Victorians! discussion

Just a few questions that I hope will spark some discussion.

We all, I hope, know better to expect the Victorians to share our more modern views on every subject, and that it's possible to enjoy a book on its own terms that contains elements that would be considered offensive if written today.

But in recent reading, I've run across a few books that really push the envelope, to the point where it's hard to get out of my twenty-first century mind long enough to enjoy them.

For example: I recently started reading a novel from 1900 called To Have and to Hold. On the first page, our hero (who is living in seventeenth-century Virginia) tries to warn his neighbors not to trust the local Indians, but they won't listen to him. To make himself feel better, he goes home and beats two Indian children he recently bought as slaves.

The author clearly wants to use this to establish him as a lovable curmudgeon through this lighthearted bit of racially motivated child abuse. But it's incredibly jarring to the modern reader--not least because it's setting up the inevitable raid by the bloodthirsty savages that will justify the hero's suspicions. (I haven't gotten to that part of the book yet, but I know it's coming.)

Another one I've read recently is Overland A Novel by John De Forest. It's set in the American West, and the racism is pervasive, not just of the Indians, but of Spaniards, Irish, and pretty much everyone else. It's part of the serious plot and all of the comic relief. Feminists--or at least uppity women who think they're as smart as men--are also a running gag. There are some wonderful passages describing the landscapes of the West, but they're almost the only thing that isn't aggressively anti-everything.

So my question is, how much is too much for you as a modern reader to overlook from a Victorian-era author? At what point does it interfere with your enjoyment? Is one racist figure (like Fagin in Oliver Twist) enough to impact your enjoyment? Can you enjoy a book as long as the actual premise isn't racist (as with, for example, The Clansman)? Or can you overlook even something like that for a good enough story?

Is it harder to ignore if you're part of the group being belittled?--I assume Jewish readers see Fagin and Shylock as more distracting than I do. Is it easier for you to ignore sexism in past writing than racism, or vice versa?

Are there books you've read that you think might have been more widely read if it wasn't for a pre-modern reliance on racism or sexism?

I felt this way about King Solomon's Mines by H. Rider Haggard. I really just hated that book. It is a racist defense of colonialism, replete with lengthy descriptions of slaughtering animals for fun. It made me nauseous. Many people love it as an adventure story.

I read a lot of Victorian novels, which are full of sexism. I don't find this either jarring or distracting because they depict society as it existed. In addition, authors and other artists are often well ahead of their time in terms of moving beyond the various -isms, and it is often clear that the author is often subversively condemning the racism/sexism. As a woman, I don't enjoy reading sexist commentary, but I don't overlook it either. I consider it, as well as the society at the time the book was written, and try to process them into a coherent analysis and understanding of the book.

There was a time when child abuse was not only not illegal, it really was barely even immoral. We can learn a lot about our past from reading fiction, and it is neither fair nor helpful to hold classic books to contemporary societal standards. Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it and all that...

Having said that, there are still characters who are abhorrent by any standard. I'm fine with it in the service of the story.

Moonlight Reader wrote: "I felt this way about King Solomon's Mines by H. Rider Haggard. I really just hated that book. It is a racist defense of colonialism, replete with lengthy descriptions of slaughtering ..."

That's interesting, and I encourage you to give Rider Haggard another go. In some of his later novels, Haggard, who lived in Africa as a young man, has more of that kind of "more progressive than his contemporaries" attitude. In Child of Storm, he sets it out explicitly:

" Impossible, the clever critic will say—impossible that a savage could act with such finish. Well, friend critic, that is just where you are wrong. When you come to add it up there's very little difference in all main and essential matters between the savage and yourself.

To begin with, by what exact right do we call people like the Zulus savages? Setting aside the habit of polygamy, which, after all, is common among very highly civilised peoples in the East, they have a social system not unlike our own. They have, or had, their king, their nobles, and their commons. They have an ancient and elaborate law, and a system of morality in some ways as high as our own, and certainly more generally obeyed. They have their priests and their doctors; they are strictly upright, and observe the rites of hospitality.

Where they differ from us mainly is that they do not get drunk until the white man teaches them so to do, they wear less clothing, the climate being more genial, their towns at night are not disgraced by the sights that distinguish ours, they cherish and are never cruel to their children, although they may occasionally put a deformed infant or a twin out of the way, and when they go to war, which is often, they carry out the business with a terrible thoroughness, almost as terrible as that which prevailed in every nation in Europe a few generations ago.

