Historical Bull Shit

[NOIRTRASH]

Yesterday I tossed an historical fiction book featuring a politically correct Teddy Roosevelt. In it Roosevelt chastised a police sergeant's language about gays. I cant imagine anything more strange than a sensitive TR.

In real life Teddy was so straight he wanted to jail couples who practiced anything but baby making. And he was a racist in no hurry to make blacks or Asians full members of American society.

So the author lost 2 sales.

 

[colddiesel]

All American Presidents before LBJ were racist by today's definitions. Teddy Rooseveldt made a major speech to the Republicans in about 1904 1905 in which he acknowledged the black man's social, economic, and moral inferiority - facts which no contemporary commentator disputed.

He also claimed that the whites had a responsibility to raise the standards of blacks - but it would be a long haul. Paternalistic yes, but not racist by the standards of his own time.

He was also the first President to invite any black to the White House - other than in the role of slave or servant. I think it was Frederick Douglass - not sure. Rooseveldt was heavily criticized for doing so. Arguably Teddy Rooseveldt was more tolerant on Race than either of the saints, Lincoln and Kennedy (J). The arch racist President was the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, who regarded blacks as trash.

The best picture of racism in Rooseveldt's time comes from the sports reports, particularly the reports of the attempts by various white men to defeat the black heavyweight Jack Johnson. I think it was the Chicago Tribune (Jack London) that coined the phrase and reported that "America needs a great white hope to defeat this hideous black ape." America agreed - except for Jack Johnson who cheerfully belted them all for 8 years.

No politically correct speech in those days!

 

[NOIRTRASH]

All American Presidents before LBJ were racist by today's definitions. Teddy Rooseveldt made a major speech to the Republicans in about 1904 1905 in which he acknowledged the black man's social, economic, and moral inferiority - facts which no contemporary commentator disputed.

He also claimed that the whites had a responsibility to raise the standards of blacks - but it would be a long haul. Paternalistic yes, but not racist by the standards of his own time.

He was also the first President to invite any black to the White House - other than in the role of slave or servant. I think it was Frederick Douglass - not sure. Rooseveldt was heavily criticized for doing so. Arguably Teddy Rooseveldt was more tolerant on Race than either of the saints, Lincoln and Kennedy (J). The arch racist President was the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, who regarded blacks as trash.

The best picture of racism in Rooseveldt's time comes from the sports reports, particularly the reports of the attempts by various white men to defeat the black heavyweight Jack Johnson. I think it was the Chicago Tribune (Jack London) that coined the phrase and reported that "America needs a great white hope to defeat this hideous black ape." America agreed - except for Jack Johnson who cheerfully belted them all for 8 years.

No politically correct speech in those days!

We love records and stats until they illuminate what we hate. All have their season, for a while, but change comes. Russia unleashed some boxers who defeat any black you got. But Roosevelt and Lincoln and the rest weren't enlightened folks. The professional magazines of Roosevelts time discounted and disparaged blacks all the time. The magazines are on-line. And every generation embraces the tyranny of its experts. I refuse to read sanitized historical accounts.

 

[TxRad]

Now you've done it. JBJ and facts don't get along very well.

 

[lovecraft68]

I agree with the gist of JBJ's point. Its no longer enough that the PC lynch mob-who cares nothing about people's rights, but only about looking 'righteous'-is trying to ban books written in a time where they were not considered racist, but now they have to rewrite history.

These soft whiny morons really want to think that if they were born into a society that was racist, their parents, family, friends, neighbors, the entire world around them, that they would somehow not be....and that is not the case.

I'm waiting for it to get to where an author can no longer write realistically, that if I create a character who is an ignorant piece of crap and uses terms like 'nigger and spook' because a person like him would use those words, that it will get banned.

I've already caught flack here once for using the n word in a story.

Oddly enough last year I had one that used quiet a few racial slurs and no one said anything. Then again it was in EH where the readers aren't sensitive and all those characters died in pretty nasty ways, so maybe that made them feel better.

But freedom of speech is pretty close to being on the endangered list these days, in both society and literature.

 

[colddiesel]

"Every generation embraces the tyranny of its experts"JBJ - Prolly the best point made in this thread.

