Mark Twain and racism

[G L Wilson]

Was Mark Twain a racist?

[Alexander III]

Does anyone truly care?

[G L Wilson]

Does anyone truly care?

It's current.

[AuntShecky]

Absolutely not (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59356).

[G L Wilson]

Only the other day a bowdlerised Huck Finn was brought out. It's current.

But if you mean, Aunty, that Mark Twain was not a racist no matter his language, then I tend to agree.

P.S. I read the post or skimmed it, to put it precisely, just now. I think that demonising the use of one word is illiterate in the extreme in this case.

[endgame]

no. no. he wasnt this way. he was just miserunderstood, as Conrad, in a ceratin sense. @G L wilson: do you think he was racist?

[Ole Miss Rebel]

No, he was not.

[Alexander III]

It's current.

What I meant was, what does a writers morality have to do with anything?

Should we expect writers to be beacons of morality? Should we shun writers who were revulsive in their behavior?

What does it matter if he was racist or not?

Lets say he even was a a racist and not only was he racist but he wanted to get some genocide going. Does that change anything? Would you stop reading his books?

I mean Spenser is notorious for having wanted to enact a mini genocide upon the irish people in order to end their rebelliousness and finally place them under acquiescent english rule. His racism didn't interfere with him becoming one of England's greatest poets.

Also morality changes. Oscar Wilde was dismissed due to his homosexuality. Nowadays that is hardly a moral crime (in the west), but for the Victorians it was as bad as murder.

So yea, to not read or alter ones literary views about Mark twain because he was a racist is no different to alter ones views about Wilde because he was gay.

So what I meant was, nobody truly cares if Mark Twain was racist, just like nobody truly cares what were his sexual preferences, his shoe size, his favorite color, weather he preferred a single vented or double vented suit, ect.

[G L Wilson]

What I meant was, what does a writers morality have to do with anything?

Should we expect writers to be beacons of morality? Should we shun writers who were revulsive in their behavior?

What does it matter if he was racist or not?

Lets say he even was a a racist and not only was he racist but he wanted to get some genocide going. Does that change anything? Would you stop reading his books?

I mean Spenser is notorious for having wanted to enact a mini genocide upon the irish people in order to end their rebelliousness and finally place them under acquiescent english rule. His racism didn't interfere with him becoming one of England's greatest poets.

Also morality changes. Oscar Wilde was dismissed due to his homosexuality. Nowadays that is hardly a moral crime (in the west), but for the Victorians it was as bad as murder.

So yea, to not read or alter ones literary views about Mark twain because he was a racist is no different to alter ones views about Wilde because he was gay.

So what I meant was, nobody truly cares if Mark Twain was racist, just like nobody truly cares what were his sexual preferences, his shoe size, his favorite color, weather he preferred a single vented or double vented suit, ect.

Very good. I don't agree. Art must be moral among other things, not the least is that it should be true.

[Alexander III]

Very good. I don't agree. Art must be moral among other things, not the least is that it should be true.

So you don't read literature that is amoral or composed by amoral men?
Why must art be moral?

Art should be true? The very concept of art, is that is is artificial and affected, it deviates from reality.

Pessoa says it best

The poet is a faker
Who's so good at his act
He even fakes the pain
Of pain he feels in fact.

[G L Wilson]

So you don't read literature that is amoral or composed by amoral men?

I don't read the literature of the truly vile. H. P. Lovecraft was thrown out by me for obvious reasons.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So what I meant was, nobody truly cares if Mark Twain was racist, just like nobody truly cares what were his sexual preferences, his shoe size, his favorite color, weather he preferred a single vented or double vented suit, ect.
How do you know no one cares, and how can you make such a claim.

Still, no one can really know if Twain was racist or not, no matter how concrete statements of assurance arethrown around.

[G L Wilson]

How do you know no one cares, and how can you make such a claim.

Still, no one can really know if Twain was racist or not, no matter how concrete statements of assurance arethrown around.

