To translate, you must have the correct skin color

[Patooka]

Proper skin color is now becoming more and more of a requirement to perform certain work.

That's a huge leap to come about over one incident.

 

[Axulus]

That question reveals you know little if anything at all about Amanda Gorman's work. Why are you here?

So you think your skin color determines what you can translate?

it is absolutely a known and quantified fact that translation is often contextual, exponentially more so the more abstract the source is.
as such, shared life experiences can definitely impact the quality of a translation, since nuance and intent are a huge part of it when dealing with translating something that isn't strictly technical data.

not that this is to say that lacking a shared background between the source and the translator automatically means a lesser quality of work, but it DOES demonstrate that there is a measurable improvement in translation when you increase contextual understanding.
this gets a lot into the weeds of translation vs. transliteration vs. interpretation, which is a really big deal if you know anything about transcribing or translating languages... but, the end result is that there IS a valid reason to suggest that someone who better matches the experience of the author of the source will, on average, produce a better quality translation of a work by that author.

now that isn't to jump to the conclusion that this dutch person couldn't have handled it adeptly, i'm merely pointing out there are concrete logistical reasons to want a translator who has some kind of similar background to the author, that has nothing to do necessarily with the genetics of skin color and more to do with the contextual experience of living as a black person.

Except that isn't why people were outraged. No one said that this Dutch translator doesn't have sufficient "shared life experience" to adequately perform the job. They said they have the wrong skin color, full stop (which is a very poor proxy for shared life experience given the completely different countries).

 

[Axulus]

Proper skin color is now becoming more and more of a requirement to perform certain work.

That's a huge leap to come about over one incident.

It's not the only incident in recent years where people were outraged about a person not having the correct skin color to perform a certain job.

 

[Gospel]

I'm with Axulus on this but only because I really want a black superman movie.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm with Axulus on this but only because I really want a black superman movie.

Ok, you've won me over.

I'm already a huge fan of The Thirteenth Doctor...

 

[Metaphor]

I'm with Axulus on this but only because I really want a black superman movie.

Ok, you've won me over.

I'm already a huge fan of The Thirteenth Doctor...

Colin Baker must be so grateful to Chibnall for writing Whittaker's Doctor, for now the sixth Doctor is firmly penultimate, instead of dead last, in the rankings of Doctors from best to worst.

 

[Metaphor]

Proper skin color is now becoming more and more of a requirement to perform certain work.

That's a huge leap to come about over one incident.

There are many such 'incidents'. White voice actors are no longer welcome to play non-white characters in animation (it doesn't go the other way). Harry Shearer stepped down from voicing Dr Hibbert even though he'd been playing Dr Hibbert for thirty years (nobody could possibly be more qualified than Shearer to play Hibbert).

The same movement has also stymied and censored white writers. On the one hand, told not to write characters whose race differs to their own ("stay in your lane"), and on the other told that there is no diversity in their writing.

 

[laughing dog]

it is absolutely a known and quantified fact that translation is often contextual, exponentially more so the more abstract the source is.
as such, shared life experiences can definitely impact the quality of a translation, since nuance and intent are a huge part of it when dealing with translating something that isn't strictly technical data.

not that this is to say that lacking a shared background between the source and the translator automatically means a lesser quality of work, but it DOES demonstrate that there is a measurable improvement in translation when you increase contextual understanding.
this gets a lot into the weeds of translation vs. transliteration vs. interpretation, which is a really big deal if you know anything about transcribing or translating languages... but, the end result is that there IS a valid reason to suggest that someone who better matches the experience of the author of the source will, on average, produce a better quality translation of a work by that author.

now that isn't to jump to the conclusion that this dutch person couldn't have handled it adeptly, i'm merely pointing out there are concrete logistical reasons to want a translator who has some kind of similar background to the author, that has nothing to do necessarily with the genetics of skin color and more to do with the contextual experience of living as a black person.

Except that isn't why people were outraged. No one said that this Dutch translator doesn't have sufficient "shared life experience" to adequately perform the job. They said they have the wrong skin color, full stop (which is a very poor proxy for shared life experience given the completely different countries).

According to your link, the quoted objector said

"And her work and life have been colored by her experience and identity as a black woman. Is it -- to say the least -- not a missed opportunity to hire Marieke Lucas Rijneveld for this job?" she added, pointing out that the Dutch writer has "no experience in this area."

which suggests to me the objection is that the proposed translator is perceived to not have a sufficient shared life experience with a black woman because the translator is white.

Do I think skin color should disqualify someone from being a translator? No.
Do I think an effective translator needs to know more than the language? Yes.
Do I think an effective translator needs to be able to understand the text in question in the context of the times in which it was written and the social and historical context? Yes.

 

[laughing dog]

Sort of like the US until the 1970s.

So you admit that the wokesters are the 21st century equivalent of the segregationists?

Well, when they pass laws and have the police enforce them with violence, then yes. Until then, no.