Of course, there remain their witchcraft and the cruelties which result from their almost universal belief in the power and efficiency of magic. Well, since I lived in England I have been reading up this subject, and I find that quite recently similar cruelties were practised throughout Europe—that is in a part of the world which for over a thousand years has enjoyed the advantages of the knowledge and profession of the Christian faith.

Now, let him who is highly cultured take up a stone to throw at the poor, untaught Zulu, which I notice the most dissolute and drunken wretch of a white man is often ready to do, generally because he covets his land, his labour, or whatever else may be his."

That's not to say there's no racism there, but I find it's closer to the way other English writers treat the French or Italians than the way they treat Africans. And Haggard wrote one of the first books in English to have no white characters in it at all (Nada the Lily).

Chris wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "I felt this way about King Solomon's Mines by H. Rider Haggard. I really just hated that book. It is a racist defense of colonialism, replete with lengthy des..."

I didn't enjoy the writing enough to give Haggard another try - aside from the problems that I had with the narrative, I just didn't enjoy his prose.

Thank you for asking us to consider what offends us and what does not in what we read, Chris. I don't know the answers for myself between driving home awareness and judging what should be allowed to disappear into the vast canon of what need never be read no more. Also, why do some things offend and not others? (I think at the moment of Pamuk's Snow and Morrison's Beloved and the vast array of reader reaction to those two books.)

It doesn't bother me because at heart I'm a cultural relativist.

After all, I read the Iliad with much pleasure despite some scenes of gross brutality. I read Greek drama including the sacrifice of Iphigenia and read them in the context of their culture.

I'm sure that there are things in modern literature that we take for granted that future generations will find despicable and horrifying.

I think what should be kept in mind is the fact that during the 19th century there were a lot of debates about the humanity of people of colour and the way they should be treated and these intellectual debates played a big part in legitimising slavery, British colonialism, settler colonialism in the US etc. So writers expressing racist views in 19th century books are more rather than less objectionable than contemporary ones because racist views, especially in canonical / influential texts, had a bigger impact. Today we have more means to fight against racism and can do more to protect people of colour. Even when wildly racist books are published they are loudly criticized. Whereas back in the 19th century racist books could do more harm.

I do feel hurt and angry when I read racist, homophobic or sexist 19th century books. It's obvious to me that racist etc views didn't exist in a vacuum, they affected real people of colour etc during that time, they're not just offensive statements. The fact that these views were more common then than they are now doesn't really comfort me.

And maybe rather than regretting all the books you could enjoy if their writer hadn't been racist / sexist think about all the great books by people of colour and women you could be enjoying now if racism and sexism hadn't prevented them from being written by not allowing their writers to gain an education or have spare time to write? If you think writing a great book doesn't depend on race or gender, surely you realise that the canon is so dominated by white men because people of colour and women were prevented from writing great books by oppression.

Andreea wrote: "...people of colour and women were prevented from writing great books by oppression. ."

And even if they succeeded in writing them, they encountered difficulties in getting them read -- or even held them closely within their own cultures. (E.g., consider the many ancient and learned Eastern and Middle Eastern texts.)

I very much like Everyman's expression "cultural relativist", and I think to a great extent I am one - just as well because, as a woman, I would otherwise never have been able to enjoy much literature at all written before at least the 1970s!!
What sometimes bothers me MORE than racism in a novel are posterior attempts to exorcise it from the same. I think I quoted here or elsewhere in the not-too-distant past Jock of the Bushveld by Percy FitzPatrick. It is an almost entirely charming and touching adventure book about a man and his dog (the eponymous Jock) in colonial South Africa.
I'd been browsing for a copy when I realised that I either had to choose the original version (which, as you can imagine, abounds with what, for us today, are extremely racist references) or the cleaned-up version. I chose the original for two reasons: firstly because I think that if you want to read Dickens for example, then read Dickens and not someone's version of Dickens.
Secondly, I was able to enjoy the stories and simultaneously learn about one view of society at that time, in that place, warts and all. The fact that the narrator sees nothing wrong in the expressions he uses tells us much about the white man's perspective and - with our modern minds - we can imagine how the recipients of such insouciant belittling must have felt.
From that point of view, classic (meaning "old" ;-)) literature is a historical, social and anthropological lesson in addition to being a piece of entertainment.
It is a shame of course that there is virtually nothing written from the black oppressed point of view, and that, for me, is one of the beauties of "neo" lit, post-colonial lit and "feminist revisionist lit" (does that exist??!!) For example, Sarah Waters has written about lesbian relationships in the nineteenth century which ring entirely true and are greatly indebted to her depth of literary and historical research. Fingersmith, though, could never have been written in the nineteenth century however socially liberal the author.

