I was surprised last week to hear the word ‘nigger’ more than once on Radio 4. It was used in an historical context, and so was understandable, but usually people go to some lengths to use substitute terms like ‘n-word’ to avoid criticism.
Of course I accept that to use it as a direct term of contempt is indeed offensive. But are we being hypocritical? After all words like dago, or paddy or, even stretching it, wog do not raise hackles in the same way.
Yet, leaving aside the actual words, I suspect that most of us have little caricatures in our minds when we think of different categories of people. We might think of the French, or the Italians, or the German, or the Chinese and in our minds have a little uncomplimentary picture of a typical member. You may remember the P.G. Wodehouse quote ‘’It has never been hard to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.’ Very witty – but not very kind. Add to that Gypsy or Jew – and we are in difficult territory.
In fact I suspect that all of us have a racialist element somewhere hiding inside us. Perhaps it comes through evolution: homo sapiens learnt early that strangers (that is, not people like us) are dangerous. But we may not be aware of it. A study was carried out sending in applications for advertised medical posts. The CVs were identical but in half the cases the name of the applicant was foreign; the other half were given English-sounding names. Surprise, surprise – it was those with English names who for the most part were invited to an interview. I don’t suppose those who selected the interviewees would have been aware of their racialist choices – or, if pointed out, would have produced rationalisations to excuse themselves.
If we add to our innate distrust of strangers our evolved capacity to make lightning decisions in the face of danger (those who delayed got eaten) and we have to acknowledge that racialism is hardwired into our systems.
We may not like to think of ourselves as racialist. Heavens, we are Christians aren’t we – everyone is equal in God’s eyes. Yes, but we are better off recognising our bad tendencies so that we can work at reducing them, than to remain blind to our faults.
So let’s cheer ourselves up with the story of the public official in Washington – who used the word ‘niggardly’ in a speech. What an upset! No explanation would suffice, and the official found himself obliged to resign.
secondsightblogdotnet 
“Racialist” Quentin?
Is that a pommy way of saying “Racist”?
I deplore that sort of behaviour – would never indulge in it myself.
Probably means much the same as ‘racist’ but sound rather less offensive.
Incidentally (remembering old sorrows) you need a comma between ‘racialist’ and ‘Quentin, unless you are being deliberately insulting (which seems unlikely).
Perhaps Racialism or the Racist label is used by certain people simple to intimidate and to get their own way. The Gay Lobby do it all the time.
In the present situation with such mass migration into the UK and Europe, there is perhaps a normal and justifiable uneasiness? But that is not strictly Racism.
Nektarios thank you. A few thoughts flowed from your post …………..
Do we confuse the belief that a whole race is inferior, with the dislike of a particular member of that race?
‘’It has never been hard to tell the difference between a Scotsman (Jew Englishman Arab Frenchman) with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.’ is not a racist comment. Take out ‘with a grievance’ it is.
A negro that calls a negro a ‘nigger’ or ‘big black mama’ is accepted. Likewise a gay calling another gay a ‘raging queen’ is acceptable. Good friends often call each other the most outrageous names and the words themselves mean nothing.
Similarly, if i call someone a ‘plonker’, and they only know the word from T.V. not it’s literal meaning, no offence is taken from the word itself, the emotion/attitude/meaning i deliver it with is the criteria for it being insulting or not. (Or Racist).
Racism (maybe hidden in all of us to a degree, but i doubt it) exists of course and is deplorable and unacceptable; but not in the words themselves – it’s the attitude they are delivered in that counts.
(Same with hate mongers of all persuasions. It’s not just for race).
A word that starts out to describe a certain type/trait innocuously, becomes derogatory if the type/trait is then seen to be inferior/bad, AFTER the word’s use purely as a descriptive label.
And people start to take offence (at the words themselves no matter what the intended usage) because of the association with their own projected repressions or dislikes or fears of the associated type/trait. (Scapegoating? Over compensating?)
I suspect (conjecture not assert) them that do so are repressing their own ‘racism’.
‘Racialism’ was used up to about 1970. It can mean a number of things. Karl Marx, a German Jew, was a racialist in that he regarded Negroes as being too backward to be revolutionized, but this would have raised few eyebrows at the time.
Did anyone spot the irony in Galerimo’s post? However, it is impossible to racially insult an Englishman since he believes he has won first prize in the lottery of life, and is unconcerned about what Johnny foreigner may choose to call him.
Regarding ‘niggardly’, the etymological ignorance of the PC brigade was demonstrated over here when a local council banned the expression ‘taking the mick (or mickey)’ as being insulting to the Irish, which assumes that no Irishman has ever come across the word ‘micturation’. Now that’s what I call taking the piss.
Ha ha! …. But ‘Extracting the urine’ please, John, more PC!
It is not the easiest thing to do in the present PC climate, and that is not to label people at all.
In religious circle we have the same thing but we do not call it racism, but intolerance.
The trouble with labelling people, it is a descriptive one may want to use, but the descriptive can never be the actual.
Labels about people whether it is ethnicity, nationality, language, type of work they do, different classes of society and so on, such labels only serve to divide.
We are so used to labelling things and people. In this case it is a product of fear.
Fear produces a reaction, which to act upon, will always be wrong and take one into a wrong if not fatal direction.
The images and labels we have of ourselves as a people, and nation, or ethnicity, professional and working class and so on cannot be understood when, because of fear, such labelling by others or what we label ourselves – so why do we label just about everything?
It has to do with identification. So the easy question and answer is, why do we identify with anything, or others or things. The answer is stop doing it.
So, Nektarios, according to your logic (or lack of it) to call a Frenchman a Frenchman, or a plumber a plumber, is reprehensible. You do spout some nonsense, but this really must take the biscuit.
John Nolan
You miss the point entirely. Here is a Frenchman, there is an Englishman. We have produced a division of them and us. Forgetting, we are one humanity.
Good deeper, John, before hurling an insult.
Labels, or categories we put people in, are not the dividing factors. It’s the value judgements that people associate with the descriptions. Which of course can be positive as well as negative.
Learning to seeing beyond the labels, to get to the heart and truths of anything and everything, is a must, i agree.
But in themselves (skin colours nationalities sexual orientations religious affiliations social standing and wealth .. etc … etc) they are neutral; until a personal value judgement is placed upon them.
I always try to look upon (label!) others as equals, whatever the values society (we!) put on them, be they Bishop, beggar, Prime Minister or kitchen cleaner.
We all partake of the shades of black white and grey, our existence is made up of, at varying times and to varying degrees.
How we relate to that reality – accept and try to love others and ourselves (failing miserably of course!) so neutralising the negative, or reject it and project onto others (scapegoating) so increasing the negative – is what heals or destroys us and the other.
I know which Jesus chose and died for.
‘Father forgive them they know not what they do’.
And me too, please!
That’s where the evils of racism ( and the rest of our sickness?) is perpetuated or destroyed.
Nektarios, I have read through your comment of 12:14 several times, and still cannot make sense of it. To say that identifying (labelling) someone as being of a certain nationality, or being engaged in a certain type of work is a ‘product of fear’ is nonsense on stilts. To say that we need to stop identifying ‘with anything, or others or things’ (sic) is quite literally meaningless. It might make sense to you, but this is not communicated to the reader.
John Nolan
I am sorry, but you seem to have misread, or I have not been clear enough.
What ever religious group one belongs to, do we Identify with that? In the long history of the Christian Church for example, has this identification not led to division and bloodshed? If that is the case, then whey do we identify with that?
When it comes to racial groups, here again we identify with our own, to the exclusion and mistrust of the other without really knowing anything about these other peoples. This causes division, and this identification with our own group or people can and often, does lead to racialism.
The same, identification with a particular political Party, produces divisions.
I have not yet gone into the argument of what one does about that yet, but regards racialism, identification with our own group, nationality, culture is the problem.
Clear enough now, John?
Slightly clearer, Nektarios , but still illogical. I identify myself as white, male, British, middle-class, middle-aged, Catholic and Tory. Some of these are accidents of birth, are not labels I choose for myself, and are immutable. Others are the result of circumstance, and some the result of free choice. I can, with justification, identify myself as either English or Irish and I can change my political or religious allegiance, although I have no intention of doing so.
Diversity is a fact of nature – if you like, it is the will of God. There is no point in railing against it, calling it a ‘problem’ and suggesting (ludicrously) that the solution lies in not identifying with anything, which is not only unnatural, but impossible.
John Nolan
This identifications in nature. Identification is true of the Animal kingdom, the Birds of the air and the fish of the sea.
When it comes to human beings however it is different. Identification and why we humans do it, comes from fear. It provides a sense of security among our own little group. nationality, and culture.
Identification is a problem because it always creates a division. Thant is one side of it.
There are many other aspects.
Identification creates space between you and everything else.
I am one with my wife or husband one may say, but the truth of the matter is the separation or division that identification causes means one oneness with a partner is only seen through a prism of memory – that is the past.
When one says they identify with God, sounds good doesn’t it, but such identity is limited to words. When one actually has an experience of God or the Holy Spirit, one loses their
identification, for then there is no division.Where there is identification, there can be no union with God actually.
One could go on. It is not illogical, John, the only illogical aspect is we insist on identification. This is also why we name things, but one cannot relate simple to a name or label. To do so is illogical.
Oh, dear, John, surprised you can still be a Tory & Catholic .. seems like a contradiction in terms in this day and age!
But what N is trying to get at, i think, is that over identification with any ‘label’, blocks out the unity we share share ‘beyond’ the labels.
Then one must have a sense of ‘beyond’ Thinking and Sensate functions to appreciate the metaphysical concepts.
While not a question of racism, there is a similarity in the matter of feminism. It seems that anything which might be taken as a criticism of the characteristics of women is deplorable, while criticism of men appears to be freely allowed and often encouraged. Why is this? What is the male version of feminism? Or should we just use genderism to describe all these phenomena?.
I think that initial labelling and identifying is completely unavoidable, and that it is what we do about it that is important. We cannot think or act in a vacuum, a first reaction is inevitable, and will be based on our previous experiences, and on what we may have heard or read, which have powerful conscious and unconscious influence on our minds. Stereotypes do not have to be completely ignored, as they have often developped due to elements of truth, just as cliches usually express a common experience, but if we use a first impression quite deliberately as a temporary working hypothesis only, it can be modified and ready to adapt and change with more time and information.
I wonder about employers at interviews who we are told often decide about candidates within the first two minutes, is their quick judgement usually borne out in practice.
Appearance and deportment register very quickly, and voices, and do not always correlate with abilities or expected personalities, Listening to people on the radio can be very interesting, and a mental picture can be confirmed or completely altered when seeing them later on TV or in person.
Our Lord refused to speak to the Canaanite woman at first. She persisted and He said that He had come to save the lost of Israel. Her persistance and her faith gain her reward. But was Our Lord racist?
Geordie, I think he could not have really meant that statement as complete and final or He would not have seemed to give way so quickly. There is probably some nuance of translation which more scholarly contributors than I would know, as Jesus could not possibly be racist in an excluding way. tI don’t think there is nanything necessarily wrong however, especially in less vital matters than our salvation, with offerring some good to a particular section of society, nor in often feeling more comfortable with those who share more of ones own background.
Nektarios, since the main features of our identity (or to put it another way, how we identify ourselves) are beyond our control, how is it that they are a product of fear?
Of course we can’t identify with God; even the angels cannot do that. But God can identify with man, as he showed in the person of Jesus Christ, whose human identity did not detract from his divine nature.
John Nolan
I am not speaking about identity, but even there, there is a series of problems associated with self.
I was speaking about identification, that which we name, and in doing so cause division and separation, violence and racism and so on.
When you say, ‘ of course we can identify with God.’ what exactly do you mean?
What identifies with God?
Come nearer home, your soul, what is that actually? We have named it, but it seems to me most know little or nothing about their soul.
What is this soul that we have so named? What does it do? Why is it there?
You see, John, part of the problem of identification we become satisfied with the word, the term, but in so doing we loose sight of what we name. Separated by the naming word and don’t know how to relate to it. It is a big problem.
Nektarios, I actually said ‘of course we can’t identify with God’.
I think you are seeing problems where none exist. Removing all the nouns from the language (since they name things) would make communication somewhat difficult.
John Nolan
Yes, I did misread what you said, sorry about that.
What I am saying regarding identification, is simply we go no further than the word.
