Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Moral standards are kind of tricky, and anyone claiming "my morals are better than your morals" should be able to back it up with something concrete. I think your on firm ground here, but you're in danger of falling back to the "it's always been done" justification instead of creating an argument that stands on it's own.

I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that good conscience must inevitably lead people to reach common moral ground. Consider the issue of 19th century British colonialism that I mentioned earlier. Rider Haggard's experience in Britain's African colonies led him to oppose colonialism, and yet his contemporary, Rudyard Kipling, who had equally direct personal experience of the issue, was an ardent supporter of it. I see no reason to suppose that both men were not acting in equally good conscience in reaching those views, and yet they reached diametrically opposed conclusions of the morals of the same issue.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I think your on firm ground here, but you're in danger of falling back to the "it's always been done" justification instead of creating an argument that stands on it's own.

Thank you. But there is no danger of me "falling back." Mainly because I don't confuse tribalism with systemic racism. "My tribe is better than your tribe" is a far cry from "My tribe doesn't like the color of your skin, so we're going to subjugate your tribe and oppress you any way we can for several hundred years."

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. I think people who say "that's just how it was" and nothing else are giving it a free pass. Why shouldn't I?

I think you are making incorrect assumptions about other users with little evidence.

You've acknowledged his racism was unfortunate. You've mentioned you need to be "mindful" when reading it. Do you see the difference between that and blowing it off as a sign of the times? I sure do.

My point of course is that I suspect the majority of users in this thread follow the same mindset even if they didn't spell it out clearly enough in their posts to meet your criteria.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"Lovecraft was a racist."
"So what? Lots of people were racist back then."

Do you really not see that that is an attempt to excuse Lovecraft's racist tendencies as OK?

Lovecraft was very racist, even in his day. It's a real problem I have with him and one that keeps me from reading his work as often as I would like to.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

My point of course is that I suspect the majority of users in this thread follow the same mindset even if they didn't spell it out clearly enough in their posts to meet your criteria.

Possibly. But then why should I assume that "that's just how it was" equals "that's just how it was, and it was a terrible, terrible thing" ? Say what you (rhet) mean. To me, it's quite fair to assume that a brusque one-liner used in defense of why someone showed racist tendencies implies they're offering up excuses to justify/mitigate said behavior. There is no need to attempt to do so.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

ONLY saying "that's just the way it was" is only useful if you're attempting to make past racism sound OK.

"Lovecraft was a racist."
"So what? Lots of people were racist back then."

Do you really not see that that is an attempt to excuse Lovecraft's racist tendencies as OK?

I don't think that says that past racism was okay or that we are excusing it. I think what we are saying is that in the era when that author was writing, such attitudes were considered acceptable. This is not stating that they are acceptable by today's standards, it is acceptance of the fact that attitudes can and do change.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I think what we are saying is that in the era when that author was writing, such attitudes were considered acceptable.

Only. by. other. racists.

Part of the problem is that I don't simply understand why such a thing needs to be said at all. What is gained by saying racism was "normal" or acceptable back then? It was neither. It was merely common.

The answer to "was Lovecraft a racist" is "yes." Not "yes, but...".

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by issybird

And yet what does it say about an author who panders to the worst element of the zeitgeist? It may be an honest buck, but not an honorable one.

What worst elements?
By what standards? Today's?

For many of those folks, the views presented in the stories were the mainstream, *expected*, views of their time. To present views acceptable to today's standards would've been deemed unrealistic by the establishment and the audience.

Expecting otherwise would be the equivalent of expecting Jules Verne to write stories about relativity or quantum mechanics or Isaac Asimov's LUCKY STARR books to feature a rotating Mercury with a day and night cycle.

Again: if you can't accept a book on its own terms and within the constraints of its time period then you probably should move on. And that applies to modern period pieces as well as classics.

