pumpkinstrokemarrow

All this brought half way through Lawrence's 'The Plumed Serpent' (TPS) - an original version from Penguin with an orange trimmed cover, rather incongruously decorated with a rather ferocious looking bird, rather than a serpent of any variety.

A short while ago I acquired a book about Lawrence by Leavis (August 9), a critical celebrity of yesteryear who is now, perhaps, out of print. Not yet read, but I did get as far as a bit where Leavis was at pains to explain that Lawrence, despite appearances, was not any kind of Facist. The appearance being that he was very keen on people who spoke from the depths of their being, dark swirlings from parts below the heart, on life (this perhaps after all the death of the first war) and on clearing away the anxious and pretentious clutter of life among the chattering classes. On standing strong, upright and clean.

I find that TPS has rather a lot of this. It also contains a lot of comment about race. That is to say Europeans have this or that characteristic. Citizens of the United States have this or that characteristic. Mexicans of more or less pure Spanish blood. Mexicans of more or less pure native blood (aka natives). With allowance for the various different races: natives from one part quite different from natives from another. Mexicans of mixed blood. Some of these characteristics are admirable, some not so admirable. Lawrence appears to have a deep love-hate relationship with the natives; perhaps appropriate since I think it was he who first made the term popular. Now the question is, does all this amount to racism?

I try a few examples from our world.

I do not think anyone will fuss if I say that 'black people are better at athletics than white people'. Or 'black women look good in prints with strong patterns and strong colours'.

More tricky would be the observation that young black males of West Indian (rather than African) background are more likely to be mentally ill that young white males. Although I believe the observation to be true.

Kipling once wrote something about black people having a distinctive smell. Now this might be true, but I think it goes beyond what is regarded as polite these days. Don't know whether Kipling would count as a racist these days - but he was certainly an acute observer of race. And I am sure that I have read somewhere that Chinese people find that white people have a rather unpleasant smell due to their excess consumption of cows' milk.

Then there was a lot of fuss a few years ago about a book that asserted that black people were not as clever as white people. Or to be more precise, that black people did not do as well at IQ tests as white people and that IQ tests were a good predictor of life time achievement. I think the book also asserted that the difference between black and white was a good deal smaller than the range of variation in either black or white. Which rather reduces the impact of the first assertion. Pushes it in the direction of rude rather than helpful.

From time to time there are fusses about doctors who talk about race sensitive diseases in an insensitive way.

One way to cut the cloth might be to say that a comment or behaviour is racist if it is intended either to offend, to discriminate inappropriately or to promote racism. With racism defined as inappropriate dislike, aversion or hate of people of a race or breed other than one's own. Where in inappropriate I include indiscriminate: a dislike based on the fact of race alone, without regard to any other characteristic.

But this is not quite good enough. One can be racist without meaning to. Not meaning is less obnoxious than meaning, but it might amount to much the same thing. Or as has been said in other connections, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Or as is the case with dangerous driving, intention is irrelevant, at best mitigating. It is the fact of dangerous driving which counts.

Another angle is that one might say offensive things. But the saying might help to change them. Statisticians of racial matters argue that it you don't count things up, how do you know if there is a problem or how to deal with it?

Against that, there is a question of manners. It is not good manners to draw attention to aspects of a person which that person might be a bit uncomfortable about. So one does not bang on about dentures to a person with false teeth unless they introduce the subject themselves. And even then one tries to tread carefully.

And we cannot ban discrimination on racial grounds altogether. There will be times when discrimination will be appropriate. But perhaps we can be clear when such discrimination will not do.

So where does Lawrence stand? I think he says things about natives which Mexicans, never mind natives, would find offensive. But I do not think he meant badly or to promote racism and what he says was said in books which are not much read these days. And perhaps only read by people who can take it in their stride. Grasp the essence of what he is on about without being diverted by what might be regarded as the canard of racism. Which sounds elitist and which will not do these days.

I leave with the thought that those who write laws about these sorts of things will have to tread carefully too. And perhaps leave a fair amount of room for interpretation and discretion. Hard to capture all this in simple rules. But I think I am moved to look up how the law writers do things. My efforts above are rather clumsy.