For Sci-Fi fans: Was Robert Heinlein a Fascist?

[tclouie]

If you read a lot of science-fiction writers, you will eventually notice some recurring themes and even be able to point out some personality traits. For instance, Arthur C. Clarke is the visionary; Robert Sawyer is the eternally optimistic geek; Michael Crichton (snicker) is the formulaic, technocratic hack, not that that impedes my enjoyment of his work, it's like a guilty pleasure for me; Ray Bradbury, in his best work, is like a hippie on a bad acid freak-out, twenty years ahead of his time; Philip Dick was a raving (but harmless) psychotic with an identity crisis.

All of this can be gleaned just from their work, without knowing any of their biographies. But the only one that I really dislike, Robert Heinlein, seems to be a fascist. Just look at "Stranger In A Strange Land," "Starship Troopers," "Farnham's Freehold." (OK, he was also racist and a dirty old man. Ve must continue ze bloodline, little girlie--!)

So how about it? Was Heinlein an escaped German who came over here after the war to put some blood and iron into our sci-fi? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

[vtel57]

Outstanding!

I can see it now...

Heinlein: Vee have vays to make you read zee book, and then burn it in the ovens! Yawohl, mein Heir! Heh-heh...

[Dragon Phoenix]

Right-wing? Certainly. Sex-maniacal in his later works, yes. Fascist? Hm.

I have heard this before, but always found it difficult to believe. His Sixth sense (about an Asian invasion of the USA) has a lot of racism overtones, but on the other hand he clearly attacked racism in his The moon is a harsh mistress. And what makes you list Stanger in a strange land as an example of his supposed fascism?

[Badtz Maru]

I don't think so. He put a lot of importance on individual freedoms and rights, but also on personal responsibility and societies right to remove those who are harmful to it.

[tclouie]

In "Stranger In A Strange Land," the hero is a superior being who gets into the habit of "cleansing" the population by winking undesirables out of existence. The hero is later lynched by an unappreciative rabble. OK, this is not the most clear-cut example of fascism in Heinlein's work, but there are definite overtones.

In "Farnham's Freehold," the future has been taken over by black cannibals. Definitely racist. The hero is a balding, middle-aged man (who is pro-nuclear war) who gets to mate with his son's college girlfriend because the son turns out to be such a wimp.

I didn't read "Starship Troopers," just saw the movie. But that future society, constructed after the "failure of democracy," bases citizenship on military service, and more than one reviewer commented on the Gestapo-like Intelligence uniforms and the Holocaust-era tactic of classifying society's enemies as "bugs" or other vermin.

[Billdo]

I'd say he is much more libertarian than fascist. In fact, I would venture to say that he is rather strongly anti-fascist.

A recurring theme of his is opposition to authoritarian government. Very few of his heros are directly involved with the government, and those few that are have a strong "he who governs least, governs best" sentiment.

One of his recurring villians is is a strong, controlling government. Whenever a powerful or personally-invasive government is set up, it is inevetably opposed (and usually defeated) by rugged, free-thinking individualists.

Yes, he can be militaristic, but that is very different from being fascist.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by tclouie
I didn't read "Starship Troopers," just saw the movie. But that future society, constructed after the "failure of democracy," bases citizenship on military service, and more than one reviewer commented on the Gestapo-like Intelligence uniforms and the Holocaust-era tactic of classifying society's enemies as "bugs" or other vermin. [/b]

Umm, well, you see- the book was not like that so much. As it explained- you got to be a "citzen" by signing up for "government service"- not just the Military. So, stuff like the "peace corps" would count. The gestapo-uniforms are from the movie- only. And, umm, the enemy WAS 'bugs".

Heinlien liked to raise eyebrows. he apparently raised yours. And, you have read only a few of his books- you would have to read more to make such a judgement.

[waterj2]

There's a thread somewhere about how Paul Verhoeven was a genius for making a movie that made the good guys out to be really no better than fascists, so that those "in the know" could feel superior by looking down on the masses cheering for the Gestapo. Regardless of whether one thinks this is a good thing, it bore only a passing resemblance to the book. For one thing, in the book, the Mobile Infantry was actually mobile, and didn't rely on pre-WWI tactics.

Anyways, it's not as if Heinlein actually advocated that sort of government. I think he was writing about it as an intriguing idea, rather than a plan for the future.

[sewalk]

Before pronouncing Heinlein a fascist, read more than two or three of his books. His earlier works are much less political and are much smoother reading. There is a constant recurring theme in these books, and the later ones, when read objectively, of basic individual rights and responsibilities. Fascism suppresses the rights of the individual. No Heinlein protagonist is any kind of oppressor. I'd say the most common recurring personality is the rugged indivdualist.

I've always heard a lot of people denounce RAH because of the militaristic theme of Starship Troopers. The thing that strikes me is that they seem to ignore the personal sacrifice the elder characters in the story have made: Colonel DuBois' arm, Fleet Sergeant Ho's legs, and the OCS Commandant's eyes. To me, these people epitomize the other side of the coin in Heinlein's franchise-through-service society. They did not give up their limbs and eyes to gain the right of full citizenship; they gave them up to secure the freedom of all their fellow men and they continue to contribute by nurturing the sense of honor and responsibility of future citizens.

[tclouie]

It seems to me a person believing in Fascism would not admit to being an oppressor. However, a Fascist would believe that he is being oppressed by certain segments of society, like the mediocre, the weak or the different. "Tyranny of the weak" is a good Fascist slogan.

