The Horse and His Boy: Miscegenation!

I was rereading The Horse and His Boy and I thought of a question to ask
this group.

As we know, Aravis and Shasta get married at the end. Aravis, a
Calormene, is dark-skinned, and Cor, an Archenlander, is light-skinned.

The first several times I read the book, I didn't think about that at
all, as it really is of no importance. Somewhere along the line though,
I learned a bit more history and realized that people didn't always
approve of such things.

I was in college before I ever heard the word "miscegenation." I had to
look it up, and I thought it was the stupidest concept I'd ever heard
of.

So now, apart from thinking that the ending of that book was about the
funniest "romance" I've ever read ("they got so used to fighting and
making up that they got married so as to go on doing it more
conveniently"), I think it's real neat that a book written in the 50's
has an interracial set of heroes, and ends with interracial marriage.

Take that, racist pigdogs.

But my question is this: did this pass under the radar of the racists
of the 50's, or was there any sort of outcry against this? Or, were the
sort of people likely to be racist also not likely to do much reading?

I figure the people of this group know more about CS Lewis than I do and
so might know.

Cheers,

Túrin

In article <40A3B07A.32E8.RemoveThis@nospam.knoledge.org>, Túrin
<mormegil.RemoveThis@nospam.knoledge.org> wrote:

 > I was rereading The Horse and His Boy and I thought of a question to ask
 > this group.
 >
 > As we know, Aravis and Shasta get married at the end. Aravis, a
 > Calormene, is dark-skinned, and Cor, an Archenlander, is light-skinned.
 >
 > The first several times I read the book, I didn't think about that at
 > all, as it really is of no importance. Somewhere along the line though,
 > I learned a bit more history and realized that people didn't always
 > approve of such things.
 >
 > I was in college before I ever heard the word "miscegenation." I had to
 > look it up, and I thought it was the stupidest concept I'd ever heard
 > of.
 >
 > So now, apart from thinking that the ending of that book was about the
 > funniest "romance" I've ever read ("they got so used to fighting and
 > making up that they got married so as to go on doing it more
 > conveniently"), I think it's real neat that a book written in the 50's
 > has an interracial set of heroes, and ends with interracial marriage.
 >
 > Take that, racist pigdogs.
 >
 > But my question is this: did this pass under the radar of the racists
 > of the 50's, or was there any sort of outcry against this? Or, were the
 > sort of people likely to be racist also not likely to do much reading?
 >
 > I figure the people of this group know more about CS Lewis than I do and
 > so might know.
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Túrin

The books do not make much of the darkness of Calormene complexions. I
would guess that the Calormenes look a little like modern Turks or
Arabs; their style is generally like that of storybook Near-Easterners.
(Note that these books are entertainment, not anthropology.) The
illustrations by Pauline Baynes give the Calormenes straightish hair
and Caucasian features. In line drawings, it would be difficult to
indicate dark skin, anyway.

It is true that some people have disapproved of "interracial"
marriages. It is also true that this disapproval has been more intense
in America than elsewhere.

I dimly remember from kindergarten days (1947 or so) a children's book
in which a little bunny rabbit with white fur marries a little bunny
rabbit with black fur. I less dimly remember from the early 1960's
that some segregationists were very indignant about this insidious
propaganda.

Only in America, folks; only in America.

And, at that, only when the culture war was in a very hot phase and
very much concentrated on this issue.

The wowsers who were upset about the little bunny rabbits probably
didn't read the Narnia books.

--
Chris Henrich
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->