Bigotry in older novels

I've been reading The Professor and Shirley by Charlotte Bronte. She is extremely bigoted against- of all people- the Belgians. She has absolutely nothing good to say about them. I'm simultaneously appalled and amused. I guess her personal experiences in Belgium soured her on the 'Flamands' as she calls them.

I understand that we must take novels in the context of the society in which they were written. But have you ever been taken aback by the racism, sexism or anti-semitism of some older classics? It usually doesn't bother me, but sometimes it's a bit too much.

I've read two or three recent reviews that indicate Oliver Twist has a fairly surprising streak of anti-semitism; haven't read it yet myself, but now I'm wary.

Another classic I intend to read but want to preface and surround with a lot of background reading is Uncle Tom's Cabin, to fully understand its historical context and objections raised against it since.

Well, sure, I'm taken aback. There are those who argue otherwise, but The merchant of Venice strikes me as deeply anti-semitic, albeit less so than some other popular works of that period. I'm appalled by certain passages in the Hebrew bible that, for example, condone or demand genocide.

I recently reread Heart of darkness for the first time since the sixties. For decades that was a standard high school text in senior English, and yet it is pervasively racist (and not kind towards Belgians either!). How times change.

Yes, because we are all so much less racist than our forebears...

>4 DanMat: I wouldn't say that we are less racist than a century ago, but perhaps less openly so. Authors are more politically-correct now. In Charlotte Bronte's time, racism wasn't even questioned.

It interesting to see how the targets of bigotry in the past-- groups like Catholics, Irish, Mormons, East Europeans, etc. (and Belgians)-- are rarely targeted by bigots now. It's not really progress. There is still a lot of prejudice, it is just aimed at different groups-- especially Muslims and Hispanics.

I've heard that Belgians are boring.

Robert

PS Maybe in National Lampoon.

R

Being Belgian, I find this highly fascinating. I do know about 'We lost the Belgians over the Syrian desert' in Will Smith's Independance Day (a movie, not a book). Is this a common theme in English literature? Should we start a separate thread for anti-Belgian novels? :-)

Hercule Poirot was Belgian too. And he is the super-intelligent hero of Agatha Christie's novels. So I guess the English impression of Belgians improved between the early 19th Century and the mid-20th Century.

Let's not forget the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy describing "Belgium" as the most offensive word in the galaxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_the_Universe_and_Everything#Censorship

Coincidentally I came across the term Walloon while reading Germinal...

I, too, was struck by Bronte's disdain for Belgians when I read Villette. Apparently her experiences as a teacher in Belgium colored her portraits of the people.

However, my brother reminded me of a Monty Python episode that had a competition for the most derogatory Belgian phrase, the winner being "miserable fat Belgian bastards." So perhaps it's an English thing that didn't completely vanish in the 20th century?

Re: Oliver Twist. Apparently in the first versions of the novel, Fagin is consistently called "the Jew" as a derogatory term. Later, in the 1860's, after being called on it by a Jewish friend, Dickens went back and removed many of these references in the next edition, substituting "Fagin" or just "him." He also created a sympathetic Jewish character in his last novel, Our Mutual Friend. I find it admirable to see a change like that in an author.

Nonetheless, it is worth remembering that the British Empire entered World War I when Germany violated Belgium's neutrality. Although the British government's motivation was strategic more than affectionate perhaps, the decision involved enormous sacrifice as it turned out.

If you're in the market for being offended, try The Clumsiest People in Europe, a Victorian guidebook written by a woman who gathered her information through other travelogues rather than traveling herself, which really was best for the locales of the countries she wrote about as she loathed everyone. In fact, it may not be right to label Mrs. Mortimer a racist as she found something to dislike of every culture, so maybe she'd be described as having a mankind intolerance.

18th/early 19th century gothic novels seem to have a lot against the Catholics. It's not extremely blatant, but Catholics tend to turn up a lot as the bad guys, and there's a lot of subtle commentary about the Inquisition and possible hypocrisy within the cloisters.

