Victorians! discussion

Andreea wrote: "I do feel hurt and angry when I read racist, homophobic or sexist 19th century books. It's obvious to me that racist etc views didn't exist in a vacuum, they affected real people of colour etc during that time, they're not just offensive statements. The fact that these views were more common then than they are now doesn't really comfort me..."

I agree

Pip wrote: "I very much like Everyman's expression "cultural relativist", and I think to a great extent I am one - just as well because, as a woman, I would otherwise never have been able to enjoy much literat..."

Andreea wrote: "And maybe rather than regretting all the books you could enjoy if their writer hadn't been racist / sexist think about all the great books by people of colour and women you could be enjoying now if..."

I think you are wrong about Fingersmith not being able to be produced in the 19th century. There were many books written about lesbians in the 19th century, and no doubt many of the books which the central character is forced to read no doubt deal with the subject of lesbianism as well as other taboo sexual subjects.

Malcolm wrote: "once when on here before I browsed a Mark Twain group read and one American reader said it was wrong of the central character to runaway with the slave because the elderly woman depended upon him and so denying her her means of support.

What about denying the slave his freedom?

Why would I want to get into disputes over something like that?

In my view slavery is wrong pure and simple regardless of the age of the owner of the slave regardless of era. "

It's not a matter of wanting to get into disputes. I hope most of us here agree with you about slavery being wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it has existed in various places through all of known human history, and still exists in various places today. One can read about historical events, and read novels which reflect historical events, without needing to dispute about them. My reading would be seriously proscribed if I closed myself off to books which dealt with historical social patterns which I believe today to be wrong.

Malcolm wrote: "But we can learn just as much if not more from autobiographies, biographies and history books rather than fiction which may not give an entirely accruate account of the state of things. "

Ah. The great question. Personally, I think there is often more truth in fiction than in non-fiction, but that's a complex issue.

Malcolm wrote: "Malcolm X and Richard Wright have very good reasons for their attitudes towards white people, lest we forget.
"

True, and I read them with interest at the time, being quite active in the civil rights movement in the 60s (and suffering my own experience of racism when I was booted from SNCC when they kicked out all the white people).

But, Jefferson, Washington, et. al. had very good reasons for their attitudes toward black people. Not reasons that we today, perhaps, think good, but reasons that they thought were good.

I would have to have all the moral judgments I make today, believing them to be good, to be condemned by future generations because they have come to different, perhaps more right, conclusions.

Chris wrote: " Thackeray's American-set novels are larded with casual racism (and Sambo in Vanity Fair is not without his problems)...."

The only Thackeray novel I have read is Vanity Fair, and although the servant Sambo can be seen as problematic, in England at the time, Sambo was a generic name for black footman/slaves. It is easy to spot but it is just as easy to overlook. Far more problematic is the rich black/mixed race girl who is at a school in the story and how she is regarded and treated. As I have only read that work by the author, I don't find either paticularly racist as the novel is satire. Thackerary treats the black characters in this story relatively well. The white characters in Vanity Fair are largely grotesques (with a few exceptions) and in their behaviour and attitude towards the black characters are racist.

The white characters attitudes towards each other are appalling, which I think is one of he main points of the social satire.

Chris wrote: "And then there's the racism in the popular writing that has all but been forgotten...including the "golliwog," a particularly bizarre English racist stereotype that originated in Victorian times but has its defenders even today...."

I think you will find that the gollywog was an American invention, and most possibly black, being origianlly a rag doll made by black people for their children. When taken up by and produced by white people it closely resembled a black-face minstrel. For instance, the illustration for Helen Bannerman's The Story of Little Black Sambo, about a south Indian boy resembles that of a gollywog, fashioned for American/European (British & colonial) consumption rather than the plain dolls of rags black americans played with.

Sara wrote: "And, besides, how can we attempt to understand a past period if we don't look at the ugly along side the pretty? For such racist views sometimes I had a good intention underneath them... after all, weren't Australian Aborigene children taken away from their families with the good intention of improving their spirituality, their discipline and their social outlook (it was certainly better to be marginalised by civilised people but be part of their civilisation somehow than persist in living in the uncivilised wild?)..."

Until the 1960s Aboriginies were classed not as humans but as flora and fauna. How can you call people who not only steal the land from the Aboriginies but also their children "civilised". What sort of "spirituality" do you think the white man was imparting to both the adults who had their land and children taken from them, and the children who were forced to live in an alien culture of white farmers and were little more than slave labour with little or no rights whatsoever?