PS - thanks for opening the discussion, Chris! More of this kind of thing would be great :-))

Pip wrote: "I very much like Everyman's expression "cultural relativist", and I think to a great extent I am one - just as well because, as a woman, I would otherwise never have been able to enjoy much literat..."

Very good post.

Thank you, Everyman! I'm honoured by praise from such an admired source :-))

Andreea wrote: "I think what should be kept in mind is the fact that during the 19th century there were a lot of debates about the humanity of people of colour and the way they should be treated and these intellectual debates played a big part in legitimising slavery, British colonialism, settler colonialism in the US etc. So writers expressing racist views in 19th century books are more rather than less objectionable than contemporary ones because racist views, especially in canonical / influential texts, had a bigger impact."

I agree with Andreea, although I don't know if I'd bother judging whether older writers are more objectionable or just as objectionable. There were many, many writers of the time who tried not to be racist. Huck Finn is an abolitionist book; slave narratives by people like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Jacobs and Solomon Northup were popular reading. It's fairly easy to find writers from any time period who are not hateful, so "cultural relativism" seems like a cheap way out to me.

Re. Haggard specifically, I don't think that book is quite as racist as its reputation. Haggard repeatedly makes the point that both European and African nations are violent: "'One,' counted Twala the king, just like a black Madame DeFarge," he says, drawing a parallel between Twala and the character from A Tale of Two Cities. Some Africans are shown exploiting white men for their own purposes, trusting that their greed and racism will make them useful pawns (which totally works out). That said, it's still paternalistic and colonialist, and Haggard's not a great writer. She is basically a mess.

I feel like European books were busy being sexist and anti-Semitic, so didn't have much time to get around to being racist too; I'd be interested to hear what y'all think are some examples of racist Victorian books. For me that conversation tends to be mostly American.

Alex wrote: "I'd be interested to hear what y'all think are some examples of racist Victorian books. For me that conversation tends to be mostly American."

I think the racism is there; all that changes are the targets. Antisemitism in Victorian literature is pervasive and is fundamentally racist, with Jews commonly portrayed as less than fully human; as a race rather than a religion. And think of how Dickens portrays Frenchmen and Italians in, for instance, Little Doritt? Is it really any different from how one of his American contemporaries might treat Mexicans or American Indians? And then there's the English writer's treatment of the Irish, and the Catholics in general; I've read anti-Catholic works by Wilkie Collins and Charles Reade that are as virulently offensive as any anti-Semitic stereotype.

Blacks and Asians/Indians tend to be ignored, for the most part, but when they do show up, the Victorians are just as racist as anyone else. Conan Doyle wrote a racist Sherlock Holmes story, "The Adventure of the Three Gables"; Dickens wrote some racist short pieces about Indians and once said he thought the world would be a better place if they were all killed. And Jean Rhys famously unpacked some of the racist assumptions underlying Jane Eyre. And then there's Kipling, of course, with Kim among others. Thackeray's American-set novels are larded with casual racism (and Sambo in Vanity Fair is not without his problems).

And then there's the racism in the popular writing that has all but been forgotten...including the "golliwog," a particularly bizarre English racist stereotype that originated in Victorian times but has its defenders even today.

In summary...I agree that the targets of the major British Victorian novelists tended to be different, I think the kind of offensiveness tends to be the same--and that the difference is more one of opportunity than broad-mindedness.

Chris wrote: "..And then there's the racism in the popular writing that has all but been forgotten...including the 'golliwog,' a particularly bizarre English racist stereotype that originated in Victorian times but has its defenders even today...."

Apparently British use, but these interesting origins:

after Golliwogg, an animated doll in books for children written by Bertha Upton †1912 American writer and illustrated by Florence Upton †1922 American portrait painter and illustrator

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, s.v. “golliwog,” accessed August 25, 2014, http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com.

