Caldwell was unusal for his time. For that matter so was Howard. For a guy that lived in a racist county, in a racist state, in a racist country, he shows much of the expected racism and a good deal of surprisingly non-racist thought. By our standards today, undoubtedlty racist. By the standards of his place and time, rather race-tolerant, especially w/regards to American Indians.
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Romeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:13 AM Subject: RE: [rehfans] Howard and racism >--- "Mark E. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > >By the standards of his day, he was at a racist. The >simplest meaning for racism is the practice of racial >discrimination. Howard's letters and conversations >show he supported racial discrimination. Novalyne >felt it was an important enough part of his >personality to mention it in her memoir. > >And as I show in my essay, Howard was CONTEMPORARY >with Erskine Caldwell, who literature stands up to >"post-modern bias." > >Howard can be judged with his contemporaries and be >found wanting. You gain understanding by doing so. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send your FREE holiday greetings online! >http://greetings.yahoo.com > >
