Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Now discounting your sole reply, the question is if you find yourself disagreeing with my comment?

Of course I do.

Originally Posted by DNSB

Are we stuck with "THE ONE TRUE CONSCIENCE"? Perhaps another term should be used instead of "good conscience"? Preferably, one that is less personal and more quantifiable.

You're free to label what I'm calling "good conscience" anything you like. "Good conscience" works for me just fine.

[4691mls]

In an era before modern electronic communications provided easy access to a variety of opinions from around the world, or even before widespread literacy, if you were born and raised in a culture where everyone you knew - parents, neighbors, teachers, religious and community leaders all believed and taught that people of a particular race, sex, religion, or any other category were inferior to your own, how would you know that another view was even possible?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

In an era before modern electronic communications provided easy access to a variety of opinions from around the world, or even before widespread literacy, if you were born and raised in a culture where everyone you knew - parents, neighbors, teachers, religious and community leaders all believed and taught that people of a particular race, sex, religion, or any other category were inferior to your own, how would you know that another view was even possible?

You'll need to hop in a time machine and ask the people who managed to figure out on their own (against all odds, apparently) that there were other viewpoints.

Did you never question a single thing that your parents, neighbors, teachers, religious and community leaders taught you growing up? Some people are just capable of independent thought, I guess.

[barryem]

When I was a kid living in Texas, mostly in all-white neighborhoods, everyone I knew believed that whites were superior to blacks. Most of them didn't hate blacks or wish them ill. It was just the norm. There were a few kids, very few, who, when we were alone, would discuss whether it was wrong but even most of them thought it was just the way of the world.

The only reason those discussions even came up was because my family was Jewish and taught us that everyone was the same. Even that had it's limits. They were shocked when, as a teen, I asked a Mexican girl for a date. I suspect they would have forbidden it but they were saved from that by her parents, who did forbid her from going out with me.

We were also the only Jewish family in any of the neighborhoods I lived in and it never seemed to matter to any one that we were Jewish. If we'd been black my guess is that most people wouldn't have cared, unless they were worried about property values. But some would have cared and would have acted badly and the rest probably wouldn't have interfered. This was in the 1940's and 1950s.

These weren't bad people. They didn't hate anyone. They were people who thought the way their parents thought, as were their parents. Hating them is rather pointless.

Barry

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You'll need to hop in a time machine and ask the people who managed to figure out on their own (against all odds, apparently) that there were other viewpoints.

Did you never question a single thing that your parents, neighbors, teachers, religious and community leaders taught you growing up? Some people are just capable of independent thought, I guess.

I never said I personally didn't question anything. I'm just saying I could see how people who have only been exposed to one way of life might have a hard time envisioning other ways if they had never heard of them.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by barryem

When I was a kid living in Texas, mostly in all-white neighborhoods, everyone I knew believed that whites were superior to blacks. Most of them didn't hate blacks or wish them ill. It was just the norm. There were a few kids, very few, who, when we were alone, would discuss whether it was wrong but even most of them thought it was just the way of the world.

The only reason those discussions even came up was because my family was Jewish and taught us that everyone was the same. Even that had it's limits. They were shocked when, as a teen, I asked a Mexican girl for a date. I suspect they would have forbidden it but they were saved from that by her parents, who did forbid her from going out with me.

We were also the only Jewish family in any of the neighborhoods I lived in and it never seemed to matter to any one that we were Jewish. If we'd been black my guess is that most people wouldn't have cared, unless they were worried about property values. But some would have cared and would have acted badly and the rest probably wouldn't have interfered. This was in the 1940's and 1950s.

These weren't bad people. They didn't hate anyone. They were people who thought the way their parents thought, as were their parents. Hating them is rather pointless.

Barry

Barry, I know what you mean. I am younger than you but still old enough that my childhood was in the pre-internet, pre-cable-news era. My family moved to a rural area which was rather isolated and traditional. People were just generally somewhat ignorant about some aspects of life in the wider world.

[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.

[Pajamaman]

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.

Do you consider Lincoln a man of conscience?

[DNSB]

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.

I spent the first years of my life in small, rural, non-white communities where hunting/trapping/fishing was a way of life. Average population ranged from less than 400 to 1500 with the white population in the low teens in some, less than 10 even counting my family in others. What I remain aware of from that time is that whites don't have a monopoly on racism. The inhabitants of these communities were quite willing to dislike each other based on tribal and ethnic divisions. Some of the oral histories were pretty nasty going back to the Little Ice Age.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I spent the first years of my life in small, rural, non-white communities where hunting/trapping/fishing was a way of life. Average population ranged from less than 400 to 1500 with the white population in the low teens in some, less than 10 even counting my family in others. What I remain aware of from that time is that whites don't have a monopoly on racism. The inhabitants of these communities were quite willing to dislike each other based on tribal and ethnic divisions. Some of the oral histories were pretty nasty going back to the Little Ice Age.

Absolutely. Anyone who believes another race or ethnic group is of lesser inherent worth than their own ....

[4691mls]

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.

Was there any adult you knew in your town when you were growing up who believed racism was wrong and shared this belief with you? Did you read books or newspapers, or see news reports about racism that may have influenced your views? I'm not trying to be snarky or insulting; I am actually curious. My own parents (who did not originate in the small town) were pretty liberal on social issues and I know they influenced my views.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Absolutely. Anyone who believes another race or ethnic group is of lesser inherent worth than their own ....

Don't you think that it's perhaps a teeny bit presumptuous to appoint yourself the sole arbiter of what constitutes the "correct" way to think, and to say that everyone else, throughout history, who has ever held a different opinion, is wrong?

"Good conscience" is normally defined as acting in a manner that is in accordance with your own views of what constitutes good, not that your own views are the one and only possible "correct" interpretation.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't you think that it's perhaps a teeny bit presumptuous to appoint yourself the sole arbiter of what constitutes the "correct" way to think, and to say that everyone else, throughout history, who has ever held a different opinion, is wrong?

Absolutely not. I am only the sole arbiter of what constitutes the "correct" way FOR ME to think. You're free to do the same for yourself. Consequently, we are each free to think the other "wrong" (as we clearly already do). So either we're both being presumptuous, or we're merely having a difference of opinion. You decide.

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Good conscience" is normally defined as acting in a manner that is in accordance with your own views of what constitutes good.

Then in my opinion, the "normal" definition of "Good Conscience" is pointless. Because every human in the whole of history has acted in accordance with their own views of what constitutes right/wrong. Hence, every human in the whole of history is a person of good conscience under the "normal" definition of "Good Conscience." So what's the point of having such a term if it encompasses every human ever? I prefer to use a definition that actually distinguishes someone being labeled as such, rather than use one that's merely a synonym for "person who breathed air." Even if said definition only works for me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Then in my opinion, the "normal" definition of "Good Conscience" is pointless. Because every human in the whole of history has acted in accordance with their own views of what constitutes right/wrong.

Isn't that precisely what a "conscience" is - an inner voice that tells you what's right and what's wrong? I'm afraid I don't have your faith in human nature: 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.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Isn't that precisely what a "conscience" is - an inner voice that tells you what's right and what's wrong? I'm afraid I don't have your faith in human nature: 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.

This reminds me of various discussions about checking a Terms of Agreement box when buying ebooks if you know you plan to violate the terms in some way....