Racist By Association
by Ted Slater on 03/06/2009 at 11:40 AM
We received some comments recently that pointed out that Christian ministry Vision Forum offers books by author G.A. Henty. The following paragraph appears on one of them, and speaks of Africans:
- They are just like children.... They are always either laughing or quarreling. They are good natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond. The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. A few, a very few, go beyond this, but these are exceptions, just as Shakespeare was an exception to the ordinary intellect of an Englishman. They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed. They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative faculties enable them to attain a considerable amount of civilization. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery.
Terrible, right? Yes, but....
I did some research, and found that these words are from a work of fiction titled By Sheer Pluck: A Tale of the Ashanti War. Amazon, Barnes & Noble and (gasp!) CBD also sell the book.
The words were said by a character named Mr. Goodenough (hence the ellipsis in the first line of the quote above), who is described earlier as a "traveler and naturalist." The occasion of Mr. Goodenough's insulting sentences is upon their arrival in Sierra Leone. It is clear throughout the novel that Mr. Goodenough thinks very poorly of those from Sierra Leone. I agree that this character's descriptions of those from this African country is inexcusably racist.
Did the author, G.A. Henty, share his character's racism? I don't know. Perhaps he was simply narrating what some in the 1800s thought. Or perhaps he was being ironic.
(I do find it interesting that Henty was a British journalist, serving as a war correspondent in, among many other places, the area in Africa where the Ashanti War was taking place. He probably knew men like Mr. Goodenough.)
And do the book distributors necessarily share this character's racism? Are they guilty of racism for having offered the book for sale? Are those associated with the bookstores also guilty of racism? If you are associated with a distributor of a book written by an author whose got a character who's said some racist things ... are you therefore suspect?
The book was published in 1884, less than a decade after Mark Twain published his book Tom Sawyer. You know where I'm going, don't you? One of the characters in Tom Sawyer said, "I never see a n----- that wouldn't lie." (Spelling out that fifth word, by the way, shocks our modern sensibilities; the thing is, you'll read it dozens and dozens and dozens of times in Huckleberry Finn and Pudd'nhead Wilson and other works by Twain.)
So, did the author, Samuel Clemens (AKA Mark Twain), share his character's racism? No, I think he was simply narrating what some in the 1800s thought. And he was being ironic.
I guess what I'm saying is that someone who suspects Twain of being a racist because one of his characters was a racist ... is just silly. And to conclude, without doing further research, that Henty was a racist because one of his characters was a racist ... is also just silly. To go further and say that the distributors of these books are therefore racist, and that people associated with these distributors are also therefore suspect ... is just beyond silly.
Any of the people or organizations mentioned above may be racist. I don't know. I do know that that conclusion can't be arrived at by cursorily looking at quotes from characters in works of fiction.
1. Dan Gill said the following at 12:54 PM on Mar 6:
You don't actually say, but you imply that the commenters judged Christian Ministry Vision forum racist because they offered these books.
I don't know the organization in question, but to attribute racism to them because of something a character said in a work of fiction is beyond ridiculous. It is ludicrous. It reminds me of AMC bleeping out the word "n-----" in showings of Blazing Saddles. (I would spell the word, but I'll follow your lead on this--it is your blog, after all.) Anyone who has a shred of intelligence and who watches that movie knows that it is not racist, but makes fun of those who are racist. It lampoons sterotypes and prejudices (and lots of other things as well). The same goes for Huckleberry Finn. Does speaking or displaying the work itself constitute racism? Hardly!
To call this racism is merely name-calling. It is no better than those who use the term in question as a pejorative.
