I have heard and read many interesting and thoughtful reviews of Les Misérables about how the themes and characters being deeply rooted in racism. However, I barely hear anyone really talk about the explicit stance the book takes in being pro-colonialism.
I don't really have the interest in re-reading the book to every chapter because of long essays such as the Argot one, where Victor Hugo paints a very negative picture in Frenches which differ from the standard form.
Now, this isn't just about Standard French, but also any linguistic children of it, because Hugo explicitly talks about the usage of Creole. To make his stance clearer, even one of the members of Patron Minette is 'Créole'.
We can't have depictions of mixed race or non-White ethnicities in books like this without colonialism being the foundation of it. I feel like sometimes people will happily call something racist, and then move on without talking about how topics such as colonisation is thought of and expressed.
I think one of the villains here is the colonial mindset. If we aren't taught about colonialism and the effects and horror from the said atrocities and beyond harmful psychology, then we will read pages and pages of content, and only reduce the conclusion to: "Ah, racism."
When we think about the criticism of class, hierarchy, social inequality, court procedures, justice, religious morality, perceived equality, and so on, we got such a deep analysis of it from Hugo about France.
At the same time, he proceeded to be explicitly pro-colonial inside the book, within his other books, and in real life statements as well. It isn't equal or excusable that Victor Hugo, and historical authors alike, can analyse their own country in such detail, combing through their thoughts on the matter, while sweeping generalisations such as 'France has a right to colonise Africa because we bring civilisation to it' is being said.
How come some societies are given the luxury of having the nits and grits be explored and criticised, while other societies are given willy nilly thoughts? Surely, one isn't expected to understand all the doings around the globe. So then, why discuss it in one's book?
Sure, old books— and even contemporary ones— from places born from privilege, having pillaged and colonised in unwelcomed spaces, will inevitably reek of the colonial mindset. That is a given. The main difference in contemporary books is that there is effort to erase that mindset, which can be admittedly difficult to do, if all your life, you had been groomed by the education system to be pro-colonialism, or at least unempathetic to it, or believe 'it isn't that big of a deal.'
When we are thinking about adaptations of Les Misérables around the world,— and in my case, around Asia,— there is an element of charm or fascination in how artists in different countries interpret the points, messages, and arguments presented in Les Misérables.
Especially for countries victims to colonisation, and those of which who continuously suffer from the consequences of it; I don't think there is near enough talks in the anglophone side of the fandom (I don't know about any other side, I only know the anglophone side) about what it means to restructure and reimagine the arguments presented by the book.
In particular, when we see countries who were victims to French colonisation, like Vietnam, where we get to see 'cultural resistance' against the effects of the oppressive French policies portrayed in their most famous retelling of Les Misérables; there isn't much talk about the political statement in the act of translation and adaptation alone has.
Here, in these adaptations, the stories are being handled most likely by those who are native to the lands, cultures, and languages, and they get to choose what political opinion the adaptation is going to have now, whether or not that is something we would personally agree with. The power is given to the people nevertheless.
Therefore, we no longer get sweeping generalisations or a willy nilly essays of thought about language use or ways of society of the 'uncivilised countries', and instead we get to see insightful criticisms of their own injustices through the adaptations of stories such as Les Misérables.
I don't mean to romanticise the adaptations, because of course there's flaws to them as well. The main point is that, the people who would not have a voice are giving themselves it, and they can insert details the oppressors would've never been bothered to consider.
The themes of Les Misérables are very flexible, and therefore applicable to many injustices in nations not even touched by France. To learn about countries and national pride from peoples' thoughts and artwork relating to Les Misérables sure is an odd way of me exploring world history and politics. I do admit it's a funny of mine.
But as a fandom, or as a collective of shared interest, let's not dismiss obvious colonial thoughts that a lot of Hugo's points sprouted from.
Let's also not forget that European empires aren't the only empires to exist, and other adaptations can fall short in representing the themes of Les Misérables most likely it being largely influenced by their own biases.
All in all, let's give adaptations more love, and address the political implications of it as well as the literal racism and pro-colonial mindset the book argues for explicitly.