If Adolf Hitler were to write a sci-fi novel, it would probably resemble one of Heinlein's.

[tclouie]

By the way, Heinlein defenders -- How come nobody is mentioning Farnham's Freehold?

[Badtz Maru]

Well, I haven't read it myself, it's kinda hard to find. From what I've read and heard, though, there are sympathetic black characters in it.

[zen101]

Originally posted by tclouie
By the way, Heinlein defenders -- How come nobody is mentioning Farnham's Freehold?

Firstly: You state matter of factly that if Hitler wrote Sci-Fi it would read like a RAH story. Read more than two of Heinlein's books and ignore all movies "inspired" by his work unless you want to make such a mistake. You are dead wrong. Heinlein has been credited with being one of the first great libertarian authors and wrote in 1946 a book called "Take Back Your Government!" (published much later in the 90s') which was almost a manifesto for political activism in the common man and similar in approach to the Perot campaign. Heinlein continually advocates personal responsibility hand in hand with personal liberty knowing quite well that you can't have only one and have prosperity. Yes in many ways his words are sexist and bigoted by todays standards and demonstrate a visible prejudice. Hey guess what, people in his generation were brought up to think certain things and no one told them otherwise. Just like reading anyone who comes from the past you have to filter things a bit. People used to think there were demons in the ocean and the earth was flat too, they were not idiots they were simply ignorant to the kind of enlightenment that we have today. Heinelin also was the most feminist chauvinist I can think of. His femal characthers were feminine indeed and very sexual and would usually be leaders and do as much rescuing as geting rescued. If you insist on commenting further then read Friday, I Will Fear No Evil, and The Number of the Beast and you will encounter only a few of the truly stron femal charachters in his works.

on Farnham's Freehold: Yep the bad guys were black Africans or the descendants of black Africans. They ate people too. RAH was probably a bigot, I'd think so. See the first section to clarify why I don't thin he's burning in hell over it. Ever read any Clemens? The point isn't that Clemens or Heinlein were bigoted (which it is obvious they were by todays standards) but that they didn't try to be and in fact they tried to discover such things and banish them. In fact if you read his work you will see that he grew as a human being. The problem you seem to have is that you pick up something written by a human in 1964 (Freehold) and then fail to read something written 87' (Sail Beyond the Sunset) so you don't get to see that he was a man who learned and changed his own perspective. When I was a little itty bitty kid I did not know any black people. Never met one. I thought they all owned father and son garbage dumps and dry cleaning businesses, as I grew up I learned a lot more and hope to continue doing so.

I apologize if I come off harsh but I do not take well to people insulting someone who I admire as much as RAH offhandedly and without doing the simple courtesy of reading the man's work.

[waterj2]

I would imagine that if Hitler wrote Sci Fi, the main character's name wouldn't be Juan Rico. Just one little difference off the top of my head.

[Northern Piper]

For a counter-example to "Starship Troopers," read "If this goes on ---" - Heinlein's novella of army officers rebelling against a theocracy that's taken over the US and reinstituting a democratic government based on individual rights - hardly a fascist theme.

I'd go with the analysis that he was a libertarian who experienced personal growth on race issues.

[Astroboy14]

Dude!! I second all of the above! Read more of his stuff before you label him as a fascist of any sort! I have read, to the best of my knowledge, everything the man published... and much of it multiple times.

Yes, the bad guys in "Farnham's Freehold" were black... so what? If they were white, would RAH still be a racist? Let me introduce you to the term "plot device". When the book in question was written, the audience was primarily white... and he needed people who were sufficiently different (to a much more naive audience, and I include RAH in that group) to be believable as the bad guys. He also needed a predominant group in this future world visibly different than the group that had managed to fuck up the planet with a nuclear war.. but shock these people, with their darker skin and all, STILL managed to fuck up the planet in their own way! Oh my GOD!!! Maybe these darker people are not so different from us!



Try not to judge before you know what you are talking about, please.

And "Stranger in a Strange Land"... did you actually read it, or did you just skim? Michael does not "cleanse the population by winking undesirables out of existence!"

He does this only a couple of times, IIRC (don't have the book here, and haven't read it for a year or so... but HAVE read it about 7 times before!), and ONLY before he is introduced to human values/morals. Once he IS introduced to human society, he does not do this. If he DID continue to "wink undesirables out of existence" he would never have been martyred by the crowd. (BTW: he is NOT lynched, he is shot several times and then literally pulled apart by the mob...I think... is this correct? Anyone got the book handy?)

[tclouie]

Look, Heinlein didn't live in the days when people believed in a flat Earth. He lived in the MIDDLE TO LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY, so you can't blame it on the times he lived in. He was alive for a goodly portion of my own life, and I'm only 35.

By 1964, everyone in America was totally aware of things like civil rights and racial stereotypes, particularly anyone who had been a published popular author since the '40s, and particularly someone who often drew inspiration from news headlines for his stories. Heinlein probably would have read in the papers about King's "Dream" speech only one year before.

Anybody who wrote about a future race of black cannibals in 1964 would have been seen (in the context of the time, yes!) as being on the side of the Klan and the White Citizens Councils. Such a novel could be interpreted as a racist warning: "If you give the blacks equality, this will happen."