I used to think that contemporary accounts were a reliable guide to genuine opinion but doubt that will hold true in future. For example, you won't find a single current journalist, pundit, columnist or politician who will say that Australian Aborigines (blackfellas) are drunken, idle, drug taking parasites on society; but a helluva lot of Australians, particularly in rural areas think precisely that.

It's got to the stage that even if you admit these strongly felt opinions exist (in others) you are accused of supporting them. That has the effect of squashing debate totally - but folks don't like debating uncomfortable issues - they'd rather look the other way.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

"Every generation embraces the tyranny of its experts"JBJ - Prolly the best point made in this thread.

I used to think that contemporary accounts were a reliable guide to genuine opinion but doubt that will hold true in future. For example, you won't find a single current journalist, pundit, columnist or politician who will say that Australian Aborigines (blackfellas) are drunken, idle, drug taking parasites on society; but a helluva lot of Australians, particularly in rural areas think precisely that.

It's got to the stage that even if you admit these strongly felt opinions exist (in others) you are accused of supporting them. That has the effect of squashing debate totally - but folks don't like debating uncomfortable issues - they'd rather look the other way.

Since 1967 I discarded much of the learning I acquired in college. What was orthodoxy in 1967 is now ridiculous.

 

[oggbashan]

Writing Historical Fiction

Some historical fiction, particularly mass produced bodice rippers, is nonsense.

Some is accurate in its detail, for example Georgette Heyer's Regency stories and C S Forester's Hornblower series. Both authors did extensive research in records contemporary with the period about which they were writing. Georgette Heyer claimed that if one of her characters used a slang word, it was current and in use at the time. C S Forester used the memoirs of Admiral Cochrane (but never mentioned him because that might upset his US fans. Cochrane gave the order to burn Washington in the War of 1812.) and the Naval Chronicle.

BUT - all writers of historical fiction face several difficulties.

If they write dialogue exactly as it would have been during the period, modern readers won't understand it in the same way. The writing has to be adapted to give the flavour of speech at the time, not an exact rendition.

Another difficulty is social attitudes. What would have been shocking behaviour in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries has no shock value at all in the 21st. A good author can set the historical scene so that the reader knows an action was socially unacceptable then, but it isn't easy.

But being politically correct in historical fiction is possible. It isn't essential to emphasise contemporary attitudes to foreigners, people of different colours or of differing social class - unless it helps the plot. Two 1920s and 1930s authors are rarely read now - Sapper's Bulldog Drummond stories and Jeffrey Farnol's Regency Tales. They are obviously racist and have very pronounced social stratification. What was doubtfully acceptable then is crudely biased now. Even then many people wouldn't read those authors. Now? Very few people would.

 

[jomar]

...

Another difficulty is social attitudes. What would have been shocking behaviour in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries has no shock value at all in the 21st. A good author can set the historical scene so that the reader knows an action was socially unacceptable then, but it isn't easy.

...

Yes. The HBO series Deadwood was set in the 1870s in North Dakota. Back then saying "crap" was shockingly vulgar. So to give the modern audience the flavor they said "cocksuker" on the show a lot. It was practically a drinking game.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Some historical fiction, particularly mass produced bodice rippers, is nonsense.

Some is accurate in its detail, for example Georgette Heyer's Regency stories and C S Forester's Hornblower series. Both authors did extensive research in records contemporary with the period about which they were writing. Georgette Heyer claimed that if one of her characters used a slang word, it was current and in use at the time. C S Forester used the memoirs of Admiral Cochrane (but never mentioned him because that might upset his US fans. Cochrane gave the order to burn Washington in the War of 1812.) and the Naval Chronicle.

BUT - all writers of historical fiction face several difficulties.

If they write dialogue exactly as it would have been during the period, modern readers won't understand it in the same way. The writing has to be adapted to give the flavour of speech at the time, not an exact rendition.

Another difficulty is social attitudes. What would have been shocking behaviour in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries has no shock value at all in the 21st. A good author can set the historical scene so that the reader knows an action was socially unacceptable then, but it isn't easy.

But being politically correct in historical fiction is possible. It isn't essential to emphasise contemporary attitudes to foreigners, people of different colours or of differing social class - unless it helps the plot. Two 1920s and 1930s authors are rarely read now - Sapper's Bulldog Drummond stories and Jeffrey Farnol's Regency Tales. They are obviously racist and have very pronounced social stratification. What was doubtfully acceptable then is crudely biased now. Even then many people wouldn't read those authors. Now? Very few people would.