2. denice ross haynes said the following at 1:29 PM on Mar 6:
I am a new subscriber to Dr. Dobson's Site and I happen to click on your blog post from another article. I have only commented on one other blog in my life and that was work related. But... As a Christian, who by design -is considered "African American" I find it disappointing when quotes like these are resurrected - even to prove a point. I read through your comment wondering if it could have been said without printing the quote-I'm not really sure. But here's my take on it: by putting the words "out there" you inadvertently make your readers have to agree or disagree with them - which in this case are reflective of long standing historical paradigms. We all know where we come from - right or wrong. I don't know about anyone else but I got distracted by the quote and I have a fairly healthy outlook on our history. And you may also give those who (regardless of ethnicity) have not personally dealt with prejudicial bias (through prayer before God) common to most of us that grew up in this nation reason to hold on to them unawares. Now as a doctoral candidate in higher education, I could not help but be reminded of those who might look at your comment through a critical race theory lens - while I am not in agreement with the all of what the theory supposes, I can see how your words that someone's perception is "silly" and "beyond silly" is, I'm afraid, just as "un-researched" as you claim the complaints to be- and gives those who study issues like hegemony, and anti-colonialism, and white privilege, (of which I have many issues with myself) reason to speak all the louder. I am learning that we should at least try to honor the experiences and resulting perceptions of our bothers and sisters in the Lord and focus on "endeavoring to keep the the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace". There are people who are yet wounded by those mindsets (even if wrongly constructed) and it only make a difference to me because it impacts how we come before and think ourselves to be before God. If we have voice to speak-like you do in this blog- while we can not and should not ignore the past-we should consistently reaffirm our "privileged" position together in Christ. (Whatsoever things are lovely and of good report...) Thoughts of dignity, acceptance, forgiveness and love and oneness- regardless of race. (which if one were to really research is a constructed myth anyway) Thanks for your comments.
3. Ted Slater said the following at 2:02 PM on Mar 6:
denice ross haynes (#2) -- I appreciate your taking the time to leave your comment.
My point was that we should be slow to dismiss someone as racist, or even merely as suspect, because there seems to be a remote connection to a racist statement. I am encouraging our readers to be slow to pass judgment when they don't have sufficient information to make an informed judgment. I'm also encouraging our readers not to fall for the old "guilt by association" fallacy.
You're not requesting that we not discuss the issue of "race," right? We've published a few helpful articles on the issue, here:
Race Relations: Rethinking Christian Identity
Race Relations: Six Problems with 'Race'
Race Relations: Moving Forward
Race Relations: Live It
I'd be interested in hearing what you think of those articles, if you have the chance.
4. Rachael Starke said the following at 2:29 PM on Mar 6:
Denice-
Showing empathy and concern for those who have been assaulted by racism is just as important as showing empathy and concern for someone who has experience other forms of assault against their personhood, such as sexual abuse. Those who have been abused sexually often struggle greatly with viewing people and sexuality through a hugely distorted lens. The solution shouldn't be to throw away their glasses so they can't see at all, but to fix the lens so that they can see people and relationships for what they are.
If we seek to strike from history every book or image that reminds us of a painful past, how far is it from there to those who seek to do the same with other events, such as the Holocaust?
5. Whitney said the following at 2:35 PM on Mar 6:
I am very familiar with Vision Forum and yes, I have heard this critique. This one alone holds little ground, of course. It is a fallacy, the same as the Mark Twain argument is false.
However, there are others serious claims about VF and racism. A lot of the head people agree with Dabney and Rushdooney. Their theology relies very heavily on these men. There has been a lot of blog discussion (for good or bad, I don't recommend all, just saying) about this and kinism. There is something there, even if this particular point is void.
Good post!
6. L said the following at 3:13 PM on Mar 6:
Rachael (4)
Maybe the point isn't to "strike it from history", but to be very sensitive to the subject. One doesn't broach the subject of Jews during the Holocaust with flippancy with a survivor, and so we could take that kindness to others (and their families after them) who have survived terrible things.
Since I am Canadian, I will give a Canadian example. The Native Americans were treated horribly throughout our history as a nation, but especially with the residential schools. They were run mostly by Priests and Nuns and there was much abuse. Nevermind the fact that children were torn from their families. Although there has been restitution (and still is) and there has been an apology from our Prime Minister, it is still a topic to be treated with great sensitivity if you have a heart of love for the people involved.( As Christians we are called to love others. ) May we tread gently...