This was 1964, for crying out loud! And it was still the "good" years of the Civil Rights Movement--the big-city riots and the Black Panthers hadn't happened yet. Heinlein was definitely making a statement by publishing that book at that time, and I don't like what he was saying.

Heinlein was definitely no innocent "creature of his time." How could a "libertarian" who believed in individual freedom be so historically deterministic anyway? How can you say "no one told him otherwise"? Even 100 years ago there would have been people like W.E.B. DuBois telling him otherwise--maybe their views weren't widely reported, but a writer of speculative fiction, writing about the future rather than staying in the past, definitely would have had access to those views. If Heinlein was such a great writer, then how dare you imply he was like some blank slate who believed everything he was told by society.

He was a creepy right-wing racist because he CHOSE to be, not 'cuz he was ign'ant.

I think your comparison of Heinlein to Clemens is very insulting to Clemens, and not just because Clemens was a much better writer. Clemens, living 100 years before Heinlein, was much more enlightened about race relations. Clemens was a reporter of his own present, and so he reported people using the n-word. Heinlein, writing about the future, reported that first the Russkies would nuke us, and then the niggaz would eat us in the aftermath. There is no comparison between the two men.

Sure, I can give someone credit for changing and growing. Bobby Kennedy changed by '68. Even George Wallace had changed by '76. But reading Farnham's Freehold was a deal-breaker for me. There is no coming back from that.

And how can you say I haven't done Heinlein the courtesy of reading his work, when everybody else in this thread is willing to admit I've read two??? Two was enough! I tried to read more, but I couldn't stomach any more scenes in which girls always have some excuse to walk around naked, or have sex with middle-aged men...

I think in order to be a well-rounded SF reader, you don't need to read any more than two books by one author (unless it's a trilogy). Hey, I like Ray Bradbury and Philip Dick, and I've only read 3 by each of them. Of course, I've also read 6 by Robert Sawyer, 6 by Arthur C. Clarke and collaborators, and at least 11 by Crichton, but all of these authors have a more positive view of humanity and more likeable characters.

[tclouie]

I think I'm remembering "Stranger" better than you. It's AFTER he's reintroduced to society, AFTER he "grows up," matures, starts a religious cult, whatever, that he admits to Jubal Harshaw that he's been weeding out evil people--"sent to the foot of the line, to try again," I think he puts it. Basically saying it's OK to kill people because everyone gets reincarnated, thus preparing himself for his own death.

By the way, "lynched" doesn't have to mean hung. It just means executed without a trial, for instance by an enraged mob. Shooting and tearing limb from limb will do. The very first Judge Lynch in Ireland threw his own son out the window. Didn't hang him, but did lynch him.

I hated the lynching scene in "Stranger." Another example of Heinlein's bloodymindedness.

[Guy Propski]

Asimov made the comment in his autobiography that he noticed a change in Heinlein's outlook around the late 40's, not long after he divorced his first wife. Before this point, Asimov said that Heinlein was a hard-core liberal; afterwards, he felt he had become just as hard-core a conservative.

The fascist label is a litle strong. This tends to get stuck to anyone that doesn't meet with our ultra-liberal beliefs.

For a glimpse of what a SF novel written by Adolf Hitler would look like, read Norman Spinrad's "The Iron Dream."

[Astroboy14]

Reply to Astroboy
I think I'm remembering "Stranger" better than you. It's AFTER he's reintroduced to society, AFTER he "grows up," matures, starts a religious cult, whatever, that he admits to Jubal Harshaw that he's been weeding out evil people--"sent to the foot of the line, to try again," I think he puts it. Basically saying it's OK to kill people because everyone gets reincarnated, thus preparing himself for his own death.

Hmmmmmm... as I said, I don't have the book here, so maybe you are remembering it better than me. (Anyone? RAH fans? Help!! Help!!!!!! I'm sinking!!!!)

By the way, "lynched" doesn't have to mean hung. It just means executed without a trial, for instance by an enraged mob. Shooting and tearing limb from limb will do.

OK, I'll give you that one... but I still think RAH wasn't a fascist!

[Eft]

Originally posted by Astroboy14
And "Stranger in a Strange Land"... did you actually read it, or did you just skim? Michael does not "cleanse the population by winking undesirables out of existence!"

He does this only a couple of times, IIRC (don't have the book here, and haven't read it for a year or so... but HAVE read it about 7 times before!), and ONLY before he is introduced to human values/morals. Once he IS introduced to human society, he does not do this. If he DID continue to "wink undesirables out of existence" he would never have been martyred by the crowd.

Michael does indeed continue to make undesirables disappear after coming into contact with humans. Right after the Church of All Worlds goes into hiding, he disposes of a couple hundred people whom he deems not safe, because it's better to kill a man than to imprison him. As he puts it, "for a while, this will be an uncommonly decent city." He doesn't do it when being martyred because he goes out to meet the crowd on purpose to have them martyr him. (Yes, he's shot a couple of times, then pulled apart and incinerated.) Remember that according to his worldview, he can't die--all he was doing was discorporating and thus making a powerful symbol for his religion.

Originally posted by zen101
Heinelin also was the most feminist chauvinist I can think of. His femal characthers were feminine indeed and very sexual and would usually be leaders and do as much rescuing as geting rescued. If you insist on commenting further then read Friday, I Will Fear No Evil, and The Number of the Beast and you will encounter only a few of the truly stron femal charachters in his works.

