Editing of racist comments
Select messages from
 # through # FAQ
[/[Print]\]

The CBB -> Anything Else
#1: Editing of racist comments Author: Charity,  PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:33 pm
    —
I've just reread up to "and Jo" and have noticed numerous references to Joey having hair like a golliwog, plus Mary Burnett tells the girls to "work like niggers" to prepare for their sale of work. Obviously (and sadly) we have to accept these as of the period, but I was wondering if they are edited out of later editions. Does anyone know? One of the golliwog mentions was in a 1990 paperback and I was suprised it had been kept in. Also, do other school stories such as Enid Blyton and Angela Brazil contain similar stuff?
#2:  Author: Eilidh, Location: North Lanarkshire PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:39 pm
    —
A lot of them are edited out of the paperbacks - certainly all the references to "working like niggers", as far as I know. As to the golliwogs, I'm not sure when they became objectionable.

I think these are just terms that were in common use when the books were written and don't have a problem with them - they are not intentionally racist, but rather an insight into the culture of the time. They are rather a shock when you come across them the first time (when I got the GGBP of Highland Twins!) but I don't mind them now.
#3:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:42 pm
    —
I didn't know that golliwogs were objectionable until quite recently. I never connected them with any sort of racist meaning.
#4:  Author: Tiffany, Location: Is this a duck I see behind me? PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:44 pm
    —
"nigger" is definitely edited out: I think the golliwogs might be left in as that word isn't seen as so offensive. It is a shock when you first see it, but it was standard then: as Eilidh said, I don't think EBD was being racist (though I'm a bit suspicious in Lavender where Lilamani is introduced: EBD is at great pains to point out that though she's not Caucasian, she has really fair skin and looks the part Twisted Evil )

I think the same sort of usage is common in Girls' Own, because it was common in speech at that time. EJO has references to "darkies" Shocked but not in a negative way: she uses it purely to identify a group of people.
#5:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:47 pm
    —
Personally I'm glad they were edited out. They may reflect society at the time of EBD and EJO, however they didn't in the 80s/90s when the bulk of the Armada reprints came out, thankfully.
#6:  Author: Rachel, Location: West Coast of Scotland PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:59 pm
    —
I've just finished reading a Pony book in which one of the black horses is called "Nigger". It was a little bit of a surprise initially, as it always is when one comes across such terms these days, but once I became absorbed into the story, it didn't really bother me any further.
#7:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:19 pm
    —
Apparently my great-grandparents had a black dog called Nigger Rolling Eyes . I know it sounds awful, but apparently it just wasn't considered offensive/inappropriate to use the word as a pet's name then.
#8:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:24 pm
    —
I didn't know golliwog was offensive either - I thought it was the name for a teddy Embarassed

I don't think these phrases should be updated/edited-out in later editions, on the basis that the writing is a product of the time in which it was written and the mind of the person who created it.
#9:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:34 pm
    —
I'm actually quite shocked that no-one else seems to find racist language (for it is, I don't think you can just say 'oh society was more racist then and nobody realised, so it's OK' If it wasn't racist, then we would still be using it with gay abandon) offensive...

I'm thinking of that old thread about that girl pop group from the US - Prussian Blue? in which everyone said that their lyrics shouldn't be allowed, etc. Surely it's the same principle and you could argue that they reflect the mindset of the society that they live in and so it's OK?

I wasn't saying that EBD shouldn't have written it, I understand that people thought differently then, it is just that I prefer where it is cut out of the Armada paperbacks.

Don't mean to attack anyone btw and certainly do not mean that I think anyone is racist, I most definitely do not. I don't stay up at night bewailing the fact that some of my uncut books have words I don't like in them, just would like to say that in an ideal world I would prefer that they didn't and I do notice them when I read the books.

Last edited by Mia on Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
#10:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:41 pm
    —
To me there's a difference between using racist language and being racist. Neither are acceptable today and so are equated, but in EBD's time using such phrases did not necessarily mean that one was racist. They were just phrases in the cultural lexicon - no one really thought about the meaning of them. Which is thoughtlessness as opposed to the blatant racism espoused by Prussian Blue and the like.
#11:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:06 pm
    —
With me and the editing question, it's just the historian coming out. There's nothing more irritating or frustrating to find sanitised copies of earlier works, where the later editor has changed the earlier text to something that fits in better with their own culture/society. It doesn't matter if it's a question of racism or sexism or Christian preference - I don't think text should be messed around with, not even with spelling mistakes. I'm so glad that GGB follow this policy too.
#12:  Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:09 pm
    —
One of the reasons I like reading the CS is that it gives you an insight into another time. And those attitudes are a part of that. On the other hand, I think that you can argue that these are kids' books and you shouldn't be presenting that sort of language as acceptable to them.

But then kids should be getting the message that nigger is not an acceptable word in other parts of their lives and that fact that it is in that book could serve as the starting point for a discussion about how different things are viewed as acceptable at different times. I think kids need to realise that the world changes.

I just find it really interesting to read stuff that while it may not have been thought about much at the time it was written, makes you stop and think, 'oh so they thought like that'. When you read a modern book set in the past, you never get that because you don't know if it's the author prejecting their views of how the past was or how people really thought.

I remember reading a book at school called The Book They Tried to Ban. As far as I can remember it was about an American school where they want to ban Huckleberry Finn as it is considered racist. One of the main complaints is that Huck calls his friend 'Nigger Jim'. But at the end someone makes a speech along the lines of 'he didn't mean nigger in a bad way.' The two are friends.
In fact "Twain's intent was to belittle and make fun of the racist attitudes of most Americans" (from Amazon review)
Amazon review
Have not read H. Finn so can't comment myself.

And I think intent does matter. I would like to think EDB was not racist, especially given the distincions drawn between Germans and Nazis and the overriding humanity of Exile. So I guess I think that she didn't mean to be racist, although it sounds awful to us today.

I know this argument is a bit warped as I'm using non-racist intent as a defence and also saying that on the other hand it shows attitudes of that time but I'm just trying to justify the inclusion of unpleasant attitudes and defend EBD's reputation all at once.

Of course this leaves the question of whether or not it would be accepable to write a kid's book today, that is set in the past, and use the word nigger and I have to say I think I would not want to use it. Or if I did it would be for a very specific purpose. I think that the reason you should leave it in EBD is that she presumably didn't think she was being controversial by using it and what that shows us of the time.

Hope this isn't too much and that I don't offend anyone.
#13:  Author: KathrynW, Location: London PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:35 pm
    —
Katherine wrote:
I just find it really interesting to read stuff that while it may not have been thought about much at the time it was written, makes you stop and think, 'oh so they thought like that'.

I agree completely. I also think there is a danger of over-sanitising the past and putting our heads in the sand and pretending that everyone has always got on perfectly. If I remember correctly, the word 'nigger' is used in Of Mice and Men, obviously a modern classic and I think it would be sad if it was felt necessary to edit something like that. Or indeed the vaguely racist overtones to something like Wuthering Heights. Not to mention things like Othello and other Shakespeare plays which use racist language (and sometimes vile racist language) as a dramatic device.

This thread also made me think of the recent discussion on the BBC about the use of the word 'gay' in modern young people's lingo (I feel so old writing that...) as a derogatory term. Will it be that in 50 years time, it will be deemed so offensive that it will be edited out of the past (ie. our present). Sorry, that got really confused in my head cos the phone's gone three times while I've written that paragraph Wink

To say that I wouldn't want to see such language edited out does not mean that I don't find it offensive, because I do, but that is because I am looking it it from my own/modern perspective. It may be what I learnt at university and my particular degree (Classics) but I always try to read appreciate books and literature as a product of the time and read it through the eyes of a contemporary reader.

Echoing everyone else's comments in hoping that I haven't offended anyone or said anything incredibly stupid or indeed turneed marginally ranty

Last edited by KathrynW on Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:58 pm; edited 4 times in total
#14:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:41 pm
    —
Argh please fix the width of this thread - it's hard to read! Crying or Very sad

Also you have to consider the future. Language changes. The word nigger was offensive 50 years ago - it is offensive *now*. But in 200 years it may mean something entirely different and be completely mainstream. I'm thinking of words which started out derogatory but became mainstream ie Quaker. Editing out what *we* consider to be racist/unethical in past texts says more about *our* society and moral codes than the society that produced the original text, or the future societies that will read it. (Hope that made sense - grammer isnt' something that comes naturally on a Friday evening...) Why should we edit [what's written in] the past to suit [the society in which we find] ourselves?
#15:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:42 pm
    —
Guy Gibson, who led the Dambusters raid, had a dog called Nigger, too.

At the time the books were written, these terms were not considered offensive. We can't accuse EBD of being racist because she uses the word 'nigger' any more than we can say she's talking about homosexuality whenever she uses the word 'gay.'

Personally I'm against editing and updating books. The Tyrolean and wartime books are very much period pieces now. It's a shame to do anything to lose that period feel. Plus, changing the books risks introducing anachronisms, and diminishes their value in showing that culture and society does change over time.

Jay B.
#16:  Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:58 pm
    —
Tiffany wrote:
I don't think EBD was being racist (though I'm a bit suspicious in Lavender where Lilamani is introduced: EBD is at great pains to point out that though she's not Caucasian, she has really fair skin and looks the part Twisted Evil


But in terms of the Hindu caste system, I understand the paler the skin, the higher up the system you were, so that might have influenced the way EBD described her, obviously she was from a high caste.

Agatha Christie's And then there were none was originally called 10 little niggers but had to have its title changed.
#17:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:02 pm
    —
Isn't Lilamani from Kashmir? I think Kashmiris are fair skinned.

Jay B.
#18:  Author: Chelsea, Location: Your Imagination PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:11 pm
    —
LizB wrote:


Agatha Christie's And then there were none was originally called 10 little niggers but had to have its title changed.


Here at least, it also went through a "Ten Little Indians" phase (refering the N. American natives rather than those from teh Indian sub-continent).
#19:  Author: Charity,  PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:35 pm
    —
Interesting replies, thanks. Not sure where I stand on the updating issue. I guess maybe for "adult" collectors editions such as the GGBP they should be kept the same, but removed for children. I can't believe I'm actually advocating censorship as I'm normally very liberal. It's a very tricky issue.

I read a newspaper supplement article a few weeks ago about a black antique dealer who collects golliwogs, cookie jars in the shape of black heads, etc and is exhibiting them in a gallery. He is apparently "reclaiming" this items for modern black culture. Not sure what to make of it really, being white myself, other than a vague feeling of guilt.
#20:  Author: macyrose, Location: Great White North (Canada) PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:47 pm
    —
I agree with what Mia said, and I just want to add that at the time EBD was writing, the term "nigger" and other derogatory names for people who were black, Jewish, etc... were considered very offensive and hurtful - by the people of those groups being so described, regardless of whether the terms were used by someone who meant to be hurtful or who just used that kind of language because everyone else around did. Yes the language in books (EBD's and everyone else's) is the product of its time but just because something is a product of its time doesn't always make it right.
#21:  Author: Maeve, Location: Romania PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:42 pm
    —
I think I'm with Roisin and others who argue for not tampering with a text - if the original text was harmful/wrong/whatever, I want to be able to see that for myself, not have someone else decide and edit it out for me.

I think too that how these questionnable words are used in the text is pertinent. I think "golliwog" is often used to refer to Joey's hair, like in this quote from "Jo of"
Quote:

Joey shook her black head till she looked like a golliwog

and I don't see that this is particularly offensive. It makes me think of the doll, which I never ever understood as a racist toy.

One could also say that EBD's ethnic stereotypes are hurtful - Biddy's at times OTT rich brogue, for example; or her class snobbery - but I accept this as a reflection of who EBD was and yes, the time and place in which she was writing. And I was okay with these things when I read the books as a working class, Irish child too. People do say and write thngs that others may find offensive - it's part of the risk of being alive and communicating.

Sorry - don't meanto pontificate Embarassed
#22:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:47 pm
    —
Maeve wrote:
I think I'm with Roisin and others who argue for not tampering with a text - if the original text was harmful/wrong/whatever, I want to be able to see that for myself, not have someone else decide and edit it out for me.