>8 madpoet: I think Agatha Christie used the reaction of English characters to Hercule Poirot to make some very sly points about what she saw as the English attitude toward all foreigners in general, and anyone who seemed French in particular. In many of her mysteries, automatic suspicion falls on a foreigner or someone who's "not from around here." These reactions nearly always turn out to be wrong. And Poirot is often called a "frog," which besides being insulting is also inaccurate (as he never fails to point out, but the distinction is usually lost on the hearer). She never puts that word into the mouth of a sympathetic character.

I wonder if all this Belgophobia is down to kids being made to read Julius Caesar at school and focussing all their resentment on the Belgae (Horum omnium fortissimi sunt ...)?

I think context matters a lot with these things. I don't suppose an Elizabethan dramatist's attitude to Jews or a Victorian novelist's to women is likely ever to shock me, because I have a pretty good idea what to expect. But occasionally you do come across something that brings you up sharp. Yesterday I met a couple of (in themselves) very minor anti-Semitic comments in a book I was reading: I would scarcely have noticed them in Trollope or Dickens, but this was a book by an English writer published in 1944. I had to ask myself what planet she'd been living on.

Yes, I kind of grade writers based on what I think the baseline attitude of their time would have been. As bad as Shakespeare looks to us now, he was probably a little better than his time period. Trollope and Dickens were in line with their times. Thomas Hardy, George Eliot, Mary Shelley and Jane Austen's views of women were advanced for their time, and aren't completely mainstream even today. Ezra Pound was dismally behind. One wishes that authors would always transcend their time, because they use their imaginations to get into the heads of people unlike themselves. Sometimes they do, but not always.

I wonder how far you can also say that the relation of the writer to the people written about matters, as well as the historical context?

I think there's a big difference between the way you read what Charlotte Brontë and Joseph Conrad have to say about Belgians: one as a frustrated expat in Brussels generalising about the people of her host country, the other talking about specific abuses committed in the name of Leopold and the Association internationale du Congo. And it would be different again if the writer were a metropolitan Frenchman making a "Belgian joke", or for that matter Agatha Christie (as a writer living in a country where Belgians are a tiny minority) stereotyping Belgians as vain food-fanatics.

After reading this thread a few days ago, I heard a debate on the radio about the fate of the Euro Zone, and one of them made a derogatory joke about Belgium that drew laughs from the crowd. It was in good fun, and I wouldn't have noticed it if you all hadn't pointed out this prejudice. Now that I'm aware, I expect to see more.

Anyway, I read Oliver Twist earlier this year and was surprised at the antisemitism in it, but only because all the other Dickens books I've read haven't had any. I generally do not judge yesterday's books by today's standards. However, I also read Decline and Fall by Evelyn Waugh (written in the late 1920s), and there was one bit that was very racist and uncomfortable to read. It was satire, and if you are award of that, you can see how Waugh was showing how stupid and nasty these people were, but it was still difficult to read. I'm glad it was just one part of an otherwise excellent book.

>18 thorold:
You'd better not read Black mischief then :-)

>18 thorold: Belgians as vain food-fanatics? Is that a thing? Since Poirot is nearly always the only Belgian on the scene in Christie's works, I figured those traits belonged to him alone. I was just rewatching "The Mysterious Affair at Styles" yesterday, and in it Poirot snottily tells someone his fellow Belgian refugees couldn't possibly stoop so low as to ingest any of the fare at an English common house, only to turn around and see them all guzzling pints of ale.

# 21 Tigercrane, I don't remember any such scene from the book The Mysterious Affair at Styles. I am guessing this is another case of 'changing the book to make it more TV/movie audience friendly'.

NYT mag has a great article on 19th century miscegnation, in Absalom, Absalom :

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/magazine/how-william-faulkner-tackled-race-and...

