|
Author
|
Comment
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(5/24/04 6:20 pm)
|
Racism and sexism in tales
Something has been troubling me for a while, percolated through the discussions threads here about Brer Rabbit folktales and the political inclinations of writers and finally came to the fore for me when I received a copy of Richard Burton's translation of The Thousand and One Nights as a present. Naturally, I've begun reading them.
Burton's Arabian Nights are fascinating, not only for the tales, but also for his introduction and copious notes--they reveal a great deal about Victorian/Imperial England. The tales, however, rely in parts on gross stereotypes of black slaves, and on the notion that women are a form of chattel. Yet the stories, the structures, the characters are engrossing. I am finding an uncomfortable balance between my disquiet with the stereotypes in the stories and my interest in the plot and characters of the tales.
This isn't the first time this problem has surfaced for me. I've always loved Peter Pan, but have been disturbed by Barrie's portrayal of Indians. Ivanhoe is a hoot to read, but Scott's portrayal of Jews is disquieting. On my sagging "to read" bookshelf by my bed, I have Kipling's Kim because I have been told that despite its English imperialist bent, it is brilliantly written--and I'm a sucker for good writing...
So I wonder, how have others balanced this good and bad found in tales? When do you decide that this may be a classic, but you can't stomach the stereotypes?
All the best,
Alice
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(5/24/04 10:10 pm)
|
Re: Racism and sexism in tales
For me, it's visceral. If I love something, like Peter Pan,
then I love it. I can still analyze and discuss the less savory
parts, but I don't feel bad about loving the book anyway. Same with
the Odyssey. I love it, I adore it, it resonates with my own experience;
I can still analyze and discuss the woman-as-monster motif. It's
a both-and situation.
There are other books and/or movies that I just can't stand because of their politics, and I don't bother with them, 'cause life's short. But it's a subjective judgment call about your own comfort level, I think.
|
redtriskell
Unregistered User
(5/25/04 12:32 am)
|
when is a lot too much?
I relate to your query about stereotypes. I read tons of fiction, and I'm still occasionally caught off guard when something smacks heavily of an -ism; race, sex, religious, whatever. I have to agree Veronica that if you love something, all its flaws recognized, then you love it. She's also right about comfort level. Unfortunately, this is an uncomfortable area for many people, because we, as a society, are focused so tightly on ideas of correctness. I am not advocating stereotyping in fiction (or in life, for that matter) but I am saying I don't know how relevent or fair it is to apply a modern sensibility to literature more than say... 20 years old. I think fiction serves a higher purpose. It is artful lying used to illustrate a greater truth. All writers, be they good or bad, are products of their times. Does anyone think Bram Stoker could get his book published today? Would any editor leave Burton's translations untouched? Can't you imagine the protesters if Kipling published in today's market? The things that make these works extraordinary are the same things that cause discomfort. I really believe stereotypes and assorted -isms are such a huge deal because we allow them to have such power. No one is going to change the mind or heart of the die-hard bigoted, ignorant jackass. People who have enough empathy to be concerned about such things are already doing what they can to improve- themselves, their kids, their lives, society at large. Anyway, before I allow myself too much time on my soapbox, I guess my point is that I don't think you should let your sensibilities diminish your enjoyment of what you read. Maybe, instead of focusing on what bothers you about it, you could remind yourself of how much further along we are now. Imagine what we could be stuck reading if those attitudes had prevailed...
|
rosyelf
(5/25/04 1:57 am)
|
-isms in tales
What an interesting thread ! I tend to go with my emotions but, yes, sometimes something makes me cringe. But, as redtriskell says, we have made some progress in the last few decades-not enough, but some. I have seen some children's picture books my mother had in the late Forties/early Fifties-supposedly factual books-depicting all black people as happy and dancing and eating bananas. This only a few years before a good number of people from the Caribbean arrived in Britain as immigrants. It's important to see such things-we learn a bit about where we're coming from, however unsavoury.
