Racist Literature....?!

[mercy_mankind]

Is there such a thing as Racist Literature?!

[meh!]

Well... yeah. I mean, considering how severely racist all of western society has been for a long time, yes.

There's probably not too much a-typical racist literature, but someone like Conrad is obviously going to share a lot of the common racist views of his time. Though obviously he dissented on others.

nowadays I don't really know of any but i'm sure there will be some...

[justfrinny]

As many races were belittled by Europeans in the 18th century, it's influenced books, such as Robinson Crusoe.

But as meh! said, I don't know about books today.

[Mr Endon]

What, do you mean the likes of Mein Kampf? Yes, I guess there will always be racist literature, but very much underground. I mean, not something you'll find given pride of place at Barnes&Noble.

meh!, I'd expand your comment and dare say there's not one "society" which isn't racist. Why vilify the western society only, isn't all human nature filled with hatred towards the 'Other'? :)

[Bluenote]

For an example of racist literature read The Turner Diaries , though it is indeed a stretch to designate said volume as 'literature'.


B.

[LitNetIsGreat]

meh!, I'd expand your comment and dare say there's not one "society" which isn't racist. Why vilify the western society only, isn't all human nature filled with hatred towards the 'Other'? :)

Yes I'd say it is. It is quite a popular story in modern journalism too, events are often twisted and selected to fit a racist angle - I can quote some examples if anyone cares to disagree.

With literature though I think you have to be careful before you start judging writers as racist in the modern sense. It is important to look at the works in context. Conrad and Steinbeck were not racist in the context of their societies, though perhaps elements of their work are when viewed anachronistically through modern eyes.

[Mr Endon]

With literature though I think you have to be careful before you start judging writers as racist in the modern sense. It is important to look at the works in context. Conrad and Steinbeck were not racist in the context of their societies, though perhaps elements of their work are when viewed anachronistically through modern eyes.

That's a very good point, and I agree that anachronist readings can be very misleading. In those terms, however, it's impossible for there to have been racist literature before the Nazis:


racist
1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.

(@ www.etymonline.com)

Take homosexuality in literature as an example. The 'homosexual identity' only came about in the 20th century - so what to make of, say, The Picture of Dorian Gray? It's not about homosexuality per se - 'homosexuals' didn't really exist at the time, only 'sodomites' - but it's certainly something to be taken into account when reading it.

So even though when we read Conrad we do see some racist elements, there wasn't, like you said, racism per se at the time Conrad was writing...

Shall we call it proto-racism? 'Proto-racist literature'... Not as catchy, but sounds quite scholarly.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, good point about Dorian Gray, I absolutely cringe when I hear it described as a "homosexual novel" aside from the fact that they are reducing a solid work of art as some sort of sensationalist, throwaway read.

Going back to the question Agatha Christie wasn't been racist when she wrote the And Then There Were None under the original title, although quite rightly it was changed by the publisher's at a later date:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None

In the same way it is largely redundant to criticise the likes of Steinbeck for what today are inappropriate terms. It's also like having grandma round for tea, (not particularly my grandma any really) she is likely to use incorrect terms, quite embarrassing in public, my dad is the same sometimes, though none of them are racist intentionally or at all.

[Mr Endon]

I see what you mean. I guess Christie wasn't being racist, no, but I think there is indeed proto-racist literature in 20th century Western literature. The way I see it there must be a distinction between Christie's previous title and, say, Kipling's The Eyes of Asia.

I don't think Christie wasn't being what we now call 'racist' because she would have to be aware of the word's connotation (which it had, at least some, even at that time) and have chosen it precisely for that reason, which I'm not sure she did. I mean, it's a word, a convention, so it's different; for example, if you use the adjective 'denigrate' people won't assume you're a racist.

Kipling, on the other hand, was a staunch imperialist, a believer in the supremacy of the white race, particularly the 'British race', and The Eyes of Asia is basically imperialist propaganda. Even though it wasn't an unusual point of view in his time and you can't really call it 'racism' it's certainly much stronger than Christie's title, for instance. Kipling I believe was a 'proto-racist', whereas Christie probably wasn't.

