fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2539 ]

[ SECRET POST #2539 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2539 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 066 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I. With the incredible amount of Holmesian works out there, I'm pretty sure somebody already wrote an extensive piece of metafiction on the subject of Tonga.

II. Tbqh, I did not see it as a full-blown fail, even by modern standards. What exactly is implausible about the story? That Small saved him? That he was protecting Small? That he shot folks with poisonous darts?

In 1974, a film crew and anthropologist Trilokinath Pandit attempted friendly contact by leaving a tethered pig, some pots and pans, some fruit and toys on the beach at North Sentinel Island. One of the islanders shot the film director in the thigh with an arrow.

And look at the descriptions in SIGN:

"...He was stanch and true, was little Tonga. No man ever had a more
faithful mate..."

"...They are a fierce, morose, and intractable people, though capable of forming most devoted
friendships when their confidence has once been gained..."

I wouldn't say this sounds incredibly racist.

III. Literature existed when the notion of political correctness did not. Get over it.

The fail referred to might be that Tonga is described in such inhuman terms. That's the kind of fail that's hard to explore, though, because you just find yourself going "Yeah, that's... wow."

The two problems I can see there are these:
- Tonga's feelings and thoughts are never referred to (save for his loyalty and gratitude to Small, which is, btw, not something to be overlooked)
- these paragraphs:

"'They are naturally hideous, having large, misshapen heads, small, fierce eyes, and distorted features."

"...and the unhallowed dwarf with his hideous face, and his strong yellow teeth gnashing at us in the light of our lantern."

Which... tells us nothing, really, apart from the fact that Doyle was the ugly anon of his time. [not really, he wasn't. But okay, he found the Andamanese ugly]

And yes, of course there is some degree of racial prejudice behind that (which should come as no surprise), but I would say it is quite mild in comparison to many things written at that time. Maybe I'm alone in that, but I never found myself going "yeah, that's... wow" when reading SIGN? I read Tonga as a pretty sympathetic character.

More sympathetic than Small at any rate. Guy was a douche, even if Sholto Sr. was a bigger one.

I'm taking about the physical descriptions - which are really quite vile, especially considering this is not a person who is supposed to be in any way deformed, just not European-looking - not Tonga's character, which I agree is sympathetic. He had good reason to be loyal to Small and didn't understand why killing Sholto would be all that bad. I'm also not blaming Doyle so much, just thinking of where a person reading it today would find race!fail, and I assume for most people, that would start with the most blatant things, like describing Tonga as looking "misshapen," before progressing into issues of colonialism. I was taken aback when I first read the descriptions of Tonga years ago. It was like looking at old Blackhawk comics and illustrations of the Chop-Chop character and doing a double-take because he was drawn so differently than the other characters.

The language is pretty other-ing - just because it's positive doesn't mean that it's not painting the person as exotic and alien, and that's not really great. That said, I'm not sure what one would expect from a series written by someone who was a citizen of a country running a massive, exploitative, racist imperial enterprise across the globe. Like, yeah, he shared in beliefs that were common and normal in his class and culture. Surprise!

I do agree (I guess) with OP that it would be interesting to see more stuff that explores the colonial imperialist elements of the Holmes canon, because there's a lot of it and it's almost all super fascinating to me. Although describing it as 'race-fail', I think, is kind of reductive, it's definitely something that's present there.

The language is pretty other-ing - just because it's positive doesn't mean that it's not painting the person as exotic and alien, and that's not really great.

But exotic and alien was precisely what Tonga was to everyone involved (apart from Small, maybe, who says that Tonga was his "faithful mate")?

I guess there might be something problematic in how nothing is said about Tonga's feelings or thoughts, but

That said, I'm not sure what one would expect from a series written by someone who was a citizen of a country running a massive, exploitative, racist imperial enterprise across the globe. Like, yeah, he shared in beliefs that were common and normal in his class and culture. Surprise!

...yeah.

I agree that more meta on the colonial imperialist elements of the Canon would be good to see, but it has more to do with the scholarly side of the issue and mentality studies than with SJW-style analyses of how problematic Doyle's characterizations were. Such analyses are never insightful and contribute little to the topic.

