# Africa starts at Calais. (British expression.) Wogs/ Niggers begin at Calais



## James Brandon

Obviously an old-fashioned expression which is not heard a lot today. I have heard it, but cannot quite remember whether it is "Africa starts at Calais" or "Africa begins at Calais"... [Whichever way, the meaning is the same, i.e. the Continent is full of barbarians, prejudices being what they are and/or were.] The expression is rarely used today and generally in a humorous way. If anyone knows where it originates, I would be interested to know. I have read on the web that A Hitler used it but I am sceptical: (a) I believe it is an English expression; (b) Hitler would have included himself and his fellow Germans among the 'savages'.

Suggestions welcome


----------



## jimreilly

Evidently the French say that Africa begins at the Pyrennees, with the same kind of negative attitude against the Spanish (and Africans) that the English have/had against the French (and Africans) and the rest of Europe. I wonder if someone else, thinking of Hannibal/and or Italians, says that Africa begins at the Alps? Unpleasantness takes many forms....


----------



## cuchuflete

The Spaniards have a lovely way of dealing with geography.  There was a Spanish expression--don't know if it's used much these days-- that translates roughly as follows:

Europe ends at the Pyrennees, Africa begins with Morocco.


----------



## foxfirebrand

I've never heard the cleaned-up "Africa" version.  It's "the Wogs" that start at Calais in the original.  It's not so much a general British animus toward France as a late and post-Colonial dislike of loose immigration policy in France regarding Algerians-- especially during the war there that ended in 1962.  As I understand it, that one part of the Maritime Empire was legally part of France, and Algerians could travel there without a visa, enjoying full citizenship.

Racist?  In southern Italy where I lived at the time a similar disdain for the French policy evolved.  Libians and Somalians weren't allowed to immigrate en masse when Colonial regimes collapsed in 1945 and certain colonials faced retribution for collaborating with the Imperialists.  The French held themselves to be more "enlightened" in taking the opposite opproach-- so there was some degree of _Schadenfreude,_ especially in the conservative South, when the French policy failed to prevent a bloody and complicated war.
.
.


----------



## James Brandon

Thanks for comments and I was not aware that the expression might be linked to awareness (and rejection), in Britain, of _immigration_ policy at one stage or other, prevailing in France - I assumed it was more to do with _general_ prejudice against "continentals" and their unwashed ways (allegedly)... 

In other words, close to the equally insular Spanish saying that is quoted - but Spain, historically, was very insular too, since the Pyrenees always cut the country off from the rest of Europe (hence perhaps another incentive to venture overseas...). 

If I review your replies, no one has expressed a view as to whether it should be 'start' or 'begin' that is used - I believe either could be.


----------



## jimreilly

A quick Google turned up "begins" and not "starts"; perhaps the original began as a translation from some other language, in which case either might do....


----------



## foxfirebrand

Well as long as you're googling, you might as well use the original expression:

Wogs begin     390
Wogs start      222

Not what I'd call conclusive, especially since I saw a _Kansas_ in there, instead of _Calais._  Up here in Indian country the whole idea of "wogs" is a little irrelevant-- unless it means Californians.
.


----------



## ElaineG

I love it.  The wogs start at Kansas.  I may have to adopt that (if I would ever use the word wogs, that is).


----------



## Dr. Quizá

jimreilly said:
			
		

> Evidently the French say that Africa begins at the Pyrennees



And so do we in Spain. We are the Self-Critical World Champions  But if we say that of ourselves, just imagine what can we say of other countries


----------



## James Brandon

So, it sounds like it should be "begin" rather than "start", even though both are used - and whether we are referring to Calais or Kansas or Spain as the starting point, and whether the natives of those parts are referred to as "wogs" or not!


----------



## foxfirebrand

James Brandon said:
			
		

> So, it sounds like it should be "begin" rather than "start", even though both are used - and whether we are referring to Calais or Kansas or Spain as the starting point, and whether the natives of those parts are referred to as "wogs" or not!


I know you're being humorous, but the issue I take with following Google as a guide to usage is very humorless-- my tendency toward curmudgeonly rants against Google have probably been noted by some.

First it's usage, then it's thinking, then it's an overt proscription of this or that mode of behavior-- all with the imprimatur of that worst of tyrannies, the one an aroused Majority can so capriciously wield.  Mob rule, the nth degree of "democracy."

Google represents a very slippery slope, and they are very frank about what they're doing, as though they don't see the anti-republican implications.  No, I don't mean the GOP, small-r "republican" is a concept in opposition to "Imperial" or "Loyalist."  Nazi Germany didn't have a republic, the U.S. still does, kinda, whether those insidious polls trend to the red end of the spectrum or the blue.

I'm not going to spell _forgone_ with an inserted "e" just because the Google count on that practice is up by a margin of five figures, or seven, or ten.

In hopes that the usage-vs-precept topic is relevant to this "begin" vs "start" topic, I'd like to briefly suggest, again, that people google _Google,_ and find out what you can about their relationship with the Chinese government, and the aid they are giving in the technology of population control-- by managing the "content" (yes, the word-count) of messages people put on the internet.  Mention "Falun Gong" on a forum, and if your ISP is Chinese your OS is likely to clog with spyware of a whole nother sort.  Learn about it, it can happen here.
.


----------



## jimreilly

I would still like to know from a classicist among us if there are any similar expressions from Roman (or even Greek) times relating to where Africa does or doesn't begin. To trace this expression back just to late colonial or post-colonial times might be missing something?


----------



## James Brandon

Jimreilly,

I have always understood the expression to be due to/related to British _insularity_ rather than imperialism _per se_ (whether recent or not). 

As for the point made by Foxfirebrand regarding Google, i.e. (a) That it is dangerous to consider that they are an arbiter of good taste (clearly, they are _not_); (b) That they have been found wanting when it comes to transparency and democracy, notably in their dealings in China (see recent press coverage and the fact that Google openly works with the Chinese authorities, in mainland China - another version of being 'glocal'!) - I can see what he is trying to say.

However, I have always understood that references to given web sites on Google come top when, in the main, they are those most wanted/consulted by readers - this is no definition of 'good taste', but it points towards generalized usage. But maybe this is simplistic... 

As for the expression at issue here, for my part, I only found 3 or 4 references to it on Google, not any more than that, which is rather puzzling. Maybe my PC home PC won't let me access such 'colonial' prejudice! 

All the best


----------



## foxfirebrand

I use Wikipedia too, and if I'm looking up something like the perihelion of a certain asteroid, I tend to accept it as "fact."

And who doesn't use Google?  Evil as it will evolve to be, it can also be fun.  Ask it, for example, what "begins at Calais," and here is the tally of the first 6 pages of results:

ignorance 7 times
Europe 5
everything 4
Euro-Route R-1 4
fascism 3
the jungle 3
Africa 2
Asia 2
the Continent 2
really shoddy service 2
Frenchness 2
French toughness
southern Europe
the government's resolve
everything, not just Frenchness
injustice
perfidy
"we know what" (things other than "clear-thinking Anglo-Saxon")
international law, like the wogs of old
the world of untrustworthy foreigners
.


----------



## judkinsc

jimreilly said:
			
		

> I would still like to know from a classicist among us if there are any similar expressions from Roman (or even Greek) times relating to where Africa does or doesn't begin. To trace this expression back just to late colonial or post-colonial times might be missing something?


