I haven't read orthodoxy, so I'm not sure how much questionable content is in there. For the example you give, wouldn't a footnote suffice on the page in question? That warning on the book just sounds a little too vague and ominous. I agree with the NRO writer. A brief explanation in a preface would probably have been better.
A title page introduction like that is ludicrous, but not exclusively associated with G.K. Chesterton. A friend once bought a copy of Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals" with a very similar "warning."
In Chesterton's time, there were not people paid full-time to sit around (or march around) and be offended by this word or that word. To the best of my knowledge, the word "nigger" was not considered any more offensive than any of the alternatives then in use; what was offensive would have been the generally accepted ideas about race.
Two other points: (1) A "nigger dance" would have referred to a blackface performance, not to a dance by someone who is black. (2) Chesterton's views on race were remarkably moderate compared to those of his time, as can be seen by the fun he pokes at calling "white people" "white" instead of "vaguely pinkish", not to mention a number of specific passages in the Father Brown mysteries, among others.
No, a much more dangerous form of racism is found in Tolkien. His story about the men of Numenor being the superior survivors of Atlantis who gradually diminish as they mix their blood with that of "lesser men" fits in too well with the racial theories of certain well-known and powerful groups of the time -- groups who thought that the survivors of Atlantis had passed through India, picking up the Swastika there, before moving on to Northern Europe.
It's ideas that are dangerous, not words.
Stick and stones.... ahhh forget it. Let's burn Chesterton's books this week and then next week have a big "Banned Books" festival celebrating pornographers ...who were never even banned.
I often wonder how we will be judged a hundred years from now. How many of us will be accompanied by a disclaimer?
Another interesting anecdote regarding Chesterton's real view of "the races":
In "Eugenics and Other Evils" one of his complaints about the eugenicists of the day is that they are always speaking of racial purity, and never giving an ounce of study to the positive benefits of mixing races. :-P
Peace and God bless!
I often wonder how we will be judged a hundred years from now. How many of us will be accompanied by a disclaimer?
I'd better be, or my life will be a failure. LOL
Seriously, here is something interesting: Dale Ahlquist (president of the American Chesterton Society) once told me that he met a black man who was a big Chesterton fan, and who had done some actual research on this matter of Chesterton and the word "nigger."
What did he discover? That "nigger" was not considered to be an offensive term in the time and place where Chesterton wrote. In fact, it was considered a compliment.
No I am not making this up. Mark, call/write Dale and as him - I'm sure he remembers more details of the encounter than I do.
So I can understand Mark's correspondent being so indignant. The stupid publisher should have researched this better, or else not published the book at all, thus sparing us (and Chesterton) this arrogant and self-serving warning label.
And another thing! LOL
Um, Mark, hem-hem, you wrote, "Chesterton is a man of his time."
Well, he wasn't, or he would have been a carbon copy of Shaw, Wells, and so on.
And he might also reply to you, "The Catholic Church is the only thing that saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."
I would never call a man a nigger, but I hate how the PC police forbid any use of nigger no matter what the context. Even the use of nigger to make an ironic anti-racism point draws their ire. Their reaction quite reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian of the stoning for saying the word "Jehovah." I guess movies like Blazing Saddle (or the amusing blaxploitation film Boss Nigger) and songs like Oliver's Army are veboten.
Sean:
Being a man of one's time does not mean being a carbon copy. It means that one's discourse is conditioned by the terms of one's culture. Jesus is God (and therefore radically unconditioned) but being human, he is a man of his time, which is why he speaks Aramaic and not English.
Face it, dude. There's a *reason* Chesterton uses words like "nigger" and you don't. It was acceptable in his time and is not in ours.
Was Tolkien a racist?
Only if you believe in the existence of Numenor.
I think Tolkein makes people racists like Harry Potter makes people witches.
Thanks for clarifying, Mark. And that is pretty much what I was trying to say, in my own clumsy way: it was acceptable in his time. No one thought twice about it.
Anon: when Frodo saw the Nazgul while wearing the Ring, they were revealed to be white guys. So yeah, I guess Tolkien was a vile anti-white racist.
