Talk:Farnham's Freehold

message: I changed it to "in the second half of the story" rather than "early on" because I just finished the novel today and that anecdote comes well into the book, probably around 2/3 of the way through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.161.10 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: West Indies story

message: I don't have the book with me, but I remember the ruling caste not being African, but being mostly Indian (and possibley asian) decent.  I remember the rulers being described as having dark skin but having straight wavy hair, not the thick black curls Africans have.  I'll have access to the book in a month. In the mean time, anyone with a copy can check it. -Peter C. (contribs) 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ruling class isn't any one particular dark skin race. The book makes the point that they are mixes of Indian, Arabian and African. The servant race is a mix of European and Far east cultures. At least that is the division between "blacks" and "whites" given. Wyrmis 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruling caste race

message: Do I remember right that Mrs Farnham had a Miltown habit?  I think that's where I first heard of the stuff.  —Tamfang 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, she abused Miltown after their supply of alcohol is exhausted. In any case, I think this book is my least favorite of RAH's works. Quite unpleasant, too unpleasant for me to appreciate it. Phasmatisnox 15:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously the majority of you don't have the the sence to understand such a novel, expecally the fool who through the book in the trash because he was too squemish about cannablism. wtf reach down and grab a set for all of us. Why wouldn't a highly advanced culture have slaves and caniblism, it cuts down on population, it seems to me that it doesn't matter how technologically advanced a culture is in the first place. first of all it says right in the book that they hadn't invented anything in years, so naturally there stupid, or just plain ignorant. and if you analize heinlein's character, or if you read some of his other novels you can gather that what he is implying is that "you can never under-estamate the power of human stupidity" = ie you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.106 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word is "sense", not "sence". I've read most of Heinlein's books, and I'm not at all squeamish about cannibalism, but my point seems to be beyond you. This book is a role-reversal story. Role-reversal stories come in to basic varieties. One reverses the roles to help see things from the perspective of the other side. Had the story not had the cannibalism, it would have been such a story, allowing the largely white audience to see matters from the perspective of slaves. But my making the black people not only slave owners, but cannibals, it turns it into a different sort of story, a cautionary tale: "Keep the black people oppressed, or they will do this and worse to you!" In any case, a slave-owning societies are less likely to be inventive, as cheap labor removes incentives for invention. When labor is expensive, there is more incentive to find technological solutions. Steam engines were invented many centuries before they were used for practical purposes. It wasn't that they couldn't apply the technology, it was that labor was labor was cheap. --RLent (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia question

message: I am aware of the common breakdown of four racial types, of which "Negroid" is one.  However, the use of "oid" in racial designations (Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid) has come into question, as the same classification system calls whites "Caucasian" rather than "Caucasoid".  "Oid" thus has a connotation of inferiority. Alexandria177 (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Negroid

message: Grace was not an "incipient alcoholic", but an alcoholic pure and simple.  Granted, AA points out that only the person can make that determination, but as Grace is a fictional character, we can only judge by the description.  Not only did she have an intense desire for alcohol, to the extent of stealing it and attempting drug substitutes when she could find none, but she also suffered intense withdrawal from it (Delirium Tremens), usually associated with long term problem drinkers.  Alexandria177 (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Grace

message: That section is good enough, but is entirely uncited.  It needs citations. Alexandria177 (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes and Criticism Section

message: RLent makes a good point in pointing out that it seems more than a simple reversal when cannibalism is thrown in.  However, I do not agree that Heinlein was thus making this a cautionary tale to keep African Americans down.  His history of racial tolerance and belief in the equality of the races was far too well established by his entire body of work, and in fact, he is regarded as being well ahead of his time in such issues.  
However, the cannibalism was an odd addition.  I have took that to be Heinlein attempting to jolt white readers of his time.  After all, African Americans were said to be animals and treated as such.  Heinlein was pointing out - in my opinion - that if the shoe ever got on the other foot, then maybe they would treat whites like animals.  And animals are rightless beings for labor and food.  A conversation, vaguely touching on this, was had between Hugh and Joe, in which Joe's secret rage at the conditions he had lived under in America came out for the first time.  Joe had actually - for the time and place - been treated better than most, which Hugh was quick to point out.  However, Joe then got more angry, and pointed out to Hugh that he'd never been black in that time and place, and was not qualified to express an opinion.  Joe's famous line - "Hugh, have you ever made a bus trip through Alabama?  As a 'nigger'?  Then shut up.  You don't know what you're talking about." - makes far more sense to readers today.  We take it as an "Of course Hugh couldn't know what it was like to be black" and wonder how the otherwise intelligent Hugh could not see that obvious point.  But to readers of the time, it was more a delayed reaction of "Yeah...I think I get that.  Hugh couldn't know what Joe went through.".
Races, ethnicities and tribes that have long been oppressed tend to go overboard when they get the upper hand, and so the cannibalism of the predominantly southern hemisphered peoples after the northern hemisphere killed themselves off in nuclear war may be more understandable.  The northern hemisphere has historically treated the southern hemisphere rather poorly.  
We could also speculate on food shortages that may have existed in the aftermath, in which first a group of white slaves was fed more economically by using some of the surplus slaves as food, then this graduated to a given number of slaves being food in general for any.
In any case, I still believe Heinlein intended it as a role reversal, and that he was not attempting to express the false opinion that only Africans are cannibals. Alexandria177 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Heinlein intended to create a cautionary tale, and did intend to create a simple role reversal. The reality of slavery is bad enough, but I suppose enough people had a white washed "zippity-doo-dah" understanding of slavery when the book was written. A racist would be unlikely to change his mind by reading this book, and would likely only see his own racist ideas reinforced, despite Heinlein's intent. --RLent (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannibalism