I wonder if you're not overreacting a bit. As a matter of fact, I had already read that fic (although to be honest, I lost interest after a couple of chapters and can't remember the title, so I'm not exacty a big fan either) and I didn't like this passage either, but I wouldn't say it's hate speech. Especially, concerning the use of "middle-eastern" here, I don't think the implication is that anything coming from the Middle East is bad, but that what some people think of as universal truth (cf. 'insistence in only one god') is in fact a localized religious phenomenon (see also in this respect 'their High Priest in Rome' which has the same function by calling what some might call the representative of God on earth (universal) a mere local religious leader).
The historical view here is generally quite biased and extremely vague as all the History of the world is characterised in one sweeping gesture: assumption of existence of modern concepts of hygiene in wizarding communities of the past (particularly the insistance on "sanitary" conditions which seems to me an anachronistic transposition of modern Western obsessions), typical clichés about men of the past being all rather clueless and dirty... It certainly doesn't have its place in a History book, not even a wizarding History book ;)
That being said, I don't find it particularly shocking either: I don't think it is a crime for a fictional character to have very biased views. It is perhaps a bit disappointing that the narrator doesn't seem to have much critical distance and that she apparently genuinely thinks that humanity wasn't worth much before the 20th century, but one has to bear in mind that such views about history are quite widespread and that the author may be mistaken and yet not mean harm. Her work migh be more naïve than actually hateful. I don't know what kind of message you left her, but I don't think there was any need for aggressivity here. You might think I'm too tolerant but according to me, some polite criticism and a few suggestions to improve the passage perhaps would have been plenty enough. Actually, I had been thinking recently, you seem rather angry with the world in general these days, especially with matters of religion. Any reason in particular for this extreme sensitivity these days or has it always been the case and I hadn't noticed?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
controversy
Date: 2008-04-29 08:46 am (UTC)As a matter of fact, I had already read that fic (although to be honest, I lost interest after a couple of chapters and can't remember the title, so I'm not exacty a big fan either) and I didn't like this passage either, but I wouldn't say it's hate speech.
Especially, concerning the use of "middle-eastern" here, I don't think the implication is that anything coming from the Middle East is bad, but that what some people think of as universal truth (cf. 'insistence in only one god') is in fact a localized religious phenomenon (see also in this respect 'their High Priest in Rome' which has the same function by calling what some might call the representative of God on earth (universal) a mere local religious leader).
The historical view here is generally quite biased and extremely vague as all the History of the world is characterised in one sweeping gesture: assumption of existence of modern concepts of hygiene in wizarding communities of the past (particularly the insistance on "sanitary" conditions which seems to me an anachronistic transposition of modern Western obsessions), typical clichés about men of the past being all rather clueless and dirty...
It certainly doesn't have its place in a History book, not even a wizarding History book ;)
That being said, I don't find it particularly shocking either: I don't think it is a crime for a fictional character to have very biased views.
It is perhaps a bit disappointing that the narrator doesn't seem to have much critical distance and that she apparently genuinely thinks that humanity wasn't worth much before the 20th century, but one has to bear in mind that such views about history are quite widespread and that the author may be mistaken and yet not mean harm. Her work migh be more naïve than actually hateful.
I don't know what kind of message you left her, but I don't think there was any need for aggressivity here. You might think I'm too tolerant but according to me, some polite criticism and a few suggestions to improve the passage perhaps would have been plenty enough. Actually, I had been thinking recently, you seem rather angry with the world in general these days, especially with matters of religion. Any reason in particular for this extreme sensitivity these days or has it always been the case and I hadn't noticed?