Also, the Aboriginies were/are a civilisation and were so long before white settlers imposed their culture upon them.

And why has no white person in this group attempted to enlighten your ignorance of the subject?

So far I have only read the first 18 of these comments, so have yet to read any reply to them other than the ones which I have already noticed. But you really do need more black readers to broaden your outlook and widen your narrow perspectives. So far, I am finding it rather shocking how those which claim to be more learned and academic in these matters have not corrected some of the more glaringly obvious misconceptions.

I am unsure whether I wish to continue reading the rest of this thread.

Everyman wrote: "It's not a matter of wanting to get into disputes. I hope most of us here agree with you about slavery being wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it has existed in various places through all of known human history, and still exists in various places today. One can read about historical events, and read novels which reflect historical events, without needing to dispute about them. My reading would be seriously proscribed if I closed myself off to books which dealt with historical social patterns which I believe today to be wrong..."

It's not that I find the books wrong, as you put it, but the attitudes and interpretation of some of the readers which I find to be wrong.

Everyman wrote: " Personally, I think there is often more truth in fiction than in non-fiction, but that's a complex issue..."

Personally I disagree with you.

Everyman wrote: "But, Jefferson, Washington, et. al. had very good reasons for their attitudes toward black people. Not reasons that we today, perhaps, think good, but reasons that they thought were good."

Just because they thought their attitudes towards black people were good does not mean that they were right then. They were only good for those with the whip hand and not for those under the lash. And surely you are not suggesting that white people who enslaved black people did not have racist attitudes?

Malcolm wrote: "I think you will find that the gollywog was an American invention, and most possibly black, being origianlly a rag doll made by black people for their children."

Recognizing that Wikipedia is not always an authoritative source, it does trace the golliwog to Florence Kate Upton, an English authoress (born in the US, but moved to England when she was 14) who " illustrated a children's book entitled The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwogg....Upton's book and its many sequels were extremely successful in England, largely because of the popularity of the Golliwogg. Upton did not trademark her character, and its name, spelled "golliwog", became the generic name for dolls and images of a similar type.[2] The golliwog doll became a popular children's toy throughout most of the 20th century, and was incorporated into many aspects of British commerce and culture;[3] for instance, some of Enid Blyton's books feature them, often as a villain and sometimes as heroes. Upton's Golliwogg was jovial, friendly and gallant,[1] but some later golliwogs were sinister or menacing characters."

The dolls are still being manufactured and sold in Australia, and may still be sold in England (they were as late as 2008). You can buy used golliwog dolls on ebay, and at least one site sells golliwog t-shirts.

You can by By Golly! The History of the Golliwog from Barnes and Noble. (There they list it as Buy Golly! A History of Black Collectibles which they describe as
"Overview
Clinton Derricks is an authority and avid collector on golliwog dolls, which are very popular in England. Many view golliwogs as an important segment of black social history in the western world; while others may consider that they perpetuate a negative image of blacks in society."

So unless the book has different information, it appears that it was primarily created and marketed as a doll for Western children, not specifically for black children. One suggestion is that because it was a male figure, it was considered more acceptable, during the late 19th and early 20th century, as a doll for boys to play with than the usual girl dolls.

Everyman wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "I think you will find that the gollywog was an American invention, and most possibly black, being origianlly a rag doll made by black people for their children."

Recognizing that W..."

I cannot remember where, but I recall reading that the gollywog doll originated from the rag dolls used by black children made from rags because their parents obviously could not affort the porcelean faced/limbed dolls Europeans/American children played with. . . But then I no doubt got my information from black sources. Perhaps it is merely the origin of the term gollywog which is in dispute.

Malcolm wrote: "you really do need more black readers to broaden your outlook and widen your narrow perspectives"

How do you know other members of the group are not black? Nobody here is required to state their race.
We are a very international community and as a result I think are both inquisitive about and respectful of others' culture, race, religion and politics. I have many friends here with whom I do not necessarily share backgrounds and fundamental beliefs, but who do broaden my outlook and whom I hold in very high regard for this reason, among others.

Pip wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "you really do need more black readers to broaden your outlook and widen your narrow perspectives"

How do you know other members of the group are not black? Nobody here is required ..."

From the attitude of the comments which I have read so far it seems rather unlikely that they were written by black people, and I do believe black people would identify themselves as such in such a discussion to help others understand their perspective and viewpoint. Or what would be the point in their making their comments if not to help assist others in seeing fully and understanding their point of view on the topic under discussion and the various subjects covered.

