Apparently, Using Food to Describe Skin Tone is Racist?

[Kiweevil]

That video makes me all kinds of uncomfortable. I thought this was some sort of distant nightmare of mine, turns out it was just a repressed memory. Shame on you.

[DasIstWunderblyat]

To a cannibal people are food anyway. Having one describing people's skin tone as food won't be far fetched.

[Kiweevil]

I love the insinuation here that people who write out foods in comparison to skin tones are just closeted cannibals, fantasizing about different flavors of human.

[Aims]

Well, this took an unexpected turn...

[IndigoShirtProd]

Really? This is exactly where I thought this conversation was going.

[indagold]

I think my joke went over your head because I was essentially implying this sounds like something from a shitty porno. I don't know how you construed this as me saying this was fine lmfao.

[NickRowler]

This thread reminds me of this and the idea someone calls people wheat and toast.

[JWZagst]

I've always used food for certain skin tones, and usually no one finds it offensive. The key I think is in how you word it. For instance, in my most recent novel, I described a person of color as: His chocolate skin flowed taut over his muscular physique, which displayed his prominent shoulders and chiseled jaw. His eyes were hazel but took on a golden tone in direct sunlight, and his black hair was pulled back into short cornrows.

[joannekwan]

Eh, it's hard to tell tone via just text. If I wasn't explaining to you, then I was explaining to anyone else reading who might have missed the joke and thought it was a valid counterpoint.

[DeleteThisAccountFag]

That was quite an enlightenment article. I feel kind of bad though, even though I never actually used food to describe skin color, I did actually named every major female lead after a sauce or spread. I thought it would be a fun easter egg for people who discovered it, but... I'm not sure now.

But still, one thing I hate about this and other articles of the same ilk is white shaming, particularly this line:

When writing about a character of colour (ESPECIALLY if you’re a white author)

Is this really necessary? To point out white people like that? Isn't that racist in itself? Because I surely see it as being racist, yet people get away with it as if this is acceptable (maybe it is? I sure hope not). Imagine you spin it around and say "ESPECIALLY if you are Hispanic". I used that example as I am Hispanic and yes, that would anger me if I read that, but I find it equally appalling to be used on anyone of any skin color or any other trait. It's just sounds hypocritical to have them proclaim how racists something is and shame white people on the only basis being... well... their skin color.

So despite finding the article well meaning, it comes off as bossy and forceful. Hence why I can't support articles like these.

[Cronaj]

I think it more has to do with non-POC needing to be aware of how their words come off to POC. I don't think it's white shaming, imho.

It has to do with the fact that (especially in the English-speaking world) white people are typically the majority, so if they thoughtlessly write about a POC without considering how said group wants to be depicted, they may be overwriting the POC's voice, which has been marginalized for so long. (This goes into the cultural appropriation topic, which I don't want to get into.)

But basically, as an example, if a white person writes about a Native American person and includes strange language (perhaps with food as a descriptor), it might be a bit insensitive to the identity of that particular cultural group. This might not even be the author's intent, but it can be unintentionally harmful. Especially, if this work of fiction gets famous, when not many works by Native Americans do.

It isn't about white-shaming, it's just a sensitivity thing, and understanding that if you are not a part of an ethnic group, you don't know how your words about that group will be perceived. So do your research, and maybe find some sensitivity readers.

[joannekwan]

These articles are mostly born within the Western market, so mainly Europe, the United States, and Canada, all of which have had history with colonialism and general exploitation of non-white populations across the the globe. It's a complicated thing that people have written entire books about but basically it boils down to: since the past has placed white people in an overall place of privilege in the Western world, contemporary white writers have a bit of work to do to give their creations a second thought and ponder "Is what I'm writing perpetuating something negative about people that have had the short end of the stick in the West time and time again."

Take for example describing a Black character's hair. It's got tight curls. Perhaps a writer might think of a descriptor for it, so they start thinking of analogies and things to compare it to. They might think something similar in texture is sheep's wool. So the writer could say the character has wooly hair.
BUT the trouble with that is the writer is making a comparison between the character and an animal. And there is a long history of dehumanizing Black people and making them seem more animal than human. So let's avoid that!

[DeleteThisAccountFag]

But the article made its point well and sound that I felt it didn't need to point out any particular group. It even convinced me not to do that in the future. I felt it was unnecessary, at all. I mean, are there any articles where I, as an Hispanic, have to have to be pointed out in such a rude way? No, that would be unacceptable and very insensitive. Yet, if I was white, I would have no choice but to acquiesce to such blatant pointing out? Imagine this was not an article but a speech. Imagine if white people were pointed out during said speech with white people in the audience. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if such an example exists in real life, and that thought already makes me cringe.

So, no, I can't accept this, at all. It feels like we're just doing a 180 on the problem.

[DeleteThisAccountFag]

But my problem is when they are specifically pointed out, it comes out so rude and tasteless. I've seen this a couple of times and there's even a freaking MTV YouTube video series called "Dear White People". This does not elate me or make me happy in any way because I see this as backwards thinking. Not all white people are out to get everyone of color, yet when I see this kind of pointing out, I just shake my head and think, "we are not progressing with this kind of talk."

