Reason #857915 to love my Kindle

[nanila]

As it turns out, my Kindle helps me to engage in arguments that I would previously have avoided like the plague. For instance, I was out with four friends last night at a pub, and someone brought up Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. I don't remember what the conversation was originally about, but suddenly he uttered the phrase, "...it's not racist."

Now, normally this is the point at which I'd look round at my four white friends, who were clearly ready to prepared to let this pass without mention, and I'd drop it myself. I find it tiresome to be the one non-white person calling something racist and being talked down by a bunch of white people who are uncomfortable with the conversation and would rather be arguing about whose round of drinks it is. But I've actually read Heart of Darkness fairly recently on my Kindle. And what's more, I'd made a point of underlining certain passages that allowed me to state with certainty, "Yes, it is."

Then he started in with the "but it's a great piece of literature", "you can't judge it because of the prevailing attitudes in the time in which it was written" and "the definition of racism has changed over time" arguments. I patiently refuted the first - I was absolutely not saying that Heart of Darkness isn't a worthy piece of literature. It is. That doesn't mean it's not racist. As for the second, I can absolutely judge it to be racist no matter when it was written, because of the incorrectness of the third statement. Racism is discrimination against another person based on their race. It's really very simple. While Heart of Darkness certainly criticizes colonialism and discrimination in a passionate manner, the language used in many passages is racist.

So I took a deep breath and walked away from the group to go to the toilet. After using that noble facility for the purpose for which it was designed, I got out my Kindle and flipped through to "My Clippings". Then I walked back outside and read out the following passage (emphasis mine):

Imagine him here - the very end of the world, a sea the colour of lead, a sky the colour of smoke, a king of ship as rigid as a concertina - and going up this river with stores, or orders, or what you like. Sandbanks, marshes, forests, savages, - precious little to eat fit for a civilized man, nothing but Thames water to drink.

Trying to argue that it isn't racist to call the people of a country "savages" while referring to yourself as a "civilized man" is futile, which he eventually conceded. But damn, I really love my Kindle for giving me the armoury to tackle a conversation I would otherwise have been unwilling to have.

By the way, if you're wondering about racism, may I point you at this Tumblr: Yo, is this racist? (With snaps to ajnabieh.) My favourite entry is this one.

Comments

[soliano]

Lots of great literature has been or is racist and/or ethnocentric. I came across a history of the War of the Rings told from the standpoint of the Orcs. Yes, even in fantasy we are racist.

[nanila]

You know, I remember thinking that the association of Eastern == bad and Western == good in LotR was kinda racist*, but it never occurred to me to make the same logical conclusion with the Orcs. Now it seems obvious. Good grief.

* An association that was enforced by the films, in which the Eastern peoples have elephants and Asian-influenced clothing (and most of the non-white actors). This was also why the cutting of a certain scene with Faramir, in which he points out that these people are not to be dismissed as sub-human for being on the other side of the war, really pissed me off when I saw it in the much longer director's cut. Because it took him about 30 seconds to make that speech. And it would have made the whole thing a lot less racist.

[ironed_orchid]

China Mieville had an interview in which he discusses the orc issue.

So for example: If you have a world in which Orcs are evil, and you depict them as evil... However, the point is not that you're misrepresenting Orcs (if you invented this world, that's how Orcs are), but that you have replicated the logic of racism, which is that large groups of people are "defined" by an abstract supposedly essential element called "race," whatever else you were doing or intended. And that's not an innocent thing to do.

[nanila]

How fond am I of China Miéville? So, so very fond of him.

[springheel_jack]

Lots of the language participates in the racial hierarchy then - and now - prevailing. No one should deny that; the text is racist, just as are today's texts. But there's a 'but', and it's that the text constantly undoes the effect of the distinctions, leaving them operant at the level of the language but continually rising and falling at a deeper level. "No civilized food" - and the water as bad as where? As London. The beacon of civilization. Poisoned by the effluent of civilization. Savages, yes. But who is the most horrible, the most inhuman? The colonialists. There are even continual images of sexist dominance that appear - the jungle as feminine, as there to be taken and penetrated by the colonialists - but the rape-like nature of the act is similarly there to be seen for what it is.

The book isn't protest literature. It's not that patent about what it believes and consequently isn't that shallow. But precisely that's why it remains a powerful statement, a powerful indictment even now, and will continue to be one.

[springheel_jack]

But all that said, you still can't deny it's racist.

[nanila]

That's why I chose that passage - because I think it neatly illustrates how the text can simultaneously revile and represent culture.

[ironed_orchid]

Not exactly on topic, but this article reminded me of some of the things you've said about people trying to guess your race: It may not be racist, but it's a question I'm tired of hearing.

And Heart of Darkness is definitely racist. It's not just the narrator, it's all through it.

[nanila]

That link reminds me of something I've been meaning to post about separately. "Do you ever go back [to the Philippines]?" is a question that always bothers me a lot. Because when I reply in the negative and tell them I've never been there, people always seem disappointed in me, as if it's my fault that I was born & raised thousands of miles away. I don't see why I should be obliged to go there before, say, places that are as interesting to me in Europe - and a lot cheaper for me to get to from England.

[qian]

>_< That sounds like an awkward situation to be in. Glad your friend was eventually convinced. I wish people would get over liking racist things, though. They should just accept it! Sure, people like me are gonna judge 'em sometimes, but I like judging people, and it's not like everything I like is totally non-racist and awesome anyway.

[nanila]

It was awkward at first, but because I knew I had the ability to whip out concrete evidence and show it to someone, I felt a lot less awkward about it. (I can't speak for my companions, as only one other person engaged actively in the conversation.)

It's the stubborn refusal to admit that anything you like is flawed that gets me. Nearly every piece of English literature, particularly the "greatest works", has a discriminatory element, most commonly racism or sexism. I think it's a mistake to say that all of these works should be exempted from criticism just because they were written at a particular time or because they're otherwise brilliant or even if the intention is to deliver completely the oppposite message. Heart of Darkness is meant to be a scathing repudiation of colonialism (and the accompanying racism).

[lark_ascends]

Oi. Glad that the kindle provided help.

[nanila]

Thank you! It's helping me keep my brain more organised, so when I do want to engage in these sorts of discussions, I can do so from a more informed perspective. Helps me keep my arguments martialed - and my temper in check. ;)

[purplecthulhu]

Go you!

Sounds as if this is someone who hadn't actually read it!

[nanila]

Thank you! This was someone who said it was one of his favourite books, although he hadn't read it recently.

[miss_s_b]

There was a thing on my reading list about liking problematic bits of fiction the other day, and how admitting that something is racist/sexist/otherthingist does not mean that you, personally, are obliged not to like it, and that you can love a thing despite it's flaws, as long as you amit to them and don't try to deny they are there just because you like the thing and you're not racist/sexist/otherthingist... I wish I could be more eloquent about this - the original article certainly was - and I thought about it while watching Hugo today and again while reading this.

[nanila]

Maybe it was this blog post about the World Fantasy Award, which was recently awarded to a black novelist for the first time since its inception?

[miss_s_b]

I found it: http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/09/how-to-be-a-fan-of-problematic-things/

[nanila]

That was a great read, thank you!

[ex_angiereedgarner191]

That's a good one!

[ex_angiereedgarner191]

What an awesome use of Kindle!

I fear I've just stopped hanging out with anyone liable to say that kind of thing... which means I'm getting pretty isolated. I don't rec it.

[nanila]

I'm quite happy to evangelise about the Kindle for hours, so this is additional fodder for my message. ;)

It's difficult for me to get away from the culture that encourages homogeneity - I work in a field largely populated by white men. :/