Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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

Well, I certainly can't argue with that

[fjtorres]

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.

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:



Ie “the ends justify the means”.

Uplift. Social engineering ala Gatlin.

They were sharing the "benefits" of democratic capitalism and raising the savages into Civilization. It was a "noblese oblige" kind of thing.

Not really all that different from what western NGOs do today, but a wee bit more "forceful".

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. Just the ones who truly believed that there were races inferior to their own, and who truly felt that belief granted them amoral justifaction to subjugate said inferioir races.

I'm pretty sure most white people believed that the other races were inferior before the 20th century. The ones who did believe that all people were equal regardless of their race were few and far between.

Also people in all times have had (and still don't have) no problems subjugating each other for various other reasons (i.e. excuses), not only for race, but also, for example, religion or in most cases for simple greed. I personally don't think subjugating anyone for any other reason is better than subjugating anyone for their skin color. So does that make 99% of the human beings who have ever lived amoral and without conscience?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

So does that make 99% of the human beings who have ever lived amoral and without conscience?

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? Unless you're excluding those humans in the races who were subjugated (and never returned the favor).

[DNSB]

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. 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.

Hate people because of the colour of their skin? Likely not. I suspect that if you were able to talk to an antebellum slaveowner in the southern states, he would not have hated blacks any more than he would have hated his horses or his dogs based on the colour of their coats.

Believe that someone was inferior based on the colour of their skin? Extremely likely.

I also try to remember that racism is not exclusive to whites -- one of the worst racists I knew believed very fervently that her ancestry made her superior to any other race (white, black, Ainu, etc.).

[Sirtel]

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?

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. For example, did the people rise up protesting en masse when their fellow countrymen were busily importing slaves from Africa or subjugating South- or North-American Indians? Did most of the people in those times condemn it as wrong? No, very few of them did. Most just accepted it. Many condoned it actively.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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

It's not obvious. You're using it as if there is a ruling moral authority; that the morals you espouse are the correct ones. (Putting religion aside for the moment, as I personally actually DO believe there is a ruling moral authority. ) And I honestly don't think 'hate' is involved in much of the racism historically. As HarryT has pointed out, often there was benign if misguided intent behind what we now see as racist actions.

I'm pretty sure every group that ever existed (racial or not) feels superior to any other group, for numerous reasons including race. The Spartans felt superior to the Athenians. The Spanish certainly felt superior to the Aztecs. The Chinese felt that their race was superior to the Westerners that they encountered. Often there was "scientific" evidence (flawed by our standards, generally) for the feelings of superiority.

[Sirtel]

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)? Who would be left to subjugate? Unless you're excluding those humans in the races who were subjugated (and never returned the favor).

I don't mean only subjugating other races, but subjugating other humans. For whatever reason. Slavery, religious persecution, conquering other countries, economical exploitation, etc. All those things are subjugation in one form or another, and most of the human race has participated in such activities in one form or another throughout history.

[arjaybe]

Racist: one who sees races.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I don't mean only subjugating other races, but subjugating other humans. For whatever reason. Slavery, religious persecution, conquering other countries, economical exploitation, etc. All those things are subjugation in one form or another, and most of the human race has participated in such activities in one form or another throughout history.

Race-based slavery is a relatively recent invention but the origins of slavery itself are lost in the mists of time. It is part and parcel of every "civilization" ever.

Slavery has existed within a single race and even within a single society. And that is just de jure slavery, not counting defacto forms of slavery like serfdom, indentured servitude, etc. Melanin content didn't even factor into it: greeks did it to greeks, russians to russians, africans to africans, mesoamericans to mesoamericans.

Humans exploiting the labor of other humans for their own benefit needs no explicit excuse. Racism doesn't even factor into it. Just vulnerability. All it needs is an imbalance of power.

And it is not a historical practice. It is ongoing today. Right now.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d2FSPdgEguk

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And it is not a historical practice. It is ongoing today. Right now.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d2FSPdgEguk

Yes, exactly. Therefore I have no doubt that future humans look back at us and think about us and our time as cruel and backward, just as we generally think of bygone times (most of us, anyway). Unless the future will be worse than the present, which is not impossible, of course.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Yes, exactly. Therefore I have no doubt that future humans look back at us and think about us and our time as cruel and backward, just as we generally think of bygone times (most of us, anyway). Unless the future will be worse than the present, which is not impossible, of course.

Oh, we will have a *lot* to answer for, in every country.
Most particularly the ones who are sure they are above reproach.

(And not just in the "What were they thinking?" Dept.)

No clean hands anywhere.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Humans exploiting the labor of other humans for their own benefit needs no explicit excuse.

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.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

No, I did not watch the video.

Why don't you ask any Black person what their historical opinon of blackface was? I'm sure you could perhaps find some old black man and tell him what you just told me.

I have talked about this with black people many times. Most agree with me. Some don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_yellowface

I did look at your link. I suggest you watch the video I linked to before passing judgement on it. Googling Simon Winchester to pass judgment on the value of the video you haven't seen might be considered pre-judging or prejudice.

Having a black fool in Amos and Andy was no different than having a white fool in Life of Riley or the many other shows comedy shows. You're looking really hard for racism and, of course, if you look hard enough you'll find it. There's lots of it around. I suspect it's impossible to grow up in the USA, regardless of your color, without learning some racism. What counts is what you do about that; whether you let it control you.

I think the "I have it right and if you can't see it you're wrong" mentality is getting more and more common in this country and it's hurting us. Although I remember being kind of like that when I was young too, probably about different issues than you.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I'm not so sure. I'm picking up a certain apologist vibe. Oh, "it's just the product of their times" so it's ok if people were racists. No, it's not ok. Let it stand so people can see what the mentality was like but I can certainly judge regardless of the times. There are certain principles that stand.

I'm not sure anyone is saying it's okay that people were racist in former times. This thread isn't about approving racism of the past or the present. It's about whether that should stop us from reading a book, or, if we do read it, how should we consider it. The alternatives are to rewrite history or forget history and I don't think either of those are good choices.

Barry