If I run into a period piece trying to shoehorn modern values where they would be anachronistic (and it's not a timeshift story)I'm the one turning up my nose and walking away in disgust.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Have you ever stopped reading a book (or refused to start, based on what you've heard about it) based on such issues?

Yes. Life is too short to waste on foulness. If I find that a book is turning foul, I'll back out of it, just as I would back out of a flooded septic field if I happened to step into one. All the grand arguments aside, I only have so much time to read and I don't want to waste it.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Only. by. other. racists.

Part of the problem is that I don't simply understand why such a thing needs to be said at all. What is gained by saying racism was "normal" or acceptable back then? It was neither. It was merely common.

The answer to "was Lovecraft a racist" is "yes." Not "yes, but...".

Yes, Lovecraft was racist. I haven't seen anyone here claiming the opposite. Very likely more racist that the norm for his time. However, the norm for his time was what today's average person would likely considered as extremely racist.

I do have to ask what is your basis for claiming that racism was not "normal" or acceptable by the common person at that time? Because it is not normal or acceptable today? Or because you believe it should not have been normal or acceptable at any point in history. Common -- familiar, widespread, general, ordinary.

[maddz]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I do have to ask what is your basis for claiming that racism was not "normal" or acceptable by the common person at that time? Because it is not normal or acceptable today? Or because you believe it should not have been normal or acceptable at any point in history. Common -- familiar, widespread, general, ordinary.

Hear, hear. What I find extraordinary is that people think that people will automatically recognise racism etc and combat it, even if they have been raised in a society where all the ‘isms are the norm, and never been taught anything different by secular or religious instructors? Are they suggesting that this sense of injustice will spring fully grown from their brains like Athena from the head of Zeus?

Yes, I use the simile deliberately: Ancient Greek society was racist, sexist, practiced slavery and institutionalised paederasty and yet is considered to be the first flowering of Western civilisation. So because ancient writers by and large do not condemn what we today consider to be beyond the pale, we should now condemn everything about those writers?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I do have to ask what is your basis for claiming that racism was not "normal" or acceptable by the common person at that time? Because it is not normal or acceptable today? Or because you believe it should not have been normal or acceptable at any point in history. Common -- familiar, widespread, general, ordinary.

My problem with "acceptable" is that it's the wrong word. No person of conscience ever believed it was acceptable to hate people because of the color of their skin. What people who use the word "acceptable" really mean to say is that it was more commonplace for racists to be open about their tendencies back then. And that it was less common for them to be called to task for their views. It's a huge distinction in my eyes. "Acceptable" implies that it was OK to hold such views.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by maddz

Are they suggesting that this sense of injustice will spring fully grown from their brains like Athena from the head of Zeus?

And yet that must be exactly what has happened time and again throughout history. Unless you're actually suggesting that there wasn't a single Ancient Greek who opposed slavery, sexism, racism, and institutionalized paederasty? I hear the Stoics were actually pretty down on slavery.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My problem with "acceptable" is that it's the wrong word. No person of conscience ever believed it was acceptable to hate people because of the color of their skin.

Historically, racism has been about a belief that your ethnic or national group is superior to another, not about hatred.

You keep saying that no person of conscience did this or that, but have provided no evidence to support such an assertion. I've suggested to you as a counter-example that historically, prevalent attitudes of racial superiority were certainly not seen as being incompatible with acting with a good conscience. Dickens' lampooning of such attitudes in the form of the character of Mrs Jellyby is based on real "social reformers" of the day who absolutely considered it their Christian duty to "civilise" the inferior people of Africa. Racist? Yes. Motivated by a genuine desire to help people? Also yes.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You keep saying that no person of conscience did this or that, but have provided no evidence to support such an assertion.

I don't have to. People of conscience don't hate based on race. Period. You can play games with the definition of racism if you like, but I'm not getting sidetracked by tribalism and inherent xenophobia. I'm talking about people espousing or condoning hate (or claiming superiority) based solely on race.

Motivated by a genuine desire to help people? Also yes.

Very debatable.