Claim: Charles Dickens was bigoted, full of hate, and derisive
towards people who were not English, and toward their American
cousins. Unfortunately, it is worse. Charles Dickens was a
racist (this was not limited to English or their American
cousins). That is not all. Dickens opposed the abolition of
Slavery (Clapham sect of Evangelists and Society of Friends
1).
Finally, sinking to the lowest level: Charles Dickens believed
in using genocide (mass extermination of several groups of
peoples, as the word "genocide" had not yet been coined).
All these claims are based upon what Dickens himself wrote,
not once but several times.
There are those who refuse to believe what Dickens himself
wrote on these subjects; since over a period of years
Dickens presented his views differently, such that his
views on any one subject might seem elusive to the reader,
it is possible to find quotes supporting Dickens opinions
that sound 'pro' one year, and 'con' the next. However,
there is a problem: no matter how much Dickens apologists
attempt to rewrite history, the fact remains that Dickens
repeatedly expressed views that were bigoted, racist,
pro-slavery and which favored genocide
2,
3.
A number of quotes from Dickens will be used to demonstrate
the points raised. As the quotes often contain more than
one notable fact, they are repeatedly discussed to cover
each fact. For example, a statement like "Mr. A is a nigger,
and he and all his relatives should be killed" would be
discussed under "nigger" and "killed". This discussion is
organized in this fashion for a reason: the claim could be
made that Dickens used the epithet "nigger" only once. Thus
the organization of this discussion is made to show multiple
instances of each point.
One must take care, once it has been established that Dickens
was an ignorant, hateful person, this does not imply that one
should not value and read the novels and other written works
of Dickens. The Dickens oeuvre, as literature, is wonderful
and is entertaining: besides, who better to instruct the
modern person about racist hatred, and genocide?
Bigotry
We will establish here that Dickens is anti-Italian,
anti-Irish, anti-Zulu, anti-Indian and anti-Amerindian.
Anti-Italian
Whereas, as mere animals, they were wretched creatures,
very low in the scale and very poorly formed; and as
men and women possessing any power of truthful dramatic
expression by means of action, they were no better than
the chorus at an Italian Opera in England -- and would
have been worse if such a thing were possible. 4
Some people5
have suggested that Dickens was just being facetious,
that he was just joking. It is evident that he is not
being facetious here but is simply disrespectful and
derisive of Italians.
Anti-Irish
[after attacking Zulus, Dickens says] "But, several of
these scenes of savage life bear a strong generic
resemblance to an Irish election, and I think would be
extremely well-received and understood at Cork."
.
.
Ten, twenty, thirty—who can count them! Men, women,
children, for the most part naked, heaped upon the floor
like maggots in a cheese! Ho! In that dark corner yonder!
Does anybody lie there? Me Sir, Irish me, a widder, with
six children. And yonder? Me Sir, Irish me, with me wife
and eight poor babes. And to the left there? Me Sir, Irish
me, along with two more Irish boys as is me friends. And
to the right there? Me Sir and the Murphy fam'ly, numbering
five blessed souls. And what is this, coiling, now, about
my foot? Another Irish me, pitifully in want of shaving,
whom I have awakened from sleep–and across my other
foot lies his wife–and by the shoes of Inspector
Field lie their three eldest–and their three youngest
are at present squeezed between the open door and the wall.
And why is there no one on that little mat before the sullen
fire? Because O'Donovan, with wife and daughter, is not come
in yet from selling Lucifers! Nor on the bit of sacking in
the nearest corner? Bad luck! Because that Irish family is
late tonight, a-cadging in the streets!
6
.
Is Dickens' conscientiously bringing the horrors of poverty
before us? If so, then why, exactly, does Dickens feel the
Irish are
"like maggots in a cheese"? Why does Dickens refer to these Irish people as
"coiling, now, about my foot"? Is Dickens, once again, merely being the comedian? Why have
so few literary critics, those specializing in Dickens
and Empire, failed to point out this aspect of Dickens the
comedian?
