Conan stories are a product of their time and the Nubians were not quite treated like the Acquilonians. It's the same idea that Europe was civilized, but Africa was savage. In that, it is no different from most adventure fiction of the era. I can't claim to be even a remote expert of Conan, as I have only red a small handful of the titles (and mostly the stuff that was tinkered with, by Lin Carter and L Sprague De Camp). However, I don't recall what I would call a heavy racist tone. Then again, I am a white male. Burroughs was probably worse, in this realm, than Howard. However, Conan tended to treat wizards and the like as purveyor's of evil, while the wilder folk could be either evil or noble.

The thing is, they were written in the 30s and use terms that are trigger words in modern society. Howard uses the term "negroid" and "black dogs," while depicting Conan in battle with Stygians, who have dark skin. However, he shows Conan befriending some black warriors and that not all Stygians were evil. There is a certain sensitivity to such words that has grown over time, which generate knee-jerk reactions, especially when taken out of context. "Negroid," may sound derogative, in and of itself; however, when you read it in an 80 year-old passage, as a basic description, without any derogatory adjectives or obvious racial slurs, it doesn't sound quite so malicious.

Personally, I have no problem with adjusting speech to use terms that ethnic groups find inoffensive; why go out of your way to antagonize someone, just because that term was once acceptable? Things change and evolve. However, I sometimes lament that people react more to the word than the context and/or actions, or over-react to the offense of others, as they shouldn't have to change or evolve in their behavior. Every time I hear terms like PC police and Social Justice Warriors, it makes me want to puke. By the same token, knee-jerk reactions to a simple descriptive word or phrase, without a deliberately racial or ethnic component elicits the same reaction. You have to find a happy middle ground where you are sensitive to the feelings of others but also pay attention to intent and context.

When looking at classic literature, you do have to weigh the period in which it is written with concerns of racism or colonialism and also look at how the author treats the subject within. If you can find both positive and negative elements, then you can't just level blanket criticisms of racism and/or ethnic stereotyping. Also, just because a character exhibits racism within a story, it does not immediately follow that the author is racist. If the other characters are not racist, then it would seem that it is a specific personality element of a particular character, reflecting real life.

I think some criticism of Howard is knee-jerk, taking words and phrases out of their story context, while also painting a picture of an author with whom they are only vaguely familiar, as a stereotypical southern racist. HP Lovecraft's stories are far more troubling and he was a New Englander.

See, this is where I kind of take exception.  Given the time and region, I don't feel you can say he was "probably racist."  Based on some of his writing you could infer it; but that is painting a broad stroke over things.  It is possible that someone in Texas, at that time, might not be a racist.  I do think you could say "ignorant;" and, as he grew in experience beyond his world, that he evolved and became more enlightened.  To me, ignorance and racism are too different things.  Racism is a product of ignorance; but, there is an element of hatred and fear within racism that isn't there with just ignorance.  Ignorance is a lack of understanding and experience and education can cure ignorance' or, at least, reduce it.  Education doesn't necessarily erase racism, as you still have the fear and hatred to contend with.  I think it is more likely that Howard would have been ignorant about other races until he grew in experience.  As such, he might invoke stereotypes earlier on; but, experience and education might lead him to also evolve in his treatment of such characters, as you say, in his later works.

This is where I am coming from, when it comes to modern knee-jerk cries of racism and reverse cries of PC and SJW.  The reaction is to the extreme, rather than the more fertile ground of ignorance.  Ignorance is within the words, racism within the intent and context.

Guys, am I correct to assume that the Hyborian Age would be around the era of the Roman Empire, or a little after that. I would think that the different societies would view each society of different races very differently than their own. It's because it's hard to trust societies or bigger tribes near your own, so the racism towards other races back then would be very overt correct?

Thanks Mrp. Just a quick question. Would Kull's timeline/era coincide with Conan's, or is it a totally different timeline/era altogether?

Hyboria is in the unrecorded past, before the history we know; but, it encompasses everything that interested Howard. So, there are Roman elements, Egyptian, viking, Bronze Age, Iron Age and pre-history. The best fantasy worlds have that, like Leiber's Lankhmar or Pratchett's Discworld..