I actually wrote I was shocked to see the racist language in the books when I first got a non-Armada copy. I was only 8 and perhaps didn't get the whole social history racism being OK thing, but there you go.

I don't think having the language in actually adds anything historically for me now, it's pretty clear already what the characters' social backgrounds are! But I never said that GGBP should cut the text now, just that I do notice the words and they jar a little.

Can we stop discussing this please and just agree to disagree?
#23:  Author: Changnoi, Location: Milwaukee, USA PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:30 am
    —
I wish there were some way of distinguishing, "This is an old kids' book that has been reprinted for adults" from "This is an old kids' book for modern children to read as well."

To me, that makes the difference. I can read "working like niggers" etc., although just to type the word felt incredibly shameful, like I needed to look over my shoulder to make sure no one watched my type a racist word. Another American GO book that I have refers to "Negress" laundresses. I can read that. I understand that it's the author reflecting on the period, and, the fact of the matter is, there isn't any hate in it. Misunderstanding and bigotry, yes, but no hate. Even with EBD, if I saw her saying something negative about people with black skin, that they were lazy or prone to robbery, that would bother me terribly, even though I knew she was writing from her own culture and her own time. It would still hurt. Everything EBD has ever written that has mentioned the word "Jew" or "Jewess" that I have read has raised my hackles. I know she is from a different culture--whatever. It. Still. Hurts. That she thinks I am different, misguided, am more prone to money-grubbing, whatever, than the good Christian girls, although thankfully, we don't see her reflecting on this very often. So, as an adult, I can say--I understand that this was her culture. It lessens the sting, but it doesn't erase it, and the value of seeing the way things were Back Then, for me, anyway, outweighs the sudden slap of seeing someone called a Jewess.

If I were younger, however, the slap would hurt more. "Back Then" as a historical period, as a time different today, would not be well-enough defined for me not to feel hurt, betrayed, spat upon, whenever a racist/religious word that I knew felt dirty and inappropriate appeared, regardless of its context. I would know academically that these girls that EBD is writing about are different from me in many ways, that she must have a different background--after all, I don't have servants, either, or go to boarding school, and I'm not from Britain. But that wouldn't be enough to take away the sting that an author I respected, no matter what time she lived in, thought I wasn't as good as the white Christians. So, if the publication is solely for kids, I say, edit it to reflect modern standards while keeping the plot. And we do see the challenge of this in Trials, I might add...

I know, unfortunately, that there's not an easy way to differentiate, though I would hesitantly say that GGBP are more for an adult collector's market and the Armada reprints are more to attract a new youth market. So I would edit the two collections differently, without any feeling of guilt.

"The Jewess",
Chang
#24:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:55 am
    —
Thanks Chang, appreciate your input, and everyone else for their views.

I think perhaps, we should leave this thread now. I will ask one of the Mods for here to lock the thread.

Lesley



ETA
Just to let everyone know - the thread was locked because I had, mistakenly, thought the person responsible for starting the thread had requested it and I thought they might have that preogative. In fact it wasn't the case and I made a huge error - very sorry about that Embarassed Probably just as well that all the Mods are changing soon as I obviously had a senior moment there! Rolling Eyes

Last edited by Lesley on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
#25:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:50 pm
    —
Glad this thread is reopened because I wanted to ask if this is an issue with 'isms' other than race. I'm thinking sexism, ageism, or any others that I've not thought of.

I've already said that I don't agree with *any* tampering of the text, but releasing books for release to today's children is a different kettle of fish. If we agree that today's under-tens shouldn't be exposed to that kind of thinking about race, why do we expose them to that sort of thinking about, say, how women should act in the home, or in work? Is that something that you could edit easily? Also, do we want today's children to grow up with EBDs attitude to class?
#26:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:46 pm
    —
This is a very interesting thread.

I'm not fond of abridgements and editing of written work in general - adhering to modern standards in new work, yes, but not retrofitting older works. I think it is important to realise and remember that things were different in the past and will be different in the future. Plus the scientist in me hates fudging data.

I remember reading "Little House on the Prarie" as a child of nine or so, and being shocked by Ma's attitude towards Indians - she reacted to them with fear and hatred: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian". Pa's attitude was more one of wariness with some respect, and Laura was frankly envious of their lifestyle.

There were several things to be learned from scenes like that - one was that attitudes change with time, and something that was acceptable at one time isn't necessarily so now, and by corollary things that are considered acceptable now may not be in the future.

The other, more complicated one, was that reasonably decent people can be racist - a difficult concept to come to terms with. There's a tendency to want to regard someone who is bigoted, or racist, or sexist as a bad person, full stop, but that isn't always true. There are people who are perfectly pleasant until you get them on the subject of [insert derogatory term here]. It's important to realise that prejudices come in various types and degress, rather than the world consisiting of people who are good and bad, full stop. This means that each individual is responsible for examining their own prejudices and beliefs to see what is lurking in there.

By the way, the word nigger certainly wasn't universally regarded as benign at that time. My uncle, as a child in the 50s, once sat down on the pavement and refused to move after his friend used this term, on the grounds that the kid had just used a swear word.
#27:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:27 pm
    —
Did poor Charity ever get her query answered *g*

I think it was edited out of the earlier paperback (in the militant 70s and 80s lol). In Rivals they have added a line to the paperback to say that the girls are shocked by the KKK. In the hardback they are thrilled by the KKK's doings if I recall correctly, though that is so vague it could refer to anything and possibly EBD was thinking more along the lines of the secret organisation side of things ?

However in the 90s when they publish the holiday stories the references to golliwog hair (I should have said I don't like this because to me it implies afro hair is something to be ashamed of) and Carlotta being a nigger baby (oh how I hate that word) seem to be back.

I think, with regard to Róisín's questions, which are v interesting, I can accept it as more of a social flavour type thing because it is tempered; although EBD clearly sees that women shouldn't work after they marry, etc, she is not putting it across in such a derogatory way and for every Julie Lucy and Madge Russell who doesn't work after she's married, there are some women who do to balance it out - even Joey writes. Daisy's 'helping out' at the San grates though! Smile

Blyton is worse. I never read Blyton really because I didn't find it relevant to me. My parents would let me read anything I wanted when I was younger because they were anti-censorship and oh grief, probably as cranky as Emerence's parents. I might not have read EBD if not for Harper Collins/Armada editing. I remember putting aside a Lorna Hill due to completely not being able to get into the heads of the characters.

I think the class thing has shifted so much that it's a negligable issue if children read the books today. It's all about the money you make now!

She does put forward the idea that girls can be surgeons (Dorothy Brentham is it in Tom Tackles?) and other high status careers quite early on. And most girls by the end of the series are planning careers and university so there is possibly a shift - don't know. I like the fact that the girls can decide on a career and it just seems to be theirs for the taking, that's rather wonderful.

I think Chang's points are very good, we might not notice things because EBD's throwaway comments are lost on us to an extent, but I wonder how many black women collect the EBD or Blyton's books? Does anyone know btw?

I'm glad you decided to unlock this, I think we can conduct debates in the amicable manner and if I've offended anyone, I do apologise lots... I am just offering my own ideas/opinions and do agree with Jennifer that if people have differing opinions then that doesn't make people less wonderful, tis part of life, yes. I just tend to avoid people who are so.

I hope I made some sense in this rather rambly comment... *g*

Last edited by Mia on Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
#28:  Author: Maeve, Location: Romania PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:41 pm
    —
It occurs to me that one reason why both the characters in the early CS books and the readership would not have thought of expressions like "work like a nigger" as racist is because they lived in a totally white society and never, ever, ever encountered a black person. So the expression, in a sense, had no meaning for the person using it because there was no real person to relate it to. Does that make sense? I'm not saying that this removes the hurt or insult for someone hurt or insulted by it, but I think it might help explain why EBD and her readers were okay with it because they didn't personally know anyone or have any possibility of knowing anyone who would have been hurt by it.

Which still leaves you with the question of whether or not to leave those parts of the text in because of how a young kid might read it today. I like what Katherine said
Quote:
But then kids should be getting the message that nigger is not an acceptable word in other parts of their lives and that fact that it is in that book could serve as the starting point for a discussion about how different things are viewed as acceptable at different times. I think kids need to realise that the world changes.

We can't go back and continuously edit all of world literature or all of children's literature, can we?
#29:  Author: patmac, Location: Yorkshire England PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:03 pm
    —
Maeve wrote:
We can't go back and continuously edit all of world literature or all of children's literature, can we?


I've stayed out of this conversation as it is so easy to misconstrue a post but Maeve's comment just said it for me. Do we rewrite Oliver Twist or Othello?

We need that history to know where we are coming from and what has been achieved so far. EBD expresses the language as it was expressed in her time. She could do nothing else and doesn't deserve out criticism for it.

We express it as it is in our time.

I believe (and hope) that future generations will condemn us as much as we condemn the imperialists of the 20s and 30s and even the 50s and 60s. I hope, however, that something remains to explain the context. If we completely wipe out the language of the time in which anything is written, we deprive future generations of a picture of the reality of the past.
#30:  Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:12 pm
    —
Mia wrote:
However in the 90s when they publish the holiday stories the references to golliwog hair (I should have said I don't like this because to me it implies afro hair is something to be ashamed of) and Carlotta being a nigger baby (oh how I hate that word) seem to be back.


It never occurred to me that this meant afro hair. I thought it meant hair going every which way, as the hair to any golliwog (toy) I saw did.

I have to admit the 'nigger baby' jars, although strangely the 'working like niggers' doesn't so much (maybe because the first time I read it I was probably a decade or more younger than when I read Joey goes)
#31:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:00 pm
    —
I think it's a given EBD was clearly writing for her audience at the time, ie people like her, white, middle-class, I'm not criticising her (honesty, lol) but I argue that editing is sometimes necessary and EBD's books would have benefitted from a better editing process anyway!

The whole point of the Armada reprints was to re-launch the series for people who are my age, mid-twenties, and they were successful for a time because they took out some of the unacceptable language for the time and allowed the (child) reader to identify more strongly with the characters. I wouldn't personally have identified with people who used racist terms so casually. I think that a child who was black would have been hurt to see the word 'nigger' used in this way, with no explanation of historical context (and at least Othello has footnotes!) and why upset children when there is no real need to do that?

As I am now older, I prefer to read the unabridged versions specifically to get more of the historical background, etc and can ignore the language as being in context. That's not really the point I was making.

I'm not a pro-censorship person - I never said texts should be censored, whatever they are, I just think that Harper Collins would not have been doing their jobs if they hadn't edited out the racist comments in the 1970s and 1980s and sales would have suffered.

Perhaps if EBD had written more inclusively and/or included timeless themes like Shakespeare and Dickens she might still be in print?

Actually, if you look at the cover of the 1956 reprint of New House, the terrifying Baby Voodoo actually looks like a black and white minstrel !

I'm sure if Biddy O'Ryan had been portrayed as a lazy, drunken Irish scrounger then people would have other issues - cos that was a stereotypical belief at the time too.
#32:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:12 pm
    —
Mia wrote:
I'm sure if Biddy O'Ryan had been portrayed as a lazy, drunken Irish scrounger then people would have other issues - cos that was a stereotypical belief at the time too.


That stereotype occurs a lot in Agatha Christie - basically any Irish character is a drunk (and often an IRA member) - I can't speak for everyone, naturally, but it honestly doesn't bother or hurt me personally. I roll my eyes a little and while I may be slightly offended that such an attitude existed in the first place, I don't see the point in getting upset about the fact that it is reflected in contemporaneous work. Perhaps that's just me though.
#33:  Author: Maeve, Location: Romania PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:26 pm
    —
Ditto for me, Kate.

