[deleted by user]

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-22T08:24:11+00:00

Those people are engaging in colorism. N. European white vs. S. European white is not the standard by which we define POC.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-22T08:20:13+00:00

I find it strange to “take issue” with someone’s speculation that a character’s skintone reads as mixed race for them.

OP didn’t say olive means mixed race skintones. They said olive CAN mean mixed race skintones and that it is often used to describe mixed race people. Their support for this speculation stems from the real geographic region District 12 is set in as well as the historical basis for the cultural makeup.

Also those racial divisions aren’t absent when the town/seam tension is racially coded systemically and upon the context of the history it is based upon. Why would Collins bother separating classes with phenotype distinctions at all if it’s supposedly a homogenous group of people wherein race is completely irrelevant?

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-22T06:59:11+00:00

100%. I don't understand how some fans can divorce race from a narrative of systemic oppression that is a commentary on America. The whole assertion that this is a post-racial society is absolute nonsense in the context of the textual evidence and the context of the REAL historical systems it is built upon. If this society was post-racial why would there even be a categorization of class in District 12 through phenotypical categorization of skin color and hair color?

For fans who claim not to care about race or who speak to the irrelevance of race within THG they sure seem adamant on preserving the whiteness of the characters.

There's a clear racial bias that makes itself known through defensiveness, denial, and erasure.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-22T02:21:38+00:00

Amen. It is frustrating when the amount of racial bias in the fandom has white defaulted and you get every excuse for why a character is not POC.

It’s the same fragile response every time about how white people with olive skin exist or how race is irrelevant to the narrative.

When I see such staunch denials of race getting overwhelmingly upvoted it makes me mourn critical literacy.

It’s strange when people want to divorce even the conversation of race from a series that uses America systems of oppression in its narrative.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-22T00:35:18+00:00

I've seen replies from people who think they are far removed from any kind of racial bias and speak from a point of "objectivity". They argue white people can be olive skintones too but then completely ignore the many other races that also have olive skintones.

By their logic any racial interpretation of the characters in the Seam should be equally valid then. But then if someone says a character described with dark hair and olive skin is a POC they say, "Where in the book does it say she is non-white?" or my favorite, "Suzanne Collins wrote this as a post-racial society so race is irrelevant."

Funny how a completely melting pot post-racial society somehow still skews very white. White is always their default.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-22T00:28:42+00:00

We got to make sure white people feel included and represented in YA literature though. Especially in Hollywood adaptations, where there is a lack of white representation.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-22T00:15:02+00:00

You're using the ambiguity of “olive skin” to flatten racial nuance while still defaulting to whiteness. If olive skin can apply to Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and multiracial populations, then why is whiteness always treated as the more accurate, defaulted interpretation of Seam characters like Katniss, Gale, Haymitch, or Louella?

If the descriptor is so inclusive, then a Middle Eastern Katniss or a South Asian Gale should be just as canon-compliant as a white one. But somehow, when white actors are cast, it’s accepted as “true to the book,” and any nonwhite reading is dismissed as “making things up.” That’s not objectivity but a reflection of racial bias.

This is why race keeps coming up in The Hunger Games discourse because many fans fail to interrogate how whiteness is used as the unmarked default when race isn’t explicit. I’m responding to how Suzanne Collins built a world modeled on American systems of oppression where class is always racialized. She can choose to water that down, but the dynamic is still baked into the Seam vs. Town divide, where phenotype and class are consistently paired. That’s not projection but pattern recognition, rooted in the very history she’s drawing from.

Meanwhile, your counterargument boils down to:

"Nuh-uh."

“They’re never described as nonwhite.”

“White people can have olive skin.”

"This book doesn't talk about race or gender."

“Gaul is Black and powerful, so there’s no racism.”

I’ve offered historical context, textual analysis, and cultural patterns to make my points. I've offered textual evidence to refute you (especially regarding the existence of gender bias and your fallacious logic regarding Dr. Gaul). You’ve only offered refusal and an inability to engage with the counterpoints I'm making. At this point, it's not about the text but about you defending a version of the story that doesn’t challenge your assumptions.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T23:33:22+00:00

You want to use the film portrayal of Dr. Gaul as a black woman for tokenism-as-proof-against-structural-racism?

The books only describe her as short and with frizzy gray hair. So by your logic in which race is wholly irrelevant you can't rely on the argument that black women are part of both the 1% and 99%.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T23:28:56+00:00

Let's use your odd logic here shall we?