Jesus was a moron but no-one can ever really know, no matter how many assurances are given of his good nature. Twain I know, he was a good man for all his faults. I love him.

[Alexander III]

How do you know no one cares, and how can you make such a claim.

Still, no one can really know if Twain was racist or not, no matter how concrete statements of assurance arethrown around.

Well I am sure there are some people out there who care if he was a racist, but for the most part I don't see why anyone should care. Though if you have a reason for particularly caring, I ask that you share, so that I might question my assumption.

Oh and I obviously know that no one cares, because I conducted a poll, questioning millions of people throughout 35 different nations. Technically 36, now that Southern Somalia has gained independence. Or maybe I said something based on how I perceive the world, and I said it despite the fact that I had not empirically tested it; like a normal human being tends to do in conversation. It's a tough call as to which is the answer but I leave that mystery to you.

[G L Wilson]

Well I am sure there are some people out there who care if he was a racist, but for the most part I don't see why anyone should care. Though if you have a reason for particularly caring, I ask that you share, so that I might question my assumption.

Oh and I obviously know that no one cares, because I conducted a poll, questioning millions of people throughout 35 different nations. Technically 36, now that Southern Somalia has gained independence. Or maybe I said something based on how I perceive the world, and I said it despite the fact that I had not empirically tested it; like a normal human being tends to do in conversation. It's a tough call as to which is the answer but I leave that mystery to you.

If they don't care, they should care.

[Alexander III]

If they don't care, they should care.

you keep saying that art is this and that, and it should be moral and such, but why -

why should we care weather he was racist or not?

It is rather useless saying that we should care without saying why...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well I am sure there are some people out there who care if he was a racist, but for the most part I don't see why anyone should care. Though if you have a reason for particularly caring, I ask that you share, so that I might question my assumption.

Oh and I obviously know that no one cares, because I conducted a poll, questioning millions of people throughout 35 different nations. Technically 36, now that Southern Somalia has gained independence. Or maybe I said something based on how I perceive the world, and I said it despite the fact that I had not empirically tested it; like a normal human being tends to do in conversation. It's a tough call as to which is the answer but I leave that mystery to you.
But we aren't having a nonchalant conversation, though, are we? We're typing, and one usually has more time to think about what they're writing. And even if we were casually conversing, such a comment would make me raise an eyebrow. Sorry for pointing out your error.

In any case, I'm of a dual mindset when it comes to authors and their work, and how much we should worry about the author's ideas, intents, etc. I don't think we should put a ton of stock in what they may have thought, but I don't think we should completely discount it, either, as it can ultimately help us better understand the piece of literature from one perspective. To totally discount the author's beliefs (as with most anything) seems incredibly short-sighted.

Knowing whether or not Twain was racist just gives us that much more knowledge about the person who wrote Huck Finn, and thus that much more knowledge about Huck Finn. It's really that simple. Now, I'm not saying that we should only look at a piece of literature through the lens of authorial intent; I am a big advocate for art's for art's sake and letting the work speak completely for itself, but there's no reason to analyze in one exclusive way.

[stlukesguild]

Art must be moral among other things, not the least is that it should be true.

Art must be "moral"? And who decides what is "moral"? Carlo Gesualdo was one of the most influential composers of the Renaissance... writing beautiful and powerfully expressive choral music...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVW8GCnr9-I

he achieved this in spite of having brutally murdered his wife and her lover:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gesualdo

The painter, Caravaggio pandered erotic images of underage boys to high-ranking clergy. He was notorious for his temper and had a long police record. He eventually murdered a man in a duel over a tennis match. In spite of this, he is credited with almost single-handedly having brought about the Baroque in art, and painted numerous masterpieces such as:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6139/5975488283_a8d5d552ba.jpg

What has morality to do with art? One might as well judge a work of art based upon science, politics, theology, or astrology. It was the notion that art could and should be judged upon such external non-art criteria that led to the development of art pour l'art.

