Quote from: Krazz on May 31, 2024, 01:38:43 PMAs to whether there's covert racism - that's an entirely different question, and off-topic for this thread about Justice's claim of overt racism. The nature of it being covert means that people will disagree as to whether its existence can be inferred. Add to that that we live in a time when claims of covert racism are very high, and I don't want to touch that question with a bargepole.

Thanks for the answer, and I can understand that.

I also dislike talking about racism in modern works for this reason. But for works from a hundred years ago (a) when Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation were laws of the land; and (b) the story is about a race war where blacks kill all the other races; then I believe it's well past subtle and covert.

Beyond any nuances of wording,

• That the black race goes out and murders all other races is directly a negative portrayal of black people. It portrays them as dangerous and genocidal.
• That black people can't even make guns and revert to spears in slaughtering the other races portrays them negatively mentally.

It is going past too far if we have to tiptoe around whether someone can call "The Birth of a Nation" or "Amos & Andy" racist.

I also don't think this is a radical left position. i.e. I think that most Americans - both Democrat and Republicans - would consider the story overtly and obviously racist.

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PM

Quote from: Krazz on May 31, 2024, 01:38:43 PMAs to whether there's covert racism - that's an entirely different question, and off-topic for this thread about Justice's claim of overt racism. The nature of it being covert means that people will disagree as to whether its existence can be inferred. Add to that that we live in a time when claims of covert racism are very high, and I don't want to touch that question with a bargepole.

Thanks for the answer, and I can understand that.

I also dislike talking about racism in modern works for this reason. But for works from a hundred years ago (a) when Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation were laws of the land; and (b) the story is about a race war where blacks kill all the other races; then I believe it's well past subtle and covert.

Beyond any nuances of wording,

• That the black race goes out and murders all other races is directly a negative portrayal of black people. It portrays them as dangerous and genocidal.

Humans are dangerous and genocidal. There are black people in Africa right now calling for the genocide of white people. There are arabs in the middle east calling for the genocide of Jews right now.
There are activists in America accusing white people of commiting genocide against black and brown people right now.
The OT Star Trek story "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." has come to my mind several times while reading this thread. The story depicts the mutual genocide of two people along racial lines. Do you think the depiction of racial genocide is in itself racist?

[/list]

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMI also dislike talking about racism in modern works for this reason. But for works from a hundred years ago (a) when Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation were laws of the land; and (b) the story is about a race war where blacks kill all the other races; then I believe it's well past subtle and covert.

The nature of the claim being that it's overt means that we don't have to take into account when it was written (apart from when we consider the words used to describe the races - what's considered racist there changes over time). If it were written today, the overt racism should be as clear as it was when Howard wrote it.

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMBeyond any nuances of wording,

• That the black race goes out and murders all other races is directly a negative portrayal of black people. It portrays them as dangerous and genocidal.
• That black people can't even make guns and revert to spears in slaughtering the other races portrays them negatively mentally.

And in return, we learn that:

• The whites literally enslave the entire black race (or maybe that's a mixture of whites and Asians).
• The whites cause their own downfall by selling the blacks the weapons that are used against them, and would have sold their own sisters' souls.

Is it overtly racist against whites too? And Asians, for that matter? Or does it show a fairly even-handed mixture of good and bad aspects of each race? And as discussed, it's not made overt that the failure of the blacks to make new weapons is caused by a mental failing on their part. If you want to infer that and declare the story racist, knock yourself out. But the bar for overt racism is higher. And why doesn't the last white man have a gatling gun or a tank? That sounds like a better choice of weapon for the batter that he faces. It seems that all races have seen a fall in technology.

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMIt is going past too far if we have to tiptoe around whether someone can call "The Birth of a Nation" or "Amos & Andy" racist.

But nobody here has done that (unless I missed a post). The agreement on Birth of a Nation has been that it is overtly racist. I've never even heard of Amos & Andy.

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMI also don't think this is a radical left position. i.e. I think that most Americans - both Democrat and Republicans - would consider the story overtly and obviously racist.

