[OB] Justified racism on Roshar and elsewhere

[Greywatch]

I think any system of discrimination is also going to invent the fake reasoning for "why should this system exist" alongside of the system. For anyone who lives within the system, it needs to feel obvious and "right". That happened and happens in our world, historically and currently, and it happens in the worlds that Brandon writes. The oppressors will always be able to come up with a reason why they should be on top. The lighteyed/darkeyed reasoning is no different than things that have happened/happen on Earth. Coming up with a "justification" for it is part of the oppression.

[Fifth of Daybreak]

47 minutes ago, Greywatch said:

I think any system of discrimination is also going to invent the fake reasoning for "why should this system exist" alongside of the system. 

That's what fascinates me about these situations. The reasoning isn't 'fake,' especially in terms of Skaa. It makes it all the more enjoyable to read and disect to see a society that comes to the same limitations, problems, and evils that systems of discriminations always lead to when, in this situation, there are tangible, real differences they are based on. It's very compelling to see the characters struggling to fix those problems in the same uphill battles and to see these situations start to become rectified, and especially to see how much society improves for it in spite of the fact that those systems of discrimination are based in, at least for the Skaa, real and tangible differences. For me, it's very enjoyable to see the 'natural strengths=superior and entitlement trope get its head lopped off so thoroughly, but the only way for me to really get that enjoyment is to recognize that the systems of discrimination are based in a more grounded and 'justifiable' reason than the junk science of our own history.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Fifth of Daybreak

[Greywatch]

1 minute ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

That's what fascinates me about these situations. The reasoning isn't 'fake,' especially in terms of Skaa. It makes it all the more enjoyable to read and disect to see a society that comes to the same limitations, problems, and evils that systems of discriminations always lead to when there are tangible real differences they are based on. It's very compelling to see the characters struggling to fix those problems in the same uphill battles and to see these situations start to become rectified, and especially to see how much society improves for it in spite of the fact that those systems of discrimination are based in, at least for the Skaa, real and tangible differences. For me, it's very enjoyable to see the 'natural strengths=superior and entitlement trope get its head lopped off so thoroughly, but the only way to really get that enjoyment is to recognize that the systems of discrimination are based in a more grounded and 'justifiable' reason than the junk science of our own history.

I guess I just don't agree.

[RShara]

4 hours ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

That's what fascinates me about these situations. The reasoning isn't 'fake,' especially in terms of Skaa. It makes it all the more enjoyable to read and disect to see a society that comes to the same limitations, problems, and evils that systems of discriminations always lead to when, in this situation, there are tangible, real differences they are based on. It's very compelling to see the characters struggling to fix those problems in the same uphill battles and to see these situations start to become rectified, and especially to see how much society improves for it in spite of the fact that those systems of discrimination are based in, at least for the Skaa, real and tangible differences. For me, it's very enjoyable to see the 'natural strengths=superior and entitlement trope get its head lopped off so thoroughly, but the only way for me to really get that enjoyment is to recognize that the systems of discrimination are based in a more grounded and 'justifiable' reason than the junk science of our own history.

The point that I'm trying to make is that the reasoning is still fake. Sure, Radiants had light eyes, and that was the basis for the lighteyed thing. But that was Radiants, and they were powerful, sure.

But their descendants having light eyes as well doesn't mean much, and isn't really what I would call "real reasoning." It's like saying, men are bigger and stronger, so the sexism that women have experienced in history had a basis in real reasoning. Just because A tended to be true (men physically bigger and stronger, Radiants having magic) doesn't mean that B had realistic reasoning behind it.

[Fifth of Daybreak]

1 hour ago, RShara said:

The point that I'm trying to make is that the reasoning is still fake. Sure, Radiants had light eyes, and that was the basis for the lighteyed thing. But that was Radiants, and they were powerful, sure.

But their descendants having light eyes as well doesn't mean much, and isn't really what I would call "real reasoning." It's like saying, men are bigger and stronger, so the sexism that women have experienced in history had a basis in real reasoning. Just because A tended to be true (men physically bigger and stronger, Radiants having magic) doesn't mean that B had realistic reasoning behind it.

I don't disagree, I touched on a lot of the things you state about Lighteyes in my first post. I'm not sure where the contention between us is.