The real stinker in OT is Bill Sykes, who is not a Jew. Fagin, the detestable Jewish figure in this book, is almost a parody of himself, and Dickens doesn't lay any particularly guilt on Jews because of him, at-least not much more than the typical Victorian reader might be likely to do. Indeed, in other books you will find at-least one very praiseworthy Jew. Anybody know who I'm talking-about? Peace, -- Goddard

A new tack. Despite his many other virtues, Fr Rolfe ("Baron Corvo") is not exactly fair-minded toward Jews. Then too, despite my love for his work, Turgenyev's story "The Jew" makes me a little nervous. Anybody read that? -- Goddard

>24 HarryMacDonald: Well, the Jewish character in Our Mutual Friend is practically a saint, although he lets himself be used by an unscrupulous 'Christian' moneylender as a scapegoat. Because he is Jewish, everyone assumes he is the evil moneylender, when in fact he just works for him. He is probably the most sympathetic Jewish character in Victorian literature.

I'd have to go with Eliot's Daniel Deronda as having the most sympathetic Jewish characters in Victorian literature.

It's too bad the "n-word" gets increasingly between classics like Huckleberry Finn and Of Mice and Men and having them taught in schools. I wasn't exposed to either and had to find/read them myself. I remember seeing stacks of King Solomon's Mines in our school supply closet that were never assigned to any of my classes either; although I don't think the word is used in that one, there's a general perpetration of stereotype.

In re #27. Ken, you make a good point about DANIEL D. How readily, though, we are trapped by categories. Surely Israel Zangwill is Victorian, at-least late-Victorian. Look in your E-mail later for an opusculum I wrote about "George". Cheers, -- oddard

Just encountered a sad footnote in Jules Verne's A Journey to the Centre of the Earth (published 1860s); in Chapter 38 he makes reference to prognathism and suggests the angle of the jaw determines capacity of the skull for intelligence, a poor angle being found "in the negro countenance and in the lowest savages."

#3> I'm not sure I'd agree that Heart of Darkness is pervasively racist. I think Conrad was writing more about the racism of his characters and of European culture rather than applauding the behavior. But more importantly, I think the distinction he was making was more between "civilized" and "native" than between black and white. And the book is mostly about the absurdity and damage done by "civilized" Europe's attempts to impose that "civilization" onto Africa. What frightens Marlow most is not the alienation, but the familiarity he feels with the natives grimacing at him as he makes his way up the Congo. Anyway, that's my take. I think that throughout Conrad's work, interestingly, he often shows more sympathy to the peoples of Asia and Africa who are bearing the brunt of the White Man's Burden (to borrow from Kipling) than he does to many European cultures. Regarding Belgium, indeed, he refers to Brussels as "a city that always makes me think of a whited sepulchre."

In general, Conrad stereotyped a lot. Germans are almost always unscrupulous and/or incompetent. Russians are generally bad, too (not too surprising given that Conrad was raised in a Poland at that time annexed by Russia). He had an antisemitic bent that appeared occasionally in his writing (the Jewish character in Nostromo comes to mind) and in his letters. I recently read a collection of his correspondence with his friend and early editor Edward Garnett in with he refers to his publisher, William Heinemann, as "that Israelite." But that sort of thing was more or less a given among most Europeans of the era. Being Jewish myself, I learned long ago not to get tripped up over it. As we say in New Jersey, "Waddaya gonna do?"

>31 rocketjk: Re: Heart of Darkness, yes, exactly. He's condemning the racism, not being racist. To think otherwise is to completely misunderstand the story.

>31 rocketjk:,32
You can have a lot of fun trying to decide whether Conrad was a racist. It is never straightforward. Almayer's Folly looks like an obvious example: European man ruins his life by marrying an Asian woman who turns out to be a hideous uncivilised monster. But then you realise that Almayer's mistake was not choosing an Asian woman, but marrying without love; Mrs A is a monster not because of her race, but because of the way she's been mistreated by people of all races. And again the only people to be exposed fully to the author's prejudice are the non-British Europeans...

I never understand the argument that because something (racism, antisemitism, sexism...) was "pervasive", then that's... what? All right? All right for those people, in those times?

Conrad was antisemitic and racist. Full stop. So were many other people of his time. So are many today. If it's "less bad" to be racist or antisemitic in 19th century than in the 21st, then, it's worse to be racist today than it was believing it's A-OK to own black people in the 19th century!

