Are the royals on the rocks?

145791042

Comments

  • "Markle the Sparkle" no doubt is a media-derived name?

    Clearly there is racism. CTV news had this to say about racism and Meghan: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/questions-of-racism-linger-as-prince-harry-and-meghan-step-back-1.4766880 .

    The sensitivity to race is rather boggling to me.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The sensitivity to race is rather boggling to me.
    I’m not clear what you mean here. Is it boggling that the couple are sensitive to racism, or boggling to you that race is such an issue for sections of the British media and public? Or have I misunderstood you?

    I don’t feel qualified to comment on the extent to which race has been an issue in the coverage of the Sussexes. I intensely, viscerally dislike overt racism, but I don’t necessarily pick up dog-whistle racism being neither in its target audience nor its victim.

    I found this Buzzfeed News article (already linked on this thread) quite shocking. It features publications which I almost never see, let alone read. That said, I can’t easily see that the perfectly horrible treatment meted out has been inspired by racism - though I’m perfectly prepared to accept that it was.
  • I would say snobbery raather than racism - though that is probably an aggravating factor.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    "Markle the Sparkle" no doubt is a media-derived name?

    Not sure - I rather thought that I had made it up, but I'm happy to be proved wrong!
    :wink:

    It was supposed to be complimentary...

  • Eirenist wrote: »
    I would say snobbery raather than racism - though that is probably an aggravating factor.

    That's not necessarily an either/or. It's arguable that racism is a form of snobbery, and that snobbery as it exists in contemporary Western cultures unavoidably has a racial component.
  • As one of British Columbia's first colonial governors was of African Caribbean descent (Sir James Douglas, the son of a Guyanese slave), the locals have some experience of a darker-hued Crown than perhaps other places.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    The sensitivity to race is rather boggling to me.
    I’m not clear what you mean here. Is it boggling that the couple are sensitive to racism, or boggling to you that race is such an issue for sections of the British media and public? Or have I misunderstood you?

    I don’t feel qualified to comment on the extent to which race has been an issue in the coverage of the Sussexes. I intensely, viscerally dislike overt racism, but I don’t necessarily pick up dog-whistle racism being neither in its target audience nor its victim.

    I found this Buzzfeed News article (already linked on this thread) quite shocking. It features publications which I almost never see, let alone read. That said, I can’t easily see that the perfectly horrible treatment meted out has been inspired by racism - though I’m perfectly prepared to accept that it was.

    Difficult to find any other explanation. Besides which, I doubt the media themselves were motivated by racism directly, but by the racism of a portion of their readers. They could see someone they could villify to whip their more deranged readers into a xenophobic rage and sell more papers.

    The Tory tabloid media in the UK are a befouled and bleeding haemorrhoid hanging out of the anal sphincter of society.
  • The Tory tabloid media in the UK are a befouled and bleeding haemorrhoid hanging out of the anal sphincter of society.

    Preach it, Brother KarlLB!
  • edited January 2020
    BroJames wrote: »
    The sensitivity to race is rather boggling to me.
    I’m not clear what you mean here. Is it boggling that the couple are sensitive to racism, or boggling to you that race is such an issue for sections of the British media and public? Or have I misunderstood you?

    I don’t feel qualified to comment on the extent to which race has been an issue in the coverage of the Sussexes. I intensely, viscerally dislike overt racism, but I don’t necessarily pick up dog-whistle racism being neither in its target audience nor its victim.

    I found this Buzzfeed News article (already linked on this thread) quite shocking. It features publications which I almost never see, let alone read. That said, I can’t easily see that the perfectly horrible treatment meted out has been inspired by racism - though I’m perfectly prepared to accept that it was.
    It's boggling to me that the British media and public have such an issue. I look at this couple, and see them as quite a nice looking pair, who evidently have affection for each other. Neither look anything other than people to me.

    The Buzzfeed link is awful stuff. The CTV news link I posted above is pretty clearly about British press racism. FWIW, I don't think it is okay to not educate yourself about direct and subtle racism, and that examining one's attitudes and blind spots is pretty much essential to function decently in society, and if you're Christian.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Difficult to find any other explanation. Besides which, I doubt the media themselves were motivated by racism directly, but by the racism of a portion of their readers.