As for literature itself, the figure of Fagin in Oliver Twist is clearly an anti-Semitic stereotype-the hook-nosed, conniving, money-making Jew.I have a Jewish friend who thinks he could be excised if not from the novel itself then at least from modern film adaptations of it. Or rather, not excised as a character-he's pivotal-but excised as a Jew. Is his Jewishness pivotal to the story ? Not really. She's got a point. And Dickens is great partly for the way he re-creates Victorian London in all its ghastliness, prejudices included, so he'll always be worth reading. I do have a problem with Kipling though. He comes over as such a dyed-in-the-wool imperialist, whereas I'm prepared to overlook something unpleasant in Dickens, who I feel was basically benign. I don't particularly warm to either of their writing styles, by the way, but I'm prepared to make the effort with Dickens. Probably irrational, but there you have it.
|
janeyolen
Registered User
(5/25/04 5:19 am)
|
Re: -isms in tales
This is from a speech I give on this very topic. Thought it might be of interest:
Yes, the storyteller's moral sense will inform a story. A writer will not choose to tell a story that makes him uncomfortable at the core. And the reader's moral sense will allow him to pick out what he needs in the story. Butas Isaac Bashevis Singer once said: "In art, truth that is boring is not true." The morals--or ethical bones of each tale--are as often well hidden beneath the ample flesh.
But make no mistake. As pieces of cultural baggage, these stories are not free of ideological viewpoints.
In fact, they are totally encumbered by them.
A story, written (or rewritten) by an individual author is as mired as its author in a particular time and place. Frederic Jameson has said: "Genres are essentially literary institutions , or social contracts between writer and a specific public...." A specific public. Never forget that.
Even fairy tales--which we claim are universal and ageless--carry the thumbprints of their history. So a social scientist or international lawyer could parse (as happened at a fairy tale conference I attended) the fairy tale punishments in classic European fairy tales and explain them in terms of the community and era in which each story was told. Thus the witch shoved into the oven in Hansel and Gretel, and the wicked queen in her red hot iron shoes are reflections of the prevailing laws about the burning of witches, and so forth.
That we are mirrors of our time, reflecting prevalent prejudices and class hatreds does not surprise any of us. Recent events--the war in Iraq and the torture/abuse/deaths in the prisons there, the killings of children by children in our schools, the tribal genocides in Africa, the on-going sniping in the Israel/Palestine conflict--all these are relevant to any discussion of moral issues. Yet when the author of a fairy story creates a dark mirror, giving back in a fantastic setting the baser beliefs and feelings and legalities of his own day, it often comes as a shock to the more perspecacious reader (and as a total mystery to those readers who skim along the tops of metaphors.)
Jane
|
Casey
Cothran
Registered User
(5/25/04 9:55 am)
|
Racism and Sexism in Tales
Something similar that confuses me ...
I don't know what to think about the *avoidance* of racial issues in our own culture's fairy tale stories.
I recently saw Shrek II and loved it ... but something bothered me. The audience has always known that Shrek is "different" from Fiona: he's an ogre, he's green, he has bad table manners.
*** Spoiler****
Still, something about him upsets the (all white) kingdom of Far, Far Away when Fiona brings him home. I just assumed, when he turned into a human, he would be non-white, and that his "ogre-ness" was a symbol for racial/cultural difference. (This is probably a problematic interpretation, too; here non-white would = ogre, even though the ogre is the hero.) But, when he turned into a human, he was white, just like all the other human characters in the story. So, my worry: Why does a movie that focuses so intensely on the importance of overlooking physical differences draw only white humans?
Is Dreamworks trying to avoid the issue of race? Are they emphasizing racial differences/problems by avoiding this issue?
I don't know what to think.
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(5/25/04 12:37 pm)
|
Racism and sexism
Interestingly, it is not just human nature but animal nature to make "judgments" regarding others of the species. I suppose it is what makes humans different in that we are capable of making judgments not based upon superficial, outward characteristics, but on more important things. So as we move away from racism (and to some degree sexism) it will be interesting to see if we are indeed a better species, making our judgments based upon true differences and to see how that is reflected in our stories.
