advertisement


Sexist, racist language in classic literature.

Obvs you collect in all the old versions and burn them on the street, and then quietly put your 'corrected for the good of the people' version into the bookshops.
Didn't someone write a book about this?
(No Mr Rockmeister, you are old and you have started to forget important things. We have come to help you. Please don't make any fuss. It's just a small injection and you will be very happy where we are going....).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: irb
Tantris said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well it is a very interesting piece of writing, and worth a re-read, I'm sure. As far as I recall, Conrad is very critical of (Belgian) imperialism, and depicts great cruelty and callousness in the treatment of Africans. But the Africans in the novel generally aren't proper characters like the Europeans. They rarely if ever get to speak, and are either victims, or exoticised, or terrifying, or a mixture of these. It's a while since I read it, mind you.
 
narabdela said:
So was I, and it's nonsense I'm afraid. The language used might well be described as 'casually racist', but to describe Glaswegians as racist, in its broadest sense, is just plain wrong.

I never encountered genuine racism until I moved south of the border. It's very unpleasant. :(
Click to expand...

Couldn’t agree more, I’m also from Glasgow and we were brought up not to be racist. My granny also talked about ‘a wee chip supper from the Tally’ without an ounce of racism. I wonder what jaded racist enclave they must inhabit.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
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!
Click to expand...

It's clear to me that aggressive language and aggressive behaviour frequently come as a package deal. They cannot easily be separated. It's not hard to imagine, for instance, an abusive husband punching his wife in the face (it happens) while calling her an 'idiot'.

Ten years down the line, if she's lucky enough to escape him, you can equally imagine her becoming overly agitated if someone in the street calls her an 'idiot', for some perceived slight. Is she being WAY too sensitive or is she reacting to stimulus in a way that she has become conditioned to do?

The word 'idiot' by itself isn't that harsh, is it? 'Man up!', one might say. But when historically connected with aggressive behaviour, the same word could engender a reaction that an onlooker might regard as excessive. Had that onlooker studied a little psychology, they might be a little more sympathetic.
 
Così fan Tutte. (All women are tarts)
Le Nozze di Figaro (Did you know your boss only gave you the company flat so he could screw me while you’re away at work?)
Don Giovanni (How many Spanish girls have I had? 1000, 1003?)

Enough misogyny, serial rape, sexual harassment in the workplace, exploitation and sexually motivated deception for, well, three operas.*

* ps forgot wife-swapping, cross-dressing and grooming
 
  • Like
Reactions: irb
Jimin said:
It's clear to me that aggressive language and aggressive behaviour frequently come as a package deal. They cannot easily be separated. It's not hard to imagine, for instance, an abusive husband punching his wife in the face (it happens) while calling her an 'idiot'.

Ten years down the line, if she's lucky enough to escape him, you can equally imagine her becoming overly agitated if someone in the street calls her an 'idiot', for some perceived slight. Is she being WAY too sensitive or is she reacting to stimulus in a way that she has become conditioned to do?

The word 'idiot' by itself isn't that harsh, is it? 'Man up!', one might say. But when historically connected with aggressive behaviour, the same word could engender a reaction that an onlooker might regard as excessive. Had that onlooker studied a little psychology, they might be a little more sympathetic.
Click to expand...

Exactly the sort of nonsense that needs challenging! Maybe we should ban the saying of "boo!" in case someone was overly surprised as a child? Maybe we should ban cotton wool because a few odd individuals have a phobia about it?

There's been far too much studying of psychology and other "ologys" and "isms" to the extent that an industry has arisen to find perceived offence etc even where no one had even suspected it ('cos it's not real) and will find it virtually everywhere and anywhere! Hence we get ridiculous feminist articles (as one example) in the gruaniad claiming that making and drinking a cup of tea is chauvinistic 'cos tea pots can be heavy! I wish I was making that up but I'm not!
 
Arkless Electronics said:
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...
Click to expand...

Think about it the other way round. Because it really riles me when someone thinks it's ok for them to use a word, irrespective of what anyone else feels, because they know what they mean by it, and they don't intend anything wrong.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
... Hence we get ridiculous feminist articles (as one example) in the gruaniad claiming that making and drinking a cup of tea is chauvinistic 'cos tea pots can be heavy! I wish I was making that up but I'm not!
Click to expand...

I'd need a reference before I believe that. And I find it rather depressing that you're resorting to Grauniad bashing. (Note the correct spelling. :D)
 
irb said:
Think about it the other way round. Because it really riles me when someone thinks it's ok for them to use a word, irrespective of what anyone else feels, because they know what they mean by it, and they don't intend anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Indeed,
I'm reminded (by this but also the tenure of the whole thread) of the brilliant response to Piers Morgan by Trisha Goddard during a discussion of alleged racism within the royals:

----
Trisha Goddard is being praised for shutting down Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain.
The TV personality appeared on the ITV show on Monday (8 March) to discuss Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s high-profile interview with Oprah Winfrey, which was broadcast in the US overnight.
During the interview, Markle said that she had a conversation with an unnamed member of the royal family who questioned how dark her unborn baby’s skin would be when she was pregnant with Archie. Markle refused to name the family member, saying it “would be very damaging” to them if she revealed their name.

On GMB, Morgan questioned whether this conversation should be considered “automatically racist” to which Goddard replied: “Why is everybody else such an expert about racism against Black people?”
She continued: “I’m sorry, Piers – you don’t get to call out what is and isn’t racism against Black people. I’ll leave you to call out all the other stuff you want, but leave the racism stuff to us, eh?”
-----

I think that pretty much sums it up

SOURCE:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...d-piers-morgan-gmb-meghan-harry-b1813892.html
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Exactly the sort of nonsense that needs challenging! Maybe we should ban the saying of "boo!" in case someone was overly surprised as a child? Maybe we should ban cotton wool because a few odd individuals have a phobia about it?

There's been far too much studying of psychology and other "ologys" and "isms" to the extent that an industry has arisen to find perceived offence etc even where no one had even suspected it ('cos it's not real) and will find it virtually everywhere and anywhere! Hence we get ridiculous feminist articles (as one example) in the gruaniad claiming that making and drinking a cup of tea is chauvinistic 'cos tea pots can be heavy! I wish I was making that up but I'm not!
Click to expand...
University of Life 1st class honours…
 
irb said:
Think about it the other way round. Because it really riles me when someone thinks it's ok for them to use a word, irrespective of what anyone else feels, because they know what they mean by it, and they don't intend anything wrong.
Click to expand...

We'll have to just profoundly disagree on aspects of that then.

On a wider note, unfortunately things have become so bat shit crazy these days that on many fora, including pfm, the "received agenda" of the most "out there", "space cadet level 'progressives' " is instantly decreed as "the new normal" and even if 99% of people would have opposed it for the last 10,000 years one is not allowed to disagree with it, never mind actually criticise it, and all because some group of only 100 media savvy progressive academics from Islington have been very effective in getting their views in the media etc.... eg?
Hmm... "eg"... that's kinda my point... there are all sorts of things which one probably hadn't even heard of only 10 years ago but which if I even named one of them as an example of something I considered had "gone too far" I'd probably get a ban for my troubles....

On the left V right of economic matters tory and brexiteer types are allowed to make their argument, to get their point across in the spirit of debate etc even in the grauniad or on pfm. When it comes to social left V right matters though you are required to either agree 100% with the most left wing progressive viewpoint currently extant or shut the **** up and say nothing.... there is no in-between allowed!

FWIW on social matters and consider myself as slightly left of centre:)
 
I’m always hearing about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘things we’re not allowed to say any more’, generally via obvious knobheads like Laurence Fox and Piers Morgan, but what, precisely am I
not allowed to say? It’s on a par with all the things that the EU supposedly prevented the UK from doing, which on closer examination turned out to be imaginary.

Now clearly there are views/opinions that will get you into trouble if you’re a public figure (eg J K Rowling), but for the most part I’m struggling to think of anything I’m not allowed to say.
 
Joe Hutch said:
I’m always hearing about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘things we’re not allowed to say any more’, generally via obvious knobheads like Laurence Fox and Piers Morgan, but what, precisely am I
not allowed to say? It’s on a par with all the things that the EU supposedly prevented the UK from doing, which on closer examination turned out to be imaginary.

Now clearly there are views/opinions that will get you into trouble if you’re a public figure (eg J K Rowling), but for the most part I’m struggling to think of anything I’m not allowed to say.
Click to expand...
Would you care to try out some of your naughtiest ones here in a safe space to gauge the reaction?
 
miktec said:
Indeed,
I'm reminded (by this but also the tenure of the whole thread) of the brilliant response to Piers Morgan by Trisha Goddard during a discussion of alleged racism within the royals:

----
Trisha Goddard is being praised for shutting down Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain.
The TV personality appeared on the ITV show on Monday (8 March) to discuss Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s high-profile interview with Oprah Winfrey, which was broadcast in the US overnight.
During the interview, Markle said that she had a conversation with an unnamed member of the royal family who questioned how dark her unborn baby’s skin would be when she was pregnant with Archie. Markle refused to name the family member, saying it “would be very damaging” to them if she revealed their name.

On GMB, Morgan questioned whether this conversation should be considered “automatically racist” to which Goddard replied: “Why is everybody else such an expert about racism against Black people?”
She continued: “I’m sorry, Piers – you don’t get to call out what is and isn’t racism against Black people. I’ll leave you to call out all the other stuff you want, but leave the racism stuff to us, eh?”
-----

I think that pretty much sums it up

SOURCE:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...d-piers-morgan-gmb-meghan-harry-b1813892.html
Click to expand...
Found myself agreeing with that and then asking myself what exactly is the ‘rule’ that Tricia Goddard is referring to there and also how does it apply to other ‘isms & ‘phobias where you don’t have direct life experience.

Is it that you can’t comment either way without the experience, or it’s ok to call something out if you’re recognising the ‘ism/‘phobia, but aren’t allowed to take the opposite view and deny it?

Whatever the right answer is there, how does it apply when 2 discriminated against minorities are in strong disagreement? I find the radical feminist &/or lesbian vs radical trans positions I see on social media to be difficult and yet there seem to be plenty of people inside & outside of those groups who have strong supporting / disagreeing opinions and are willing to share them!
 
Censoring outdated views in literature, is no different to ISIS etc., deciding they have the right to demolish architecture and monuments which pre-date their ignorant intolerant ****wittery by centuries.
Leave it untouched.. but learn from it if you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top