What about Howard's comment?
Does anyone remember in more detail the passage where Chesterton complained of his contempories because they always were taking into consideration the limitations of the writers of the fourteenth or whatever century -- and never taking into consideration their limitations as readers of the twentieth century?
Just a point about Tolkein. I don't think that calling him a racist or implying that his belief in the blood of the greaters being mixed with the blood of lessers should or can be read all by itself. That idea does have to be taken in the wider context of his world. After all, the persons who save the world of Middle Earth are not the great men, but tiny little people And, these Great Men sure did really screw up the world!
Hey, Howard! Similar story about Gilbert&Sulivan's The Mikado and when it started touring in the United States: originally, Ko-Ko's Little List denounces as expendable "The nigger serenader", again refering to a white man who paints his face black to sing ... something ... and in the States they substituted "banjo" for "nigger", anticipating tensions and poor reaction. So it's not just a question of GK writing for his time but also his society. (Hmm... this song, and the whole piece, play interestingly in our unhappy Death-Eater culture... someone should write an essay about that. )
And another thing about Tolkien is that, while he had a cordial dislike for allegory, he admits to using allegorical language. The "superior race of Numenor" on the one hand derives its literal blood partly from both the Elves and the Ainur, so they really are a distinct population. More important indeed is the culture they brought with them, which is also derived from the Elves and Ainur --- "blood" is a symbolic word for all of this, and can't be reduced to pedigree. It's more like the quickening humor, synonymous with "life" as when God commands Noah to eat no meat that has blood still in it. (And that's good for another essay, too...)
But YES, it is *dangerous* to read it without getting into Tolkien's own understanding and intention of his works, if your attitude is one of uncritical acceptance at face-value of everything he wrote as "good". For that matter, it'd be a dangerous way to read the bible, too. Much better to discuss things as they come along!
everything needs to be read in context of the time it was written and what the norms were when said thing was written. Augustine of Hippo's City of God has a passage in it where he writes of how the women who were raped by barbarians are only guilty of sin if they enjoyed the rape. That would be misogyny today, no question about it, but it really wasn't when he wrote it.
Tolkien was an anti-orc racist. He assumes that all orcs and goblins my automatically be evil.
What's next, assuming all demons are evil?
Sigh.
Alphonsus: I've got a copy of Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" with the exact same warning. I assume it's standard lawyer-repellant boilerplate slapped on anything ancient enough to contain offensively old-fashioned opinions.
St. Augustine doesn't say that. He was fighting the idea that rape was sex, and that any consecrated widow or virgin who was raped in the fall of Rome had broken her vow and was become a fornicator, and that she should forthwith do the Roman thing and kill herself. St. Ambrose's much earlier "On Virgins", written for his sister the consecrated virgin, actually took this view in regard to martyrs like the mother and her daughters who threw herself off a bridge rather than be raped.
So St. Augustine's letter on rape and virgins, later incorporated into The City of God, was a hugely feminist rebuke of the idea that being raped broke a woman's vows. He lays it down as a first principle that "the virtue which makes the life good has its throne in the soul, and thence rules the members of the body, which becomes holy in virtue of the holiness of the will; and that while the will remains firm and unshaken, nothing that another person does with the body, or upon the body, is any fault of the person who suffers it, so long as he cannot escape it without sin." There's not a thing in there about enjoying rape.
He does talk about the fact that desire might be stirred up in the midst of a rape as a physiological response, but that as long as you don't consent that's not sin. Modern texts on rape would agree about the physiological thing, and the thing about not consenting to passing thoughts or feelings not being sin is perfectly orthodox. It's not politically incorrect; it's actually a very feminist text, if you mean feminism rightly considered.
Anyway... yes, those disclaimers are stupid. But a lot of people have never considered the fact that ideas and viewpoints change, or that you should look at the date the book was written before you start criticizing it for things it never was expected to do. If your parents don't teach you, somebody has to.
Only if you believe in the existence of Numenor.
