Ivan postulates: His other stories, set in a world more like our own of the time, were more perhaps racist because they were dealing with characters which were a product of the time and peopled with the predominant culture of the region with warts and all. Im not sure this made Howard a racist. I think that he may have been confused as to his thoughts on the matter and may have been torn between being compassionate or admiring of them and being what he considered as "tough" or manly,
[Scotty notes] If a person is racist, let's say by any modern definition, does it not seem plausible that this racism will permeate all his writings? Even if it wasn't racism, and just shear prejudice, then this prejudice should also show through. It seems ridiculous to me, that his semi-reality based writings show more racism. They don't in fact, if you examine them all. "Black Canaan" and "pigeons From Hell" leave a solid impression on any who have read them, and I think also, anyone reading them for the first time might consider them racist (modern definition) simply because of the use of the 'nigger' word and the attitude of whites for blacks. These are period pieces - a slice of the old south - and as such they have to be accurate to the expressions and sensibilities of the people of that time. To portray that South any other way would not be realistic. Basically, racism in the stories is an expression of the period and not of the author. From all I've seen, Howard was seldom, if ever confused about much, except perhaps Shakespeare. Nino adds: 1. Howard was a man of his times and he lived in rural Texas, which was not the most "politically correct" place for blacks in the 1920s. He was a "good ol boy" at heart, and would reflect the views of his immediate society. [Scotty adlibs] I don't Howard was a "good ol' boy" at all. His sheltered early life, spoon-fed on poetry by his mother, left an indelible footprint on him and forever segregated him from the "jocks" as we would say today. His friends were all of a similar bent towards writing. You hardly ever hear of him going out with Joe down the street. His friends were limited, and his correspondence reflects who his friends were. Even in his boxing days at the Icehouse there is little information on the others who hung out there. However, I've no doubt that people met there showed up in his boxing stories to various degrees. However, he does reflect the basic views of his social group. This is pretty much a given for anyone, as we can't escape the environment we grew up with. In Howard's case, there is a protective factor in his mother, who perhaps sheltered him from the coarse Texas rural culture and lent him some fine sensibilities, ones that not only guided him to writing and harnessing his creative skills, but lent him a finer moral sense than he would have achieved by hanging out More Nino: 4. Was REH a conscious racist? Would he have supported the KKK or similar organizations (not sure the KKK as a national phenomenon existed at the time)? I don't think so, but it seems clear to me that his sympathies were with the South rather than the North in the Uncivil War. Therefore, he could not be expected to have a "soft spot" for the supposed object (slavery) of that war. [Scotty adds] No, I hardly think he was conscious of racist acts. As far as the KKK goes, it seems he did not support the organization in any way that I can see. There is absolutely no doubt about his Southern sympathies - just read his early school essay, "What the Nation Owes the South". Gary Fights Back: 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. [the Scotsman retorts] WE can't say he was a conscious racist. Yes, he did make those remarks in letters. Letters are private, and hardly the same as opening your mouth in public where anyone can hear you. That to me is conscious behavior - when you trot out your worst aspects and ain't afraid to let it all hang out. I'm not sure that Howard ever did that. Writing in a letter is a conscious act, yes, but as I say it not the same as shouting it out on the street. There is another aspect to racism - and we have to bear in mind the the term racism and racist only started to show up in the 1920's in reference to race hatred - and that is when a person is raised all their life with a view that is taken for normal, and is not considered immoral by the community, can it be called racism? A very important point raised is today's view of things versus that of Howard's time and place. Since we've had 70 years to mull over racism, and in particular 40 years of intense racial upset in America, we have been subjected to that and formulated a lot of our opinions based on that. This had nothing to do with Howard's reality. We have to put ourselves in Howard's shoes, and walk his walk, and try to figure, if the things he said, offensive today, had any overtone of offensiveness then, in that part of Texas. I think that when you factor this in as best you can, you have to come to the realization that this not racism in the sense we think of now. It may have been hatred, and that was something natural from the early west where passions ran high. Hated for the Mexicans who killed many Texians without mercy. I think also, we must recognize that mistrust and betrayal have been with us since earliest times. Betrayal begets hatred and seems to me to be a natural part of man. Perhaps only within the last 50 years the more civilized parts of our society have come to grips with this, and brought it under partial control. The lines between hatred, prejudice, and racism are murky, and it is not surprising that we confuse them. Gary further reminisces: Ace Jessel, the