[Llarimar]

8 hours ago, RShara said:

The point that I'm trying to make is that the reasoning is still fake. Sure, Radiants had light eyes, and that was the basis for the lighteyed thing. But that was Radiants, and they were powerful, sure.

But their descendants having light eyes as well doesn't mean much, and isn't really what I would call "real reasoning." It's like saying, men are bigger and stronger, so the sexism that women have experienced in history had a basis in real reasoning. Just because A tended to be true (men physically bigger and stronger, Radiants having magic) doesn't mean that B had realistic reasoning behind it.

Yes, I agree with this.  Even if the discrimination is founded in legitimate differences between two groups, the reasoning behind the discrimination is still made up.  Men are generally stronger than women, but that doesn't mean that it is justified to discriminate against women.  All Knights Radiant are lighteyes, but that doesn't mean it is justified to discriminate against darkeyes.  There isn't a logical connection between the two thoughts.  They're just taking historical or empirical facts out of context (men are stronger, lighteyes are Knights Radiant) and using them to set up a narrow-minded system of discrimination.

In modern day Scadrial, I think the reasoning behind the noblemen-skaa discrimination is also fake since there isn't any physiological difference between the two groups.  I guess that even at the beginning, when the Balance was still in effect, the reasoning was still faulty - just because skaa were more fertile and less intelligent than noblemen, that didn't mean it was justified to persecute and oppress them.  

Edited May 6, 2018 by Llarimar

[earthexile]

It might be worth considering that Sanderson grew up in the LDS church, which until very recently taught that being born white was a reward for serving God in a previous incarnation. Those who failed to serve God were born into other cursed races. The Native Americans were actually a tribe of Israelites who were cursed with their new appearance. 

And many systems of slavery and prejudice have been 'justified' with the Curse of Ham concept, a reference to when a character in the Bible gets cursed so that all his descendants will be servants and menial laborers. They decided that it clearly meant black people. Other times the concept was Manifest Destiny. Basically "Here we are conquering this place, clearly God thinks we ought to have it."

This isn't so much a thing Brandon does, as a thing Brandon recognizes as a pattern in cultures. People don't like hurting other human beings, so dehumanizing others is a requirement for certain types of civilizations to function. Everybody has done this, they come up with reasons that their hate and suspicion are correct, it's never justified.

[Ammanas]

@earthexile I am afraid you do not know what you are talking about. Respectfully (because I do want this to be a civilized conversation) you are wrong. For something to be LDS doctrine (something formally taught) it has to be formally sustained by the entire quorum of the twelve and other procedures have to take place. Unfortunately some individual members that were high ranking said some of those things, but those were their personal opinions. They simply do not have the power to make it doctrine. Even the individual that LDS members regard to be the Prophet cannot say things that they belueve is true and make it doctrine by themselves; a example of this is Brigham Young's Adam God Theory.

I would encourage you to get your facts straight before you make such slanderous statements in the future.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics and you are trying to say there is a problem of prejudice in LDS culture? That I could personally agree with.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Ammanas

[Llarimar]

5 hours ago, earthexile said:

It might be worth considering that Sanderson grew up in the LDS church, which until very recently taught that being born white was a reward for serving God in a previous incarnation. Those who failed to serve God were born into other cursed races. The Native Americans were actually a tribe of Israelites who were cursed with their new appearance.

Sanderson did not just grow up in the LDS church, he is a current member of the church.  Saying that he "grew up in the church" makes it seem like he's broken away from it or forsaken his early beliefs, which isn't true.  And in addition to what @Ammanas said about your statement being factually incorrect, I think it's important to remember that even if there have been members of the LDS church (even high-ranking members) who have held racist views, that doesn't mean Sanderson personally holds or endorses those same views, and would try to represent them in his books.  

5 hours ago, earthexile said:

This isn't so much a thing Brandon does, as a thing Brandon recognizes as a pattern in cultures. People don't like hurting other human beings, so dehumanizing others is a requirement for certain types of civilizations to function. Everybody has done this, they come up with reasons that their hate and suspicion are correct, it's never justified.

This is something I do agree with - in his books, Brandon is showing patterns that exist in real cultures of discrimination and racism.  However, that doesn't have anything to do with the LDS church specifically - you could find racist people in any religion or group.

