Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"Lovecrat was a racist."
"So what? Lots of people were racist back then."

Do you really not see that that is an attempt to excuse Lovecraft's racist tendencies as OK?

There's a difference between saying "It's bad that early 20th century American society was racist" and "It's bad that H.P. Lovecraft was racist". Of course he was: he was a product of that society. So yes, I do think that he can be "excused" for holding attitudes that were the norm in his society; it would have been surprising had he not done so.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's a difference between saying "It's bad that early 20th century American society was racist" and "It's bad that H.P. Lovecraft was racist". Of course he was: he grew up in that society. So yes, I do think that he can be "excused" for holding attitudes that were the norm in his society; it would have been surprising had he not done so.

Again; "of course he was: he grew up in that society" implies that there was no other choice. That he--nor anyone raised in that same society--could possibly have grown up to be anything but a racist. How do you explain many of Lovecraft's contemporaries releasing works that didn't blatantly reveal their ever-so-"normal" racist upbringing?

It seems to me that many authors raised during periods of time when ignorant racism ran rampant managed to write books that didn't "expose their upbringing." So many that it seems odd to me that we're wiling to excuse the few who couldn't.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

ONLY saying "that's just the way it was" is only useful if you're attempting to make past racism sound OK.

"Lovecraft was a racist."
"So what? Lots of people were racist back then."

Do you really not see that that is an attempt to excuse Lovecraft's racist tendencies as OK?

No I do not see it that way. That is why I asked you to explain. I would put it:-

"Lovecraft was a racist."
"Lots of people were racist back then."
"Unfortunate but true. I must recognize and remember this so that I can oppose injustice (not just racism} here and NOW"

Granted the power I bring to bear is on a nano scale and very limited.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's a difference between saying "It's bad that early 20th century American society was racist" and "It's bad that H.P. Lovecraft was racist". Of course he was: he was a product of that society. So yes, I do think that he can be "excused" for holding attitudes that were the norm in his society; it would have been surprising had he not done so.

Indeed.
Humans are a tribal species.
We are hardwired to see others as either "kin" or "alien".
The amazing thing is that over millennia we have developed cultures that have extended our internal baseline of "kin" beyond family and clan and region to encompass vast stretches of humanity (though not all) and even non-human species.

Our ancestors were what their times and societies made them. As are we. One should be careful about judging the past by our current standards because cultural standards continue to evolve and in time we will be judged. And not necessarily kindly.

As somebody prominently said: "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

The past is dead and immutable. They lived by their standards as we live by ours. Expecting anything else is fruitless. Learn from it if it is in you and hope the future will be kind.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Only if the book is about those "horrors", or is a historical account of the period. Plenty of "authentic" fiction books were written during racist/sexist times without token racism. What "authentic setting" was Lovecraft creating?

Lovecraft? He created mythical realities.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Lovecraft? He created mythical realities.

Yes, he did. So where exactly does "horror of the times" and/or "authentic setting" come into play RE his overt racism?

[HarryT]

The problem I have with your view, DD, is that when you look back at history, it seems that every generation thinks that its own moral standards are superior to those of its predecessors.

In Victorian England, for example, it was the mainstream view amongst the Great and the Good that it was their Christian duty to take up the "white man's burden" (as it was popularly known) and extend the civilizing influence of the British Empire to the poor benighted native peoples of Africa (as lampooned by Dickens in his novel "Bleak House", where Mrs Jellyby organises a charity whose goal is to provide completely unecessary industry to an obscure African tribe). The popular writer of African adventure stories, Sir Henry Rider Haggard, received almost universal condemnation, with outraged letters to the Times and speeches in Parliament condemning him, when he made the appalling suggestion that African peoples should have the right of self-determination. Had he no morals? Did he not see the benefits that Britain was bringing to these countries? And the irony today is that Haggard himself is condemned by some for his "racist" books!

It's a slippery slope indeed to condemn earlier generations for not sharing the moral standards of today. What, I wonder, will people of the 22nd century think about us?

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a slippery slope indeed to condemn earlier generations for not sharing the moral standards of today. What, I wonder, will people of the 22nd century think about us?

