Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[4691mls]

I expect some attitudes and behaviors that we currently consider normal and acceptable will be considered wrong or unethical a hundred years from now. I'm not talking about racism or anything we currently recognize as being an issue. There are undoubtedly things we take for granted that we don't even consider to be issues that will be seen in a different light in the future, and we can't know what those may be.

Someone up thread mentioned science in the writing of Jules Verne. This got me thinking about the many advances in science and medicine over the centuries. If we read a book wherein a doctor treats patients by using leeches, do we condemn the author and/or the character for being ignorant? Or do we recognize that scientific knowledge had not yet advanced beyond that point? I'm sure that in the future some of our current medical procedures will be seen as harmful, but at present we cannot know what technologies and methods may be available decades in the future.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't have to.

You don't have to, certainly, but it would lend credibility to your argument if you supported it with evidence.

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.

I'm certainly not playing games. I'm saying that belief in a hierarchical view of human ethnic groups was absolutely mainstream anthropology in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and was only amplified by Darwin's publication of his book "The Descent of Man".

[maddz]

Actually, there are valid reasons for using leeches - but as the scientific method wasn't exactly well known they were used regardless of condition and patient status. Same with maggots. I'm trying to recall where it came from but there's a certain what goes round comes back with medical treatments. We're just in one phase at the moment - the phase where there's a pill for every ill. So who's to say what it will be in the future - for a start it looks like it will be antibiotic-free which means surgery will be used as a last resort.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm saying that belief in a hierarchical view of human ethnic groups was absolutely mainstream anthropology in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and was only amplified by Darwin's publication of his book "The Descent of Man".

I take no issue with that statement. Nowhere does it suggest that such views were "acceptable." I'm down with "mainstream." What I'm saying is that no person of conscience used such hierarchical views to hate, subjugate or disenfranchise.

[DiapDealer]

I've enjoyed (and appreciated) the discussion, but I'm tired, and there appears to be no attainable middle-ground at this point.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I take no issue with that statement. Nowhere does it suggest that such views were "acceptable." I'm down with "mainstream." What I'm saying is that no person of conscience used such hierarchical views to hate, subjugate or disenfranchise.

You keep using the term "acceptable". Acceptable to WHO?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I take no issue with that statement. Nowhere does it suggest that such views were "acceptable." I'm down with "mainstream." What I'm saying is that no person of conscience used such hierarchical views to hate, subjugate or disenfranchise.

On the contrary, such views formed the entire moral justification for European and American 19th century colonialism (ie subjugation of inferior races), which were supported by an awful lot of people of conscience.

Take a look, for example, at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (an extremely reputable scholarly source) article on colonialism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/

From that article, the attitude of John Stuart Mill, one of the leading lights of the Enlightenment, and most assuredly a man of conscience:

... according to John Stuart Mill (hereafter Mill), savages do not have the capacity for self-government because of their excessive love of freedom. Serfs, slaves, and peasants in barbarous societies, on the other hand, may be so schooled in obedience that their capacity for rationality is stifled. Only commercial society produces the material and cultural conditions that enable individuals to realize their potential for freedom and self-government. According to this logic, civilized societies like Great Britain are acting in the interest of less-developed peoples by governing them. Imperialism, from this perspective, is not primarily a form of political domination and economic exploitation but rather a paternalistic practice of government that exports “civilization” (e.g. modernization) in order to foster the improvement of native peoples. Despotic government (and Mill doesn’t hesitate to use this term) is a means to the end of improvement and ultimately self-government.

Ie “the ends justify the means”.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by GlennD

You keep using the term "acceptable". Acceptable to WHO?

People who didn't hate/judge based on mainstream (at the time) anthropological hierarchical views of ethnic groups. Figured that much was obvious.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No one with any knowledge of the man denies he was a racist. They merely strive to mitigate the fact.

What does this has to do with the books? I abhor war and still enjoy reading about it. I read books from gay people. As long as there is no evangelizing about it trying to convince me to turn my lifestyle around and start believing. And yes, that includes religious beliefs. In my opinion forcing religion on someone is worse than straight racism. It is actually close to the same, with religion being more generally acceptable by society.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

On the contrary, such views formed the entire moral justification for European and American 19th century colonialism (ie subjugation of inferior races), which were supported by an awful lot of people of conscience.

Here's what you're failing to understand: I disagree. By definition, anyone who used such views to justify the subjugation of "inferior" races could not possibly have been people of conscience. Thinking you have moral justification, or a right to subjugate anyone you deem an inferior race automatically disqualifies you from being a person of conscience.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Here's what you're failing to understand: I disagree. By definition, anyone who used such views to justify the subjugation of "inferior" races could not possibly have been people of conscience. Thinking you have moral justification, or a right to subjugate anyone you deem an inferior race automatically disqualifies you from being a person of conscience.

No true Scotsman would do such a thing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Here's what you're failing to understand: I disagree. By definition, anyone who used such views to justify the subjugation of "inferior" races could not possibly have been people of conscience. Thinking you have moral justification, or a right to subjugate anyone you deem an inferior race automatically disqualifies you from being a person of conscience.

Don’t you think that’s rather a circular argument? Every person of conscience agrees with you, but you’re defining a “person of conscience” as being someone who does agree with you. That doesn’t really get us anywhere!

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

No true Scotsman would do such a thing.

You're not entirely wrong.
But I stand by my assertion.

Sorry Harry. What can I say? In my opinion, no person of conscience would ever deem an entire race inferior to their own. Let alone seek to use it as moral justification for their subjugation.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Here's what you're failing to understand: I disagree. By definition, anyone who used such views to justify the subjugation of "inferior" races could not possibly have been people of conscience. Thinking you have moral justification, or a right to subjugate anyone you deem an inferior race automatically disqualifies you from being a person of conscience.

You mean then that most people living before the 20th century had no conscience. Well, you have of course a right to your opinion. For me, that view is just condescending. It also means you think of the people of the past times as inferior to you.

I have no doubt that the future generations consider the people of the present century to be without conscience also, by that definition. Because almost certainly we accept something now that they will deem unacceptable.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

You mean then that most people living before the 20th century had no conscience.

No. Just the ones who truly believed that there were races inferior to their own, and who truly felt that belief granted them some kind of moral justification to subjugate said inferior races.