I have a BA in Classics (hurrah), but I don't recall anything specific about this. In general, I can tell you that the farther you went from Rome, the farther you were removed from "civilization", that view was very prevalent. I can also remind you that the Roman Empire, at its height, covered northern Africa, as well as the rest of the Mediterranean basin and as far north as Britain and the Rhone.

We don't have a vast majority of documents from antiquity, and some of them are corrupted. Most of what we know of this kind of thing is derived from the self-proclaimed "historians", such as Tacitus, Herodotus, Livy, and Thucydides. It's likely that one of them mentioned "where Africa began" in their histories.

I have read more about where the "north" began than the "south". It seems to me that Africa was thought to be more civilized than some places. You have Egypt, Carthage, the library of Alexandria, etc. there, for instance.  Herodotus travelled Africa fairly extensively, according to his histories, and wrote a good bit about it.  I would look to one of the other historians for specifics like this, though.  Herodotus is known for talking about the Persian war and for finding odd folklore and tales to tell more than anything else.


----------



## foxfirebrand

I don't think the Romans thought of the world according to our continental terms-- to them anything beyond the Mediterranean basin was a vast expanse, and it didn't much matter in what direction.  Africa was a specific province created out of the homeland of the defeatid Punic people, and it corresponds roughly to Tunisia.  Egypt was simply Egypt, and was not thought to be connected with Africa any more than it was with Syria, which was not synonymous with "Asia"-- a Greek concept that had to do with lands surrounding Persia.  Asia was anything beyond that land, and "Asia Minor" was anything between Persia and Greece.  "Europe" was also a Hellenic concept, and it meant the unexplored inland area north and west of the Greek world, which of course included not only Greece but the southern half of Italy and the area now called Provence.
.


----------



## You little ripper!

jimreilly said:
			
		

> A quick Google turned up "begins" and not "starts"; perhaps the original began as a translation from some other language, in which case either might do....


Jimreilly, what did you put into the search box when you Googled? When I put each of the expressions in there with quotation marks, I got six listings for both of them.


----------



## jimreilly

Damned if I know--I just did it again and got your results. I also just did a Netscape search and got 3 for "begins" and two for "starts", one of which was the discussion on the Wordreference site, which hardly counts under the circumstances, does it!


----------



## Outsider

I don't think the word 'Africa' had any derogatory conotations to the ancient Romans. As others have noted, a substantial part of the Roman Empire was in North Africa.



			
				James Brandon said:
			
		

> Thanks for comments and I was not aware that the expression might be linked to awareness (and rejection), in Britain, of _immigration_ policy at one stage or other, prevailing in France - I assumed it was more to do with _general_ prejudice against "continentals" and their unwashed ways (allegedly)...


If you say the expression is old-fashioned, then it doesn't seem likely that it has anything to do with mass immigration from Africa, which is a fairly recent phenomenon in Europe.


----------



## James Brandon

Outsider,

I do believe it is old-fashioned and, indeed, in the UK today, no one uses it or would want to be heard using it, in the main, if only because it sounds old-fashioned and faintly silly, apart from being potentially racist in tone! When used, the expression will tend to be used in a humorous/ironic way. (E.g.: when making fun of something happening in France, such as a strike in a port where British tourists are "taken hostage".) As for the ref. to immigration issues, I believe it was Foxfirebrand linking the use of the expression to the 1960s and the Algerian War, i.e. a while ago, but not _that_ long ago...

As for the general comments on issues of a historical nature (and references to Ancient Greece and Rome), there is no doubt that virtually all civilisations have tended to regard outsiders as inferiors, starting in the West with the Greek/Roman view of 'others' as 'barbarians'. In Roman times, this would have included sub-Saharan Africa/the Sudan, which were not well known, but most certainly not N Africa, which was very much part of the Empire (indeed the Roman province of Africa was highly civilised and was today's Tunisia). Romans would rather have considered what is today Holland, England and Germany as the ultimate symbol of backwardness, no doubt (as conveyed in the film 'Gladiator'). Julius Caesar, when he subdued Celtic England (before it was called _England_), must have felt a bit like a British general in charge of a colonial foray into some backwater of Papua New Guinea would have felt round 1880...

After all this, it would be interesting if an African reader/contributor could come up with a saying, old or new, regarding nations/groups situated North of where he/she comes from - there might be something along the lines of: 'The Barbarians live North of the hills' (i.e. North of Ethiopia, etc.), or something like this!


----------



## DaleC

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Obviously an old-fashioned expression which is not heard a lot today. I have heard it, but cannot quite remember whether it is "Africa starts at Calais" or "Africa begins at Calais"...



Have you really heard it, or do you think you've heard it. Maybe you "heard it" from someone who in turn just thought *they *"heard it". This saying does not make any sense from a knowledge of western European history. I.e., it makes no sense that the English would have thought this of the French, the ancient rivalry notwithstanding. The English do not have a reputation of having considered the French less advanced than themselves. 

The saying "Africa begins at the Pyrenees" specifically refers to Spain's relative backwardness at the grand scale of European history from 1700 on. In the 1500's Spain was the most advanced European country thanks to its New World plunder. It and Portugal were the pioneers in European overseas colonialization, by a century. Cervantes pioneered the modern novel. Spanish steel was Europe's finest. But in the middle 1600's, France and England caught up as they created their own overseas colonial empires. Meanwhile, Spain was mired in an extreme form of Roman Catholic conservatism (which lasted until the 1900's), unlike France, another Roman Catholic country. Spain did not contribute to the Enlightenment, which was the work of north and west Europe, and subsequently did not contribute to the Industrial Revolutions. The Italian composer Rossini said, "Thank God for the Spaniards. If not for the Spaniards, the Italians would be the last men [i.e., in last place] in Europe." We must also remind ourselves that large portions of Spain had been ruled by Moroccans until 1492. 
(See Franz Borkenau, The Spanish Cockpit, ca. 1938) 

So I am not convinced that you have heard what you think you have heard. It sounds like distinct ancient British attitudes about France and Spain have been forgotten and mashed together to generate two dozen corrupted  versions of old sayings.


----------



## James Brandon

Dalec,

I am sorry but you are sitting somewhere in San Diego, and I am in London. If I say to you that I have heard this expression - it means that I have. I have not invented it, no. What I was not 100% sure about was whether one would rather say "start" or "begin" - but the expression does exist and I am 100% sure of that. 

As for the British looking down on the French or not, we all know that the English, in the Middle Ages, were probably rather backward as compared to the Normans who came to rule them (and who came from NW France), etc. But the saying in question relates to contemporary British attitudes and a bit before - I would date if from some time between 1750 and 1925... The fact it is not much used today (also because of political correctness) does not mean that it does not exist or has never existed. 

See comments posted up by various contributors (also American), results of Google searches, etc. It is not just me saying this!


----------



## panjandrum

There is no Google evidence to support any commonly-recorded statement of the forms:
XXX begins at Calais
XXX starts at Calais
empire begins at ...
empire starts at ...
india begins at ...
india starts at ...
africa begins at ...
africa starts at ...

I reckon we need more support for the incidence of the expression "XXX starts at Calais" if we are to avoid inventing things.

Edit:
I can't find any pattern for anything that may have "stopped at Calais" either.