I must admit that one thing I like about bygone eras literature is racism. Not the overtly preaching racism of how 'X race' ought to be killed or made into slaves or mistreated and marginalised for their innate meanness, dumbness or ugliness. What I like is to see the scenes where such racist incidents are portrayed as not only natural but also very much appropriate, because it opens a window into a world which, for us (in general), should be alien. (But is it really? If one lives in a town where only white people live, won't we feel distrust at an oriental or black person who clearly lives by a different cultural standard? Even if you swear you are not the least racist, won't the thought creep into your mind 'well, it's no wonder that happened, have you seen how he/she...?'?)

And, besides, how can we attempt to understand a past period if we don't look at the ugly along side the pretty? For such racist views sometimes I had a good intention underneath them... after all, weren't Australian Aborigene children taken away from their families with the good intention of improving their spirituality, their discipline and their social outlook (it was certainly better to be marginalised by civilised people but be part of their civilisation somehow than persist in living in the uncivilised wild?)

Personally, I like to be faced by racist characters and narrators every now and then. Even if not for understanding what made people tick back then, perhaps for keeping myself on my toes when I boast of not being the least racist.

Chris wrote: "I think the racism is there; all that changes are the targets. "

Wow, that was a good answer. A) Good point, of course, that anti-Semitism is basically racism, and I think it's smart to expand the conversation that way. And b) Man, you just did a spectacular job of running down racism in 1800s lit.

I wish I'd taken more notes in general as I've run across anti-Semitism while reading Victorian novels. I'm left mostly with a dim sense that it's everywhere.

Here's how I approach hatefulness in literature: I want to notice it, acknowledge it as a bad thing about the book, and then weigh it against the book's other qualities.

So for example Oscar Wilde describes a "fat Jew manager" in The Picture of Dorian Gray I'm like ugh, but let's move on; that's far from the only anti-Semitism in the book, but the good qualities of the book make it still worth reading.

On the other hand, in the case of our standard whipping boy, Oliver Twist, the anti-Semitism is direly pervasive, and the book doesn't have enough else going for it to outweigh the hate. I think its racism - which of course was pretty extreme for its time - does it in.

So my specific answer to your question, "How racist is too racist?" is, "Oliver Twist". Ha.

Hello my name is Desiree'. I read all of your discussion feeds and I am impressed by all of your candor. I wish you would actually express how you feel about literature and how society is different in the past as compared to the evolution of society today. I wish more people would be more receptive to my discussion feed for my group Social Comm-Linguist. We are currently reading "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain and "The Day They Came To Arrest The Book" by Nat Hentoff. However, no one wishes to participate in the discussions due to the "hot" topics. We are also discussing The Bill of Rights, The First Amendment and the challenging and banning of books from school libraries. I am reading "Huck Finn" for the first time, although I inherited "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" (published 11 years after the Civil War) from my dad when I was 7 years old. Although, at the time, I was mostly into pirates (Treasure Island) and Pippi (is a pirate), Anna Sewall (Black Beauty), Louisa May Alcott (all of her books), Charles Dickens, Jules Verne and a few others.

My point is, I don't find "Huck Finn" to be a racially motivated book; I find the racial propaganda to be buried under the teaching of religion as conscious-able rearing and failing to acknowledge the epidemic of child abuse (Huck is beaten repeatedly by his father). I find that people today don't realize "Huck Finn" was published 19 years after the Civil War and neither is the teaching of the regional linguistic dialects spoken are still spoken today regardless of skin color. Yes, so far I have counted 10 times the use of the word "nigger" out of the 29 pages I have read insofar.

I'd have to say I disagree, Desiree: I think Huck Finn is totally racially motivated. I see it as an abolitionist book: among other things, it's specifically and furiously anti-racist.

Desiree' wrote: "My point is, I don't find "Huck Finn" to be a racially motivated book; "

The term "racism" has so many vastly different meanings to different people that I don't think there can be any objective or generally agreed on definition of it which we can objectively apply.

Huck Finn is certainly a book very much aware of race, but if that's racist, then so is, for just one example, the U.S. Census Bureau.

If you want to offer us a clear and definitive definition of racism for the purpose of discussing whether Huck Finn is racist (and I would say immediately that I would never attempt this for myself) then we could discuss whether the book meets that definition. But I suspect that the various posters here have such different definitions of racism that discussing whether the book is or is not racist would be pretty useless.

Chris wrote: "We all, I hope, know better to expect the Victorians to share our more modern views on every subject, and that it's possible to enjoy a..."