[Vissy]

It's not really about finding bad in any given religion or ideology, that much is a given. It's more that Mormonism is a pretty cultish religion that does inform the beliefs of its proponents to a very great degree if you compare to mainstream muslims or christians. This is because Mormon communities tend to be pretty insular and fundamentalist (of course depends where they are, I hear Utah is known for being more insular than elsewhere). Thankfully Sanderson has not had to endure that kind of a cloistered life, and it's not like the Mormon church has anything to threaten with him anyway - he's rich and secure and in no way dependent on them. So while some Mormon beliefs certainly do seem to inspire him, I think with Sanderson it's much more broad. He takes inspiration from everywhere, he's not narrow-minded or a fundamentalist and he is the opposite of insular.

[MountainKing]

Can we go back and talk about the cosmere fictional conflicts, and our opinions on real life religions. 

[earthexile]

Yeah I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that Sanderson is prejudiced. I just figure that he knows about that part of the religon's history and was inspired by that, and other cultures' ways of doing the same thing, when he created the various forms of racism in the Cosmere.

I am not, however, wrong about the LDS church's historical position on race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

Edited May 7, 2018 by earthexile

[Chaos]

Let's not discuss real world religions here. There is a big LDS population in Brandon fans, as well as a big nonreligious population. Let's just keep it to the books. Thanks!

[Naurock]

On 5/3/2018 at 4:47 PM, Llarimar said:

Has anyone else noticed that the systems of discrimination in the cosmere seem to have legitimate historical foundations, and what do you guys think about this observation?

I've mostly noticed that his religions often have members like Monks, Nuns, solely to serve the population.

Warbreaker: Idrian church has members solely to do jobs that no one else wants to. Even states that if a husband dies and he was the provider of the family the church sends a guy to work and provide money for the family.

Stormlight: Alethi Vorinism Ardents are there to do essentially whatever the owner wants them to do. Sparring partners, plant seeds, listen to the families prayers and provide guidance towards their calling.

Aether of Night Church: Pray (on commission) on a church member's behalf. Also, Vo-Dari sending is useful to the public.

I'm sure Skaa churches had something, Sazed had outlined some massive number of religions he'd studied.

[Llarimar]

This is an interesting observation.  Many of the religions in Sanderon's just books provide altruistic service - there aren't very many of the corrupted, oppressive religions that you usually see in fantasy.  The Vorin church was once a powerful conquering force, but they have since reverted to a state of quiet of service and scholarship, and refer to the whole Hierocracy debacle with shame as the failure of Vorinism.  

1 hour ago, Naurock said:

Aether of Night Church: Pray (on commission) on a church member's behalf. Also, Vo-Dari sending is useful to the public.

Is this a non-cosmere work?  It doesn't sound familiar to me.  

Edited May 8, 2018 by Llarimar

[MountainKing]

It was originally a Cosmere work but it never got published now he is trying to rework it back into the Cosmere

 

[Llarimar]

2 minutes ago, MountainKing said:

It was originally a Cosmere work but it never got published now he is trying to rework it back into the Cosmere

Got it, thanks.

[IllNsickly]

@Llarimar, I understood the point you are trying to make, and it is something I have thought about in more than just Mr. Sanderson’s work. ‘Justified’ is a bit off putting.

Like @Greywatch says, it is easy for the Ruling Caste to say ‘THIS is why We have been placed above Them.’ Bigger, Smarter, Faster, etc. and then use that reasoning to help themselves FEEL justified, to assuage any guilty feelings.

A common theme across, at least the Sanderson books I have read, seems to be the effort and time spent in dismantling the social structures that perpetuate those systems.

It isn’t fast, it isn’t easy and there is no instant success. One side flips on the other, equilibrium can take centuries or even millennia to establish.

Edited May 8, 2018 by IllNsickly
Seppling

[Vissy]

@Llarimar I think you're understating the Vorin church's influence on Roshar a little bit. Do you remember Dalinar's struggles with them during Oathbringer? Vorinism is very influential. Good point above me too.

[Llarimar]

12 hours ago, Vissy said:

@Llarimar I think you're understating the Vorin church's influence on Roshar a little bit. Do you remember Dalinar's struggles with them during Oathbringer? Vorinism is very influential. Good point above me too.