7. dana111 said the following at 4:33 PM on Mar 6:
Apparently, I am just overly sensitive when it comes to racism... that is something that I have to get over, I guess (since, as the liberals say, we are heading towards a "post-race" society :). I did take the Henty quote out of context, but Dabney's writing is, at times, very vitriolic concerning blacks in the South. Maybe I should have used him as an example, instead of Henty.
Or maybe I just should have kept my mouth shut...
Either way, I apologize for highlighting the wrong author.
God Bless!
8. Claire said the following at 4:37 PM on Mar 6:
I'm familiar with Vision Forum, though I haven't read the Henty books. A couple thoughts:
- VF (unlike Amazon or B&N) heavily promotes the Henty books for their moral qualities, so they are by proxy promoting whatever the books promote.
- Knowing whether that book promotes racism would require reading the book. The mere fact that the text is from dialogue doesn't let Henty off the hook--writers use their characters to make points. Is Mr. Goodenough a sympathetic character? Does the story reinforce the point he's making, or contradict it?
9. dana111 said the following at 4:38 PM on Mar 6:
Also, I do appreciate all of the past articles/posts concerning race and racism. I especially appreciated the post concerning interracial relationships and marriage. It was entitled "Mixed Blessings," I think. As a black woman who has dated "inter-racially" in the past, it was nice to see the topic addressed on Boundless.
Thanks!
10. Ted Slater said the following at 5:57 PM on Mar 6:
Claire (#8) -- I should have made it clear that while Vision Forum does sell books by Henty, they specifically do not sell the book from which this quote is taken. They may have recognized that the racism brought up in this particular book was irredeemable. In other words, while fictional portrayals of racism may help us explore its evil, the portrayals in this book may not have been sufficiently challenged by other characters in the story, or the irony may not have been sufficiently clear.
Again, knowing some of the background -- that this was written in the 1800s by a British man who spent time in British-controlled Africa, certainly around racists -- helps us better interpret what this book is saying, and what it's not saying.
11. Saidahwk said the following at 5:57 PM on Mar 6:
Okay, well, apparently there's a lot of controversy surrounding Vision Forum and similar groups. Some of that controversy is as harmless as their support of homeschooling, evangelical Christianity, and male headship. Some of that controversy would suggest they support knism and abusive patriarchy amongst other things. So whoever complained had grounds; they just miscommunicated those grounds. As an African American married to white guy (lol), former homeschooler and someone who has (I think) levl-headedly delved into the world of rather dedicated biblical family living (ie, Biblical womanhood, anti-feminism, homeschooling, homesteading, simple living, etc) I can definitely say that there is a fine line between radical Christianity and very serious racism. Frighteningly that line is extremely hard to discern until you're on it.
12. Saidahwk said the following at 5:58 PM on Mar 6:
In reference to my above comment, I'm REALLY tired and I can't type today!
13. Saidahwk said the following at 6:19 PM on Mar 6:
So, I'm in the commenting mood today! But I was on the Voddie Baucham website and he was pretty much addressing the same topic. I think this quote from his blog pretty much covers it;
"Let me be clear. I have said before, and I will say again that racism is sin. Chattel slavery in the United States and elsewhere was, and is sin. However, racism and slavery are not the only sins. In fact, they are not the worst sins. There are theologians who supported the anti-Semitism that led to the holocaust (a charge often levied against Luther). And there are myriad other issues where men who wrote masterful theological treatises were flat-out wrong. Does that mean we dismiss everything else they wrote, and castigate anyone who refuses to do the same? I hope not."
14. BDB said the following at 6:20 PM on Mar 6:
There's been an odd incident involving race, and I don't really understand what happened. Apparently RNC Chairman Michael Steele appeared on the CNN show D.L. Hughley Breaks the News, he said some less than flattering things abou Rush Limbaugh, Steele was forced to apologize, and CNN cancelled his show.
I guess he used the "R-word."
(I'd say the "L-Word" but that's a VERY different show.)
