Older books with surprisingly liberal content

Recommended Videos

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
So a while back, I helped my church engage in a massive purge of random shit that's been accumulated over the last 30 years or so. It was a huge undertaking--we opened up every single cabinet in the place either threw out or gave away basically everything that wasn't necessary. See, churches are often the dumping ground for people's stuff after they die or move. We had everything from Homeward Bound on VHS to hand-written attendance lists and meeting minutes from the church's quilting ministry dating back to 1986. So even though every single item was given or created with the best of intentions, things just had to go in order for the church to have usable cabinet space in the future.

I helped out clean out a cabinet full of books, and the pastor's wife told all of us if we saw anything we wanted just take it, because the books were bound for a secondhand store anyway. I grabbed one book with some neat artwork in it, and another one strictly because I thought it would give me a lot of laughs. It was called Created by God: About Human Sexuality for Older Girls and Boys, and it was published in 1989.

Ooooh boy, I thought. This is going to be a hoot. A pre-90s Christian book on sexuality. The cover is absolutely glorious: a bunch of cartoon boys and girls, all representing a veritable rainbow of diversity: fat kids, skinny kids, white kids, black kids, asian kids, and to top it all off a red-haired girl in a wheelchair. Beautiful.

Inside, I expected some genuine attempts at explaining biology, but also a lot of skirting around difficult subjects and a LOT of heavy-handed dogmatism. However, to the book's credit, not only do they talk about genuinely difficult topics like teen pregnancy, sex in advertising, sexual abuse, and STDs, but they also talk about a topic I didn't expect to see mentioned at all: homosexuality. AND, on top of that, the book does not condemn it. The book explains what homosexuality is in purely objective terms, explains the use of the words gay and lesbians, and then discusses why some people are homosexuals. The conclusion it gives: we don't know why some people are gay. They just are, and nobody can agree as to why.

The book does not at all try to say that it's a sin. In fact, I'd just like to write out what it says verbatim, because it simply astounds me that a CHRISTIAN book on sexuality written in 1989 can sound more enlightened than many nonreligious people of today:

Can you tell just by looking that a person is a homosexual? No, you can't. Though a female does not fit the stereotype for femininity--that is, if she tends to be a kind of rough-and-tumble type--we must not assume that this says something about her sexual orientation. Likewise, if a male tends to be more interested in arts than sports, we cannot assume anything about his sexual orientation. Observing a person's interests, behaviors, or body type cannot tell us what that person's sexual orientation might be.

Not having clear-cut answers, we tend to feel confused and even afraid--feelings that sometimes cause us to be less than loving. Learning about things--and people--that frighten and confuse us can take away the fear and confusion.

Instead of basing our actions on what we don't know--such as why people represent a variety of sexual orientations--we need to act on what we do know. We know that our sexuality is God's gift. We know that there are many ways in which people misuse God's good gift to abuse other people. We know that, as children of God, we must never hurt others by taking advantage of their sexual feelings or of what they do or do not know or understand about their sexuality. These things apply to all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation.

Remember Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan? A man was beaten by robbers and left to die. Two persons passed by. The first was a priest. The second was a Levite--a temple official. They weren't responsible for the problems of the man on the road, but just like the robbers, they also left him to die. It was a Samaritan--a person whom Jesus' listeners wouldn't have had anything to do with--who stopped and cared. Jesus used this story to explain the meaning of neighbor and to let us know that the neighbors we are called to love just as we love ourselves are often the people most unlike us (Luke 10:25-37).

Never does the book say that homosexuality is to be avoided, or that it's inherently wrong. And the conclusion it comes to on other subjects were just as surprising: on teen pregnancy, the most concern it shows is for the preparedness of the mother and father, never fixating on the fact that they aren't married. When it does talk about marriage, it first frames marriage as the most pragmatic way to form a family, THEN frames it as the most Biblically correct way. It even takes a liberal approach to abortion--while it does not frame it as a positive thing and nor does it necessarily encourage it, the book also never outright says it should never be considered. It simply says it is a decision that requires a lot of time and prayer, and who to possibly involve in the decision-making process.

While the book does state many times problems like STDs and unexpected pregnancies can be avoided with abstinence, it very clearly explains everything about how pregnancy works, at what times a woman is most fertile, how condoms and birth control work, and how STDs are passed along. It discourages casual sex, however it also equips the reader with everything they should know if they do choose to be sexually active. And it does not frame all of these things in a way that would make the reader ashamed of considering using them. Its attitude is basically, "You shouldn't have sex before you've got a dedicated partner, but if you do here's what you should do about it."

Needless to say I was flabbergasted by this book. A paperback Christian book written in 1989 filled with cartoon characters that look straight out of School House Rock that gives better sex education than most schools today, and has a more enlightened and balanced views on gays and birth control than most Christians today.

Whew, that was a lot of typing. So, are there any older books you've encountered with astoundingly liberal ideas for their time, that perhaps you weren't expecting when you first picked it up?
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
19,347
4,013
118
Well, not exactly liberal, but I read The Satyricon (1st century AD!) and found it as poignantly observant of the decadence and inhumanity that was consuming the Roman world at the time of writing as modern viewers usually are.