[Drkshadow03]

So you don't read literature that is amoral or composed by amoral men?
Why must art be moral?

Art should be true? The very concept of art, is that is is artificial and affected, it deviates from reality.

Pessoa says it best

The poet is a faker
Who's so good at his act
He even fakes the pain
Of pain he feels in fact.

Eh, this is confusing the "how art means" with the "what it means." How it means is artificial and affected, but art should have some relationship with reality. So, yes, art should have some sort of "truth" to reveal.

[Ecurb]

"Injun' Joe" seems like a racist caricature to me. Perhaps GL Wilson thinks "racism" refers only to bigotry against black people.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Eh, this is confusing the "how art means" with the "what it means." How it means is artificial and affected, but art should have some relationship with reality. So, yes, art should have some sort of "truth" to reveal.
I think art should (or can) reveal a truth, not the truth.

[G L Wilson]

stlukesguild, Caravaggio was a beautiful monster. Is the monster not reflected in his art? He soars but he is not sublime. Is genius beyond your comprehension? Is the cry "The author is dead" not all too convenient? One way or the other you will have your idol, and I will have my regret.

[OrphanPip]

Mark Twain's writings are racist in the mild caricatured and paternalistic way one would expect from even the most liberal of 19th century writers. As a person of his age Twain was highly critical of violent and dehumanizing racism, he was also a vocal opponent of the Belgian rape of the Congo.

I think it is relevant though. Art does not have to be moral, as anyone knows morality changes. However, the value of art is also subjective to an extent, and to expect anyone to read a work that dehumanizes them and treats them as an animal at every turn and expect that person to step back and appreciate the "beauty" of the work is absurd. I don't think there is beauty in something well crafted but repugnant in its message. If Mein Kampf were written by a far better writer technically, but its message remained the same, it would not suddenly become a powerful work of art.

Spenser ends up a good writer despite his vehement anti-Catholicism, which I feel weakens his work when it pokes through. A character like Duessa, who screams Catholicism, seems more like a poor, hackneyed caricature next to Spenser's more complex allegorical characters who represent abstract concepts other than evil Catholics. (of course she also represents duality and deceit)

[PeterL]

Mark Twain was not a racist.

[Jurt]

What I meant was, what does a writers morality have to do with anything?

Should we expect writers to be beacons of morality? Should we shun writers who were revulsive in their behavior?

What does it matter if he was racist or not?

Lets say he even was a a racist and not only was he racist but he wanted to get some genocide going. Does that change anything? Would you stop reading his books?

I mean Spenser is notorious for having wanted to enact a mini genocide upon the irish people in order to end their rebelliousness and finally place them under acquiescent english rule. His racism didn't interfere with him becoming one of England's greatest poets.

Also morality changes. Oscar Wilde was dismissed due to his homosexuality. Nowadays that is hardly a moral crime (in the west), but for the Victorians it was as bad as murder.

So yea, to not read or alter ones literary views about Mark twain because he was a racist is no different to alter ones views about Wilde because he was gay.

So what I meant was, nobody truly cares if Mark Twain was racist, just like nobody truly cares what were his sexual preferences, his shoe size, his favorite color, weather he preferred a single vented or double vented suit, ect.
Of course it matters if Mark Twain was a racist. This doesn't necessarily mean that Mark Twain's work shouldn't be read any longer but it does mean that one ought to be aware of latent racism for instance. So it makes quite senses to talk about such tendencies and criticize them to get a notion. But what shouldn't be done is, to my mind, alter them. Literature must be preserved as it has been written down.
In general everything can be read even Hitler if the reader is mature to reflex what he had read. And by the by it can actually contribute to a closer understanding of society in which the work was composed.

[Pierre Menard]

I'm with Alexander and St Lukes.

Now, I understand if someone doesn't want to read something that is infused with racist hate speech or say pro-nazi messages, but what I don't like is when people refuse to read something because the author is a nazi or racist or whatever, even if the work is NOT infused with those messages.