A very fine thread, this. I'd like to encounter more such thoughtful--and temperate--discussions around Goodreads. There's this other, more disturbing 'knee-jerk reaction' I've begun seeing in the faster-flowing currents of the Goodreads site such as 'Recommendations' where readers (of say 17-25 in age) really don't stop to think at all about what racism is; or what it ever was, or how we've come to deal with it over time. Instead, they zealously shout-down any trace of it no matter what type of book it may appear in, as if its some kind of contaminating amoeba. They dismiss it out-of-hand because someone has 'told them' to.

In other words, 'the way we perceive issues today is the only way anyone should ever perceive them'. It's become a dogma. I've heard young girls diss 'Of Human Bondage' because a female is depicted unflatteringly. This is a kind of blank, unthinking, reverse-censorship; censorship from the ground-up rather than from the top-down. It solves nothing. There is no pretty packaged box, tied-up-with-a-ribbon, into which you can put a phenomenon like this so as to forget about it. 'Group vs group' thinking is instinctual human behavior and will always be with us.

Anyway, to the OP's query. I don't believe in the negating of knowledge or cordoning off the study of our past. That's the #1 principle I espouse. I don't care what labels are retroactively applied by modern pundits: any book from the past is valuable to our understanding of who we are. Its when there are 'blank spots' or 'excised' history that charlatans and spokesmen can sneak in and do their re-writing. I wouldn't turn away from any original text no matter what unpleasant morsels it contained: certainly not if I was trying to carry out a topical study.

Queasiness over these particular times you read recently? I can't see why. If we allow that an entire era's 'mainstream' held different views than we do today--and we excuse that--why then would we also not excuse the aberrations of that same era? After all, these rather oddball book titles you uncovered, didn't even typify the normative, 'background levels' of thought in those times. You went out of your way to hunt down interesting but uncommon books from those days; lo and behold, you discovered examples of slightly more extreme attitudes than even the conventional Victorian might countenance. I don't think there's any reason to 'balk'. Whatever the reason was you chose to invest in these books in the first place, stick with that reason. Savor the fact that you can read a book written 100 years ago!

Alex wrote: "I'd have to say I disagree, Desiree: I think Huck Finn is totally racially motivated. I see it as an abolitionist book: among other things, it's specifically and furiously anti-racist."

I do agree with you Alex. The discussion Huck and Jim have together when Jim discloses why he ran away. Huck feels socially he will be accused of being an Abolitionist, but he feels so much that Jim has a right to be free. The social environment influences each of us, although we do believe it is wrong, we don't always have a choice but to follow the mainstream of societal philosophy. Although we don't agree with the premise we are all stuck in one way or another.

Everyman wrote: "Desiree' wrote: "My point is, I don't find "Huck Finn" to be a racially motivated book; "

The term "racism" has so many vastly different meanings to different people that I don't think there can b..."

I also agree with you Everyman. The pictorial of racism is differentiated for each individual because of the personification each individual interprets. Historically, Huck Finn was published 19 years after the Civil War, however, Clemens grew up and experienced a segregated society regardless of race. Whites themselves were segregated because they were poor, and because the "being born on the wrong side of the tracks" so to speak, was a pending affirmation of who made you what you were. The social atmosphere during the pre and post Civil War evolved at a fast pace. People were having an increasing more opportunity depending on where you came from. Stock is still a major incentive of what makes you worthy to receive certain rewards. This mentality still reigns today regardless of what your ethnicity is. So yes, social motivation has a determinable factor of how you perceive racism as exclusion.

Feliks wrote: "Chris wrote: "We all, I hope, know better to expect the Victorians to share our more modern views on every subject, and that it's possible to enjoy a..."

A very fine thread, this. I'd like to enco..."

Thank you very much Felik. I believe you may find I am discussing The Bill of Rights, The First Amendment currently in my group. And your points have been brought up in singular discussion on what it means to have the right to read and discover new philosophies in literature that didn't espouse mainstream thinking. You are all welcome to view my group. And thank you for the honorable discussions. I look forward to many more.

Chris that's the way it's always been. Stories are told for a reason. Every country has it's mythology and policy to foster and pop culture, literature are powerful mediums for information and propaganda (not just entertainment) - The poor Red Indians / Native Americans had to be depicted in bad light because of the propaganda war against them plus the fact that British/ French and ultimately 'American' troops needed to be in control and build housing / farming societies on their land. So they had to be the 'bad guys' in American literature and films. During Cold War the most common enemy in any good thriller was a Russian / Irish psychopath, which led to Muslims in the 90s and beyond.