[dafydd manton]

Similarly, accusations could be made about Dickens being anti-Semitic when writing about Fagin, but then, modern perception being what it is, would there have been the same fuss if he had been a Methodist, say. Obviously not. There are many modern critics who seem to be looking for a hidden agenda, as opposed to accepting that the writer was merely creating a good story. Kipling was accused of the same thing, but then, only by modern standards, not by the standards of the day.

[Mr Endon]

Similarly, accusations could be made about Dickens being anti-Semitic when writing about Fagin, but then, modern perception being what it is, would there have been the same fuss if he had been a Methodist, say. Obviously not. There are many modern critics who seem to be looking for a hidden agenda, as opposed to accepting that the writer was merely creating a good story. Kipling was accused of the same thing, but then, only by modern standards, not by the standards of the day.

Well, it's a complicated issue, of course. Haven't read much Dickens, can't argue about what I don't know. I do know a thing or two about Kipling, and when it comes to him I think that 'proto-racist' is a good compromise. He wasn't a fully-fledged racist because there was no such thing as 'racism'; on the other hand, there are some important factors to consider:
- not everyone in his time was an imperialist/supremacist, so it's not like he didn't have a choice (and, he was Indian, which I find incredible);
- although there was no 'racism' then, his worldview coincides exactly with what we would today call a racist one (hence the 'proto-' prefix);

One thing is to not have questioned what we now would call racism (which seems to be Christie's case), i.e. going with the flow. Bad enough as it might be, they're Dante's lukewarm at best. Quite another is actively rallying people for a cause that is now perceived as being racist. That's proto-racism.

[Tsuyoiko]

Black Mischief by Evelyn Waugh could be considered racist, but I didn't think so. He made everybody look like idiots.

[dafydd manton]

Well, it's a complicated issue, of course. Haven't read much Dickens, can't argue about what I don't know. I do know a thing or two about Kipling, and when it comes to him I think that 'proto-racist' is a good compromise. He wasn't a fully-fledged racist because there was no such thing as 'racism'; on the other hand, there are some important factors to consider:
- not everyone in his time was an imperialist/supremacist, so it's not like he didn't have a choice (and, he was Indian, which I find incredible);
- although there was no 'racism' then, his worldview coincides exactly with what we would today call a racist one (hence the 'proto-' prefix);

One thing is to not have questioned what we now would call racism (which seems to be Christie's case), i.e. going with the flow. Bad enough as it might be, they're Dante's lukewarm at best. Quite another is actively rallying people for a cause that is now perceived as being racist. That's proto-racism.

Some excellent points, but I still wonder about Kipling's attitude. Take Gunga Din as a case in point. Incidentally, he was born in India, but was not exactly Indian. His parents had been in India less than two years, and originated from Staffordshire - indeed the man himself was named after Rudyard Lake in Staffs. However, only minor detail. Your final paragraph is absolutely inarguable, and a sad reflection on what mankind can do to other people. Thanks for your reply.

[meh!]

Yes I'd say it is. It is quite a popular story in modern journalism too, events are often twisted and selected to fit a racist angle - I can quote some examples if anyone cares to disagree.

With literature though I think you have to be careful before you start judging writers as racist in the modern sense. It is important to look at the works in context. Conrad and Steinbeck were not racist in the context of their societies, though perhaps elements of their work are when viewed anachronistically through modern eyes.

I didn't do that. Conrad's society was racist, that's a fact. I don't don't judge Conrad by today's standards (Conrad's anti-empire stance was more progressive than many) but he was racist.There is no way that Heart of Darkness isn't racist. No more racist than most and we shouldn't despise him for it, he's a product of his times, but he was undoubtedly racist and so was his writing and that's what the TS was asking, I thought.

I was meaning that he wasn't 'a-typically' racist, simply as racist as everyone.

[Whifflingpin]

"Conrad's anti-empire stance was more progressive than many"

Really? I seem to recall posts on this forum arguing that "Heart of Darkness" is anti-Imperialist. Read it carefully. however, and you will see that it is a criticism of bad empires, empires without an Idea, if I remember correctly. Anyone living at the time would have recognized it instantly as a criticism of the Belgian Congo, as contrasted against the British Empire, which, by that time, was run with an Idea. "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea--"

This Idea that Conrad (or his character, Marlow) believed justified imperialism is exactly what Kipling also believed - "Send forth the best ye breed— Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need" And to Kipling, as to Conrad, technologically advanced nations who grabbed empires were "lesser breeds without the law" unless they followed the ideal of bettering the lot of subject peoples.

