Pretty sure 75 years is prior to the other three existing, so Thomas & Friends has technically gone longer without dropping an N-bomb.
post
All this means is that the Thomas franchise has existed long enough to be publishing books since when that word was still in common parlance. I'm sure if you looked at anything from that era, it wouldn't take long to find something that appears problematic through a modern lens.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None (Agatha Christie, 1939)
Believe it or not, it was not "normal" to use slurs in children's books in 1952.
There are Marvel comics from the 1940's with characters straight out of ministrel shows and they still don't use the word. Would you like to guess why?
Edit: not that it stopped Dr Seuss a couple times in the 30's, mind you, but he reserved it for comics and not his children's books, those only got racist caricatures.
The word carried somewhat less of a charge in the UK at the time, where black people were relatively uncommon until waves of labour migration from the Caribbean in the 1950s, than in the US, where it was freighted with the weight of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws and such. Agatha Christie could call a book “10 Little N_s”, alluding to a children’s rhyme. This was an age in which the children who casually sang that rhyme probably had golliwog dolls.
I just checked my copy of the book. Even though it was first published in 1939, my copy was still published under the original titlein 1963.
Sure, absolutely no history of slavery and colonialism in the UK. There definitely aren't a dozen Kipling stories where he calls anyone not a WASP by the term.
While Britain participated in the slave trade, they went out of their way to not do so in Britain; the slaveholders kept their slaves abroad and out of sight, in places where the laws of civilisation which rule such institutions to be obscene are waived. (Sugarcane plantations in the Caribbean were one such place.) And it was impolite to inquire too hard about the sources of fortunes that built stately homes.
The difference being that when the N-word was uttered in Britain, it was belittling and condescending in an exoticising way, like a colonial-era picture book of funny foreigners in their traditional costumes. In America, however, it had a more immediate edge of aggression and violence, implying an other that’s here rather than far away, and firmly below the speaker in the established racial hierarchy, and who must be kept there using tools including designating them as a (N-word).
The garbage eurotrash will spread to pretend they aren't and haven't been virulent racists is pretty amazing.
IT's eXotiCisiNg NoT a ToOl oF oUr RacIaL ImpEriAl HeiRARchY
Meanwhile, at the absolute kindest Br*tish imperial racists are being:
You're bringing up fucking Kipling of all people, the one poet everyone knows for being mega into colonialism. That's like me pointing at the Grateful Dead while saying Americans need to lay off the acid.
One of England's favorite poets until public displays of explicit racism were no longer de rigueur.
He's a perfectly valid example of the feelings of the nation at that time.
One of the favourite English poets amongst a certain grouping of people
It's a cherry-picked example if I ever saw one, I could just as well go and point at Wilberforce to underline early 19th century attitudes to slavery and I'd be making the same error as this.
You cannot use the term "cherry-picked" to refer to a man who is such a prominent cultural icon. His art captured the essence of an era.
It's even more valid when taken in light of more recent wars of colonial aggression involving the UK in which the terminology and lies used mirror the justifications of the 19th century. The behavior and attitude of the UK government towards former colonies when it comes to the topic of reparations and the belated return of stolen artifacts is no different now as it was when the enslaved peoples of the West Indies were granted their "freedom"
Kipling has been subject of debate since the height of his career. it would be inaccurate to claim he represented unchallenged universal attitudes.
Nor can you select the worst examples of someone else's country to defend America's conduct on patriotic grounds which is blatantly what's happening here.
There's a massive Americentrism problem in the wider West that both the US left and right wingers absolutely hate being challenged, they are exactly alike on this issue as far as I am concerned.
Who here is defending America?
Reminding the world that Britain has done a lot of evil and exposing how contemporary Brits justify said evil acts does not equate to defending America.
Some of us can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Cute deflection though.
Are you fucking stupid?
They really are delusional.
The denial and defense of their racist antics is amazing to see in real time.
Setting aside the incorrect notion that there weren't black people in England until the 50s, the story in question was published in 1951 and remained in print into the 1970s.
Believe it or not, it was not "normal" to use slurs in children's books in 1952.
It heavily depends which books you look in.
![]()
pretty sure that racism in the days of yore was still racist (please remember who decided what was appropriate in common parlance back then)
And nobody denied that. The statement was "racism was normal in those days", and not "the n-word wasn't racist in those days".
You're not allowed to criticize or point out Southern Klans members because it was the style of the time.
Lemmy's just becoming worse and worse these days.
Again, nobody said that. You keep just making shit up.
...are you okay? automatically assuming the worst possible meaning of ambiguous statements doesn't seem healthy.
what about this: "pointing the klansmen out to people back then was harder because the average person was more racist."
I grow more and more tired of humanity being a constant idiot parade but that's nothing new.
Just because you refuse to understand that acceptance of a word, no matter how foul, was entirely dependant on the region it was used doesn't mean Lemmy or anyone else is accepting it. People here just understand that Britain in the 1950s was far different in cultural acceptance than the US in 1950.
Just like the USA using "That's gay" as a casual insult as late as the mid 2000s is now considered inappropriate today. I'm queer and I know Brits who still say "pass me a fag". Guess who isn't upset about hearing that because I'm not a moron.
they do say that if you always expect the worst you're never disappointed... but it definitely won't make you happy.
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
or, of course, it could be that you're just so much better than everyone else, right?
There are things in the world to legitimately be outraged about if you want to be outraged. You don't need to force yourself to be angry at shit like this.
the hays code didn't apply to colloquial speech, it applied to movies.
The Hayes Code didn’t apply to books at all, it was movie specific. I assumed they were talking about the dominant culture at the time.
Context: https://www.scribd.com/document/899239966/Henry-the-Green-Engine-1951-Scanned-by-ThatERTLGuy#page=64 page 60 of the book, 64 of the document.
Written version in case someone doesn't want to click on random links:
The Guard's flag waved, his whistle blew, and they were off. Soon in the distance they saw the bridge. There were the boys and they all had stones. "Are you ready, Henry?" said this Driver. "Sneeze hard when I tell you." "Now!" he said, and turned the handle. "Atisha Atisha Atishooooooh!" Smoke and steam and ashes spouted from his funnel. They went all over the bridge, and all over the boys who ran away as black as ####.
fuck censorship. historical context is important when referencing historical facts. society must be reminded of why language like this is no longer acceptable in order to keep it unacceptable, lest we forget.