    Depends what you mean by racism. There are certainly some who look down on the Duchess of Sussex because she's mixed race, but I've personally met more people who see her as "brash American who doesn't understand the way things are done" vs the "nice English girl" Duchess of Cambridge. When the Brits disliked the Duchess of Windsor, it wasn't because she was black. Perhaps not much has changed.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Difficult to find any other explanation. Besides which, I doubt the media themselves were motivated by racism directly, but by the racism of a portion of their readers.

    Depends what you mean by racism. There are certainly some who look down on the Duchess of Sussex because she's mixed race, but I've personally met more people who see her as "brash American who doesn't understand the way things are done" vs the "nice English girl" Duchess of Cambridge. When the Brits disliked the Duchess of Windsor, it wasn't because she was black. Perhaps not much has changed.
    That's not racism per se, but it is prejudiced. I've been similarly startled when they play some things by UK comedians who speak of "The French" in obvious (to my part of the world) bigotted ways. I think the line not to cross with any of it is to imagine the person of the referenced ethnicity or characteristic is your friend and sitting right with you, and consider if you should examine your attitudes and what you say. Would you accept the same said about gay people for instance.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 2020
    TBH, I think Megan would have got worse criticism if she had been a white American actress. Then the gloves really would have been off.

    The BuzzFeed thing looks worse than it is.

    Yes: Kate rubbing bump good; Megan rubbing bump bad.

    But Kate & Fergie in particular got hammered for different things over the years. I've no doubt that if Megan's suitability for Harry was openly questioned by papers (and courtiers) because her mother called a lavatory "toilet" or said "pleased to meet you" (instead of "obviously" How'd you do) it would make some, especially Americans, wonder if racism was at play.

    I couldn't believe when Harry & Megan lectured the public on reducing carbon footprint, proceeded to take multiple air trips and then one of Megan's friends complained that the negative media reaction was racist.
  • That's not racism per se, but it is prejudiced. I've been similarly startled when they play some things by UK comedians who speak of "The French" in obvious (to my part of the world) bigotted ways.

    I'm not sure why that doesn't count as racism either. Historically speaking the idea that all people of European ancestry are the same "race" (white) is a relatively recent innovation in racial thinking.
  • It is ridiculous to say racism doesn’t play a part. As one of the links said, hundreds of years of racism isn’t got rid of overnight.
    Yes, there is xenophobia and classism as well, but that doesn’t negate the racism.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    That's not racism per se, but it is prejudiced. I've been similarly startled when they play some things by UK comedians who speak of "The French" in obvious (to my part of the world) bigotted ways.

    I'm not sure why that doesn't count as racism either. Historically speaking the idea that all people of European ancestry are the same "race" (white) is a relatively recent innovation in racial thinking.

    The same phenomena was present in the UK in approximately the same time frame.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is ridiculous to say racism doesn’t play a part. As one of the links said, hundreds of years of racism isn’t got rid of overnight.
    Yes, there is xenophobia and classism as well, but that doesn’t negate the racism.

    But in your book, any criticism of any darker-than-local-average person is racist.

    That is, in fact, what your statement says here. We have hundreds of years of history of prejudice against black people, therefore any criticism of a black person is racist.

    And that just isn't true.

    "Racism plays a part" can have two quite distinct meanings. It can mean that some of the people are racist (which is undoubtedly true) or it can mean that all of the people are partly racist. I think the latter is untrue. [Deleted User] thinks that the Duchess of Sussex would have been given more shit by the media had she been a white American actress. He thinks the media has been holding back because it didn't want to appear racist. I'm inclined to agree with him.
  • TBH, I think Megan would have got worse criticism if she had been a white American actress. Then the gloves really would have been off.

    The BuzzFeed thing looks worse than it is.

    Yes: Kate rubbing bump good; Megan rubbing bump bad.

    My personal favorite was the Express praising Kate for being "evidently well-versed in the language of flowers, a little-known romantic relic from the 19th century" for her bridal bouquet and eight years later the same publication accused Meghan of trying to poison children because she used the exact same flowers.
    [Deleted User] thinks that the Duchess of Sussex would have been given more shit by the media had she been a white American actress. He thinks the media has been holding back because it didn't want to appear racist. I'm inclined to agree with him.

