Okay, obviously it’s not new, but I never heard of it before.
I was reading the 1901 H.G. Wells story “The New Accelerator”. As with so many of Wells’ stories, it’s probably the first scientifically-minded fictional treatment of an idea that would later be used by many, many other writers. In this case, the story is about a drug – the “Accelerator” – that speeds up one’s physical and mental processes by several thousand-fold, so that the world seems to slow down tremendously. Hijinks ensue.
Now, when you read stories from a hundred years ago and more, it’s common to come across a casual racism that was completely mainstream at the time. So I’m used to stereotypes, but this was a new one on me:
(I love the assumption that the reader is one of us – you know, a white fella.)
This is not exactly the same thing, but this reminds me of how editorial cartoons from the 1890s portrayed Hawaiians. At that time, American businessmen were engineering the US takeover of that kingdom, and no on the mainland knew what a Hawaiian looked like, so they were all portrayed as blacks!
It’s the WOG stereotype (Wily Oriental Gentleman), which includes Jews, Arabs, central Asians, south Asians, and East and Southeast Asians. Basically, they’re more crafty, more sneaky, than Europeans. And while Europeans in their virtuous innocence retain their adolescence until late in their 20s, the Asian is thrown into adulthood much more quickly, usually being sent out to swindle someone by the time he’s 13 (note - Bar Mitzvah (rite of passage to adulthood, “Today I am a fountain pen…er, man”) at 13/14).
That word does not necessarily mean what you think it means…
“Wog” doesn’t “stand” for anything, despite constant claims that it means “Westernised Oriental Gentleman”, “Welcomed Overseas Guest”, “Working on Government”, “Wily Oriental Gentleman”, etc. It’s basically a shorthand for “Swarthy Foreigner” in British English; Wikipedia has an article on the word if anyone’s interested.
I agree with the last part & would also raise you that, by centuries of such acculturation and probably breeding, there may be a genetic level to Jewish & Asian intellectual prowess.
I would raise you that Asians are no more or less smart than Westerners. There are just billions of them and Westerners only tend to deal with the smarter and more ambitious ones who have come West to seek their fortune. They also come from a culture that seems to encourage hard work and discipline.
Both Jews and Asians had darker skin than Englishman or other northern Europeans, who were the standard of the pinnacle of humanity.
All dark-skinned peoples were stereotyped “others.” It’s startling to read classic British detective novels and find Spaniards and Italians included in this category. Indians from the Raj weren’t just referred to as wogs but often as niggers.
Jews and certain Asians were difficult to stereotype as inferiors so other demeaning stereotypes had to be invented for them. They were wily and sharp and doubledealing. They didn’t have the benefit of Oxbridge educations, so they had to make they way in the world of business from a younger age which gave them an advantage over their superiors who didn’t care about such plebeian issues. Remember that business was considered a demeaning middle-class career by upper-class Englishmen.
In Victorian novels, the people of India were commonly referred to as black (or blacks or niggers). The Chinese were yellow (and slant eyed devils, if memory serves). Polish people (or Italians) --heck, almost anyone rural–were referred to as peasants or rustics (that last one not being so awful). Being “in trade” was no asset to English gentlemen until after WW1, IMS. Papists was a term for Catholics; Jews were usually described by their “prominent” facial features etc. We can look back and act smug, I suppose, but what unconscious assumptions are we making that will be revealed to later generations as grossly offensive or simple minded?
I don’t quite understand why someone like HG Wells assuming that the reader is white, educated and fairly well off is such a surprise here.
It isn’t; I would have been surprised had he assumed otherwise. Nobody in this thread has expressed such surprise; are you referring to a different thread somewhere that’s about the same subject?
Hmmm. So, you are not expressing surprise re the assumption that reader is white etc? I thought that was the “new, exciting 1901 ethnic stereotype” you had discovered. Isn’t that what it’s about? Or is it the statement the" Jews and Orientals are men in their teens and aged at fifty"? If that is the case, why did you focus on the assumption that the reader is white?
eleanorigby, it’s my interpretation that a comment placed parenthetically in or after a paragraph is at best an aside, rather than the intended subject. I assumed the object of surprise for the OP was the selected quotation, and specifically the rather odd and ignorant belief that Jews and Asians are naturally “accelerated” in some way by dint of race.
Perhaps Mr. Wells is taking an inverse path with his stereotype. By refering to “Jews and Orientals” as quick and early aged he is contrasting them with his intended audience and in essense calling us white people Slow, Fat, Lazy, Quick to exploit others…
I know–I abuse parantheses something awful (bad habit. See?) . Upon rereading it, I do see his point (it didn’t click with me even last night when I responded again), but when I first read the thread, I thought he was focused on the assumption that the reader is white–which IS a much more racist thing, IMO, than the caricature that Wells actually wrote (albeit they’re both offensive). This morning I can’t read the OP any other way than the new stereotype is that Jew et al age quickly etc.
So, my conclusion is that I don’t know where I put my brain the past few days. Please excuse me. As soon as I find it, I will return.
“And the strange thing was, thoughout the morning, she kept referring to the Indians as niggers. ‘No, no, no,’ I said, ‘the niggers are the West Indians. These people are wogs!’”
You seem to be assuming that “we” means “me and you” whereas it can also mean “me and people like me.” Also, it is risky to assume a priori that the narrative voice reflects the author’s point of view in a work of fiction (or even an essay, cf. “A Modest Proposal”). There are certainly hints in this story that the narrator is more provincial and myopic than Wells.
Good point about that. Now that you mention it, I’ve seen that sort of narrative voice in several of Wells’ stories; probably intended to appeal to the broadening middle class that read The Strand and the Pall Mall Gazette. (Did Wells ever publish in The Strand? Not sure.)
I was not, of course, surprised at a certain amount of racism in a 1901 story, however visionary it might be otherwise. Rather, I was curious about a specific stereotype I hadn’t encountered before. I’m baffled that any reasonably attentive reader could fail to apprehend the distinction.
. Upon rereading it, I do see his point (it didn’t click with me even last night when I responded again), but when I first read the thread, I thought he was focused on the assumption that the reader is white–which IS a much more racist thing, IMO, than the caricature that Wells actually wrote (albeit they’re both offensive). This morning I can’t read the OP any other way than the new stereotype is that Jew et al age quickly etc.