Racist terms in old books - should they be removed?

[LunaNorth]

I’m a big fan of books from the 1930s and 1940s, but I’m not a fan of being confronted by the n-word, or terms like ‘working like a black’ within an otherwise totally innocuous crime novel, such as the Josephine Tey I’m reading right now.

On the one hand, I fully understand the need to show society as it really was, and not try to whitewash the past. There’s no way I’d suggest removing such language from something like To Kill A Mockingbird, or Of Mice and Men.

But on the other, nobody picks up an old crime novel in the hopes of being educated about race relations in the 1930s, do they? So you end up being yanked out of the narrative and feeling a bit guilty for even reading it in the first place.

I dunno. I’m probably massively wrong, and I’m happy to be told so, but leaving phrases like ‘n*** brown’ in a book, with no disclaimer or warning anywhere, smacks a bit of condoning it. And how the hell do you recommend or lend the book to anyone without looking like a massive racist? ‘Here, read this, it’s a cracking little crime novel, but of the old racist language in it, but don’t let that bother you.’ No, can’t do it.

I picked up the book after hearing a podcast about it, and nothing at all was said about the language. Should it have been?

I’m normally the last person to recommend censorship, but I don’t see the point in letting such language hang about in light fiction books, really. It’s like finding a razor blade in your sandwich.

Or am I completely wrong?

Tbh I think it SHOULD be jarring and pull you out of the book. Because it's made you think, hasn't it?

Everybody knows about the history of racism but not many people now, comprehend what it was actually LIKE. Its sort of thought of as in The Olden Days. But it wasn't really.

It makes you realise that this is what people's attitudes were like not all that long ago to the point that it is even present in novels and that this was a normal and acceptable attitude. People were actually treated like that.

For the average white person it makes you look at the publication date and think 'Christ, this isn't actually that old.' It brings it to life for you and makes you empathise with that character and all the real people that character represents and makes you think more about casual racism in day to day life.

Coming back to this because literally my ds11 is reading Tom Sawyer and came to tell me about the language in it! This got him thinking about the whole context - might not have happened if the language had been changed.

I was in school in West Africa when I first got into Agatha Christie via And Then There Were None. A paperback with the original title and cover art. Read it, thoroughly enjoyed it, passed it round all my friends, who enjoyed it too. I think if anyone had shrieked about it, we’d have raised a collective, sarcastic teenage eyebrow and said gee, racism? Who knew?

Also - where does it end? I can think of at least one other Agatha Christie where two characters falling in love bond over their shared dislike of “negroes”. It’s not been changed, probably because it isn’t as well known a book.

We’re most of us intelligent and resilient and we are all the sum of our history. Wholesale Bowdlerisation would just be wrong.

Yes, it is necessary to let it stand! We need evidence that these things actually happened and were accepted as the norm for one thing! All for a disclaimer and a forward talking about the times the book was written in, but just whitewashing history is pretty dangerous. We need to be shocked and horrified IMO.

I dislike censorship far more than I dislike outdated language we now consider not acceptable

This, plus if we start censoring historic material and sanitizing the past then it leave the gates wide open for those who don't know the reality to say "but it wasn't that bad then, I read/watched X and it was fine for minority ethnic groups, fine for honoesexuals, fine for women, I don't get what the fuss is about'.

I might be being too cynical here but I sometimes find myself wondering who benefits from attempts to write out oppression and historical discrimination.

You cannot hold history to today’s standards.

I hate discovering that the book I had thought I had read is actually a bawdlerized version. Imagine your mate, who'd read the original saying "I liked that book but the racist language was really shocking and it jarred" and you are left thinking how did I not notice that - I usually notice racism. You and your mate won't have had the same reading experience. Which is fine if it comes with a disclaimer - either, this is a product of its time and therefore racist, or, this has been edited to make it acceptable. Thirdly option, as I think will happen with Blyton, it could be left to die. I read a lot of Blyton as you could get them second hand for 5p. My children have read very little, as there are a lot of writers filling the "too old for picture books, too young for novels" space. I doubt my (potential) grandchildren will read her much at all.

@ClearMountain

Disney has taken the approach of leaving historical works intact and adding a disclaimer that says it contains racism, which was wrong then and is wrong now, and rather than removing it they’ve chosen to acknowledge its historical impact and spark conversation about a more inclusive future. That’s perfectly fine imo, people have been forewarned and can choose to avoid if they wish.

I think that's a good idea. Does not whitewash and does not advocate. Best way in my view.

Most people who do actually read books, perhaps particularly old ones, rather than the latest potboiler, will usually be intelligent enough IMO to realise that times, attitudes, and what is acceptable, do change.
So no, I don’t think fiction should be sanitised.

I’ve read a lot of Anthony Trollope (Victorian author) and although the stories are usually a cracking read, the odd disparaging reference to Jews has made me wince.

At the same time, however, I’ve been struck by a certain balance. In one novel he portrays extreme hostility to Jews from certain characters, when a female member of their very upper-crust family was proposing to marry one.
However the Jewish man in question was ultimately portrayed as an infinitely more worthy character than the woman who proposed to marry him purely because he was rich.

(The marriage didn’t come off - she later ran off with a presumably skint curate.)

I’ve read a lot of Anthony Trollope (Victorian author) and although the stories are usually a cracking read, the odd disparaging reference to Jews has made me wince.

I read Oliver Twist recently and Dickens does not miss an opportunity to tell us how disgusting Fagin "the Jew" is. Apparently, even his editor at the time was shocked and made him tone it down a bit in the later chapters which just shows how bad it is!