Isn't it "lest"? Not a native speaker so I don't really know.
he doesn't even look sorry

"Hey baby, wanna hear a slur?"
"shitwhistle" (it's a slur among sentient trains)
You hear that, Bobandy? That shrill sound in the distance? That's a shitwhistle heralding the arrival of the shit train. Carrying countless shitcars each filled with tons and tons of shitcargo. Should be here any moment, Bobandy, but first a little drinky poo!
The boys were ready with stones to throw at the locomotive.

My god this was probably a real problem in 19th/early 20th century England though. Fucking kids can be fucking assholes lol
That's no reason to throw the gamer word at them. Actually, it's more messed up because it was a bunch of lily white English kids chucking rocks. Should've called them crackers as he passed instead.
Henry wasn't sorry, it was on purpose. He was celebrated. I have read the entirety of The Railway Series to my daughter twice (I do substitute in "coal" for the aforementioned slur). There is some crazy shit in there. Engine body horror.

I convinced a girl to watch "Battle Of Briton (1969)" with me one time. I forgot to warn her about the dog. She was shocked to say the least.
Does the Nword have the same cultural significance in the UK?
You’re thinking of Dambusters.
And it was still derogatory, but not as weaponised as the US. More like how they used the lesser N word.
wtf is the lesser N word can we just write them in quotes? It's not like Voldemort.
Looks over shoulder
Whispers: "numpty"
Runs away
They still use "bugger" in the UK, which is basically the same thing but for gay people.
For years I thought "bugger" just means "to annoy" or something like that, so I would say things like "This buggers me" or "You don't have to get so buggered about it."
Boy am I embarrassed...
Kind of? Like you could call a child a "little bugger" and that would just be calling them annoying rather than an arse fucker
Once I used it like that at work, everyone was surprised, and so I looked it up after. I'm actually dead now. This is my ghost typing.
Well, there was one episode of South Park about people who annoy you...
I've never encountered that word used with a homophobic intent, as far as I could tell. If you wanted to express that thought in my youth, other words beginning with B would be far more common. Naturally I found them as odious then as I would now.
Doesn't matter, the word is rooted in homophobic intent.
So is “gay”. Language evolves. Being a linguistic originalist would be a hard and eccentric hill to die on.
Being a linguistic originalist would be a hard and eccentric hill to die on.
Well good I'm glad the UK has abandoned that principle, it was getting a bit pretentious.
What? Gay always meant happy, jolly etc. it was repurposed and gets weird if used by its original meaning. My good man, how queer! Just means ‘quite odd’, sounds very old fashioned, but never ever meant anything else. What a gay day!
Both boomer and gen-z pearlclutchers seem to be equally oblivious in their own ways to the fact that language changes.
Don't even get started with Tintin.
So, are George Carlin and Ringo Starr racists?! /s


top 99 comments