And, in fact, isn't there some kind of class issue with Biddy because her mother was merely a lady's maid to Miss Honoria - don't have the book near me so I can't look this up - but I seem to remember some debating/condecension about Biddy's background. Maybe I misremember though.
#34:  Author: Clare, Location: Liverpool PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:59 pm
    —
seem to remember some debating/condecension about Biddy's background

The middles originally have the idea of training her to be a lady's maid for the RObin. There are comments about her eating - even though she's starving she is described as eating 'daintily' becuase her mother instilled such good manners into her (she was so impressed by Miss Honora).
#35:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:25 am
    —
That's what I was trying to say - EBD does cast aspersions on lots of social groups - not merely coloured people - and if you start editing for one, where do you stop?

(ditto to Kate)
#36:  Author: KathrynW, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:49 am
    —
Mia wrote:
I think the class thing has shifted so much that it's a negligable issue if children read the books today. It's all about the money you make now!


Interestingly, I think that class has become a much bigger issue in the last few years, at least among my group of friends. Whilst things like race, gender, sexual orientation makes absolutely no difference to of us, however hard we try, we cannot seem to ignore class and that is where the biggest arguments and problems come from. Until the last year or so, I always thought that class had shifted and didn't really matter anymore but I really don't think this is actually the case.

Sorry, that was a little OT Smile

When it comes to children reading racist language (or sexits or classist or whatever), I think I would rather that children read it and were shocked by it than it was edited out myself. As a child, I wanted to be challenged by what I read and be forced to think about it and the issues raised. I, from a very early age, actively sought out subjects and books that made me feel uncomfortable. I think, on the whole, I would rather that children be exposed to that sort of thing, even if it is upsetting - because it should be - than wrap them up in cotton wool...but then it's probably a good thing that I don't have any children Wink

Kathryn
#37:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:54 am
    —
Agree with what Kathryn's just said, especially regarding older children. We did The Merchant of Venice for GCSE, and the horrendous prejudice shown in that really made everyone think about the issues involved.
#38:  Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:10 pm
    —
I agree with the views above that views which seem shocking or offensive now are important reflections of the society in which they were written, and can be useful as a starting point for discussion (as they have in creating this thread).

I do think it is especially important for children to realise that ideas of what's acceptable change, and what kinds of language/views hurt people and why. The thing is that a lot of children's books and school material which address issues like racism can be very one-dimensional and so be uninteresting or even patronising to their intended audience. Coming across views which we now see as racist or sexist within a book where those issues aren't the main thrust could be far more useful in gettting them thinking - especially where the characters expressing those views are "good" in other ways.

I think it's also important to take account of what views were expressed in the past, and what events they may have contributed to, so that people can begin to understand what happened and why. Also, understanding that people in the early half of the 20th century happily used words like "nigger" might help people start to realise why, for example, Chris Moyles using "gay" as a derogatory term on Radio 1 triggered an inquiry.

I think it can also be constructive in a more practical way. For instance, how many modern teenage girls take any notice of issues like unequal pay, possibly being turned down for a job because "she'll only have children and leave" or being passed over for promotion? But how many would be made angry by Bill saying in Camp that a woman's main function in life is to sit at home and darn her husband's socks? That could wake them up to the issues that still remain.

So, in conclusion, I'd be against editing out the now-offensive views and comments in EBD. In the context of today's majority attitudes, I think they could be used constructively. It would be a different matter if she had written things that appeared propagandist or likely to incite hatred, which I really don't think she did.
#39:  Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:26 pm
    —
As for Enid Blyton there are golliwogs in every child's nursery and in Noddy. The more recent Noddy books have the golliwogs turned into goblins (and I think all uses of the word 'gay' are changed). I think that the golliwogs are always/often bad/naughty and thus seen as a racist slur but I never noticed that as a kid nor made the golliwog-black connection.

And Enid Blyton was terribly sexist of course. Anne of the Famous Five always playing the stereotypical female role. My mum's attitude was 'I don't mind if you read them as long as you realise it's all rubbish, which you do because of the fact that I've brought you up not to be sexist/racist and to think for yourself'.
#40:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:20 pm
    —
RroseSelavy wrote:
I agree with the views above that views which seem shocking or offensive now are important reflections of the society in which they were written


Actually - and I hope you don't mind me highlighting your quote RroseSelavy - but I don't think for me they are *important* reflections - I think they are certainly reflections but wouldn't classify them as important purely because (most) people just had a different mindset then, and multiculturalism and racism didn't exist as concepts. It just wasn't the issue it was today.

Some people were obviously ahead of their time (Jennifer's father? for example) some people weren't. It probably had a lot to do with personal circumstances, if you travelled widely or not, if you had friends from different backgrounds, where you lived, much as it is today in terms of people's views on any debatable matter.

My point was that Armada were right to edit them out in the 70s and 80s in order to promote the series to children and would have had limited success if not. She would have been as denigrated as Blyton is today, surely?

I'm not saying don't publish them unabridged now as that's clearly what the market (and me!) wants. Just that I wouldn't personally find them less representative of the period they were written in if the word nigger was changed for something else. But that's just me and I'm not a historian or an archivist or anything associated with preserving the past.

It's only a very minor part of the books anyway to be honest only, for me they go against the CS ethos of 'it's what inside that counts' and don't go with EBD who was very much ahead of her time in some ways.

This should have been a formal debate *g*
#41:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:35 pm
    —
Mia wrote:
Just that I wouldn't personally find them less representative of the period they were written in if the word nigger was changed for something else.


To clarify - is it just the actual word 'nigger' that you have a problem with? Everything else could hypothetically be left in?
#42:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:37 pm
    —
Róisín wrote:
Mia wrote:
Just that I wouldn't personally find them less representative of the period they were written in if the word nigger was changed for something else.


To clarify - is it just the actual word 'nigger' that you have a problem with? Everything else could hypothetically be left in?


No, it's the whole casual usage I think. It doesn't add any historical flavour for me.

The golliwogs stayed in throughout, didn't they? Maybe I am reading into that what children would not.
#43:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:45 pm
    —
Mia wrote:
My point was that Armada were right to edit them out in the 70s and 80s in order to promote the series to children and would have had limited success if not. She would have been as denigrated as Blyton is today, surely?


Blyton has been denigrated at least since the early '70s, and you might not have found her in some school libraries or public libraries. But that's never made any difference to her popularity with children. I once temped in the children's dept of a big London bookshop, and we sold stacks of Blyton paperbacks. She was popular with young children and unwilling readers precisely for some of things she was criticised for - simple language and storylines, lack of characterisation, prolific output. I don't know to what extent the books were edited, if at all, but I don't think it would have affected their popularity with children. Adults, of course, are a different matter.

Jay B.
#44:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:48 pm
    —
Mia wrote:
Róisín wrote:
Mia wrote:
Just that I wouldn't personally find them less representative of the period they were written in if the word nigger was changed for something else.


To clarify - is it just the actual word 'nigger' that you have a problem with? Everything else could hypothetically be left in?


No, it's the whole casual usage I think. It doesn't add any historical flavour for me.


What do you mean exactly by the whole casual usage? I hope you don't think I'm pouncing on you here but I really do want to understand where you're coming from, because I'm confused the way I am right now.

Is it only comments that are offensive to people with different skin colour? What about casual references to peasants and native Austrian/Welsh/Swiss people being clumsy, ignorant and stupid (but hard workers).

I'm just trying to define some kind of boundary here.
#45:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:57 pm
    —
Yes, but are you talking about white children or children from all ethnic backgrounds though?

All I'm saying is that if you were a publisher, would you really want to limit the audience of your product ? It would not have made sense for Armada to leave them in, given that inclusivity was a big issue at the time. I expect they took the Blyton thing into account when doing so anyway - who wants to see books banned from libraries?



On a different note...

I remember a discussion somewhere (not here) about CGGU and someone said that the most shocking thing about it was





<spoiler space>



>


>


>

>

>

>

>

>

Jo had a great grandchild that was half black.

As opposed to everything else Laughing

Last edited by Mia on Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
#46:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:01 pm
    —
Róisín wrote:
What do you mean exactly by the whole casual usage? I hope you don't think I'm pouncing on you here but I really do want to understand where you're coming from, because I'm confused the way I am right now.

Is it only comments that are offensive to people with different skin colour? What about casual references to peasants and native Austrian/Welsh/Swiss people being clumsy, ignorant and stupid (but hard workers).

I'm just trying to define some kind of boundary here.


No, no probs whatsoever, I certainly don't feel pounced on.

Let me gather my thoughts on the above (and umm actually do some of the work on my desk, oops) and come back to you *g*
#47:  Author: Ally, Location: John Bettany's Cabin! PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:28 pm
    —
Im coming in rather late to this discussion, but a comment someone made about preserving the past in relation to preserving the text has interested me.

Firstly the original text is in the original editions and whilst these are still acessible, the words used are preserved and reflect the usage of English at the time (whether we like it or not)

Which means the Armada pb's themselves are historically interesting in their own right, as they reflect a change in the 70's and 80's of people's views or correct English. They are worth preserving just as much.
#48:  Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:58 pm
    —
Mia wrote:
My point was that Armada were right to edit them out in the 70s and 80s in order to promote the series to children and would have had limited success if not.


Ally wrote:
Firstly the original text is in the original editions and whilst these are still acessible, the words used are preserved and reflect the usage of English at the time (whether we like it or not)

Which means the Armada pb's themselves are historically interesting in their own right, as they reflect a change in the 70's and 80's of people's views or correct English. They are worth preserving just as much.


Sorry, I don't think I was as clear as I wanted to be in my earlier post. I was kinda seeing this as a stark choice between leaving the disputed comments in or taking them out of all available copies. I can see that there is a case for having editions with and without contentious and possibly offensive language. And I think Ally made an interesting point about the cuts reflecting contemporary views just as much as the original writing.

However, I do think that the originals have to be available. It's *because* it's 'casual' prejudice on the behalf of people who are otherwise pretty tolerant and ahead of their time (and like to think of themselves as tolerant and multicultural and whatever) that makes it interesting. Anyone can be bigoted in some way, and you never know what that little seed of bigotry might eventually, possibly, maybe, lead them to do. When you recognise that in a character, it can be just as shocking/thought provoking as entrenched, explicit prejudice - if not more. So maybe I would want my hypothetical children to read the cut versions first, and then the uncut ones.

(This is actually reminding me of the film Crash, which deals with race issues in LA. There's a few characters in there who like to think they're oh-so-aware and enlightened yet let slip surprisingly xenophobic or racist or stereotyping views in a casual way).
#49:  Author: Hannah-Lou, Location: Glasgow PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:59 pm
    —
I think a lot of the racism flew right over my head as a child. The references to the KKK meant nothing to me; the organisation is referred to but never described in the (paperback) books. Also, it wasn't until re-reading Lavendar fairly recently that I realised that the reason they all made such a fuss of Lillamani was that she was the only non-white person at the school. I just didn't get it as a child. What I did notice, but also did not fully understand (don't know if I do now), and it still irritates me, are the class references, such as "of course" Mary-Lou couldn't go to the local school, or Gerry Challoner saying that the CS girls (or was it the Saints?) behaved like they were kids at a comprehensive school, or something along those lines (am at work, and surprisingly don't have the book to hand!). I don't think the books should be censored, you'd never be able to get rid of the sexism and keep the story of any of them, and if it's obvious that attitudes about one thing have changed, hopefully children reading the books would realise that other attitudes have changed too.

Hope that makes sense, it isn't what I meant to write at all. What I meant to say was that I believe that some of the "Golliwog" references were changed - I think I read something on the New Chalet Club about Jo's head being described as a hedgehog rather than having Golliwog's hair. I haven't checked that though, and probably don't have both copies of whatever book it was anyway (Jo Returns, I think).
#50:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:00 pm
    —
That's really interesting Ally, I hadn't thought of it like that before, but you're right.

OK I think the reason why the references to Irish/thick local peasants/etc don't irritate me so much is because EBD does temper her other stereotypes with *real* people. For every thick maid who goggles at Bill before walking away on her flat feet, there is an Anna who is clever and can make wonderful tisanes or a Megan who manages the housekeeping marvellously, etc.