----------



## James Brandon

Panj,

_Re.: Living in denial._

There is evidence - if you do a Google search (for what it is worth - see yesterday's debate over this), 3 to 6 entries come up, I believe. And if you do the even cruder 'wogs start at...', which I have not tried to do, according to Foxfirebrand, many entries come up - and some relate to Kansas, of all places... Ultimately, I know that the expression exists, that I have heard it, and that's that. Thank you.


----------



## panjandrum

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Panj,
> 
> _Re.: Living in denial._
> 
> There is evidence - if you do a Google search (for what it is worth - see yesterday's debate over this), 3 to 6 entries come up, I believe. And if you do the even cruder 'wogs start at...', which I have not tried to do, according to Foxfirebrand, many entries come up - and some relate to Kansas, of all places... Ultimately, I know that the expression exists, that I have heard it, and that's that. Thank you.


I got the small number of entries, but in Google terms, I would expect hundreds at least to justify calling something common, 3-6 are not significant. 

I use Google with extreme caution, but within the small numbers I found related to the searches I used, there was wide variation in the contexts and no detectable pattern.

The only phrase of significance I could find was "... wogs begin at Calais ...", amongst about 400 or so very assorted hits for "begin at Calais".

Apart from "wogs begin at Calais" and variants thereof, I don't see any pattern there.

Edit:  There seems to be nothing relevant in the British National Corpus either?


----------



## cuchuflete

Please take google with a lump of salt.  What's common or often heard in speech may appear statistically insignificant in uncle google's realm.

Here's an example of a phrase *common* in the upper mid-western US and in Alaska:

slick as deer guts on a doorknob

It shows up in googledom a mere 186 times, which is akin to microscopic dust.


----------



## panjandrum

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Please take google with a lump of salt. What's common or often heard in speech may appear statistically insignificant in uncle google's realm.
> 
> Here's an example of a phrase *common* in the upper mid-western US and in Alaska:
> 
> slick as deer guts on a doorknob
> 
> It shows up in googledom a mere 186 times, which is akin to microscopic dust.


Ah, but that is amazingly common compared with the hits found for anything related to a boundary at Calais.


----------



## foxfirebrand

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Here's an example of a phrase *common* in the upper mid-western US and in Alaska:
> 
> slick as deer guts on a doorknob


 Well, let's not allow controversy to be the exclusive purview of the Brits and their "wogs." I'm familiar with your expression, after a fashion, and agree that it's common-- but I've only ever heard of deer guts on a door *handle.*  Now ain't that odd?

I thought to google it belatedly-- all of 2 hits.
.


----------



## jimreilly

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Outsider,
> 
> After all this, it would be interesting if an African reader/contributor could come up with a saying, old or new, regarding nations/groups situated North of where he/she comes from - there might be something along the lines of: 'The Barbarians live North of the hills' (i.e. North of Ethiopia, etc.), or something like this!




I asked my African housemate from Guinée and he couldn't think of an expression right off, but he said there is a word for such ethnic joking, Sanakou. There are so many ethnic groups in West Africa, of course, so there are lots of opportunities for such joking! 

Here in Minnesota some people joke about proper civilization stopping at the Iowa border, and we are fond of comparing the Twin Cities (favorably, of course) with Des Moines or even (heaven forbid) Omaha. So I imagine these things are pretty darn near universal.


----------



## Outsider

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Ah, but that is amazingly common compared with the hits found for anything related to a boundary at Calais.


James Brandon did say it's an old expression, so that's not surprising.



			
				jimreilly said:
			
		

> James Brandon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider,
> 
> After all this, it would be interesting if an African reader/contributor could come up with a saying, old or new, regarding nations/groups situated North of where he/she comes from - there might be something along the lines of: 'The Barbarians live North of the hills' (i.e. North of Ethiopia, etc.), or something like this!
> 
> 
> 
> I asked my African housemate from Guinée and he couldn't think of an expression right off, but he said there is a word for such ethnic joking, Sanakou. There are so many ethnic groups in West Africa, of course, so there are lots of opportunities for such joking!
> 
> Here in Minnesota some people joke about proper civilization stopping at the Iowa border, and we are fond of comparing the Twin Cities (favorably, of course) with Des Moines or even (heaven forbid) Omaha. So I imagine these things are pretty darn near universal.
Click to expand...

All ancient or isolated civilizations tend to think of themselves as more advanced, prettier, and generally better than everyone else. For example, the ancient Egyptians described their Middle Eastern neighbours to the North and their African neighbours to the South in very disparaging terms. I read an interesting essay about this a few days ago, but unfortunately I can't recall the url.


----------



## James Brandon

Thanks for insightful comments from all and sundry. The discussion moved on from what the phrase in question is or should be (I don't mean 'should' from a moral standpoint, of course, but from a linguistic-accuracy standpoint), to: Does it exist? Since most people tend to rely on Google for frequency of occurrence (which may or may not be a good thing), the discussion then focused on how reliable Google can be. 

All this is relative. No one can say that something does _not_ exist because it cannot be found on Google - this would not be very scientific. But one may rationally argue that something _does_ exist if it (i.e. a reference to it) _can_ be found on Google. In the case of a given idiom, I agree that the _number_ of occurrences is important - under 1,000 entries is not a lot, and common expressions will muster hundreds of thousands. But you should remember our earlier discussion of "stewed prunes" - not a massive Google-presence, yet a phrase that was known to several contributors. See also the bizarre slippery-doorknobs expression given! 

In the case of the 'Africa...' expression, it is definitely old-fashioned and of a kind most people would rather avoid today, for understandable and obvious reasons. What is interesting is that the few occurrences of the expression in question on Google do confirm the meaning I suggested and the way that the expression would tend to be used. Even though we are only talking about half-a-dozen occurrences, I do not think this allows us to say the expression does not exist! It may lead some to conclude that it is marginal and irrelevant, however. But, once more, this is relative. 

Strictly speaking, one sighting of, say, a previously unknown bird, is enough, if it is well documented, to attest to its existence - you do not need 175,000 entries in Google to confirm it all... To put it differently: When you want to prove that something exists, you are attempting to prove a positive, i.e. that one occurrence can be observed; when you are trying to prove a negative, you must prove that no one, anywhere, ever, has come across the thing in question - it is far more difficult, and no one has succeeded in this particular case, apart from the fact I can confirm that I have indeed heard the expression on more than one occasion...

Well, enough _sanakou_ for now (a nice one as concepts go!)...


----------



## DaleC

I would like to add two points to my previous argument. 

The statement, "Africa begins at Calais", begs the question: which lands does Europe include, to the mind of a person saying such a thing? The British Isles only? Or the British Isles, the German lands, and Scandinavia, but somehow not France and Iberia? 

There *is* a tradition in Britain of some people (a minority, I suppose!) thinking of Britain as being *outside *Europe. This may be only half serious on their part, but by the same token, only half joking. Ten or 15 years ago, during one phase of the battle over whether the UK should join the European Monetary Union, an American news show interviewed a mild mannered young English vicar -- clearly a well educated person -- as insisting he didn't feel himself to be European. 

I think that these two points, taken together with the fact of how other Europeans used to view Spain, strongly establish the presumption that there is no way that a significant portion of the British people, even out of spite, could have developed the attitude toward France represented by "Africa begins at Calais". But after all, the point of adopting such a blatant sarcastic exaggeration as common wisdom would be to assert that it nevertheless expresses some sort of deep truth. 

