One of the pleasures of writing a blog is having intelligent conversations with people who visit. It does me some good to have my opinions challenged in a way thatâs largely consequence-free and where Iâm in no more trouble than a slightly bruised ego when I get things wrong.
The downside of this is that it takes time thinking through some of these challenges, which is what happened when Rob asked me about the word âgammonâ. Is it a racist insult? Itâs an argument Iâve heard so many times before, but Iâd always dismissed it without really thinking it through. This time I did think it through but, by the time Iâd finished the following response, I realised that I still hadnât written a blog post for today.
So, because I want to make up for a really bad week (the Benadryl has finally cleared my system and Iâm now awake), I thought Iâd cheat and combine the two. I hope Rob forgives me for elevating our conversation to a blog post of its own. Itâs an interesting topic that doesnât deserve burying in the comments. Iâd also be interested in hearing thoughts from anybody reading this. I might not be able to respond at this kind of length but I’m interested to see how the word is perceived.
So, to the matter at hand. Is âgammonâ a racist insult?
Well, first, I donât think it is because I genuinely donât believe it describes skin colour. Skin colour and pallor are different things. One gives you your natural colour. It doesnât change except through exposure to UV. Pallor is different. It has to do with blood flow. And thatâs what âgammonâ refers to. It describes the characteristic flushing of the cheeks when somebody gets angry. Again: itâs not skin colour. Its blood flow. And if weâre going to make characterising physiological changes taboo, then I honestly believe weâve reached a new level of crazy.
Laughing and pointing out that somebody is âred-facedâ when embarrassed would then become a racial slur. We might as well ban complimenting people as ârosy-cheekedâ after theyâve exercised and âwhite as a sheetâ when theyâre frightened. More specifically: âashenâ then become racist because it involves exactly the same kind of metaphor. Then do we ban âwhite as the driven snowâ, âSnow Whiteâ, and then, obviously, âsnowflakeâ which was always about fragility but could just as easily be made about race (though I think itâs used in a way that is also linked to the vitality-denying anaemia of vegans etc.)?
The moment we do this, we open it up to anything that references changes in pallor. We would no longer be able to say âyouâre looking a bit blue todayâ which derives from the âbluish or leaden colourâ that results from âreduced circulation or oxygenation of the bloodâ (OED). Then, of course, thereâs âin the pinkâ which, if anything, is the closest to referencing skin colour. Iâm sure there are more. Many more… âHeâs a bit yellowâ, âsheâs green behind the earsâ, and âyour ears are redâ.
Secondly and just as important, âgammonâ is an insult that generally doesnât cross a racial divide. Itâs used by one white grouping to describe another grouping of white people. Not everybody who is white would be described as âgammonâ and, if this was about race, then that wouldnât be true. It would surely apply to all people of that racial colouring, in the way that âwhiteyâ is a racial slur.
Which brings us to the comparable phrase âblack puddingâ. The phrase isnât in itself racist. Itâs a pudding thatâs black. Apply it to a person of colour, however, and itâs different. Then you are crudely describing a personâs natural colour but, crucially, you are not describing their physiological response when angry. Yet the severity of the insult would even then depend on your colour. Thatâs important. The ânâ word has a hugely different resonance depending on the colour of the person saying it. I donât believe a black mother calling her child a âblack puddingâ wouldnât be anywhere near as bad as a white boss using it to describe a black employee. Context does matter.
In which case, a white person calling another white person âgammonâ because their face has turned red is not, in my opinion, racist. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems. It would be like commenting on their turning pale, grey, green, or in the case of jaundice, yellow. It leads to even more ridiculous situations. Would we be able to say theyâd been beaten âblack and blueâ if theyâd been in a fight? Pointing out that somebody has a âblack eyeâ would be wrong. Even calling somebody âRudolphâ when their nose was a bit red after too much drink would be racist.
More broadly, no meat-based insults would be allowed. Thereâd be no more calling people a âproper sausageâ when they made themselves look a fool. No more âWhat am I, chopped liver?â You couldnât even give somebody a âroastingâ, which again derives some of its meaning from a red face.
âGammonâ is about the physiological change produced by increased blood flow caused by a spike in adrenaline when a person gets angry. That doesnât mean that itâs a polite word but there are many more that are much worse. Itâs a taunt in the culture war, used in the very same way the Right use âremoanerâ and âsnowflakeâ. The only reason why âgammonâ has become controversial is that some white people look to play the race card against their liberal opponents who they know are steeped in the very identity politics they despise so much. Beyond that, it has nothing to do with race. Itâs just part of the silly games that are being played in order to find higher moral ground.
