“The Negro of the Antilles will be proportionately whiter – that is, he will come closer to being a real human being – in direct ratio to his mastery of the French language” (Fanon 8). Discuss the relationship between language and race as this presented in Selvon’s novel.
Frantz Fanon’s claim that the “Negro of the Antilles will be proportionately whiter – that is, he will come closer to being a real human being – in direct ratio to his mastery of the French language” (Fanon 8) can be compared to Sam Selvon’s portrayal of the relationship between language and race in The Lonely Londoners (1956). As Selvon has experienced and observed, Caribbean colonial migrants in London are subjected to racial prejudice and discrimination, which is in part due to the fact that they speak Creolised English. Creole, in this context, is a spoken form of English, that developed after standard English was imposed on colonies: “ because slavery largely eradicated the ethnic languages of the exploited groups, the Creoles and Creole English that evolved in the Caribbean became the vernacular” (Nero 502). In exploring the relationship between language and race in Selvon’s novel, it appears that colonial migrants in London may choose to accept the standard English vernacular of London, in order to fit in and reduce the ways in which they can be targeted by racial discrimination. Examining the interaction between characters such as “Moses” and “Harris”, with their other migrants reveals that they prefer to somewhat conform, in some aspects of life, such as language, to the largely white society of 1950s London. Another method of using language to create a more comfortable atmosphere for migrants in London is the opposite. Characters such as “Big City”, and “Tanty” appear to proudly retain their Caribbean identity by speaking in Creole, and attempt to create a community within London that allows them to live comfortably without having to change the way that they speak. It could be viewed that they either accept that they will be viewed as “proportionally whiter”, the more fluent their standard English is, or they reject the importance of conforming, and embrace the language and culture of the Caribbean. Yet despite the varying achievements of these attempts to create a more secure home for Caribbean migrants in London, Selvon seems to present them as often unsuccessful, as they cannot escape the underlying racism present amongst Londoners, which suggests that even “mastery” of standard English does not overcome the discrimination caused by the colour of their skin.
Moses Aloetta, a central character in The Lonely Londoners, is described by Kenneth Ramchand as a “seasoned immigrant” (45). This is due to the fact that he has been living for “nine-ten years in this country” (Selvon 4). Selvon presents Moses as a character who has successfully integrated into London society; he confidently (albeit reluctantly) “hop on a number 46 bus at the corner of Chepstow Road and Westbourne Grove to go to Waterloo” (1). Arguably, using local jargon; the place names, and the specific number of the bus, presents Moses as experienced and knowledgeable about living in the busy capital. Yet the journey of taking the bus “in this nasty weather to go and meet a fellar that he didn’t even know” (1), is described as exhausting, and Moses’ somewhat comfortable position in London is overshadowed by the negative diction. Ramchand argues that this “long oral sentence […] images the frightening universe and other world the West Indians have journeyed to see and conquer” (45). Indeed, it foreshadows the way that “Galahad”, a newcomer to London, feels extremely unacquainted with life in London: “Galahad make for the tube station when he left Moses, and he stand up there on Queensway watching everybody going about their business, and a feeling of loneliness and fright come on him all of a sudden” (23). This “feeling of loneliness and fright” highlights the lack of experience that many immigrants struggle with when attempting to settle in London.