Jess
|
Nalo
Registered User
(5/25/04 12:48 pm)
|
Re: Racism and Sexism in Tales
Someone said: "depicting all black people as happy and dancing and eating bananas."
....and I just barked with laughter. Yup, that's us, all right, yup, yup.
and someone else asked: "Is Dreamworks trying to avoid the issue of race?"
...I'd say, yes. Or at least to (ahem) whitewash it. Same reason that both Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion made me see red. (SPOILERS----PoC shows no black slaves in 17th? century Jamaica, and HM pretends that a marriage between a white man and a black woman could have happened publicly in the 18th? C American south. I'm not even certain it could have happened legally.) I fear that when we pretend that everyone is equally responsible for the problem of (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), even the people who are the victims of institutionally supported prejudice, then we're blaming the victim and trying to ignore the problem by throwing homily--i.e. 'can't we all just get along?'--at it. I would not take a young child, particularly a black child, but any child, to see Haunted Mansion. I believe that its race politics are actually damaging.
Cool discussion! I agree with what everyone's said so far. I love the stories I love, even when there is problematic sterotyping in them. I try to put stories by people from earlier times in their historical context, rather than trying to read them as contemporary texts from which I expect contemporary sensibilities. Yet some stories are more than I can take. I know when I've reached that quirky, personal limit because I find myself unable to keep reading.
Which brings me to something I've always wondered: I loved the Rudyard Kipling Jungle Book stories as a kid (just don't get me started on the Disney movie). When I read those stories now, my childhood enjoyment comes flooding back, to the exclusion of any analytical ability. So, I'd appreciate hearing from people here; what do you find problematic about Rudyard Kipling's writing?
|
Heidi
Anne Heiner
ezOP
(5/25/04 3:33 pm)
|
Re: Racism and Sexism in Tales
I just returned from seeing Shrek 2 this afternoon, so I haven't
fully digested it yet. I ended up liking it much more than I thought
I would and had to see what about the Puss in Boots character had
caused traffic to Puss in Boots on SurLaLune to quadruple in the
past week. Anyway, I think Shrek was a white guy when he was transformed
because that was the only way he would be accepted by Fiona's family.
It was about race. Far, Far Away land is a complete send-up of Beverly
Hills and Rodeo Drive, as "white" of an area as you can
find in L.A. If anything, the movie portrayed white people as intolerant,
judgmental and superficial while all of the other characters, albeit
all animals, were just wanting to be friends and get along. There
are all sorts of interpretations that can be taken from the movie,
especially depending on personal experience. Shrek and Fiona returning
to the swamp at the end of the film can have all sorts of meanings,
too. Of course, the writers had none of this mind. They were more
concerned with parodying our culture as much as possible in every
inch of the movie screen. I dare say Shrek 2 says more about our
current culture than most other movies out this year.
Nalo, I, too, am pretty sure it was illegal to intermarry anywhere in the South a century ago. It was still illegal in some parts of South Carolina ten years ago according to a friend of mine in an interracial marriage. She was both angry and discouraged that her marriage wasn't legal in the state she wanted to live.
And Kipling's political correctness failing is his British Imperialism bent. He wrote when the sun never sat on the Empire and was part of a rigid class system to boot. He was a product of his country. However, he overcomes it better than most writers of his time and still deserves reading on his merits alone. For anyone into mystery novels, Laurie R. King's new Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes novel, The Game, uses Kipling's Kim as a main character with interesting effect.
And I agree that I try to read any literature in the context of its time. Sometimes it is easier than other times. It also depends on my own chemistry with the author. Sometimes it is not comfortable, but I embrace that experience, too. If I am too comfortable, then I get worried. But then again, exploring issues like these is what made me such an avid reader of science fiction and fantasy. It's easier to explore these ideas without the constraint of our own history requiring us to stick to the facts if we want to be "accurate."
Heidi
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(5/25/04 4:45 pm)
|
Re: Racism and Sexism in Tales
I noticed that about PotC too, Nalo--I suppose the little boy who assists the harbor master might have been a slave. I was pleased and surprised too see several free black pirates, though, which as far as I know is historically accurate.
