gjm on Nostr: nprofile1q…yhujc I dunno; looks like a mixed bag. Because the _other_ outcome is ...

nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqgpaqvffj4tmy7nu0ygznk6nfkf66ckec0p4vyj24mt4f2s8fvulsxyhujc (nprofile…hujc) I dunno; looks like a mixed bag. Because the _other_ outcome is that some writers will decide to write a novel that features indigenous people, will remember this case, and will do more research than Griffiths did, and will write novels that represent those indigenous people less inaccurately.

So we'll probably get fewer books with inaccurately represented indigenous people, and (by a smaller amount) more books with more-accurately represented indigenous people.

It's not at all obvious to me exactly how that tradeoff will go, or whether it will actually be better on balance for indigenous people or indigenous peoples. I think it _could_ be better.

Analogy: Imagine a world where Christianity never became the big deal it did in our world and Christians are a small minority (but their opinions, religious practices, etc., are much as they are in our world). Someone publishes a book in which fair treatment of Christians is a major theme and an important character is Christian ... which shows up in the fact that he worships a prophet called Muhammad, meets with his fellow-believers for a ritual where one of them spills their own blood and the others drink it, and pledges never ever ever to have sex with another man. Do you think many Christians would be glad of such "representation"?