Americans make up less than 5% of the world's population, so even if true, it would be far from conclusive. And I'm not sure that you would get that agreement - it seems in this thread we've had a split primarily on political leaning.[/list]

Quote from: Krazz on May 31, 2024, 03:40:52 PMThe nature of the claim being that it's overt means that we don't have to take into account when it was written (apart from when we consider the words used to describe the races - what's considered racist there changes over time). If it were written today, the overt racism should be as clear as it was when Howard wrote it.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that there should be different standards.

I meant that in the 1920s America, overt racism was very common in life. Jim Crow, segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were in place in many states by majority vote, and KKK membership was booming into the millions. Would you agree about that?

If so, then we should expect that overt racism would be common in stories and films from that era, right? I feel like that shouldn't be controversial. Even if we disagree on a particular instance, it should be possible to point out a bunch of other overtly racist works from the era.

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMBeyond any nuances of wording,

• That the black race goes out and murders all other races is directly a negative portrayal of black people. It portrays them as dangerous and genocidal.
• That black people can't even make guns and revert to spears in slaughtering the other races portrays them negatively mentally.

And in return, we learn that:

• The whites literally enslave the entire black race (or maybe that's a mixture of whites and Asians).
• The whites cause their own downfall by selling the blacks the weapons that are used against them, and would have sold their own sisters' souls.

[/quote]

For your first point, the only mention of slavery is here:

Quote from: R.E. HowardAnd a new, strong race had risen. A race whose people had been enslaved for ages.

They were a mighty, a prolific race. First they overran their own continent. Rebellions swept Africa. The negroes pushed the Arab races to the north and the Arabs and Europeans slew each other, until from Cape Town to Tangiers, and from Kimberly to Suez only black men ruled.

This mention is clearly a reference to the real historical African slave trade. The future of the world from the present of 1925 is being described, starting with rebellions in Africa, most of which was under colonial rule in real-world 1925 history.

Are you positing that Europe went and enslaved all of Africa some time after 1925 - even though that part of the future wasn't mentioned in the list of events? I don't think that's supported by the text. What is said about white people's future is:

Quote from: R.E. HowardThen the decadence set in. It had been first noticeable in the sports and athletics. Fewer and fewer of the race had gained fame in the great games. More and more men of other races seized the prizes.

The ruling race forgot the art of war, forgot all except the search for newer pleasures, and in so doing, they descended to the depths of degeneracy.

These are certainly faults, but that doesn't compare with slaughtering all other races.

If someone today were to write a story about how the white race went in and slaughtered all of the black devils in Africa by using their superior arms, then I'm sure here it would be considered anti-white racism - even if Africans were also showed to also have faults.

Quote from: jhkim on June 01, 2024, 02:06:20 PMI meant that in the 1920s America, overt racism was very common in life. Jim Crow, segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were in place in many states by majority vote, and KKK membership was booming into the millions. Would you agree about that?

Yes, though I don't see the relevance. The story either is overtly racist or it doesn't. Whether Howard was racist, whether much of society was, does not affect that.

Quote from: jhkim on June 01, 2024, 02:06:20 PMIf so, then we should expect that overt racism would be common in stories and films from that era, right? I feel like that shouldn't be controversial. Even if we disagree on a particular instance, it should be possible to point out a bunch of other overtly racist works from the era.

Sure. I guess in principle, you could have a very racist society where few of the stories are racist, but I doubt the 1920s were like that.

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMBeyond any nuances of wording,

• That the black race goes out and murders all other races is directly a negative portrayal of black people. It portrays them as dangerous and genocidal.
• That black people can't even make guns and revert to spears in slaughtering the other races portrays them negatively mentally.

And in return, we learn that:

• The whites literally enslave the entire black race (or maybe that's a mixture of whites and Asians).
• The whites cause their own downfall by selling the blacks the weapons that are used against them, and would have sold their own sisters' souls.

[/quote]

For your first point, the only mention of slavery is here:

Quote from: R.E. HowardAnd a new, strong race had risen. A race whose people had been enslaved for ages.

...

