> Sure, of course. And we would probably all agree that
> Tevis Clyde Smith was a racist. With Howard we are
> more reluctant to admit it because we love his
> stories. But I think it should be admitted because
> then we can get it out of the way and go on to discuss
> what we love about the stories despite any
> controversial aspects.
First, define "racist".
> Howard didn't just believe in Celtic superiority. He
> doesn't have Irish characters talking down all other
> "white" races. His letters show a distinct mistrust,
> fear, and callousness toward non-whites.
But you are forgetting the fact, that while we see the Irish as white
now, until
the 1920's, the Irish WERE NOT considered "white". And if you don't
believe me, check Ignatiev's (sp?) HOW THE IRISH BECAME WHITE and
Gerstle's AMERICAN CRUCIBLE. Race and ethnicity was not as simple as we
think it was. The White/Black/Asian division we have today is very
recent.
>
> I disagree. REH was a conscious racist. His letters
> show him to be so. He supports the violence of others
> directed against non-whites. To his credit, he did
> speak against slavery rather well in "The Black
> Stranger" and some other stories.
>
> I think the best thing to do is admit Howard's racism
> but go on to discuss his other themes and views.
> There is greatness in Howard's best work.
Race is relative. You are only betraying your historical ignorance
otherwise.
To call Howard a racist you have to judge him by the standards of his
day (see Ellis' LITERATURE LOST for an intellectual defense of that
position). You gain nothing by judging his works by today's
standards---if you do, admit your post-modern bias.
Later, MEH
