Originally Posted by Hitch
Fine, that's certainly a prerogative. But ignoring it or pretending that it didn't exist at the time...to me, that's self-defeating. It's hardly shocking that one or both sides in any war, any dispute, wouldn't reach to find justifications for their positions. History is, after all, written by the winners, to coin a phrase. It's sometimes useful to see that history written by the losers' perspectives, too. The antebellum south wasn't simply slavery--it did have other aspects to it. But hey, I don't expect folks to run around recommending books for a bajillionty reasons.
Yes, and so can every writer of pretty much anytime. Rex Stout had a few racist items, here and there, including if memory serves, the N word. We've all heard discussions around Sayers' attitudes--and hers largely came from her extremely devout religious views, more than anything else. (Although, everybody blithely seems to ignore the entire "I served 7 years for Rachel" bit with peter's friend whatsits; he's marrying a Jew. You'd have thunk that if Sayers were truly a bigot that would never have occurred?) Christie certainly exhibits some callousness of feeling, in The Mysterious Affair at Styles, the very first Poirot, in fact, around Jews and I'm sure in other spots as well. {shrug}. She was a product of her class and time. I certainly can't castigate her for it. Aren't we all? I can't expect her to have Timelord superpowers and somehow be 100 years ahead of her day.
If I cut myself off from all forms of anathema-to-me, I would be guilty of doing the same thing that so many today seem to want to do--to decide what I should read, know, hear, not what I need to read. (And for that matter, what I enjoy reading, too, dammit.) Reading almost any book, anywhere, anytime, from the dawn, though not-that-damned-long-ago shows an abysmal history around women and women's rights. I could hardly recommend most books for that alone, were I so inclined.
Not surprised to hear that.
Hitch
|