you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 270 points 4 months ago (102 children)

For the lazy who don't want to look it up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 102 child comments
  • [–] 100 points 4 months ago (58 children)

    It feels so out of the blue, so unnecessary. Like the writer had been bored. It's difficult to imagine that this didn't jolt readers out of the story, even at the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 4 months ago (47 children)

    Languages change. Moron, idiot and imbecile used to be medical terms. Gay used to simply mean happy and excited. A fag used to be a term for a cigarette.

    I really doubt it would have appeared in a mainstream children's book if it were seen as at all offensive.

    Words like "bugger" and "damn" used to be extremely offensive curses. Now they're often used as very mild expressions of annoyance to avoid using the serious ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    Exactly. I started reading The Fellowship of the Ring again, and it takes some getting used to that "queer" is used in a completely different way than nowadays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Weren't idiot, moron and imbecile medical terms specifically used by white scientists to describe black people back in the good old eugenics days of the 1920's America? Language changes sure but it often has very racist roots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Buggery used to be a crime, now it's a gay way to spend an afternoon

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    I wonder if straight people were ever convicted of buggery with he opposite sex? I wouldn’t be surprised if “buggery” existed solely to persecute homosexuals back then.

    (I was gonna say “non-straight” or “queer” but “homosexuals” read in 30’s English accent sounded funnier to me in my head)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I mean... there's also a famous Agatha Christie's book that used to have the N-word in its title.

    We're viewing these things with our modern eyes. But they didn't have this kind of sensibility those days. It probably felt like using any other word: normal.

    I wonder if our grandchildren will feel the same way about something we say normally today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago

    I doubt whether the vast majority of British readers would’ve been jolted by it - at the time of first publication. It was a word that had been in everyday parlance that got attached to dark “things” as a describer.

    Here’s the thing though, go forward maybe 15 years again and you have the 1964 Smethwick constituency election. The winner had a, uhh, memorable slogan: “If you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour.”

    It’s worth noting that the “n*****s” in question were, most likely, gonna be from the Punjab. Go figure.

    So, yeah, in less than a generation the word in question went from everyday speech with no overt pejorative meaning to the explicitly racist word it is today. It morphed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 4 months ago (38 children)

    I genuinely don’t even understand what this means. Black people aren’t charcoal black.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 4 months ago (21 children)

    In the 1950s ... to average white people who might have never seen a black person before ... they would imagine this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    I can promise you that the vast majority of white Americans had seen a black person in the 1950s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    This is a British book, though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    With the war and influx of American GIs in Britain, not to mention their colonies, I stand by my statement for Britain as well.

    What helps in the case of the UK is a larger percentage of their population lives in cities than the US too. Just by the math living in urban areas you're just going to see more people and more people from outside your community will be come in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    I don't think minstrel shows with black face were common in Britain?

    It's more likely that white British people took it as "much darker than the skin we're assuming for people" which is enough to make the simile work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    You'd be wrong on that I'm afraid:

    The Black and White Minstrel Show is a British light entertainment show on BBC prime-time television that ran from 1958 to 1978. The weekly variety show presented traditional American minstrel and country songs, as well as show tunes and music hall numbers, lavish costuming and often with cast members in blackface.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    and that was the problem .... the Brits loved the idea of a minstrel show in black face because it had everything they loved about it ... presenting black people as comical caricatures to be made fun of while also being presented and performed by white people ... because they never thought of hiring and paying for actual black people to do these things.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago

    If you have never actually seen a person with dark skin that's how you might imagine one. Or so I did when I was a kid, growing up in a bunghole village in the impenetrable forests up in northern europe where the darkest skin I'd seen was that greek girl (not very dark at all).

    My friend is also charcoal black, so that's definitely a possibility too, human skin is amazing, it can be black-blueish, chocolate, white or red (me in the summer).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    They « were » in theatre and movie production at the time. Black American weren’t allowed to play a role so they used white male with charcoal and shoe shine

    Fun fact they were some black actor that did black face as a kind of protestation IIRC

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    I'm just spitballing here but maybe back in the 1950s and earlier there wasn't as much mixed race couples or children from those interracial marriages? Like today we have so many shades of "black" that maybe wasn't as popular nearly 100 years ago.

    Just a random thought

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)