Some people5
have suggested that Dickens was, once again, just
being facetious, that he was just being jocular.
Descriptions found in Henry Mayhew and other writers
at this period in time point out that the English in
fact looked down on the Irish. The final arbiter as
to whether or not these were funny comments, should
be not Dickens' apologists but the Irish themselves.
Anti-Zulu
If he wants a wife he appears before the kennel of the gentleman
whom he has selected for his father-in-law, attended by a party
of male friends of a very strong flavor, who screech and whistle
and stamp an offer of so many cows for the young lady's hand.
The chosen father-in-law -- also supported by a high-favored
party of male friends -- screeches, whistles, and yells (being
seated on the ground, he can't stamp) that there never was such
a daughter in the market as his daughter, and that he must have
six more cows. The son-in-law and his select circle of backers,
screech, whistle, stamp, and yell in reply, that they will give
three more cows. The father-in-law (an old deluder, overpaid at
the beginning) accepts four, and rises to bind the bargain. The
whole party, the young lady included, then falling into epileptic
convulsions, and screeching, whistling, stamping and yelling
together -- and nobody taking any notice of the young lady (whose
charms are not to be thought of without a shudder) -- the noble
savage is considered married, and his friends make demoniacal
leaps at him by way of congratulation.
7
When the noble savage finds himself a little unwell, and
mentions the circumstance to his friends, it is immediately
perceived that he is under the influence of witchcraft. A
learned personage, called an Imyauger or Witch Doctor, is
immediately sent for to Nooker the Umtargartie, or smell out
the witch. The male inhabitants of the kraal being seated on
the ground, the learned doctor, got up like a grizzly bear,
appears, and administers a dance of a most terrific nature,
during the exhibition of which remedy he incessantly gnashes
his teeth and howls: -- "I am the original physician to
Nooker the Umtargartie. Yow yow yow! No connexion with any
other establishment. Til til til! All other Umtargarties are
feigned Umtargarties, Boroo Boroo! but I perceive here a
genuine and real Umtargartie, Hoosh Hoosh Hoosh! in whose
blood I, the original Imyanger and Nookerer, Blizzerum Boo!
will wash these bear's claws of mine. O yow yow yow!" All
this time the learned physician is looking out among the
attentive faces for some unfortunate man who owes him a cow,
or against whom, without offence, he has conceived a spite.
Him he never fails to Nooker as the Umtargartie, and he is
instantly killed. In the absence of such an individual, the
usual practice is to Nooker the quietest and most
gentlemanly person in the company. But the nookering is
invariably followed on the spot by the butchering.
8
Dickens' bigoted views, shown by his derisive nature towards
the Zulus , is evident in (a) and (b) above, as well as his
use of "Kaffir" (the equivalent of 'nigger') and "Kaffirland"
('niggerland')9.
Referring to 'The Noble Savage', Dickens says that "...
which might tempt the Society of Friends to charge at a
hand-gallop into the Swartz-Kop location and exterminate the
whole kraal." (meaning what Dickens suggests should be done)
10
Anti-Oriental, Anti-Hindoo, Anti-Indian
In a letter to Angela Burdette-Couts, October 4, 1857, Charles Dickens wrote:
The first thing I would do to strike that Oriental race with
amazement...should be to proclaim to them, in their language,
that I should do utmost to exterminate the Race upon whom
the stain of the late cruelties rested."
11
Dickens also called for the "extermination" of the Indian
race and applauded the "mutilation" of the wretched Hindoo
who were punished by being "blown from...English guns[s]"
12
I think a mere gent
13
(which I take to be the lowest form of civilisation)
better than a howling, whistling, clucking, stamping,
jumping, tearing savage. It is all one to me, whether
he sticks a fishbone through his visage, or bits of
trees through the lobes of his ears, or birds' feathers
in his head; whether he flattens his hair between two
boards, or spreads his nose over the breadth of his
face, or drags his lower lip down by great weights, or
blackens his teeth, or knocks them out, or paints one
cheek red and the other blue, or tattoos himself, or
oils himself, or rubs his body with fat, or crimps it
with knives. Yielding to whichsoever of these agreeable
eccentricities, he is a savage -- cruel, false,
thievish, murderous; addicted more or less to grease,
entrails, and beastly customs; a wild animal with the
questionable gift of boasting; a conceited, tiresome,
bloodthirsty, monotonous humbug.
