That was a lucid taking-apart of Bujold's words. Your section on how the Columbian settlers would likely have perished without Native knowledge (and Native labour, sigh) was a very good point. Digression aside, I'm actually pretty disappointed that Bujold said all that, given that the last two books I've read by her did some things to push non-conventional female heroines, and one of them made a point of presenting a homosexual couple in a value-neutral light -- I guess 'agenda' is a term that only applies to things she disagrees with.
It's hard to wrap my head around how people can understand the importance of the writing in of previously marginalized voices when it comes to fiction, i.e. women and homosexuals, and yet miss the point so completely when the discourse shifts to issues regarding the visibility of racial 'minorities' (in this case, the complete elimination thereof). You're completely correct that all fiction is open to criticism on their moral grounds. Authorial intention is slippery at best, and even authors have ideological biases and blind spots that need to be questioned and unravelled.
The most ironic thing about Bojold's entire piece was this: "The past is beyond anyone’s reach, and history is fractal", which is a theme often used in post-colonial writing in order to highlight how official versions of history -aren't- complete, heterosexual white men being the sole arbiters of history and imperial discourse. That she'd just turn that around and use it to justify yet another text that replicates heteronormative standards is just... ugh.
here via metafandom
It's hard to wrap my head around how people can understand the importance of the writing in of previously marginalized voices when it comes to fiction, i.e. women and homosexuals, and yet miss the point so completely when the discourse shifts to issues regarding the visibility of racial 'minorities' (in this case, the complete elimination thereof). You're completely correct that all fiction is open to criticism on their moral grounds. Authorial intention is slippery at best, and even authors have ideological biases and blind spots that need to be questioned and unravelled.
The most ironic thing about Bojold's entire piece was this: "The past is beyond anyone’s reach, and history is fractal", which is a theme often used in post-colonial writing in order to highlight how official versions of history -aren't- complete, heterosexual white men being the sole arbiters of history and imperial discourse. That she'd just turn that around and use it to justify yet another text that replicates heteronormative standards is just... ugh.