Just as another data point, I think other related terms (e.g. ‘Nig-nog’) survived even later than the N word in UK parlance.
In general, there was a prevailing notion that such language was offensive, but in a bawdy/vulgar sense, rather than viciously racist-divisive. I’m not saying that’s right, but I think that’s how it was.
We had another derogatory term for dark skinned foreigners - Wog. This was especially applied to those of South Mediterranean or Middle Eastern appearance and was deliberately offensive. I believe it is still used in Australia.
Nig Nogs are treacle biscuits ( often made with golden syrup, unknown to, and possibly not sweet enough for our American cousins ); this old usage, although nothing to do with race has shocked the BBC on occasion — along with golliwogs.
Nignog as a person dates back to 1700 as Nigmenog: a foolish person. Such nonsense words are familiar to anyone read in 18th century abuse — nothing to do with black people, but later repurposed for them in the 20th century.
So it is still possible to refer to nig nogs without racial offence intended.
I’ve encountered it for Italians, and most recently for people from North Africa, in the US.
Especially for Italians and Greeks. However, as tends to happen, the word has been appropriated by these groups, and you can use it without causing offence in most circumstances. Probably the big turning point was the unexpected success of the stage show “Wogs out of work” and the TV sitcom Acropolis Now, elevated “woggyness” to become part of the national identity.
One of the best self referential comedy skits. captures it.
The manner in which “wog” has been appropriated is interesting. We see much the same with “gay” and “queer” etc. Even a few small steps with “nigger” (eg NWA). But I doubt I will see the day when it surfaces to the same extent that “wog” has here in Oz.
I understood Wog to be almost exclusively for Egyptians ( a land slightly embarrassing since it wasn’t formally part of the Empire but which we held on to to safeguard the passage to India etc. ) with the backformation ‘Western Oriental Gentleman’, but occasionally applied to anyone darkish.
I’ve never heard it said.
Wikipediahas had a crack at the wog question.
I’m not sure they’ve really done justice to Australian usage. As a wog myself, i use it as a self-descriptor but don’t particularly like non-wogs using it, even affectionately.
And back to the OP - in Australian use ‘nigger’ was also an occasional nickname, and at least one sportsground has had issues with its grandstand being renamed, in an act of political correctness gone mad etc etc.
That was 10 years ago, long after Chesterton.
I think the key difference between the UK and the US was that the vast majority of the people in the UK were much more insulated from the realities of both slavery and colonial exploitation: that all happened long ago or at least far away - it hadn’t the same potential to crop up in most people’s lives (even if we are now coming to a belated recognition that it should have done), so the terms didn’t carry the quite same cultural baggage here.
Agreed - and just to note, none of that is an apology for anything inappropriate, but it is a realistic description of why things happened the way they did.
It’s not casual racism if the word isn’t culturally loaded. For instance, if the word “black” is considered a racist slur 50 years down the road, it doesn’t mean that you have been “casually racist” every time you used it yourself.
In the (otherwise excellent) film The Battle of Britain made in 1969, the black dog owned by a fighter pilot is casually named the N-word. AFAIK the dog is a creation of the scriptwriters, who saw nothing wrong with naming it the N-Word, in the 60s!
Later versions (such as the one on Netflix until recently) have fortunately had the offending portions edited out.
In fairness, wasn’t that the actual dog’s name back in the 1940s?
I think I remember reading some British novel many years ago in which is used the expression “There’s a nigger in the woodpile” to refer to some sort of snag or hinderance…
Is it fortunate? Should the word “nigger” be removed from new editions of Mark Twain too, and if not why the difference? Should it be censored in old new reels, in history books quoting old sources? Should it be censored equally when it was used with the intent to be offensive and when it was used because it was the normal word to use at this time and place?
Aren’t you asking to whitewash past culture, and history in general, by supporting such editing?
Yes. Didn’t you read the link?
In this case yes, I have no qualms about saying it is a good thing that those passages were removed.
It is a (very good) film about the bravery of WW2 fighter pilots during the battle of Britain. The fact that a dog, added for emotional effect, was given an offensive name, is completely irrelevant to that storyline, and certainly detracts from it.
Though I am concerned that based on **Colibri **'s post above that I may have got Dambusters and Battle of Britain confused in my memory (I was 100% sure it was the latter film, but now I am having doubts).
I think that’s the case, since there’s no mention of a dog by that name in the Wiki article on Battle of Britain. I also think 1969 would be much too late for the word not to have been considered offensive even in the UK.
+1
I don’t remember hearing it in the Battle of Britain (can’t think of an occasion for it), but the dog with that name was definitely in the Dambusters. I remember noticing the references had been silenced when the film started turning up again on TV.
It had certainly become a no-no when in 1956, the BBC received a fair number of complaints and demoted a radio announcer who mispronounced the title of a talk on “The Land of the Niger” - but they only sent him back to the World Service, and he later told the story against himself as a humorous example of his carelessness.
By 1963 (we had by then had the Notting Hill race riots in 1958, so were being forced to take these issues seriously), things had moved on to the point where a Tory MP (who enjoyed, a little too much, a reputation for being “controversial”) was edited out of the recording of a discussion programme when he used the word in reference to mixed-race marriage. But it wasn’t till 1965 that we had legislation specifically providing civil legal remedies against racial discrimination; and not until 1976 was there legislation making “incitement to racial hatred” a specific criminal offence (but more general public order offences could have been used against abuse using racial/ethnic epithets well before that, depending on circumstances - no idea whether they were or not).
Well, yes.
In the interests of full disclosure, I suspected that griffin1977 had gotten the movie wrong; and that posting my question to you, right under his post, would bring that to his attention – only without having to say “uh, hey, you’re wrong,” and without having to risk him replying “uh, no, they did it in both movies.”
Seemed like a casual and low-key win-win, really – but it’s out the window now. 