Do you honestly believe that black people in this group - if any - would not identify themselves in this discussion.

I'm presuming that there are no other black people engaging in this discussion because none have identified themselves as being black up to this point that I feel I can assume that I am the only black voice here.

All the comments which I have read here so far appear to be written by white people - some of which seem to identify themselves as white by how they are addressing the issue.

I can see no reason why a black person would keep their identity to themselves in such a discussion.

Also based on past experience with this group, I was the only black voice then so it seems a rather fair assumption that I am the only black voice in this discussion now, until told otherwise by a person identifying themselves as black.

I just finished this novel today called Ourika. I realized that racism is something that clings to black people. I was trying to find a classic novel with black people that does not deal with slavery just to get a bit away from the racism but it is something that we cannot escape. When I read classic novels I cringe internally when black people come into the novel because I just know that it is going to be racist. I can understand how Malcolm feels. I'm at the place that I'm getting into diverse classics. I want to see the view point of people who go outside of the realm of characters that classics usually cover. I get to see the struggles of the people who have to deal with racism and all these other things versus seeing just people who give out the abuse.

Sara wrote: "I realized that racism is something that clings to black people..."

And by its very nature racism is something that clings to white people equally.

Malcolm wrote: "Sara wrote: "I realized that racism is something that clings to black people..."

And by its very nature racism is something that clings to white people equally."

And that is the thing too.

Sara wrote: "And that is the thing too..."

Of course, which was/is the point of my oberservation. Racism cannot cling to black people if there were no racist white (or non black) people. Without racists there can be no racism.

Malcolm wrote: "Also based on past experience with this group, I was the only black voice then so it seems a rather fair assumption that I am the only black voice in this debate now, until told otherwise by a person identifying themselves as black. ..."

I am sorry that you consider this a debate rather than a discussion, Malcolm.

Lily wrote: "I am sorry that you consider this a debate rather than a discussion, Malcolm..."

Discussion/debate is just semantics. Potayto/Potatto. For me both words are interchangable, but if it makes it easier for you and everyone else, consider every time I've written debate I've meant discussion, Lily.

Actually, thanks for pointing that out for now I am going to edit my comments and change 'debate' for 'discussion'.

In point of fact, my use of the word 'debate' comes after my reading and replying to Pip's comment (34) in which she uses the word 'debate', perhaps we can both feel sorry for her.

Malcolm wrote: "From the attitude of the comments which I have read so far it seems rather unlikely that they were written by black people,"

Personally, I consider that a racist remark, the automatic assumption that there is one way for black people to write and another way for non-black people to write.

Malcolm wrote: "Discussion/debate is just semantics."

No. No, no, no, no, no.

In my view of the terms, there is an absolute, core, essential difference between them.

The purpose of a discussion is to mutually investigate a question with no assumption that either you or the other parties are necessarily right or wrong, but trying to find truth wherever it lies.

The purpose of debate -- and I was a very successful high school debater in my time -- is to win points, to persuade others to our point of view.

The debater assume he or she is right, and that his or her intent is to try to get others to agree. Just listen to a debate in Congress or Parliament. There is no open search for truth; there is point and counterpoint, verbal battle.

The discussant doesn't assume that his or her viewpoint is necessarily right, but puts it out for consideration and discussion with an intent of increasing mutual understanding. One model of discussion is the college seminars I spent four years engaged in.

There is a vast difference. Vast.

Everyman wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "From the attitude of the comments which I have read so far it seems rather unlikely that they were written by black people,"

Personally, I consider that a racist remark, the automatic assumption that there is one way for black people to write and another way for non-black people to write. ..."

All I can say to that with regards to the comments I have already read - please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption. And if I am correct that they were written by white people, then what?

But personally I consider the remarks below by Sara in message 17 written in August 2014 extremely racist, and I am sure many black people, Aborigenes included would agree with me. Almost 6 months have passed yet none of you have questioned her comments or the actions of the white Australians. How can you call my observation racist yet remain silent for almost 6 months about Sara's comment?

And I am surprised that those white people who claim to be non-racist has not pulled her up on her veiws with regards to the ancient Aborigene civilization and the extremely uncivilized cultural imperialist who imposed their culture upon them and marginalised them in the first place. How come no one yet has spoken out about that. How racist is too racist? That is too racist and it was not written by a Victorian but someone in the 21st century who is non black.

