4 ms·

For one thing, it praises the enslaved for turning their cheeks, as it were, to be slapped again—or killed—rather than fighting back, a notion of Christian virt

• karaterobot 3y ago
  Agreed that I wouldn't be shocked if an author wrote approvingly of something they agreed with. On the other hand, I would not be shocked if they wrote characters who exhibited behaviors they personally disagreed with either.
• boplicity 3y ago
  > it praises the enslaved for turning their cheeks What most people don't get about the idea of "turning your cheek" is that it's actually very pragmatic when living under a brutal dictatorship, or slavery. If you're going to resist and fight back, you have to do so with forethought and planning, and not direct confrontation. This was true back in the day under Caesar, as it was for slaves of the South, as it is today for black people under threat by police officers. Don't make sudden moves. Don't fight back at the wrong time. Or you're risking your life. Swallow your pride. Turn the other cheek. Wait for the right opportunity
• bccdee 3y ago
  By that logic, the only criticism we can ever make is an accusation of hypocrisy. "Sure, the book says some heinous things, but what did you expect? It's just a heinous author expressing their beliefs." Not to say that it's heinous to advocate turning the other cheek, but worthy of critique? Sure.
  • causi 3y ago
    He's saying it's a bad novel because of their inclusion, which is simply nonsensical. If heaven was real and Christianity was correct a complete refusal to do violence would be the right thing to do because your earthly existence would be a rounding error compared to an existence in heaven and any action that could jeopardize your salvation would be stupid. Uncle Tom might be a bad novel for various reasons but holding pacifism as a virtue isn't one of them.
  • pessimizer 3y ago
    By that logic, people should really value my review of the Bible where I excoriate it for encouraging a belief in invisible beings. Critique works of communication or argument for failing to communicate or argue what they wish to communicate or argue. Don't critique them for not communicating or arguing for your values. Engaging with the argument is fine, but don't mistake it for engaging with the work itself. The work has succeeded when it gives you an argument to engage with. If you have an argument against turning the other cheek, or religion in general, take it up with one of the other billion people who agree with the author, and choose the one who has presented their arguments with the most ability. Tbh, I'm not confident in the ability of the average American to make a coherent antislavery argument. Because it's a lot harder than pointing at someone who says something nice about a slaver, or makes an observation about the reality actual slavery that isn't a vapid re-condemnation, and saying "slavery is bad folx, glad I could help."
    • bccdee 3y ago
      > By that logic, people should really value my review of the Bible where I excoriate it for encouraging a belief in invisible beings. Many celebrated works of philosophy has been written critiquing religion. Take Nietzsche, for example, or Camus. Your review would be unoriginal, but hardly wrong-headed. > The work has succeeded when it gives you an argument to engage with. No, being incorrect is a failure worth criticizing. I wouldn't celebrate (e.g.) a creationist text for being internally consistent and well-argued. No matter how good the writing is, it's still wrong. In fact, well-argued but incorrect arguments are the most important to critique, because (unlike incompetent arguments) they can deceive readers.