advertisement


Sexist, racist language in classic literature.

It's the word. It's the same as nigg**, etc
Back then my australian GF called me the swisso. I never took offense in that. I can’t help it, as long as there are borders my passport must contain the name of some country, preferably the one where I’m born.
 
Back then my australian GF called me the swisso. I never took offense in that. I can’t help it, as long as there are borders my passport must contain the name of some country, preferably the one where I’m born.

I never heard anyone from the national front call anyone Swisso!
 
Whilst obviously some terms are patently racist or whatever, what riles me is the way there seems to be some faceless "they" that gets to decide which exact terms the rest of us are allowed to use...
 
Back then my australian GF called me the swisso. I never took offense in that. I can’t help it, as long as there are borders my passport must contain the name of some country, preferably the one where I’m born.

Maybe you can tell us what the Swissos (no offense) call each other. I remember my wife's 90 year-old grandmother, a Francophone Catholic in Fribourg, once referred to her German-speaking neighbours, with whom she had presumably been on excellent terms for 50 years, as "Les sales Boche," as she demurely sipped tea in her perfect Swiss drawing room.
 
Maybe you can tell us what the Swissos (no offense) call each other. I remember my wife's 90 year-old grandmother, a Francophone Catholic in Fribourg, once referred to her German-speaking neighbours, with whom she had presumably been on excellent terms for 50 years, as "Les sales Boche," as she demurely sipped tea in her perfect Swiss drawing room.

Cretins des Alpes in French
 
There’s a linked issue, which is the portrayal of unpleasant characters. For example, how would you show a racist being racist, without having them use racist language? The danger is that by using such language you are seen as ‘normalising’ it.

In addition there’s a movement behind the idea that writers can/should describe only their own ‘lived experience’, so that white people ‘can’t’ understand how black people experience the world; ditto straight people versus gay people and, I guess, men versus women.
 
But what is racist about "**** shop" if they are, indeed, Pakistanis? Or "The Indians" if it is an Indian restaurant? Would "Italians" be racist if it were an Italian restaurant? All three are nations, after all.

I was under the impression that the term '****' was initially definitely used as an insult, nothing to do with being from Pakistan but rather used as an awful demeaning racial slur as being from a low caste, one responsible for cleaning up human waste.
 
Not here, it was a generic term. Only a slur if it was a slur being from there. By best friend was one. Mostly ignorance involved. Depends how it was used and by who and what the listener understood. Too complicated to be described as demeaning slur. Only if that suits your argument, in reality, it depends. Life isn't black and white (can I still say that?).
 
IMHO whilst there are gross examples like the N word people these days are WAY too sensitive and need to remember the old "sticks and stones..." maxim...

Personally I find it horrendous that "social status" and "perceived wealth" are still perfectly acceptable reasons for gross discrimination but I seem to be pretty much on my own on this one!
 
I meant that the content of some of Conrad's work (eg Heart of Darkness) is seen as problematic.

If you’re referring to Chinua Achebe’s criticism, my view is that it can be debunked simply by reading Heart of Darkness. I’ll have to check (a few years since I read it), but I don’t think it referred to the earlier novel?
 
IMHO whilst there are gross examples like the N word people these days are WAY too sensitive and need to remember the old "sticks and stones..." maxim...

Personally I find it horrendous that "social status" and "perceived wealth" are still perfectly acceptable reasons for gross discrimination but I seem to be pretty much on my own on this one!

No, you are not on your own, agree completely. Although it is hard to argue against people who, say, pay three times the economy ticket sitting in first/business class more comfortably. Or the wealthy being members of a club that the poor cannot afford. The flip side is that wealth/power/fame seems to eliminate racial or other discrimination. So perhaps the seeds of racism are in social status, and certain ethnic groups suffer racism because they are seen as belonging to a poorer, and therefore inferior, caste.
 
No, you are not on your own, agree completely. Although it is hard to argue against people who, say, pay three times the economy ticket sitting in first/business class more comfortably. Or the wealthy being members of a club that the poor cannot afford. The flip side is that wealth/power/fame seems to eliminate racial or other discrimination. So perhaps the seeds of racism are in social status, and certain ethnic groups suffer racism because they are seen as belonging to a poorer, and therefore inferior, caste.

Good post! Although I disagree on the "Or the wealthy being members of a club that the poor cannot afford" bit and similar "we make it expensive to keep the riff raff out" type of thing... I mean how discriminatory can yer get! And very deliberately. Agreed though that wealth/power/fame seems to eliminate racial or other discrimination and it's an interesting point:)
 
If you’re referring to Chinua Achebe’s criticism, my view is that it can be debunked simply by reading Heart of Darkness.

Surely you're not implying that Achebe hadn't read Heart of Darkness?

That was probably a little flippant, but I'm really taken aback by your statement. Achebe, as you know I'm sure, was one of the most significant African writers of the last century. It seems a little presumptuous to suggest that when a great African writer criticises a European portrayal of his continent and people, that we (Europeans?) will be able to 'debunk' that critique with ease. Isn't it possible that that non-African readers (I'm assuming that's what you are) might fail to appreciate how some African readers have felt about their continent's portrayal in Heart of Darkness ?
 
This book could do with a fair bit of revision:
1957Covers.jpg
 
Surely you're not implying that Achebe hadn't read Heart of Darkness?

That was probably a little flippant, but I'm really taken aback by your statement. Achebe, as you know I'm sure, was one of the most significant African writers of the last century. It seems a little presumptuous to suggest that when a great African writer criticises a European portrayal of his continent and people, that we (Europeans?) will be able to 'debunk' that critique with ease. Isn't it possible that that non-African readers (I'm assuming that's what you are) might fail to appreciate how some African readers have felt about their continent's portrayal in Heart of Darkness ?

The text is the important thing, surely, and reading it, rather than reading into it? I did take the time a few years back to read both Heart of Darkness and Chinua Achebe's comments on it at the same time, and felt that Achebe's criticism simply didn't stack up against what I was reading, even if you considered the relative perspective of different cultures. Other writers would probably have been better targets for Achebe's anger. I'll now have to read Heart of Darkness again over the Christmas break, and see if I change my mind.
 
Good post! Although I disagree on the "Or the wealthy being members of a club that the poor cannot afford" bit and similar "we make it expensive to keep the riff raff out" type of thing... I mean how discriminatory can yer get! And very deliberately. Agreed though that wealth/power/fame seems to eliminate racial or other discrimination and it's an interesting point:)
Thanks Arkless. An example that came to mind is Liberia. It seems that in the late 19th century Black Americans who went to live there treated the natives abominably. In practice there was a rigid caste system in which the Americans ruled over the locals, which went on for several generations and well into the late 20th century.
 
Just reading Chandler's "Farewell my Lovely" and it is chock-full of language that today is considered sexist or racist. Chandler apart, what is the general policy, today, when a new edition is published of a classic work? I'm thinking of stuff as diverse as Agatha Christie, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Biggles, Ian Fleming. I know some children's books have been "updated," but is there a universally accepted guideline as to what to do, if anything?

Yes, stay locked indoors in a darkened room with no radio or TV on.:)
 


advertisement


Back
Top