14
There was a Mr. Catlin, some few years ago, with his
Ojibbeway Indians ... who had written a picturesque
and glowing book about them. With his party of
Indians squatting and spitting on the table before
him, or dancing their miserable jigs after their own
dreary manner,... Whereas, as mere animals, they were
wretched creatures, very low in the scale and very
poorly formed; and as men and women possessing any
power of truthful dramatic expression by means of
action, they were no better than the chorus at an
Italian Opera in England -- and would have been
worse if such a thing were possible.
15
Dickens' Support of Slavery
An examination of the section dealing with Capitalism and
the Industrial Revolution explains that the Abolitionists
used the opposition to slavery as a means to create
Colonialism. It is also established that the Abolitionists
were spearheaded by the Clapham sect of Evangelism, led
by Wilberforce and Stephens. Thus, it is important to
understand whether Dickens in fact supported slavery or
opposed slavery and the Clapham sect and other religious
groups that were opposed to slavery such as the Society of
Friends (Quakers).
Lord Denman (Lord Chief Justice of England) said of Dickens'
attack on the Abolitionists17
"In one particular instance, but the most important of all
at this crisis, he [Dickens] exerts his powers to obstruct
the great cause of human improvement. ... We do not say
that he actually defends slavery or the slave-trade; but
he takes pains to discourage, by ridicule, the effort now
making to put them down. ... The disgusting picture of a
woman [Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House] who pretends
zeal for the happiness of Africa, and is constantly
employed in securing a life of misery to her own children,
is a laboured work of art in his present exhibition. ...
If meant to represent a class, we believe that no
representation was ever more false (p. 5)."
18
Lord Denman continued the attack upon Dickens' claim that
the work of Harriet Beecher Stowe was not based upon fact,
that slavery was not so bad an evil, that Uncle Tom's Cabin
was a fictional portrayal of the evils of slavery. Dickens
replied that he believed that the purpose of the book by Mrs.
Stowe is to arouse racial conflict with the aim of violently
overthrowing the White race:
"... I call it a very overstrained conclusion and a very
violent extreme, and a damaging absurdity to the slave
himself, to set up the Colored race as capable ever of
subduing the White. I pointed this out to Mrs. Stowe
herself, who replied to me that she had not that
intention. In her execution, however, I still think it
to be there."19
Like the Abolitionists, the Society of Friends, or
Quakers, opposed slavery. Dickens , in a very derisive
fashion, attacks the Quakers for opposing slavery.
Referring to 'The Noble Savage', Dickens says:
"... which might tempt the Society of Friends to charge
at a hand-gallop into the Swartz-Kop location and
exterminate the whole kraal." (meaning what Dickens suggests
should be done)20
Dickens' Attitude Regarding Genocide
Once again we are asked by Dickens' apologists to believe
that Dickens is being a comedian when it comes to genocide.
As before, it strains belief to think that Dickens was not
cognizant of the import of his words, especially since he
said it more than once.
Referring to 'The Noble Savage,' Dickens says that
"... which might tempt the Society of Friends to
charge at a hand-gallop into the Swartz-Kop location
and exterminate the whole kraal. (meaning what
Dickens suggests should be done)21.
By being dismissive of the viewpoint of the Society of
Friends, Dickens is essentially saying that the
extermination of the Zulus is of no real
significance to him. In fact, in other locations
Dickens notes that he feels it would be good for
humanity (presumably meaning people of his class) if
such extermination took place. Or, as he himself had
said, the improvement of Mankind by the Zulus
disappearing.
Dickens obviously felt that extermination would work
for many people that he disliked, or felt were inferior.