"Feminist chauvanist" I can buy, but "strong female characters"? Let's take a look at the examples you cited. Friday is emotionally dependent on and a tool of RAH's favorite character, the Wise Old Man Whom Nubile Young Things Would Love To Have Sex With. She's neurotic. But she's the best of the bunch, yes. Eunice (IWFNE) is the Wise Old Man, who's taken over the body of the Nubile Young Thing. And both before and after the merger Eunice's main source of power is that she's sexually desirable and thus can make men do what she wants. This is also true of Maureen in To Sail Beyond the Sunset. Finally, the women in TNotB are both intelligent but control the men largely by sexual manipulation and temper tantrums. The women are all intelligent, but contrast their behavior with that of the men in the stories and you'll see how they use sex to get what they want when the men use force of will. If those are strong female characters, I fear to think what weak ones are like. The strongest female characters he's got are probably the ones in Tunnel in the Sky, and even they are generally--not entirely--subordinate to their male counterparts. RAH is a 1960s male feminist: women should be intelligent (so they can help) and sexual (so they want to sleep with the men) but they're still fundamentally beautiful children.

[Northern Piper]

Asimov made the comment in his autobiography that he noticed a change in Heinlein's outlook around the late 40's, not long after he divorced his first wife. Before this point, Asimov said that Heinlein was a hard-core liberal; afterwards, he felt he had become just as hard-core a conservative.

I just don't think that someone who wrote "Sixth Sense," one of the worst anti-Asian screeds I've ever had the misfortune to read, could be called a "hard-core liberal." As well, I think that if Heinlein had died in the mid-sixties, books like "Sixth Sense" and "Farnham's Freehold" would have left a clear impression that he was a racist.

But, then you read a book like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," written in the mid-seventies, where, the heros are the rag-tag unwanted of Earth, of all races, banding together to throw off the oppression of the Earth government. For example, one minor episode is where the protaganist, visiting Earth, is tossed in jail on miscengeneration charges in one of the southern states, because he was a member of an extended, multi-racial family. That makes it much harder to dismiss him as a racist in my mind.

[tclouie]

Since we're getting into specific definitions here, and since someone pointed out that "fascist" is sometimes overused, and since I've seen no evidence that Heinlein believed in the "organic state" or "class collaboration".....

OK, OK, I'll drop the accusation of fascism, IF you all agree that Heinlein was racist. That was the worst part of fascism anyway...the hating and stuff. To get from right-wing to fascist, all you need is hate....

For much the same reasons, I don't like Rudyard Kipling either.

They say Roald Dahl was an anti-Semite, but as far as I know he didn't let it seep into his writing. So I still like his books.

[CalMeacham]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of all, I don't think Heinlein was a racist or a fascist or a sexist.

I love his books, and have re-read them multiple times. He is, regardless of your opinions of his views, a HELL of a writer.

I get the impression that he hated being pigeonholed for his p[olitical views. He was very active politically, and I think your average person would call him a libertarian, from what I've read.

For a spirited defence of Heinlein, read Spider Robinson's "Rah!Rah!R.A.H!" (In "Requiem" and other books). Read Heinlein's own "Expanded Universe". His women are interesting creatures. I find them frequently embarassing (If you want to see something to make you cringe, watch "Operation Moonbase", which Heinlein wrote the screenplay for. There's a lot of excellent stuff in that, but his treatment of women is condescwending and decidedly odd). But he really does have strong and independent female characters -- read "The Star Beast" or "The Puyppet Masters" or "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

As for the charge of fascism, it aint' so. Read his own defense of "Starship Troopers" in "Expanded Universe" or "Grumbles from the Grave", or Robinson's defence of it. Read even Alexei Panshin's criticism of it. Certainly DON'T take the Verhoven film as any sort of guide -- Verhoeven's politics and phiklosophy are 180 degrees from Heinlein's. The movie is a fascinating perversion of the book. And don't assume that the book represents Heinlein's political views -- Heinlein liked to create novel political systems VASTLY different from our own. There's usually one per book, but "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" contains several, as does "Expanded Universe". I suspect the one in "Starship Troopers is closest to his heart, but I can't prove it.

As for racism, there are plenty of statements in Heinlein's books denouncing racism. I don't find "Sixth Column" racist. (Heinlein claimed the John Campbell novel he effectively rewrote it from WAAS racist). Most of "Farnham's Freehold" tells either about surviving a nuclear attack, or about the survivors living in a future when most whites have been killed in a nuclear war, and their descendants have become the slaves of black masters. It was definitely a "shoe-on-the-other-foot" situation. The inhabitants of that future society are depicted as generally sympathetic, although culturaklly very different from us. The bit about cannibalism is NOT a major element in the story, and is dropped in at the end, I think, for shock value. I note that even the whites in the book are cannibals. I don't for a moment think that Heinlein is sayaing "If you let Blacks run the World they're going to end up eating White People!" There's just far too much stuff in hisd writing that is extremely anti-racist.

[Northern Piper]

Sorry - "Sixth Column" not "Sixth Sense." But I have to disagree with you Cal - I read it with a horrible sense of unease. It wasn't just his treatment of the invading Asians, but of the American-Japanese gardener - patronizing, admiring his brave little heart, his sacrifice at the end, and so on. I think it is a racist treatment of the theme.

[muttrox]

I was just about to bring up that facism != racism, when you conceded the point. Great!

Can we rename the thread then? Asking whether he was a racist is much more interesing anyhow, the answer isn't so clear.

