It was the reference to a woman of colour that prompted Coco to speak yet again on this matter, Coco was going to remain silent, having spoken before but the reference shows nothing has changed . Coco noticed the article is still fairly close to the top even today; it had not gone away.

In the days of regulated discrimination, upon which we frown, we had whites and coloureds, but it is now acceptable to speak of people of colour. What is the difference? As great as the difference between a rook and a castle I should think. But it set Coco thinking, that these are terms that are defined by one particular stereotype. We have many such ways of speaking of the whole world whilst at the same time making a distinction between two parts, and not necessarily the same parts. There are the Greeks and the Barbarians, the Jews and the Gentiles to name but two, oh, of course, how could Coco forget?, England and the Rest of the World, but he is not sure that in the third case the ‘Rest of the World’ actually includes the whole of the rest of the world, nor perhaps that England only includes England. Perhaps a sports fan is able to explain the matter. But what does the other group think of the first? It is ok for the Jew to speak of the Gentile, but among the Gentiles are the Greeks, who include the Jew among the Barbarians. It is no honour to a person of colour from Africa if a person of colour from India is honoured by presumably a person of no colour. The person of colour from India may well consider that the world is also divided into two parts, those who are Hindu and those who are not, but not all Indians are Hindu, or, dare Coco suggest, persons of colour?

Have you heard the one about (in alphabetical order of course so as not to offend those whose judgements have been seared by political correctness) the Scotsman, the Welshman and the Englishman? Where would the punch line be without racial stereotypes? As a stereotypical green Wellingtonioned, tweed jacketed, urban farmer (not really) Coco had long ago appreciated the Cloth, cloth Capp, bumbling bespectacled Genius, bowler hatted [word removed lest it cause offence], genteel Gentry, not to mention men of Kent, Essex and the other side of the Pennines stereotypes that are often portrayed in putatively comic literature, only later to discover that even better caricatures could be produced of nations: one which never laughs but is terrifyingly efficient; another has never worked since it lost its empire before anyone had ever even thought about Yorkshire; another only drinks coffee and eats gelato, of the best kind of course, where no-one remembers how to speak their own language properly; another cannot bear to be without their own bread, cheese and wine, and would dearly love the Rosbif to be taken off the menu; another is so laid back the [removed] could dry up and they would only notice he next time a bath was required a year later; another so committed to community they would on the underground tie the thing that was out of place, the other unknown person’s undone shoe lace without even thinking about what they are doing – you, dear Reader, know far more than Coco does – but USAsians what folly! So busy every day in the office and factory making sure that every box in every regulation has been ticked, they don’t have time to make sure that everything is actually safe, secure, that no one will be hurt, let alone find the time do any real work, and whose consciences are troubled: ‘When I WFH, am I allowed to waste as much time in idle chatter as when I am in the office or do I have to do real work?’ Cloth Capp has little hope when faced with the flint stone of regulation proceeding from a son of Simp.

So we get very hot under the collar about stereotypes when we find them in a cartoon, but when they are portrayed as ‘real’ life in a soap, who cares? The stereotypes are still there, and in a far more dangerous and offensive way: ‘real’ people get hurt. In the cartoon, the same people are there every week, they may treat each other badly, but they always come back in exactly the same way and they continue to treat each other in the way they have always done, and none of them change for the better or the worse. And we continue to laugh at them; they are not real people.

The cartoon shows us the stereotypes, and the judgements that we all would make if we thought the stereotypes are a true reflection of everyone or anyone. We learn from this. It is amusing because it is necessarily grotesque. And we know that it is not the way to behave or to copy. The soap presents us with stereotypes that appear to be real life, and being real life we learn from them too, but dangerously so, for in real life we copy the behaviours of others, and what sort of behaviours are the easiest to copy: good ones or bad ones? If they can behave like that so can we. Perhaps the soaps should portray behaviours worth the copying; but that is not for today’s post.

Paul quoted an ancient poet who said: All [of my own people] are liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons. Stereotypes have been around for a very long time. We shall not be able to suppress the ability of men to define other men by certain characteristics (think of emotional, analytic, driver and amiable: is that nothing but stereotyping? But it is not politically incorrect to do so, yet), but we can as Epimenides and Paul did learn to use those stereotypes.

Paul showed that the answer to the stereotype proposed was to teach the people the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ, that they, and we, might turn aside from these things that defile us and the ways of behaviour that corrupt us, and instead turn to serve the living God in love, joy and peace through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Only in that way will there be peace between us, and xenophobia (Greek and Barbarian, etc it is as old Babel) shall be replaced by xenophilia as we rejoice in the things that make us different.