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(5/25/04 5:26 pm)
|
-isms, -isms, who's got the -isms?
I am consistantly impressed by the sense and intelligence of people who post here. While the -isms still prevelant in our society, in film, music, words, news, etc, disturb me, I'm heartened to know that there are other people like me who notice and discuss the topics. I live in the South, and Nalo is correct that in 18th century America, interracial marriage was illegal. Where I live, it is still illegal to be gay. Rather, I suppose you can be gay as long as you never want to demonstrate your affection for your partner, because all same gender sexual relations still fall under the sodomy laws here. I think fantasy stories exist in a unique arena where prejudices can be explored in a non-threatening environment. To put it another way, a writer who can make someone feel compassion for a marginalized character goes a long way toward examining current problems in society. Allegory and symbolic themes may be our greatest tools in overcoming rampant -ism. I believe fantasy and science fiction make some of the principles easier to digest. For example, the original Star Trek certainly put a large dent in dearly held notions of Russians, women, black people, and, by extension, other "aliens" If that isn't fiction functioning at some of its best, I don't know what is. For all its flaws, that cheesy (but beloved) tv show forced average middle America to think. Reading "dangerous" work, work that makes me cringe or makes me angry, also tends to make me think. Even if it's only to decide what I might say to the author if given the opportunity. And thinking is, I feel (ha ha), the only way we're ever going to combat bigotry.
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(5/25/04 6:31 pm)
|
Racism and sexism in tales
I have to agree with what's been said (and thank you for the interesting replies). Jane's comment about each writer presenting the mores of her/his time made me realize that I have two almost simultaneous reactions when I read gross stereotypes or, as Nalo points out, absurd/impossible portrayals. The first is reflective: "what I am reading is not what I think and what's said is wrong, but I'll enjoy the story anyway for what it can give me." The second reaction is more societal: "I hope that others see what I see too and don't take it at face value"--which I realize can be unbelievably patronizing, and as its logical conclusion becomes the source of the obnoxious "political correctness" movement in many schools. Yet, that said, I appreciate it when people point out to me the -isms in whatever I'm reading, so that I can evaluate them along with the rest of my feelings for the literature. I suppose I continue to read the classics, with their jarring stereotypes, omissions and mistakes because, although I may not always be comfortable, I learn a lot from them, if not necessarily what was intended to be taught.
And, if you can forgive my rambling, I'd like to come back to the Arabian Nights for a moment. The first jarring story for me was that of "King Shabryar and His Brother" which introduces us to Shahrazad. In it is embedded "The Tale of the Bull and the Ass" which Shahrazad's father tells her in an attempt to dissuade her from marrying the king. I'd find the tale amusing in its own right except that the point is that if a husband is to keep peace in his family he must thoroughly beat his wife into submission. Yet, when we pull back from this tale into that of Shahrazad's, she dismisses the story, gets what she wants and no one further gets beaten. Is the narrator (in this case Burton as translator) making an indirect commentary on the embedded tale? That is certainly what I pulled out of it, even if it wasn't intentional. In any case it highlighted for me the absurdity of the embedded tale and how, if its moral were followed, disaster in the larger tale would have ensued.
I guess this overlong post is to say that I get more out of what
I read when I can see both the wrong and the right of what's in
it--at least according to the mores of my generation, as I understand
them.
Alice
|
Casey
Cothran
(5/25/04 10:19 pm)
|
Kipling
Most people usually critique the poetry; for example, there is that infamous poem, "The White Man's Burden," by Kipling. Also -- in other poems like "Gunga Din" -- scholars argue over whether Kipling is critiquing imperialist (racist) attitudes or exhibiting them himself. Indeed, it is possible to read Kipling in a more positive light, to see his racist narrators as an attempt to show his readers their own racism (and thus to critique it!), but not everyone agrees on this.