Interestingly, this CNN show had some remarkably candid conversations about race. These were the first TV guests I saw that were estatic about President Obama's election because he provided such a good role model of being a father and promoting education. I guess critics like his interviewing style.
Seriously, though, I thought it was a good show, and I'd hate to think that they are cancelling shows because Rush got mad.
15. em said the following at 11:01 PM on Mar 6:
Well, I wouldn't call VF racist for b/c they sell a book w/ such a quote.
But, VF is closely associated w/ Doug Wilson and both are a bit extreme on matters related to gender roles, church authority and more.
Although clarifying his opposition to "race-based" slavery, Wilson defends slavery as an institution in his Southern Slavery: As It Was, which sets out to portray southern slavery as a benevolently patriarchal institution, which generally resulted in good for all involved.
Further, VF's Doug Phillips, like Doug Wilson, is a great admirer of Robert Louis Dabney, who wrote systematic theology and assisted Gen. Stonewall Jackson. http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2004/07/793.aspx
While these men may have been Christians, they were sinners, and racism was among their sins. Dabney, who D. Wilson & D. Phillips highly regard and rather uncritically praise, was most certainly a racist, forbidding the ordination of African-American ministers and stating: "(blacks are) a subservient race..made to follow and not to lead..."
16. Hannah C. said the following at 11:19 PM on Mar 6:
You can add To Kill A Mockingbird to the list of books with racist content. Yes, the entire premise of the book is a man is unjustly convicted for a crime he did not commit, because it is a black man's word against a white man's. But there is a lot of other racism in the book as well which is passed over, seen as normal. Doesn't make the author racist or the book bad - it's an amazing book, there are reasons it's like that...And there are characters who disagree with all the racism - and those are the ones put forth to be emulated.
The real question for this particular Henty book is whether that description is the general idea promoted in the book throughout, or if it is just one character's viewpoint.
That being said, the philosophy of Planned Parenthood's founder is still one of the things that makes me dislike them....and I guess one could argue that is the same kind of thing.
17. Mark said the following at 1:38 AM on Mar 7:
Ted, you're defending them! What are you? Some kind of racist?
:P Right on. Beyond silly.
18. BDB said the following at 8:19 PM on Mar 7:
There's an error in my comment #14. Critics did NOT like his interviewing style. Frankly, I didn't think it was too much different than, say, The Daily Show. And their real interviews go in much more interesting directions than just spewing talking points...
19. pass the ammunition said the following at 10:29 AM on Mar 8:
I'll never understand why so many White people are so gung-ho about explaining why something is NOT racist...I'm yet to see the same enthusiasm for calling people out unless they have on a pointy white sheet. Oh wait...people do get really excited about how liberals are the REAL racists.
(/sarcasm)
This whole conversation is silly.
also: Racism is like a disease, very contagious! Racist by association, in my opinion often ends up being true.
20. Jess said the following at 4:10 PM on Mar 8:
This post started out with some interesting questions posed, and I thought it was leading to a deeper discussion of the issues, but it ended with the take home message that suspecting racism is "silly." Really? That's where you're going to leave the discussion? As others have pointed out, there are plenty of examples of literature (especially from prior centuries) that use racist characters to make larger social points, and perhaps that is the case with the author in question. But raising the question of the author's intentions is not silly, nor is it silly to put responsibility on the distributors of this book. Perhaps the e-mails/comments you received were from outraged people who hadn't even read the books, and that's what you're describing as silly. But for people (especially people of color) to suspect racism is not silly -- especially give the less-than-stellar track record of conservative white evangelicals when it comes to matters of race.
21. Fred said the following at 6:23 PM on Mar 8:
Hello.
This is the first time I've posted on this blog. I want to thank Mr. Slater for raising the issue. As an African American, I don't instantly conclude that a writer is racist because of the comments by one of his fictional characters. There is too much real racism (White, Black, etc.) to get worked up over imagined slights.
So, Mr. Slater, may the Lord continue to lead you as you tackle hot button topics with love and courage.