    Wouldn't it be better (and easier) for the media to simply not be racist? I think this focus on appearances says a lot about many people's conception of racists, that they (and their actions) are easily identifiable, probably because they twirl their elaborate black mustaches while laughing "Muah ha ha ha! That's right, I did it because you're black!!!" While examples of this do exist, most racists (and racism) count on implausible deniability. "Implausible deniability" is the premise that any non-racist explanation for something must be valid, no matter how implausible, when Ockham's razor would normally indicate that something is racist AF.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The Tory tabloid media in the UK are a befouled and bleeding haemorrhoid hanging out of the anal sphincter of society.
    One for the Quotes File, I think!
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Difficult to find any other explanation. Besides which, I doubt the media themselves were motivated by racism directly, but by the racism of a portion of their readers.

    Depends what you mean by racism. There are certainly some who look down on the Duchess of Sussex because she's mixed race, but I've personally met more people who see her as "brash American who doesn't understand the way things are done" vs the "nice English girl" Duchess of Cambridge. When the Brits disliked the Duchess of Windsor, it wasn't because she was black. Perhaps not much has changed.

    I'm not as certain as you are, @Leorning Cniht Perhaps it's because I've had long and serious conversations with Friends of Colour who have suggested that I keep an eye out for coded phrases. Sometimes I think that they are making too much of a particular comment, but much of the time, I think that they have a point. There are many who search for ways of criticizing a person-of-colour without obviously doing so. As an Anglican, I am well-versed in passive-aggressive criticism and commentary, and I see some of the same mechanisms.

    Mind you, I think that HRH Princess Henry (what an odd appellation) shares with the late Duchess of Windsor the characteristic of being from the US. From Frances Trollope on, a stereotype of the brash American has been a frequent element of commentary in Britain (Canadians, more closely acquainted with the species, have their own passive-aggressive commentary on the US, but that deserves its own thread).
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is ridiculous to say racism doesn’t play a part. As one of the links said, hundreds of years of racism isn’t got rid of overnight.
    Yes, there is xenophobia and classism as well, but that doesn’t negate the racism.

    But in your book, any criticism of any darker-than-local-average person is racist.

    That is, in fact, what your statement says here. We have hundreds of years of history of prejudice against black people, therefore any criticism of a black person is racist .
    That is not what it says. If we were talking one person, then your contention is valid. Given that it is multiple people, from sources that have proven to skew racist, it is not. Given that Markle has been called “exotic” by some of them also challenges your supposition.
  • Re Meghan getting sparkle in her eyes again:

    She may already have some back. I saw a clip of her on TV last night. She was wearing a parka, hood up, so was probably already in Canada by then. Her head was deep in the hood. For just a moment, she looked to me like Diana. Partly the dark eye makeup, I think. But maybe also sparkle and smile.

    I hope this move leads to much better, safer, and happier lives for Meghan, Harry. and Archie.

    (:votive:)
  • Golden Key wrote: »

    ... She was wearing a parka, hood up, so was probably already in Canada by then.
    ...

    Meghan unfortunately arrived during a cold snap, with snow. Parkas are not usually necessary around here, even in winter. (Unless you head into the mountains.) She probably suffered some Toronto flashbacks today, poor dear.



  • 'Exotic' is not necessarily racist. To me, the word conveys an element of glamour, and, yes, colour amid the all-pervading English greyness.
  • Does anyone seriously think that English Upper-Middle-Class/Aristocratic/Royal families in London would think twice about race when given a straight up choice of future son-in-law between an Eton educated, city working, neutral accented guy who was black, and a white, obviously working class Rodney Trotter?

    Class beats race when it comes to prejudice in England.

    Xenophobia beats race too and possibly class.

    Being foreign means you can be forgiven for not knowing the rules in the same way that a working or middle class Brit wouldn't. Again, I don't think there would be any doubt in the smarter parts of London at the choice of a potential daughter-in-law between one of the Obama girls or a young white working class girl with a "chav" name.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited January 2020
    @Eirenist, 'exoticism' isn't always racist, but it has increasingly come to be seen as problematic and the flip side of disparaging when it comes to people of colour or foreign. Edward Said's work opened up a great many issues around what passes for admiration with an exotic Otherness.

    'Exotic' as a term has to do with originating in or characteristic of a distant foreign country (Africa, Asia, the East) and it defines Otherness: foreign, alien (as in not native), tropical, introduced, or imported. Sexualised exoticism implies that foreign women have fetishised attributes appealing to people accustomed to whiteness, an anatomical or aesthetic difference that is outside the norm of whiteness. 'Exotic' women have been historically defined as more sensual, promiscuous, submissive, costumed (geisha girls), primitive and uninhibited, almond-eyed, chocolate-skinned, panther-like, more voluptuous, more enticing etc etc. Exotic is not a compliment, it is at best a charged and naive way of looking at whatever doesn't fit the criteria for whiteness.