Such analyses are never insightful and contribute little to the topic.

And also attempting to impose their own twisted morality onto a culture that hasn't existed for two hundred years....

We should and must evaluate it and judge it in our own terms - especially since (a) it's not been two centuries since the British empire ceased to be - it's only been a century since Doyle wrote, and the empire lasted after him, into living memory and (b) the empire, its actions and the effects of its policies have shaped the world we have right now, and still affect things today.

I agree that SJW analyses tend to be limited and kinda shitty, but we shouldn't blame them for trying. But the idea that the British empire is immune from judgment because it was a different culture and it was all a long time ago absolutely does not wash for me.

It is not that I think that the British empire or its citizens are "immune from judgement", or that the history of the colonial period did not shape the modern world. But "we must evaluate it in our own terms"? We must evaluate a Sherlock Holmes novel on our own terms in regards to the colonial imperialist elements it contains? To what end, may I enquire? Unless you are writing something about the relationship between extractive political institutions in the colonies and the Victorian imperialist mentality as seen in works of fiction, I fail to see how it's of any use to anyone.

To the end of how we respond to things in this life in general, I think. It's who we are.

I don't mean, by the way, that we need to dismiss it, and I don't think that the result of a judgment that is critical of elements of it is that we shouldn't read it. This isn't really an argument contra Holmes. It's simply that we ought to analyze things as best we can and understand them as fully as we can. It's of use because it allows us to understand the work more fully (and understand our world more fully). But even if it wasn't of use, it's how we operate as human beings.

OP of this sub-thread

Which is fine, so far as it goes, but the SJWs would much rather brand the whole thing as evil, and burn/ban all of ACD's books and stories forever.

Which, when you think about it, is a really unhealthy attitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings).

I agree, partially. It is true that one should not completely dismiss one's own moral perspective for the sake of period morality.

But at the same time mental flexibility may be a legitimate part of a system of values. Sometimes one becomes so convinced of the righteousness of their judgement that they fail to perceive what the motivations and emotions of that or other historical figure/character are; their criteria of what is right and what is wrong are too narrow, too time-specific to see that kindness, fairness, and other laudable qualities may all manifest themselves in different forms (at different times).

To judge, for example, the university students who were hostile towards their female co-students is fine, because they were bigots towards other living human beings (a universal value).

But to judge folks who were more or less accepting of women as students and yet held misogynistic prejudices characteristic of the time period? By our standards, they may well be seen as bigots; but in truth their beliefs were those of decent, fair people. It seems all but incorrect to say that they were as bad as somebody who behaves the same way nowadays.

Similarly, Doyle's (Holmes's, Watson's) treatment of Tonga was not born out of hatred or active dislike for the Andamanese (as one can see from the positive descriptions).

Hrmmm I (like you) partly agree, partly disagree - I think perhaps we're not so far apart after all.

Doyle/Holmes/Watson's attitude towards Tonga and the Andamanese may not have come out of malice, but it was a dehumanizing attitude and it did arise out of, and contribute towards, a system of political exploitation and conquest which was unjust and oppressive. It's definitely not malice or hatred, but that doesn't mean that the attitude was morally acceptable or something of which we should approve. You can be more or less completely lacking in malice and still do morally objectionable things, even awful and horrifying things, and you can certainly be lacking in malice and still have beliefs that contribute to and justify morally objectionable things. And I think that's what's happening here, and I think we should recognize it.

More broadly - I agree that it's complex, and I'm in favor of treating it as complex, and I think that's what a lot of this does. You can acknowledge that it's complex and still end up judging it, or parts of it. You can look at it in the context of the place and the time, and still judge it. And I think you have to do so. Again, let me reiterate that I'm not trying to denounce anyone or anything, and when I talk about making a judgment I don't mean something that's dismissive or simplistic. But I think you can try to examine those things and still make a moral judgment - we may be forced into judgments that are complex and nuanced and many-sided, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make those judgments.

And, yeah, like I said, I think our positions are pretty close at this point.

My wording was sort of imprecise - I wasn't saying that one should judge people based merely on their intentions (that sounds... menacingly Kantian). Rather, I meant to say that, whilst the values of kindness, fairness, compassion, etc. may remain the same for all time periods, one ought to be able to recognize different manifestations of these virtues.