On a more recent note there's Philip K. Dick's Eye in the Sky. Published 1957 and overtly critical of the USA's Red Scare fever. It also addresses the issue of racism through a black character. Bear in mind the civil rights movement in the USA was barely getting warmed up and had a long way to go. Still has, I reckon.

"I tell you what," Laws said, in a low, unsteady voice. "You try being colored awhile. You try bowing and saying 'Yes, sir,' to any piece of white trash that happens to come along, some Georgia cracker so ignorant he blows his nose on the floor, so moronic he can't find the men's room without somebody to guide him there. Me to guide him there. I practically have to show him how to let down his pants. Try that awhile. Try putting yourself through six years of college washing white men's dishes in a two-bit hash house. Try getting a degree the way I did."
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
21
People in the past were no more enlightened or ignorant than we were I suppose.

Speaking of enlightenment, alot of the prominent authors of that time are still pretty interesting, although I can't find a quote on the top of my head.

Emile Zola also wrote a good cycle of several novels on the Rougon-Macquart. He talked about things from alcoholism, prostitution and in Germinal, a workers strike and the living conditions of miners. It was progressive according to some present attitudes to poverty.

In English, if you ignored the rest of the play, there's Shylock's speech "Hath a jew not eyes" is good against the alienation and antisemitism that targeted the Jewish.

He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge?
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
I think we tend to veiw the past as some super backwards time when in fact its not always that clear cut

I've read a couple of romance books, nameley "The price of salt" that feature lesbain romance, you'd think that they wouldn't even be allowed to ackoweldge gay people existance back then, let alone write a book about it...but then thats pretty rediculous sex druges homosexuality and everything in between existed back then and people knew it... it also has female charachters, one of whom actually has career asperations as a set designer
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Well, there's Shakespeare's Othello. A black man overcomes diversity and racism through sheer force of will, work ethic, and raw talent, and becomes a great general. He's clearly more talented and honest then those around him, but he's eventually manipulated and killed.

I think we see ourselves as pretty liberal today, but that's not fare. There were plenty of liberal societies in history. Liberalism and acceptance in society is decided by a difference in culture, not in time.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
Fox12 said:
Well, there's Shakespeare's Othello.
speaking of shakespere aparently if not at the time then by the 1800's "Taming of the shrew" was considered imoral
 
Apr 17, 2009
1,751
0
0
There's a Sherlock Holmes story, called something like The Mystery of the Yellow Face which I thought had a surprisingly tolerant view on mixed race couples. The basic story (spoilers for a 100 year old story incoming) is that a husband thinks his wife is conducting an affair after she takes out large sums of money and denies having met with a visitor the husband knows was at his house. One day follows her to a mysterious house where he sees a yellow face leering back at him through a window, causing him to break in. He finds a portrait of his wife in one room but no sign of the yellow face. After hearing that the wife had a previous marriage in America that ended when her husband and daughter died of sickness, Holmes thinks its the American husband who actually survived the sickness and had come to England to blackmail the wife. Turns out he's wrong. Its the daughter. The money was to bring her and her nanny over from America and set her up in that mysterious house. The leering yellow face is a mask, and why does she need that? Because the American husband, her father, was black. The wife thought a mixed race child would earn no little scorn from Victorian society so felt the need to disguise her and not tell her current husband. However that husband happily accepts the daughter into the family, to Watson's approval.
I admit I don't know whether Victorian Britain really would have shunned a mixed race couple with a child, but I'd always assumed they would, so a story where its clearly seen as perfectly fine by everyone involved was rather refreshing
 

Relish in Chaos

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,660
0
0
The only thing I can really think of is John Steinbeck?s Of Mice and Men, published in 1937, and how it sympathetically treats the black character Crooks. It devotes practically an entire chapter to just how isolated Crooks feels separated from the white workers on the ranch, and is generally a realistic and humanising portrayal of a black man?s perspective and experiences of life during the 1930s.
 

Shiftygiant

New member
Apr 12, 2011
433
0
0
Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here" is anti-fascist, pro-women rights and points to the oppressive treatment of black people and Jews as being bigoted and wrong. And this was written in 1935. Granted however, it can be seen as homophobic, treating the only gay characters as promiscuous and villainous.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,384
0
0
1989 isn't exactly 'older' though is it?
In Catcher in the Rye there's a lot of reference to promiscuity which I didn't think was a done thing for teens at the time.
 

Drakoorr

New member
Nov 20, 2009
17
0
0
Plato's Republic advocates technocratic meritocracy, social mobility, and equal rights for women, among other things. That's in the 4th century BC.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
Aldous Huxley, The Doors of Perception. From the mid to late 1950's really spoke about some mind opening subjects. Though it is to be expected from any liberal philosopher, the fact that it was written originally to chronicle his first experience with mesculine, does make it fascinating to read.

Anyhow, i believe most great thinkers (and therefor often writers) would fall under the 'liberal' banner. Close minded individuals are the cause of discrimination throughout history.