Gwensi and Biddy could be described as Welsh and Irish stereotypes, but they are also nice characters, they are successful Chalet girls, the ideal. And quite frankly, as lot of their nationality and class are plot devices, especially young Biddy. If you take her out of the equation, all the Irish characters (Norah F, the O'Haras, Mollie B) are Anglo-Irish upper class and moneyed people.

With black characters, who do you have?

The randomly-grinning train porter in Summer Term
The Scotts' servant who is 'lazy' and 'idle', shirks his work and has good hearing like all Africans do Rolling Eyes
The Mau Mau!

That's how it is (partly) for me, anyway. And the saddest thing is that children *don't* read the books anymore so it's a moot point!

I have a question - would you rather the books were abridged and still in print so future generations could read them, or would you rather they were untouched and out of print?
#51:  Author: KathrynW, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:19 pm
    —
Mia wrote:
I have a question - would you rather the books were abridged and still in print so future generations could read them, or would you rather they were untouched and out of print?


I'm sure I will be in a minority but I'd rather have then untouched and out of print. Whilst I can see Ally's point of view, once a text becomes mucked about with, I think it loses authenticity and validity. And I resent being told what it is and isn't suitable for me to read (by the editors obviously Very Happy)
#52:  Author: Cazx, Location: Swansea/Bristol PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:23 pm
    —
As a child reading the racist comments in some of the books eg describing Carlotta as a Nigger Baby did really upset me, and I found myself looking at the character's who used these phrases in a different light. I would probably have prefferred it if all of the racist remarks had been edited out.

However I was also upset that people like Joey smoked, I remember thinking "But she's a doctor's wife surely she should know better!" I realise that the dangers of smoking weren't as widely known in the past but I still find it disturbing that heroines in childrens books were portrayed to be smoking.

Back on topic though I feel that it is entirely reasonable for Armada or Harper Collins (whatever they're called) to have edited out racist remarks. Society had changed and leaving remarks of a degotatory nature towards people of a different race in a childrens book would not have been very PC. The original text is still available through GGBP or HB's so therefore I don't feel that it was unreasonable for the books to have racist remarks edited out of them.

Though editing out whole chapters is another question! Wink
#53:  Author: DramaPrefect,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:27 pm
    —
Cazx wrote:

Back on topic though I feel that it is entirely reasonable for Armada or Harper Collins (whatever they're called) to have edited out racist remarks. Society had changed and leaving remarks of a degotatory nature towards people of a different race in a childrens book would not have been very PC. The original text is still available through GGBP or HB's so therefore I don't feel that it was unreasonable for the books to have racist remarks edited out of them.

Though editing out whole chapters is another question! Wink



Pretty much exactly what I think. As a kid, I didn't notice or understand the references in the books (though I mainly read PBs admittedly). The uncut versions are still gettable if you want them, but I would rather they were acceptable to kids (and their parents) of today.

That said, I don't like attempts to update or get rid of interesting little details.
#54:  Author: Ally, Location: John Bettany's Cabin! PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:33 pm
    —
KathrynW wrote:
I'm sure I will be in a minority but I'd rather have then untouched and out of print. Whilst I can see Ally's point of view, once a text becomes mucked about with, I think it loses authenticity and validity.


Oh I'd rather have them untouched too, so Im glad they are being reprinted with the original text, and to be honest their price and their market means the reprints are being read mainly by adults who can cope with the language. (which is sad inself but a different matter!)

Why we still have the originals though (ie HB's and there are plenty of people still with collections of them) there is no worry that the authenticity will be lost, as they are there to make comparsions. But yes, the pb's on their own would be a risk which is why it's handy when publishers say it's abridged, and of course the re-publishing date gives it it's own validity.

To give you a working archivey example (thought not books they are printed material and out of my remit) If I am cataloguing material where there are duplicate copies you have to be careful to make sure they are exact duplicates, as if the text differs you have to keep the alterations to show the changes.

So as long as you know it's been attacked you can find out the whole text somehow, and that won't be compromised.

*g* sorry I seem to be veering OT a little
#55:  Author: Tiffany, Location: Is this a duck I see behind me? PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:41 pm
    —
Ally wrote:
Oh I'd rather have them untouched too, so Im glad they are being reprinted with the original text, and to be honest their price and their market means the reprints are being read mainly by adults who can cope with the language. (which is sad inself but a different matter!)

Why we still have the originals though (ie HB's and there are plenty of people still with collections of them) there is no worry that the authenticity will be lost, as they are there to make comparsions. But yes, the pb's on their own would be a risk which is why it's handy when publishers say it's abridged, and of course the re-publishing date gives it it's own validity.


That's an interesting point: I suppose because the Armadas were published in my lifetime - in a culture I experienced frst-hand - they don't strike me as an interesting window on things, but of course for future generations they will be.

I think if updated versions* help bring the books to a wider audience, or encourage more people to read in the first place, that's good, but it should be made clear by the publishers that the changes have been made. I didn't know Armadas were cut for a long time, because they don't identify themselves as such. That's criminal.

*updated including not just taking out racism, but updating sland phrases, changing British money into decimal, replacing some of the food with more widely-known food, etc. I HATE it when books do this (the later editions of Jennings and of Monica Edwards spring to mind) but for today's children it's good, because the books are set in a framework that's easier for them to relate to.
#56:  Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:45 pm
    —
Cazx wrote:
However I was also upset that people like Joey smoked, I remember thinking "But she's a doctor's wife surely she should know better!" I realise that the dangers of smoking weren't as widely known in the past but I still find it disturbing that heroines in childrens books were portrayed to be smoking.


Actually, one of the things that made me the most annoyed in the CS universe was the non-stop smoking (esp. around the children) in Joey Goes!
#57:  Author: Alex, Location: Cambs, UK PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:59 pm
    —
I remember being very shocked in one book, when some of the staff are smoking in the staff room (can't remember which book) one evening, and I thought "But what about the non-smokers?"

In terms of use of "nigger", I would say that one reason for editing is that it causes a disruption - instead of reading, you stop and think ohmygodican'tbelievetheyjustsaidthat - in a similar way to spelling mistakes (in publications).

Now, obviously here I am not equating racism and bad spelling Confused , I'm just trying to use it to illustrate that it jolts the flow, so to speak. I also think that a lot of important and interesting things have been said above and raising this point doesn't mean that I think this is the most important reason for editing or not, just that it's a different one that hasn't been mentioned.
#58:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:18 pm
    —
Ally wrote:
Which means the Armada pb's themselves are historically interesting in their own right, as they reflect a change in the 70's and 80's of people's views or correct English. They are worth preserving just as much.


This is interesting, and does give some validity to preserving later, edited editions. But it will be a real and tangible problem in the future when the HBs are so scarce that readers/students/collectors will *have* to rely on the Armadas.

*takes historian hat off again* Wink
#59:  Author: patmac, Location: Yorkshire England PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:47 pm
    —
I think most of the comments about horror at the racist/sexist attitudes or smoking, are being made by people who didn't read the books as children in the 40s when I read the Tyrol books and up to the move to Oberland. (going from the 'what is your age' thread, we are rather thin on the ground) At that time, children were not at all shocked by references to niggers or to teachers did smoke - as did Doctors.

Similarly, the class issue was not one that came up - people generally knew their place up to the end of the second World War and those who wanted to improve their 'station in life' after that still had an uphill struggle for some decades.

Even in dress, it was easy to guess a man's class - bowler hat = professional or manager, trilby = office worker (except on Sundays when working men wore their best), flat cap = manual worker.

If anyone thinks they can rewrite the CS into something which will interest the majority of children today, we would need to deal with the whole ethos of a middle class, girls only boarding school which kept it's pupils segregated from b*ys and didn't allow make up or individuality in hair style or dress.

I do agree with the idea that the Armada books add some data to what was acceptable when they were published - I hadn't thought of that before.

What else would have to be changed to make them acceptable today and would the books be recognisable?
#60:  Author: KathrynW, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:30 pm
    —
patmac wrote:

If anyone thinks they can rewrite the CS into something which will interest the majority of children today, we would need to deal with the whole ethos of a middle class, girls only boarding school which kept it's pupils segregated from b*ys and didn't allow make up or individuality in hair style or dress.


I wonder how widespread the CS will be in the next few decades. It may well be that in 50 or 60 years there are only a few of us elderly people around who love them but for the most part, they will have died a death, at least as popular (or even unpopular) children's literature because they just aren't that relevant anymore. It would be sad but I can well imagine it happening.
#61:  Author: JoS, Location: South Africa PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:15 pm
    —
And yet there are people on this site in their early teens - that bodes well.
Although I know very few people who have actually read or do, in fact, read EBD.
This is very interesting thread and your comments have been most insightful - thanks.
To get back to an early point, golliwog is most certainly offensive - wog being a more offensive espression than nigger.
#62:  Author: Charity,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:34 pm
    —
Lesley wrote:
Thanks Chang, appreciate your input, and everyone else for their views.

I think perhaps, we should leave this thread now. I will ask one of the Mods for here to lock the thread.

Lesley



ETA
Just to let everyone know - the thread was locked because I had, mistakenly, thought the person responsible for starting the thread had requested it and I thought they might have that preogative. In fact it wasn't the case and I made a huge error - very sorry about that Embarassed Probably just as well that all the Mods are changing soon as I obviously had a senior moment there! Rolling Eyes


Phew, I thought I'd inadvertantly done something wrong by starting the thread and decided not to post again for a bit. Sorry if I did offend anyone.
#63:  Author: Pat, Location: Doncaster PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:52 pm
    —
JoS wrote:
And yet there are people on this site in their early teens - that bodes well.
Although I know very few people who have actually read or do, in fact, read EBD.
This is very interesting thread and your comments have been most insightful - thanks.
To get back to an early point, golliwog is most certainly offensive - wog being a more offensive espression than nigger.


I do understand that golliwog is offensive, but I had one when I was a kid, and it was a well loved toy for me, and had no racial overtones at all then. I never ever linked the toy with real people.
#64:  Author: JoS, Location: South Africa PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:05 pm
    —
I'm with you there Pat - the golliwog is generally perceived as a lovable, but mischievous toy. My son has a golly, whom he adores. I think the reason though is because at the local Christmas party, put on by Rotary, the golliwog always steals the chips and is put into jail by Mr Plod, after being chased and mauled by the boys. Poor Golly!
#65:  Author: Pat, Location: Doncaster PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:08 pm
    —
But at least he is smartly dressed - or he always used to be. Nice tailed coat and bow tie.
#66:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:19 pm
    —
And there was the Robertson's Golly - you collected labels from jars of Robertson's jam and marmalade to get a golly brooch.

Jay B.
#67:  Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:21 am
    —
JoS wrote:
To get back to an early point, golliwog is most certainly offensive - wog being a more offensive espression than nigger.


But not at the time that EBD wrote it - from what I can see, it seems that it only came into common use in a derogatory way after WWII. Before that, and probably EBD's only experience of it when she wrote the earlier books at least, it referred to the toy, which most children would have encountered/owned, and she would have used it quite innocently.

So while some people might find the term offensive today, is it a case of language and its use changing - just as she used the word 'gay', for example, in a completely different way to how it would usually be interpreted today?
#68:  Author: Hannah-Lou, Location: Glasgow PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:49 am
    —
I think it's a totally different issue about getting rid of words like gay and words like nigger. Gay has a totally new meaning now, and neither meaning is offensive (except when it's specifically used as an insult now). You can't cancel words altogether just because they've acquired a new meaning. The old meaning is still valid, especially in context, and it does no good to pretend that the word didn't used to mean something else. Nigger, on the other hand, has always had the same meaning, although the derogatory-ness of it may have altered, so it might be acceptable to change it (though I think I still vote for no changes to the original text).
#69:  Author: Aparna, Location: India PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:36 pm
    —
But the question is does the children or the intended readership ever take these things as derogatory or as racist and more importantly will they be affected negatively by this.
I didn't know what a gollywog was till i came up on this thread. till then i always thought it was some kind of animal with hair standing on end.
nigger.. i had a small idea.. (but having read only paper backs i haven't come up on any references to nigger.) By a small idea mean i knew a nigger meant a black, but i never knew it was derogatory. i thought it was just like calling an Indian an Indian or an asian an asian.
i suppose this can just mean that i have been particularly ignorant Embarassed But it can also mean that many kids won't even find those things derogatory or racist.
Adults are a different matter.