IMHO, I think he did have a bias towards much of the culture and cultural values that is identified with causcasians. It would be accurate to say the RAH was racial in that he believed that race made a difference in (at a minimum) a cultural sense. I don't think he was a racist, in that he didn't belive that one race was inherently better than another.

My $.02

[RealityChuck]

Under any reasonable definition of faschism, Heinlein doesn't qualify. You can pick and choose things from his work to prove your point, but you can do that for any author. Heinlein said many things, and it's not always clear what was his philosophy and what was the philosophy of the character speaking.

If you judge from his work, Heinlein's politics were all over the map:

1. He was in favor of democracy (Double Star)
2. He was in favor of a monarchy (Glory Road)
3. He thought democracy was generally good, but needed strong leadership to prevent mob rule (Moon is a Harsh Mistress)
4. He portrayed non-caucasions as ugly stereotypes. (Farnham's Freehold)
5. He was one of the first to portray a non-caucasion as a hero in a science fiction novel (Starship Troopers). (N.B., Samuel R. Delany has written that the description of Johnny Rico indicated he was Black, and I have rarely seen Chip wrong on something like that).

So using the books is pointless. Heinlein's nonfiction seems to indicate he was pretty much a Libertarian, with a belief in the necessity for strong leadership (and if that's fascist, then nearly all U.S. presidential candidates are fascists -- including Ralph Nader).

As far as racism is concerned, it's a complex issue. Farnham's Freehold can certainly be read that way, but to call that Heinlein's philosophy is a very tricky proposition. We just can't look at it with the right perspective. Heinlein may have only been portraying a group of villains and had no intention of implying that the characters in the book were meant to represent black people.

Current critics have their own biases in these matters and unconsciouly assume that the books were written according to 21st Century values. It's the same issue with sexism -- Heinlein cannot be expected to act like someone living in 2001 (that's Clarke's job ). The most you can say from a reading of the text is "under current assumptions and biases, Heinlein's work gives the impression of racism/sexism." However that tells nothing about Heinlein or his intentions.

[Edward The Head]

I haven't read Heinlein in about 6-7 years but I don't remember ANY raceism or facism or anything like that. I'm tring to remember what I read, I remember Stranger, # of the Beast, Job, Friday, The cat who could walk through walls, and the one where the man is transplanted into a woman.

I always thought he was busting on religion, especially in Job and Stranger. I still can't remember anything racist, I can kinda see the sexist part, but even that's not that bad. Seems to me people are TRYING to find stuff like that in peoples writing just to find a reason NOT to like them. I stopped reading Heinlein cause I got tired of him not cause I found anything wrong with what he said. I guess that makes ME a racist too.

[CalMeacham]

It's been a while since I read "Sixth Column". I'll have to have another look. All I can say is that I don't recall it being overtly racist. Certainly the Asians were villains -- but it was written just before the US entry into WWII. The Japanese WERE the villains. He certainly didn't depict them as stupid. I'll check my copy tonight.

I've recall plenty of other examples -- in the last story in "Expanded Universe" the president of the U.S. is black -- and female. (The president of the US in "Operation Moonbase" is female, too, but I have to admit thatshe's still an embarassing character.) Johnny Rico in "Starship Troopers", it turns out, is black, too. (Actually, although several people have assured me that this is made clear at the end of the novel, I keep missing it.) If you really want to see Heinlein railing against racism, read "Tramp Royale", his recently-released travel book. He was appalled by British attitudes towards Blacks in South Africa and towards the Chinese in Southeast Asia. I can't say I blame him.

I recall him talking about "brown bothers and sisters" several times in his books. As I say, I really don't think Heinlein was a racist OR a fascist.

[RealityChuck]

Robert Sawyer is the eternally optimistic geek.

In certain circles, Rob Sawyer's reputation is that he's the root of all evil.

[toadspittle]

I don't think he was a racist. Get back to Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie) and Juan Rico. Pretty forward-thinking, IMO.

You name me one other novel with a Filipino protagonist.

[tclouie]

Aw come on! Who would say that about Rob?

[Danimal]

I absolutely cannot believe that anyone who has actually read _Farnham's Freehold_ thinks it is a racist tract. It is the most unsubtly anti-racist book I have ever read. The protagonist's wife and son are walking, talking representatives of the worst anti-black bigotry of Heinlein's time, and Heinlein, through the protagonist, takes every opportunity to smash their stupid prejudices to a pulp.

As for the future where blcks have become the dominant race; wake up already! This was Heinlein's clear message to white supremacists, as subtle as a brick in the face: "Racial supremacy is good? Let's see how you like it when it's happening to you, eh? Don't like it so much now, do you?"

Sheesh.

[Akatsukami]

CalMeachem writes:

Johnny Rico in "Starship Troopers", it turns out, is black, too. (Actually, although several people have assured me that this is made clear at the end of the novel, I keep missing it.)

Actually, what's made clear is that, culturally, he's Filipino.

He mentions that Tagalog was spoken at home. He refers approvingly, and with more than a bit of hero-worship, to Ramon Magsaysay, Filipino statesman and President of the Philippines before his unfortunate death (the cap trooper that he's talking to, WRT national hero-worship, admits, "We were taught in school that Simon Bolivar built the Pyramids, married Cleopatra, and was the first man on the Moon"). Filipinos, from the long Spanish occupation of that archipelago, often have Spanish forenames, and sometimes (although less frequently) surnames.