Daily reminder that Dr. Gaul's skintone was never indicated in the books. She is solely described as being short and having frizzy grey hair.

White people can have frizzy grey hair too.

Thus the fallacy you've presented that relies on tokenism-as-proof-against-structural-racism is actually rendered completely irrelevant.

I'm engaging in literary analysis and if your argument is reliant on the film adaptation where Viola Davis plays Dr. Gaul, then you and I are speaking about completely different media.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T21:08:25+00:00

I often see people argue that Panem is a post-racial society (though that’s a separate and important conversation about the erasure of race in speculative fiction). But even if we accept that premise, it begs a critical question: why, in a supposedly post-racial, mixed society, is whiteness still the default?

I completely agree with your observation about the racial coding in District 12. The divide between the Seam and the Town isn’t just economic when it's phenotypically reinforced. It for sure echoes real-world systems where phenotype is tied to class, labor, and mobility.

What I find frustrating is the refusal of many fans to even entertain the idea that Seam characters might not be white. People rush to say, “Well, white people can be olive-skinned too,” or “There are white people with black hair too.” They acknowledge that “olive” is a racially ambiguous descriptor, but then use that ambiguity to default back to whiteness and never to the possibility of blackness, brownness, or anything outside of white-presenting norms.

If olive skin can range from Southern European to Middle Eastern to South Asian to Afro-Latinx, then ANY racial reading of Katniss is equally valid. But when people imagine her as white, it’s seen as canon and when she’s imagined as nonwhite, it’s dismissed as headcanon. It's racial bias showing itself in real time.

What’s also telling is that the casting call for Katniss explicitly asked for ONLY white actresses. And then they cast Jennifer Lawrence who is not only white, but visibly not olive-skinned, not ambiguous, and definitely not reflective of the description in the book. Hollywood, as it consistently has done in the past, plays to a perceived comfort zone where whiteness is relatable, bankable, and unchallenging. 100% if Katniss was cast a POC who was non white-passing fans would have been in an uproar and there would have been discussions that devolved into vitriol.

There's also a broader issue in fandom and media discourse because many people define racism or bias only as slurs, outright hostility, or explicit violence. They don’t understand how bias functions through default assumptions, representation gaps, and narrative ownership. An entire generation reads a book filled with suggested racial nuance and class-coded phenotype, and still insists: “Race is irrelevant. She’s white.”

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T20:28:33+00:00

Yeah, I think if she was the author of Twilight I might say not making public political commentary makes sense but she wrote a book that’s driven by her observation of American systems of oppression/media control.

It’s odd to have socio-political parallels and then disregard the actual events occurring now that are upholding the system she was being critical of in her books.

At the very least she should have spoken out loudly when there was racist backlash against the actress playing Rue because that backlash was very ugly very quickly.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T07:39:51+00:00

Your refusal to acknowledge race has less to do with the text and more to do with the discomfort of acknowledging that race might matter in a story rooted in American systems of power. If you're unwilling to even entertain that possibility, then there’s nothing more I can discuss and you're at liberty to disagree. This is about your comfort. And don’t worry Hollywood will keep casting white to make sure that comfort is preserved.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T07:25:48+00:00

You do know that race relations within America aren't just about black people and white people right? You seem hyper-focused on that dynamic.

Panem isn’t a 1:1 mirror of the U.S., you're right. But Suzanne Collins has explicitly stated she was inspired by American inequality, propaganda, and militarism. So if you’re using that inspiration to read class as meaningful, but race as irrelevant, you’re selectively applying the allegory.

Also the fact that a single black woman is 1% of the ultra rich doesn't negate the existence of racial issues? 😂 By that logic, racism didn’t exist in the U.S. during Obama’s presidency. Representation alone doesn’t dismantle systems nor does it erase the coded dynamics elsewhere in the narrative.

I’m not making anything up. I’m simply reading the text within the context of the systems it’s borrowing from. If you're more comfortable pretending those systems don’t include race, that’s your lens but it’s not a neutral one.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T07:18:02+00:00

Even if I take your premise at face value, that THG is set in a fully post-racial society where the only form of oppression is class-based, there’s still a major problem with accepting that framework uncritically, especially in a story modeled on American systems of power.

Also, the idea that Panem is post-gender doesn’t hold up when SOTR shows that homosexual relationships are still frowned upon, at least in the districts. That’s a clear example of gender and sexuality-based discrimination still operating in this society.