Ezra Pound was a fascist, but I absolutely plan to read his poetry as he's been described as a fine poet. What does his support for Mussolini have to do with his very fine poetry?

I plan to read Dante, but what does the fact that the majority of his beliefs are not something I find all that great have to do with his supposed incredible talent?

Neruda was a staunch commie, an ideology I find ridiculously stupid, again, what does that have to do with his very great talent?

[Jurt]

I'm with Alexander and St Lukes.

Now, I understand if someone doesn't want to read something that is infused with racist hate speech or say pro-nazi messages, but what I don't like is when people refuse to read something because the author is a nazi or racist or whatever, even if the work is NOT infused with those messages.

Ezra Pound was a fascist, but I absolutely plan to read his poetry as he's been described as a fine poet. What does his support for Mussolini have to do with his very fine poetry?

I plan to read Dante, but what does the fact that the majority of his beliefs are not something I find all that great have to do with his supposed incredible talent?

Neruda was a staunch commie, an ideology I find ridiculously stupid, again, what does that have to do with his very great talent?

I conceive that a political opinion is an essential part of a human being. And this part is able to influence, even if it is maybe only subconscious, work of an author because what they write, comes from their minds. For instance I can't impartially write on the issue of living conditions in the 19th if I consider a part of society is not worth to live.

But to punctuate my thesis: Everyone ought to read everything he or she likes but one should be vigilant and have enough distance to the work.

[JCamilo]

If Troll is a race, then Mark Twain was a racist like me.

[Cunninglinguist]

Why must art be moral?
…
Well I am sure there are some people out there who care if he was a racist, but for the most part I don't see why anyone should care. Though if you have a reason for particularly caring, I ask that you share, so that I might question my assumption.

All art attempts to portray and sometimes (in)validate an ideology, which is inherently moral. We care, or we should care, in that understanding the author’s beliefs supposedly deepens our apprehension of the ideology portrayed by the art. Art can portray conflicting ideologies, or attempt to expose the faults of a certain ideology, but art must nevertheless be morally loaded.


In any case, I'm of a dual mindset when it comes to authors and their work, and how much we should worry about the author's ideas, intents, etc.

It is a good question. Should we view art as an expression in itself, with its own life, meaning, etc., existing sui generis? Or should we view it as portraying the artist’s ideology? In the latter case, understanding the artist will certainly yield more fruitful interpretations, and will ultimately let us attach a greater deal of meaning to the piece of art, which is perhaps the chief standard for measuring the merit of art.


Art must be "moral"? And who decides what is "moral"? Carlo Gesualdo was one of the most influential composers of the Renaissance... writing beautiful and powerfully expressive choral music...
...
The painter, Caravaggio pandered erotic images of underage boys to high-ranking clergy. He was notorious for his temper and had a long police record. He eventually murdered a man in a duel over a tennis match. In spite of this, he is credited with almost single-handedly having brought about the Baroque in art, and painted numerous masterpieces

I think you misunderstood GL. He’s not saying that it must conform to someone else’s notion of morality, but that it asserts its own.

Music is hardly an exception; much of it deals with moral themes, and affirms and denies certain (moral) beliefs by depicting them in certain musical lights. Even music of the Spice Girls, for example, avers values about sexuality among other things. Perhaps music genres like Techno avoid any sort of moral commitment, although I am even doubtful of this. Also, I’m not sure how a painting portraying Jesus is supposed to exemplify Caravaggio’s amorality, or the amorality of anything else … the (moral) theme is quite overt.


Race cannot be defined, culture can.

Race can be defined fairly easily, whether that definition is ultimately significant of anything or not is another question. But that’s a can of beans opened up in another thread.

[Pierre Menard]

I conceive that a political opinion is an essential part of a human being. And this part is able to influence, even if it is maybe only subconscious, work of an author because what they write, comes from their minds. For instance I can't impartially write on the issue of living conditions in the 19th if I consider a part of society is not worth to live.


