There's a lot of confusion that needs to be address, and some of that is sloppy semantics. By not being clear when I was using a generic you (as in people) versus a specific you, I made things sound like accusations, and I'm sorry about that.
Let's go in order:
I said: Then, to have you (as a white person) judging me negatively because you only see the results of the decisions I've made doesn't exactly provide the positive encouragement to take risks with characters.
This was meant to be a generic you. As in, as much as other general dominate culture people might want to write PoCs, should those people have a respectful reason to decide otherwise, then they have to face negative criticism from other dominate culture people who aren't privy to the reasoning, only to the absence of the PoCs. So, while the dominate culture person is trying to make the right decision in regards to the wishes of the subculture, he draws ire. This is part of the damned if you do dilemma.
you feel like writing CoC's will result in you being labeled as a racist by a person (or group of people) at your university who can get you fired.
Not at all. That was just meant as an example. Look at my fiction and you'll see plenty of diversity, much of it well beyond the color line.
The point I was trying to get to was the other side of the dilemma. Where there are certainly people within the subculture who share my (Generic Privileged White Person) perspective on whether I (GPWP) should include them in my (GPWP) work, the people who are effectively the gatekeepers for that culture say I (GPWP) shouldn't, and they're the ones I (GPWP) have to listen to because they have the power in this situation. Where many GWPWs will say "I didn't want to write X group because I was afraid of offending them," in this situation it's been made very clear that "if I write X group, I will offend them, and they can retaliate in very real ways."
Though I have no way of knowing for sure, I suspect the latter is the case in an alarming number of circumstances.
there is a Blue People woman (I don't know her group, so I'm making something up) who is at your university in some position of authority to speak for Blue People. Not sure why, but she is. Maybe she is department chair of Blue People or Blue People liaison or something.
She's an educator within her specific diversity field who has been charged with the task, by the leaders of her community, of going around and drawing as much attention to incorrect portrayals of her people. She, and her community, feel that any portrayal not done by someone who is a member of that community is inherently maliciously incorrect.
no subject
Let's go in order:
I said: Then, to have you (as a white person) judging me negatively because you only see the results of the decisions I've made doesn't exactly provide the positive encouragement to take risks with characters.
This was meant to be a generic you. As in, as much as other general dominate culture people might want to write PoCs, should those people have a respectful reason to decide otherwise, then they have to face negative criticism from other dominate culture people who aren't privy to the reasoning, only to the absence of the PoCs. So, while the dominate culture person is trying to make the right decision in regards to the wishes of the subculture, he draws ire. This is part of the damned if you do dilemma.
you feel like writing CoC's will result in you being labeled as a racist by a person (or group of people) at your university who can get you fired.
Not at all. That was just meant as an example. Look at my fiction and you'll see plenty of diversity, much of it well beyond the color line.
The point I was trying to get to was the other side of the dilemma. Where there are certainly people within the subculture who share my (Generic Privileged White Person) perspective on whether I (GPWP) should include them in my (GPWP) work, the people who are effectively the gatekeepers for that culture say I (GPWP) shouldn't, and they're the ones I (GPWP) have to listen to because they have the power in this situation. Where many GWPWs will say "I didn't want to write X group because I was afraid of offending them," in this situation it's been made very clear that "if I write X group, I will offend them, and they can retaliate in very real ways."
Though I have no way of knowing for sure, I suspect the latter is the case in an alarming number of circumstances.
there is a Blue People woman (I don't know her group, so I'm making something up) who is at your university in some position of authority to speak for Blue People. Not sure why, but she is. Maybe she is department chair of Blue People or Blue People liaison or something.
She's an educator within her specific diversity field who has been charged with the task, by the leaders of her community, of going around and drawing as much attention to incorrect portrayals of her people. She, and her community, feel that any portrayal not done by someone who is a member of that community is inherently maliciously incorrect.
Comment continued below. I ran way long.