    When I saw the photo of Princess Michael of Kent arriving to meet Meghan for the first time and wearing a blackamoor slave brooch, I could see a particular offensive but indirect history of exoticising racism inscribed right there.
  • It reminds me of people mocking the Royal Family for not being English, but German.

    To which the response is "Er, aren't the English partially descended from the Germans. (via the Angles and Saxons?"


    The working and middle class English are mainly/partly Germanic. The aristocratic and upper-middle class English are almost all, in the surname/male line of Norman decent.*

    Class beats race in England.

    * Exceptions include those allied families who came over with the Normans, especially Flemish and Breton, and a few Scottish and Irish clan chiefs who also hold British titles and generally claim ancient Irish ancestry whether Scottish or Irish eg the Surrey born Conor Myles O'Brien, The O'Brien, Prince of Thomond, Chief of the Name, 18th Baron Inchiquin and 10th Baronet of Leamaneh.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Class beats race when it comes to prejudice in England.

    Which doesn't mean racism doesn't still exist. In the circles you are referring to it's often expressed in a jocular manner that provides the deniability that Croesus refers to above.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 2020
    Class beats race when it comes to prejudice in England.

    Which doesn't mean racism doesn't still exist. In the circles you are referring to it's often expressed in a jocular manner that provides the deniability that Croesus refers to above.

    No, you're right.

    It's just not that: POC being made fun of by posh white people = it's because of racism which seems to be more likely the case in the States, and is being assumed by American's in Megan's case.

    If you're black and working class and an aristo is being a dick towards you, they may be racist but they're much more likely to be being a dick because of your class than your race.
  • Since we've got on to racism can anyone explain to me why calling someone "a coloured person" is considered racist, but "a person of colour" isn't?
  • Since we've got on to racism can anyone explain to me why calling someone "a coloured person" is considered racist, but "a person of colour" isn't?

    Nice explanation about the issues with the word "coloured" to desribe someone from the BBC. My rule of thumb is that if my mum used it, it's probably one to avoid. The article also touches on how language has evolved and why - so dual heritage rather than mixed race - for example.

    "Person of colour" seems to be acceptable in the US, but less so in the UK.
  • It's a nice distinction, isn't it?

    I guess the best thing is to NOT refer to their colour at all. If I was having to describe the A & E consultant (Mr R) at our local hospital, I would refer to him as the cheerful chap with the red tie, and the black-rimmed spectacles.

    O, they would say, you mean the coloured chap?
    *sigh*

    The fact that he was of Jamaican origin was irrelevant. His glasses, and his bright red tie (when he wasn't wearing scrubs), were obvious distinguishing features, if he needed to be pointed out to someone!
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Since we've got on to racism can anyone explain to me why calling someone "a coloured person" is considered racist, but "a person of colour" isn't?

    Nice explanation about the issues with the word "coloured" to desribe someone from the BBC. My rule of thumb is that if my mum used it, it's probably one to avoid. The article also touches on how language has evolved and why - so dual heritage rather than mixed race - for example.

    "Person of colour" seems to be acceptable in the US, but less so in the UK.

    That sounds right. My mum said coloured, and my granny said darkie. I thought it was obvious, use the vocabulary which people prefer. Coloured is connected with segregation.
  • MaryLouise, I bow to your superior knowledge. But to me,it still means someone from a distant, and exciting (not sexually so) and coourful place - 'the 'lure of the east'. But I suppose I come from a different, more innocent generation. I used to have a Mr and Mrs Golliwog - and I loved them. Now there's a confession for you.

    On a different point - in some circles 'foreign' is a code for 'black'. 'I don't like foreign docotrs/nurses'.
  • I'm a bit flabbergasted by [Deleted User] assertion that posh poms would rather their kids marry a black person with the right job and education than a chav.

    My guess is that neither would be considered good marriage material by the posh.

    Do other UK shipmates agree with Ryan?
  • This one doesn't, though I think I see what he means.

    The Posh™ have their own codes, which relate only very superficially to Real Life™.

    YMMV.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm a bit flabbergasted by [Deleted User] assertion that posh poms would rather their kids marry a black person with the right job and education than a chav.

    My guess is that neither would be considered good marriage material by the posh.

    Do other UK shipmates agree with Ryan?

    I think the question boils down to whether, in the elitism of the British upper-crust, race trumps class, or vice versa.

