Mark Twain, both in Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn , advanced progressive notions about blacks, and about journeys and escapes into freedom. His novel, Innocents Abroad poked fun at both American and European mores. In fact, Twain's notoriety was that he poked fun at many conventional mores. That Twain was shocking in his day is irrefutable, and does not employ the application of a 20th century rearview mirrors, so to speak, and as you would imply.
An excerpt from the 1885, May 25th, Atlanta Consitution, written by an "ordinary person," to satisfy you goes to great length to explain that Twain was viewed as a progressive:
The American leisure class--the class that might be expected to patronize good literature and to create a demand for sound, conservative criticism--is not only fond of horses, but is decidedly horsey. It is coarse and uncultivated. It has no taste in either literature or art. It reads few books and buys its pictures in Europe by the yard. We are led to these remarks by the wholly inadequate verdict that has recently been given in some of the most prominent newspapers as to the merits of Mark Twain's new book, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." The critics seem to have gotten their cue in this instance from the action of the Concord library, the directors of which refused the book a place on their shelves. This action, as was afterwards explained, was based on the fact that the book was a work of fiction, and not because of the humorous characteristics that are popularly supposed to attach to the writings of Mr. Clemens. But the critics had got their cue before the explanation was made, and they straightway proceeded to inform the reading public that the book was gratuitously coarse, its humor unneccessarily broad, and its purpose crude and inartistic.It is the story of a half illiterate, high-spirited boy whose adventures are related by himself. The art with which this conception is dealt with is perfect in all its details. The boy's point of view is never for a moment lost sight of, and the moral of the whole is that this half illiterate boy can be made to present, with perfect consistency, not only the characters of the people whom he meets, but an accurate picture of their social life. From the artistic point of view, there is not a coarse nor vulgar suggestion from the beginning to the end of the book. Whatever is coarse and crude is in the life that is pictured, and the picture is perfect. It may be said that the humor is sometimes excessive, but it is genuine humor--and the moral of the book, though it is not scrawled across every page, teaches the necessity of manliness and self-sacrifice.(http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/huckfinn/atlanta.html)
Here, self-sacrifice, embracing your fellow man (and the logic by extension is your fellow woman) is considered a mark of manliness. In other words, treating others as your equal, is, in 1885 America, a mark of manliness.
I would note that the language here, and evidenced in just about any journal of note at that time is far superior, far more erudite than the tripe fobbed off as writing, and journalism in most American papers and journals today, save .
No, Mary: progressive thought, beginning with Ben Franklin, was interwoven into the fabric of American culture and thought.
The luddites here must be trolls from DU sent here to discredit normal freepers. V's wife.
You said “for the demise of western literature...” I said nothing about the demise of western literature (although it probably could be argued), but the culture has certainly taken a turn for the worse, overall.
“Tom Sawyer” and “Huck Finn” did not “advance progressive notions about blacks and journeys and escapes into freedom”!! Mark Twain was writing about the life he’d lived and the world he knew and commenting more on general hypocrisy and small-mindedness in general. He would have a heyday with your ridiculous assertions about his works.
“Innocents Abroad” was as funny back then as it is today if you have traveled in Europe (I read it while spending 3 months there with an aunt and laughed myself to tears over it). The churches over there which have collections of skulls and remains and which, after seeing dozens alike prompted his comment, “is he ah, is he dead?” to the poor guide who didn’t get the sarcasm is just being funny, not commenting on mores for heaven’s sake. And the churches still (or as of 1987 did) have them and after seeing dozens you are inclined to laugh. It is not a social comment, just a release of tension while under the stress of travel.
That quote of yours, from a newspaper (which Twain, by the by, didn’t have the greatest opinions of having worked for them) hardly represents anything other than a cranks opinion. I can find you a dozen like that tomorrow if I would look in whatever newspaper is still publishing today.
You said:
“Here, self-sacrifice, embracing your fellow man (and the logic by extension is your fellow woman) is considered a mark of manliness. In other words, treating others as your equal, is, in 1885 America, a mark of manliness.
The logic is NOT by extension your fellow woman and the author of that bit you quoted would not agree with you either, not one iota I am more than willing to bet.
A mark of manliness is “manliness” not womanliness. All your saying they are equal does not make it so and never will.
In 1885 as you might point out, most American men did not consider many people in the world, women among them, as their equals, sorry but true. Women were not lesser but they were not equals to men. They are different.
Any man back then would have some ripe words for you twisting their words and meaning as you do and I’d enjoy listening to him speak about it.
And hey, I’m a half-black woman who in those men’s eyes had a certain place back then that I wouldn’t have liked I admit. But the past it what it was and just because it wasn’t always nice by our standards doesn’t mean it is without merit.