Moses’ way of dealing with this anxiety caused by being an outsider was to adapt to the new environment. This is apparent in Moses attitude to Galahad’s anxiety when discovering London, its technology, and differing climate. As they travel on the tube to Moses’ residence, he remarks that: “‘The only thing,’ Galahad say when they was in the tube going to the Water, ‘is that I find when I talk smoke coming out of my mouth.’” (15). The somewhat comical misunderstanding presented by Galahad here, being unacquainted with weather of London, is overshadowed by Moses’ response: “‘Is so it is in this country,’ Moses say. ‘Sometimes the words freeze and you have to melt it to hear the talk’” (15). The attitude of Moses is practical; his metaphor of language illustrates the misunderstanding between West Indian migrants who speak Caribbean English and Londoners speaking standard English, but his emphasis is that you can “melt the words to hear the talk”. His solution to the problem is to become English, rejecting Creole, and adopting the local way of speaking: “‘Which part you living?’ Galahad say. ‘In the Water. Bayswater to you until you living in the city for at least two years’” (16). Here, there appears to be a distinctive cultural separation between
what originally may appear as two Trinidadians. “Moses tells Galahad where he lives, but this is done in terms which indicate to Galahad and to certain readers that they are among the uninitiated” (Wyke 33). Arguably, he does not just indicate this, he firmly outlines a specific criterion for being defined as a Londoner. Therefore, it is clear that Moses’ solution to the problem of cultural differences in London is to accept the way of life in the city, to the extent that he even starts to speak like a Londoner. Fanon would perhaps recognise this as Moses’ attempt to “become closer to being a real human being” (8), through his aim of acceptance.
A more distinct example of a Caribbean migrant accepting the customs of London and its language is seen through the character “Harris”. Instead of subtle uses of the vernacular of London, Harris completely rejects Creole to attempt to please his white friends. After a rant from “Five” complaining about “why the arse London Transport can’t run bus and tube all night for people to go home?” (115), he desperately reproves him: “‘I wish you would watch your language,’ Harris say. ‘You don’t know it, but there are decent people around you’” (116). Here, “decent people” becomes synonymous with “English people”; he complains that: “The English people will say we are still uncivilised” (116), in his anxious attempt to make a good impression. The way that Harris attempts to speak the vernacular of London is presented by Selvon in a negative way: “‘Another thing,’ Harris say, drinking the lemonade and forgetting to speak proper English for a minute” (116). Harris is depicted here as a foolish man struggling with his identity, who by rejecting his Caribbean English rejects his Caribbean friends. Fanon would also agree that this is not an effective way to overcome cultural differences. His description of a similar situation is comically negative: “After several months of living in France, a country boy returns to his family. Noticing a farm implement, he asks his father […] ‘Tell me, what does one call that apparatus?’ His father replies by dropping the tool on the boy’s feet, and the amnesia vanishes. Remarkable therapy” (13). These examples of the negative attitude towards rejecting Creole, therefore, highlight Selvon’s attitude towards this method of integrating into London society. Overall, it is evident that one method of overcoming the cultural differences between West Indians and Londoners in The Lonely Londoners i s to accept the vernacular and customs of London and, in some cases, reject Caribbean English, in order to live more comfortably in the city.
It appears that Selvon presents this method of somewhat rejecting Caribbean heritage as unfavourable. He portrays creole-speaking
characters in more of a positive light; demonstrating their pride of their background and firm determination to retain their way of speaking. Characters such as Galahad and Big City firmly consider their Caribbean English to be the same as Standard English. In a scene between Galahad and Daisy, a white English woman, Selvon presents a language barrier in their dialogue. “‘What did you say? You know it will take me some time to understand everything you say. The way you West Indians speak!’ ‘What’s wrong with it?’ Galahad ask. ‘Is English we speaking’” (82). Shondel Nero states that: “Galahad assumes that he and Daisy speak a common language, that is, English” (501); Galahad’s stubborn tone seems quite ironic, because though he understands Daisy and thus believes he can communicate with her, she struggles to understand him, so the “English” that they both speak is therefore not the same. Nero argues that Daisy and Galahad cannot understand each other, not because they speak English with different phrasing or different accents, but because they actually speak separate languages: “Today, among Caribbean and other linguists, there is still debate about whether to consider English-based Creoles dialects of English or separate languages” (Nero 502). It could be argued that Selvon portrays Galahad as stubborn here, however, it appears that Selvon actually encourages
this almost full refusal to speak Standard English, in turn promoting the livelihood of Caribbean English in London, in order to promote a multicultural society. Selvon himself believed that Creole was somewhat more authentic than standard English:
“I had difficulty starting the novel in straight English. The people I wanted to describe were entertaining people indeed, but I could not really move. At that stage, I had written the narrative in English and most of the dialogue in dialect. Then I started both narrative and dialogue in dialect and the novel just shot along” (Nasta 66).