This is why I concluded that this expression would have been current only among a small number of uneducated people, who by their nature wouldn't have really taken much interest in French or European affairs to begin with.


----------



## PeterR

DaleC

Indeed it is not a joke that Britain is not part of Europe.  Americans often refer to Britain as being in Europe (because Britain is on the European side of the Atlantic), and of course we are in the European Union, and we are Europeans in the sense that we are not Africans, Asians, or Americans.

But Europe for many British people is a place of foreign languages and foreign customs.  In many ways America is closer to us than Europe is, although of course we hate being taken over by the American version of the English language and American customs.

So, for some of us (and it may or not be a minority nowadays), Britain is just Britain!  We are, after all, an island (so very separate from a continent across which one can drive - on the wrong side of the road - of course), and though we are no longer in a situation of Empire, there are millions of people around the world whose culture is at least partly descended from us, so we are not entirely alone as just a small island of 60 million people.

And I should have thought that the expression would have been used by educated, not uneducated people.  Prejudiced, very likely, but not uneducated.  Our educated people didn't use to be "politically correct", I'm afraid!

Peter


----------



## foxfirebrand

"The wogs start at Calais" didn't go out of fashion because it was a bad thing that only "uneducated" Britons said.  Nobody says it any more because it's not *true* any more.  Multiculturalism south of the Firth of Forth is as rampant as it used to be south of the Channel.  Or am I thinking of the Firth of Clyde?
.


----------



## PeterR

Britain is no longer homogeneous ethnically much further north than the Firths of Forth and Clyde, though we have only a few Africans or other dark-skinned people up here north of Inverness.  But plenty of Lithuanians, Latvians, Poles, and Kurds.  Makes a change from all the younger people moving away to the bright lights.


----------



## James Brandon

I am glad that Peter, being British too, could confirm that my posting was linked to: (a) a saying that exists; (b) a feeling that is deep-seated. Indeed, as Dalec concluded, many British people do not feel European at all, or rather regard (Continental) Europe as fairly alien. In conversation, when people say 'Britain and Europe', they mean 'Britain _alongside_ Europe', Europe being perceived to be 'the Continent'. In other words, from a British perspective, Europe is very much _Continental_ Europe and does _not_ include the UK (or the Republic of Ireland, I should think). This is not about objective geographical realities but about the _perception_ of those realities, which acquires a life of its own...


----------



## foxfirebrand

James Brandon said:
			
		

> I am glad that Peter, being British too, could confirm that my posting was linked to: (a) a saying that exists; (b) a feeling that is deep-seated. Indeed, as Dalec concluded, many British people do not feel European at all, or rather regard (Continental) Europe as fairly alien. In conversation, when people say 'Britain and Europe', they mean 'Britain _alongside_ Europe', Europe being perceived to be 'the Continent'. In other words, from a British perspective, Europe is very much _Continental_ Europe and does _not_ include the UK (or the Republic of Ireland, I should think). This is not about objective geographical realities but about the _perception_ of those realities, which acquires a life of its own...


As an American of British descent who is conscious of my history, I concur for what it's worth.

This attitude of apartness from Europe had its origin with the Separation by Henry VIII, and seemed divinely validated by the debacle of the Spanish Armada in 1588.  Some would say the divorce of Britain from the Continental System was well-seated by then and truly began when that system failed the British Crown in upholding its claims in France before and during the 100 Years' War.

Napoleon's dominance of Europe was another time when the separateness of Great Britain was driven home, especially when they almost single-handedly prevailed in the Napoleonic wars.  Our sense of isolation from Europe was never more intense than during WWII, and that era also emphasized the ties across the Atlantic-- a political and cultural alignment that shows itself, for well or ill, in the current undertaking in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I don't consider Britains "apartness" from Europe to be the same issue as the one evoked by "the wogs start at Calais," by the way.  To me that is not so much a statement about Europe as about France.  The Channel crossing has a terminus other than Calais or Boulogne, for people who are more central-European bound-- and the espression long antedates any significant presence of non-European populations in Germany and Scandinavia.  I don't think "the wogs start at Oostende" quite works as a variant.
.


----------



## James Brandon

I have just done a Google "Search within" (cf Amazon's "Search Inside" facility that scans the text of books etc for given words or phrases) and am glad to report that I have indeed found a reference to the phrase in question (with 'begin' and not 'start'). The reference in question implies that the expression was - once - quite commonly used. 

Details of the book, which appears to dwell on race relations between Blacks and Whites - I must admit I am not absolutely sure:

"Cities of the Dead", by Joseph Roach

Details of the quote, p21:

"'Africa', runs the tired old British slur on the French, 'begins at Calais'."

Book available on <<Online Booksellers>>

I will add other references if they are of any interest


----------



## cuchuflete

James Brandon,

Bravo!

I use uncle guegul a lot, but do not take absence from said uncle's domain as synonymous with absence from spoken English.

I've checked a number of expressions I have heard many times, and found no sign of their existence in that wonderful cybernetic repository.

I'm perfectly willing to trust a forero's word over guegul statistics.  Just think, by this time tomorrow you may be able to google for 'guegul' and find this thread.  And then some _____ will use the finding as 'proof' that it's an English word.

Thank you,
Cuchu


----------



## James Brandon

Cuchuflete,

I am sorry but I find your posting a little unfair, assuming I understood correctly what you are saying or implying. What you are saying is that finding a (any) word (or phrase) on Google (or elsewhere on the web) is no proof of its existence. This is of course absolutely true since many people who post up content on the web do not have it checked or edited by anyone but themselves (cf blogs etc.). They can invent words and then those words would appear thanks to an internet search. Etc. 

Your seemingly dismissive remark, however, needs correction on the following levels: (a) This forum is indeed monitored and edited by our beloved 'moderators'; (b) The reference I quoted can be found in a book of an academic nature, published in the US - it is not some sort of blog or random bulletin board; we may assume that the content was peer-reviewed; (c) Each item found on Google should be assessed for its own merits, of course, but I believe that the entry I found is relevant (and bear in mind that a book is only available on 'search inside' if the author and publisher agree...); (d) The process through which language evolves is also linked to the creation of new words, whether in 'real life' or on line, so you cannot dismiss so lightly as irrelevant the jargon and other new words that people may create or re-create over the internet.

But of course your comments cut both ways, and it is obvious that not 'everything' can be found on Google or any other search engine. I discussed this issue before: the absence of something from Google does not prove it does not exist; its presence may point towards its existence.


----------



## cuchuflete

James,

Sorry, I really wasn't clear. Please let me try again.

I meant only to convey two thoughts:

1. Bravo! to you for earlier stating that the phrase exists, whether or not google contains an example of it.   I fully agree.
Your word is good enough for me.   That you later found corroboration is nice, but your initial claim was worthy, based on your own experience alone.


2.  As you pointed out so very well, if one doesn't bring a brain along for the ride, google can be misleading.

Sorry I wasn't clear...my post was meant to be a compliment to you.