I admit this particular objection is either stupid or poorly articulated. But there are plenty of stupid or poorly articulated objections made in this world all of the time.

 

[Gospel]

Proper skin color is now becoming more and more of a requirement to perform certain work.

That's a huge leap to come about over one incident.

There are many such 'incidents'. White voice actors are no longer welcome to play non-white characters in animation (it doesn't go the other way). Harry Shearer stepped down from voicing Dr Hibbert even though he'd been playing Dr Hibbert for thirty years (nobody could possibly be more qualified than Shearer to play Hibbert).

The same movement has also stymied and censored white writers. On the one hand, told not to write characters whose race differs to their own ("stay in your lane"), and on the other told that there is no diversity in their writing.

You do know this has been going on for ages right? I recall a few decades ago when only white people were allowed to be on television and black people were played by white people. Hell, even the image of Jesus was changed from woolly to silky hair (hasn't changed back). Where have you been all this time? We could have used your efforts to effect change since Christ walked on water.

 

[KeepTalking]

Amanda Gorman's Dutch translator stands down after uproar that Black writer wasn't chosen

Critics of the appointment questioned why a White writer had been chosen to translate the work of a Black writer.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...gorman-dutch-translation-scli-intl/index.html

Proper skin color is now becoming more and more of a requirement to perform certain work.

Sort of like the US until the 1970s.

Yes, exactly like that...

Except this is a case of a translator voluntarily removing herself from an assignment after hearing criticism, unlike the full power of government systems in the US holding minorities back. Yet this is what conservatives are worried about, while they bemoan the loss of that racist system in the US, and yearn for us to return to it.

 

[ronburgundy]

No one said that this Dutch translator doesn't have sufficient "shared life experience" to adequately perform the job. They said they have the wrong skin color, full stop

According to your link, the quoted objector said

"And her work and life have been colored by her experience and identity as a black woman. Is it -- to say the least -- not a missed opportunity to hire Marieke Lucas Rijneveld for this job?" she added, pointing out that the Dutch writer has "no experience in this area."

which suggests to me the objection is that the proposed translator is perceived to not have a sufficient shared life experience with a black woman because the translator is white.

Do I think skin color should disqualify someone from being a translator? No.
Do I think an effective translator needs to know more than the language? Yes.
Do I think an effective translator needs to be able to understand the text in question in the context of the times in which it was written and the social and historical context? Yes.

IOW, the OP didn't bother to even read the very short article that they based their outrage on.

 

[ronburgundy]

it is absolutely a known and quantified fact that translation is often contextual, exponentially more so the more abstract the source is.
as such, shared life experiences can definitely impact the quality of a translation, since nuance and intent are a huge part of it when dealing with translating something that isn't strictly technical data.

not that this is to say that lacking a shared background between the source and the translator automatically means a lesser quality of work, but it DOES demonstrate that there is a measurable improvement in translation when you increase contextual understanding.
this gets a lot into the weeds of translation vs. transliteration vs. interpretation, which is a really big deal if you know anything about transcribing or translating languages... but, the end result is that there IS a valid reason to suggest that someone who better matches the experience of the author of the source will, on average, produce a better quality translation of a work by that author.

now that isn't to jump to the conclusion that this dutch person couldn't have handled it adeptly, i'm merely pointing out there are concrete logistical reasons to want a translator who has some kind of similar background to the author, that has nothing to do necessarily with the genetics of skin color and more to do with the contextual experience of living as a black person.

What the hell.

Anyone fluent in more than one language and/or just minimally aware of the nature of language itself would not have any problem understanding the clear and valid point in that post. All language and meaning is highly contextual, not just it's use but the very creation, emergence and evolution of the individual words, which often have no 1:1 equivalent word in other languages. This is exponentially true in poetry and figurative language where the standard word meanings and syntax are often deliberately violated to elicit in the reader subjective experience/perspective/tone/emotion rather than communicate a concrete concept.

 

[Trausti]

it is absolutely a known and quantified fact that translation is often contextual, exponentially more so the more abstract the source is.
as such, shared life experiences can definitely impact the quality of a translation, since nuance and intent are a huge part of it when dealing with translating something that isn't strictly technical data.

not that this is to say that lacking a shared background between the source and the translator automatically means a lesser quality of work, but it DOES demonstrate that there is a measurable improvement in translation when you increase contextual understanding.
this gets a lot into the weeds of translation vs. transliteration vs. interpretation, which is a really big deal if you know anything about transcribing or translating languages... but, the end result is that there IS a valid reason to suggest that someone who better matches the experience of the author of the source will, on average, produce a better quality translation of a work by that author.

now that isn't to jump to the conclusion that this dutch person couldn't have handled it adeptly, i'm merely pointing out there are concrete logistical reasons to want a translator who has some kind of similar background to the author, that has nothing to do necessarily with the genetics of skin color and more to do with the contextual experience of living as a black person.

What the hell.

