I’m not even going to link the thread that inspired this question, lest I ressurect a trainwreck.
Here’s the premise: Some author whose work you find worthy of praise for many reasons is, in the final analysis, racist in his or her attitudes, and this point cannot be reasonably disputed. The author is now dead; and their racist passages, while perhaps even shocking by today’s standards, are not out of line with the common attitudes of society contemporaneous with the original publication of the works in question.
I’ve generally felt that, unless the author was flagrant or singularly-motivated in his or her racism, it’s simply not reasonable to dismiss these authors solely because of their outdated notions about culture. I note their chauvinism with regret, but I won’t discard a meritorious work because it contains what is, by present standards, racist or otherwise bigoted content. We’d probably have to throw out half the books in any library if we wish to eradicate the taint of past injustices.
I’ve known some individuals, including a few of the professors who taught me, who were far less forgiving, and quite willing to take long-dead white men to task for their failings, declaring a good portion of the “Western Canon” morally bereft, and unworthy of anything but contempt tempered, at best, with a grudging acknowledgement of stylistic excellence.
Since it could be argued such an attitude is largely the product of a now somewhat-discredited movement known as “Political Correctness”, I’m interested to know what the current “standards” are on the matter. Through what lense, critically, ethically, and morally, are we to view those dead men and women who, after all, have produced much of our literary heritage in the West?
I usually buy the “times were different then” argument because I’d hate to have someone 100 years from now judge me on future morality (monstro kept her cats imprisoned as pets! How are dare she!).
But (and you knew that was coming), I also view people in the past as individuals fully capable of making up their own minds. Take Thomas Jefferson, f’instance. Yes, he was a product of his times. But he was also exposed to more than the “common man” and in a lot of ways, he was ahead of his times. Here was a deep thinker, a believer in natural rights for men and all that jazz. Here was a guy who had met Benjamin Banneker, Phyllis Wheatley, and a number of other successful, impressive black people. And here was a guy who kept hundreds of these people in bondage and wrote screeds about their inferiority…not as a politician, but as an “objective” scientist. With the same pen he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
People scold me for holding him in low esteem for that, but I feel justfied. If T.J had been an uneducated yeoman who had never met an educated black person, then I’d forgive him. If he wasn’t a racialist “scientist” and owned only a few slaves, I might not see him as being quite so hypocritical. But the man is worshipped as a Founder of Freedom and was quite intelligent and well-traveled, so IMHO he–more than anyone else in his day–should have known better. He might be a forefather of this country–and I suppose as a citizen I should be appreciative of this–but he isn’t my forefather. I can appreciate the good he did while also highlighting the damage he perpetrated. I can’t shut off my disdain like I’m equipped with a magical switch.
The work speaks for itself, both the author’s intended reality and the subtext of the era in which the work was written and accepted by its audience. The author is judged on his/her insights and lack of them, but their common or unique gifts, but their traditions and by their prescience, and how skillfully they crafted their fictional realities. But make no mistake – they are judged, sometimes harshly no matter how wide or narrow their worldview is. Asrt’s like that. The work endures, to shock, surprise, titillate, anger, provoke, unnerve, make anxious and give lie or credence to the beliefs, bigotries and fancies of the audience.
What does us no good are devising elaborate excuses designed to hide, justify or obsfucate the truth of the author’s beliefs, antiquated and offensive though they may be.
That I agree with entirely. If there’s been an unfortunate response to the excesses of some champions of PC, it’s been attempts to do an end-run around the movement by attempting revisionist rehabilitation of a controversial figure. It’s one thing to claim a person and their creation is good despite some obvious defects; it’s quite another to claim those patent defects are somehow completely misunderstood.
Be that as it may, as I mentioned in the OP, I’m taking it as a given that the hypothetical author’s racism is not the dispute, but what one does with that information, when critiquing an old work.
I wouldn’t dispute your attitudes about T.J., which seem entirely reasonable. And I’d just as soon toss any work of his expounding the inferiority of African peoples, except to maintain an historical record of value for what it tells us about the formation of this country.
But do you object to praising T.J. for at least some of his finer works, such as the DoI, despite the fact the words therein may surpass the spirit of their author? Is it just a work of bald hypocrisy, or can it be both hypocritical and worthy of homage?
No biggie for me. If the whole point of his or her writing is to soley expound on their racism, I’m not interested. If their writing is tinged with overt racist attitudes and language common to the time and place (Kipling, for example), I actually find it adds an extra contextual dimension, and is not likely to lead down the dark path.
I’m assuming that the OP is specifically referring to American/European authors which we are all familiar with. Does the handwringing apply to works by, say Asian or African author which display a jaundiced take on Westerners or Caucasians?
Tempest in a teapot to anyone with a moiety of intellectual turgor, AFAIAC.
Doubtless it should, but I must confess I’ve hand little or no exposure with the work of a classic and beloved author from a non-Western culture that is, for instance, praised in spite of it being tinged with offensive cultural bias, outside of some holy scriptures. That’s why I framed the question in the manner I did. If you care to, perhaps it’s an interesting topic for another GD, or maybe a Cafe thread: “Who are the great bigoted authors of 18th-century China?” for instance.
