> > I disagree here. I see intent to denigrate in his > comments on race-mixing in "Shadows In Zamboula." > C'mon, it is based on an incident where he called a > guy an "it." Also the use of "greaser" in the Breck > stories is denigration too. It might fit the > bone-headed character but it is still denigration. > The stuff about ape-talk in "The Hour of the Dragon" > fits too. Probably a bunch more, I'm forgetting. >
These, and other examples, are "insensitive" for sure. But they were made before "sensitivity"--for Irish, Italians, Germans, Blacks, Chinese, or anyone else--was in vogue. I also seem to recall quite a few racial or national stereotypes and so forth concerning Europeans, particularly in some of his boxing and humorous stories. What does this mean, then? And lets' not forget all of those "moody" and "quick to explode" Celtic racial stereotypes, those "brooding," melancholy misanthropes that he gave us, sometimes as heroes....Was he a racist against every race which he represented in print? Also note that Conan stated that Thak, though an ape-man in appearance, had in fact been a MAN, and Conan's "women would sing of him." Of course, that latter statement was unforgivably sexist and denigrating to women, by today's pussy-footing, fear-of-offending standards.... >>GENUINE racists come in all colors. > > True. > >> REH was not one of >> them. > > Sadly, not true. We will agree to disagree. I think that he did use stereotyping which was prevalent and even ASSUMED at his time of writing, in American society. But note that Conan's final comment about Thak blurs the lines along an EVOLUTIONARY ground, not a racial one. I think that Howard's evolutionary musings, and they way they are thoroughly mixed into his work, are a large part of the reason he is misinterpreted as a real racist. Thanks for the civilized feedback. --Mike