Of course, even the best of empires did not meet the standards that Kipling set for it. And it is, and always was, arguable whether it is right to conquer others even for their own good.

[Mr Endon]

Some excellent points, but I still wonder about Kipling's attitude. Take Gunga Din as a case in point. Incidentally, he was born in India, but was not exactly Indian. His parents had been in India less than two years, and originated from Staffordshire - indeed the man himself was named after Rudyard Lake in Staffs. However, only minor detail. Your final paragraph is absolutely inarguable, and a sad reflection on what mankind can do to other people. Thanks for your reply.

Oh yes, Kipling was a rather strange character and it's pretty much open for discussion, but that's the way I see it. Thanks, I'm glad I could be of help :)


"Conrad's anti-empire stance was more progressive than many"

Really? I seem to recall posts on this forum arguing that "Heart of Darkness" is anti-Imperialist. Read it carefully. however, and you will see that it is a criticism of bad empires, empires without an Idea, if I remember correctly. Anyone living at the time would have recognized it instantly as a criticism of the Belgian Congo, as contrasted against the British Empire, which, by that time, was run with an Idea.
[...]
This Idea that Conrad (or his character, Marlow) believed justified imperialism is exactly what Kipling also believed - "Send forth the best ye breed— Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need" And to Kipling, as to Conrad, technologically advanced nations who grabbed empires were "lesser breeds without the law" unless they followed the ideal of bettering the lot of subject peoples.

I'm under the impression that HoD has both been read as a colonialist and anti-colonialist text. I won't discuss this matter further, though, had a test about it and it was the worst of my 4 mini-essays done for that module!

But I can see how Conrad might have been more progressive than most of his contemporaries. For example, in the short story 'An Outpost of Progress', European colonialism/imperialism is clearly criticised.

[meh!]

"Conrad's anti-empire stance was more progressive than many"

Really? I seem to recall posts on this forum arguing that "Heart of Darkness" is anti-Imperialist. Read it carefully. however, and you will see that it is a criticism of bad empires, empires without an Idea, if I remember correctly. Anyone living at the time would have recognized it instantly as a criticism of the Belgian Congo, as contrasted against the British Empire, which, by that time, was run with an Idea. "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea--"

This Idea that Conrad (or his character, Marlow) believed justified imperialism is exactly what Kipling also believed - "Send forth the best ye breed— Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need" And to Kipling, as to Conrad, technologically advanced nations who grabbed empires were "lesser breeds without the law" unless they followed the ideal of bettering the lot of subject peoples.

Of course, even the best of empires did not meet the standards that Kipling set for it. And it is, and always was, arguable whether it is right to conquer others even for their own good.

That quote was supposed to imply, 'anti-British empire' which i think is reasonable?

[Whifflingpin]

"That quote was supposed to imply, 'anti-British empire' which i think is reasonable? "

Maybe, but I don't think so. As I said, in so far as Heart of Darkness criticises any particular empire, it is the Belgian empire, not the British empire that is condemned.

" "And this also," said Marlow suddenly, "has been one of the dark places of the earth."... "I was thinking of very old times, when the Romans first came here, nineteen hundred years ago--the other day. . . . Light came out of this river since--you say Knights? Yes; but it is like a running blaze on a plain, like a flash of lightning in the clouds. We live in the flicker--may it last as long as the old earth keeps rolling!" "

"This river" is the Thames, and the "light that came out of it" can be interpreted as some ideal of civilisation and service that Britain offered to the world at that time - a very fragile thing thing but good while it lasted - at least in Marlow's view.

This is contrasted with the Roman and contemporary European empires - "These chaps were not much account, really. They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force-- nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence..."

But "What saves us (i.e. the British empire) is efficiency--the devotion to efficiency....What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea"

** ** **


"But I can see how Conrad might have been more progressive than most of his contemporaries. For example, in the short story 'An Outpost of Progress', European colonialism/imperialism is clearly criticised."
Throughout the "age of empires," there was always a wide range of attitudes to imperialism, even amongst the dominant powers. Even at the height of British power there were many Britons who hated the idea of Empire, and at the other extreme there were those who thought it was the destiny of most of the world to be ruled by Britain. Conrad and Kipling both considered that most of the European empires were bad but that the British Empire, on balance, was justified by the good that it did. Both writers, but especially Kipling, were quite prepared to criticise many aspects of the Empire, and to warn against the tendency to revert to the barbarity shown by other European nations.