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## James Brandon

Cuchuflete,
No problem - we were at cross-purposes here. As we know, email and the internet can be treacherous, and this goes not only for Google and other search engines! And of course I agree that the internet and/or Google cannot be considered to be some sort of 'Bible' of what is and what is not... 
Take care


----------



## James Brandon

The expression 'Africa begins at Calais' is used in a recent Guardian article (April 2006), showing that the expression is indeed known: see link below.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/comment/0,,1748807,00.html

Obviously, and as would be expected (particularly in a left-of-center British newspaper such as The Guardian), the phrase is referred to as emblematic of old-fashioned British attitudes which, mercifully, have faded into disrepute and obscurity.


----------



## audiolaik

Hello,

One of my _haughty_ students turned to me to help him grasp the idea of what the following phrase might mean. Since it appears to be beyond my comprehension, I am looking to you for help. 

If one asked me, I would say that the phrase must convey negative feelings towards black people; that's all I can infer. 

Thank you!


PS No context provided!


----------



## Porteño

audiolaik said:


> Hello,
> 
> One of my _haughty_ students turned to me to help him grasp the idea of what the following phrase might mean. Since it appears to be beyond my comprehension, I am looking to you for help.
> 
> If one asked me, I would say that the phrase must convey negative feelings towards black people; that's all I can infer.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> PS No context provided!


 
It is one of many expression formerly used in the UK to describe foreigners in general and I don't think that this refers to blacks in particular. Nevertheless, it has a derogatory flavour and should be avoided.


----------



## envie de voyager

No matter what the context, or the intended message, you are correct in assuming that the word is an insult (from a North American point of view.)


----------



## audiolaik

Porteño said:


> It is one of many expression formerly used in the UK to describe foreigners in general and I don't think that this refers to blacks in particular. Nevertheless, it has a derogatory flavour and should be avoided.



Thank you, Porteño and envie de voyager, for your quick and concise replies! 

I do appreciate your help!


----------



## Cagey

Passing over the offensive word, could someone explain why _Calais_?  Is it because it is the point of entry to Europe, or the point of departure for England? Or some other thing?


----------



## Porteño

Cagey said:


> Passing over the offensive word, could someone explain why _Calais_? Is it because it is the point of entry to Europe, or the point of departure for England? Or some other thing?


 
Precisely because it is the nearest part of Europe from which the UK traditionally considers itself separate. The famous headline a few years ago - 'Europe cut off by fog' - implyied that the most important place was the UK, Euroipe being secondary.


----------



## Jeffers

Cagey said:


> Passing over the offensive word, could someone explain why _Calais_?  Is it because it is the point of entry to Europe, or the point of departure for England? Or some other thing?



Well... I know that there was a refugee centre at Sangatte near Calais. And a few years ago there were quite a few occasions when refugees were found trying to walk through the channel tunnel, as it led them directly to the UK / continental Europe. In any case, the word "nigger" in British English is only used to describe people of black origin, not foreigners in general.


----------



## Nunty

Just a little precision: Unlike its British meaning, in the US that _very_ offensive word refers specifically to black people.


----------



## audiolaik

Porteño said:


> Precisely because it is the nearest part of Europe from which the UK traditionally considers itself separate. The famous headline a few years ago - 'Europe cut off by fog' - implyied that the most important place was the UK, Euroipe being secondary.



Has it got something to do with the supporters of UK isolationism?


----------



## Porteño

audiolaik said:


> Has it got something to do with the supporters of UK isolationism?


 
Not at all, it's just the traditional British view of ourselves.


----------



## Porteño

Jeffers said:


> In any case, the word "nigger" in British English is only used to describe people of black origin, not foreigners in general.


 
While that is true, the original quotation is a little strange as I had always heard it used with 'blacks' or 'wogs' instead of 'niggers' and that did not specifically refer to skin colour but rather to foreigners in general.


----------



## Namarne

Hello. 
I think this sentence is similar, from a supposed British point of view, to this other sentence, from a supposed European point of view: _Africa begins at the Pyrenees_. 
(Both sentences being derogatory to African people, as to the people of the South of Europe.)


----------



## se16teddy

I'm not sure that anyone has yet expressly made the critical point that Calais (which is in France) is the nearest town on the continent of Europe (or on any other continent, or in any foreign land) to the British and Irish Isles. 



Nun-Translator said:


> Just a little precision: Unlike its British meaning, in the US that _very_ offensive word refers specifically to black people.


 
The word refers to black people in Britain too. It's just that in the (bad taste and potentially offensive) joke, French people (who are perhaps in general exposed to more sunshine, and tend to be of more Mediterranean complexion than white Brits, and certainly speak a foreign and incomprehensible language and have foreign and incomprehensible habits) are classified as black people. As Porteno says, I have heard _Wogs begin at Calais, _not _Niggers begin of Calais. __Niggers _usually refers to people of African extraction, whereas _wogs _is more general, including people of South Asian extraction.


----------



## Lis48

The phrase originated when a Member of Parliament in 1945 stood up and accused Winston Churchill of believing that "Wogs start in Calais" i.e. of being europhobic and isolationist. Until the 1950s, wog and nigger were acceptable words in BE. The saying then became "Niggers start in Calais" to make the saying even more obviously untrue, and is used in BE today to criticise supporters of UK isolationism. It isn´t intended to be derogatory towards black people but quite the opposite, to be derogatory towards racists for believing such a stupid statement.


----------



## Loob

I've never heard "niggers begin at Calais", though I have heard "wogs begin at Calais". Google seems to agree: 13 hits for "niggers begin at Calais", 1000+ for "wogs begin at Calais". 



audiolaik said:


> If one asked me, I would say that the phrase must convey negative feelings towards black people; that's all I can infer.


As others have suggested, it implies negative feelings towards _all _foreigners. 

I think you need to understand the expression in two stages. 

Whatever its precise derivation, "wog" has, to me at least, strong connotations of British imperialism/colonialism. It was originally used to refer to people with darker skin than the average Englishman, who were (in the eyes of said average Englishman) by definition inferior/untrustworthy. 

"Wogs begin at Calais" is a broadening of that opinion: the suggestion is that not only are foreigners with darker skins inferior, but _all_ foreigners are inferior. The parliamentary taunt Lis48 mentions would have worked well in 1945, when "wog" was still an acceptable term. It wouldn't work as a joke now. But "the wogs-begin-at-Calais mentality" is still sometimes used to describe an old-fashioned xenophobic view of the world.

I do sometimes hear "wog" used to mean "foreigner". But not by anyone I'd be proud to call a friend.

I never hear "nigger".


----------



## gasman

_"Until the 1950s, wog and nigger were acceptable words in BE.".

_I am not so sure. I remember vividly being told in no uncertain terms when I commented about seeing a black man while holidaying on the Isle of Arran in 1941, that such terms were not appropriate, and were most certainly never to be used.


----------



## Porteño

gasman said:


> _"Until the 1950s, wog and nigger were acceptable words in BE."._
> 
> I am not so sure. I remember vividly being told in no uncertain terms when I commented about seeing a black man while holidaying on the Isle of Arran in 1941, that such terms were not appropriate, and were most certainly never to be used.


 
Several things surprise me there. First a black man on the Isle of Arran in 1941! You were on holiday then? If like me then, you were very young, I'm surprised you even knew the word wog, especially if you hail from Canada, or perhaps you didn't then.

But I would agree that both words were in common usage in BE throughout the 50s and possibly even later until they became 'politically incorrect' through the influence of AE.


----------



## Macunaíma

Porteño said:


> Not at all, it's just the traditional British view of ourselves.