I suppose it could be argued that, on the united Earth, some blacks (perhaps a U.S. serviceman?) passed through or settled in the Philippines, and contributed to Rico's ancestry, but such is never mentioned.

(Incidentally, there is a throwaway line in The Cat Who Walks through Walls that indicates that the protagonist, Richard Ames (a/k/a Colin Campbell) is part black. There's also a bit in Time Enough for Love that states that Zaccur Barstow was part black, although Heinlein may well not have had that in mind when he wrote Methuselah's Children. Of course, those two works are late enough that the PC crowd would whine if there weren't explicit references to people not of simon-pure Northern European ancestry in them.)

[Triskadecamus]

Farnham's Freehold:

Robert Heinlein wrote a book in which he portrays a society where race is the primary determinant of social position. He portrays that society to be hypocritical, exploitative, and devoid of even the minimal self-awareness to know their real history. He chose to make this particular society an inverse of his own in terms of which race was "superior." Now he is accused of promoting racism.

You guys need to read his screed about the education system.

Morons.

Tris

[toadspittle]

an IMHO:

Personally, I find the govt. setup in Starship Troopers to be a pretty cool idea: only the people who give up 2 years of their life to serve their country (not necessarily in the military, either) are allowed to vote and run said country--having shown themselves to be at least marginally selfless. Those who do not go into civil service are not otherwise penalized or belittled--they just can't vote. There are still wealthy, non-voting businessmen, but they can't hold political office.

[sdimbert]

Hey, tclouie, you've said some interesting things in this thread.

But the only one that I really dislike, Robert Heinlein, seems to be a fascist

and

If Adolf Hitler were to write a sci-fi novel, it would probably resemble one of Heinlein's.

Strong words. But, that's OK, because you're not the first person to make this charge. Of course, you then make yourself look rather silly by saying things like:

I didn't read "Starship Troopers," just saw the movie.

and

I think in order to be a well-rounded SF reader, you don't need to read any more than two books by one author

So, how about it? Which of Heinlein's books do you think are racist? The first one, or the second?

Look, I'm not coming at you from the perspective of a big RAH fan (though I am one). I'm just trying to point out the irrationality of your argument. You admit that you don't know much about a man's life and that you haven't read anything close to the totality of his work, then you label him a racist. Did you read the works written by his critics? You know, people like George Edgar Slusser, Alexei Panshin, Howard Bruce Franklin, Thomas D. Clareson, Leon E. Stover and others?

Look: People more informed than you have made these charges, and people more informed than you have dismissed them.

And as far as:

I hated the lynching scene in "Stranger." Another example of Heinlein's bloodymindedness.

Yeah. That Heinlein sure is a disgusting person. Just like Arthur Miller (mob scenes in The Crucible and A View from the Bridge), Mary Shelly (terrible violence in Frankenstein), William Shakespeare (have you read the last act of Macbeth?), etc, etc, etc.

[Lemur866]

Or what about "Tunnel in the Sky"? Carolyn is Zulu. And RAH said in "Expanded Universe" that Rod Walker (the protagonist) is black, although it is not explicitly stated.

In "The Star Beast" Mr Kiku the undersecretary is african, and compares the position of Earth and the Hiroshu to an african tribe against the british.

And yes, in "Starship Troopers" the aliens are indistinguishable bugs. But RAH also had aliens that were humane and friendly...Lummox, Dr. Ftaeml, Willis, the martians in "Double Star", the venerians in "Space Cadet", etc etc. Not exactly xenophobic, eh?

And in "Starship Troopers", Juan Rico is Fillipino and his native language is Tagalog. The service is explicitly portrayed as multiracial, and this is explicitly portrayed as a good thing.

And of course, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" portrays the multiracial and multicultural libertarian society on the moon as superior to earth. Main characters: Manuel Garcia O'kelly Davis, Bernardo de la Paz.

And Danimal and Triskadecamus are correct. "Farnham's Freedhold" is perhaps flawed, perhaps unsubtle, but definately anti-racist. The dominant race is black because RAH thought it would shock his white audience. It's a simple case of putting the shoe on the other foot.

In the book, the black "master race" characters use exactly the same racist claptrap to justify their mastery that white racists did in his time. The point was to show how stupid white racism was by putting it in the mouths of black racists. Not exactly subtle, but apparantly juuuust a little bit too subtle for the OP.

The point is that RAH had the racial views of a sophisticated person of the early part of the century. He was aware of cultural differences, but considered them unimportant, just another set of customs. And he noticed racial differences without ascribing much importance to them. I know this is different from today, where cultural differences are supposed to be extremely significant and people from different cultures are supposed to fundamentally and permanently estranged. So sue him.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by Lemur866
In the book -[Farnham's Freehold], the black "master race" characters use exactly the same racist claptrap to justify their mastery that white racists did in his time. The point was to show how stupid white racism was by putting it in the mouths of black racists. Not exactly subtle, but apparantly juuuust a little bit too subtle for the OP.

Hee-hee!

:applause:

[LazarusLong42]

[Disclaimer: Yup, I'm a supporter and lover of Heinlein's novels. If that weren't obvious from my screen name...]