Again, the Nazis believed that the Aryan race constituted the superior survivors of Atlantis. They even sent
expeditions to places like Tibet looking for their long-lost cousins. The fact that all this was a pipe-dream didn't make it a less dangerous idea. In fact, it's the false ideas that are usually most dangerous.
No, I'm not saying that Tolkien was a racist in any bad sense of the word. Among other obvious things, it was not one of the mighty kings of Numenor who defeated Sauron -- it wasn't a man at all, but a hobbit. Taken with the respectful way in which Beorn (a very non-Numenor man) was treated and the friendship of Gimli and Legolas, there is much in Lord of the Rings that could be taken as an explicit repudiation of racism.
But at the same time, there is the nagging problem that a major chunk of the backstory comes from Madame Blavatsky and was endorsed by the Nazis.
Perhaps some degree of racism is after all inherent on any society built around a hereditary aristocracy.
Maureen,
"He does talk about the fact that desire might be stirred up in the midst of a rape as a physiological response, but that as long as you don't consent that's not sin."
So, in other words, if the woman doesn't enjoy being raped then she is not guilty of any sin. I think that is exactly what I said.
pax
there is the nagging problem that a major chunk of the backstory comes from Madame Blavatsky and was endorsed by the Nazis.
Tolkien's legends were inspired by the Theosophical Society and endorsed by the Nazis? Are you totally freaking insane???
Or am I reading you wrong?
Sean,
You had it right the first time.
Denouncers of Huck Finn need to get their heads around the fact that the most stand-up guy among the adults in the book is Jim.
Dale, deriving physical pleasure from an act is not the same as consenting to it. Occasionally, women who are raped even have orgasms-but that physiological response does not make it consensual, or any less horrific for the woman.
It sounds like Augustine was just reaffirming that no means no.
Re : Tolkien and racism....
I seriously doubt that Numenor has any roots in Blavatsky, etc. The Professor was fluent in Greek and thus the 'original source' was probably more of an influence than any Theosophical derivative. He also said that he was troubled for years by a dream of a huge wave about to crash over a beautiful green island - a circumstance he referred to as 'my Atlantis complex' - a trait he decided to pass on to the character of Faramir in LOTR.
He writes in his letters that one of the things that he personally detested about the Nazis was the way their misuse of Germanic and Norse literature and folklore was tainting a subject he loved .
In 1938, the Professor flatly refused to 'certify' himself as 'Aryan' so that a German translation of ' The Hobbit ' could be pubilshed, and wrote of 'the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine. '
Sean and Ed,
If you don't believe that this was in line with Blavatsky, look it up. But if you think I was suggesting that Goebbels was given an early draft of Lord of the Rings for his approval, then of course you are misreading me.
Not all of Tolkien's legends came from Blavatsky, but the Numenor stuff did. At least, she said it long before he did; maybe you can find someone who said it before her. (No, not Plato; his Atlantis story went a different direction.)
The mythology of LotR was a melting pot of a whole lot of paganism, most of it pre-Christian paganism. There is much in the pre-Christian imagination that can be artistically exploited. But, ... All that world was a tissue of interwoven tales and cults,
and there ran in and out of it, as we have already seen,
that black thread among its more blameless colours; the darker
paganism that was really diabolism. I'm not sure that any of the "colours" of modern paganism, such as the mythology of the Theosophists and Nazis, are really blameless.
For the record, I've got no problem with Huck Finn.
Howard:
Documentation please. I'm highly skeptical that Tolkien had any interest in Blavatsky. They may both be dipping into the same mythic pool (and even that is not documented), but that's still a far cry from "a major chunk of the backstory comes from Madame Blavatsky and was endorsed by the Nazis."
Tolkien himself is pretty clear:
"I have in this War a burning private grudge — which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light."
As to his views on Nazi racial theories, he writes to his son concerning a letter from a German publisher seeking proof of his racial purity before they would publish _The Hobbit_:
"I must say the enclosed letter from Rütten and Loening is a bit stiff. Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or do their lunatic laws require a certificate of 'arisch' origin from all persons of all countries? ... I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine."