It works both ways. If you research Europe prior to 1938 there was plenty of blame to go around to all World War II participants. The Polish were hot to fuck the Germans and Czechs, the Russians fomented trouble inside Germany, the French fomented trouble in Bavaria, Churchill encouraged Hitler to make problems for the French and Chamberlain. The Jews were 1% of Germany and dominated much of German society.

 

[colddiesel]

But being politically correct in historical fiction is possible. It isn't essential to emphasise contemporary attitudes to foreigners, people of different colours or of differing social class - unless it helps the plot. . .

To my mind Og, being PC in historical fiction is akin to lying, it is a deceit by the author of both him/herself and of the readership. The writer is imposing his values on a generation that had no time for them.

It is essential in my view to tell it as it was; if you leave out, or tone down what was then the norm but is now offensive, it is no longer historical fiction, it is fictional fiction. Censorship and bowdlerism of the past.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

To my mind Og, being PC in historical fiction is akin to lying, it is a deceit by the author of both him/herself and of the readership. The writer is imposing his values on a generation that had no time for them.

It is essential in my view to tell it as it was; if you leave out, or tone down what was then the norm but is now offensive, it is no longer historical fiction, it is fictional fiction. Censorship and bowdlerism of the past.

This week our government acted to limit Confederate flags in our national cemeteries. Our Civil War ended 150 years ago, and slavery was the law of the land on the last day just as it was on the first day. It took 6 months to end slavery by amending our constitution. Yet todays government wants to punish a government that ceased to exist 150 years ago because slavery was legal in its territory the same as in every other bit of America. Absurd.

 

[oggbashan]

To my mind Og, being PC in historical fiction is akin to lying, it is a deceit by the author of both him/herself and of the readership. The writer is imposing his values on a generation that had no time for them.

It is essential in my view to tell it as it was; if you leave out, or tone down what was then the norm but is now offensive, it is no longer historical fiction, it is fictional fiction. Censorship and bowdlerism of the past.

All fiction is lying.

I said it is possible to be politically correct. I don't think you have to be, but deliberatedly writing in an offensive manner is going too far the other way. You can reflect the attitudes of the time without rubbing the reader's nose in the unpleasant aspects - unless that is necessary for your story.

Telling it as it was, and as it would have been told at the time, is likely to put off readers. They don't like to read very long complicated sentences full of polysyllabic words that a contemporary author would have used. They don't like the villains to be pigtailed opium-smoking Chinamen who want to enslave white women, or sabre-scarred bullet-headed Prussians who talk in fake German.

What I am suggesting is that someone writing historical fiction in the 21st Century has to adapt the writing to modern readers and keep the feel of the historical period.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't have much tolerance for making history politically correct in current writing--especially just to please readers. If it's too far off the present view, just don't write it.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't have much tolerance for making history politically correct in current writing--especially just to please readers. If it's too far off the present view, just don't write it.

I think you and I have the same opinion, just a different view of it. Historical fiction has always been writing a version of history for modern readers. How far you go in making the period realistic is a value judgement.

Even in the Roman Empire they had disputes about how history should be presented to then modern readers. One school said history was to record events as accurately as possible; the other said history should be written to encourage readers to learn from events and that rewriting history to draw parallels and lessons for the modern world was permissible. Both types of Roman historian admitted that their history was not the true account of what happened but was what they thought today had happened then - and that later historians might have a different idea.

 

[sr71plt]

I think there are certain values that have come down through history that do hold. I like to ground in one of these in my historical pieces, but I also like to have certain events or characters showing attitudes/actions that contrast and clash with the universal basic values. This is where I get the tension that is needed for a story from a historical setting. The universal value doesn't necessarily hold in the specific story. And often what I'm trying to do is highlight what those values were that now aren't PC. I do use non-PC terms in these and haven't had a commenter zero in on these and say they gave me a 1 for using them. I'm expecting that to happen, though--and to just ignore it.

(I did get a "Sweet: Damn that was pretty hot just like always although since there's no chapter 2 I only gave it a 4" comment on a story a couple of days ago that set my teeth on edge. There's no chapter 2 because the story was finished.)