22. Fred said the following at 6:30 PM on Mar 8:
@BDB
According to TV Newser, Hughley chose to leave the show for personal reasons:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/dl_hughley_to_end_run_110491.asp#disqus_thread
23. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:05 AM on Mar 9:
What's Jess on about with this politically correct nonsense about "conservative white evangelicals under the bed"?
Which party was formed to oppose slavery, and which MLK belonged to? Republicans! Which party supported slavery, the KKK, school segregation, Jim Crow Laws, and filibustered civil rights legislation, and now promotes prenatal baby butchery mainly of black babies? The Dems! Yet who do most African Americans unthinkingly bloc-vote for?
And think about this (given that lefties love racial and other identity politics): last election, one "race" voted about 50/50 for the candidate of a different skin colour in both the Dem Primaries and the Presidential election. Another "race" voted overwhelmingly against the candidate of different skin colour in both. Which "race" do you think is more likely to be racist, if you want to use statistics the way lefties like to?
24. Renee Linnen said the following at 11:04 AM on Mar 9:
This is just the point. A long time ago- even before slavery in the "new world", people had ideas based on their ignorance of other people. Eventually these ideas were used as an excuse to enslave my people and steal our land, resources, history, culture etc. So yes, we should crush anything having to do with racism, including characters in "classic" books who say racist things. The fact that this is so hard to understand, is what is keeping the races seperated and at each other's throats.
25. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:13 PM on Mar 9:
Instead of regurgitating the victimhood line, people should read the outstanding African American economist and author Thomas Sowell's book Black Rednecks and White Liberals.
Slavery has been around all over the world for most of its history. And for most of this dismal history, it was not a racial issue. Most slaves did not differ racially from their masters.
For example, Europeans enslaved Europeans—indeed, it was a European people group, the Slavs, that was such a common victim of slavers that the very word comes from this group (although in the Slavonic languages, slava means glory). Also, Asians enslaved Asians, and Africans enslaved Africans—black slaves were usually first captured by other blacks because the Europeans were susceptible to African diseases if they ventured into the interior.
When it comes to the slaves transported to America, they were enslaved not because they were black but because they were available, and as above, usually captured by other blacks. Racism was a later result of slavery not a cause.
And in many cases, Caucasians were enslaved by non-Caucasians: the dark-skinned Muslim Moors enslaved ‘white’ Europeans during their occupation of the Iberian peninsula (what they called ‘al Andalus’) from 711 to 1492.
Later, from the 16th century, the Muslim Barbary States of North Africa encouraged pirates which had a flourishing white slave trade. In the first half of the 17th century, 20,000 captives were said to be imprisoned in Algiers alone. The Europeans paid blood money to these rogue states until US President Thomas Jefferson sent the American Navy to bomb the pirate ships and ports in 1805 (the US Marines’ taking of Tripoli in the Battle of Derne is the inspiration for the phrase ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ in the Marine Hymn).
26. pass the ammunition said the following at 10:31 AM on Mar 10:
25: The chattel system of slavery was unique to the "new world." And have you forgotten about colonialism? Racist attitudes were the exact justification for slavery and colonialism. Regardless, point to another place where the social, economic, racial etc. effects of slavery are still extremely salient today as a demographic matter.
27. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:20 PM on Mar 10:
#26: this begs the question by presupposing that "the effects of slavery are still extremely salient today". On this site, I've already mentioned the African American economics professor Walter Williams, who noted that black families were stronger during slavery and the Jim Crow era, and there is very little difference in wealth between black and white families headed by married couples. He has also noted that African countries generally did far worse after independence from colonialism than under colonialism itself, as brutal leftist despots took over and treated the people far worse.
The election of Commissar Obamov shows that racist attitudes in whites are minimal. But what does the 90+% bloc-voting of blacks against his white primary and presidential opponents tell you about who has the problems with racism?
The brilliant British political comedy series Yes Prime Minister, episode "The Bishop's Gambit", had the following dialogue:
Sir Humphrey, head civil servant: He's [bishop candidate] also against oppression and persecution in Africa.
Hacker, Prime Minister: Well, so are we.
Sir Humphrey: But he's against it when it's practised by black governments as well as white ones.