I am not saying, we don’t name anything that would be silly, but we must go beyond that. This has made Science for example, a very, very slow process.
Similarly, the same applies to the realm of the Spirit and things spiritual. We have to go beyond words if we are to relate to that.
But we are fixated on words, but like I said at the beginning, words are the descriptive and can never be the actual.
I use the word tree or flower for example, but go no further, what do we understand about the actual. Nothing much.
If we say human beings are persons, we must go beyond that word, persons, if one is to relate.
In racism, which is the topic we are discussing, we have to get beyond the word racism
if we are to understand it. To say, we have understood what it means in the dictionary,
we have not made much progress. We have become satisfied with the word, which is a descriptive, we discuss just the word racism not getting to the actual. But one has to go beyond the mere decriptive if one is to end it in oneself, if it is there.
At its heart I think this enlightening discussion is bringing out a point about equality and the need to recognise it in our dealings with others.
There is great diversity in who we are with each other.
To honour that variety and accord the same esteem to every individual is the challenge we fail to meet when we invoke characteristics rather than character.
I am hearing here that its not easy, nor does it come naturally. Indeed is it even possible?
I hope so.
Somehow we are all travelling together as the adult children of God.
Martha – and Geordie – since Jesus always knew what a person had in him (her), He knew how the Canaanite woman would respond if he initially refused to help her. (I presume we are talking about the woman to whom He said that it isn’t right to take the children’s food and give it to the dogs, – implying that His healing powers were to be directed to Jews, not to “outsiders”). She bounced back at him “No, Lord; but the dogs can eat the food that the children drop from the table” – an expression of complete faith that He could cure her daughter; and a brushing-away of the apparent insult in Jesus’s comparison of non-Jews to dogs. He was then able to point out to the bystanders that her faith was stronger than that of many of the Jews among whom He had grown up, and with whom He might be expected to identify.
Thank you, Iona. That is very helpful, to think of Our Lord as having anticipated the woman’s reaction and as deliberately provoking it. More generally, His style of debate – perhaps not different from other rabbis of his day – is often quite sharp. He is extremely hard on Pharisees as a class – could he be accused of ‘racism’ for that? Or ‘discrimination’? Of course, ‘discrimination’ to be wrong, must be ‘unjust’ – often that vital qualification is forgotten.
Iona.
I never thought about it that way, I thought he meant the animal.
A saying of my grandmother was that These days ‘people think more of animals than of children’ that was in the 50’s. What would she say now I wonder!!
Nektarios mentioned Political Correctness above. I said something the other day and my daughter said to me ‘you can’t say that now Mum that is not PC.!
I suppose nowadays a male opening a door for a female or giving up his seat for a female
would not be PC. As a gentleman gave his seat up (sitting by his wife he was black) to my daughter the other week in the hospital waiting room, she did not know for a second what to do but took it for fear of offending his kindness.
We need a book of rules seemingly now!
Thank you, Iona, He seems to be leading her on to a fuller acknowledgement of her belief in Him, and of its greater importance.
I don’t think for one moment that Our Lord was a racist. However in this modern world, there are people who look for racism even when it doesn’t exist. They are using anything that will give them control and power, as in Quentin’s example of “niggardly”. In the nineties, when I was working, we were told to ask for coffee with milk or coffee without milk. We were not supposed to use “black”coffee or “white” coffee. Most of us treated the directive with ridicule but it was considered to be the local authority policy for some time, until the perpetrator of the policy was found to have her hand in the till and dismissed.
In the early seventies and late eighties when my husband and I had a Public Licensed Trade , there were many black men and their wives our customers, there was never any bigotory between the customers, all were friends, picking out their horses for the bookies across the road, buying each other drinks, buying bingo card and selling them at their workplace for the catholic church we attended, also helped with the Fetes etc.
One was called black Jack by some Irish friends, and another called Snowey, no offence even thought of.
I gave accommodation to four young Nigerian men who had come to England to learn some Machinery work, until their government stopped their finance after a year, it did not stop other holiday makers staying, nor did 4 young boys unsighted who stayed with a change over every 4 weeks learning piano tuning at a local piano works.
I am just saying this as I am unaware of any racism where I live with regards to colour.