Perhaps I am understating their influence a bit, but what I meant is that their influence is not governmental - it's a cultural influence. They're not a military force like they were during the Heirocracy.  If I remember correctly, during Oathrbringer Dalinar does struggle with the church because he needs to be in their good graces in order to be popular with the people, but he doesn't actually worry about them usurping his power.  When he breaks their rules, he isn't so much threatening his position as he is creating a scandal which is whispered among the people and annoys the ardents.  During the days of the Heirocracy, if a ruler rebelled against the rules of the church, the ardents probably would have forcefully removed him, but they no longer have that power by the time of Oathbringer.    

So like I said earlier, the Vorin church is more focused on the Devotaries, and is no longer an oppressive, conquering force like they were during the Heirocracy.  So in that way they are quite similar to some of Sanderon's other religions that are less influential and more focused on altruism.  But the Vorin church does still have a powerful cultural influence and political "clout" among the people, you could say, so that Dalinar has to pacify them in order for everyone to be happy.  

I hadn't thought this before, but Shu-Dereth is an excellent example of an overbearing, conquering religion.  Probably the best example in Sanderson's works.  Just comparing Shu-Dereth and Vorinism, you can understand what I mean when I say that Vorinism is "more focused on quiet servitude" and "less influential" (even though it is very culturally influential).  

Edited May 8, 2018 by Llarimar

[Scion of the Mists]

Regarding the Noble/Skaa differences:

Quote

...

Brandon Sanderson

Most genetic differences between skaa and noble were exaggerated, even fabricated, by noble culture as justification for their perceived superiority. Height differences due to nutrition, 'intelligence' due to education and societal expectations, fertility due to common factors in urbanization. The LR did try some minor tinkering, to be played out over time through genetics, but in the end these changes weren't very successful.

emailanimal

This is actually good to know. I've seen your other responses to similar questions, where the inference was that there was indeed a significant difference.

The main changes were for dealing with the atmosphere, correct? And they were reverted by Sazed/Harmony?

Brandon Sanderson

There were also some general hardiness changes for the skaa and some fertility changes, but as I said, by the time of the books those were basically gone. And yes, Sazed reverted the ones designed to help survival in the ash.

source

 

[theuntaintedchild]

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 7:10 AM, earthexile said:

People don't like hurting other human beings, so dehumanizing others is a requirement for certain types of civilizations to function. Everybody has done this, they come up with reasons that their hate and suspicion are correct, it's never justified.

Would you mind if I kept this quote and put it on my classroom wall?

[Calderis]

One thing that I want to add to this that tends to bother me, and I think Kaladin's viewpoint shows exceptionally well is that hate is never valid, even when justified. 

Kaladin was (and still sort of is, though he's getting better) extremely prejudiced against lighteyes, and after everything he's been through it could be argued that his viewpoint is justified. 

But just because there is not a systematic racism enforcing his hatred, does not make his hate right. 

In situations like his, prejudice actually reinforces the oppression that his discriminated people are placed under. Darkeyes assuming that all lighteyes are terrible and refusing to work with them means that they will alienate people who are sympathetic and could be in positions to create actual systemic change. 

Just because a systemic prejudice is not on the side of your hatred, doesn't make that hatred any better. 

Hate is hate is hate. For it to end, both sides have to be able to get past it. The oppressed holding to their own hatred, no matter how justified it seems, just creates situations that the oppressors can use to validate their positions, while it also keeps relationships that would be beneficial from forming.

All hatred is problematic. All of it. Systematic racism/prejudice obviously favors one side, but just because someone is on the oppressed side doesn't absolve them of guilt. Unfortunately, life just isn't that fair. 

 

[ROSHtaFARian2.0]

I realize (unfortunately) that this is considered controversial, but no. Hate is not hate is hate is hate. Reactionary hate against someone who has unjustifiably singled out you or your group to systematically and routinely oppress is fundamentally not the same as the hatred your oppressors feel for you, because THEIRS is baseless. Yours is rooted in their mistreatment of you, their devaluing of your worth as a person. It is an inherent fallacy that these two things are equal or interchangeable, because the oppressors' hatred needed no actual justification to exist....which means, there is LITERALLY nothing the oppressed can do to change that dynamic, because they did nothing to merit it in the first place. Only the oppressors can decide to stop hating those they oppress, because they essentially decided to hate them in the first place, in order to support whatever agenda they had that required dehumanizing or devaluing an entire group of people.