It thus appears that Selvon’s opinion is that speaking Caribbean English in London is a more favourable to feel more comfortable in London, rather than attempting to speak standard English, and trying to become more English, or “proportionally whiter”.
Another character, named “Big City”, has a similar stubborn attitude to speaking Creole. This stubbornness can easily be interpreted for pride of his background: “‘Listen to that sharp piece of fusic by Mantovanee, Moses.’ ‘Man Big City, the word is “music” not “fusic”.’ ‘Ah, you only trying to tie me up. You think I don’t know English?’” (83). This exchange could provide the reader with a belittling impression of Big City, due to his mispronunciation of seemingly simple words. However, Big City is entirely aware of the standard pronunciation, and deliberately speaks differently, in order to produce the provocative rhetorical question: “You think I don’t know English?” Moses’ attempt to anglicise Big City’s language is overwhelmed by Big City’s provocation here, which conforms to Selvon’s view that Moses’ method of integrating into London – by becoming more English – is less favourable than Big City’s approach of embracing his Creole-speaking background. Another example of a linguistical dispute between Moses and Big City develops this idea further: “‘Where are you going, Big City?’ ‘Nottingham Gate.’ ‘Is not Nottingham, boy, is Notting Hill.’ ‘You trying to – me up?’ ‘All right, all right’” (84). Here, Big City commands the language to the extent that he essentially renames parts of London. Whether deliberately or not, it delivers a poignant message to the reader that Big City is entirely unconcerned with attempting to “master” the vernacular of London, and “become proportionally whiter” (Fanon 8); he would rather promote a multicultural society in which people from different parts of the world can live in London securely, without having to become uncomfortably more English.
This may remind the reader of the character “Tanty”, and her attempt to create a friendlier society in London. She is presented as somewhat of a matriarch, in the way that she holds power over the community. For instance, she successfully manages to convince a white shopkeeper to adopt a trust-based credits system, even when he stands under an intimidating image on the wall of: “Mr Credit, and he surrounded with unpaid bills and he thin and worried” (65). Selvon portrays Tanty as an ideal example of how to successfully integrate into London: “Tanty keep behind the shopkeeper to trust, but he only smile when she tell him. Then one day […] ‘You see that exercise books you have in the glasscase? Take one out and put my name in it and keep it under the counter with how much I owe you’” (66). The simple exchange results in an effective conclusion: “Tanty walk out of the white people shop brazen as ever” (66). The powerful image of Tanty’s ability to convince a stubborn, white shopkeeper to adopt the customs of “where I come from” (66), effectively encapsulates Selvon’s promotion of multiculturalism. It therefore appears that Selvon presents the method used by characters such as Moses to overcome the feeling of loneliness as less favourable than the methods used by characters such as “Big City” and Galahad. They are less concerned with trying to become more English, and adopting the customs and vernacular of London, but appear satisfied living in London, speaking Caribbean English, and creating a more comfortable, multicultural society to live in.
Although it appears that Selvon favours the method of retaining a Caribbean identity over trying to become “proportionally whiter” in order to feel more comfortable in London, these methods of using language to overcome cultural divisions are evidently overshadowed by problems caused by racism. Selvon often presents white Londoners to have an almost subconsciously ingrained raical prejudice against Caribbean immigrants in The Lonely Londoners. Subsequently, from this point of view, Fanon’s assertion that “The Negro of the Antilles will be proportionately whiter […] in direct ratio to his mastery of the French language” (8), seems quite limited. This is because, despite efforts to either accept the vernacular of London or manage to convince Londoners to accept the language and customs of the Caribbean, the distinction of race remains prominent.