"And, besides, how can we attempt to understand a past period if we don't look at the ugly along side the pretty? For such racist views sometimes I had a good intention underneath them... after all, weren't Australian Aborigene children taken away from their families with the good intention of improving their spirituality, their discipline and their social outlook (it was certainly better to be marginalised by civilised people but be part of their civilisation somehow than persist in living in the uncivilised wild?)" by Sara (Message 17)

Compare it with Rider Haggard about Zulus in an earlier message by Chris in message 3:

In Child of Storm, he sets it out explicitly:

" Impossible, the clever critic will say—impossible that a savage could act with such finish. Well, friend critic, that is just where you are wrong. When you come to add it up there's very little difference in all main and essential matters between the savage and yourself.

To begin with, by what exact right do we call people like the Zulus savages? Setting aside the habit of polygamy, which, after all, is common among very highly civilised peoples in the East, they have a social system not unlike our own. They have, or had, their king, their nobles, and their commons. They have an ancient and elaborate law, and a system of morality in some ways as high as our own, and certainly more generally obeyed. They have their priests and their doctors; they are strictly upright, and observe the rites of hospitality.

Where they differ from us mainly is that they do not get drunk until the white man teaches them so to do, they wear less clothing, the climate being more genial, their towns at night are not disgraced by the sights that distinguish ours, they cherish and are never cruel to their children, although they may occasionally put a deformed infant or a twin out of the way, and when they go to war, which is often, they carry out the business with a terrible thoroughness, almost as terrible as that which prevailed in every nation in Europe a few generations ago.

Of course, there remain their witchcraft and the cruelties which result from their almost universal belief in the power and efficiency of magic. Well, since I lived in England I have been reading up this subject, and I find that quite recently similar cruelties were practised throughout Europe—that is in a part of the world which for over a thousand years has enjoyed the advantages of the knowledge and profession of the Christian faith.

Now, let him who is highly cultured take up a stone to throw at the poor, untaught Zulu, which I notice the most dissolute and drunken wretch of a white man is often ready to do, generally because he covets his land, his labour, or whatever else may be his."

#Comment 76 " I am surprised that those white people who claim to be non-racist has not pulled her up on her veiws"

That would be because we are not here to pull each other up on our views, but to discuss literature.
I have to say I do not agree with Comment 34 and had I read it properly when I joined in late to this discussion I might have said so, but in a much less confrontational manner. Maybe by posting a reliable weblink for the poster to read and consider. I find it is much easier to convince people by engaging their interest than by shouting them down.

Everyman wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "Discussion/debate is just semantics."

No. No, no, no, no, no.

In my view of the terms, there is an absolute, core, essential difference between them."

Quite right, Everyman. Semantics are never "just semantics" and it seems a strange comment to make on a literary forum. I'm not actually sure why I used the verb "debate" rather than "discuss" in an earlier post. Maybe it was a subconscious reaction to the direction this thread seemed to be taking? No need for anyone to feel sorry for me though - I'm not into the victim thing ;-))

"#Comment 77 "That would be because we are not here to pull each other up on our views, but to discuss literature.
I have to say I do not agree with Comment 34 and had I read it properly when I joined in late to this discussion I might have said so, but in a much less confrontational manner. Maybe by posting a reliable weblink for the poster to read and consider. I find it is much easier to convince people by engaging their interest than by shouting them down. ..."

I was not shouting her down. I simply reposted her comments to illustrate my point. There is no need for me to post a reliable weblink when her comments are racist for all to see, yet no one in all the months that it has been here has bothered to say anything about it.

And to illustrate how ugly her comments are to black people and particularly Aborigenes I placed the quotation from Rider Haggard besides them.

It seems rather rich that I am called racist because I say quite fairly that the comments which I had read were by white people, yet everyone has ignored the racist comments made by a white person about Aborigines being "uncivilised" and deserved to have their children stolen away them to be raised by white people who considered them to be flora and fauna. Australia had a whites only policy up until the 1970s.

Perhaps a cultural relativist could give us his opinion on whether the Aborigines were a civilization before Europeans took their land from them.

Everyman wrote: "No. No, no, no, no, no.

In my view of the terms, there is an absolute, core, essential difference between them..."

Evidently you have strong views on this.

However, it was a mistake for me to use the word 'debate' rather than 'discussion' and I corrected my error, which came about because Pip used the word first. And for me debate/discussion were interchangable.

Thanks for enlightening us on the difference between debate and discussion. Duly noted.

As I said to me it was just semantics and lets not quibble over semantics.