This mention is clearly a reference to the real historical African slave trade. The future of the world from the present of 1925 is being described, starting with rebellions in Africa, most of which was under colonial rule in real-world 1925 history.

Are you positing that Europe went and enslaved all of Africa some time after 1925 - even though that part of the future wasn't mentioned in the list of events? I don't think that's supported by the text.

I'm saying that it says

QuoteA race whose people had been enslaved for ages.

It gives a reason for what the blacks do, and doesn't paint the slavers in a good light. Howard could have mentioned that slavery had been endemic worldwide, every race had carried it out and been victim of it, and that white nations had led the efforts to end it. He chose not to write that. I don't think he was trying to make the blacks seem as bad as he could.

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMIf someone today were to write a story about how the white race went in and slaughtered all of the black devils in Africa by using their superior arms, then I'm sure here it would be considered anti-white racism - even if Africans were also showed to also have faults.

Whether it was considered anti-white or anti-black racism would depend on the race and/or politics of the writer, and what the story contained, and the politics of the people making the claim. If the writer was the Grand Wizard of the KKK, and used your choice of words outside of a character's POV - "black devils" - I suspect most people would consider it anti-black wish fulfilment.

The fairest way to judge the book would be to read it without knowing who had written it. If you read The Last White Man without knowing who wrote it, might you think it was anti-white wish fulfilment? Would you be so sure that it was anti-black? Where's the claimed overt racism that makes it clear which side it comes down on?

Robert E Howard died at 30 in 1936.  That means almost everything he wrote, he wrote in his twenties and in the 1920s and 30s.

The way I understand The Last White Man is a young man troubled and exploring a very relevant issue of his time and place through fiction.  He literally took the talking points he was hearing discussed around him and novelized them so he could examine them. 

Taking any written work and stating that it is an absolute true showing of a person is just dumb. Are we now going to start a criminal investigation for suspicion of serial murder on Thomas Harris?  Is C.S. Lewis a Satanist for having written The Screwtape Letters?

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMI also don't think this is a radical left position. i.e. I think that most Americans - both Democrat and Republicans - would consider the story overtly and obviously racist.

In my decades of living, I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans and I still do not consider the story overtly and obviously racist.

Then again, I have Common Sense. Which might as well be a superpower to the woke.

Quote from: jeff37923 on June 02, 2024, 09:49:08 AM

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 03:10:45 PMI also don't think this is a radical left position. i.e. I think that most Americans - both Democrat and Republicans - would consider the story overtly and obviously racist.

In my decades of living, I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans and I still do not consider the story overtly and obviously racist.

Then again, I have Common Sense. Which might as well be a superpower to the woke.

Greetings!

Yeah, Jeff! As usual, we also agree on this. I have, once upon a time, voted Democrat, though the vast majority of the time I have voted Republican.

And, right. I don't see the story, "The Last White Man" by REH as being overtly or obviously racist. It just seems like a kind of dystopian, fantastic story like other stories REH has written. It is a fictional, "Futuristic" kind of fantasy story.

*Laughing* Yes, "Common Sense" is a superpower to the Woke. The Woke don't have "Common Sense", as their minds have been corrupted by Marxism and insanity of post-modernism. Everything is political, everything is corrupt, everything is misogynistic in their minds. When a person has been brainwashed like this, it also means that their family and social relationships will rapidly become corrupted and deteriorate. Hence, why it also seems like Woke people are socially isolated and estranged from their family and normal friends. They are only left to really associating with fellow Leftists that have been corrupted with Wokism just like themselves. This, then, also creates a self-reinforcing "Echo Chamber" where the evil brainwashing is hammered into them even deeper.

This process, this deep brainwashing, and mental and moral corruption, eats away at and constantly corrodes any sense of normalcy and "Common Sense" they may have had once upon a time.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BadApple on June 01, 2024, 11:45:22 PMRobert E Howard died at 30 in 1936.  That means almost everything he wrote, he wrote in his twenties and in the 1920s and 30s.