What shocked me were the continued references of smoking. I was shocked the first time I read Miss Annersley and Miss wilson smoked. Especially since I had never seen women smoke till last year or two and always had this idea that the people who smoked are not good and Certainly it is non healthy. and since smoking is still an issue of the present with children able to understand and relate, i think the idea of teh protagonist's smoking, seems to me more appalling...

But isn't it a great idea if the publishers both versions so that we have references. and compulsorily mention in the books when they are abridged.
#70:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:08 pm
    —
Aparna wrote:
What shocked me were the continued references of smoking. I was shocked the first time I read Miss Annersley and Miss wilson smoked. Especially since I had never seen women smoke till last year or two and always had this idea that the people who smoked are not good and Certainly it is non healthy.


But it wasn't known that smoking was unhealthy in EBD's lifetime. King George VI, died 1952, was a heavy smoker, and died of lung cancer.

Up to WWI in Britain a young woman who smoked might be seen as 'fast', but I think that idea had generally died out by the 1930s. References to women smoking, and in girls' fiction discussion of the right age to start, are quite common in novels of the 1930s. I think the very fact that EBD has people like Miss Annersley and Miss Wilson smoking shows that she didn't think there was anything wrong with it.

I think present day children are mostly so aware of the dangers of smoking that reading about Joey smoking isn't going to make them start smoking if they wouldn't have otherwise.

Jay B.
#71:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:52 pm
    —
Aparna wrote:
B
nigger.. i had a small idea.. (but having read only paper backs i haven't come up on any references to nigger.) By a small idea mean i knew a nigger meant a black, but i never knew it was derogatory. i thought it was just like calling an Indian an Indian or an asian an asian.

...

What shocked me were the continued references of smoking.



I think there are definitely cultural differences - if you've grown up in a society where the word isn't used, then you don't pick up the interpretation. In North America, for example, at the current time, the word nigger is one you would never, ever use in conversation. In fact, just typing it will make me feel slightly dirty. I know that there are terms used in other cultures the context of which I don't understand - one of the reasons I've never been interested in learning how to swear in other languages, because I don't understand the level of offensiveness of what I'm saying.

In Rivals, the references to the KKK shocks me - it would be like a bunch of kids deciding to imitate the Gestapo in a feud with other kids. The smoking I find unusual by modern standards, but in those days the health risks weren't understood.

I've run into more innocuous, and occasionally very amusing, instances with language involving the differences between British and North American vocabulary, going in both directions, which would have one person looking puzzled as everyone else fell over laughing.
#72:  Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:55 pm
    —
This is a difficult one.

I have to agree that it's largely a matter of different perceptions over time and space. Each society, and even each person, will attribute different flavors to words. In the U.S., I'm quite certain that the n-word (see how I can't actually write it out) was considered inappropriate language as early as the thirties. Not that it wasn't used – but its use was considered racist, uncouth, or both, depending on the audience. However, I can't conclude that the same attitude would have been current in EBD's circle, and stock phrases containing the word would surely have been the last to go. As has been pointed out several times, the connotation of words does change over time. For example, there was a time when using the word "black" for a person would have been considered offensive here, compared to "colored" – the latter now long out of favor, except in the acronym NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded 1910).

So, yes, when I read the books, I did find the word jarring, but accepted its usage as fairly innocent. Golliwog didn't bother me because it had no connotation at all. I assumed it was a kind of furry toy until this discussion came up! The only thing that really shocked me was the spin on the KKK. I couldn't believe something so horrifying would be discussed so innocently. I'm sure EBD didn't mean to evoke the images of lynchings and cross-burnings these initials call up for me, and could only conclude that she didn't do her homework, even if it was only to reread Elsie. I think it likely that she was writing from the selective memory of childhood. For example, one book that is now held up as an emblem of racism here is called 'Little Black Sambo.' I know I read it, but absolutely the only thing I remember is that the hero chased a tiger in circles until it turned into butter. There must be more for it to have such a reputation – I'm actually rather curious as to what, but doubt I'll ever come across a copy.

I'm also curious about Chang's observations on EBD's use of Jew and Jewess, as I hadn't picked up on anti-Semitism (unless you count what underlies the assumption that everyone will go to Catholic or C of E prayers/services). Most of the references I remember have to do with the fate of the Goldmans in Exile, or are literary references. The one place that did irritate was Joey's question about Naomi, though I assume it was just another avenue for EBD to indulge her interest in names. It's also true that the word 'Jewess' (Is it used more than in that incident?) jars for me, but mostly in the way that 'authoress' does.

In terms of the books themselves, I'm strongly in favor of keeping authentic reprints available. However, I see nothing wrong with having (clearly labeled!) versions with minor editing. Among other things, use of the n-word would be enough to have the books pulled from school and public libraries here (had they been there to start with). As someone mentioned earlier concerning Huckleberry Finn, there's been controversy even when opposition to racist attitudes was a clear objective of the (long dead and 'classic') author.
#73:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:20 pm
    —
Kathy_S wrote:
I'm also curious about Chang's observations on EBD's use of Jew and Jewess, as I hadn't picked up on anti-Semitism (unless you count what underlies the assumption that everyone will go to Catholic or C of E prayers/services). Most of the references I remember have to do with the fate of the Goldmans in Exile, or are literary references.


I don't recall any instances of apparent anti-Semitism on EBD's part. It may be that it's too long since I read some of the books, or perhaps only read paperback editions, so I'd be interested if anyone could point to examples.

The only instance of anything of the sort I do remember is from Exile, when they're discussing moving the School to Guernsey:
Quote:
‘I come,’ said Herr Anserl abruptly. ‘I love my country, but I will not stay to see her disgraced by secret imprisonments, maltreating of Jews — though I have no real love of Jews, they have the right to live and prosper with any of us — and concentration camps. If I must escape I must escape. That is all of it.

However, that is Herr Anserl's opinion, not EBD's. I think it's good writing on EBD's part in that it makes Herr Anserl a more three dimensional character, it's probably a fair reflection of the range of opinions that existed at the time, and it shows, as someone above said, that characters aren't always wholly good or wholly bad - which is pretty much what it's like in RL. It's much better and more adult writing than just portraying everyone and everything as being completely good or completely bad.

Jay B.
#74:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:56 pm
    —
The way she put some things does sound offensive by today's standards, e.g. referring to Herr Goldmann as "the old Jew" rather than something like "the elderly Jewish man". However, I don't think it would have sounded as inappropriate at the time as it does now - the main Jewish school here (Manchester) had the official name of "The Jews' School" until well after the Second World War.

Changing the subject slightly, the way that everyone just referred to Lilamani by her first name because they thought that her Kashmiri surname was too difficult to pronounce seemed incredibly rude to me.

I always get the impression that EBD had hardly ever met anyone who wasn't white and either Protestant or Catholic, which I suppose wasn't unusual for someone at that time who had never lived in e.g. a big city. It would've been interesting to see someone from a different racial/religious background at the School - other than Lilamani whose background isn't really discussed much. Maybe someone who had a parent at the San who wanted their daughter nearby and therefore sent them to the CS despite its emphasis on churchgoing etc? Sorry for getting slightly off the point! Will stop waffling now!
#75:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:13 pm
    —
This is O/T but I never really felt that Lilamani was *different* in many ways. I don't know whether this is because she was so included in everything, or because of me. Confused
#76:  Author: macyrose, Location: Great White North (Canada) PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:02 pm
    —
This part of a conversation between Jo and Miss Annersley was edited out of the paperback editions of Trials:

Quote:

“You’re incorrigible!” Miss Annersley cried. “Anyhow, this isn’t getting us any further with Naomi—”
“Yes, I was going to ask you about that. She isn’t a Jewess, is she?”
“Not that I know of. ‘Naomi’ isn’t restricted to Jews, you know. I was at school with twins called Ruth and Naomi,” Miss Annersley said reminiscently. “Dear me! I haven’t thought of those two for years. Their father was a country Rector and all five of the family had Biblical names. Esther was the eldest and the two boys were Adam and Luke. The twins were in my—”
“You stop reminiscing and attend to business,” her co-Head interrupted her. “Are we going to speak to Mary-Lou or not?”


If Jo had simply asked "Is Naomi Jewish?" it would have sounded like she was merely curious but the way she phrases it as a negative "She isn't a Jewess, is she?" (plus using the word Jewess which is not pc nowadays) makes me feel that if she had been she might not have been welcome at the Chalet School. Being Jewish, this bit jumped right out at me (as did Herr Anserl's comment in the hardback of Exile). I guess growing up as part of a minority group has made me very sensitive to possible slights and having had a racist word once directed at me has made me very aware of the hurt such language can cause, even if it was written when it was "the norm" at the time.
#77:  Author: Polly, Location: Essex PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:07 pm
    —
Just a quick note.... it is the 'wog' part of golliwog that people object to, hence they are still around and are called gollies instead, and not confined to history. I remember my mum having to explain this to me when I was younger as I couldn;t understand why people saw cuddly toys as racist.

I also agree that it is the enormous amount of smoking that goes on (even the Maynard triplets talk about it, I think) in the books, rather than anything else, but until recently, I had only read the edited versions. Very Happy
#78:  Author: Tara, Location: Malvern, Worcestershire PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:58 pm
    —
Such a lot has changed in a relatively short time. I'm not 60 yet, but the attitudes to both smoking and what we now perceive as racist language have totally altered in my lifetime.

I was in my first year of teaching when the first really incontrovertible evidence of the health risks of smoking were published. Before then it was considered perfectly safe, perfectly normal, rather smart and sophisticated in fact. I never did it, partly 'cos I was brought up in a strict Non-Conformist environment where it was definitely a tool of the devil - but then, most enjoyable things were! I understand that it must sound really weird to younger people, but it just wouldn't have been an issue for EBD, it wouldn't have occurred to her. She'd never have used it if she'd even imagined what we know now, and can you see Miss Annersley, of all people, setting pupils or readers a bad example?

The langauage is a (very real) problem, of course, because of EBD's phenomenally long writing life. There aren't many other children's writers of her era who are still being published and read. Let me be clear that I abhor, and would never think of using or condoning the use of racist language (or sexist, or ablist or homophobic or any other 'ist') language, and consistently challenged it both at school and at church. But acceptable language changes with culture, and EBD's use of terms which make us wince does not imply that her attitudes were anything other than very liberal and inclusive for her time. When I think of the vocabulary my father, who was the pastor of a church and an immensely compassionate and intelligent man, used to use about people of other races, I cringe. OK, we now know better - that doesn't necessarily mean we are better.

The problem, as has been said often on this thread, is whether to 'cleanse' the texts, as they are still being presented to young people. I feel very ambivalent about this, as I, too, care about the historicity of the text. Someone suggested keeping the hbs as they are and changing the pbs, which seemed to me quite a reasonable compromise. I wouldn't want to read a bowdlerised edition, and would be furious if I were prevented from accessing the original, but I do sympathise with the point of view that doesn't want it offered to modern children. What do the really young members of the board think??

BTW, someone mentioned Little Black Sambo. My rather hazy recollection is that he somehow got washed white and lived happily ever after!!! I don't think I could live with that, so I'm not terribly consistent either!
#79:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:13 am
    —
I found Little Black Sambo online here -
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/sambo.htm
Nothing about him being washed white, so maybe that was in another book.

