Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[GlenBarrington]

Meanwhile, Doritos announced they are considering the creation of softer, less crunchy chips, just for women!

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...oritos-for-her
https://nypost.com/2018/02/04/dorito...ium=SocialFlow

My wife likes the crunch! And she is not above licking her fingers when she feels like it. I hope she doesn't have to wait outside convenience store while teen-aged boys buy regular chips for her. That WILL put her in a bad mood.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The idea that past works can't be judged by today's standards doesn't acually hold water. Readers do it all the time. But just because we're capable of condemning past works because of overt racism doesn't mean we're suggesting that no one should ever read them.

I think there's a big difference in condemning past works because of their racism and in condemning the racism in past works.

Barry

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer :
How could 99% of the humans who ever lived have been guilty of condoning the subjugation of entire races (for any reason)? Unless you're excluding those humans in the races who were subjugated?

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Because they did. Those who have argued against subjugation in any form out loud have always been in the minority. Silent condoning is still condoning.

Do you know what happened to black people who protested or tried to escape chattel slavery? To Australian Aboriginal people who tried to evade or escape capture and eslavement? Etc? And yet, you assert that their attempts at self-preservation were "silent condoning"? Wow.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This is where the disconnect really lies. I say "it's fair it's fair to judge the past through today's lens," and you (and others) seem to think I'm saying, "erase the past! Change it! Make it so nobody else can read it! Ban it! Burn it! Bowdlerize it!"

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying acknowledge it, don't blow it off. "That's just how it was" is only useful if you're attempting to make past racism sound OK, or more acceptable/palatable. Being a racist was never OK, even if it was more common.

I don't think anyone in here is saying racism is or was okay. Saying "that's how it was" acknowledges that that's how it was.

Barry

[barryem]

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.

There are so many examples of this that it would take too long to list them all. A dramatic one is the Christian missionaries who went to Hawaii to convert the heathen. This was done by people of conscience but subjugate them they did.

Then there's the whites vs the indians in the USA. Much of that was done by people of conscience. Much wasn't.

Racism was always wrong by our standards today. I don't think it was always wrong by the standards of the time.

I think there are different types of racism; the kind where people of one race hates the other is the most obvious but the kind where people of one race don't hate the other but consider them inferior is less obvious but just as real.

When Jefferson did his study to prove that blacks were as smart as whites he concluded that he was wrong, not because of hatred or bias so much as because there was no real understanding of how to measure that sort of thing then.

Barry

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by meeera

Do you know what happened to black people who protested or tried to escape chattel slavery? To Australian Aboriginal people who tried to evade or escape capture and eslavement? Etc? And yet, you assert that their attempts at self-preservation were "silent condoning"? Wow.

Of course I didn't mean people who would have been in mortal danger for so much as expressing their thoughts. Why do you think I meant them? I meant all the people who were not themselves subjugated the same way and just accepted the status quo as "the way things are", possibly never even bothering to think about it. And that's actually what humans have been doing all the time. Those who bother to think about the plight of others and speak out against it have always been in the minority. It's understandable if speaking out would put the speaker in danger, otherwise it is just condoning.

And no, I'm not on any moral high horse here nor do I consider myself morally superior to others. No doubt I've been doing quite a lot of said condoning myself, perhaps even without being aware of it. Not that it's an excuse.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I think we call that "capitalism." It is not a very fair system, but there is not a whole lot of alternatives that actually work in practice.

You could.
Or you could call it communism.
Or monarchy.
Or socialism.
Or fascism.
Or tribalism.
Or any kind of organized society that ever existed.

The moment a society gets a leader, elected or not, you get people benefiting from the labor, pain, and suffering of others.

Been that way since the first tribal bully called himself chief. Or king. Or Pharaoh. Or Premier. Or whatever.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I meant all the people who were not themselves subjugated the same way and just accepted the status quo as "the way things are", possibly never even bothering to think about it.

For that matter, in many of the societies, the hierarchical subjugation was so complete the subjugated themselves not only accepted domination as natural and proper but supported it and helped subjugate others. The ancient Persians are a perfect example but so are all the big empires from Egypt and China to Rome and Russia. Even the Athenians were quick to leverage the alliance to push back the Persians to establish hegemony over the region.

People these days like to pretend history began when they were aggrieved but history shows today's victims were yesterday's victimizers. No clean hands. "We all got it coming."

It's part and parcel of homo sapiens sapiens and the likeliest explanation why out of all the homo species and subspecies that existed on the planet only one remains. Kin vs alien goes back to the very beginning.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

For that matter, in many of the societies, the hierarchical subjugation was so complete the subjugated themselves not only accepted domination as natural and proper but supported it and helped subjugate others. The ancient Persians are a perfect example but so are all the big empires from Egypt and China to Rome and Russia. Even the Athenians were quick to leverage the alliance to push back the Persians to establish hegemony over the region.

Mmm yes, all that brainwashing...

I was in elementary school in the early 80s. The Cold War was at its peak and schoolteachers spoke about the evil American capitalists who wanted to make war on the good Soviet people. I doubt they themselves believed it (they were adults and we had access to Finnish TV in northern Estonia), but they were ordered to speak those things. I was a child, so naturally I believed them. And every time I heard an airplane flying in the night, I feared that it's the Americans coming to bomb us.

It's funny to remember it now, but the fear was very real for me then.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Of course I didn't mean people who would have been in mortal danger for so much as expressing their thoughts. Why do you think I meant them? I meant all the people who were not themselves subjugated the same way and just accepted the status quo as "the way things are" [...]

It seems to me that you missed DiapDealer's entire point: "How could 99% of the humans who ever lived have been guilty of condoning the subjugation of entire races (for any reason)? Who would be left to subjugate?"

You went right ahead and assumed subjugated people were not part of the set of "humans" in your response.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

It seems to me that you missed DiapDealer's entire point: "How could 99% of the humans who ever lived have been guilty of condoning the subjugation of entire races (for any reason)? Who would be left to subjugate?"

You went right ahead and assumed subjugated people were not part of the set of "humans" in your response.

I see no contradiction. Pretty much every ethnic and national group throughout history has considered themselves superior to some other group, even if other groups in turn consider themselves superior to them.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I see no contradiction. Pretty much every ethnic and national group throughout history has considered themselves superior to some other group, even if other groups in turn consider themselves superior to them.

Yes, exactly. I apologize for expressing myself badly.

Edit: I didn't mean only the subjugation of other races in my response, but also subjugation of other people of the same race or even ethnicity. One is no better than other, and both have been rampant throughout human history.

[MikeB1972]

The problem with making the statement "All races are exactly equal" is that it's demonstrably false, look at the winners of the men's 100m in the Olympics for the last 30 years, then do the same for 100m freestyle swimming. The Masai are, on average, taller than other races etc.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

The problem with making the statement "All races are exactly equal" is that it's demonstrably false, look at the winners of the men's 100m in the Olympics for the last 30 years, then do the same for 100m freestyle swimming. The Masai are, on average, taller than other races etc.

Did anyone in the thread say "All races are exactly equal"? I had a quick look up the thread but did not spot anyone saying this.

In any case what I think most people who say this mean is that intrinsically all races/persons are of equal worth.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by barryem

There are so many examples of this that it would take too long to list them all. A dramatic one is the Christian missionaries who went to Hawaii to convert the heathen. This was done by people of conscience but subjugate them they did.

Goose gander.

If me merely claiming that someone wasn't a person of conscience doesn't actually make it so, then by the same token, merely claiming that someone WAS a person of conscience doesn't actually make it so either.

"Missionary" does not automatically equal "person of conscience" in my experience.