Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I don't have your faith in human nature:

What faith?

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think personally that the majority of people frequently act in ways that they know perfectly well are not good, either good for themselves or good for other people, whether we're talking about minor things such as having one more slice of cake when you know you shouldn't, or the commission of serious crimes.

Exactly. And like believing another race is inferior to their own. Those (with maybe the exception of those who eat too much cake) would not be people of good conscience if they consistently behaved that way in my opinion. I was under the impression you didn't agree with me. Are you considering people who consistently act "in ways that they know perfectly well are not good, either good for themselves or good for other people" to be people of conscience, or not. I'm confused.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Exactly. And like believing another race is inferior to their own. Those (with maybe the exception of those who eat too much cake) would not be people of good conscience if they consistently behaved that way in my opinion. I was under the impression you didn't agree with me. Are you considering people who consistently act "in ways that they know perfectly well are not good, either good for themselves or good for other people" to be people of conscience, or not. I'm confused.

I'm disagreeing with your statement that:

... every human in the whole of history has acted in accordance with their own views of what constitutes right/wrong

Most people do NOT consistently act in such a way at all.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm disagreeing with your statement that:

Most people do NOT consistently act in such a way at all.

When it comes to personal philosophies, motivation, politics and general viewpoint on "how things should be done" ... yes. I believe even the most horrid of people think they're behaving "correctly" according to their own views on right/wrong. Do I need to name dictators? Do they not fall under your (or the common) definition of "people of conscience" if they believe their own rhetoric?

That's what I mean by my "every human ever" comment. When it comes to big picture items, nobody consistently acts in a manner contrary to their beliefs--from saint to the most hate-filled supremacist (and everyone in between).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

When it comes to personal philosophies, motivation, politics and general viewpoint on "how things should be done" ... yes. I believe even the most horrid of people think they're behaving "correctly" according to their own views on right/wrong. Do I need to name dictators? Do they not fall under your (or the common) definition of "people of conscience" if they believe their own rhetoric?

Yes. If a person acts in accordance with what their conscience tells them is right, I think it's wholly reasonable to consider that they're acting in "good conscience", whatever anyone else's opinion of those actions might be.

[barryem]

I think most people are honest and honorable most of the time. It's also true that now and then they're not. Except for me, of course.

I guess I live in a better world than you guys do. I sure wouldn't trade with you.

Barry

[4691mls]

We have been thinking about issues in older fiction such as racism, slavery, sexism where the world (or first-world countries, at least) have come to a general conclusion. However, there are undoubtedly current issues on which each of us has strong personal beliefs. What if a hundred years from now, things have changed, the world has come to a consensus and that consensus is opposite of your current opinion on an issue? Should a person in the future look back and say Diap (or me, or anyone else here now) was not thinking or acting in good conscience based on the world we lived in and the information we had in the early 21st century?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes. If a person acts in accordance with what their conscience tells them is right, I think it's wholly reasonable to consider that they're acting in "good conscience", whatever anyone else's opinion of those actions might be.

That might be the difference right there. You're talking ACTING in good conscience, and I'm talking BEING people of conscience.

Most humans in the history of the world were/are acting in good conscience, but I certainly wouldn't consider most humans in the world (past or present) to be people of conscience. I'm certainly not the first to use People of Conscience to refer to those who tend to be (to answer Pajamaman's question a lot later) touched by the better angels of our nature.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That might be the difference right there. You're talking ACTING in good conscience, and I'm talking BEING people of conscience.

Most humans in the history of the world were/are acting in good conscience, but I certainly wouldn't consider most humans in the world (past or present) to be people of conscience. I'm certainly not the first to use People of Conscience to refer to those who tend to be (to answer Pajamaman's question a lot later) touched by the better angels of our nature.

And therein lies our fundamental disagreement. I am a moral relativist: that is to say, I believe that different cultures (and time periods) have different moral standards. You, on the other hand, are espousing moral absolutism: the belief that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You, on the other hand, are espousing moral absolutism: the belief that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

Yep. Particular, particular actions? You bet I am.

[HarryT]

Fair enough. At least we've now uncovered the root cause of our disagreement .

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm disagreeing with your statement that:



Most people do NOT consistently act in such a way at all.

People have a way of rationalizing bad behavior so that they can do whatever bad stuff they want, and still feel self righteous about their actions.