I don’t object to praising the DoI, for it is a great document.
But I admit that a little bile rises into my throat every time the man who wrote it is praised. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I do this, but it’s a reaction I can’t really help.
Racism is often described today as an unmitigated evil. Though I agree that it is wrong, surely, I’ve never thought of it in quite those terms.
Lots of decent, talented, educated people had racist attitudes. Some members of my family have had them, and these were good people I loved and respected. They simply were wrong on this particular issue.
It would be easy to dismiss all racists as evil people who should be ignored. The truth is that racism was hardly limited to evil people. In many ways this made the problem of racism more widespread, and more tragic.
It’s very troubling that the founders of the US owned slaves. But I think we honor Jefferson, and Washington, and others of their time for several reasons:
For their talents and accomplishments, of course.
Because we see a preponderance of light in them, and not darkness. We see them as brave, unselfish, etc., despite their flaws.
Because, despite their participating in evil institutions, we see that, as compared to others of their time, did things to ameliorate the evil of these institutions or do away with them altogether.
Washington supported the equality of the Jews in the US, for example, and wrote a famous letter to a Jewish congretation (cite, cite) that is a model (literally) of relgious tolerance and broadmindedness. He also freed his slaves. Jefferson did not practice what he preached in every manner, but his words were still fundamental to the acceptance of the concept of democracy and the notion that all are equal.
Compare these two to someone like Che Guevara of Mao Ze Dong: both men arguably did good things, but in them I (and I think most people) would perceive a preponderance of darkness and a desire to serve the self over others. Even so, there is still insight to be found in Mao’s writings, and nothing can ever stop us from taking for our own the good someone has left behind, however small a percentage that may be of his/her overall deeds.
To me, a person who dismisses the work of an thinker from an earlier age because he or she had the prejudices common to that age, is a petty and small-minded individual. If you will read some history, for example, you will find that slavery or something very much like it (peonage) has been commonplace in the Western world for most of recorded history. An undoubted evil, tolerated for the most part by the brilliant minds who’ve shaped Western civilization. We now recognize slavery as evil, but that doesn’t mean we can expect others to recognize its evil as sharply and clearly as we do.
My advice to those who dismiss writers whose work reflects the bigotries and prejudices common to their age: Grow up. Live a little. Learn a little. The world wasn’t made by a bunch of tin saints.
Best example that comes to mind is Mark Twain, whom I regard with an affection and respect that borders on reverence. He had a distinct and powerful antipathy towards American Indians, born of exposure to the most debased and degraded examples of same in his early days on the frontier. In his essay on Jews, he acknowledged that fact, saying, (paraphrase) that he had no bigotry towards any human race save one, which he did not specify.
But note well: he was ashamed of that bigotry, and had the honesty to recognize it for what it was. A splendid man, and an example to us all.
Evil Captor While slavery was common place, the US form of Chattle slavery was unique, in many, many ways. Further many founders knew it was wrong, questioned the morality of it and did it anyway. Look I don’t want to turn this into another slavery thread, but we have to recognize the error in saying slavery was commonplace and include US slavery with that; that was an abomination, even to slavery.
Note: elucidator on Twain, or the other founders who did oppose slavery, were they not products of their times too? Were they supermen? saints?
It seems to me, that we are not supportive enough of those who tried (even if they failed) to live up to the beliefs they held, as opposed to those who never tried at all; because they were a product of their times or are more popular with historians.
In my view I praise the art and not the artist. Though as talented these folks are they are still human beings with all the dirty little and big flaws that exist out there.
Sure we should understand the views held by these people to understand their work but let’s not hinge our appreciation of their work on the personailty of the artist. Some people are just products of their time because they were too weak to rise above the common beliefs.
For example Polanski is scum, as far as I’m concerned, but I can’t deny the talent he has at directing. His films, despite the man, are good works. Should he be arrested the second he steps on American soil? Absolutely. Punish the man. Should his work be destroyed or banned? No.
I like the sound of Wagner’s works, but despise his anti semetic beliefs. I would love to have the ability to magically see Beethoven conduct one of his symphonies or play a concerto, but from what I have read, I would never want to meet the man.
I believe that a book ( or any other art form ) should be judged on it’s own merits alone.Now, I admit if I found out that a book I really like was written by a rabid racist I’d be disturbed, but how would that change the book ? It’s still the same work that I liked, so I would ignore the originator and enjoy the creation.
As a practical matter, if we judge books by the author’s moral and political righteousness, how many books qualify as “good” books ? Racist attitudes were endemic in the past, and are still quite common. If we refuse to read books by racists, we lose most of the last few centuries of literature; if we include other bigotries like sexism and religious intolerance, we’re even worse off.
Racism I would call an unmitigated evil; racists may or may not qualify. It’s never good, but people can still be basically good and have a few bad attitudes. Someone who spends all of his/her time trying to hurt the “inferior races” Nazi style; they are evil, no question. Plenty of people have racist beliefs without being outright monsters. They should still be corrected, but hardly fall into the same catagory as “unmitigated evil”.