    If we were talking about old planter aristocracy of the USA's antebellum south, I think it's safe to say that an uneducated and illiterate cracker would be preferable to an educated and lettered black person, as suitable marriage partners. But that was a caste-system, with skin-colour as the clear marking point, and there is no way to wish away black skin on your grandchild.

    Not sure how these things worked with the British aristocracy. Obviously, they would have been aware of slavery, and that less-than-human status for blacks was something enforced in the colonies. Whether that effected their view of black people generally, I don't know.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Since we've got on to racism can anyone explain to me why calling someone "a coloured person" is considered racist, but "a person of colour" isn't?

    It's a word-order issue. English normally puts descriptors before nouns (the green chair). Placing "person" before "colour" or "color" is an attempt to emphasize the individual's personhood over the individual's race, assuming you imagine s/he has one beyond "human." Putting the descriptor first emphasizes race over humanity.

    That's the theory, anyway.
  • My nephews call themselves and their "coloured persons of colour" friends "niggas" including on social media so we live with that. My brother in law says "brown" about his kids and "black" about himself, which is pretty much what I go with. Afro-Canadian isn't so good because I'm not a Germo-Canadian.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    stetson wrote: »
    Not sure how these things worked with the British aristocracy. Obviously, they would have been aware of slavery, and that less-than-human status for blacks was something enforced in the colonies. Whether that effected their view of black people generally, I don't know.

    If only there were some kind of century-long history of British interactions with black people one could consult to answer that question. I guess we'll never know!

    BTW, love the use of the passive voice there. "Something enforced in the colonies", but we don't know by whom, or whether the "British aristocracy" had any say in running Britain's colonies. So many mysteries!
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    ‘Coloureds’ and ‘Blacks’ were very much terms used for the dispensing of apartheid in South Africa.

    I use neither now, having lived through it. My Dad worked in SOWETO in the 60s.

    I use the usual U.K. terms - ‘black people’ and ‘brown people’.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm a bit flabbergasted by [Deleted User] assertion that posh poms would rather their kids marry a black person with the right job and education than a chav.

    My guess is that neither would be considered good marriage material by the posh.

    Do other UK shipmates agree with Ryan?

    I think the question boils down to whether, in the elitism of the British upper-crust, race trumps class, or vice versa.
    Class and race are not separate things. Class is largely about origin. So there will be very few posh POC/BAME. Middle class is somewhere people can work themselves into, but even that takes a generation or two to manage without contention. But even for those who manage to change their class position, colour will trump that.

  • Class beats race when it comes to prejudice in England.

    Which doesn't mean racism doesn't still exist. In the circles you are referring to it's often expressed in a jocular manner that provides the deniability that Croesus refers to above.

    No, you're right.

    It's just not that: POC being made fun of by posh white people = it's because of racism which seems to be more likely the case in the States, and is being assumed by American's in Megan's case.
    Racism is different in the UK, but it is no less likely to occur. As someone who has been disparaged on both sides of the pond, my experience says your perception misses the boat.
    And we are not dealing with a single instance, but multiple and from sources catering to those most likely to be racist. So what you are proposing is less likely to be accurate.
    If you're black and working class and an aristo is being a dick towards you, they may be racist but they're much more likely to be being a dick because of your class than your race.
    Again, class and race are not separable things. Dress black man in Gieves & Hawkes and a white man in an off-the-shelf suit from Topman and the black man will still get more negative attention.
    Racism and classism are not zero-sum nor either/or. They coexist easily.
  • Meghan is probably the target of racism, xenophobia, and misogyny, since the English tabloids notoriously scrutinize women in the news for defects. Hence, the wrong tights and so on. "Meghan's tights are a metaphor for how far she'll have to go to fit in". (Irish Times).
  • My nephews call themselves and their "coloured persons of colour" friends "niggas" including on social media so we live with that. My brother in law says "brown" about his kids and "black" about himself, which is pretty much what I go with. Afro-Canadian isn't so good because I'm not a Germo-Canadian.

    The mire of nomenclature!! I have attended conferences on this, to the profit of my doodling (or as we would say, marginal notation) skills.