Returning to the example of Daisy and Galahad, where she remarks that “it will take me some time to understand everything […] the way you West Indians speak” (82), Nero reveals that: “Daisy claimed it would take her some time to “understand” Galahad because of the way he spoke English. I suspect, though, that a cockney speaker would be no more ‘understandable’ to Daisy than Galahad” (504). Crucially, Nero also suggests that “the former would not be considered a non-native speaker of English” (504). Nero seems to insinuate that Daisy has a somewhat subconscious prejudice towards Galahad, because he does not look like a typical citizen of London. Although cockney speakers would be equally incomprehensible to Daisy, a speaker of Standard English, Creole speakers are not viewed as “native” speakers of English because of the colour of their skin. Similar to this, Fanon discusses the situation of Bretons, in comparison to migrants from the French-speaking Antilles.
“The language spoke officially is French; teachers keep a close watch over the children to make sure they do not use Creole […] In the Antilles, there is dialect and there is the French language. In the Antilles, as in Brittany, there is a dialect and there is the French language. But […] Bretons do not consider themselves inferior to the French people. The Bretons have not been civilised by the white man” (Fanon 17).
It appears, in a sense, that there is a distinction, or ‘hierarchy’ of dialects that deviate from the Standard English way of speaking, based on race. The Breton and the cockney-speaker are both viewed as equally French or British, despite not using the standard dialect. Conversely, even when speaking in Standard English or French, the Caribbean migrant in London or Paris receives racial prejudice and discrimination.
This hierarchy of migrants in London, from the point of view of a white Londoner, is not due to differing dialects, it is merely due to race. Moses is presented as exasperated towards the notion that a Polish restaurant owner refuses to serve him because of his skin colour. He tells Galahad of a restaurant run by a Polish man.
“…restaurant run by a Pole call the Rendezvous Restaurant. Go there and see if they will serve you. And you know the hurtful part of it? The Pole who have the restaurant, he ain’t have no more right in this country than we. In fact, we is British subjects and he is only a foreigner” (21).
The blatant irony is exposed here; a Polish man, an immigrant himself, freely discriminates against Moses purely due to the fact that he is not white, despite Moses being a “British subject”, from a British colony himself. The dichotomy Moses presents: “we is British and he is only a foreigner”, emphasises this frustration. Thus, cultural separations in London are presented as mainly due to skin colour.
This is again evident when Galahad calmly handles a situation in which a “little child, holding on to the mother hand, look up at Sir
Galahad”, saying “‘Mummy, look at that black man!’” (76) Galahad’s response: “Galahad skin like rubber at this stage, he bend down and pat the child cheek, and the child cower and shrink and begin to cry. ‘What a sweet child!’ Galahad sat, putting on the old English accent” (76), highlights that he is used to this kind of prejudice. The simile of him being thick-skinned, to the extent that it is “like rubber” accentuates the amount of racist prejudice and discrimination he has encountered up to this point living in London. His method of countering this situation of potential racism is to “put on the old English accent”, but it fails: “the child mother uneasy as they stand up there on the pavement with so many white people around: if they was alone, she might have talked a little…” (76). The mother fears judgement or perhaps even ostracization from her community of white Londoners, and Galahad’s perfect standard English is clearly not enough to allow her to act in a way that is anything politer than a “sickly smile” after she “pull the child along” (76). It is evident that the cultural barrier between them is not due to language, it is merely because of race.
This fear of being ostracised felt by the white woman is portrayed as particularly unfavourable by Selvon, who seems to encourage multicultural relationships such as those presented through Tanty.