The 'yellow peril' propaganda against East Asians, Charlie Chan (the detective!) are now considered racist. Stereotypes are used to quickly identify one race from the rest and enforce superiority or provide comic relief. That can be seen as racist too.

On great works of literature, one cannot apply the same rules of 'political correctness' as one is supposed to nowadays because the times were different and some things were taken for granted!

And one has to lay distinction between authors laying out the world as they saw it, deriving from their experiences in a particular town or continent versus deliberate attempt and debasing of a community because you hate them or think they are inferior to you.

Ultimately every good story is a bird's eye view into not just an imaginary world but the author's soul / perspective too and whether his characters are believable and act as people would in the time they are set in.

All the best from the author of debut e-novel The Governess - (about a world I did not grow up in!)

I can't read much American literature due to the racist content which is lacking in much British literature of the period. I made it a point very early on to avoid reading American literature at school for this very reason.

However, recently I have been reading the work of some of the Harlem Resistance writers, but again I find it as disturbing as enlightening - I refer to such works as Claude McKay's The Lynching, a beautiful sonnet.

Oh hey, weird coincidence, I'm reading McKay's Home to Harlem right now. Digging it so far. It did, speaking of racism, come under fire when it was published for reenforcing negative stereotypes. I think that was probably wrong-headed, but I'm only 25% through.

I mentioned the popular slave narrative genre above, re. non-racist American lit from the 1800s.

Alex wrote: "Oh hey, weird coincidence, I'm reading McKay's Home to Harlem right now. Digging it so far. It did, speaking of racism, come under fire when it was published for reenforcing negative ..."

Thanks Alex, I will put that on my to read list, but I may not be able to get through it, as a novel is far more sustained than a sonnet.

Not if it's Eugene Onegin!

Malcolm wrote: "I can't read much American literature due to the racist content which is lacking in much British literature of the period."

As I think we've mentioned before in this thread...it depends on what you mean by "racist." English Victorians didn't have much to say about Africans or Black Englishmen, although when they did it was generally just as racist as anything coming out of the U.S. (see: Conan Doyle).

On the other hand, English Victorian literature is full of ridiculous antisemitism, not to mention bizarre, offensive portrayals of Catholics (scheming to take over England on direct orders from Rome), Welshmen, Frenchmen, and, of course, Indians and "Chinamen."

Chris wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "I can't read much American literature due to the racist content which is lacking in much British literature of the period."

As I think we've mentioned before in this thread...it de..."

Yes, I realize the attitude towards Jews and catholics, but as I am neither it doesn't bother me that much when reading. As a black person I'm more concerned with the attitudes towards black people. In the British literature which I have read, thankfully there has been very little which I have found upsetting. I have not read Jospeh Conrad, for instance, because I have been told his Heart of Darkness has racist attitudes. So why should I put myself through reading it. Likewise Conan Doyle, I've read his Sherlock Holmes short stories, and those trifles amuse me, and are easy for me to overlook. I do not go out of my way to read racist literature by either British or American authors, quite the opposite, I go out of my way to avoid it. If I should come across a work with distateful characters and attitudes I stop reading it and find something more suitable to my tastes. So don't expect me to join in any group reads with racist attitudes because I certainly will not be making any allowances for American authors or modern American attitudes with regards to their cherished Victorian authors. Likewise, I will not be reading any white authors from Africa of the period unless their attituded is enlightened.

I appreciate your point of view Malcolm, and as a white person it is obviously impossible for me to understand what it must feel like to read racist content in literature or elsewhere. I do hope though that you won't miss out on literary gems which, though unenlightened as we understand enlightenment today, are valuable in many other ways.

And I restate a point I made earlier in this thread: if I were to avoid every novel which insults women, my reading and culture would be very much the worse for it. I certainly would not have read anything this group might debate, possibly with the exception of Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

I think it's also important to know your enemy, and that involves knowing their history ( including their literature), as well as their present.

PS - nice to see a fellow Bristolian hereabouts!

Barbs wrote: "It's an odd situation. Books like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn reflect racist attitudes of their time and like the haulocaust, it ser..."

Excellent comment. If it is true that those who forget the past are destined to repeat it, then it is critically necessary that we read these books to understand the past. Otherwise, it's like writing your grandfather out of your family tree because he wasn't a very nice person.

Pip wrote: "I appreciate your point of view Malcolm, and as a white person it is obviously impossible for me to understand what it must feel like to read racist content in literature or elsewhere. I do hope t..."