 
I'm surprised. The stereotypical British person --besides being extremely polite, having an ironic sense of humour and wearing a bowler hat or hideous shoes (ladies)-- is more cosmopolitan that any other European, or any other westerner for that matter. It's the image we still hold of the British, especially the English.


----------



## Cagey

[I would like to thank everyone who responded to my side question concerning _Calais_.  I have found the whole discussion very interesting.]


----------



## gasman

Porteno, the West Indian I had come across was at university in Glasgow, and on a summer job. I was around 12 at the time, and at school in Glasgow. The university had always had a minimal quota for "colonials", I believe, and certainly they were not uncommon in the streets during the war. However, by late I946, when I went into the army, there were also "colonials", around there as well, and my class at university in '48 had several West Indians, as did the earlier classes. I also remember that there were quite a number of West Indians serving in the forces, and one of my oldest friends, dead now I am afraid, was air crew through most of the war. Niggers did not belong in our vocabulary!


----------



## Porteño

Macunaíma said:


> I'm surprised. The stereotypical British person --besides being extremely polite, having an ironic sense of humour and wearing a bowler hat or hideous shoes (ladies)-- is more cosmopolitan that any other European, or any other westerner for that matter. It's the image we still hold of the British, especially the English.


 
Perhaps things have changed in the 40-odd years I haven't lived in the UK but in my days it was true that, outwardly, your description is pretty accurate and I know many of my frineds in other countries have been pleasnatly surprised about how well they were treated and how helpful everybody was to them. However, inside, the British have, perhaps had, a great feeling of superiority over all other nations and races. Probably this was the fallout from the greatness of the British Empire, the Industrial Revolution, heroic wars, you name it. To their credit they never showed this aspect to foreigners but privately dismissed them all generally as 'wops', wogs,' 'krauts', aytyes, 'dagos', to mention but a few. Hence _the niggers began at Calais_ which was the first point (only 20-odd miles from Dover) at which you were likely to come in touch with them.


----------



## Mr Punch

Porteño said:


> Precisely because it is the nearest part of Europe from which the UK traditionally considers itself separate. The famous headline a few years ago - 'Europe cut off by fog' - implyied that the most important place was the UK, Euroipe being secondary.


Interesting. While the anti-Europe attitude is common (and perhaps getting more so) I suspect you could easily find more pertinent examples in the gutter press. Why and with whom is this example famous?

I don't even really see your inferences in this example to be honest.



Lis48 said:


> The phrase originated when a Member of Parliament in 1945 stood up and accused Winston Churchill of believing that "Wogs start in Calais" i.e. of being europhobic and isolationist. Until the 1950s, wog and nigger were acceptable words in BE. The saying then became "Niggers start in Calais" to make the saying even more obviously untrue, and is used in BE today to criticise supporters of UK isolationism. It isn´t intended to be derogatory towards black people but quite the opposite, to be derogatory towards racists for believing such a stupid statement.


This is an excellent summation. However, in this wonderful world of post-ironic-post-modernism (!) I've heard the phrase being used seriously in a racist manner also. The phenomenally popular satirical puppet show 'Spitting Image' used it in a skit, attributing it to a conversation between Thatcher and Tebbit if I remember rightly, and repeated a version on a map of the world in their book in the mid-80s, and around that time I remember first hearing people using as a racist joke.

And to the poster who suggested that in the US (as distinct in some way from the UK) the word 'nigger' is extremely offensive, of course, it is in the UK too. That doesn't stop some segments of society in both countries from using it however, or change the fact that until the 50s the word was fairly common currency in many parts of both countries (probably later in some parts of the States).

Of course, Gasman is correct in saying it (or 'wog') wasn't _really_ acceptable in polite society, it was still very common.


----------



## Porteño

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Porteño* 

 
Precisely because it is the nearest part of Europe from which the UK traditionally considers itself separate. The famous headline a few years ago - 'Europe cut off by fog' - implyied that the most important place was the UK, Euroipe being secondary.
*This was a quote from Mr. Punch*
Interesting. While the anti-Europe attitude is common (and perhaps getting more so) I suspect you could easily find more pertinent examples in the gutter press. Why and with whom is this example famous?

I don't even really see your inferences in this example to be honest.

I don't remember now whether it was in a newspaper or in a BBC newscast but the obvious inconsistency was that Europe being a continent was 'cut off' from the UK (a not very large island) by fog. This to my mind clearly implied the greater importance of the UK over Europe. And mind you, this was a long time before the UK became involved in the EU, so there were no political overtones.


----------



## Mr Punch

Porteño said:


> I don't remember now whether it was in a newspaper or in a BBC newscast but the obvious inconsistency was that Europe being a continent was 'cut off' from the UK (a not very large island) by fog. This to my mind clearly implied the greater importance of the UK over Europe. And mind you, this was a long time before the UK became involved in the EU, so there were no political overtones.


Ah, I think that's a bit oversensitive. Like I say, I agree the issue is there, but also think that 'Europe' is used in standard British English synonymously with 'the Continent' or 'mainland Europe'. To me this doesn't imply any kind of superiority at all, merely geographical convention and linguistic convenience: the newspaper would have had to have had a longer headline for either of my options.

On a personal level, I think of myself as English first, then British, then European. These are semantic distinctions which naturally are mutually indivisible from some cultural mindset. From a negative point of view it could easily engender the viewpoint satirized in the thread subject's statement, but to me there is no qualitative judgment, purely an objective, factual one.

Neither does your headline point have any obvious overtones of implied superiority. For that matter, you still haven't said how this headline is 'famous' and with who...


----------



## sound shift

Porteño said:


> Not at all, it's just the traditional British view of ourselves.



Hmm ... It's the traditional view of a certain type of Briton. The expression is more likely to be used by those who wish Britain to loosen its ties with the EU. If such a person used the expression in my presence, I wouldn't take it as a literal reference to Black people; I would take it to mean that the speaker perceived insuperable differences between "the continental way of doing things" and "the British way of doing things". I would expect the speaker to condemn the former with words such as "bureaucratic" and "socialist" and to vaunt British "common sense" and "pragmatism".


----------



## liliput

The implication of the phrase is that once you leave the British Isles you are amongst "uncivilized" people. 
As it stands, the expression "niggers begin at Calais" is extremely xenophobic. It's intentionally offensive to all foreigners, whereas the specific offense to people with darker skin is almost incidental (I mean it's a casual, unthinking use of the word nigger).
The fact that the expression (or something similar) may have been used ironically by a member of Parliament - apparently with the intention of expressing his opinion that mainland Europeans were not as repulsive as other foreigners - does not really render it less offensive.
Typical nonsensical racism, especially these days given the huge ethnic diversity the UK currently enjoys.


----------



## Lis48

liliput said:


> The fact that the expression (or something similar) may have been used ironically by a member of Parliament - apparently with the intention of expressing his opinion that mainland Europeans were not as repulsive as other foreigners - does not really render it less offensive.
> quote]
> I don´t think the intention ever was to suggest mainland Europeans were less repulsive than other foreigners. It was said by George Wigg a Labour MP to satirise the isolationist attitude of the Conservatives in post war years, particularly Churchill, to foreigners in general. The statement was reported in the newspapers and made the British people laugh uncomfortably at the time, as it described a section of the population who truly believed that all non-British persons in the world were "a bunch of bloody wogs."  An attitude stemming from the colonial days of the British Empire, but one that clearly was not logical. Nigger and wog  were in 1945 acceptable words to use and the statement made people examine for the first real time in public how racist some of their fellow Englishmen really were. Today I think we look back at the statement as being the fore-runner of the modern anti-racist campaign and as being one of the first attacks on racism even if the vocabulary is not acceptable today.


