Racism rather the sexism in The Handmaid's Tale

Were black and Asian people not included in the different roles (handmaids, Martha's, commanders etc)? I have read the handmaids tale but quite a few years ago and I can't remember skin colour being mentioned - though if it wasn't clearly spelled out I would not have got it tbf.

It's a while since I read it too.
As pp says the Children of Ham were 'resettled' in the revolution.

From then on in a closed narrow world for the narrator.
She doesnt know what's going on beyond her closed household, and the tiny conscribed and silent circles she moves in.
That's a major theme.

Every story leaves out multitudes- specially this one has to to show the isolation- I dont think that is evidence of racism.

Where do you see it beyond that?

I’ve read the book. The racism Of the new society is overt. Non-whites are not considered worthy of the new society and are simply removed. No, the book doesn’t rehash that over and over, but it in no way condones it.

There are many ways the book doesn’t state it’s points explicitly, that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

They had to ignore the removal of non-whites from society in the show because otherwise they would have had an all-white cast or at least, a cast where non-whites were allowed to play victims. That isn’t culturally acceptable at this point, even if it would have made a stark statement about the flaws in religious extremist movements.

Gilead was most of the United States, but I seem to remember some states retained their independence. Atwood wrote a tepid follow-up called The Testaments that shows more of the outside world.

It's been a few years since I read it and I haven't seen the TV series, but isn't there a bit where a tour bus of Asian tourists come to stare and take pictures of the handmaid's? I enjoyed the book and found it very powerful, but I have to say that I didn't 100% understand the context of the world Gilead was situated in. I had the impression that it was a dystopia that existed in a bubble while the rest of the world was still normal, but I think I'll need to read it again to get a better picture of it. I was so overwhelmed by the descriptions in the pregnancy and childbirth scenes that I think I missed lots of the subtler points.

Anyway, back on topic it's very very clearly not an endorsement of racism. I disagree 100% with atwood on the gender issue and also on some other issues, but she is an extremely important voice in feminist literature and I see no evidence whatsoever that she's a racist. As a pp said I also hate this trend of trying to dig up evidence of racism to smear ideological oponants. No one should be weaponising racial tensions to further their own agendas.

It’s quite obvious why the TV adaptation ignored the race aspect if you consider the visual impact of an all white cast where black people’s lives and suffering are happening off stage unseen. It would appear very racist.

I wouldn’t say it’s unconscious racism so much as overt racism on the part of the FICTIONAL right wing society that Atwood created.

Authors making their fictional characters/societies racist doesn’t mean the author is racist, especially in a book like The Handmaid’s Tale where Atwood is clearly portraying Gilead as an awful, dehumanising society and not the blueprint for a future utopia.

@Goosefoot

No, nothing else should be shoehorned in. I think the novel is a work of art as it is.

I was just agreeing with that aspect of the OP's post - that it is not a theme that is fully developed. Which is fine!

I wonder why JKR is the only one where they didmt say what she does?

Long time lurker on these boards and NC for this post.

Why, out of curiosity?

It was a full length novel with a story that was already complex at times, both jumping back and forth in time and because it only reveals what was happening as you read and many things remained mysterious.

I sometimes see this demand in fandoms now that any thread in a story left unexplained or opened needs to be tied in and explicated. Is this similar?

harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

Signed by both Rowling and Atwood.

It's not just from Offred's perspective but from her timeline Offred has been living in the Gilead system for 2 or 3 years under indoctrination.

The children of HAM is an afterthought for her because it's the new normal of her situation of living in an all white society.

There's 1000's of students who study this text at A Level for years and racism is certainly an element that was taught.

I'm beyond disappointed in Margaret Atwoods fish comments but her body of work is some of the most important in feminist non fiction.

Writers make artistic decisions. The choice of a first person narrative from someone's experience in the dystopian society is what makes it so powerful. Writer's write the book they choose to write, the fact they didn't write a different story is not a valid criticism.

The book talks about the children of Ham being ‘settled’ in a new homeland which I took to mean that all black & minority ethnic people had gone to some sort of concentration camps & would most likely die.

I remember that too. We don't hear much about what happens to them, because everything is from Offred's viewpoint. It's pretty obvious Atwood doesn't think this was a good thing!

I don't remember anything about only white women being effected by the infertility plague, but it's been a while since I read the book. The Gilead authorities might have claimed that was the case, but they're not exactly reliable witnesses. They refused to believe that men too could be infertile, because that went against their philosophy.

Atwood has said quite clearly everything in the novel has actually occurred in history. It presents a white supremacist theocracy echoing apartheid in South Africa etc.

And when the book was published in 1985, apartheid was not history.

I can't comment on how the book affects people now, but if people do feel that the book is racist, I don't think its fair to say that the racism is intentional.

It would seem that Atwood is no friend of women, and is particularly dismissive of the lived experiences of Black and Indigenous women.

Again, I can't comment, but without experience of the lived experiences of black and indigenous woman, and writing in the early 1980s, how would she have bridged this gap?

I think Gilead is portrayed as a racist society and this element is not discussed enough. It is also definitely not a main focus in the novel itself.

However I don't think you can draw from this that Atwood herself is a racist.

She had obviously said something that had annoyed people regarding gender. I don't think it's necessary to cast around for other criticisms to throw at her.

Imnobody4

Indeed.

I don't understand why you think it is racist to write a novel where there are racists?

I remember when South Africa made it really easy for white people to immigrate so that they wouldn't have to open up better jobs to non-whites.

I get what you're saying, OP. We studied THT at school and the treatment of non-whites was barely mentioned. It's obvious Atwood couldn't have written the same novel today without putting more emphasis on the racial segregation aspects.

The book talks about the children of Ham being ‘settled’ in a new homeland which I took to mean that all black & minority ethnic people had gone to some sort of concentration camps & would most likely die.

I was very surprised to see that element removed from the TV show. I’m sure the film included it

I thought the plummeting fertility rates were due to a natural disaster and radiation?

Oh for heaven's sake. Atwood has said quite clearly everything in the novel has actually occurred in history. It presents a white supremacist theocracy echoing apartheid in South Africa etc. It's a novel, readers are supposed to interpret it. Believe me no one when that book was written interpreted it as a defence of racism.
Are you really saying white women novelists shouldn't centre white women. Of course if they don't they're then guilty of cultural appropriation or having the nerve to arrogantly speak on behalf of black women.
I've really had enough of this.

I didn't watch the show, but it may also have been that they didn't want to add complexity. It's fairly normal for television adaptations to focus down to only a few narrative strands or themes. But I really don't see how you could saw the story thinks the race element is irrelevant - if it was, why not just have made the disease affect everyone equally?

My memory - and I haven't seen the TV series at all - is that, as PP says, Gilead is white only as Gilead is racist. I'm not sure how that shows MA is.