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

Great Debates
21

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.

“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.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

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.

26

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

27

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.

28

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.

29

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.

30

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

31

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.

32

Aw come on! Who would say that about Rob?

33

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.

34

CalMeachem writes:

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.)

35

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

36

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.

37

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

**

and

**

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:

**

and

**

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

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:

**
:rolleyes: 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.

38

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.

39

Hee-hee! :smiley:

:applause:

40

[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