Does every conversation you have, have something to do with your political beliefs? Does everything you say/do involve your political beliefs? No.
In the same way, if you are a writer, does every single aspect of you always enter your writing? It doesn't.

Take Borges for example. A man who was a political conservative for the most part. But the vast majority of his writing (that I've read) has very little to do with his politics. His sonnets for example are beautiful short pieces open to people of all different beliefs. As are his short stories. Does he occasionally involve his political beliefs? Probably. But are his writings dominated by it? No. I find it ridiculous that someone would (and I know many people who do this) would choose not to read him because they find his personal political views repugnant.

In the same way that I find Pound's and Neruda's political beliefs repugnant, but it would be ridiculous of me to discard the vast majority of their quality writing because I disagree with their personal views.

Not that I'm accusing you of doing this, but I do know a lot of folk who do refuse to read authors for such reason. I just find it silly.



All art attempts to portray and sometimes (in)validate an ideology

Ahh...since when?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

All art attempts to portray and sometimes (in)validate an ideology, which is inherently moral.
I have to disagree. I do these little abstract doodles while professors are lecturing, and I assure you they do nothing of the kind. :)

It is a good question. Should we view art as an expression in itself, with its own life, meaning, etc., existing sui generis? Or should we view it as portraying the artist’s ideology? In the latter case, understanding the artist will certainly yield more fruitful interpretations, and will ultimately let us attach a greater deal of meaning to the piece of art, which is perhaps the chief standard for measuring the merit of art.
I think it's definitely both.

I usually prefer to let a piece of art speak for itself, but I also see the merits of looking at the author, bringing in ideas outside the field of English and literature, etc.

Stlukes and Alexander: I'm wondering, do you believe we should always look at art for art's sake?

[Jurt]

by the way a little anecdote:
"Balzac was a highly conservative Royalist; in many ways, he is the antipode to Victor Hugo's democratic republicanism.[98] Nevertheless, his keen insight regarding working-class conditions earned him the esteem of many Socialists and Marxists. Engels said that Balzac was his favorite writer." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor%C3%A9_de_Balzac#Politics

[stlukesguild]

I think you misunderstood GL. He’s not saying that it must conform to someone else’s notion of morality, but that it asserts its own.

Music is hardly an exception; much of it deals with moral themes, and affirms and denies certain (moral) beliefs by depicting them in certain musical lights. Even music of the Spice Girls, for example, avers values about sexuality among other things. Perhaps music genres like Techno avoid any sort of moral commitment, although I am even doubtful of this. Also, I’m not sure how a painting portraying Jesus is supposed to exemplify Caravaggio’s amorality, or the amorality of anything else … the (moral) theme is quite overt.

The obvious question, then, becomes who could any work of art become "immoral" if it conveys the moral belief of the artist? To an extent, I agree, in the sense that one of the primary values of art is that it offers a window upon the experiences, values, standards, beliefs, etc... of individuals often quite different from ourselves. The only "immoral" art by such a measure would be that art which panders to the morals of others that the artist doesn't share... ie. art that conveys a false PC attitude. But again... how do we recognize a feigned moral stance any more than a feigned love (the very basis of many older poetry cycles)?

I'm not overly thrilled with the notion that all art coveys a moral stance any more than I like the dated adage that all art is political or the Freudian notion that all art reveals or is a mirror of the artist.

[Jurt]

I'm not overly thrilled with the notion that all art coveys a moral stance any more than I like the dated adage that all art is political or the Freudian notion that all art reveals or is a mirror of the artist.

This is what i wanted to say

[Cunninglinguist]

Ahh...since when?

The beginning of “art” itself, I would argue. For example, we can infer from “primitive” art values and beliefs of the artists, and by extension a (very) crude idea of how they thought the world worked.