I am sure that they would be no loss for me. If I should read literature which deals with racism, I would much rather read it from a black author.

I really do not relish discussing racist content of literature with white readers - and particularly white American readers. Some white Americans may have enlightened attitudes towards their history and culture, but not all Americans do and I really have not the time or inclination to get in to petty debates/discussions about it because there are more of them and only one of me, so my lone voice will be just pissing in the wind.

If my school teachers could not get me to read modern American literature against my will, I really cannot see anyone else succeeding in making me read Victorian American literature against my will.

With regard to Victorian literature and knowing one's enemy. Dead enemy's are not worth knowing that well, if at all. Besides which, I do not consider dead and dusted authors my enemy. It would be modern authors and readers that would be my enemies and if they are online, why should I bother to get to know them?

On the subject of race it is fair to say that there will be disagreements, so why should I log on during my leisure time to read what I would no doubt consider odious comments?

As you are from Bristol, it may be nice to meet up for coffee to discuss literature face to face. Perhaps you're on Facebook, and we can be friends on there. You may get a better understanding of me and my views generally.

The following link has some of my poetry on it and a brief biography:

http://highonpoems.com/poet/malcolmma...

Malcolm wrote: " I have not read Jospeh Conrad, for instance, because I have been told his Heart of Darkness has racist attitudes. So why should I put myself through reading it."

By the same token, do you think that white people should not read Malcolm X or Richard Wright because they have racist attitudes toward whites?

Pip wrote: "PS - nice to see a fellow Bristolian hereabouts!"

I don't understand, you profile states that you're from San Sebastián , Spain

Everyman wrote: "Malcolm wrote: " I have not read Jospeh Conrad, for instance, because I have been told his Heart of Darkness has racist attitudes. So why should I put myself through reading it."

By the same token..."

No, people of all races are free to read whatever they desire. Why should what I chose not to read dictate the reading matter of others?

Barbs wrote: "It's an odd situation. Books like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn reflect racist attitudes of their time and like the haulocaust, it ser..."

Quite, but once when on here before I browsed a Mark Twain group read and one American reader said it was wrong of the central character to runaway with the slave because the elderly woman depended upon him and so denying her her means of support.

What about denying the slave his freedom?

Why would I want to get into disputes over something like that?

In my view slavery is wrong pure and simple regardless of the age of the owner of the slave regardless of era.

Chris wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "I can't read much American literature due to the racist content which is lacking in much British literature of the period."

As I think we've mentioned before in this thread...it de..."

Chris, I really don't care how racist they were in past times because they were racist and bigoted if you look how the English regarded the rest of the UK and empire.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest to read of their atttitudes towards Jews, catholics, Chinese, Welsh, Irish etc. In my eyes with the exception of the Asians, they are white and so it is just like reading of Europeans being beastly to Europeans.

I simply do not like reading racist attitudes towards black people in my choice of reading matter. I cannot see why anyone has a problem with that. There's enough of that in modern newspapers so why should I desire to read it during my leisure time in fiction.

Malcolm wrote: "Pip wrote: "PS - nice to see a fellow Bristolian hereabouts!"

I don't understand, you profile states that you're from San Sebastián , Spain"

I live in San Seb, but born in Bristle. Thanks for the coffee invitation - it'll have to wait until one of us can take time for a holiday!!

Everyman wrote: "Excellent comment. If it is true that those who forget the past are destined to repeat it, then it is critically necessary that we read these books to understand the past. Otherwise, it's like writing your grandfather out of your family tree because he wasn't a very nice person..."

But we can learn just as much if not more from autobiographies, biographies and history books rather than fiction which may not give an entirely accruate account of the state of things.

Everyman wrote: "By the same token, do you think that white people should not read Malcolm X or Richard Wright because they have racist attitudes toward whites?"..."

Malcolm X and Richard Wright have very good reasons for their attitudes towards white people, lest we forget.

If the racism is caused by ignorance of the custom or culture that is being portrayed I'm more likely to let it pass. If they are motivated by political/religious disagreements I'm also less offended provided it's not a knee jerk "x religion is bad and I hate everyone who belongs to it."
I found Gone With the Wind horribly offensive while I enjoyed Uncle Tom's Cabin. GWTW was stereotyped and terribly pro slavery and KKK. Uncle Tom's Cabin had lots of stereotyping too but at least it was written to benefit African Americans. ( to be fair the white people were also quite stereotyped. Stowe wasn't the best at creating realistic characters.)
It reminds me of some dear friends of the family that are horribly anti-Semetic. The only reason they are so is the belief that they are being discriminated against by Jews. I think growing up in 1940's-50's British families have something to do with it. I really cringed when the wife said something like, " the Jews should really get over the Holocaust. Other people got killed during WWII." Yikes!
I do have more tolerance for older values but it still bothers me. It probably depends on the rest of the book or how much the racism is part of the book.