Likewise, he writes Stanley Unwin concerning the same matter:
"I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by 'arisch'. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. ... But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. ... I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride."
So: documentation please on the claim that Tolkien's backstory "comes from Madame Blavatsky" or was "endorsed" by the Nazis?
For the benefit of those who read Chesterton or indeed any British writer of about that era:
The British "nigger" is not exclusively African or of African descent. It means, basically, "not white". I have even run across a reference to the Chinese in Hong Kong as niggers. And it can as easily mean Indians, or Australian aborginals. Like the policeman in the Lord Peter Whimsey story who objected that a story featuring an Indian rajah was obvious nonsense: "Those niggers aren't savages. Many of them have been to Oxford."
Thanks, Mary.
Howard, I quote Chesterton much more than I quote Tolkien, but I have read Tolkien for much longer than I quote Chesterton. I have read him, studied, him, argued with others who have read him, read books about him, and done all that over and over and over again, many times, for nearly twenty years now.
I was already a practicing Catholic when I started reading Chesterton, but it was Tolkien who brought me back into the Church, after I'd been away for years. Chesterton is in my heart, but Tolkien is my heart. I keep him close, which is why I quote him so seldom.
So let me tell you, it is completely ludricous, and fraudulent, and just basically insane, for you in any way to assert a link between Tolkien and this Blavatsky woman. And using the Numenor material as the connection? Are you serious? A man may as well try to establish a connection between Peter and Satan because both spoke with Christ. It is at best sophistry, at worst, rank malice.
In fact it reminds me of what Tolkien himself said about an alleged "connection" between LOTR and Wagner's Ring cycle: "Both rings are round, and there the similarities end."
I can think of no reason why you would assert such nonsense, except, as I said above, rank malice. I won't even ask you for documentation, since there is none, as you well know or you would have produced it by now.
It is reasonable to say that Mme Blavatsky and Tolkien drew from the same mythology since the former wrote about Atlantis and the latter based his stories of Numenor on the myths of Atlantis.
I don't know one would assume that Tolkien was influenced by Blavatsky rather than, say, Ignatius Donnelly, however.
Clare
Please read what I actual wrote. He suggests in his work that a woman who enjoys the sexual act against her will is perhaps sinning. Placing what he said in its proper context is what I said that the reader has to do. Otherwise, Augustine (who happens to be one of my all time favorite saints) appears to be a misogynist. I did NOT say that he was a misogynist, but lacking context, his words can be understood as such.
pax
"Please read what I actual wrote. He suggests in his work that a woman who enjoys the sexual act against her will is perhaps sinning."
Enjoyment is a matter of consent, not "good sensation". St. Augustine was speaking of consent, not the physiological response of pleasure.
Peace and God bless!
I think we miss the point -- the wording of the disclaimer (which I assume was agonized over) states that "views on race have changed". This is a horrific statement. First, because views on race have not changed. Views on race are diverse and individualized, and they always have been, as they should be. Second, because it feeds from the heresies of Scientism and Progressivism -- we "know" now that all races are equal because we have so much more knowledge than we did then, as if we "discovered" humanity in a petri dish right after we "discovered" the atom. It both assumes modern, educated folks will never be racist and excuses folks in the past who were. All sin is a lack of education, rather than a lack of love, and the world will only get better as we all get more information and pass it around on screens. It's just the sort of diefication of Progress that Chesterton often argued against.
Many of Chesterton and Belloc's comments about and descriptions of Jewish people in particular will shock current readers -- they shocked me. I had to spend some time on them to realize they were in line with both men's way of looking at the world, where people had layers and depth and colors, where influence of family and nation and culture was part of what painted those colors. The shame is that Stein's "There is no there there" now applies when talking about people, too. I often wonder at the distinction between my Jersey relatives and my Kentucky ones, but I can't do it in strange company without risking offense.
So, when a reader comes upon something written by an author that he does not understand, he does well to try and understand it. If this is not obvious to any given reader, a blurb near the cover won't help any. That blurb was not a caution, it was CYA, and should not have been printed.