Notably, Kipling's "If" is one of my all-time favorite poems, but I don't ever recommend Kipling's poetry to anyone.
|
rosyelf
(5/26/04 6:48 am)
|
kipling
When I said I didn't like Kipling's writing because of its British-imperialist bent, I was thinking of the poetry.I accept in principle that the voice he adopts may not be his own, i.e. that he is imitating and simultaneously critiqueing imperialist attitudes- all I can say is, it didn't strike me that way.I feel that when he is speaking in his poetry, those really are his views. And he was a very popular poet at the time he wrote them, in other words, they were lots of people's views.
|
Erica
Carlson
Registered User
(5/26/04 11:05 am)
|
Re: kipling (& Disney!)
Good discussion!
A few years ago I watched the Disney version of Peter Pan--I had vague recollections of loving it as a small child (I used to write messages to Peter in backward letters on the frost on my bedroom windows). I had to turn the movie off midway because the portrayal of the Native Americans was SOOOO very bad. Barrie's book doesn't rub me so much the wrong way, though, and I rather liked what the new, non-animated Peter Pan movie has done. I guess I see the change as a hopeful one. Can't be too cheerfully optimistic, though. I'm very cranky about the fact that the University of Illinois still has the "Chief Illiniwek" mascot (that students, faculty, and Native American groups have been protesting for the last several years).
I have a high tolerance for Kipling (not so much for the poetry) because he's a good storyteller. I like to think that he'd write very differently about race, gender, and colonialism were he living today, but for all I know he might not. Besides, if he were around today, he wouldn't have written the stuff he's written. I make several allowances for older (as in dead and gone) writers. It's important, though, especially when teaching or sharing books, to think and talk about the bleak (I almost said grim) bits of stories and the bleak bits of our history (maybe histories is a better word?) instead of ignoring them, or settling for just saying "those old guys didn't know any better."
There is a visceral reaction element to some race and gender portrayals in reading, though, and it's interesting to see where it happens. I have no tolerance whatsoever for Milton. There are plenty of misogynist authors that I've read with relatively little pain, but his portrayal of Eve in Paradise Lost really rankles for some reason. I'd like to travel back in time and box his ears.
Erica
|
Nalo
Registered User
(5/30/04 11:45 am)
|
Re: Racism and Sexism in Tales
Yes, it was great to see black pirates. And yes, I think that is historically accurate. Except that the one female black pirate, whose presence in the film pleased me, had *straightened* hair--a technique which was developed early in the 20th Century by Madam CJ Walker, the US's first black female millionaire. It's apparently taboo for Hollywood to show black women with natural hair.
|
Nalo
Registered User
(5/30/04 12:02 pm)
|
Re: kipling (& Disney!)
True, I haven't read much of Kipling's poetry. But I do know "Gunga Din." And I remember a short story of his which portrays a Hindu holy man who's gone into seclusion on a hilltop. There's a mudslide about to start, and the wild animals warn him. He gathers them together and they go further down the hill to warn the villagers whose homes are about to be destroyed. Both "Gunga Din" and that story give the Indian characters dignity, intelligence and spirit. Kipling seems to be writing from a deep respect of at least some aspects of Indian culture. There is perhaps a patronizing tone to the writing, in the way that people of colour are so often portrayed as nobly mystical and inherently in tune with nature, or as endlessly patient, forgiving caretakers of white people. (Racism having a smiling as well as a scowling face.) But as a young reader encountering those stories, I came away with a respect for the people and the cultures portrayed in them. I'm not at all trying to argue that Kipling's writing was not problematic. But even through a filter of imperialism, even though he was a product of his time, there are elements of his writing that for me transcend the racism and colonialism often enough that I'm able to keep reading and appreciating his work.
|
kristiw
Unregistered User
(5/30/04 12:31 pm)
|
PoC and Shrek
On the subject of the straightened hair, unless pirates also typically wore gobs of black eye-liner, it seems silly to point out anachronisms. Isn't it funny how we'll swallow ghosts and walking skeletons but it's things like that that stick in our teeth?
