[QUOTE=TWDuke]
You seem to be assuming that “we” means “me and you” whereas it can also mean “me and people like me.” Also, it is risky to assume a priori that the narrative voice reflects the author’s point of view in a work of fiction (or even an essay, cf. “A Modest Proposal”). There are certainly hints in this story that the narrator is more provincial and myopic than Wells.
[/QUOTE]
You’re basing your correction of my interpretation on the wrong quote in the OP. I was referring to the OP’s aside:
When I was posting. I mistook that aside for the main focus of his thread, which was wrong. Of course “we” can vary in meaning–that wasn’t the point at all, but I think I’ve done enough clarifying etc to last for quite some time.
We are no longer amused at this thread and are moving on.
[QUOTE=Baldwin]
I was not, of course, surprised at a certain amount of racism in a 1901 story, however visionary it might be otherwise. Rather, I was curious about a specific stereotype I hadn’t encountered before. I’m baffled that any reasonably attentive reader could fail to apprehend the distinction.
[/QUOTE]
I share your surprise at finding Asians stereotyped as “quick in thought and deed” in 1901. I thought the stereotype of intelligent Asians dated to much later, after Asian professionals began emigrating to Western countries and their children did well in school, and after Japan became an economic threat. I would have assumed that Asians in 1901 were stereotyped as railroad laborers and coolies.
I’m doubly surprised to see Jews depicted as “prematurely aged”. I associate premature aging with a life of manual labor, which is not a stereotype associated with Jews, then or now.
Wells also wrote a nice short story entitled “The Truth About Pyecraft.” The protagonist was an upperclass Englishman who happened to have some East Indian blood, and was touchy about it, especially when other UEs assumed that he had supernatural powers because of it.
Of course, he does have supernatural powers (his Indian granny left him a list of her “recipes”), and Hijinks Ensue.
[QUOTE=Biffy the Elephant Shrew]
“And the strange thing was, thoughout the morning, she kept referring to the Indians as niggers. ‘No, no, no,’ I said, ‘the niggers are the West Indians. These people are wogs!’”
[/QUOTE]
I distinctly recall at least one instance of Flashman referring to India Indians as “niggers.”
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
I’m doubly surprised to see Jews depicted as “prematurely aged”. I associate premature aging with a life of manual labor, which is not a stereotype associated with Jews, then or now.
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t read the story we’re talking about, but I wonder if the idea is connected to the idea of Jews as scholarly or bookish.
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
I share your surprise at finding Asians stereotyped as “quick in thought and deed” in 1901. I thought the stereotype of intelligent Asians dated to much later, after Asian professionals began emigrating to Western countries and their children did well in school, and after Japan became an economic threat. I would have assumed that Asians in 1901 were stereotyped as railroad laborers and coolies.
[/QUOTE]
Dr. Fu Manchu first came on the scene in 1912, and he’s definitely so intelligent that he poses a threat to the Western world. In the original books, there are many references to his cunning Oriental mind; the presentation is that the Chinese, as a population, are cunning and Dr. Fu Manchu is exceptionally so. Of course, his intelligence is always put forward in strong negative terms: he is cunning, crafty, plotting (often compared to a chess master) and sneaky. I would say the thrust of the thing is that Asians lack the fine, upstanding Western/Christian morality that would temper their intelligence and prevent them from becoming evil doctors intent on world domination.
I wonder if the Boxer Rebellion had much to do with this stereotype, based on its rejection of Western ways. I mean, how ungrateful, right?