That one is certainly ridiculous, Geordie, and along with many others, considered so by people of other races themselves. I used to buy little tins of small liquorice pieces called Nigroids, and when they were renamed Vigroids the Indian pharmacist himself volunteered his views about such stupidity. I would not be allowed to describe him as coloured either, though he is definitely far from the black which is an accurate description of one of our daughters in law. Our children had a lovely golly among their toys, and we had little plaster Robertsons’ gollies when they could be collected with mamalade tokens. They each had different musical instruments, and made a lovely band singing all sorts of tunes with us, and have certainly not caused any racism in our family.
Martha.
My grandmother made me a large one when I was four.
I also remember them on the Jars, we used to collect them.
The term ‘nigger’ has long been derogatory, Guy Gibson’s black Labrador notwithstanding. When, in the nineteenth century, the British in India started referring to Indians as ‘niggers’, that was a clear indication that they despised them, although Englishmen in the eighteenth century recognized, accepted and admired Indian culture.
As, of course, did Enoch Powell, who, when asked in 1968 if he was a ‘racialist’, made it clear that he did not subscribe to the notion that some races were superior and others inferior.
Some nurseries no longer sing “baa baa black sheep” with the children, but “baa baa rainbow sheep”. – inaccurate in terms of the colour that sheep actually are; plus, it doesn’t even scan. Nor alliterate, as “baa baa black sheep” does.
The term “nigger brown” to describe a particular shade of dark brown was apparently acceptable in the ’50s; at least, I had a coat that colour, and that was how my mother described it.
Sorry – just a couple of random thoughts; barely related to Quentin’s post.
Iona.
I went into a Haberdashery shop years ago and asked for a Nigger Brown zip in all innocence and felt really embarrassed when the shop keeper looked at me, I did not associate it with a black person.
Having gone back to re-read Quentin’s post:
The interviewers who chose to interview the applicants with English-sounding names rather than those with “foreign” sounding names, – we feel comfortable with what we’re familiar with (or, think we’re familiar with); ideally, those interviewers should have bypassed the names and focused on the CVs. Perhaps we need to question and be suspicious of our feelings (comfort, familiarity) constantly, to make sure we’re not doing people an injustice. But I’m not sure that those interviewers are actually guilty of racism. Not necessarily, anyhow.
‘Rainbow sheep’? Homophobia alert!
“Similarly, the same applies to the realm of the Spirit and things spiritual. We have to go beyond words if we are to relate to that.
But we are fixated on words, but like I said at the beginning, words are the descriptive and can never be the actual….” Nektarios Oct15th 11.33 pm
So…when God asked Adam to name the beasts.. was He playing celestial trick or treat?
Saying something like.. “Hey, Adam, I’m bored..lets play pretend!”
‘when God asked Adam to name the beasts’
That’s a good example of taking the ‘label’ (descriptive naming) as the essence of things, and staying with the words, Ignatius. Just a tad literal don’t you think.
Ignatius
The naming of beasts etc was pre-fall. Adam had insight into the nature of all that God had created. That is something post-fall we don’t have the same insight into. Adam was looking in the Animal kingdom for a partner, but found it not.
And so when Jesus named Simon ‘ Peter’ and called him the rock ..he was just kidding and knew nothing about who Simon really was?
Ignatius
Naming Simon, Peter, by our Lord, is one thing, but the question I pose is this: When He refers to the Rock is He pointing to Himself or Peter?
Jesus is the Rock of Ages, the immovable foundation. Peter cannot be either of those?
“And so when Jesus named Simon ‘ Peter’ and called him the rock ..he was just kidding and knew nothing about who Simon really was?” Not at all.
No. But that is a perfect example of of using the name and relating to the symbolic spiritual expression, of the reality ‘beyond’ the word – and beyond the face in this case. It’s the spiritual reality that counts here not the actual person of Rocky.
Besides, Jesus knew what was what – he was without sin me thinks.
Ah but GD, being a poor fallen little type of chap, you aren’t supposed to be able to perceive that are you…? You are apparently ‘fixated’ by names and unable to see beneath the surface of things…so how did you manage to?
