A new form of racism—if that's what it is—is directed by white people at pink peopleby Sam Leith / June 15, 2018 / Leave a comment
“Daddy, daddy,” your children will one day ask, “what did you do in the gammon wars?” Each generation has its time of trial. And for this one, it is the great debate over whether “gammon”—a Corbynite slur aimed at the sort of hypertensive white man in late middle age whose angry Brexit face is to be seen in the audience at Question Time—is, as some claim, racist; or, as others claim, classist; or, as its users claim, no more than a woundingly spot-on description of the skin tone of an enraged Daily Mail reader.
Nice to meet a food-based term of abuse. There aren’t many. Mad people are “nuts.” Bad films are “cheesy” or “schmaltzy.” “Coconut” has had some purchase in the racial arena. “Watermelon” (green on the outside, pink on the inside) is sometimes used to troll eco-lefties. Your grandmother might have called you a “silly ’nana” on the grounds that bananas are intrinsically amusing. But I can’t think of many others.
Is “gammon” racist? We can leave aside the old argument about whether reverse-racism is a thing. There isn’t much of a lexicon of black-on-white deprecation in the UK—you’ll find “honky” and “cracker” in the US, but we have no equivalents. And here, anyway, is a term of abuse used towards white people by (predominantly) other white people. Rather, it’s racism—if that’s the word—directed by white people at pink people. “Pink” not being a race, the jury continues to deliberate, settling on the lesser indictment of appearance-based insult.
A stronger line of attack is that it’s a class-based slur. But i…