    Afro-Canadian was devised on the model of Afro-American, and is not that commonly used outside greying academic circles but can still be found. African Canadian is what the Census uses, but in other discourse will often refer to immigrants from Africa (but not all Africans in Canada are Black or wish to be accounted as African e.g., many Copts, Algerians, etc, so the Census tries the definition of sub-Saharan Africans). George Elliott Clarke invented the term Africadian for Black Maritimers. Back at the Circumlocution Office, I used "Black and African Canadians" and nobody seemed bothered by it. Most of my friends who would fall under that denomination call themselves Black, even when the link is getting faint (one was 1/16th).

    Coloured would be thought of as an interwar term, and only to be found among the very old indeed. Even when the N-word is used as @NOprophet_NØprofit describes, it is not always well-received by other Black persons-- I recall one episode when a neighbour's family was set into a tizzy when the adolescent son used "nigga" and was clouted by his uncle.

    @NOprophet_NØprofit can happily call himself, should he wish, German Canadian, although one government office now uses German-Canadian (*long tangent available upon request only), and in French canadien/ne allemand/e or allemanocanadien/ne.

    To keep this linked to the OP, I was told by a retired Nova Scotian protocol officer that when HM did her 1967 Centennial tour, there was discussion in (racist, and I'm comfortable with the word in this context) Nova Scotia circles about where the two Black clergy were to be seated at the reception ceremony, and the Palace's flunkey present said that she "knows no such distinction between her subjects." I fear that the popular press has not caught up to her feudal sentiments.
  • If you can lay claim to princely/aristocratic status, you can get away with a lot in certain circles in Britain. BoJo can, on his German side at any rate; we also know he is partly of Turkish descent as well. Meghan can't, of course.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Not sure how these things worked with the British aristocracy. Obviously, they would have been aware of slavery, and that less-than-human status for blacks was something enforced in the colonies. Whether that effected their view of black people generally, I don't know.

    If only there were some kind of century-long history of British interactions with black people one could consult to answer that question. I guess we'll never know!

    BTW, love the use of the passive voice there. "Something enforced in the colonies", but we don't know by whom, or whether the "British aristocracy" had any say in running Britain's colonies. So many mysteries!

    For the record, I'm the LAST person who would try to minimize the crimes of the British empire. I didn't consciously use the passive for any particular reason, except maybe that "they would have been aware of slavery, and that less-than-human status for blacks was something that their government enforced in the colonies" would have made the sentence a little meandering.

    I will say that, while the moral distinctions amount to very little, there probably is a difference in everyday personality, depending on how directly you are involved with the crimes. A suburban N. American businessman who invests in weapons sales to totalitarian regimes that slaughter their own people is probably going to be a rather different sort of person than the gunman who uses the weapons to slaughter protestors. For starters, I probably wouldn't fear for my own safety if the businessman's office was next to mine; considerably more trepidation if the gunman's office moves next door.

    What I was wondering was, is one's everyday attitude toward black people more affected if one is living in the actual place where the enslavement is taking place, rather than if I'm just sitting back in the motherland collecting in the dividends?

  • A the A's story of protocol in Nova Scotia put me in mind of the story of the Prince of Wales (future Edward VII), the King of Hawai'i, and the Crown Prince of Germany (future Wilhelm II) attending a party. Bertie insisted that the King of Hawai'i took precedence over Wilhelm. Wilhelm objected to this, to which Bertie replied, "He's either a king or a garden n****r, and if the latter, what is he doing here." While it can be viewed in different ways, with different implications, it would seem that rank took precedence over race. It should shame the racists in the aristocracy to know that they are more in line with Wilhelm II than with Edward VII, or, more pertinently, than with Elizabeth.
  • Bertie insisted that the King of Hawai'i took precedence over Wilhelm. Wilhelm objected to this, to which Bertie replied, "He's either a king or a garden n****r, and if the latter, what is he doing here."

    Wikipedia gives the quote as "Either the brute is a king or else he is an ordinary black nigger, and if he is not a king, why is he here?" It also notes the diplomatic background of British efforts to influence the Hawaiian monarchy towards the British and away from the Americans.
  • Also note: ‘the brute’
    Rank over race doesn’t exclude racism. It just says your a darkie who gets special privileges.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Crœsos wrote: »
    BTW, love the use of the passive voice there. "Something enforced in the colonies", but we don't know by whom, or whether the "British aristocracy" had any say in running Britain's colonies. So many mysteries!

    As well as slavery of course - and, apart from anything else, it's amusing to watch the British - who pride themselves at being passive-aggressive and masters of the snide put down - suddenly getting confused at how words like 'exotic' could have a second meaning.
Sign In or Register to comment.