We were talking one day about Prejudice. Earlier, at lunch in the Faculty Club, Prof. H.’s guest, a decrepit emeritus from Boston—whom his host described with deep respect as “a true Patrician, a real blue-blooded Brahmin” (the Brahmin’s grandsire sold braces in Belfast)—had happened to say quite naturally and debonairly, in allusion to the origins of a not very engaging new man in the College Library, “on of the Chosen People, I understand” (enunciated with a small snort of comfortable relish); upon which Assistant Professor Misha Gordon, a red-haired musician, had roundly remarked that “of course, God might choose His people but man should choose his expressions.”
As we strolled back, my friend and I, to our adjacent castles, under the sort of light April rain that in one of his lyrical poems he calls:
A rapid pencil sketch of Spring
Shade said that more than anything on earth he loathed Vulgarity and Brutality, and that one found these two ideally united in racial prejudice. He said that, as a man of letters, he could not help preferring “is a Jew” to “is Jewish” and “is a Negro” to “is colored”; but immediately added that this way of alluding to two kinds of bias in one breath was a good example of careless, or demagogic, lumping (much exploited by Left-Wingers) since it erased the distinction between two historical hells: diabolical persecution and the barbarous traditions of slavery. On the other hand (he admitted) the tears of all ill-treated human beings, throughout the hopelessness of all time, mathematically equaled each other; and perhaps (he thought) one did not err too much in tracing a family likeness (tensing of simian nostrils, sickening dulling of eyes) between the jasmine-belt lyncher and the mystical anti-Semite when under the influence of their pet obsessions. I said that a young Negro gardener (see note to line 998) whom I had recently hired—soon after the dismissal of an unforgettable roomer (see Foreword)—invariably used the word “colored.” As a dealer in old and new words (observed Shade) he strongly objected to that epithet not only because it was artistically misleading, but also because its sense depended too much upon application and applier. Many competent Negroes (he agreed) considered it to be the only dignified word, emotionally neutral and ethically inoffensive; their endorsement obliged decent non-Negroes to follow their lead, and poets do not like to be led; but the genteel adore endorsements and now use “colored man” for “Negro” as they do “nude” for “naked” or “perspiration” for “sweat”; although of course (he conceded) there might be times when the poet welcomed the dimple of a marble haunch in “nude” or an appropriated beadiness in “perspiration.” One also heard it used (he continued) by the prejudiced as a jocular euphemism in a darky anecdote when something funny is said or done by “the colored gentleman” (a sudden brother here of “the Hebrew gentleman” in Victorian novelettes).
I had not quite understood his artistic objection to “colored.” He explained it thus: Figures in the first scientific works on flowers, birds, butterflies and so forth were hand-painted by diligent acquarellists. In defective or premature publications the figures on some plates remained blank. The juxtaposition of the phrases “a white” and “a colored man” always reminded my poet, so imperiously as to dispel their accepted sense, of those outlines one longed to fill with their lawful colors—the green and purple of an exotic plant, the solid blue of a plumage, the geranium bar of a scalloped wing. “And moreover (he said) we, whites, are not white at all, we are mauve at birth, then tea-rose, and later all kinds of repulsive colors.”