I think the issue of color in Shrek has sort of fallen by the wayside, but I did want to point out that racism has not always been decided by skin color. In England it was thought that more Northern dwelling people were less intelligent since they lived in colder climates, further from the sun. Shrek was portrayed in voice and particulars as Scottish, and Celtic peoples were long considered racially inferior by the English despite having as light or lighter skin. The Irish have a fairly well documented history of this in America as well. I won't say that Dreamworks didn't avoid a lot of issues by portraying Shrek as white, but I do think it was in keeping with his character and not at all contradictory of the themes of cultural difference.
|
VedaliaGraelle
Registered User
(5/30/04 2:46 pm)
|
documents of our seeds for transformation
as with so many things in life, the advanced individual needs to "consider the source" this is not to condescend and allow the dead author his prejudices because of the less enlightened times s/he wrote in. We who read and think are mired in less enlightened times whatever period we find ourselves in. I think adults who read and cherish fairy tales are source addicts. we both love and deplore these stories because of the truths to be found in them, when you get beyond the cosmetics and -- and even settings (location/time/dialects)
One of the most poignant conundrums in literature is the banning of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" for it's casual use of the "N" word -- when within the story itself are the seeds of moral enlightenment the character of Huck Finn sows when he makes a conscious decision to dismiss the generalizations / prejudices of the majority regarding Jim's status as a slave and embraces the radical notion that Jim is a human being worthy of friendship and trust.
In the Arabian Nights sexism runs rampant; and yet the victory goes to the woman for her cleverness -- her ultimate reward being to LIVE as the Queen; having tempered the heart of the damaged King with her endless amusements /story telling she is restored to the archetypal (matriarchal) "triple goddess" exultant. (I am sure there is a thread on this board dedicated to the goddess elements in fairy tales, but I just fell down this particular rabbit hole and have yet to thoroughly navigate this Wonderland)
Being a Comparative Mythologist at heart, I look for the bread crumbs of truth in all Hero's/Heroine's Journeys that have petrified and opalized as shiny markers that resonate through the ages to the open mind, wherever / whenever that mind exists. It is in the fantastic, "where anything can happen and DOES" we learn that all limitations are what you, yourself bring to the story: and the stories are all spells of transformation upon the reader.
If you are sensitized to language, race, sexism and find blatant provocations and wrongness where ever you read -- it is because of where YOU are in your level of enlightenment. Are you in a "warrior" phase of battling all injustice? That is a valid advancement up from grazing along as someone's sheep. It is even a popular stance amongst society in our times.
But it doesn't end there.
sorry for the length and dissembling
VG.
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(5/30/04 4:30 pm)
|
Re: documents of our seeds for transformation
"Except that the one female black pirate, whose presence in the film pleased me, had *straightened* hair--a technique which was developed early in the 20th Century by Madam CJ Walker, the US's first black female millionaire. It's apparently taboo for Hollywood to show black women with natural hair."
Good point, Nalo. And did anybody else cringe in contact embarrassment when she tells Johnny Depp at the end, "The Black Pearl is yours"? No? Just me, then. At least she had the cool moment of pointing a gun at Keira Knightley and saying "We'll give them her!" Also was the first to get the ship in gear when Bloom comes back and says that Depp's not joining them.
The eyeliner doesn't bother me, because eyeliner at least existed in the 18th century.
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(5/31/04 4:24 pm)
|
A quick observation
Erica,
I noticed one of your comments had to do with sterotyping Native Americans. One of the least expected results of my friendships with women of several PNW nations is to learn that every one of my friends has a very different sense of political correctness than I was led to believe growing up in the Midwest (i.e. they all refer to themselves variously as "Indians" and members of various nations, but surprisingly never "Native Americans"!). You need to be very careful before you lump together the attitudes of "Native Americans" together - they are seperate nations with separate traditions and cultures - the Eastern nations are vastly different from those of the Plains and again different from the Southwest and the PNW. Attitudes about what is acceptable should be decided not by these peoples lumped together, but by the Nation whose traditions are being reflected.
Jess
|
|