Don’t mind at all David. Would just point out that the reason most white men over 50 have “gammon” faces isn’t due to them becoming angry, unless of course you believe a huge proportion the white male population spend their entire life angry. The white men I know who don’t have some burst capillaries by the time they get to that age are very few. I saw Kenny Dalglish talking about Liverpools title win, red faced, in fact looking back at photos of him when young he was gammon then. Alan Bennett must have spent his latter years furious, Ken Clarke, etc etc. If you don’t tan then the capillaries show up red, alcohol and sun damage also contribute to the ruddy look. My dad and his mates were huge boozers, would now be called functioning alcoholics, all red faced in their 30’s. My dad voted SDP, if he were alive and put forward an unpopular view today he would be “gammon”. It is a northern European phenomenon and one a lot of white men carry with them permanently, which again is why I contend it is racist. Could it be used against any other race?. Ah, you see you’ve got me arguing again. That’s it, I rest my case permanently now, I’ve done my bit for the old duffers.
Always appreciate the counter-arguments, Rob, and thatâs a particularly good one, neatly tying in with race and cleverly calling on my love for Liverpool FC.
Yet I still donât buy into it. First, this is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. All âgammonâ are red-faced. My dad has a red face. Therefore youâre calling my dad âgammonâ. Not only is it a syllogistic fallacy but Iâm not sure itâs even true in the real world.
Would anybody describe Dalglish as âgammonâ simply because heâs enjoyed a few drinks? I doubt if that happens outside any context that doesnât also imply a person has certain political views. Iâm often red-faced when angry but Iâd be surprised if I was ever called âgammonâ because my politics are totally out of tune with the term. Iâm happy to be called a âsnowflakeâ or a âremainerâ, though. (I might get twitchy about âlibtardâ since it brings in retardation but then I am a snowflake.)
Inherent in the meaning of âgammonâ (and so inherent that the insult doesnât function without it) is the anger directed towards liberals, immigration, the European Union, and specifically Brexit. You wouldnât even have to have northern European complexion to be accused of it. You would just need to be noticeably red-faced when angry about certain subjects. The term would make no sense in the contemporary meaning if used about a guy getting red-faced because his team has just lost.
Second, men of a certain age with permanently red cheeks have always had a whole category of insults that also have nothing to do with their race. If it were otherwise, wouldnât âboozerâ, âalkieâ, âwinoâ etc. also have racist overtones?
Lastly, thereâs still the white-on-white angle. How could I be engaged in racist behaviour if I, as a white guy, called another white guy âgammonâ because heâs gone red in the face on the matter of Brexit? Race has nothing to do with it except, perhaps, itâs easier to spot changes of pallor in people with white skin.
I appreciate you donât want to take up your day arguing this but it was fun while it lasted. I also hope you appreciate that I try to see things as objectively as I can. Honestly, I have no pride in this. If there was anything here that hinted at racism, Iâd accept it. I just canât see it.
Fascinating. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head David. Its a term that’s used by white people at other white people. If, as we contend it’s not racist, is it ageist? Its almost interchangeable now with ‘boomer’ which I dont like and dont use. As you say this is all meaningless culture wars nonsense when you get down to it.
Thanks Max. Glad youâve found in interesting.
Youâve now got my mind working overtime. I hadn’t thought of the ageist argument and Iâm immediately struck as to not knowing what to say.
Part of it certainly becomes aesthetic. When writing poetry, writers often pick words that donât simply convey what they mean but have some wider connotations, which make the poetry richer with layers of meaning. When Keats writes that âa drowsy numbness pains / My senseâ, he picks âpainsâ because it creates a tension with ânumbnessâ.
In that sense, you might be right. âGammonâ feels like it carries a whiff of age about it. Old meat thatâs been smoked a long time⊠It’s not exactly an image of smooth youthful skin. Itâs the same with âsnowflakeâ. I instinctively think of somebody young because âoldâ snowflakes arenât a thing. Theyâre transitory.
All that said, I donât think itâs entirely impossible to think of either being used to describe somebody old or young. Itâs just the words do seem to back up the sense that the culture war is a young/old debate.
Yes, it is meaningless. All about the moral high ground. Both sides do it all the time when they face off with each other. They try to goad each other into throwing a punch or pushing them over and then go running to the cameras when it happens. Itâs all play yard theatrics. On a much larger scale, it’s exactly what Trump wants to start in America. If he can goad protestors into causing trouble, he can then take the moral high ground as the “law and order president”.