Especially since there are enough authors Today condone and whitewash injustices. These people we can do something about.

What can you do about Lovecraft? Except complain he had one set of norms for his time, while other authors rejected/were not socialized into those norms. You will find such dichotomies of norms in every society.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes, he did. So where exactly does "horror of the times" and/or "authentic setting" come into play RE his overt racism?

What? You are the one that called him a racist. You say that racism is bad at any time and should be judged. Not me.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The problem I have with your view, DD, is that when you look back at history, it seems that every generation thinks that its own moral standards are superior to those of its predecessors.

Well you'll be happy to know then, that that's not my view. My view has nothing to do with my generation's "moral superiority" when it comes to racism and/or slavery. It has always been wrong, and the idea that it is wrong didn't come from my ancestral or generational "distance." The idea has been present all along. There have ALWAYS been people who knew that racism/slavery was wrong; and opposed it--regardless of how (un)popular that stance might have been.

This picture that some of you are trying to paint of a life where racism was some inherent trait that everyone was born with (and no one knew it was wrong) is patently false. There were people of conscience who publicly opposed it in EVERY generation. It is not a viewpoint newly sprung from the hindsight afforded by a generational/social gap. There have always been moral standards that were superior to those who held racist views. Right from the beginning.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

What? You are the one that called him a racist. You say that racism is bad at any time and should be judged. Not me.

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

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a slippery slope indeed to condemn earlier generations for not sharing the moral standards of today. What, I wonder, will people of the 22nd century think about us?

Great examples about Dickens and Haggard Vs their times.

With commercial fiction you need to be careful to distinguish between the author and the characters. They may be writing to the market. It is not necessarily safe to assume the story reflects the author. Or, as Larry Niven and S.M. Stirling both separately said:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/892...se-who-mistake

“There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is ‘idiot’.”

We all bring our own point of view and backstory into our activities but when it comes to fiction, historical and modern, both, it is probably safer to take a step back and take the narrative on its own terms. Or just walk away.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

We all bring our own point of view and backstory into our activities but when it comes to fiction, historical and modern, both, it is probably safer to take a step back and take the narrative on its own terms. Or just walk away.

Hence, the main talking point presented by the OP:

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Have you ever stopped reading a book (or refused to start, based on what you've heard about it) based on such issues?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Great examples about Dickens and Haggard Vs their times.

With commercial fiction you need to be careful to distinguish between the author and the characters. They may be writing to the market. It is not necessarily safe to assume the story reflects the author.

And yet what does it say about an author who panders to the worst element of the zeitgeist? It may be an honest buck, but not an honorable one.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well you'll be happy to know then, that that's not my view. My view has nothing to do with my generation's "moral superiority" when it comes to racism and/or slavery. It has always been wrong, and the idea that it is wrong didn't come from my ancestral or generational "distance." The idea has been present all along. There have ALWAYS been people who knew that racism/slavery was wrong; and opposed it--regardless of how (un)popular that stance might have been.

Sure, unfortunately there have also been people who have always said
"[Insert Name] are superior to everyone else"
Exactly the same logic you are using here can be used to prove they are correct as well.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This picture that some of you are trying to paint of a life where racism was some inherent trait that everyone was born with (and no one knew it was wrong) is patently false. There were people of conscience who publicly opposed it in EVERY generation. It is not a viewpoint newly sprung from the hindsight afforded by a generational/social gap. There have always been moral standards that were superior to those who held racist views. Right from the beginning.

Tribalism is an inherent trait, we have always been cautious of "the other" it's been built in as a survival mechanism over many years and racism is tribalism done large so it's fair to say it's at least a common trait.
It may be fair to say that tribalism has, for the main, outlived it's usefulness, but trying to deny it exists is fairly pointless, check out any sport and you will find "my tribe is better than your tribe" thinking, it doesn't even have to be accurate or stand up to any kind of logic.

Moral standards are kind of tricky, and anyone claiming "my morals are better than your morals" should be able to back it up with something concrete. I think your on firm ground here, but you're in danger of falling back to the "it's always been done" justification instead of creating an argument that stands on it's own.