game - I think it was the book, bot the short story, but I could be wrong) went something like:
quote:Alai: You mean that slanty-eyed little butt wiggler. Ender: Hey, we can't all be niggers like you.
I think there might have been joking about how one of Ender's ancestors might have owned one of Alai's ancestors way back when too.
In context, this is anti-racist. The whole point was that Ender was saying "If you throw racial slurs around, you should expect racial slurs to come back at you." And considering that OSC has been pretty staunch in challenging the unconsciously racist Gernsback assumption that the future belongs to white, mostly blond over blue, Americans, I don't see how anyone who actually knew him in any sort of depth could think he was a racist.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, holy crap, I hope you were kidding about the last bit, too. Sheesh, do we have to believe everything that political hype-machines tell us?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally wish that that bit of Ender/Alai dialogue had not been removed from later editions. I always thought it was pretty funny. It's sad that some people simply can't handle that kind of dialogue because they get hung up on a single word.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So people can't separate the personality of the fictional character from the personality of the author? Heck, everyone may as well quit writing right now.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card has a lot of characters that wear dresses. I guess that means he must like wearing dresses. Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He also has characters that have pre-marital sex. He's espousing pre-marital sex for all! Excommunicate him! Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One could make the argument that OSC is racist from the way he describes China and the Islamic world in the Shadow series. It's pretty clear that it's for the sake of the story, and he doesn't actually have any bad feelings toward any racial group, but I can imagine someone being uncomfortable with some things, especially if you're a Muslim reading Sotg.
Posts: 464 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignorance...that's how someone can describe OSC as a racist or biggot. In reality, OSC is one of the few writers with enough courage to look at all sides of the issue and simply state the actual facts of the situation. Obviously he has his own opinions, as he very clearly expresses in his articles. But, the fact is that OSC is one of the few people with influence of any kind in the world, which he has earned by his own brilliance, that can clearly outline all points of an issue with such clarity that a reader can learn from the description and then decide for oneself whether OSC's opinions are valid within one's own personal beliefs. This is a rare quality.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thought...Furthermore, it is OSC's ability to write, not only in his articles but his books as well, in such a manner that he does not tell the reader that his/her knowledge, opinions, or beliefs are wrong, but instead shows the reader a different view and allows the reader to decide. A true leaders does not lead by telling his followers that they are dificient or invalid in some way, but by providing an example from which they can learn. And after all, leadership is the core of OSC's works.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One could make the argument that OSC is racist from the way he describes China and the Islamic world in the Shadow series.
I think that when someone starts throwing the word "racist" around when it comes to foreign cultures, they're saying more about themselves than they are about the person they're critcizing.
China and the Islamic world share many, many, MANY differences with mainstream U.S. culture that have nothing to do with anyone's race. If you think someone is depicting them wrongly or unfairly, it's strange to jump instantly to the assumption that the misunderstanding was caused by racial differences. What about cultural differences? Political differences? Historical perspectives? Access to different media? Come on. A white guy says something you don't like about China, and suddenly, he's a racist? Why, because all white people are racist? And that's the only reason they could ever get something wrong or disagree?
I know you weren't really trying to make this point, so I'm not actually upset at you. I'm just frustrated with this tendency people have these days to jump immediately into a race war whenever there's the slightest opportunity to do so.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Frustrations aside... OSC uses the (colloquial) term "bigot" in place of racist as often as he can to counter critics. What he doesn't do is explain his democratic viewpoint. Forever a mystery. Why is he so beholden to a group (democratic allegiance) identification that he doesn't believe in? nae, chastizes in public forums. Kinda unseemly. He likes to sport the jersey, but hates the coach and the rest of the players (and makes a meal of it for his sci-fi readership)? what's that all about?
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He became a Democrat when he was younger than me, and did so because he believed strongly in much of what that party represented at the time. I think he holds onto his self-identification as a Democrat because he still believes in what the party was before it became so abhorrent to him, and he holds out hope that independent Democrats like him might shift the party back to a place where he is more comfortable.
What do you expect him to do, though? Become a Republican? He dislikes that party's platform just about as much The issues he has problems with aren't as emotional, though, and don't lend themselves to the same kind of demagoguery ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't expect him to hold dear anything that he isn't wont to hold dear, save his reputation as an honest man. I don't think he's kept that bargain in his foray into political rhetoric.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think it is ok to hold a writer to some standard (excepting fanfiction - where sucking up is the rule), don't you? Card calling himself a democrat is like a Star Trek conventioneur calling himself a klingon (of the old school, mind you - minus saggital crests and whatnot).
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is it okay to bump "inflammatory" topics/comments to achieve a poorly-defined aim (e.g. Scott actually gets off the pot and makes a film)
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole "honest man" thing is an empty complaint. If anyone in this world has obviously been completely honest in his opinions, to the point of riling up his fan base and pissing people off, it's Card. You can disagree with him, but you can't accuse him of being dishonest about his beliefs.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only have two things to say about the charge that Card is racist.