Ridiculous. The simple truth is that humanity's history, along with all these "quaint" historical attitudes is horrible and so is our present situation.

It was ALWAYS horrible to think some human beings vermin, inferior or objects fitting to enslave. It was ALWAYS horrible to deny humanity to women. It was ALWAYS horrible to persecute Jews.

It's not just some general principle or private credo. No matter what "everybody" thought, there was also always someone who thought differently. If it's only six such people since we got up from all fours, it's enough.

Chinua Achebe on Heart of Darkness

Don't listen to fucking whites deciding what's racist and what's not.

#34> My point was that if you stop reading every European author of, say, the 19th century and earlier, who was anti-Semitic, for example, than you might as well just bag the whole era. Christians in Europe were as a rule anti-Semitic to a greater or lesser degree. It was bad, just like prejudice is bad now. As a Jew, does that mean that I refuse to enjoy the writing of that era, to gain the insights into human nature or the delights of good storytelling on offer? For me the answer is "no." In the same way that I don't stop being friends with everyone who makes an offhand anti-Semitic comment or unfunny joke in my presence, whether they know I'm Jewish or not.

I don't think anybody is saying that it was "less bad" to be racist then. But we understand it as a condition of society that was accepted. Now we understand it as a condition of society that is not accepted and is overtly fought against. That's better, certainly. But I don't read 19th century literature expecting to find 21st century attitudes. Certainly, there were people in the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th & 19th centuries who thought differently. I admire them. If they were great authors I'd be happy to read their books.

I have read the Achebe essay. I think he misses the point.

#34

Who says we have to stop reading the racists, antisemites etc.? On the contrary, we have to read them constantly, to learn our history, understand our present, and see how little we've changed.

The trick is to read them as critically as we can--which certainly does NOT mean something as trivially stupid as to "expect 21st century attitudes". As for--untempered--enjoyment of that literature, I suppose it depends on personal thresholds and triggers. See whether as a Jew you manage to enjoy wholeheartedly George du Maurier's Trilby, for instance.

I have read the Achebe essay. I think he misses the point.

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?

I don't have time to go through all the places in that essay where I think Achebe misinterprets what he's read. To me it's pretty clear that Conrad displays the horrors attendant in the European attempts to subjugate indigenous peoples under the guise of civilizing them. In Heart of Darkness, just off the top of my head, there is the absurd spectacle of the warship blindly lobbing shells into the jungle; the horrifying picture of the chained locals, arrested for some unknown crime, in a state of misery and starvation; the fact that Kurtz, the supposed fair-haired boy of the trading company, is sent into the deep jungle to bring commerce and "civilization" to the people there but instead is overcome by madness in the form of the lust for power and wealth; the fact that Marlow refers to Brussels, the source of all this crime, as the "city of the dead." In the meantime, it is not strange that a character like Marlow, a product of late 19-century Europe, is frightened by the alien--to him--spectacle of the native tribesman on the banks of the river. It would be strange and extremely contrived if he wasn't. But in the end what frightens Marlow most is not his feeling of alienation from them, but his feeling of kinship. He looks in their eyes and--despite what he has been taught to think--recognizes their humanity. That comes as a shock to him, because it's so different from what he's been led to expect, and it is a cause for his audience on the yacht to give him a ribbing, which in turn earns them Marlow's disdain at their ignorance.

But again, I think you are misinterpreting people's attitudes if you think we're saying that racism in previous times was all right. What we're saying is that we certainly think it was wrong, but we understand the source.

As for--untempered--enjoyment of that literature, I suppose it depends on personal thresholds and triggers.

"Untempered?" Certainly not, at least in my case. Understanding doesn't mean unaffected.

"On the contrary, we have to read them constantly, to learn our history, understand our present, and see how little we've changed."

Correct. Even a "fucking white" like myself can understand that.

#38

YOU are missing Achebe's point (and reinforcing everything he observes, btw.) Why do you think the idea of "kinship", of shared humanity with the Africans terrifies Marlow?