[Buh4Bee]

To return to the original question about racist literature the Sun Also Rises by Hemingway comes to mind. He was overly antisemitic when he was describing Robert Cohn.

"He had a hard, Jewish, stubborn, streak." Chapter 2

When I read this part, I had to pause and go back to make sure what I read was correct. It was, so I had to remember time and context. Despite this part of the book, I greatly enjoyed it.

[five-trey]

I'm pleasently surprised to see Huckleberry Finn excluded from this discussion.

[amarna]

The Merchant of Venice seems to me being something like an anti-semitic tendentious play.

[PoeticPassions]

I just want to point out that just because the word "racism" didn't exist before 1935 or so, doesn't mean that the feelings and ideas that drive racism did not exist. We gave a definition to something that has been around since the beginning of civilization... or whatnot.

[Whifflingpin]

"We gave a definition to something that has been around since the beginning of civilization... or whatnot."
More like whatnot. The assumptions that our tribe is The People, and that everyone else is slightly less than human, seem to be pretty early.

Has anyone mentioned the Book of Esra yet? That is highly racist.

[Gretchen]

Marlowe's "The Jew of Malta" sounds like a very anti-semitic play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jew_of_Malta

[JohnAvg]

The work of some authors who considered as 'racists' reflects their beliefs such as antisemitism, for example HP Lovecraft.

I don't think though that an author ,who wants his work to be considered at least decent, should focalize on 'hating others' rather than portray racistic behaviors which of course is permissible.

[Drkshadow03]

This was a really interesting discussion. I agree that just because racism in our own modern sense of the word didn't exist with that meaning back then doesn't mean it wasn't racism. Does anyone ever get bothered by these elements?

I think a recent post I did on the blog addresses many of these points: What do we owe our own values? (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/what-do-we-owe-the-art-the-past-and-our-own-tastes/)

[PabloQ]

To me, there's a big difference between racist literature and racially insensitive literature. Stereotypes have existed throughout history and carry over into literature. That doesn't make the work racist. To be racist, the work has to purposely try to drive a wedge between one race and another or to promote the continued mass hatred of one race by another. I'm not aware of any work that intentionally meets that definition. I have, however, been offended by some racially insensitive terms in literary classics.

For example, in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, African-American workers are referred to as bucks. You can't get any more offensive than portraying a person as an animal, but I'm looking at it from today's perspective. Sinclair is simpy protraying the ignorance of his day and in 1905, the view that black people were greatly inferior than white people and in this case even lower than Lithuanian immigrants. That doesn't make Sinclair right, but it does reflect the ugliness of the country's history in regard to race.

Which brings us to the "N" word. For some reason, I never found that particular word offensive in Huckleberry Finn because it seemed as though the culture in which Finn was raised, there was no other term to use for a black man. The friendship between Huck and Jim seemed to outweigh the over use of the term. However, when I read the same word in Hemingway's story "The Killers", it seemed gratuitous and demeaning. By the time Hemingway wrote the story, Negro was certainly a more appropriate term for an African-American, but Papa just used the word to distinguish the cook from everyone else. It caught me off guard and I thought it was racist at the time.

Which bring me to The Sound and the Fury. Ai-yi-yi. The "N" word abounds and one character in particular, Jason Compson, is as racist and you can get. He has a particular venom for the entire race and he spews it liberally. The character is clearly racist, but the work, I think, is not. I don't think Faulkner is holding Jason Compson up as the paragon of human behavior because Jason is despicable on many levels. I don't think too many people are going to pick him as their role model and adopt his attitude toward people in general, let alone black people. Some of the strongest racist sentiments that I've ever read are in this novel, and yet I would not portray the entire work as racist. I don't think Faulkner's intent is to promote this thinking into broader society.

Finally, I want to offer up To Kill a Mockingbird. Some lit netters like the book, many do not. I liked it because it views racial injustice through the eyes of a child. To me, it promotes the idea that if we teach our children to view the world as a kaleidoscope of colors, beliefs, and ideas, we can erase the barriers of hate between people. I, for one, was deeply affected by it. I think it has to do with the point in my life when I read it and it helped me change my views toward racial prejudice.