1) He is on record as saying that he moved to North Carolina in part because he wanted to raise his children in a place where people of different races associated with each other in a free and friendly manner.
2) That exchange in "Ender's Game" definitely had a point, and "minorities are inferior" was most assuredly not it.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Surprised you responded. What brought you to the shores of this vapid and inconsequential mockery of the staid and true. The unblosummed, defreckeled, and loathsome? The loyal and sub. Standard-bearing.
posted
Hmmm, puppy: that's interesting. I didn't know he was so violently opposed to gay marriage. I've always been slightly confused by the gay characters in many of his novels (Songmaster and others). I saw what could have been hostility towards gays, but I also saw those characters treated with an immense amount of compassion and humanity.
I know that a the people who are opposed to gay marriage have diverse opinions on homosexuality as a whole. I wonder where Cards stands there.
Posts: 61 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I saw what could have been hostility towards gays, but I also saw those characters treated with an immense amount of compassion and humanity."
I think this is in fact a perfect description of Card's position on homosexuality: native hostility tempered with immense compassion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, good thought! I'd love to ask Card personally about his opinion. Does anyone know how I can contact him?
Posts: 61 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card, particularly in recent years, has been a strong proponent of traditional nuclear families and effective, responsible child-rearing as the solution to many societal ills. Large-scale acceptance of "alternate lifestyles" (including homosexuality, promiscuity, no-fault divorce, etc) as equivalent to traditional, stable family structures flies directly in the face of what he holds to be most important for the future of civilization. So he fights against it. Hard.
He was also singled out by gay activists as an enemy long before he actually picked up the gauntlet himself, which has fueled a sense of indignation between him and the gay-rights lobby for years, before he ever started writing his weekly political columns.
Tom's analysis is misleading. There is no "native hostility". Card isn't hostile at all towards homosexuals as individuals, which is why he can write such sympathetic gay characters. Card's hostility is directed toward those whose political goals aim to tear down or prevent the emergence of institutions and strategies that he believes to be critical to the survival of our society. He also has to deal with the fact that, whether he fights back or not, many gay activists are going to fight him, simply because he is a socially-conservative, religious public figure.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why doesn't he just ignore them? The baddy activists, I mean. It shouldn't affect his work, lifestyle, etc (I'm sure I'm being naive here about his actual experience, and that's why I'm asking)
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, as I said before, that's one of multiple factors. I think that the animosity he has experienced at the hands of gay activists has made him less likely to pull his punches when arguing against them.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Card's hostility is directed toward those whose political goals aim to tear down or prevent the emergence of institutions and strategies that he believes to be critical to the survival of our society."
Well, keep in mind that the vast majority of people advocating gay marriage do not have as one of their political goals the tearing down of the institution of marriage. He's opposed to that cause because he believes that it will have that effect, but their goal is something altogether different. That he frequently refers to -- and denigrates -- such people as if their goal were the destruction of the American family is why he catches so much flak; it's very hard for the casual observer to get the vibe that Card understands why homosexuals want to marry, beyond the complete destruction of the human race.
I've expressed disagreement with Card's views on Hatrack before, and I've even criticized his tone in delivering those views. I worry that that crosses the lines of appropriateness, since this is his forum, but I've come down on the side of believing that I've been, at worst, just on the okay side of the line.
But calling someone names on his or her own forum seems wrong to me. It seems totally out of line and churlish.
(Though maybe the insult has less impact when it's misspelled consistently. )
Do you want the straight answer or the comical one to the question you just asked?
I'll assume straight, and the answer is yes.
quote: I worry that that crosses the lines of appropriateness, since this is his forum
I have worried about that, too. But, sometimes, when you step over a perceived line, you find that you're 100 yards off the mark. So, I figure, if the lines aren't clearly drawn, it's a good and fun (depending on the response) exercise to find out where those lines lie.
quote:But calling someone names on his or her own forums seems wrong to me.
I'm not sure if you are directing that at me, but I'll answer if that's what you think I've done.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the animosity he has experienced at the hands of gay activists has made him less likely to pull his punches when arguing against them.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either from the empathy slant, or the presumption that OSC normally comes out of his corner suppressing the urge to swing his fists blindly at the first target he spies.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[expunges self-serving references to the great equanimity that is present in OSC's writings]
simple question:
why, in OSC's recent columns, is it always "blacks" and "white people" or "white folks"? I've seen "African American", but never "black folks" or "black people".
(this is based on observation of only his most recent columns, after seeing this particular thread, not based on his body of work)
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
alluvion: thank you for the direct answer. That post was one of the most straightforward one of yours I remember reading. No, that last comment was not directed at you.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
to Puppy.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)