Jay B.
#80:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:28 am
    —
Hmm. Is that the full story? It's not at all PC and I doubt I'd ever read it to my children or anything, but I can't really see why it has such a terrible reputation as the most racist story ever... (Bob Dixon absolutely slates it in his book Catching Them Young). I've read a lot worse.
#81:  Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:40 am
    —
I think one of Heinrich Hoffman's short stories that was published in the same collection as Struwwelpeter involved a black boy being washed white. Could it have been that one? The title was, most cringingly, "The little black-a-moor." Now that was definitely a story I thought was offensive today in its language and illustrations, even given the fact it was written in the 1917 or thereabouts. Personally that's an example of a story I'd only want children to see in the context of "isn't it shocking what some people think and what was acceptable ninety years ago?" and not something casually available as a modern children's book.
#82:  Author: Karry, Location: Stoke on Trent PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:45 am
    —
Kathy_S wrote
Quote:
For example, one book that is now held up as an emblem of racism here is called 'Little Black Sambo


I was surpirised this morning when I looked at a present my grandson hadd been given, a set of three CDs with stories and nursery rhymes, and one of the stories WAS Little Black Sambo! I havent had chance yet to listen to it, but I will have to do that before letting him! The CDs were produced in 2004.
#83:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:05 am
    —
Sorry for sounding thick here but with the terms nigress and jewess: is it the 'ess' at the end of the word, or the word itself, that causes most offense? Or does having the 'ess' at the end somehow change the word in ways other than just making it female?

Not putting forth an opinion here -I'm genuinely confused (what's new) Laughing
#84:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:17 am
    —
Róisín wrote:
Sorry for sounding thick here but with the terms nigress and jewess: is it the 'ess' at the end of the word, or the word itself, that causes most offense? Or does having the 'ess' at the end somehow change the word in ways other than just making it female?

Not putting forth an opinion here -I'm genuinely confused (what's new) Laughing


I don't think the feminisation is relevant tbh, for me it is simply that the communities in question prefer to be referred to by certain terms, ie black and not coloured/nigger/wog, whether people use them innocently or not. As they have campaigned for decades to win this right, I think we have to respect it, not that I'm saying anyone here does not.

Adding the -ess to the word does change it slightly, that's a whole new argument... some feminists of the 70s would argue that use of the word doctoress to differentiate is pejorative because it implies that a woman could not be equal to a man, I suppose.

Last edited by Mia on Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total
#85:  Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:22 am
    —
There is a story by Enid Blyton (who else?) called The Little Black Doll - or some such - about an unhappy doll who runs away from the nursery and gets washed white in the rain. Appalling. Also, surprisingly for Antonia Forest, in The Ready-Made Family, Chas calls his puppy Little Black Sambo - LBS for short.
#86:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:25 am
    —
For some other people, the 'ess' bit on the end *does* seem to add something. I don't know what the something is though, so that's why I posted the question.

The people who mentioned these words were MacyRose, KathyS, Chang etc.

ETA: sorry, this was in reply to Mia's last post. That might not be clear. Smile
#87:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:31 am
    —
Sorry, I was diving in and answering for myself there... the last para of my previous post is why I personally roll my eyes a weeny bit at the -ess being added, but then we *know* EBD didn't consider herself a feminist in that way.
#88:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:33 am
    —
Mia wrote:
Sorry, I was diving in and answering for myself there... the last para of my previous post is why I personally roll my eyes a weeny bit at the -ess being added, but then we *know* EBD didn't consider herself a feminist in that way.


Sorry hon I miss your editing.
#89:  Author: Chelsea, Location: Your Imagination PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:59 pm
    —
Kate wrote:
Hmm. Is that the full story? It's not at all PC and I doubt I'd ever read it to my children or anything, but I can't really see why it has such a terrible reputation as the most racist story ever... (Bob Dixon absolutely slates it in his book Catching Them Young). I've read a lot worse.


That is the whole story. I remember seeing the book when I was little(it belonged to my grandfather). Until I read it again (after the censoring) all I remembered was the tigers turning to butter.
#90:  Author: Aparna, Location: India PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:06 am
    —
Coming back to Lilamani,
Sorry if this is out of context.

I was very much surprised when this character was introduced into the book. There are so many strange points regarding that.
First of all the very incident of her coming to the school. I suppose the book was set in the 40's? That was the time when the struggle for independence was going on in full swing in India, and as every community which turns to it's traditions when threatened, the Indians were also very much for their own country and culture. It seems strange that Lilamani was allowed to come to school at all. Even if her parents were there for her mother's treatment, she could've been tutored at home rather than sent to school.

Ok. May be her father was very forward in his thinking or cared only for his wife then, and sent her to school. But even so, what about her religion? I know Hindus these days have nothing against their children going to church and getting to know about other religions, but at the time it would've been different. It's difficult to think that her parents didn't think of this either. Religion played such a major role in the India of the 40's (unfortunately when you think of some events it lead to)

Even this can be ignored that if the family was very open minded. But the thing that cannot be ignored is the diet in the school. It should have been a high percentage meat diet. And the higher classes (castes rather, whethere they economically rich or not) were mostly vegetarians. Even if they were among non vegetarians, they would still not eat anything that contained beef. For cows (and any relative thereof) are sacred to us Hindus. Most non-vegetarian Hindus don't eat beef even now. In fact eating beef is considered with horror. I can't imagine how Lilamani, and the school could've managed. I mean, even if she was allowed to attend one of the services, prayers, her parents would never have been reconciled to the diet part. That was one of the most important part.

The school must have been a very radical change to Lilamani. There are so many things, other than the religion part which are different in the western culture. None of these was taken into account or we could've I suppose had a seperate book. It would've been interesting to know how she managed.

I do love the chalet books, but I was disappointed when Lilamani's theme was not given a different treatment.

But may be EBD knew very less about India? I think in Richenda, Jo mentions having picked up Hindustani (which is Hindi i assume). But that couldn't be possible of Jo's brother was in Koorg, since, the language spoken there is not Hindi. It's kannada I think, but cannot be sure.
#91:  Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:06 pm
    —
Lilamani is really interesting - or she could have been if EBD had made her more of a rounded character. The diet issue had occurred to me too, and also the possibility that she could have been either Hindu or Muslim, coming from Kashmir. (Or were the borders and ethnic mix different then?) Might she even have been a Christian? I know there's a Christian Church in India now, but was there then? Too many questions with potentially fascinating consequences... maybe a drabble is required - Aparna? Wink
#92:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:10 pm
    —
Kashmir is, AFAN, predominantly Muslim, but most of it ended up in India at the time of partition - 1947 so a few years after Lavender - which I think was largely because the local ruler was a Hindu.

IIRC it says in the hb of Lavender, in the context of Stephen's christening, that Lilamani was Anglican. I appreciate that there are Anglicans in Kashmir, but it always annoys me the way EBD just has to make everyone either Catholic or Protestant.

Will now shut up before I get on to my pet topic of how Elisaveta should have been Orthodox rather than Catholic!
#93:  Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:33 pm
    —
I've always suspected that Lilamani and Emerence Hope were nods to the wider British Empire, particularly as EBD would have been likely to be getting letters from readers outside of just England by that point in the series.

As for the diet issue (since the religious one isn't so easily dealt with), meat was a relative rarity during the war in England, so the food would have contained for more vegetable dishes than either before or after the war.
#94:  Author: Aparna, Location: India PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:35 pm
    —
[quote="Alison H"]

IIRC it says in the hb of Lavender, in the context of Stephen's christening, that Lilamani was Anglican. I appreciate that there are Anglicans in Kashmir, but it always annoys me the way EBD just has to make everyone either Catholic or Protestant.

quote]

Is it? I had read only the paper back and didn't know.. From the name, which is Hindu i assumed she must be a hindu. Confused
Yes Kashmir is predominantly Muslim and joined India because the King was Hindu. (there were Hindus there though) I think the King didn't want to join anybody at first. And hence created all the confusion... Rolling Eyes
Won't do to go into politics here.
Strange that a girl from Kashmir had to be Christian and not a Hindu or a Muslim.


drabble?
*ponders*
Don't think I am up to it !! Embarassed
#95:  Author: Hannah-Lou, Location: Glasgow PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:44 pm
    —
But wouldn't there be missionaries in India and Kashmir converting people left right and centre (or trying to)? I always thought Lillamani was Christian, and I don't think I'd have just made that up, so I wonder if it does say something in the PB. Must check...
#96:  Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:51 pm
    —
Now a Hindu at the CS would be really interesting, because I can see there would be areas where she and the other girls would see parallels, and areas where they would completely not understand one another. Whereas if she were a Muslim, I think that attitudes at the time would have made for a lot more out-and-out confrontation, going by other contemporary books I've read (even though the two religions are much more similar).
#97:  Author: patmac, Location: Yorkshire England PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:08 pm
    —
There were, and still are, Christians in Kashmir. A girl in my form at school came from Kashmir (in the 50s). Her parents decided to send her to a Roman Catholic Convent in England so that she would be away from the problems - both religious and political. Her Christian baptismal name was Mary and the nuns called her that but she preferred Meera (not sure of the spelling).

I always just assumed that Lilamani was Christian.
#98:  Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:14 pm
    —
It's not just the CS series that used what we would now consider to be racist and offensive terms.

In the 'Little House' series, Ma is vehemently anti-Indian, and tries to bring up her daughters to be the same.

What shocked me the most was one of the Literary society's evenings in 'Little Town' when Pa and four others blacked their faces and came in singing ' .........Mulligan Guards,
These darkies can't be beat.'

I've just re-read 'Little Town' and found that verse really offensive, but I also realised that in terms of when it was written, it was a perfectly acceptable use of language.

Certainly, when it is compared with what Mildred Taylor wrote about the language used to the black community in the deep South of America, it all seems very mild.
#99:  Author: Pat, Location: Doncaster PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:49 pm
    —
My Mum hasn't a racist bone in her body. She loves the various carers she has had who are black, and often find them far more caring than their white counterparts. But until very very recently she still referred to them as darkies! She had no idea how it sounded, and we couldn't seem to break her of the habit. She's 93 so comes of a different era. She understood what we meant when we said she couldn't use that word, but in an academic sense I think, and didn't seem to be able to connect the word with giving offense and upsetting people. And she would have been highly indignant if anyone had accused her of being racist, even though that is how she sounded. She also referred to someone as a Jew-boy - again a relic of a past age. She was referring to someone very high up in government at the time too! Rolling Eyes

What I'm trying to say is that old people can use terms that are very offensive nowadays without meaning to be racist or to give offence. They are stuck in a time warp, and if like Mum they've had a stroke or two, it's that much harder to change them! Mum' s left her with dysphasia, which scrambles up her words, so who can blame her for using familiar ones? It's the nouns that she has problems with, and often comes out with completely the wrong word - awful when she means the opposite for instance. And she can never remember people's names and uses the wrong one - which makes her sound confused about who she is talking to. She isn't, its just that ther connections between brain and voice are a bit wobbly!!!
#100:  Author: Laura V, Location: Merseyside, UK PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:39 pm
    —
Aparna wrote

Quote:
but it always annoys me the way EBD just has to make everyone either Catholic or Protestant.


I quite agree! Why were there no Jewish girls at the Chalet School or in the local (Tirol) area? Were Jews educated seperately in Jewish schools?
And there were no Presbytarians, Methodists or Othodox (*agrees with Alison too!*) girls?
#101:  Author: Lottie, Location: Humphrey's Corner PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:41 pm
    —
Laura V wrote:
Why were there no Jewish girls at the Chalet School?


At our school Jews were excused the religious part of Assembly (they came in afterwards for the notices), and the New Testament lessons, when they were supposed to work in the library on stuff they brought in from the Rabbi. There is no evidence that the Chalet School made any similar provisions, so I imagine most Jewish parents would not have wanted their daughters indoctrinated with Christianity.
#102:  Author: Nicci, Location: UK PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:02 am
    —
I think that you can't deny the existence of something just because you dislike it.
If we remove all the blackspots of history, we're twice as likely to make the same mistakes again.

As a child reading the hardbacks, I was occasionally shocked at some of the racist references but they certainly never influenced me to adopt similar language or attitudes. To be perfectly frank, I think there are much more dangerous sources of media today that might influence people towards racism, and as someone else said, being aware of our history of racism is important for promoting discusion and awareness.