Anyone fluent in more than one language and/or just minimally aware of the nature of language itself would not have any problem understanding the clear and valid point in that post. All language and meaning is highly contextual, not just it's use but the very creation, emergence and evolution of the individual words, which often have no 1:1 equivalent word in other languages. This is exponentially true in poetry and figurative language where the standard word meanings and syntax are often deliberately violated to elicit in the reader subjective experience/perspective/tone/emotion rather than communicate a concrete concept.

You're making an excuse for this shit?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I do actually agree in this case that this was an over-reaction. But y'all conservatives are still going to the gulags.

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone fluent in more than one language and/or just minimally aware of the nature of language itself would not have any problem understanding the clear and valid point in that post. All language and meaning is highly contextual, not just it's use but the very creation, emergence and evolution of the individual words, which often have no 1:1 equivalent word in other languages. This is exponentially true in poetry and figurative language where the standard word meanings and syntax are often deliberately violated to elicit in the reader subjective experience/perspective/tone/emotion rather than communicate a concrete concept.

You're making an excuse for this shit?

Would you explain how "i'm merely pointing out there are concrete logistical reasons to want a translator who has some kind of similar background to the author, that has nothing to do necessarily with the genetics of skin color and more to do with the contextual experience of living as a black person." is shit? Absent a rational explanation, your position resembles reactionary stupidity rather than an intelligent objection.

 

[ronburgundy]

Anyone fluent in more than one language and/or just minimally aware of the nature of language itself would not have any problem understanding the clear and valid point in that post. All language and meaning is highly contextual, not just it's use but the very creation, emergence and evolution of the individual words, which often have no 1:1 equivalent word in other languages. This is exponentially true in poetry and figurative language where the standard word meanings and syntax are often deliberately violated to elicit in the reader subjective experience/perspective/tone/emotion rather than communicate a concrete concept.

You're making an excuse for this shit?

I'm discussing the objective and scientific realities of language of which you are clearly very ignorant, and which support the idea that translation of the intended meaning and recreation of the intended experience of poetry about one's cultural experience would very likely be less accurate if done by a person who lacked a similar background and cultural experience that generated the figurative imagery in the original poem.

 

[ronburgundy]

it is absolutely a known and quantified fact that translation is often contextual, exponentially more so the more abstract the source is.
as such, shared life experiences can definitely impact the quality of a translation, since nuance and intent are a huge part of it when dealing with translating something that isn't strictly technical data.

not that this is to say that lacking a shared background between the source and the translator automatically means a lesser quality of work, but it DOES demonstrate that there is a measurable improvement in translation when you increase contextual understanding.
this gets a lot into the weeds of translation vs. transliteration vs. interpretation, which is a really big deal if you know anything about transcribing or translating languages... but, the end result is that there IS a valid reason to suggest that someone who better matches the experience of the author of the source will, on average, produce a better quality translation of a work by that author.

now that isn't to jump to the conclusion that this dutch person couldn't have handled it adeptly, i'm merely pointing out there are concrete logistical reasons to want a translator who has some kind of similar background to the author, that has nothing to do necessarily with the genetics of skin color and more to do with the contextual experience of living as a black person.

If translation requires 'similarity in lived experience' (or is better/more reliable with it), why would we not restrict or preference translation of white-authored texts to white translators?

If it's a poem about written to express the subjective experience of being a white supremacist, then that makes sense. Maybe some Trump supporters could make some extra money, though few of them likely have the basic language skills needed to even understand a poem in it's original language.

 

[Metaphor]

There are many such 'incidents'. White voice actors are no longer welcome to play non-white characters in animation (it doesn't go the other way). Harry Shearer stepped down from voicing Dr Hibbert even though he'd been playing Dr Hibbert for thirty years (nobody could possibly be more qualified than Shearer to play Hibbert).

The same movement has also stymied and censored white writers. On the one hand, told not to write characters whose race differs to their own ("stay in your lane"), and on the other told that there is no diversity in their writing.

You do know this has been going on for ages right? I recall a few decades ago when only white people were allowed to be on television and black people were played by white people. Hell, even the image of Jesus was changed from woolly to silky hair (hasn't changed back). Where have you been all this time? We could have used your efforts to effect change since Christ walked on water.

The biblical Jesus didn't exist so I don't care how he is or isn't represented.

I am of the opinion that the actor that is best suited for the role should play the role. And that means that sometimes, white people will be best suited to voice 'black' cartoon characters.

In live action, I can rarely imagine that a white actor is best suited to play a black character, or a black actor playing a white character, because of course live action is visual.

I don't agree that only gay people should play gay roles. Because actors can, well, act.

There's a select number of asymmetries I'm comfortable with, however. For example, a paraplegic actor can't hope to play non-paraplegic roles (except in very limited cases), so if you specifically have a paraplegic character, I think you should begin your search among paraplegic actors.

 

[Gospel]

As long as I can get a black superman movie I agree.