Because to him they are the exponent of humanity's savagery.

They are "primitive", they are the lowest form of humanity's development. Their language and "souls" are, as Achebe notes, "rudimentary". They have no history, no memory, no thought, only pure physical animal instinct. The trip down the Congo is a descent into the white man's savage past. The tragedy of Kurtz is that most dreaded fate of every colonialist--"going native".

THAT'S Conrad's "reference frame", to which Achebe correctly notes no alternative is offered. And why not? Fine gentlemen and scholars propagated theories of racial inferiority of non-white races in Europe's best universities. White civilization was the zenith of humanity's development; black "savagery" its nadir. This wasn't a matter of opinion--it was treated as self-evident fact.

And one of the things Achebe points out--at the very beginning of the article, when he reports those two incidental meetings with white ignorance and arrogance--is that whatever we take as "known" blinds us to everything we don't know.

A white man seeing his reflection in a black man's face and being horrified because that black face represents to him the ultimate degradation--is racism at its purest.

Anyway, it's beyond me to do justice to this topic or Achebe's criticism of Conrad. I warmly recommend Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart: a Casebook for more material on this subject (although the focus is Achebe's novel), accompanied with responses from scholars and some interviews, and an excellent bibliography.

They are "primitive", they are the lowest form of humanity's development. Their language and "souls" are, as Achebe notes, "rudimentary". They have no history, no memory, no thought, only pure physical animal instinct. The trip down the Congo is a descent into the white man's savage past. The tragedy of Kurtz is that most dreaded fate of every colonialist--"going native".

I know that this is Achebe's interpretation. I don't miss the point of it. I disagree with it.

A white man seeing his reflection in a black man's face and being horrified because that black face represents to him the ultimate degradation--is racism at its purest.

Surely there is more to the contrast between Marlow and the Africans on the shore than "black" and "white." That's an important component, certainly, but to flatten it down to that degree drains the story of a crucial point of context.

At any rate, at this point I think we are just talking past each other, so let's give it a rest. All the best.

Surely there is more to the contrast between Marlow and the Africans on the shore than "black" and "white."

It would have been more useful if you explained what you meant by this. Certainly we're not talking about a mere photo-contrast between "black" and "white", we're talking about what "white" and "black" are meant to stand for, what they represent.

If you disagree with Achebe's interpretation, how about discussing some of his quotations of Conrad's text and seeing what other interpretation there may be?

For instance:

And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs. A few months of training had done for that really fine chap. He squinted at the steam-gauge and at the water-gauge with an evident effort of intrepidity -- and he had filed his teeth too, the poor devil, and the wool of his pate shaved into queer patterns, and three ornamental scars on each of his cheeks. He ought to have been clapping his hands and stamping his feet on the bank, instead of which he was hard at work, a thrall to strange witchcraft, full of improving knowledge.

How do YOU interpret this passage? Why is the African who can "fire up a boiler" an "improved specimen"? Improved from what, relative to what? And why is even this "improved specimen" only as good as a "dog in a parody", "walking on his hind legs"? And why does the narrator--the civilized white man--wonder at this improved specimen and dog parody doing work, instead of clapping his hands etc.?

Sorry I'm talking past you. All the best to you too.

If you disagree with Achebe's interpretation, how about discussing some of his quotations of Conrad's text and seeing what other interpretation there may be?

Because, as I said above, I have work to do and don't have the time to go through Achebe's essay line by line and explain all the places I disagree.

I've already explained my take on Heart of Darkness. I know your position and you know mine and we're both just repeating ourselves. That's what I mean by "talking past each other."

I'll just say this: If you think that the fact that Conrad presents a character who thinks that an African's learning aspects of European technology represents an improvement necessarily makes Conrad a racist, then you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point. For Marlow, given who he is and where he comes from, to have a different perspective would have been highly unrealistic. The key question for me in storytelling and character presentation/development is: does the character undergo any growth/learning/change of heart over the course of his/her experiences. For me it's pretty clear that this occurs. Your mileage may vary.