The way I understand The Last White Man is a young man troubled and exploring a very relevant issue of his time and place through fiction.  He literally took the talking points he was hearing discussed around him and novelized them so he could examine them. 

Taking any written work and stating that it is an absolute true showing of a person is just dumb. Are we now going to start a criminal investigation for suspicion of serial murder on Thomas Harris?  Is C.S. Lewis a Satanist for having written The Screwtape Letters?

I'm not sure what you mean by "an absolute true showing" of Howard.

Obviously, if one wants to get a sense of the author as a person, one should look more about what he said outside of his stories -- and one should read up on the time and place in which he's writing -- to get a better picture about him as a whole.

One story doesn't define someone, but it is an expression of them. Literary interpretation isn't a perfect science, but some things are still obviously wrong. Anyone reading The Screwtape Letters can instantly read the difference from, say, Anthony LeVay's writing.

To that point:

Quote from: Krazz on June 01, 2024, 03:56:13 PMThe fairest way to judge the book would be to read it without knowing who had written it. If you read The Last White Man without knowing who wrote it, might you think it was anti-white wish fulfilment? Would you be so sure that it was anti-black? Where's the claimed overt racism that makes it clear which side it comes down on?

I think any reasonable person reading "The Last White Man" would not read it as anti-white wish fulfillment, even if they knew nothing about the author. Within the first few lines are the glowing terms that the white man is described in, "a splendid example of a wonderful race". The descriptions of the black race are things like "animal-like rate of birth" which are not phrased positively. "Fertile" and "abundant" would be more positive descriptors, for example.

(As a side note, I am slower to respond right now as I'm taking a cross-country trip, but I'll try to keep an eye on things.)

Quote from: BadApple on June 01, 2024, 11:45:22 PMTaking any written work and stating that it is an absolute true showing of a person is just dumb. Are we now going to start a criminal investigation for suspicion of serial murder on Thomas Harris?  Is C.S. Lewis a Satanist for having written The Screwtape Letters?

We already have imbeciles calling for anyone who likes 'problematic' fiction to be investigated and/or imprisoned. Not so ironically, a lot of these same schizoaffective morons think movies like Pretty Baby or Cuties are perfectly fine. They will absolutely 100% project their porn-brain onto others while screeching like a fucking banshee that 'if you like anime tiddies you're going to harm children!'

There is biopic of R E Howard called The Whole Wide World which is based on Novalyne Price's book, 'One Who Walked Alone'.
You can watch it at the above link at The Film Archive.

Quote from: DocJones on June 05, 2024, 09:31:32 PMThere is biopic of R E Howard called The Whole Wide World which is based on Novalyne Price's book, 'One Who Walked Alone'.
You can watch it at the above link at The Film Archive.

Really good movie. Excellent account of his life in Texas

...and Renee Zellweger. ( heartfelt sigh)

While discussing what is and is not racist, are we going to bring up the fact that the idea that racism is a moral sin appears very recently in human history, still hasn't been adopted across the globe, and may actually be a minority viewpoint among humanity?

To Corolinth -- I made it clear at several points that overt racism was common in R.E. Howard's society - specifically that Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws were popularly supported in many states at that time. That same overt racism also expressed itself in art and stories.

My contention is that even if they are common, one can still refer to anti-miscegenation laws as overtly racist. That's what the word "racist" means. I think it doesn't make sense to say that anti-miscegenation laws weren't racist just because they weren't viewed as moral sin.

As far as how common racism is today, I think that usually runs into problems of definition. I generally avoid using the term "racism" in modern-day debate, but I am ok with using "overt racism" for stuff from long ago if it is clearly in line with other overt racism of that time. I think that the majority of the world today wouldn't say "I am racist", if they were fluent in English.

In any case, the questions:

1) What is racist?
2) How common is a racist viewpoint?
3) Is racism moral?

are all separate.

Still waiting for those examples of overt racism in works that were published in Howard's lifetime and that survive in complete form especially his Conan stories.  Are we going to get some of that any time soon?  At all?  Failure to produce them will be an admission that you can't and that the premise that his works are full of overt racism is false.