Elizabeth wrote: "If the racism is caused by ignorance of the custom or culture that is being portrayed I'm more likely to let it pass. If they are motivated by political/religious disagreements I'm also less offend..."

I read Uncle Tom's Cabin and enjoyed it. But it was written as an anti-slavery novel. And of course from a religious author. Beecher Stowe is far from racist. Although her work depicts racism she is not a racist author.

Similar could be claimed of other white American authors, I know, but I would rather not read them. Mark Twain included.

I've read Dorothy Parker, and I would like to read Fanny Hursts Imitation of Life, sometime, but as I am aware of its content having seen the 1959 film adaptation, I could probably read it quite comfortably rather like how I did when reading Uncle Tom's Cabin.

But for peace of mind, and not having to get into discussion with white people in general and American's in particular, I chose not to read any fiction by white American authors which deals with race issues because not all white Americans are non racist. For instance, South Africa had a black president long before they did, and when Obama first stood for election there was several 'not in my lifetime' vox pops on the news over here.

So, I would prefer not to read any fiction dealing with race issues from white American authors. If there were more black members of this group reading such material then perhps I could be persuaded. But without their support I am decidedly at a disadvantage in any dabate on such matters. So why should I bother to trouble myself.

I notice that some of the group have read George Gissing's New Grub Street. I've only read the opening few chapters of that several years ago. However before I started that I read his The Netherworld, which makes grim reading of the poverty and brutality of the working-class poor in Victorian London.

In it some of the characters attend a social club where there are black entertainers. They are refered to as 'niggers' or 'coons', I forget which. It was a very small passage in a rather long story. It reflected the attitudes of the times and far beyond.

Obviously the attitude was very racist, and I am pleased that it was not edited out - at least not in the modern edition which I read. Yes it is racist, but as the characters were only very minor, and the author did not go into any odious stereotypes about their appearance or speech or made any remarks upon their percieved intelligence, I would say, in my humble view and opinion, that the novel or that particular passage is not very racist, and based upon that alone and knowing nothing else of the author, I would not describe the author as racist.

It may be that I later read a biography of him and find otherwise, but I doubt it, unless of course he was anti-Semetic, then obviously I would reassess my opoinion of the author and not the novel The Netherworld.

Moonlight Reader wrote: "I felt this way about King Solomon's Mines by H. Rider Haggard. I really just hated that book. It is a racist defense of colonialism, replete with lengthy descriptions of slaughtering ..."

I dislike the sexism of historical fiction as much as I abhor the racism. As long as the racism is not directed against black people I can handle it easily because I know that was the way of the world. But because I am black, I find it upsetting and disturbing to read racism directed against black people.

Chris wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "I felt this way about King Solomon's Mines by H. Rider Haggard. I really just hated that book. It is a racist defense of colonialism, replete with lengthy des..."

Very interesting. From the fascinating quotation, Haggard does appear to be rather enlightened and perspicacious for his time. I don't mind adventure novels - such as Treasure Island or Kidnapped, but I'm not quite sure if I could enjoy colonial adventure novels particularly those set in Africa.

I've read one or two of Rudyard Kipling's colonial Indan short stories which are not too bad overall, but some of his descriptions of thugs or thugees and the likes leave a lot to be desired, but on the otherhand, he does depict the colonizers as rather racist in their attitudes - so swings and roundabouts there. Personally i do not find Kipling as racist as the politically correct opinionators paint him, and due to his prolific output in prose and poetry depicting colonial attitudes (and much of his verse is satire) he is used somewhat as a scapegoat.

Everyman wrote: "It doesn't bother me because at heart I'm a cultural relativist.

After all, I read the Iliad with much pleasure despite some scenes of gross brutality. I read Greek drama including the sacrific..."

The thing I find with Greek and Roman culture is that it is so farcical. The brutality of the people, the sacrifices to gods, the cruel and unusual punishments. It is so far back in history it reads almost like fairytales particulary because of their religious beliefs and they way they lived their lives.