I have a problem with a phrase in my childrens story aimed at +10yr olds which could be considered racist and offensive:

"Not with a little half-caste bastard like you"

It comes in a section of the book where an 18th Century sailor is about to abandon the MC, a native boy. It's the point where the boy learns he is half-caste, and a bastard, and that this ruffian of a sailor, with whom he has survived several adventures, may well be his father.

I could cut the phrase and just have him slowly realising the similarities between himself and the sailor, but it's a pivotal scene and I have written it to shock the MC and stay true to the sailor's character. As Stephen King says, you must write the truth - but then he writes for adults, not children and racism is currently one of the big taboos in the genre. JKR got round it by coining the phrase 'mudblood', but I'm not sure what the 18th Century alternative would be.

- Suggestions would be appreciated.


- NaomiM

'Blueskin' was an 18th-century term for someone of mixed race, and I'm pretty sure G.P. Taylor has used it - maybe in Wormwood - so it must be considered acceptable to modern publishers for YA. Not that I would ever encourage anyone to write like G.P. Taylor!

It doesn't sound particularly racist - I mean it's not a really vicious term. Odd how "half-caste" is the offensive part of the phrase, not "bastard"

The only alternative I can think of is probably worse, calling him "a bastard, with such a lick of the tar-brush that you're neither owt nor nowt." - which avoids a particular term and is - to a degree - a little ambiguous, but it might also make him sound like a Geordie pirate. Don't know if you had many of them. I think we were still living in caves

Odd how "half-caste" is the offensive part of the phrase, not "bastard"

Do you think so? Maybe I should have said "racist and offensive language".

As a parent I'd balk at it, but as a writer I can justify it to myself.

<Added>

"Not with a little blue-skin bastard like you"

Thanks Caro, but you don't think kids would take it literally?

They probably would - but you could get round it by the MC taking it literally too at first and wondering what the sailor's going on about!

Aha, yes, that could work, Caro

<Added>

Also found this:
chee-chee:- Half-caste, mixed race of British and Indian. Also the sing-song accent of same, from the early influence of Welsh missionaries.

http://www.geocities.com/faskew/Colonial/Glossary/British.htm

<Added>

I've been having second thoughts about using euphamisms, as it takes away the punch of the paragraph if the mc, on behalf of the reader, has to turn round and say 'I'm sorry, can you explain that?', (or words to that effect).
The equally derogatory 'Mongrel' is the only logical alternative I can think of right now.

Well, if the character speaking is a nasty, racist person, I don't see what the problem is with him using nasty racist language! The reader is identifying with the boy here, not the sailor.

a nasty, racist person

Well he's a product of his time. Someone who is friendly/charming, murderous/amoral, in equal measure, and who after treating the boy like his son, is equally prepared to sell him at the drop of the hat should the opportunity arise - which it does.
In his eyes the native boy is little more than a domesticated farm animal, ultimately raised for slaughter (in the metaphorical sense). Although there is a theme of 'sacrificial lamb' that becomes clear towards the end.

And maybe it is a good thing to make the reader think, 'hang on, you can't say that.'

Anyway, it's purely academic, since the story is unlikely to see the light of day, in any form.

The equally derogatory 'Mongrel' is the only logical alternative I can think of right now.

I think this sounds good and would convey what you're trying to say, and probably couldn't be classified as racist, derogatory though it is.
Difficult question, though. A lot of people WERE racist back in those days, so why can't they be portrayed that way in a modern book? Of course it should be made clear, though, that that way of thinking is no longer acceptable...
Robin

This is making me worried now lol, because my book is all about racism and sections of it are written in the POV of someone who is not very nice.

I think you should go for it. He is racist, he is the baddie. If it is a children's novel then it might be a bit tricky but I always thought that the best children's books, when I was growing up, were the ones who dealt with such issues. I loved anything to do with WWII when I was a child and I also loved Melvin Burgess, who always deals with very very difficult subjects, such as homelessness, drugs, etc.

It's hard to know how far is too far though isn't it?

Hi, yaasehshalom and thanks for the encouragement. Yes, ultimately, it is up to the writer to decide how far to go - to stay true to the era the work is set in - and if the publisher doesn't like it, I guess we'd get a list of corrections from the editor
After much angsting, I have kept the phrase in. It feels right and is ment to shock both the character and, through them, the reader.



- NaomiM

Just by the way, I am am actually mixed-race and in fact until I was a teenager I used to describe myself as half-caste. I had no idea that it was racist. I just thought it was, you know, what you were if you had one parent from one country and the other from another, and they weren't both white.

And now it seems you can't be called mixed-race either, since there's no such thing as race, just culture.

Life is very confusing sometimes.

To be fair, there is a certain amount of racism in some fiction aimed at children (though not a huge amount). One example i found was in the new Doctor Who series (which is aimed at children, but can be quite scary). In one episode Martha Jones (the doctors assistant who happens to be black) pretends to be a cleaner in a school while investigating a new alien threat. One of the school prefects askes her "With hands your colour, how can you tell if the floor is dirty or not?"

When I first heard that I was a little shocked, but at the same time the episode was set a few years before world war one, so I guess back then there was still a lot of predjuice going around.

I don't think it will be a big deal. Personally, I think it makes the character saying it look like the bigot, not the writer. And lets face it, I don't think the word "bastard" is as bad as it once was. I think you should be ok. But that's just my view.

<Added>

I just read the first word of my sentence and realised it may be misinterpreted.

I didn't mean that there is racism deliberately aimed at children, i just meant that some childrens fiction does have some racism in it.

I just thought of another example. There is a kids cartoon called "Static Shock" (about a black teenage superhero) which does have some strong moral points. In one episode, he meets his friends dad, who is a real bigot and very racist towards the main character. This is a bold move I found, but it demonstrated the bad views of some Americans. Also, it's one of the few cartoons to have people being shot by guns. However, none of it is glamorised and is trying to make a moral stand.

If anything, I think childrens should be taught how bad this is, so that they can leanr from it. Again though, that's just my view.