I believe that EBD *did* use these terms in a racist way, mainly because racism was still pretty rife during that period. She would not have been brought up to hold the more liberal attitudes that children today hopefully are. This is not her fault, we can not accuse her of anything but thoughtlessness in her racist attitudes, but I think it's important to note that there are fewer stark racist-style references as the books go on, presumably demonstrating the cultural changes in society towards other races.


I've never really experienced racism towards myself so I can't know how it really feels to read these racist references, but I don't see how editing them out is really going to make anyone feel better about the situation.


ETA: When I first wrote this reply, I had only read the first page or so of posts because that was all that showed up *pokes computer* so actually there are a lot of points that I would have liked to discuss, particularly Ally's which I agree with, and the various types of stereotyping etc that arise in the books alongside the racist comments.

Comment to Alison about the non-use of L's last name. There's actually a cognitive psychological reason for this because we develop schema's for language from what we have previous experience of. So having probably never met a person with a non-European based name, they would have had unbelievable psychological difficulty in remembering and pronouncing the name, however much they tried. It would only be when they came across a greator number of similar based names that they would begin developing a schema for it.
I also know this from experience. Until the age of about 11 I only knew one non-white person, a girl in my primary school a few years below me. Then at secondary school there were perhaps 5 black students and 5 Asian students. I continue to have enormous problems with any name that isn't fairly standard English or Scots. I find it immensely embarrassing at times because I have to keep asking over and over again and more often than not, I simply don't remember. It might look like rudeness to some people I suppose, and it does worry me, but I have simply no cultural experience to fall back upon.
#103:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:33 am
    —
Nicci wrote:
ents.

Comment to Alison about the non-use of L's last name. There's actually a cognitive psychological reason for this because we develop schema's for language from what we have previous experience of. So having probably never met a person with a non-European based name, they would have had unbelievable psychological difficulty in remembering and pronouncing the name, however much they tried. It would only be when they came across a greator number of similar based names that they would begin developing a schema for it.


I definitely have this problem! If I recognise a name (have read it, heard it, know somebody by the same name) I have a better time remembering it. (Still not easy - I have a horrible time with names in general). Names in a different language are more difficult - in some cases it's difficult to even pronounce them. Chinese names give me particular difficulty because they almost all two syllable names (with a one syllable last name), often sound very similar to my ears, and have tones attached.

Indian names I find I can remember more easily when I see them written down in English, and sound out the name syllable by syllable - when they are spoken the longer names go by so fast it's hard to pin them down.
#104:  Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:18 pm
    —
I definitely agree about the pronunciation of surnames. When I was at school, we had various Polish girls and no-one ever mentioned their surnames. Their first names were easier to remember. As a teacher, though you have simply to make the effort, by repeating the name several times until the child tells you that you have got it right. It also makes it easier if you write the name down for yourself phonetically to remind you.
#105:  Author: Richenda,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:39 pm
    —
Have come to this late after a couple of weeks away from the cbb, but there was an interesting article in the Sunday Times yesterday about Enid Blyton books being rewritten to make them more acceptable to younger readers, e.g Dick being renamed Rick, Fanny becoming Fran etc.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2242179.html

It sits uncomfortably with me - on the one hand I can see the appeal in bringing the books to a wider audience, but on the other I see it as a denial of our past. Like it or not, the society we are today is due to what we were yesterday. In fact, I think that it makes a good discussion point with children in how times change - language, phrases etc

Agatha Christie is notoriously anti-semitic and xenophobic - however to re-edit her work would be to pretend that that WASN'T the norm in the 30s. Rewriting history makes me very uncomfortable.

In 50 years time, I can imagine our descendants being mortified that we refer to people as 'gay' or 'Asian' or giving social/religious/cultural groups ANY kind of labelling. To pretend that we never did so would be false I think. [/url]
#106:  Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:51 pm
    —
I read the article and at the end the publisher defends themseleves saying the changes were minor such as changing the currency to decimal. The stories are set in the 50s! There was no decimal currency.

It drives me mad when they try to update the money as I immediately go to the book to see when it was written and assume that the money is in the prices of those days. If a book was written in 1950 but my edition published in 1970 and I'm reading it in 2006, I don't know if they are referring to 1950 or 1970 prices and have no idea what's going on. If I was writing a book set in the 50s I would be critisised (and rightly so) if I had people using decimal currency.

And it's no good saying they weren't set in the 50s. It's pretty hard not to set a book in a particular time, even if not deliberately. Or are you going to rewrite them properly with ipods, SATs, Harry Potter and Crack?

Will stop ranting now.
#107:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:58 pm
    —
Thinking about it, changing random words to avoid offense actually helps hide the racist attitutes.

The blatant things - derogatory comments, racist words, and so on, are relatively easy to spot and to change. However, the underlying attitudes behind it often can't be changed as they are woven through the story and are deeply imbedded in the prejudices and attitudes of the writer.

For example, in EBDs writing there is in implicit assumption that peasants are generally clumsy, slow witted, superstitious and reward any amount of kind treatment with doglike devotion. Removing this from the text would involve deleting about two thirds of the text that mentions the household staff or the local farmers and herders.

Children's books from 100 years ago (and a lot more recently) will often refer to anybody who isn't white and Christian as savages and heathens. Those words can be changed, but the attitute that people of non European descent were culturally, morally and socially inferior and needed to be converted to Western values permeate the broader references.

So I'd say the choices are to leave things as they are, interpreting things from a modern viewpoint as you read, or, if something is so far from modern values that it is acutely offensive to read, then not reading it for pleasure and keeping it purely for academic study.
#108:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:59 pm
    —
*g* Every time they relaunch Blyton books The Times prints the same article!
#109:  Author: patmac, Location: Yorkshire England PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:09 pm
    —
Quote:
“In The Adventurous Four, the characters’ names are changed from Mary and Jill to Zoe and Pippa, supposedly to bring it up to date.


So the publishers are changing the names to more popular ones - of the moment!

Names go in and out of fashion too fast to keep up with that sort of thing!

*Feeling a bit Victor Meldrewish*
#110:  Author: tiffinata, Location: melbourne, australia PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:40 pm
    —
Interesting discussion.

By leaving the racest/sexist/offensive bits of the text in books it can lead to quite an educational discussion. (like we are having here)

By leaving the obvious stuff in the books we can teach our kids that 'that was then, this is now' and why we do not encourage these kind of behaviours today.
If we forbid and thump our bibles about it some kids will grab the offending words just to push the boundaries.
Others will have no experience that these attitudes exist and may find themselves in potentially dangerous situations later.

Better to have the words there and obvious to raise the discussion than remove them and keep the insidious nature of the attitude. Of course it depends on how the discussion is handled!


The discussion can then lead onto examples of history where various attitudes have lead to serious conflicts and other nasty stuff. Cause and effect! Good examples are snippets from WW2 and the cultural insensitivity of the British in India when they used pig grease on the rifle cartridges and gave them to the Muslim Gurkha members of the army. You wouldn't do that now unless you intended to be offensive!

And it is good to have a benchmark to come back to and say 'my, how attitudes have changed'



Enid Blyton will still be popular, no matter how many times the names in the books are altered.
#111:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:56 am
    —
Read that article and it was fascinating, thanks for the link Richenda. I giggled at the bits that appealed to my more childish side (Dick to Rick Rolling Eyes) but I do agree with EB's biographer in the end.
#112:  Author: Loryat,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:18 pm
    —
Laura V wrote:
Aparna wrote
Why were there no Jewish girls at the Chalet School or in the local (Tirol) area?

Faith and Christianity are presented as being really important aspects of the CS, so I suppose parents wouldn't want to send their daughters to a school that was so out and out Christian.

I don't think EBD can be described as an anti-Semitic though. Herr Laubach might have 'no love for Jews' but the scene with the old jeweller (Herr Goldmann?) I think shows that EBD feels differently. Herr Goldmann is presented as a kindly and charitable human being, which is in direct contrast with the money loving negative stereotypes around at the time. And this was before the Nazis' treatment of Jews was really a big issue in Britain as well.

Was Lilamani a Christian?
#113:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:43 pm
    —
Quote:
Why were there no Jewish girls at the Chalet School or in the local (Tirol) area?

Faith and Christianity are presented as being really important aspects of the CS, so I suppose parents wouldn't want to send their daughters to a school that was so out and out Christian.

It may also be that EBD didn't feel competent to write about the Jewish faith, since it was outside her own experience.
Quote:
Was Lilamani a Christian?

Yes, she was. Again, it may be that EBD didn't feel able to write convincingly about any other faith. Also, if Lilamani had not been a Christian, EBD would have had to address it in the book, and either she or her publishers might have felt that it would have diverted too much attention from Lavender, whose book it was.

Jay B.
#114:  Author: Loryat,  PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:27 pm
    —
You know, while I am frequently annoyed by the attitudes displayed in CS books and others of the period as regards class sex and race, sometimes they surprise you with their enlightened atitudes. One bit that surprised me when I read it is when Mary-Lou's father is killed by the natives in the Amazon, and Joey tells Mary-Lou that the natives probably attacked the scientific party cos they were afraid. Considering the period, you'd expect them to be portrayed as bloodthirsty savages.
#115:  Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:12 pm
    —
I really like that comment. It is so true of people in general.
#116:  Author: champagnedrinker,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:59 pm
    —
I've just read this thread through, and like many others, recognise that editing racist comments (which probably weren't meant in a racist manner), is a very different matter to cutting whole chunks, as far as the story goes.

Clearly the editors had to be in the position of the best option from a sales point of view, and I'd assume it was that which ultimately decided which words they'd omit & which they'd leave in.
My own feeling is that of the age group they were targeting at in the 70s/80s, most girls would be of an age (and intelligence) that they would know that the books were written in a different time, and when attitudes were different, and thus would be able to see the difference between then & now (or, rather, now for them).

The other problem that the editors would have had would be what to replace the phrases with. Clearly with the "work like niggers", E B-D wanted to emphasise the "working harder than you've ever done before" - which, from that point of view, isn't derogatory. It's not like it was "lazy, feckless good for nothing ..." - or possibly even the implication that the village school wasn't for the likes of Mary Lou (which was left in). I can't now remember what the editor *did* replace it with, and whether or not that really emphasised how hard they had to work. "Working your socks off" strikes me as contemporary for now, but what would have been the same in the 70s?
(Related, did she at another point describe someone as an Amazon, or am I thinking of another author entirely?)

I'm glad though that they never went the full shebang, and we had to to endure "Kylie from China", and Fish Fingers (rather than veal) being served up (and no-one seems to have mentioned that "light country wine" that the girls get to drink on trips, and brandy they have poured down their throats to counter the deadly dangers of lake immersions).
#117:  Author: KathrynW, Location: London PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:09 pm
    —
I've just been re-reading my 'Jill' books by Ruby Ferguson which were originally written in the 1950's. I have them all in various pb incarnations and it's driving me absolutely mad that in every one, they've changed the money so that a horse that costs £10 in one book costs £800 in another. It doesn't help me imagine or relate to it any better, it just confuses me and I have no idea what the original price was!

Sorry...a bit of an OT rant!
#118:  Author: Loryat,  PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:38 pm
    —
Wow, I loved those Jill books. I've never even been near a horse in my life but I read them so avidly I knew all about gymkhanas! I only ever had about four I think, but there were about eight titles listed on the back covers.

Don't you regret the way in days long past you used to put pony books and school stories back on the shelves of charity shops? When I was wee there were a lot more pony/school stories to be found in second hand shops and why oh why didn't I take the opportunity and demand the money to buy them! Now you can't find any.

It is funny how racist comments are on the whole ruthlessly edited out even though they are all part of context and I believe have no malicious intent behind them, but comments about class and station (eg the village school not being 'suitable' for Mary-Lou) are left in. I would prefer they left everything in but I wonder why it's okay to be snobby but not use expressions like 'work like niggers'?

What is also strange is that some coments are taken out but others that are equally racist, but applied to different races, are left in. In an Enid Blyton book I read as a child the heroes befriend a circus boy called Barney. The children's father meets Barney and is surprised for instead of what he had been expecting: 'a gipsy boy, sly and shrewd', he finds Barney to be open countenanced and honest looking, with very Aryan features. I remember that phrase years later because I was really shocked by the attitude it displayed.