black boxer is probably Howard's best example of a heroic black character. "The Apparition in the Prize Ring" and "Double Cross" (?) are the two stories featuring this character. There is also N'Longa in the Solomon Kane stories. [Scotty further supports] In fact Howard's fiction is remarkably free of any racism. There is repugness, for example, at the creatures once men that went below the earth. Even the men Howard's heroes fight against are not despised by him. The Pict's of Conan's time are barbaric savages to be overcome but there is no sense of him despising them. They are an enemy against whom to strive, no more than that. Wizards are merely evil, but not to be feared any more than any other mortal man, as they can die too. Howard did not write to extoll any racist policy of his own; he wrote for the sake of expressing his ideas and stories. True, there are a couple of cases where his prejudices slip through, probably unnoticed. The comment about "mongrel" races in Vale of the Lost Women and his description of the weird black savages in Pool of the Black Ones has decidedly prejudicial overtones, overtones of basic hatred, but not for the period, what I would call racism. Gary, if you think your ideas are provocative, then I think mine will be moreso. I've been gradually investigating this for the last 4 years and I don't expect it to be an easy pill for many to swallow, but in that time I've seen a lot of people come around to some of my ideas, and have been greeted by a couple of others who see eye to eye. Hell, maybe it just as well to revert to de Camp's opinion - " If Howard was racist, he was very mild". Gary Gets Up and Fights Again: 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. [Grimaldi croaks] What, whose standards? Show me a text that describes the "standards" for racism in 1930. Racial discrimination was not a term commonly used in any way in 1930 or so. If you want to understand Howard, you MUST put yourself into a 1930's mentality and time and try to see it from his perspective, or at least a typical Texan of that era. His letters show no such thing. They show prejudice against "greaser" Mexicans. His conversations with Novalyne show an understanding of "local codes" about black and Indian treatment. Understanding how one group is treated by another and admonishing her is not racist or prejudicial in itself, it is 'fitting in' with accepted ways. To understand the implications is not racist; to practice them is. Which brings up the point, is writing in a private letter practicing racism or simply expressing sentiment? It seems to me that practicing racism, means to do it publicly, in public writings, and public talks. Keeping things to yourself or a few good friends, if we never knew about them, would it change our perception of the person? You betcha! So we see a few remarks, mostly in private letters we were never meant to see, and label him a racist when we don't hardly know anything about him, let alone his time. Even Novalyne, wrote her stuff 50 years later after living through all the racial upset of the 60's and 70's, so she was tainted too by a more modern racial attitude in her memoirs. Steve knocks on the door: By the standards of his place and time, rather race-tolerant, especially w/regards to American Indians. [Scotty races with this] Absolutely. In fact I'd revise de Camp's statement to say that Howard was exceptionally non racist in a territory knows for its prejudices against Indians, blacks, and Mexicans. I attribute this to his creative nature and sheltered early life. Mark jumps into the Fray: All you are showing here above Gary is an assertion, using today's standards, or at the very least defining your terms. Does that mean he supported Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, the KKK, or what? Those are some of the issue you have to get to define and qualify. [Scotty sums up] Exactly what I said above. There has been no attempt to get the 'flavour' of the times and judge thereby. Definition and qualification are important factors that must be stated. If we were discussing Rome and Carthage, there is no question that Romans hated Hannibal and therefore CArthage and all it stood for. That hate razed the ground it stood on and sowed the earth with salt. Now these two peoples were of different races. Was this racism? I've never heard anyone discuss it on these terms. The fact that the Romans had slaves and conquered many peoples, did not make them racist. I'm sure many Romans did have their own form of racism, deeming themselves as conquerors, but they hardly viewed themselves as racist, or the people they controlled hardly thought of them that way. It was conqueror and conquered, oppressor and oppressed, owner and slave. Racism is basically a modern term that really came into its own in the 60's, and we must train ourselves not to think in those terms, except for modern applications. This is not an easy process and takes time and study. But it is rewarding. If we are going to rate Howard on modern terms, then we must also be absolutely clear that we are judging with that in mind, just to apply a small understanding. That doesn't make it correct, IMO, as the only way he can be judged is by his era. To even say today that he is racist by our standards, is completely inane because it brands him forever in people's mind, and they can't see beyond that. Al in all, I think de Camp came pretty close to the truth, and he was a lot closer to the facts than any of us were. -- ============================= | Aefauldlie, | | Ae Blithesome Yule Day | | an ae guid Hogmanay | | tae ane an aa, | | frae Scotty Henderson | =============================