----------



## liliput

Lis48 said:


> liliput said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the expression (or something similar) may have been used ironically by a member of Parliament - apparently with the intention of expressing his opinion that mainland Europeans were not as repulsive as other foreigners - does not really render it less offensive.
> quote]
> I don´t think the intention ever was to suggest mainland Europeans were less repulsive than other foreigners. It was said by George Wigg a Labour MP to satirise the isolationist attitude of the Conservatives in post war years, particularly Churchill, to foreigners in general. The statement was reported in the newspapers and made the British people laugh uncomfortably at the time, as it described a section of the population who truly believed that all non-British persons in the world were "a bunch of bloody wogs." An attitude stemming from the colonial days of the British Empire, but one that clearly was not logical. Nigger and wog were in 1945 acceptable words to use and the statement made people examine for the first real time in public how racist some of their fellow Englishmen really were. Today I think we look back at the statement as being the fore-runner of the modern anti-racist campaign and as being one of the first attacks on racism even if the vocabulary is not acceptable today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I see that in the full context, it's clear that Wigg did not use the term "wog" casually and was in fact satirizing its usage. The debate was regarding the Burmese:
> "The Honourable Gentleman and his friends think they are all 'wogs'. Indeed, the Right Honourable Member for Woodford thinks that the 'wogs' begin at Calais."
> This context was not made clear in the previous posts.
Click to expand...


----------



## Outsider

Cagey said:


> Passing over the offensive word, could someone explain why _Calais_?  Is it because it is the point of entry to Europe, or the point of departure for England? Or some other thing?


The sentiment seems to have a tinge of Nordicism.

It's interesting what several posters have said, that the sentence was originally satirical. Unfortunately, I'm a little doubtful that it was always used satirically since then. 

The sentiment, of course, is considerably older than the forties.


----------



## Loob

Thank you, mods, for combining audiolaik's thread with the earlier one started by James Brandon.  I've enjoyed reading the earlier part.

That said, and noting that someone found "Africa begins at Calais" in the _Guardian, _I can't say I've ever come across the "Africa" variant myself.  It sounds like the bowdlerised version...


----------



## Ynez

The feeling of "not being European" is not only British. At a true level (daily normal life) in Spain it is difficult to feel European for the same reasons: different habits, different languages, etc. We may just be more interested in that "being European" because we saw the rest as superiors economically, so I would understand if some British, for example, were not as interested.

And the saying, even if considered racist, is a bit true: in the south of Europe we have more things in common with our southern neighbours than those in the North of Europe (physical appearance, family ties...), even if we are losing  some of our traditions, included the good ones.


----------



## Porteño

Lis48 said:


> liliput said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the expression (or something similar) may have been used ironically by a member of Parliament - apparently with the intention of expressing his opinion that mainland Europeans were not as repulsive as other foreigners - does not really render it less offensive.
> quote]
> I don´t think the intention ever was to suggest mainland Europeans were less repulsive than other foreigners. It was said by George Wigg a Labour MP to satirise the isolationist attitude of the Conservatives in post war years, particularly Churchill, to foreigners in general. The statement was reported in the newspapers and made the British people laugh uncomfortably at the time, as it described a section of the population who truly believed that all non-British persons in the world were "a bunch of bloody wogs." An attitude stemming from the colonial days of the British Empire, but one that clearly was not logical. Nigger and wog were in 1945 acceptable words to use and the statement made people examine for the first real time in public how racist some of their fellow Englishmen really were. Today I think we look back at the statement as being the fore-runner of the modern anti-racist campaign and as being one of the first attacks on racism even if the vocabulary is not acceptable today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be quite honest with you, I think you're trying to read too much into this. I don't believe for a single moment that in 1945 anybody seriously thought about racist attitudes, they were much to busy ending a war and starting life anew. In this sense, most of the contributors to this thread are much too young to have any idea of how people thought in those days. You have to consider that we had just been through more than five years of trial and tribulation and were emerging victorious from a bloody war. The Empire was still strong and my school atlas still showed something like one-third of the world coloured pink to denote British colonies and possessions. Few of the population had ever had any direct contact with foreigners who were generally regarded as suspicious characters. Much the same kind of xenophobia was common all over the world. That's what made it so much easier for leaders to take their people to war. It's very important to remember these factors when discussing expression like this one.
> 
> Fortunately. since those days, every Tom, Dick and Harry hops on to a plane and flies to the other side of the world in a wink and the UK has become a multi-ethnic nation. The result has been an enormous change in the way people think and more especially regard foreigners and people of other ethnic origins. In this light, such an expression seems utterly ridiculous, almost incomprehensible - How could we have ever thought like that?
Click to expand...


----------



## funnyhat

DaleC said:


> The saying "Africa begins at the Pyrenees" specifically refers to Spain's relative backwardness at the grand scale of European history from 1700 on. In the 1500's Spain was the most advanced European country thanks to its New World plunder. It and Portugal were the pioneers in European overseas colonialization, by a century. Cervantes pioneered the modern novel. Spanish steel was Europe's finest. But in the middle 1600's, France and England caught up as they created their own overseas colonial empires. Meanwhile, Spain was mired in an extreme form of Roman Catholic conservatism (which lasted until the 1900's), unlike France, another Roman Catholic country.


 
Actually, the perception of Spain as a backward society existed even during the height of the country's power. Spain in the 1500s was certainly wealthy (thanks to its gold and silver from the New World), but it was not "advanced" in the sense of being a center of technological innovation or creative thought. In fact, historians often argue that this easy source of material wealth discouraged Spain's government from modernizing its economy.  Probably not surprisingly, Protestants regarded Spain (the leading champion of Catholicism during this time) as a particularly barbaric society, and this stereotype later spread to other areas as well.


----------



## El escoces

> But I would agree that both words were in common usage in BE throughout the 50s and possibly even later until they became 'politically incorrect' through the influence of AE.


 
When I see people refer to "political correctness" in inverted commas, I take it that they are, at least to an extent, dismissive of the concept (granted, there are times when we all think political correctness has gone too far).  But - unless I have misunderstood you - to suggest that, were it not for changng attitudes in the US, it might still be acceptable to call someone "wog" or "nigger" in Britain, is going too far for me.  On this occasion, give me correctness any time.


----------



## Loob

I agree with you 100%, Scottie.


----------



## cuchuflete

_Moderator note:  This thread, pre- and post-merger, has rambled far beyond language questions, all for a good cause.  Please try to avoid turning it into a free-wheeling conversation or debate about British or other cultures.  It might be useful to read the thread topic questions before posting.  [Posts #1 and #44.]  _


----------



## James Brandon

I had not realised all this was going on, on the back of an old Thread! I just wanted to say 2 things:-

1 My original query was indeed about 'Africa starts at Calais' - a phrase I have indeed heard, albeit rarely and not recently. The ironic quotation of it in The Guardian as well as a web search illustrate the fact that the expression in question has existed - whether one agrees with the racist undertones or not!