You know what is also funny, is how works of literature can be a racist as they like (Joseph Conrad wrote a book called 'The Nigger of the Narcissus' and you can still get it with that title) but not school stories. Were children's minds deemed more easily corrupted, or are we not allowed to interfere with the writings of a genius?
#119:  Author: Róisín,  PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:16 pm
    —
Loryat wrote:
You know what is also funny, is how works of literature can be a racist as they like (Joseph Conrad wrote a book called 'The Nigger of the Narcissus' and you can still get it with that title) but not school stories. Were children's minds deemed more easily corrupted, or are we not allowed to interfere with the writings of a genius?


I like this point. Going to think about it more now.
#120:  Author: Changnoi, Location: Milwaukee, USA PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:18 am
    —
Whew, I haven't checked this thread in a while!

--Although Conrad may have written the N----- and Narcissus, which I have not had the pleasure of reading, Agatha Christie did write for an adult audience and had the title changed several times in American editions. I believe the book that I originally read as And Then There Were None was, in American, originally Ten Little Indians, and, in Britain, was it not Ten Little N---? I'm not up to writing THAT WORD out today. Like Jennifer said, it makes me feel dirty.

--I never felt EBD to be terribly terribly anti-Semitic, though I have always wondered why Herr Anserl had to say he had no love for Jews. EBD was always on such a great kick with Catholic/Protestant friendship that, had a character said, "I have no great love for Catholics" or something like that, they would have met with their comeuppance or some gentle preaching from ML or Joey and it would have been an object lesson for the book. Actually, the whole phrase Herr Anserl uses is, to me, distasteful, the more I think of it. I may be over-interpreting, but it just seems very despising...like "I have no great love for Jews, but they should be allowed to prosper like anyone else AS LONG AS THEY DON'T DO IT NEAR ME" and I know I'm making text up, but that's my feeling. Re: the Jewess issue. I think that the difference arises from using the noun instead of the adjective. I know it's a very small thing. But saying that someone is Jewish says, oh, this person is a person like any other person and one fact about this person is their religion which is Jewish. Calling someone 'a Jewess' says, there is this person and who they are is a Jew and everything salient about them can be explained by this statement. And, as macyrose says, the negative phrasing of the question, "She's not a Jewess, is she?" would make you pretty wary of answering "Yes, she is" without there being some sort of consequence.

--Overall I do see the point people are making about editing of racist comments being a slippery slope AND about the importance of providing modern readers a look at how people lived and behaved 'back then'. But I think we have to consider: what is the primary point of the series when it is currently being reprinted? I feel that, in "regular" paperback (Armada and others), the series is primarily intended for younger readers, people who are coming new to the series, and a generally broader audience. The GGBP books, by contrast, I feel are intended more for people who already have some familiarity with the series and with EBD and who are probably likely to be older and collectors. So, with the GGBP books, I see the value of leaving books unedited and unabridged. I appreciate having them. But if the primary purpose of books like Armada paperbacks is as a readers' edition and not as a collectors' item or historical document, then I think considerations like what is and is not acceptable in the modern era do come into play. I realize, as has been stated, that this is a slippery slope. So when we consider acceptability, the first thing I think to consider are "terms that would immediately cause offense to a modern audience and don't do a lot for the plot". If nothing else, the racist terminology does "break up the flow" as was stated upthread. If you do happen to be a member of any of the groups disparaged, I would contend that the exposure to the terminology does also hurt. Yes, they were ignorant Back Then. But using the n-word to describe Carlotta, for example, doesn't really a) provide an accurate description, since I doubt she looked African(-American), b) doesn't advance the plot (a character does not learn a valuable lesson about not using this word, for example, later on in the book) and c) is really offensive and may limit readership. I like these books, and I don't want to see them die out. It strikes me that removing words like n----- is perhaps a compromise that needs to be made to keep these books alive and well. Please don't straw-man me; I am not advocating censorship. I am simply saying that at least in some editions of these books, I think that changes that reflect modern sensibilities that are not even that modern are appropriate.

Chang
#121:  Author: Caty, Location: New Zealand PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:11 am
    —
In my humble opinion, editing racist comments out of books intended for an audience of children, is imperative in today's PC world. I do hate updating things like money, because inevitably they forget one price conversion.

That said, I find the racist/non pc comments in EBD's work are very interesting. They higlight the difference between the world at the time of the books and today's world.
#122:  Author: Loryat,  PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:20 pm
    —
Changnoi wrote:


--I never felt EBD to be terribly terribly anti-Semitic, though I have always wondered why Herr Anserl had to say he had no love for Jews. EBD was always on such a great kick with Catholic/Protestant friendship that, had a character said, "I have no great love for Catholics" or something like that, they would have met with their comeuppance or some gentle preaching from ML or Joey and it would have been an object lesson for the book. Actually, the whole phrase Herr Anserl uses is, to me, distasteful, the more I think of it. I may be over-interpreting, but it just seems very despising...like "I have no great love for Jews, but they should be allowed to prosper like anyone else AS LONG AS THEY DON'T DO IT NEAR ME" and I know I'm making text up, but that's my feeling. Re: the Jewess issue. I think that the difference arises from using the noun instead of the adjective. I know it's a very small thing. But saying that someone is Jewish says, oh, this person is a person like any other person and one fact about this person is their religion which is Jewish. Calling someone 'a Jewess' says, there is this person and who they are is a Jew and everything salient about them can be explained by this statement. And, as macyrose says, the negative phrasing of the question, "She's not a Jewess, is she?" would make you pretty wary of answering "Yes, she is" without there being some sort of consequence.

Chang


I have always been puzzled by Anserl's comment too, but I don't think it was representative of EBD's opinions. Isn't Joey described as being very fond of Herr Goldmann (sp?) when he is chased by the mob? And it seems to me that EBD makes a point of presenting Goldmann as a sympathetic character who, whether or not he is Jewish, is as charitable as any Christian. He provides soup for the poor and gives one of the Nazis a job to tide him over winter. The only thing I can think of is that EBD wanted to give a realistic impression of what differnt Austrians thought and felt, so included the casually anti-Semitic but not rabidly so comment from Anserl.

Nowadays it almost seems anti-Semitic to refer to anyone as a Jew or Jewess and I always decribe people as 'Jewish'. But I think in those days people were a lot more focussed on nationality that they are now. For some reason in a lot of nineteenth century books, for example, Jews aren't seen as English Scottish or French but as Jews. When people in books of the 19th and early 20th century refer to Jews or Jewesses I think it's done in the same way as you would refer to French people or Italians, as foreigners. Nowadays people are more likely to see Jewish people as British, Israeli etc rather than as 'Jewish' but it wasn't always like that. (Does this even make any sense?). Do Jewish women find it offensive to be described as 'Jewesses', BTW?
#123:  Author: Clare, Location: Liverpool PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:44 pm
    —
One of the ladies in my uni always described herself as a Jewess. Usually this would be in the middle of our lectures on Judaism when the lecturer referred to her at every posible opportunity... She hated being singled out, but she would always try to answer the lecturer and add that she was "proud to be a Jewess".
#124:  Author: Miriam, Location: Jerusalem, Israel PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:02 pm
    —
To me, when I lived in England I used the terms to be Jewish and to be a Jew almost interchangably. (I grew up in England until I was eighteen, then spent a few years going back and forth betwwen England and Israel, before finally emigrating when I was twenty one.) Having siad that, I attended Jewish schools all my life, and all my friends were Jewish, so it was something that very rarely came up.

The specific term 'Jewess was something that I never came across until I was a lot older, and for some reason I did find it jarring. I think that was not so much in a religeous context as as a 'feminist' context. To me it implied something slightly different to a Jew, and probably somehow worth less, in the same way that the femine term for any job is often viewed as eing somewhat 'less' that the male. Living in Israel I now spaek hebrew on a daily basis, and hebrew automatically distinguishes between the make and female the same way as french does. The terms here are Yehudee (Jew) and Yehudiyah (Jewess). Because it is a normal distinction in speech, it never bothers me (and I don't normallly even notice). Only in English, where it seems less natural, does it feel awkward.
#125:  Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:31 pm
    —
Miriam wrote:
The specific term 'Jewess was something that I never came across until I was a lot older, and for some reason I did find it jarring. I think that was not so much in a religeous context as as a 'feminist' context. To me it implied something slightly different to a Jew, and probably somehow worth less, in the same way that the femine term for any job is often viewed as eing somewhat 'less' that the male. Living in Israel I now spaek hebrew on a daily basis, and hebrew automatically distinguishes between the make and female the same way as french does. The terms here are Yehudee (Jew) and Yehudiyah (Jewess). Because it is a normal distinction in speech, it never bothers me (and I don't normallly even notice). Only in English, where it seems less natural, does it feel awkward.


I would argue that a large part of that feeling comes from the feminist and PC angle that suggests somehow a female version of a word is less than 'the' word, e.g waiter and waitress. Yet in many other languages it is absolutely normal to have a masculine and feminine version of words, like in German with Kellner (waiter) and Kellnerin (waitress). I've never felt that EBD was making any sort of criticism with the word Jewess, but was simply making use of a term that was common coin in that era. It is far easier to write Jewess than 'the female Jew' or similar, and I'm sure it would never have occurred to her to use the term 'Jew' to describe a woman. Most records from the Holocaust and pre-war era are very careful to define the gender of those involved, and I've always felt that EBD was really just following convention.
#126:  Author: patmac, Location: Yorkshire England PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:46 am
    —
And don't forget the 'ess' was tacked onto other words at the time to denote gender - Authoress springs to mind and would now be seen as quite condescending.
#127:  Author: CatherineS, Location: Smalltown, West of Scotland PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:12 am
    —
Changnoi wrote:
If you do happen to be a member of any of the groups disparaged, I would contend that the exposure to the terminology does also hurt. Yes, they were ignorant Back Then. But using the n-word to describe Carlotta, for example, doesn't really a) provide an accurate description, since I doubt she looked African(-American), b) doesn't advance the plot (a character does not learn a valuable lesson about not using this word, for example, later on in the book) and c) is really offensive and may limit readership. I like these books, and I don't want to see them die out. It strikes me that removing words like n----- is perhaps a compromise that needs to be made to keep these books alive and well. Please don't straw-man me; I am not advocating censorship. I am simply saying that at least in some editions of these books, I think that changes that reflect modern sensibilities that are not even that modern are appropriate.

Chang


I pretty much agree with all that Chang has said in her post, so there's not much point regugitating it in a less articulate fashion. Suffice to say I'm aware such editing puts us on dangerous ground, but I'd like to think there were adults sane and responsible and intelligent enough to make the right choices as to what was altered and what preserved. I don't want the old books burned - I want them kept as they are. Like you all I love them and find them fascinating. I also want the GGBP texts to remain the same. But these are not, as mentioned before, for today's children - they're primarily for adults; and what these books reflect is inherent in the publisher's name anyway: Girls Gone By. As a lover of books - for reading and just handling and appreciating as old objects and vessels of the past - it's not an easy thing for me to say either, and I do find myself swithering at times. But when it comes down to it, I don't like the idea of reprinting a book afresh in modern terms with phrases like 'working like a nigger'. I know I haven't answered the argument that other types of discrimination should also be considered in that case (and where would we be then) but I just think that racism was one of the most dangerous and deadly forms of discrimination in past centuries and still is, sadly, in this, and it is rather entitled to be singled out and dealt with. As mentioned above, however, I would like to think that we had individuals in our society who could make these decisions sensibly. Perhaps as a compromise a list of alterations could be included at the back of such books for those who are interested in looking at them from a historical perspective. It's certainly right that we have to be aware of past errors and don't make the mistake of thinking that just we can just forget and pretend they didn't exist. (Mind you if we have our eyes open we can see that we're still rather racist as a world and it really is - it feels to me, right now, a continual battle.)

Just part of my opinion

ETA Submitted too soon but must go now!
The CBB -> Anything Else


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group