I crossposted a meme to a local community, then sent My partner the crosspost link. My partner clicked on it, then saw My comment on the original from the crosspost and replied to it. It was really cool.

I want to talk about the noble savage trope and how it's used in online discussions. But first, I need to tell you about how racism is different here in Australia than over in America.

In America, there's an ongoing tension between the words "Indian" and "Native American". Different people have different opinions. But most everyone can agree that "Native American" is broadly inoffensive at least in intentions behind the word. It's better than a lot of other words that have been applied to the community.

But in Australia, that word is perceived very differently. Do not call an Aboriginal person "native", it will go very poorly. That's because the history is different. I won't pretend to fully understand that history, but if you're going to use the word "native" in Australia, stick to using it for plants and animals. Do not use it for people.

Tobacco is another good example of cultural differences. It's indigenous to Turtle Island and has been smoked there for thousands of years. The Europeans got hooked on it and did not use it responsibly, and then they hooked the First Australians on it too. I once talked about attending an Aboriginal smoking Ceremony with an American friend, and she assumed I meant tobacco. I had to explain that tobacco is bad here. Australian smoking ceremonies are very different, there's no pipe involved and it doesn't get you high. So the same phrase had very different literal meanings, and the same physical object is imbued with very different cultural narratives.

So let's talk about Country. I don't know much about how Country is constructed in Turtle Island metaphysical ontologies, but in Australia, Country is absolutely central to philosophy, culture, and daily life. That's why I'm capitalising it. Country is a living, spiritually significant thing, very different to how Europeans conceive of "land". Connectedness to Country is a central feature of every single Aboriginal culture. All of the hundreds of them, that's how important it is.

So if a European-descended person like Myself says "Indigenous people have a profound connection to the land", I'm led to believe this is a racist thing to say in America. It's connecting to these noble savage tropes, it's this form of orientalism. But in Australia, when talking about Australian Indigenous people, it's not racist. It will not be perceived as racist by the people it describes, because it's coming straight from their own self-identified cultural values. It's aligning with self-determination of these cultures.

So if you're scrolling the interwebs and you see an Australian living in Australia talking about Australian Indigenous people in this way, you might have an impulse to see this as racist, coming from an American perspective. And if I were talking about American Indigeneity, I would agree. But 'round these parts, this isn't the European idea of the noble savage. This is what I have been taught directly by Aboriginal people and am trying to amplify, because us non-Aboriginal Australians need to educate each other on these issues, we can't put all the work on Aboriginal people. And I genuinely think the science and technology that enables this deep connection is worth learning from, not as "explorers", but as students.

So yeah, point is: Not everything you learn about racism on Turtle Island will be applicable to completely different cultural groups everywhere in the world.

People won't know where the message comes from, they'll just hear your voice as though you were standing next to them. Everyone hears it at the same time. The message is not translated into anyone's native language, everyone hears it exactly as you say it. The maximum length is 6 of your breaths.

So I'm Australian, and here in Australia we have schools for gifted children, where admissions are based purely on standardised test results. Near the end of primary school you go to a special place to take a test, and the test is designed to measure logical thinking and mental flexibility rather than academic experience. And if you score highly, you go to a special school with smart students of all different backgrounds.

And I liked Spider-Man Homecoming in large part because Peter Parker goes to a "magnet school", which I'm told is the American equivalent. And it doesn't have any dumb jock types; the school bully is a little Indian brat with rich parents. It felt like a more modern take on high school tropes than all the high school movies where nerds wear bow ties that feel like the writer grew up in the 50s.

Anyway, half of My polycule says that magnet schools are all fake and only serve the rich. There's no way a low income white boy from queens could make it into a gifted school in our world, based purely on academic achievement. I'm aware that the American system is less fair and money plays a much bigger role, but I thought there was at least a chance that a genius kid could beat the system and get into a good school with good grades.

Do magnet schools exist? Is it all just lies by the rich?

There's a difference between sci-fi as a setting, and science fiction as a genre.

Science fiction, sometimes differentiated as speculative fiction, is all about exploring the implications of fictional science and technology. Frankenstein is often considered the first work of science fiction, because it truly is a "what if" story centered on a piece of fictional technology. Hard science fiction, such as the Martian, takes this principle to its limit by trying to rely only on known or highly plausible science, with the technology as close to currently feasible as possible. These kinds of stories are deeply grounded, and compel because they consider the consequences of everything they add. The story follows from the science. Black Mirror is a perfect example of this writing philosophy, looking at how people and technology change one another.

The "sci-fi" setting isn't really science fiction at all. Star Wars is set in space with lasers and robots, but nothing about it is driven by science. Star Wars is more interested in special effects set pieces, the politics of fascism, and pseudo-buddhist philosophy. Star Wars is space fantasy, and its philosophical themes almost make it good, but not quite. Star Wars would be amazing if it was good, but alas.

I think that all great fantasy is also about exploring the implication of fictional science. It's just, this science is less sciency-feeling to laypeople. Lord of the Rings is linguistic fiction. The entire world exists to serve a story about the evolution of language. It's awesome! Mistborn is also a really great "fantasy" series where the rules of magic are scientific, and clever readers can tell when unreliable narration is lying to them using the scientific method. These are the stories I love.

Harry Potter sucks because it isn't science fiction. After the second one came out, lots of fans were eagerly expecting the series to delve into the ethics of slavery using House Elves as a narrative device. "What if slavery is enforced by magic rules?" is an interesting sci-fi question. Instead of writing good political fiction, Robert Galbraith chose to say "Dobby's just weird for wanting to be free." That's boring. There's nothing for us to sink our curiosity into in that plot point. It's intellectually lazy. It's not science fiction.

I posit that all good works of fantasy fiction treat their magic the way good speculative fiction treats its science, at least a little bit. And if you're not going to include any of that, then what's even the point? Your universe is wasted on your story, and I'd rather read what AO3 has to say about your setting. I've read lots of HP fanfiction that was better than HP because it cared about science. Even Harry Potter and the Natural 20 is better than Galbraith's garbage.

And I really need to get around to reading Trans Wizard Harriet Porber and the Bad Boy Parasaurolophus...

More birds!