So when you understand that when the oppressors' hatred exists without reason and is sustained only through justifications they invent to support their hatred, and thus only they can decide NOT to any longer buy into the fiction of their own baseless justifications, then the reactionary hatred of the oppressed for those who actively harm them as a way of life is NOT equivalent. On a basic, fundamental level. Cause and effect. When reactionary anger is born only of effect, it does not exist without a cause, unlike the unjustified racism which needed nothing other than a desire to oppress in order to exist. Remove the cause of the reactionary anger, aka remove the oppression, the reactionary anger has no reason to exist.

Saying that the reactionary anger of the oppressed only perpetuates the cycle of hatred implies that the oppressed have the power to stop their oppressors' hatred of them, if they'd simply not react w/hatred. This simply, historically, is not true. And you'll notice, it ONLY benefits the oppressors. Because if the oppressed react with hatred to their oppression, then they are supposedly responsible for fueling their own continued oppression....even though their oppression existed prior to their reactionary anger, and thus can not be blamed on it as a catalyst. Either way, the oppressors use it as a justification for their continued hatred of those they wield power over, as though they are 'victim' to their actual victims having the gall to react badly towards their unwarranted oppression of them. However, if the oppressed group chooses NOT to react with hatred towards their oppressors, it does not do anything to break the cycle, because there is no cycle, merely an action and a reaction. Their oppressors don't actually NEED their victims' reactionary anger to fuel their continued oppression, just as they didn't need it as a justification to oppress them initially. That they use it as a justification is a matter of convenience for the oppressors, not a necessity. Without it, the oppression continues same as it always did...only without actual opposition. Again, just as when the oppressed do react with reactionary hatred, when they don't react in that way it still only benefits their oppressors, through the lack of direct pushback against their oppression. Only one side ever benefits, no matter what the oppressed do....the ones with the power to enact a system of oppression over another group, who in fact are also the only ones with the power to unilaterally dismantle that same system WITHOUT conflict.

Because the conflict only exists because they decided it should. And their victims are under no obligation to put up with it, simply because their oppressors decided they should. Saying otherwise only falsely apportions responsibility on the oppressed group for their own oppression, which they in no way asked for or deserved, while implying they have the power to end their oppression by not reacting with hatred....which in turn falsely apportions responsibility on the oppressed group for their own continued oppression. It's a win/win for the oppressors either way, and a lose/lose for the oppressed.

You can not hold two groups to the same standards of behavior when one group has deliberately set themselves up above the other and acts upon that artificial power imbalance in a myriad of ways. If the two groups held equal power, you would be describing a conflict of equals rather than oppression. If the two groups are acknowledged not to hold equal power over the other, it is fundamentally nonsensical to artificially inflate the less powerful group with power it doesn't have in the name of creating an illusion of equal power/responsibility that does not actually exist.

Edited May 23, 2018 by ROSHtaFARian2.0

[Calderis]

There is a big difference between anger and resistance, and blanket hatred. 

I did not say that racism/discrimination should not be fought against, because it absolutely should. But there is a vast difference between resisting and fighting back against a systemic problem, and responding in kind and assuming that all people of the dominant class/race/etc. are part of the problem. 

One of those options is hate, and is a problem. The other is standing up against hatred and should be fully supported. 

Don't conflate the two. They are not the same thing.

Edit: to be clear, I'm just say there's a very large difference between anger at perpetrators and the system that causes the oppression, and hate like we see with Kaladin, in which anyone who benefits from an imbalanced system become perpetrators themselves.

When it no longer matters if the person is prejudiced. When it no longer matters that they have done absolutely nothing wrong, but you hate them simply because they are born into the class/race/etc. that happens to be favored, then they are still be hated for something outside of their own control and it is no different. The system may not support that hatred, but it is still blind hate.

My entire point was that that kind of blind hatred alienates people who would be allies in the fight against oppression, precisely because there are people who would see equality in justice in every group. And hate prevents those alliances from forming. 

So yes, hate is hate. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Calderis