Just as with the Zulus, Dickens felt that the Indians or
Hindoos (there are Indians who are not Hindoos) should
also be exterminated. as well as being mutilated by
English guns.
In a letter to Angela Burdette-Couts, October 4, 1857,
Charles Dickens wrote:
"The first thing I would do to strike that Oriental
race with amazement...should be to proclaim to them,
in their language, that I should do utmost to
exterminate the Race upon whom the stain of the late
cruelties rested."22
Dickens also called for the "extermination" of the
Indian race and applauded the "mutilation" of the
wretched Hindoo who were punished by being "blown
from...English guns[s]"23
To read the text of Dickens' "The Noble Savage",
click here .
To examine Dickens' original "The Noble Savage" as published
in Household Words, click the links below:
2
The review by Lillian Nayder, of Grace Moore's
"Dickens and Empire: Discourses of Class, Race and
Colonialism in the Works of Charles Dickens", in
Victorian Studies, 2006, 48(2): 331-333
Return
3
In September, 1860 Dickens burned twenty years' worth of
confidential letters and papers, including his literary
correspondence. Thus, many of his private expressions of
opinion -- which might have conclusively shown where his
true sympathies lay -- were lost forever. See Stone,
Harry, "Charles Dickens and Harriet Beecher Stowe",
in Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 12, p. 201
Return
4
Dickens, Charles "The Noble Savage", Household
Words, June 11, 1853, p. 168
There are numerous such attacks against the Italians, especially
those in Naples, as well as even more numerous attacks on
Catholicism due to what Dickens believes are its superstitions,
its corruption, and the Holy Inquisition, found in his "Pictures
from Italy", Penguin, 1998. Just one example:
"The cathedral with the beautiful door, and the columns of
African and Egyptian granite that once ornamented the temple of
Apollo, contains the famous sacred blood of San Gennaro or
Januarius: which is preserved in two phials in a silver
tabernacle, and miraculously liquifies three times a-year,
to the great admiration of the people. At the same moment,
the stone (distant some miles) where the Saint suffered
martyrdom, becomes faintly red. It is said that the officiating
priests turn faintly red also, sometimes, when these miracles
occur." p. 168
Return
5
See Lillian Nayder's review, of Grace Moore's
"Dickens and Empire: Discourses of Class, Race and
Colonialism in the Works of Charles Dickens", in
Victorian Studies, 2006, 48(2): 331-333
Return
6
"ON DUTY WITH INSPECTOR FIELD", by Charles Dickens,
Household Words, Saturday, June 14, 1851, p. 266, 267
Return
7
Dickens, Charles "The Noble Savage", Household
Words, June 11, 1853, p. 338
Return
10
Dickens, Charles "The Noble Savage", Household
Words, June 11, 1853, p. 339
Return
11
Dickens, Charles, "Letters from Charles Dickens to
Angela-Burdett-Coutts", Edgar Johnson, Ed.; Jonathan
Cape, London, 1953
Return
12
Dickens, Charles, "The Speeches of Charles Dickens",
K. J. Fielding, Ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960, p. 284
Return
13
The term "gent" was used to designate people of a lower
racial category. This brings to mind the battle between
Sepulveda and de las Casas in Nueva Espana: the Spanish
conquistadors were destroying the Indians, thereby
making new lands of the Spanish Crown, a desert, and
laying the foundation for the creation of a new kingdom
independent of Spain. The Spanish crown had to preserve
its interest in the Indians and at the same time deprive
the Indians of the right to reclaim their lands from the
Conquistadors. The battle centered on whether or not the
Indians were to be considered humans or animals in the
appearance of humans. The Spanish Crown decided in favor
of the Indians being humans, but in tutelage to the
Spanish crown; legally as "children". Thus, they were
not legally able to claim their rights. The term "gent"
originally referred to "humans legally deprived of the
rights of human beings".
Return
14
Dickens, Charles "The Noble Savage", Household
Words, June 11, 1853, p. 168. Intended to imply Amerindians.
Return