Barbs wrote: "I wasn't here for Sara's comments, but I wonder, was she citing an example of the intent of Christian white settlers who didn't understand the deep spirituality of tribal cultures?

In such a case,..."

There are many flaws in Sara's comments. For instance the first parapgraph:

I must admit that one thing I like about bygone eras literature is racism. Not the overtly preaching racism of how 'X race' ought to be killed or made into slaves or mistreated and marginalised for their innate meanness, dumbness or ugliness. What I like is to see the scenes where such racist incidents are portrayed as not only natural but also very much appropriate, because it opens a window into a world which, for us (in general), should be alien. (But is it really? If one lives in a town where only white people live, won't we feel distrust at an oriental or black person who clearly lives by a different cultural standard? Even if you swear you are not the least racist, won't the thought creep into your mind 'well, it's no wonder that happened, have you seen how he/she...?'?)

She talks of if one lives in a town where only white people live, won't we feel a distrust at an oriental or black person who clearly lives by a different cultural standard? . . . What different cultural standards can she mean. For instance, when American born Nat King Cole bought his home in Hollywood, he suffered intimidation from his neighbours and the Ku Klux Klan. He had no different cultural standards from the people of the neighbourhood he moved into. His only difference was that he was black. And many orientals had been living in America since the previous century. Like Nat King Cole, their cultural standards would be just the same as any white American.

In the second paragraph: And, besides, how can we attempt to understand a past period if we don't look at the ugly along side the pretty? For such racist views sometimes I had a good intention underneath them... after all, weren't Australian Aborigene children taken away from their families with the good intention of improving their spirituality, their discipline and their social outlook (it was certainly better to be marginalised by civilised people but be part of their civilisation somehow than persist in living in the uncivilised wild?). . . She was asserting an opinion rather than "citing" merely 'an example of the intent of Christian white settlers who didn't understand the deep spirituality of tribal cultures'.

Hawaii has the problem of some white Americans arriving there without means of support in the hope of living some strange ideal existance of surfing in Paradise, and burdening themselves upon the state, so I can quite understand why some white people are fairly low on the social scale. But this is not racism. You cannot colonize a county and incoroportate it into your own, then expect that county to support you if you should decide to move there and live as a beach bum surfer dude. . . I am not for one moment suggesting that is how you lived when in Hawaii, but you must be able to uderstand and sympathize with the Hawaiian's if the white minority which come to their country/state are either rich tourists; military on base camps; or drop outs from other American states or from other countries.

This observation of yours is not easy for me to agree with:
"It's difficult for any of us who are white, or perceived as white to fully appreciate the subtle prejudices that enter ordinary conversation. It's very much like the comments often made by men with no intent of misogyny, yet unintentionally offend women."

At least since the civil rights movement of the 1960s we here in Britain have taken great pains to educate with regards to discrimination and diversity. My white peers at school and at work have been told what sort of comments and attitudes are offensive and unacceptable to both non whites and to women generally - not to mention the physically challenged. Here it was called 'equal rights' rather than 'civil rights' and began by addressing the issue of racism and sexism in society - schools, colleges, workplace - everywhere, and later included what we here term the 'disabled'.

My point being, is that most people are well aware of the "subtle prejudices that enter ordinary conversation" regardless of race, gender, abilities or religion/faith. And if it had some how gone over their heads when at school, then they receive a re-cap of what is not acceptable during inductions when at college/university and upon starting work.

Also, they should know or have an awareness of what is acceptable for comedians/actors to say on stage/tv/film/radio but not acceptable generally in the course of everyday conversation at work or outside of work.

I enjoyed and appreciated your input Barbs.

I must point out another flaw in your persuasive arguement (rhetoric) A British black man, for example, would have a different experience that comes from British colonialism rather than slavery.

British colonialism was slavery until 1833, when it was abolished throughout the empire. And when it was abolished, it still existed in a different form - indentured servants/apprentices for example. And it was not until the break up of the empire and the formation of the Commonwealth following World War 2, that improvements began to be made, and then slowly. Athough Bristish blacks did not suffer as harshly as American blacks, it has not be particularly easy for us. It is true that British blacks prefer to be British than American because our laws have been far more fairer than Americans with regards to racial issues.

Again, I enjoyed and appreciated your input.

Barbs wrote: "The legacy of British colonialism reflects more the class system. Racism is expressed in a more condescending manner, if you see what I mean. Much as an 'upper crust' person might treat an Irish person. Instead of the anger, it's more a pompous elitism. "They're not our kind." Would you agree? ..."