But as to the moral acceptability of Victorian attitudes, I do think that it is fair to say that something is "morally unacceptable" only insofar as we are discussing some abstract, ideal moral environment. When we get to practicalities, think of it thus - just how much sense does it make to say that the moral values of some historical figure were unacceptable when one knows that for a person in that time period to hold 'better' beliefs was quite probably perfectly impossible? What does it mean, exactly, that these attitudes are "something of which we should not approve"? It literally means that we cannot approve of the behaviour of any person Victorian.

And that I refuse to do, because I know there were awesome folks back then, and because I think it is very important for us to recognize that particularities change but the overall picture is the same. We are not that different from the Victorians.

As somebody who's been reading period stuff from a very young age, at this point I am incapable of viewing it from the "modern" point of view. I automatically translate what is happening into the cultural language I understand, and apply to it the appropriate moral judgement (if any). So, while

But I think you can try to examine those things and still make a moral judgment - we may be forced into judgments that are complex and nuanced and many-sided, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make those judgments.

- it may not mean that "we shouldn't make those judgements", but it does mean that some of us can't, because their moral perspective is too general for that. And I think that such broad general perspective facilitates a better understanding of the Victorians and the period morality as such than judgements such as "these attitudes are morally unacceptable".

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-16 00:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dreemyweird - 2013-12-16 00:36 (UTC) - Expand

relevant

dreemyweird - 2013-12-16 00:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-16 01:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

logicbutton - 2013-12-16 00:32 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dreemyweird - 2013-12-16 00:43 (UTC) - Expand

To what end, may I enquire?

Why wouldn't you want to explore racism and its effects?

AYRT

So, does this one "wash" for you? It's a FICTIONAL STORY written by a guy who has been dead for a very long time, and lived in an era that had nothing even approaching the concept of "political correctness" (which, is SJW terms, is just societally-acceptable mandated racism anyway).

I absolutely blame the SJWs for "trying" garbage like the troll OP is trying to stir up. If they have their way, the world will be Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and Brave New World, all rolled into one.

aye "wash for you" tbh
why am I loling at this

AYRT

IKR? "HOW IS IRONY MADE?"

*which, in SJW terms,

So, does this one "wash" for you? It's a FICTIONAL STORY written by a guy who has been dead for a very long time, and lived in an era that had nothing even approaching the concept of "political correctness" (which, is SJW terms, is just societally-acceptable mandated racism anyway).

I don't even know what your point is. Everything you're saying is true, and yet still, I think it's okay for us to judge it. That doesn't mean castigating the author, or denouncing the book; it means evaluating it and judging it. I don't think that the SJW analysis is a very good one, but when you go beyond critiquing the specifics of their analysis, and say that we can't analyze it at all, that 's not something I agree with. So it's a fictional story, so the guy has been dead, we can still judge it.

And political correctness, by the way, is not something that I think is really applicable here. That's one faulty rubric for right or wrong, and not one that I have much interest in. But whether political correctness existed when Doyle was writing, and whether political correctness is justified or not, there was still right and wrong, and people at the time argued in terms of better and worse. Political correctness might not have existed, but political principles did, and that's what we're talking about. I'm not judging him for not being politically correct; that has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.

I absolutely blame the SJWs for "trying" garbage like the troll OP is trying to stir up. If they have their way, the world will be Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and Brave New World, all rolled into one.

I'm sorry, but there's just no way for me to take this seriously

Their point is precisely that they don't want to think critically about it. You can analyse the reasons for that, seeing as they're not fictional and still alive.

which, is SJW terms, is just societally-acceptable mandated racism anyway

Well yeah, usually. I've never heard anyone use the phrase unless they actually mean racism, sexism etc, or are just making something up, such as you saying there are SJW who want to burn Holmes books. (Or any books.)

It's a FICTIONAL STORY

Oh boy. Yes, art exists and is created in a vacuum, obviously.

Huh? The British Empire didn't end two hundred years ago and its effects are still massively widespread today.

III. Literature existed when the notion of political correctness did not. Get over it.

Calling racism political correctness doesn't actually make it better.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only