I have to disagree. I do these little abstract doodles while professors are lecturing, and I assure you they do nothing of the kind. :)

If we’re going to construe doodles as art, they might imply that you (the artist) believe your professor is wasting your time, or something thereabout. That belief is essentially a normative/moral judgment. Normative is probably a more accurate word for it than moral, since moral judgments deal with what is good regarding community, normative with what is good in general. We can also ask: why did the artist choose to doodle what she did? Depicting a subject implies that the artists believes the subject is in some sense worth depicting.


I think it's definitely both.

Both ways have their merits and purposes, assuredly. But I think that analyzing a work of art while also expressly considering the artist yields deeper and more meaningful interpretations. I also think that it’s incredibly difficult if not impossible to interpret a piece of art without considering the artist in some sense, even abstractly (for example, considering what kind of iconography the artist is using). Thus, if we cannot ask any questions regarding the artist, we cannot, by extension, ask any questions about things like iconography. With the loss of such questions, the question of meaning is lost, and we’re left looking at the work of art in an almost purely formal respect.


The obvious question, then, becomes who could any work of art become "immoral" if it conveys the moral belief of the artist?

Because one man's idea of morality can be another's idea of immorality. In any case, whether the art is, measured by whatever standard, moral or immoral is beside the point I'm trying to make. My point is that it does deal, in some or other way, with moral themes.


I'm not overly thrilled with the notion that all art coveys a moral stance any more than I like the dated adage that all art is political or the Freudian notion that all art reveals or is a mirror of the artist.

I don't think trying to understand the art's moral "opinion" is always the best way to go about interpreting and understanding art, especially when the particular piece isn't intending to treat or expressly treating those subjects. But nevertheless, I do think that ideological beliefs, values, and judgments are inextricably tied to almost every work of art.



Edit:
To respond to the question of the thread: no.

[G L Wilson]

Is the artist a flower not to be pulled from the ground? Is the artist to be without morals? Is the artist not to think but simply create? I think it absurd to think it.

[stlukesguild]

Because one man's idea of morality can be another's idea of immorality. In any case, whether the art is, measured by whatever standard, moral or immoral is beside the point I'm trying to make. My point is that it does deal, in some or other way, with moral themes.

That becomes problematic because it assumes (wrongly, I would assert) that moral judgments have the least bearing on aesthetic merit. By the moral standards of many Muslim fundamentalists any painting of an image is immoral because it amounts to idolatry and thus leads to this:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6021/5979863645_36325f51a4.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6129/5980421678_087d4e1d0c.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6029/5980421700_84381b527c.jpg

as well as the murder of Theo van Gogh.

By the moral standards of the Third Reich all Jewish art was immoral and an abomination, and thus we had great bonfires of the writings of Kafka, Freud, and Heine and the music of Mahler and Mendelssohn.

By the standards of many Christian fundamentalists, the Qur'an and all Islamic art is immoral... and many, given the chance, would gladly see it obliterated.

I agree with Orphan Pip, that a work of art... even if stunningly beautiful... which clearly conveyed a message that was almost universally repugnant (Mein Kampf, for example... and I would argue most all of the writings of the Marquis de Sade) could not ever be considered a great work of art. But for the most part I question imposing moral judgments upon art... any more than one would impose moral judgments upon science or technology or medicine or engineering.

Certainly, I understand that we may question the moral/ethical ramifications of how scientific/technological/medical/engineering innovations are employed... but we would not (or should not) suggest that a medical or scientific innovation was "bad" based upon morality

[Pierre Menard]

The beginning of “art” itself, I would argue. For example, we can infer from “primitive” art values and beliefs of the artists, and by extension a (very) crude idea of how they thought the world worked.


"All art attempts to portray and sometimes (in)validate an ideology, which is inherently moral"

This absolutely gorgeous portrait my friend drew of her friend a few weeks ago...what ideology was she portraying or (in)validating? And what inherent morality was she expressing?

[Drkshadow03]

What is that a statue of St Luke?

[stlukesguild]

That was the great Buddha of Bamiyan, in Afghanistan, blown up by Taliban tanks shortly before 911