Hacker: Oh... so he's a racist?
28. pass the ammunition said the following at 4:07 PM on Mar 11:
Obama's election does not show that racist attitudes among Whites are minimal. I call that a huge leap in logic. It does, however, show that America has come a long way.
And people seem to have a short memory when it comes to African American support for Obama. In the past elections, I believe over 80% of African American voters went for Kerry. Also, most Black voters did not support Obama initially, and most African American leaders only began to trail out of Hilary's camp after Bill started screwing things up for her and it looked like Obama had a real chance. Before then, Black voters overwhelmingly supported Hillary.
You also make it seem that voting for someone means that you hate the other person running. Many people, especially African American and young voters were enthusiastic about Obama. A vote for Obama was more a repudiation of Bush and support for Obama's ideals than racism against McCain. Following your logic, everyone who voted for McCain is racist as well, which I definitely don't buy.
Personal question: I comment on these message boards because they are often engaging and its a good way to pass time. You, however, seem to get very worked up and sarcastic. This could just be my perception and may be way off. Why does all of this mean so much to you?
29. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:42 PM on Mar 11:
#28: your comments about my posts seem to be a case of projection. Lefties are often such mimophants.
Where is the proof that American whites are racist. Innocent until proven guilty, remember! The election of Commissar Obamov is strong evidence that anti-black racism is not widespread. Bloc-voting by blacks for Obamov against both his white opponents is at least circumstantial evidence that racism is more prevalent among blacks than it is among whites. This is especially so among ostensible black conservatives who voted for the ultra-liberal Obamov.
But who wants the "conversation about race" when the only conversation wanted is the liberal one where the Left grievance mongers do all the talking? Any dissent from this groupthink leads to being branded a "racist" if you're white, and an "Uncle Tom" if you're black.
As Dr Thomas Sowell, himself African-American, documents in The Vision of the Anointed, many of the stats used to "prove" discrimination against blacks in favour of whites also "prove" discrimination against whites in favour of Asians, but of course the Left ignore the latter.
It is also a typical leftist mistake to single out Europeans for problems that were a blot on all branches of humanity, and give Europe no credit for being the first to abolish such problems. And they also single out only certain types of people for flaws which are universal to humanity, such as "greed" and "self-interest".
30. Joi said the following at 10:33 AM on Mar 13:
I was scrolling down to leave my comments when I noticed that the lady gracing the number 2 spot had already said a lot of what I was intending to say. And more eloquently than I could!
With all the RESPECT in the world, I have to say I don't think the excerpt should have been printed. Would you read them to a seven year old little girl who was, as commenter number 2 said designed as an African American?
I'm not African American (can't even tan, actually), but I can only imagine the pain that an African American would feel after reading these incredibly hideous words. Can you imagine little children reading them?! I would never, ever, ever have anything like this on one of my blogs or websites.
I would rather have my teeth pulled out, one by one, with a tool who's name I don't even know than to print something that would put a tear in a little girl or boy's eye.
Rightly or wrongly, what you print on your site is associated with you. Especially if your site or blog is written for Christians and, thereby, carries the name of Christ on its pages.
In the Bible, God tells us to abstain from all "appearance" of evil - not just evil. Do these words appear evil to you? They certainly do to me.
I don't believe Jesus would want anything to do with the book. I believe He would distance himself from it entirely.
We upgrade textbooks and workbooks in our schools and libraries because we progress. We've learned new ways of treating illnesses, for example - and old medical books are outdated, and DANGEROUS.
Am I in the minority because I think hurtful books such as this one should be tossed out? Definitely. Is it going too far? Possibly. But I'd rather go too far than not far enough.
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." - Philippians 4:8
31. Ted Slater said the following at 11:49 AM on Mar 13:
Joi (#30) -- I appreciate your sensitivity.
That said, the words of Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno kept coming to mind as I read your concerns about inflicting pain on others: "Y Dios no te dé paz y sí gloria."
;-)
32. dana111 said the following at 12:45 PM on Mar 13:
To Joi,
Thank you.