I do agree that the article's message, while it does applies to everyone, white people should definitely take it far more seriously, I get that, but we should be respectful about it rather than just say the equivalent of, "You hear that, whitey?"

[joannekwan]

It's usually pointed at white people mostly because the industry (particularly when it comes to authors who are traditionally published or are seeking to be traditionally published) is dominated by white people. It's not discounting other POC who may be racist, but rather it's just shining a light on the people who have a seat in publishing or are likely to get a seat.

[Cronaj]

Here's the issue, as @joannekwan pointed out very eloquently: the world has a very long, destructive history of European cultures colonizing and exploiting other populations. So while it's great to say, "We don't need to single anyone out!" that doesn't help the conversation of making privileged folk, especially white folk, be more aware of their actions when depicting minority groups. It's not a "white-shaming" thing. It's literally an awareness thing.

[JWZagst]

I think it also helps if you use the same amount of detail for non-POC. Here is the full description of two different characters in my most recent novel, the first part of which was shown in my earlier comment: Emmett Haldeman was a couple inches taller than Mallory, and was actually in fairly decent shape. His chocolate skin flowed taut over his muscular physique, which displayed his prominent shoulders and chiseled jaw. His eyes were hazel but took on a golden tone in direct sunlight, and his black hair was pulled back into short cornrows. He had spent a few years in sports after his father – United States Air Force Major General John Haldeman – had pressured him into athletics, but eventually he was allowed to pursue science as he desired.

Sully MacFarley, on the other hand, barely stood five and a half feet and was quite portly. He was covered in freckles and red body hair, sporting a hipster-style pompadour that really brought out the ginger in him. His eyes were a bright emerald green and he wore thick black-framed glasses that sat atop a large, bubble nose. His father Gerald was a Detective as well and partners with Nathaniel – that was actually how the two boys met, back when their fathers were young patrol officers on the same beat. It was the following year at school where Emmett had joined their 'adventuring party,' as they called it.

[darthmongoose]

This hits the nail on the head. @toolkitzgames , as a white person, I am not insulted by articles specifically pointing out that as a member of a group that still benefits a huge amount from racial privilege in white-dominated countries like mine, I need to put extra thought and effort into how I depict characters from more marginalised groups. Yes, it's extra effort, but it's really just off-setting the huge advantages being white gives me in terms of visibility and how seriously my voice and work will be taken.
It's also just a fact that of course I need to do extra research and check things when writing PoC characters because I have not experienced their lives. If it's second-hand information, you always need to fact-check more and get second opinions.

I do wish sometimes that the issue of certain PoC groups being racist to other PoC groups, or even to people within their own communities would get addressed more, but like... well, that's a different battle to fight from this one.
When it comes to describing brown skinned people as chocolate, caramel or coffee, it's mostly an issue because it's so perpetuated by white writers objectifying them in this way for years, so it's kind of fine to say "okay seriously, white people especially, please stop doing this." if we're the worst offenders. If it's something that's easy to do like use some different words and it's to help balance for how my ancestors went around taking over peoples countries and shipping people around like property... it's really a very small thing being asked of me considering the magnitude of what was done and just how much harder it is for PoC to get their own work seen and published.

[joannekwan]

Exactly! And as you mentioned PoC being racist to other PoC, I think these articles can help as well since in the West a lot of that racism was propagated by a white establishment. Like the whole 'Asian men aren't masculine' stereotype.

I'll use an example from my own writing. Again, as an Asian person, I personally don't mind seeing the term 'almond eyes' and even used it in my manuscript when describing a character's features (as I see almond as more of a shape descriptor than food). But after seeing that some Asians aren't comfortable with it, I just made a quick change in my doc to describe his eyes in a different way. I chose to use 'obsidian eyes' instead, focusing on the color more than shape as there were already other hints that the character is Chinese. It wasn't hard to make the change.

[Darth_Biomech]

Most things are racist only when people are convinced they're racist.

And we now adamant to find "racist" meanings in literally everything, it seems.
Like see, there:

7 Casually Racist Things That White Authors Do

2.White is the color of everything good and pure and black is the color of everything bad and evil

White is color of the sunlight, day and safety. Black is the color of the night, darkness, and where the deadly predators stalk invisible. It has NOTHING to do with the racism, it's literally older than ALL cultures currently present on the planet!

6.Stereotypes

Russians are always drunk and live in the land of permanent winter, and their women are natashas?
Irish are all ginger, also drunk and eat only potatoes?
All Spanish have hot temper, love corrida and take siestas all the time?
Or... All whites are guilty of colonialism and oppression? (explicitly "inherit the sins of your fathers" kind, by the way)

Oh, but they're white so these stereotypes do not count as problematic, I see, yes.

Racism is a bleeding wound in the society, there's no doubt about it... Except it feels that nowadays instead of letting it heal so many people just keep poking and rubbing it instead, thinking that that's what will force it to heal faster. No, it will only make it swell up and fester. What need to be abolished is these "historical meanings" that the article mentions. They only breed "guilt by association" fallacies.