However, this fear is arguably understandable to an extent, because of the general discriminatory views of Londoners towards relationships between ethnicities. As part of a critique of The Lonely Londoners, Ashley Dawson explains an example of such hostility towards interracial relationships. In August 1958, a “Swedish woman named Majbritt Morrison fell into an argument with her Jamaican husband Raymond […] People congregated as the Morrisons’ dispute grew more heated.” Then “a man in the crowd began shouting racial slurs at Raymond, apparently believing that it was his duty to protect a white woman from a threatening-looking black man.” When she “began defending him from this attack […] some members of the crowd [began] to turn on her, calling her a ‘ni**er lover’” (27). It is evident that racism in 1950s London manifested itself in subtle hostility towards black people, which had the potential to escalate into violent aggression when triggered. This is summarised effectively by Moses, who tells Galahad shortly before the story about the Polish restaurant owner, that “in America you see a sign telling you to keep off” (20), but the “old English diplomacy” means that “the hotel or restaurant will politely tell you to haul” (21). The polite English diplomacy, a “sickly smile” (76), merely serves to obscure underlying racist views held by Londoners.
It appears that even when speaking perfect English, Caribbean migrants living in London will ultimately fail to integrate, despite their efforts, because of racism. Londoners are often presented to have, even if subtly, either a prejudice towards black people, or a fear of judgement from the existing community of white Londoners.
Franz Fanon’s assertion that the “Negro of the Antilles will be proportionately whiter – that is, he will come closer to being a real human being – in direct ratio to his mastery of the French language” (Fanon 8), exposes the relationship between language and race in The Lonely Londoners. Selvon develops this relationship by offering ways in which Caribbean migrants in London attempt to use language to overcome racial prejudice and discrimination. Characters such as Moses and Harris seem to embrace the customs and the vernacular of London, by claiming a new sense of pride in being a citizen of the city. Yet Selvon cautions against becoming Harris, who sycophantically and pretentiously adopts the way that his English friends speak, to the extent that he rejects his Caribbean friends and becomes ashamed of their presence, in an attempt to become what Fanon might describe as “proportionally whiter” (8). What appears to be Selvon’s more favoured method of using language to
overcome racial prejudice is to embrace Creole, perhaps even stubbornly, in order to comfortably integrate into London society. The language used by characters such as Big City at first may appear to include the mispronunciation of words, but his insistence on being able to speak English demonstrates his language is actually a different dialect, and by speaking Creole, he is embracing his Caribbean identity. Selvon himself explained how writing the novel in a more Creolised English produced a more natural, authentic effect. Embracing, or, at least, not rejecting, the language and customs of the Caribbean is commended in the novel, through figures such as Tanty being presented as a powerful matriarch who has the ability to influence a white shopkeeper to the extent that he adopts a credits system. Yet despite the varying successes of different ways in which language is used by characters in the novel live more comfortably in London, the problem of racism overwhelms these methods. Selvon suggests that the cultural barrier between white Londoners and Caribbean migrants is not that of language, because prejudice against black migrants remains, even when using Standard English. The indication of this appears, that even either adopting the language of London, or embracing Creole to create a comfortable community within London might allow migrants to feel more secure within the largely white society of London in the 1950s. They might become what may be viewed as “proportionally whiter” (Fanon 8), but they will never become white. The underlying problem of multicultural integration in London is not due to the difference of language, it is due to the difference of race, and it is the unaccommodating, racist views against Caribbean migrants that causes this.
Works Cited
- Dawson, Ashley. Mongrel Nation: Diasporic Culture and the Making of Postcolonial Britain. University of Michigan Press, 2007. Fanon,Frantz.BlackSkin,WhiteMasks. PlutoPress,2008.
- Nasta, Susheila. Critical Perspectives on Sam Selvon. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1988.
- Nero, Shondel. “Language, Identity, and Education of Caribbean English Speakers.” World Englishes, vol. 25, no. 3-4, Aug. 2006, pp. 501–11.
- Ramchand, Kenneth. “Celebrating Sam Selvon.” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 20, no. 1, 1996, pp. 45– 50.
- Selvon, Sam. The Lonely Londoners. Penguin, 2006.
- Wyke, Clement H. Sam Selvon’s Dialectical Style and Fictional Strategy. UBC Press, 1991.
2019-1-15-1547586938