Last note: I was looking at some books in an antique store once. You know, pick up the stack and sort through them looking for treasure. I stumbled across a book entitled, "The Klansman." My first reaction was "What?". Having thumbed through it to see if it was for real, I would say it qualifies as racist literature. It was the only book I can recall holding in my hand worthy of burning.

[Remarkable]

The Merchant of Venice seems to me being something like an anti-semitic tendentious play.

Exactly my point:). If there is true "proto-racist" literature, let's start earlier than Conrad. I found "The Merchant of Venice" simply racist. I understand that it was the time and the general understanding on the matter, but then, that could be said for most books and times.

About Huckleberry Finn, I have always been surprised why it is widely considered as a racist book. I view it as a thoroughly anti-racist book. Twain expresses his views in the most delicate and discreet manner, ridiculing the racist, white population. I rember Huck arriving at Tom's aunt and telling her he was late because the steam engine of his ship had exploded. Then she says:

"Good Lord, was anyone hurt?!"

Huck answers:

"No ma'm, just a couple of black people."

This clearly states that in that society, coloured people were not considered as actual persons.

Huck's and Tom's ridiculous quest to free Jim is in itself a sign of the liberation of though that should come to the new generation. Maybe for the time Twain was not able to express his views freely and that's why he chose irony and symbols. And, other than that, it's an extremely funny book.

[Helga]

there is a children's book, I don't remember who wrote it called '10 little negro boys' and it's a countdown to one, they all die. it was just re published here before christmas and there was a lot of anger about it people didn't approve of it because of it's racism. also my son just got another book called 'Tralli' about an Eskimo boy with a tail who ended up on a southern island were the negro parents bullied him, and pulled his tail. again the words are not the nicest in this book, and a bit on the racist side...

[Whifflingpin]

"there is a children's book, I don't remember who wrote it called '10 little negro boys' and it's a countdown to one, they all die."

10 little nigger boys was a popular nursery rhyme when I was young, but it was simply amusing doggerel, without racist connotations. Certainly, my mother, who was quite happy to recite the rhyme, would have been very angry if I'd called an actual person a nigger. Context is everything.

(Agatha Christie wrote a thriller of the same name, in which characters died off - the title was taken directly from the nursery rhyme - none of the characters was negro.)

[Helga]

I remember it being popular when I was a kid but when it was re published people got very angry here cause it's not right in today's society they thought, it was on the news for days.

[PabloQ]

With literature though I think you have to be careful before you start judging writers as racist in the modern sense. It is important to look at the works in context. Conrad and Steinbeck were not racist in the context of their societies, though perhaps elements of their work are when viewed anachronistically through modern eyes.

I'm a little perplexed by the reference to Steinbeck. Are you sure you have the right reference? If you mean Steinbeck, which works have the elements of racism you refer to? I haven't read them.

[Zee.]

Racist themes in a novel, a writer's exploration of racism, doesn't make them or the novel itself racist.

[Mathor]

I'm a little perplexed by the reference to Steinbeck. Are you sure you have the right reference? If you mean Steinbeck, which works have the elements of racism you refer to? I haven't read them.

A lot of Steinbeck's works have negative connotations for African Americans, most notably Of Mice and Men , though I think those works should be taken in the context of the time period, much in the way you'd take the works of William Faulkner (which are not racist)

[PabloQ]

A lot of Steinbeck's works have negative connotations for African Americans, most notably Of Mice and Men , though I think those works should be taken in the context of the time period, much in the way you'd take the works of William Faulkner (which are not racist)
Faulkner's works aren't racist? Read Jason Compson's chapter (3) in The Sound and the Fury. Some of the strongest white supremecist sentiment you are ever going to read. That doesn't make Faulkner a racist, but his characters are, which in turn reflects on the work. If I had to point a finger at the racist among Hemingway, Steinbeck, and Faulkner, I'd go with Faulkner. Hemingway is probably the actual racist, but Faulkner's works qualify him. I still don't buy Steinbeck. It's been years since I've read Of Mice and Men, but I don't think it qualifies.

[Sanjar of Akkad]

Let's see. I'll have to mention Jack London. He had a darwinistic wordview which is reflected repeatedly in his works. Robert E. Howard and Lovecraft also had varying degrees of racial wordviews during their careers.