Posted by Brooks A. Mick on March 13, 1999 at 13:12:03:
In Reply to: Re: Why I Think Farnham's Freehold Is Racist posted by Leon J. Janzen on February 11, 1999 at 20:57:53:
Never posted here. There seems to be a horrible amount of redundancy, with everything copied/reiterated dozens of times. But anyhow, I hope I am doing this correctly.
As far as Heinlein's racism, I suspect he was one of the least racist people on the face of the Earth. Many of his heroes were non-caucasians: Johnny Rico was Filipino, though we didn't learn it until he spoke in Tagalog, and he was accepted matter-of-factly by all he worked with, no favoritism, no prejudice, no affirmative action. Totally non-racist. Colonel Colin Campbell of "The Cat Who..." was also non-white, revealed later, after one had a chance to become sympathetic to the character. I suspect that, contrary to being racist, this method of character establishment independent of race was Heinlein's way to preach against racism. As far as "Farnham's Freehold," Heinlein was simply pointing out that human beings are human beings, no matter what skin color. If some group has power over another, they will behave badly toward those in thralldom. Those who apparently believe that non-whites are incapable of evil behavior are the racists, unable to see the humanity of all races.
Regarding RAH's later books, I believe, based on my own tendencies as I become older, that he was simply trying to convey his personal philsophy to others, thereby becoming somewhat preachy and long-winded in his exposition of various societal problems, including censorship, the translation of moral and religious principles into law, etc. I, too, thought this preachiness became tiresome, particularly in "Number of the Beast," but would still trade a late-model Heinlein for any new souped-up sports car of an author.