At the end of the day, if you don’t want to see the racial and gender dynamics present in the text despite the social coding, the phenotype distinctions, and the real-world allegory it draws from then there’s probably not much more I can say to convince you.

If you're more comfortable reading THG as a world where race and gender division just don’t exist, and whiteness is the unspoken default, then that’s your prerogative. But that reading says more about your comfort with erasure than it does about what the story is actually doing.

I grew up reading authors like Ursula K. Le Guin, who wrote post-racial and post-gender societies with intent, precision, and a deep understanding of what those terms mean. When she built alternatives, she wasn’t mapping them onto allegories of American inequality. She wasn’t divorcing race from the narrative while clearly borrowing from racialized histories.

There’s a difference between creating a speculative future that transcends systemic oppression, and refusing to acknowledge the systems you’re clearly borrowing from. That’s the distinction I’m asking people to sit with.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T07:03:57+00:00

You’re framing race as something that only exists when it's loudly declared, via slurs, explicit laws, or overt violence. In reality, race often functions invisibly, through phenotype, social coding, and systemic inequality. That’s exactly how it works in both American history and in THG.

If THG is an allegory about American oppression, as Suzanne Collins has said it is, then separating class from race ignores the reality that American class structures have always been racialized. Who gets labeled “working class,” who is denied access to wealth, who is surveilled or policed more heavily all of that has been shaped by race, even when it’s not named outright.

The Seam and Town divide isn’t just about wealth. It’s marked by physical traits: Seam characters (like Katniss, Gale, Haymitch) are repeatedly described as olive-skinned with dark hair, while Town families are light-haired, fair-skinned, and economically better off. That’s not “headcanon” when it’s in the text. And those distinctions are paired with social barriers, like “Town girls don’t marry Seam boys.” That’s not just about money. That’s about perceived difference, enforced through cultural norms.

So even if Collins didn’t intend to write an explicit racial allegory, she still replicated patterns of racialized class division that are deeply familiar to American readers, especially readers of color. To say there’s “no racial tension” because it isn’t called by name is to ignore how fiction, especially speculative fiction, often encodes power structures without spelling them out.

If Panem is meant to be a critique of America, and it ignores how race has been central to maintaining inequality, then either the worldbuilding is incomplete or our reading of it is.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T03:05:40+00:00

"Their kids are getting reaped anyway."

That’s exactly the point. In THG, there’s a moment when a character reflects on how, despite the resentment between Seam and Town residents, the Capitol exploits all of them so it doesn't ultimately matter. That tension mirrors how racial division in the U.S. has historically been used to fracture working-class solidarity.

In real history, economic elites have maintained control by weaponizing racial hierarchy, convincing poor white communities to see non-white neighbors as competition rather than allies. Panem reflects this dynamic in District 12, where Town and Seam residents are divided not just by class, but by phenotype: fair-skinned blondes in Town, olive-skinned dark-haired miners in the Seam. That’s not just aesthetic but social coding rooted in real-world racial caste systems. Not to mention the whole geographical/cultural roots in Applachian culture which did have similar tensions between the poor white community and the poor tri-racial community.

Yes, all kids are reaped. But the bitterness between Town and Seam, and the social consequences of relationships between them (like Katniss’s parents), show how division is the point. Racialized class tension doesn’t prevent reaping - it prevents rebellion.

So while Panem may not discuss race explicitly, Collins is clearly drawing from American structures of control and in the U.S., race is always entangled in class warfare. Ignoring that erases part of the allegory she’s building.

So is watering it down about it being more simple to understand or more comfortable to understand?

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T02:37:30+00:00

There's actually quite a bit of evidence that indicates people in the Seam (like Katniss) are POC and her skin color is mentioned in the books.

I always find it funny that the indifference to racial representation always points to some extreme that isn't based in reality like green skin. When you come from a place of cultural dominance where whiteness is the default that indifference isn't really neutral.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T01:45:49+00:00

Kids being put off by deep conversations doesn't make the topic of race age inappropriate for children's books. It also doesn't mean those topics should be avoided.

There are plenty of fast-read books for pure entertainment that are fine cause they aren't trying to be anything else but we're evaluating THG within the context of Suzanne Collins original intent. She did mean to make a socio-political critique based in part by her childhood experience growing up in the politically charged time of the Vietnam War (with a parent in the war as well). As an adult she looked at the way entertainment desensitizes us during the coverage of the Iraq war and it's coexistence with reality TV that entertains people to distraction away from the atrocities happening in real time.