Much if not all of Maria Edgeworth's fiction falls outside of Victoian fiction, but you may be interested to read some of her work such as Castle Rackrent and in particular The Absentee, which focuses on the English attitude towards the Irish. Although more noticable in the ruling elite of the time (from before Oliver Cromwell and beyond) but prejudice against the Irish was/is not limited to the upper classes as "the Troubles" of the 20th century with regard to Northern Ireland brought home to us.

I cannot agree entirely that British colonialism reflects more the class system because I suffered racism from the working-class folk I was raised, educated and worked amongst, and still do experience it from time to time. My maternal grandfather was an African; and my father is from Barbados (both British colonies when they were born), and my father suffered racism when he came to Britian in the 1950s, and my siblings (all born and raised in England) and myself suffered racism through out our lives, largely from our neighbours and the people with went to school and have had to work with since leaving school. Obviously the racism of recent times has not been as bad as 50 years ago, due to acts of Parliament over the various decades, but it has not gone away entirely and not exclusively from the upper classes. Indeed I largely rub shoulders with working and middle class people.

I'm glad you've reminded me of Castle Rackrent - I've had it on my TBR list for a while.

Pip wrote: "I'm glad you've reminded me of Castle Rackrent - I've had it on my TBR list for a while."

With regard to the English treatment of the Irish then you should also read Ennui and Ormond - in Ormond, Edgeworth paints a rather ugly portrait of the English attitude. If memory serves, a school teacher's attitude is particularly ignorant.

Edgeworth was born in Oxfordshire, England, and was raised in Ireland on her father's estate at Edgeworthtown. She wrote very sympathetically of the Irish.

Barbs wrote: "But would you agree that the element of anger is still more pronounced in America than England? ..."

Depending upon the cause of the anger, I will agree. But then in America you have a different approach to race issues than in Britain. I'm sure that if I had been born American I would be quite angry by your procrastination towards equality.

We have had a struggle towards equality in my lifetime, but nothing so bad as in America during my lifetime - no segregation in schools, hospitals, shops or buses for example. Although, when I was three years old, there was a strike due to the local bus company in Bristol, refusing to employ black workers. But out of it came the Race Relations Act of 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Rel...

And during world war 2, the British had problems with Americans trying to impose segregation upon our citizens by trying to stop white women from dancing with and dating black GIs.

Hopefully you will enjoy the work of Maria Edgeworth, although much of her work is good, not all is as brilliant as Castle Rackrent, Belinda, Ennui or Patronage. But she was an enlightened feminist, and enlightened in her attituded towards her Irish tenants and the Irish in general. She makes quite a refreshing change to the usual output of the period.

Barbs wrote: "Just to clarify, I'm a Brit..."

Thanks for the clarification. My apologes for mistaking you for an American.

Andreea wrote: "And maybe rather than regretting all the books you could enjoy if their writer hadn't been racist / sexist think about all the great books by people of colour and women you could be enjoying now if..."

Women weren't prevented from writing books in the Victorian era, there were enormous numbers of female authors. Some of them extremely popular. Nathaniel hawthorne for instance wrote bitterly about a "d - -d mob of scribbling women". He was jealous because The Lamplighter by Maria Cummins sold four times as man copies in the first month as The Scarlet Letter sold in Hawthorne's lifetime.

I read a plethora of classics and nonfiction titles and find little offensive for the former is a choice and I do not absorb myself in literature or become overtly excited (negatively so) to the degree where offense takes root. I accept that the material reflects the period and biases of the author. I don’t have to agree. It’s okay to feel different without getting vexed.

I’ve never met a person devoid of personal biases. And these preferences inform what rolls off one’s shoulders or gets under the skin. There’s typically a corresponding cause that the individual champions. For some it’s racism, sexism, class, or whatever social ill you’d wish to insert. And depending on their leaning, they will be more aware of these items than a person who’s unimpacted but not oblivious to these ails.

Where we often go awry is recognizing the diversity of our antennas and unlikelihood that we’re plugged into the same frequency. I am unoffended by racism because I’m not seeking it in my selections. The same holds true for the plight of women, children, or the other subjects raised. I don’t enter the book with my mind tuned to these channels. I prefer to fix my thoughts on other topics.

Thanks for your post-I've been struggling with a couple of books I've read recently with what would today be considered racist or sexist terms or viewpoints which appear to be accepted by the author. Does one stop reading a particular author, or consider the context and time?