Trisk and Danimal pretty much have the idea correct regarding Farnham's Freehold. It should be noted, also, that before the Farnham family et al. discover the black society that runs the Earth in that future time, Hugh Farnham chooses Joseph (the black houseboy) as his right-hand man, the person whom he trusts the most--because his son's an idiot, his wife is a drunk, and he feels more protective of Barbara and Karen than anyone else. (Of course, by the end of the novel, he only has Barbara left. His son is still an idiot, his wife is still a drunk, and Joseph, rather than staying loyal has turned sides).

Now, what I want to know is... had Hugh Farnham et al. been black with a white servant, and the future society white supremacists who ate black children, would you have thought that was non-racist? I suspect not.

As to fascism... So many people have tried to prove that Heinlein is a fascist using Starship Troopers that the questions is part of the alt.fan.heinlein FAQ. Learned essays have been written on the subject. The only conclusion I've ever seen is that Heinlein's not a fascist; the society of Starship Troopers is an example of what could happen and, regardless of its philosophy, not necessarily consistent directly with Heinlein's beliefs.

OK, that's racism and fascism. Oh yes, sexism, the thing of which Heinlein is most often accused. Someone above said "Even all of his strong women characters use sex to get what they want." I strongly disagree. This is partially true--not entirely so--of Maureen Johnson Long, Hilda Burroughs, and Deety Burroughs, but is specifically not true of:

Dora Brandon Johnson (Time Enough for Love): Put into Lazarus Long's arms from a fire which killed her parents. She ends of loving him as wife, but never uses sex to get what she wants.

Hazel Stone (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Rolling Stones, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls): As a young girl in TMiaHM, Hazel is extremely self-reliant, to the point of being the youngest member of the rebellion and the youngest signer of the Charter of the Luna Free State. As a grandmother in TRS, she's still self-reliant, not to mention probably the person most turned to for advice by Castor and Pollux, and especially Lowell Stone. As Gwen Nowak, she's quite a bit sexier, but again doesn't use sex to get what the wants from Colin Campbell/Richard Ames--rather, she falls in love with him. And far from becoming dependent on him (as, admittedly, Friday Jones does on her mentor), Gwen/Hazel is the person who keeps solving every problem the two run into.

Anne, Miriam, Dorcas (Stranger in a Strange Land): They have power over Jubal Harshaw and, while they may flaunt their beauty a bit, in reality they don't use it for power. Jubal loves them as daughters, not as concubines, and they have a daughter's power.

And, finally, a quote from Lazarus Long:

"Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably gotten the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, 'equality' is a disaster."

Premise: Contrary to what some believe, Heinlein was a feminist. A chauvinist feminist in many ways, I'll admit, but a feminist nonetheless. Discuss.

LL

[LazarusLong42]

Manny, Chronos... I submit that the OP cannot be answered satisfactorily to anyone who believes differently... and that this oughta be over in GD.

LL

[Northern Piper]

Relating to the OP itself, I wouldn't say that the society in "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the movie) was fascist.

Communitarian, yes, in the sense that to earn full citizenship, you had to put your life on the line, to shield the community from the threat: "Greater love hath no man, etc."

However, it's clear that everyone in the society has the right to do that. The recruiting sergeant (or col Dubois?) says that if someone turns up at the recruiting office blind, deaf and in a wheelchair, he/she would still have every right to apply to serve, to earn full citizenship. The gov't would have to find some form of service that would be sufficient for that person to try to qualify. Sounds very much like modern duty to accomodate in human rights law, and completely opposite to "master race/only the strong can rule" fascism.

Similarly, women are the top honchos in the space navy, while men are the troops, since RAH says that women tend to do better in flying the space ships. (You may say that is a sex-based stereotype, but it's a stereotype that says the women are better at an entire range of crucial military service than men.)

It's also a very egalitarian military system. What holds the Mobile Infantry together is that everyone drops (i.e. lands on the battleground), and everyone fights, from the generals down to the cooks.

Finally, RAH emphasises that one of the biggest differences between the humans and the arachnids is that humans will save injured humans, the arachnids just abandon injured arachnids. Johnny's first commander gets killed saving someone else at the beginning of Johnny's service, and by the end of the book, the humans are planning a major raid on an arachnid planet to rescue human POWs. The duty of the individual to put his/her life on the line for the society is counter-balanced by a duty on the society to pick up the injured soldiers, even at great risk to other soliders. (Say, now if they had had Tom Hanks in the film version...) That seems quite removed from the fascist concept that the state takes priority, and that individuals serve the state/the leader, etc.

Interestingly, the political philosophy that guides the moon rebels is quite different from that of "Starship Troopers." When Wyo, Manny and Professor de la Paz are inadvertently organising themselves in the first cell of the underground, the professor asks Manny "in what circumstances is the community justified in putting it's interests ahead of yours?" Manny replies "Never" and the prof beams and says that they have reached an acceptable political first principle for their revolution. However, even though the community cannot put its interest ahead of individuals, the individuals can freely decide to subordinate their interests to that of the community. Wyo, Manny and the prof decide to start the revolution, at great personal risk and at odds that Mycroft calculates at just under 1 chance in 10 of success (I may have the odds wrong - been a while since I read it), because they feel they owe a duty to rescue their fellow moonies from the inevitable starvation and food riots that will result from the current regime

The moon society is libertarian, the Starship Troopers society is communitarian, but both emphasise the concept of individuality and responsibility - and RAH writes approvingly of both. Which suggests that he was a great writer who could build different societies and make them appealing. To the extent they actually reflect his own views, the concepts of individualtiy and responsibility are likely the key points.