Which makes me think totally off topic, apologies …. and i conjecture not assert …
God brought all to be named by man (spiritually speaking given actual identity) including the snake presumably and the essence of the snake was the fly in the ointment so to speak.
So, mankind formed (named) the cause of man’s own corruption and ‘expulsion’ from the original ‘Eden’ creation.
And all this time ‘the woman’ and the serpent have been having the bad press!
Then of course you have the problem of Revelations2:17 :
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone inscribed with a new name, known only to the one who receives it.
Ignatius
Where are you going with this line of questioning?
On holiday actually, off to Wales tomorrow…you know, that strange, mysterious and unknowable corner of the turning earth, shrouded and slumbering in deep metaphysics, darkly impenetrable to man…..Abersoch in other words…I’m going to walk beside the sea..you know what I mean…..that wierd mass of something slippy which gets in your throat and stops you breathing somehow…
“so how did you manage to?” ……… I didn’t! No idea where it came from . ….
Still waiting for my white stone too. Wish God would get on with it, could do with a bit of manna to sustain! (lol and all that).
Just have to get my self out of the way a bit more, i guess.
‘ The term “nation” designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished from other nations by its culture. Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are natural societies, not the product of mere convention.’ (Pope John Paul II: ‘Memory and Identity’ p.77)
Both JP II and Benedict XVI condemned the concept of ‘multiculturalism’ which has become something of a buzzword in modern societies.
Yes, this is where difficulties mainly arise and where our politicians need the wisdom of Solomon. Relating to people of other races and cultures as individuals and in small groups is vastly different to accommodating and absorbing large numbers into another country as we are seeing now all over Europe.
I think it is clear nowadays that the scientific, the philosophical, higher criticism, humanistic philosophy, politics globally, are generally failing.
The ideas they have thought up have not brought peace and well-being. There is high unemployment, the great divide between rich and poor. Multiculturalism never works for the host country as is banded about, for any particular foreign immigrants just needs to reach a critical mass before there is great unrest and a change in demography.
Globalisation does not work for the countries it operates in. It neither cares for the people or the environment, leaves many countries and people in dire poverty.
The corruptions in religion too has had the effect that, clever though much of it is, it is failing.
All these different aspects demonstrate man’s problem, and he /she is the problem and it is the problem of sin.
We have seen the Christian faith attacked on all sides – when was it any different.
It appears to be failing, because sinful man, the rebel against God man, has trusted to all these different aspects. And now, these different aspects are all failing one after another.
For those of you are Children of God, the days of small things might be about to change.
The message of the Gospel is the only hope for mankind.
Realise the opportunity that is there Christian Church!
Genesis 11:1-9 The Tower of Babel, springs to mind.
We are created with one ‘language’ and purpose; as God created us.
And we, in our pride, started to build a walled city to keep us safe, by our own means and ways, using man made materials (for stone they used bricks) to try and reach heaven and God by our own means & works.
That was why & how people were divided, not understanding each other any longer.
Now maybe the signs of the times are telling us to reunite? (Despite all the differences). In humility and respect for God given individuality – national and family – going beyond differences without destroying them; to be united by the true Unity in and of God. In God’s Way. By extending the love of God to all.
Fill this little island, for the sake of love, until it sinks and God will do what is needed. But we won’t.
Not many people have the desire for peace & unity.
Especially those who have most wealth and prestige to loose. Especially the, so called, leaders of nations.
Mind you, i hate being ‘crowded’ – would prefer a little English hamlet to a Middle Eastern bizarre! – so probably don’t have it myself! Mae culpa!
Have no idea how to go about it practically either apart from living simply that other’s may live in peace.
But then, only God can sort out this mess we’ve created, and miracles seldom are practical.
(I would like ALL the hate mongers to get some genetic mutation to kill them off – Mae Culpas aplenty for that! And no, i don’t pray for such!).
G.D
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has never built a wall around itself.
She is wide open to anyone who would like to enter.
Our Lord is there in the Tabernacle welcoming everyone.
However one must be wearing the .proper dress. as Jesus told the man at the Wedding Feast who was not dressed properly. Then He sent him away’
The Baptist Font was always at the back of the Church as just a sign where one enters.
Some Churches have moved it to the front now. I don’t suppose it matters now as it is Baptism that matters.