That is human nature.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fair enough. At least we've now uncovered the root cause of our disagreement .

Ditto. I am also a relativist.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Do I need to name dictators?

What about them? What they did and what they wanted others to believe to be right does not always coincide with their own beliefs. Take A. Hitler for example: neither was he of pure race nor healthy according to the hubris he was doing.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I've lived nearly every single one of my 52 years in tiny, rural, white, racist town. I knew it was wrong. I still know it. People (including family) know I know it.

Y'know, Diap:

I'm sure that's true. But it's also true that that means that you were born after the advent of the civil rights movement in this country. In fact, you were born at nearly the end what's considered the "end" of the civil rights movement in this country--after 1968.

Of equal, if not more importance, you were born in a world filled with TV and radio. You had access to the thoughts, ideas, etc., of people that lived elsewhere than your small white town. By the time you were 15, computers were a real thing. By the time you were merely 25, the Internet was a "real thing."

You've then lived nearly 30 years with all of those advantages--TV, radio, the Net.

That is a far cry from someonee born in 1920. Or as my hubster's grandmother, 1895. She lived to see TV, radio, the car, space flight, although the Net, not so much. But never in her life did she have the wide-open, freewheeling access to people's ideas that you have had. What are, small town or not, first-world privileges.

My own grandparents travelled the world. They travelled in ocean liners, in trains, by car, even by donkey and camel. Did that mean that they changed their fundamental beings? The things that they held dear, that they believed in? No, they didn't. My grandmother had a certain, specific bigotry--which had nothing to do with religion or color, as it happens. She'd had several bad things happen, in her family, over the decades, and in every instance, a person of this ancestry was directly involved. To her death, she would never move off that position. (And, no: to be clear, it wasn't about people of the Jewish faith/ancestry, either.)

I feel strongly that it's exceedingly difficult to fairly judge people who lived far before us in history. Sure, it's easy to point fingers at white people, screech "racist," and bring up slavery. That's practically a freebie.

What about the way that those to-be slaves got to the traders in the first place? Largely captured by other tribes, people of the same skin color, who thought that it was a perfectly dandy way to ruin one's enemies and pocket money at the same time--capturing opponents and selling them as slaves. Pillaging captured villages and selling off the women and children, too. Your position is, despite the fact that their enemies would have done the same thing to them, that this was all they knew, that they should have stood up and shouted, "no, this is wrong, I won't do it?" Really?

Those folks certainly didn't have TV or radio. They didn't have skin color issues. They were purely mercenary, on the one hand--and on the other, they clearly had zero qualms about thinking it was perfectly okay, and even great, perhaps, to capture and sell off one's enemies. I can't see how anyone in those slaving tribes could have been exposed to pretty much ANY school of thought but that espoused by their tribe.

Were they wrong? Yes, by 21st-century standards, of course. I'm sure we can all agree, slavery=bad. Arguably, they could have slaughtered those with whom they warred. Would slaughtering them have been "better?" Arguably, a ration person would say "NEITHER is good!" And you'd be right--but surely, slavery was a better way for those defeated (at least they had a chance of escape, of having children, of carrying on their genes and their names, maybe even), than immediate death?

I'm simply saying that in many moralistic issues, I tend to believe in absolutes. Evil is evil, thievery is thievery; and so forth. But I cannot see insisting that anyone, anywhere, at any time on this globe's existence could have simply "somehow" thrown off the shackles of peer pressure and their experiences, what their parents raised them to believe, etc.

I get that this post will make no difference. You are not flexible about this. You remind me a bit of Mr. H, who rather frustratingly insists that stupid people choose to be stupid, that they choose not to learn, to stay dumb. He has trouble believing that some people, other than the differently-abled, are born with a lower IQ, that they can have difficulty learning things. Because it's easy for him, naturally, he thinks it's easy, or a choice, for everyone.

You seem to be the same way; because it came to YOU to be enlighted about racism, sexism, bigotry, etc., that it should be that way for everyone, and I don't believe that's true, or realistic, any more than I do my spouse's insistence that somehow, people are CHOOSING to make their own learning processes harder than they should be. When push comes to shove, what's the difference in your position and his?


Hitch
(Who has really, really decided that this will be my last post on this thread. I just don't see how it's helping any of us, I truly don't...)

[Thasaidon]

Hitch that was a beautiful post straight from the heart.

I take my hat off to you.