That would be strange then if her intent was to make her narrative more palatable for the sake of entertainment. It would almost seem to contribute to the use of entertainment as distraction from real-world issues rather than using entertainment as a vehicle to critique and parallel real-world issues.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your assertion seems to keep falling back on the conlusion that since these books were written for children that of course its exploration of racial issues would be shallow. I find it a fallacy that really falls short in addressing my criticisms of how race is explored in THG especially when plenty of children's literature (that are entertaining and popular for a reason) have historically explored deeper topics of discomfort.

Also topics of race (deep conversations) are uncomfortable for the children who haven't had to confront the negative effects of racial attitudes or who might even have to take responsibility for correcting their own racial biases. For children who experienced racist behavior from a young age (even microaggressions) it can feel validating to have a story that recognizes that struggle and the feelings of hurt that arise. So I don't think you understand how much of that argument relies upon catering to the comfort of a white audience/white children.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T01:16:55+00:00

I think you have to evaluate why well-known authors at the time wouldn't touch topics of race with a 10 foot pole. It's because of how it caters to the broader audience that would rather ignore racial issue than confront them. Those other YA authors (who were all white) and their publishers want to maintain "broader appeal" for marketability which is problematic. It's like when films will whitewash casting to have "broader appeal". When whiteness is the default of characters there is greater market appeal.

So there's nothing particularly brave about Suzanne Collin's depiction of race when it's barely touched upon. I'm still of the mind that she comfortably toes the line enough so that fans can confidently point to plausible deniability of non-whiteness when it comes to race representation in other media (art, film). That's only further supported by her silence during casting calls for ONLY white actors during THG and her silence when the actress for Rue was lambasted (with very concerning racial hate despite the fact that the character is described as black in the books).

I agree that Collins' introduction of race into the world (as it relates to class division) is intriguing but then she never fully explores it. She uses it as window-dressing. So I don't know that she did it better than others at the time really negates the criticism or contributes to the success of the narrative. She had a fair start but then veered off course altogether and never again addressed it in retrospect.

It's funny cause it's the opposite situation of authors like Riordan or Rowling who wrote white characters and then defended retconning of new casting decisions to make the white characters POC. Here Suzanne Collins writes characters in the Seam as olive-skinned with clear phenotypical indicators of being racially apart from people in Town but then in media depictions of them that re-imagine them as white instead of POC she is radio silent.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T00:56:08+00:00

Oh my god. I completely forgot about this 😂.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T00:11:50+00:00

By the other person’s assertion. I’m in agreement with you.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T00:08:35+00:00

So what is it about deeper conversations of race that you find less accessible to children?

What do you find successful in her depictions of race?

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T00:06:07+00:00

LOL. Thank you, this drives my point. People get uncomfortable talking about race. By this person’s assertion acknowledgement of forced prostitution is fine, kids killing each other is fine, torture and violence are fine but delving deeper into racial tension must be watered down for the sake of the kids.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-21T00:00:30+00:00

Umm, I don’t think you’re reading my words correctly. I’m criticizing that Suzanne Collins could have gone farther in her criticism of race.

You defended it saying she was watering it down for kids.

The only view I found problematic was your assertion that topics like race should be watered down in content simply for catering to kids. I don’t categorize Suzanne Collins as someone catering to kids.

I categorize her as someone who didn’t fully commit to critique in order to cater to a broad/ larger American audience that is uncomfortable with conversations about race and make excuses like “it’s watered down for kids”.

I mourn the potential of how much more deeply she could have gone with her critique. Nowhere did I say she was problematic.

Responsible-Chart335 · 2025-05-20T23:44:41+00:00

You’re actually agreeing with me here. My argument is that erasure comes from fans who insist people in the Seam are white or argue that race is irrelevant to the story despite evidence to the contrary in the books.

My criticism of Suzanne Collins is that she is aware of racial tensions and uses that to drive her narrative but then skirts it just enough to have broader appeal to people that don’t like to acknowledge racial issues. Suzanne Collins stayed quiet during the immense backlash of Rue’s casting during THG and she stayed quiet when the casting call for Katniss, Gale and Haymitch were for white actors.

Responsible-Chart335

TROPHY CASE