I was thinking about Oliver Twist too, which I re-read earlier this year. It is indeed shocking.

It is sobering to reflect that I don't remember feeling shocked when I first read it about 40 years ago.

On the 'n.....' brown issue, my mother in law, who was born in the 1920s) told me that when she was a child/teen that was a standard colour for school uniform, along with navy blue and bottle green.

As a child, she also had a dog with the same name as the one in the Dambusters.

She is no longer with us, but anyone less racist than my mother in law would be difficult to find.

Have you read Our Mutual Friend? Apparently Dickens created the oh so sympathetic Jewish character in that to show he wasn’t anti Semitic following the reaction he got to Fagin. Yet somehow, it doesn’t work - he lays it on so thick with this character it comes across as more anti Semitic than even Fagin, and really nauseating - well, to me, anyway.

It's a less appealing characteristic of human nature - to other others.

I sometimes feel in these discussions that there is an assumption that things are so much more civilised now - but not if you are a Karen, Chav, Traveller even Boomer maybe. I think disrespecting others makes us feel united with a group. It hasn't gone away.

This has been a really interesting discussion, and I completely take the point that whitewashing the past is a terrible idea.

I agree to leave things written/said in the past.

It's a depiction of how things were then. How can we ever learn if history is removed or edited.

It reminds of Django Unchained and Leonardo DiCaprio using the N word throughout - it was reported that he was very uncomfortable using the word and he was told by Jamie Foxx and Samuel L Jackson to get over it. They understood it wasn't a slur on them but a character's words, and sadly those words were widely used in that era

If the past is “improved” , how will anyone know there were injustices? I sometimes get cross at women from the past being portrayed as feisty equals. In fact any reimagining of history involving diversity and tolerance. If the past was just fine and dandy then what was the point of a women’s or civil rights movement?

One of my favourite books has a ghastly anti Semitic section about a Jewish moneylender. I often loan it out because it’s a corking read, but do warn people ahead of time.

Georgette Heyer is a cracking writer, but quite the anti Semite.

@IrmaFayLear

If the past is “improved” , how will anyone know there were injustices? I sometimes get cross at women from the past being portrayed as feisty equals. In fact any reimagining of history involving diversity and tolerance. If the past was just fine and dandy then what was the point of a women’s or civil rights movement?

That is why I can watch so few historical dramas or films written inthe present. The reality of the past is not considered as fit to be shown. It must be almost impossible for young people to truly imagine life 100 years ago. How comparitively restricted it was for the vast majority, men and women, how openly prejudiced many were in racial, social, sexual senses, how strict morals were, how monotous diets could be, how poor so many were, how dangerous any illness or accident could be. And yet people lived lives to the full, they were happy or sad, jofyul or scared , abundant or solitary, desperate or content just like today. They were in their place but how can we have any idea except through a true historical and cultural record?

"one of my favourite books has a ghastly anti Semitic section about a Jewish moneylender."
Sounds like The Merchant of Venice

@IrmaFayLear

If the past is “improved” , how will anyone know there were injustices? I sometimes get cross at women from the past being portrayed as feisty equals. In fact any reimagining of history involving diversity and tolerance. If the past was just fine and dandy then what was the point of a women’s or civil rights movement?

That is a splendid point.

I don't think the novels, proper books should be censored. Yes, maybe a sticker would be a good idea to warn of the content to state it is of its time and may now be seen as offensive.

But history is just that, history, and how can we know how we have learned and evolved in our thinking, if we don't know what was wrong in the first place.

I would hate to see Laura Ingalls Wilder's books to be changed, because they were written by her in her time and that is how it was then. I bought a set for my daughter and we have discussed how things are very different now and how opinions on race and women have changed since then. The books are very historical and really paint a picture of life at that time.

As a primary aged child in the 70's , one of my favourite books (now banned) was Little Black Sambo. I loved it purely for the story about the lions running around the tree and turning into butter. Nothing else was relevant to me as a child. I grew up in a very rural area and knew nothing about racism until I was a teenager. But I know why those books were banned and don't disagree with that.

I can understand some of the words and phrases used in the past is not appropriate in today's society. But I think it loses something, if we changed everything to meet today's standard. If we read this sort of books with our children, it's awkward but I think we need to accept the past and lead the children to understand it, though age of the child may be the factor to be modified or not. Adult's books, we should be able to appreciate that it was written in a past, and I don't think recommending a book with racist language makes you a racist.

No.There's not even a conversation to be had.Don't touch books. Don't sanitise history

This. Hands off the books...if you don't like the language, your option is not read them. You do not get the option of changing the books to suit any current narrative or notion.

Cancel culture isn't necessary. As ideas change, things that a society come to agree are offensive fade out on their own, they don't need to be banned or removed or sanitised. It happens naturally, or it doesn't.

No - we shouldn't try to pretend that racism didn't exist in the past. Where do you draw the line? Should we remove homophobia and sexism too?

Adult books are one thing - I think a disclaimer or warning would be good, mind you. Lots of not especially old books have dated pretty badly on plenty of fronts - Jilly Cooper springs to mind. I enjoy her books, but blimey, there is a lot that really doesn’t sit well with a modern audience...!

Children’s books are different though - we should be promoting equality and diversity to children and that may mean making some choices about what they read. There are plenty of good books that aren’t racist (or sexist for that matter, or homophobic), and while I did enjoy Enid Blyton as a kid, the books aren’t that good. It wouldn’t exactly be a massive stretch to update them, to make them more inclusive. They’re not exactly Shakespeare. And I think it’s right that we should do so. If we want things to become better, we need to do something about it.