Lisa, I think you nailed it, far better than I did. That blurb was Whig hisotoricism at its worst.
Sci Fi Catholic has a manga-related contribution to the censorship discussion.
http://www.scificatholic.com/200...ing-
labels.html
You people crack me up!
The actual wording is "parents might wish to discuss with their children how views of race have changed before allowing them to read this classic work."
and someone is offended by this?
give us thou a break.
Offended? No. I'm rarely offended. I have formed an opinion that such a thing is at best shallow thinking and at worst cowardly, and I would not support it by buying a book that it contained.
Some may not find the quoted passage objectionable. But to believe no reasonable person could, well, that is a demonstration of the attachment to "groupthink" that this passage itself clearly ascribes to.
What kind of a disclaimer could I get behind?
"Some read the noted passages on pages x, y, and z as being examples of racial bigotry in G.K. Chesterton's writings. We have footnoted said passages with commentary from opposing schools of thought on the subject."
Let me, as the reader, decide if I think it's bigotry. Let me, as a parent, decide what my kid will read. You can address and forewarn about the controversy without thrusting upon me your judgment that Chesterton would be a racist if he were born today, but was not because he was born in 1874. Not only do I not agree with this, I think it's pretty funny. It cracks me up.
Lisa,
Are you offended that movies have ratings attached to them for whatever the reason (drugs, violence, sex, profane language, or adult themed language)? why get upset that a publisher that is clearing marketing a book to families in general may wish to offer a qualifier to some of the more difficult things to understand in this book? I suppose at some level it is rather silly, but so what? I mean, is this the cause to get upset about? I've found some warning labels on things beyond stupid and have been surprised by a lack of them in a few cases. But for a work that can be read as something racist, maybe it is not such a bad idea to have a discussion about what the author says.
Yes, Dale, I agree, it's a good idea to have a discussion about what the author says. I find it likely that any parent having their child read Chesterton is discussing the writing with their kids already, though, don't you? It's not exactly like sending your tween to the Terminator by himself?
I have no problem with a blurb that notes a controversy and encourages an exploration (although some may). But this blurb, which I'm sure was written with great care or at least with legal consultation, is not encouraging discussion. It is in many ways ending important parts of it by launching from the assumption that Chesterton was not a bigot only because he lived nearly 100 years ago. I disagree both with the proposition that place in history excuses racial bigotry and with the assumption that Chesterton's writing would be considered racist today by all good men.
The problem is not with a blurb that notes some think Chesterton is a racist. The problem is with a blurb that notes that Chesterton is one, but we forgive him anyway because of his time.
You ask both if I would be offended and if I am upset. I am neither offended nor upset by the disclaimer. I have formed an opinion about it, and actions like it, that force through assumption a conformity of thought. I believe they are actions that should be recognized and opposed. I think that's fair, don't you? I'm great with you disagreeing, either about the blurb doing the above or about whether this conformity via race is bad. But it's not really fair to tell me to "lighten up" -- I am heavy on it because I see in this things you don't believe are there. Prove to me they aren't there, and I'll lighten up. But otherwise, surely you can see how from my point of view this does rise to the level of concern?
Lisa,
sorry. I just don't see it. I thought Huck Finn was a great book, but I can see why a teacher or even a publisher may wish to discuss the racist undertones in the work (even though it is really clear that Twain wasn't really a racist)
I can't claim to be any sort of a GK expert. But I just don't understand why you are upset about it.
That's okay of course, I just don't agree with it.
pax
Sorry you can't see it, Dale.
But, then, if you think a novel written by a nonracist can have "racist undertones" and you can't see the difference between being in disagreement with something and being "upset" about it, I don't think you and I are going to get too far.
I think word choice matters, and the words we choose usually say something about our preconceptions and our agendas.
Of course, I was heavily influenced by a book I read as a kid. Hate to see what kind of disclaimers might be tacked on to Orwell today --"Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on speech have changed before allowing them to read this classic work."
Commenting by HaloScan