2 Regarding 'wogs etc', I think this contributor summed up the position very clearly and there is very little to be added: the idea is that foreigners start at Calais and that, in the main, they are inferior. Identifying the French coast with Africa - somewhere exotic and unappealing, implicitly here - is just a way of labouring the point.

"_Wogs begin at Calais" is a broadening of that opinion: the suggestion is that not only are foreigners with darker skins inferior, but all foreigners are inferior. The parliamentary taunt Lis48 mentions would have worked well in 1945, when "wog" was still an acceptable term. It wouldn't work as a joke now. But "the wogs-begin-at-Calais mentality" is still sometimes used to describe an old-fashioned xenophobic view of the world.
_
James


----------



## se16teddy

James Brandon said:


> the phrase is referred to as emblematic of old-fashioned British attitudes which, mercifully, have faded into disrepute and obscurity.


 
Those who think _wogs _and related attitudes have faded into obscurity may be interested in this definition of _porridge wogs_ from Arrsepedia. 
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Porridge_Wogs
as used, for example, in this article
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Number_1_Dress

One could discuss till the cows come home whether the modern use of an old-fashioned word like _wogs_ necessarily entails holding the attitude that went with that word, and whether those referred to can, should or do take offence.


----------



## Porteño

se16teddy said:


> Those who think _wogs _and related attitudes have faded into obscurity may be interested in this definition of _porridge wogs_ from Arrsepedia.
> http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Porridge_Wogs
> as used, for example, in this article
> http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Number_1_Dress
> 
> One could discuss till the cows come home whether the modern use of an old-fashioned word like _wogs_ necessarily entails holding the attitude that went with that word, and whether those referred to can, should or do take offence.


 
I agree, however, I think if I were the object of such a description, I would not find it exactly endearing.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

James Brandon said:


> Obviously an old-fashioned expression which is not heard a lot today. I have heard it, but cannot quite remember whether it is "Africa starts at Calais" or "Africa begins at Calais"... [Whichever way, the meaning is the same, i.e. the Continent is full of barbarians, prejudices being what they are and/or were.] The expression is rarely used today and generally in a humorous way. If anyone knows where it originates, I would be interested to know. I have read on the web that A Hitler used it but I am sceptical: (a) I believe it is an English expression; (b) Hitler would have included himself and his fellow Germans among the 'savages'.
> 
> Suggestions welcome



To the best of my knowledge, it's an old colonial (i.e. from the days of the British Empire) saying and runs "Wogs begin at Calais.."


----------



## James Brandon

Teddy,

Had never heard 'porridge wogs' - from a linguistic standpoint, an interesting combination of racial prejudice against 'southern' races with anti-Scottish prejudice! It goes to show that racist inventiveness knows no bounds...

No one is saying 'wogs' is not used any more - it would be like saying there is no longer any racial and racist prejudice in the UK, which would clearly be an over-optimistic assessment of race relations in Britain.

What people were saying is that using such a word is no longer expected or deemed acceptable in polite conversatin, in the work-place, in the mainstream media, etc. It is frowned upon.

Racial/racist and homophobic stereotyping, in the UK today, has replaced referrences to sex as the taboo area: in the Victorian era, I mean, it was fine to be a racist imperialist, but you did not talk about sex; now it is good to talk about sex (and get as much of it as possible), but one should never be seen to be a racist or anti-gay, at any rate in middle-class circles. 

And I am not saying that's a bad thing, by the way. Racial prejudice is not much fun overall, and sex is!


----------



## Jean-Bernard Brisset

This expression is quoted in Volume 2 page 87 of the excellent book "_Pax Britannica" _by James Morris, Folio Edition. I quote: ' The joke that 'niggers began at Calais' was not entirely a joke. Cloudy conceptions of Race and Heritage coloured the outlook of the British the moment they crossed the straits of Dover'.
As a french I regret to say that this prejudice is not entirely obliterated from the british psyche. In Normandie, where we live, there is a trend among some british settlers to cluster and close their mind to french culture, including language. I must admit that it mostly concerns people with a low education background.


----------



## James Brandon

I am not sure I am happy - or sad - that this Thread has taken on a life of its own, and I started it: it goes to show the idiomatic expression in question is alive and well, in spite of everything. J.-B. confirms he has come across it in a book and in real life - in Normandy, of all places.


----------



## kalamazoo

According to the Northern League leader in Italy, "Cairo begins at Rome."  (The Northern League wants Northern Italy (north of Rome) to seceed from Italy, or something like that.) So this type of expression is fairly widespread, it seems, at least in Europe.  Certainly for the Northern League, this is an expression of antagonismtowards central and Southern Italians/Italy. (Cairo being apparently bad).


----------



## MisterPlod

SPQR: Nothing of worth lies beyond Albion.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Wiki says: 





> The saying, "The wogs begin at Calais" (implying that everyone who is not British is a wog), appears to date from the First World War but was popularised by George Wigg, Labour MP for Dudley, in 1949 when in a parliamentary debate concerning the Burmese, Wigg shouted at the Conservative benches, "The Honourable Gentleman and his friends think they are all 'wogs'. Indeed, the Right Honourable Member for Woodford [i.e., Winston Churchill] thinks that the 'wogs' begin at Calais."


"The wogs start at Calais" was added to the article on 29 Mar 05; Wigg and Churchill were added on 16 Mar 06.  (The year of the speech was originally listed as 1945, but was corrected to 1949 on 4 Oct 08.)  The reference to WW I was added on 26 Mar 12.*

What does the OED have to say about it?


* Yes, I really have nothing better to do this evening than dig through the archived versions of Wiki articles.  Why do you ask?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

#88 





> SPQR: Nothing of worth lies beyond Albion.



I don't understand* exactly* what you mean.


----------



## PaulQ

RM1(SS) said:


> What does the OED have to say about it?


It confirms George Wigg's statement (but has what appears to be a misprint):
1949   G. Wigg in Hansard Commons 29 July 2846[sic]  The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) thinks that the ‘wogs’ start at Calais.

*Wog *is first recorded as:
*In quot. 1921   in pl. with the, as a nickname of the Indian Cavalry during the First World War (1914–18).*
1921   L. James Hist. King Edward's Horse xviii. 188   The King Edward's Horse called the Indian Cavalry ‘The Wogs’—which is the diminutive of ‘Golliwogs’,—a description that was very apt of these dark apparitions in khaki and tin-hats.

From Wiki: King Edward's Horse (The King's Overseas Dominions Regiment) received that name in 1910. It was disbanded in 1924.


----------



## natkretep

And the whole phrase gets a mention and a gloss in the OED! (The the typo about the year reappears too.)


> *wogs begin (also start) at Calais: used to express an attitude of insularity and hostility to foreigners attributed to the British (esp. the English).*
> 1949   G. Wigg in _Hansard Commons_ 29 July 2846   The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) thinks that the ‘wogs’ start at Calais.
> 1958   _Times Lit. Suppl._ 11 Apr. p. vi/3   We have travelled some distance from the days when Wogs began at Calais.
> 1992   _Times_ 8 Sept. (Life & Times section) 5/3   It is not only retired colonels and the _Sun_ who believe wogs begin at Calais, after all.
> 2008   _New Statesman_ 5 May 21/2   ‘Wogs begin at Calais’ has returned with a vengeance.


----------