[Togepi no Miko]

The OP is an idiot. See Have Spacesuit, Will Travel for a non sex-wielding female protagonist and a friendly alien, the Mother Thing.

OK, about stranger; VMS kills when his or his friends' lives are in danger, and later kills people who would doubtless be waiting for the death penalty in jail anyway. I like the point about his belief in reincarnation, so you'd just come back, having screwed up big this time around. BTW, in The number of the beast, it seems like VMS was saved somehow? I was quite glad that they rescued Mike the computer from Moon, which is as non-racist as you can possibly get. the poster who said that farnham was a shoe's on the other foot book was quite right. The women in Methuselah's Children are fairly non sex-wielding, too. And don't forget podkayne, or mary cavanaugh from Puppet masters... or the girl from Beyond th stars.

THe OP needs to READ more Heinlein before making uninformed assumptions and accusations. I recommend Citizen of the Galaxy.

--We pray for one last landing on the globe that gave us birth...

[Tamerlane]

Damn! Lemur866 got to my points first ( especially re: Tunnel in the Sky ) . RAH was no racist. And while I don't favor his libertarian politics myself, he was no fascist.

Sexist? Well there is some room for discussion there. But relative to the mores of the 40's and 50's his female charcters were remarkably capable, intelligent, ( and often witty ) beings. Sometimes THE most capable character in his novels. Grandmother Stone in The Rolling Stones, Carolyn as the top hunter in Tunnel in the Sky, and I could go on through virtually every novel he wrote. Even in Starship Troopers Juan Rico's "girlfriend"/buddy ( who he wants, but doesn't get ) is an independant-minded top pilot. This was not a man who generally projected an air of quiet domesticity for his female characters. And even the quietest domestic housewife sometimes contained a surprise - See the revelation about the mother of the protagonist at the end of Have Space Suit, Will Travel . No RAH liked and respected women. Where he may have fallen down is in buying into some of the stereotypes of the supposed occasional childishness and overly emotional ( and nurturing ) nature of women and girls. And as time wore on, he may not have adapted to more modern views as quickly as perhaps he should have. But I'd stack up his female characters in the 50's to those in any other sf novel in that same period without hesitation.

tclouie: It is my considered opinion that you read two of RAH's weakest early/mid-period works . Try his "juvenile" novels from the 50's - I listed some in Dinsdale's column requesting sf for younger readers. Now days they are marketed for adults ( and still read well ) but they were originally written for mature teens. His best work IMHO. Also the slightly later The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a great novel ( though again, I don't buy into the overt libertarian themes expressed within ).

- Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

Argh!! Damn you people for typing so fast and stealing all my points . I agree fully with the last several posters.

- Tamerlane

[Lemur866]

One more thing. Sometimes people who read Heinlein's later books can't understand why he is regarded as such a great writer.

Well, speaking for myself, I would say that his earlier "juveniles" are the reason we like him. Read "Tunnel in the Sky", "Have Spacesuit--Will Travel", "Time for the Stars", "Citizen of the Galaxy", "The Star Beast", "Red Planet". Those are the books that most Heinlein fans grew up with and love. Or read "Stranger in a Strange Land", "Starship Troopers", and "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", or his short stories in "The Past Through Tomorrow". I agree, his later books are rambling and not his best work...he had severe medical problems later in life and wrote with difficulty. Of his later books, "Friday" and "Job" are OK, but not great.

Anyway, Heinlein was writing about cultural and racial differences and how they were irrelevant back when it was still a shocking idea. The fact that the OP missed all that says more about him than it does about RAH.

[Northern Piper]

Tamerlane, you've just got to get Captain Keyboard's Typing Tutor™

[Moirai]

Wish I had gotten here earlier.

I, for one, have never been disturbed by a s-f novel, except when THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE STORY. The storyteller (because that's all the author is) is trying to show you something new, and it might not be comfortable.

(BTW, don't assume that a good author is being autobiographical every time he puts stylus to tablet, ok?)

Having said that, I still never got any of these rascist/fascist/sexist/whatever vibes while reading Heinlein. I do understand that he was a product of his time (the mid 20th century), so certain things that might make me squirm a bit could be present, BUT THAT'S NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT STUFF GOING ON.

I thought that the philosophy and story in Starship Troopers was the important part, not how many blacks there were, or whether or not women are better star pilots.

For Christ's sweet sake, read a story for entertainment once in a while. Sheesh.

[RealityChuck]

Aw come on! Who would say that about Rob?

Half of SFWA, tclouie.

[Danimal]

On a tangential subject, another amazing thing about Heinlein, considering his time and background, is the extremely tolerant attitude he had toward homosexuality. This is most apparent in _The Number of the Beast,_ _Time Enough For Love,_ and _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls._ It's fairly apparent that he hadn't glommed onto the idea of "orientation," he apparently imagined that homosexuality was a choice, but in no way was it a choice he disapproved of. And that put him leagues ahead of the contemporary thinking that homosexuality was a mental disease.

Granted, homophobia is not necessarily an integral requirement for fascism, so pointing out Heinlein's tolerance of homosexuality does not directly refute charges of fascism. But certainly homophobia has been characteristic of fascist movements throughout this century, notably Nazism, and Heinlein had no truck with such nonsense.

Heinlein wasn't a fascist, and although he has undoubtedly inspired millions of libertarians, I don't think he would have been comfortable calling himself a libertarian either. I believe that Heinlein was essentially a Goldwater conservative.