American Language Supplement 1

by H. L. Mencken

  In the interchange of international objurgations the United States gets off very lightly, for only the Spanish-speaking nations appear to have any opprobrious names for Americans, and these are few in number.2 I can find, indeed, only two, Yanqui-blofero (in Cuba, blofista), and gringo. The latter is traced by the DAE to 1853, but it is probably much older. In 1929 the late Dr. Frank H. Vizetelly printed its history in the New York Times.3 He said:

  Gringo dates back to 1787. It is explained in P. Esteban de Terreros y Pando’s Diccionario Castellano, in volume 2, page 240, column 1 of that work, published in Madrid in that year: “Gringos — Llaman en Malaga a los estranjeros, que tienen cierta especie de acento, que los priva de una locucion facil y natural Castellana; y en Madrid dan el mismo, y por la misma causa con particularidad a los Irlandeses.” Roughly translated, this means: “Gringos — The name given in Malaga to those foreigners who have a certain accent which prevents them from speaking Spanish fluently and naturally; and in Madrid the same term is used for the same reason, especially with reference to the Irish.” The word may be found also in Melchior Emmanuel Nunez de Taboada’s Dictionnaire Espagnol-Francais, issued in Paris in 1838, where one may read, sub verbo: “Gringo, ga, adj. (figuré et familier) Grec, hébreu. On le dit d’une chose unintelligible.”

  Various other etymologies for the term have been proposed, but they are all fanciful.1 In New Mexico an American is called an Anglo.2 Rather curiously, no pejorative for Indian has ever appeared in American speech. The DAE’s first example of injun is dated 1825, but indjon, ingen and engiane preceded it: these forms are hardly to be called derogatory. Lo, borrowed from Alexander Pope’s line, “Lo, the poor Indian”3 is merely sportive. It seems to have been a long time coming in, for the DAE’s first example is dated 1871. Buck has been applied to a male Indian since the middle of the last century, but it was used to designate a male Negro somewhat earlier. The use of Siwash to designate any Indian seems to be confined to the Northwest. The English use wog for a native of India, and it has been extended to indicate any native of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean country. It was borrowed by the American troops serving in Egypt during World War II from the argot of the British troops. It is supposed to be an abbreviation of wily oriental gentleman.4

  7. FORBIDDEN WORDS

  304. [We yet use toilet, retiring-room, wash-room and public comfort station in place of franker terms.] The list of such euphemisms is long, especially for women’s rooms. In the high days of euphemy in the United States they were not called anything at all, but simply marked For Ladies Only. Later this was reduced to Ladies Only, then to Ladies, and finally to Women. Simultaneously, For Gents Only went through the stages of Gents Only, Gents, Gentlemen and Men. During the days of Prohibition some learned speak-easy proprietor in New York hit upon the happy device of calling his retiring-room for female boozers a powder-room, and meanwhile various other euphemists had borrowed or invented rest-room, dressing-room, ladies’-room, cloak-room and lavatory. Lavatory and toilet are in use in England, but the NED, which traces the latter to 1819, marks it “in U. S. esp.” Various other designations, sometimes very fanciful, have been recorded from time to time, e.g., boudoir, which appears on the ladies’ room at the Casa Italiana, Columbia University, and Egypt, in use in the phrase to go to Egypt at Wabash College, Craw-fordsville, Ind.1 In the American women’s colleges, in the 30s, there arose a fashion for calling the retiring-place the John or Johnnie. In July, 1941, Louis Untermeyer asked the readers of American Notes and Queries for light on its etymology, and during the months following received a number of replies. One signing himself E.F.W. suggested in August, 1941, p. 79, that the term may have come from the old English jakes, which the NED traces to 1530 or thereabout.2 When, in 1596, Sir John Harington, one of Queen Elizabeth’s courtiers, invented the modern indoor toilet, with its flushing arrangement, he announced it in a work with the punning title of “The Metamorphosis of Ajax.”3 In the September, 1941 issue of American Notes and Queries, pp. 95 and 96, H. E. Allen reported that “the use of John … goes back to the second half of the Seventeenth Century, at least,” but offered no documentary evidence. In November, 1941, p. 125, J.D.W. noted that at Vassar, during the early 20s, the John was known as Fred. The usual term among male students is can, which is also a common American word for jail. The outdoor latrine that still survives in country districts is often called a Chick Sale, in compliment to an entertainer whose amusing account of the building of one was widely circulated, c. 1920.1 Other terms recorded by philologians are boggard, bog-house and bog-shop.2 Some of the soldiers in the South Seas, in 1944, used Shangri-la.3

  The inventor of public comfort station remains unknown. The DAE’s first example of the term comes from a news item in the New York Evening Post, June 30, 1904, announcing that excavations had been begun for New York’s first such station, in Chatham square. The French pissoir, either as public convenience or as a word, has never got any lodgment in the United States. The French themselves sometimes substitute vespasienne, apparently in memory of the Roman emperor who forced the Romans to pay fees for the use of the city latrines. The same designation is recorded in the French sections of Canada, but it is seldom used. Instead, the Canadians say toilette, which is short for chambre de toilette.4 Water-closet, which is commonly abbreviated to W.C. in England, is traced by the NED to 1755. It was preceded by closet of ease, which is traced to 1662. The shortened form closet is not found before 1869. It has long been in wide use in the United States, though the DAE does not list it. The old English term necessary-house, traced by the NED to 1611, has dropped out of use. So have its congeners, necessary-vault, 1609; necessary-place, 1697 and necessary-stool, 1761, and the shortened form necessary, 1756. When the American newspapers have to mention a privy-vault, say when a child falls into it or a murderer hides his victim’s body in it, they call it a cesspool.

  305. [Hollywood, always under heavy pressure from official and volunteer censors, has its own Index, augmented from time to time.] This Index was first adumbrated on December 8, 1921, when the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc., was organized, and Elder Will H. Hays, an eminent Presbyterian quasi-ecclesiastic, who had been Postmaster General in the Cabinet of President Harding, was offered the post of president and moral dictator. The situation awaiting him on his consecration was thus described in 1943 by a movie magnate, Samuel Goldwyn:

  If people were cynical, the movies were more so. If people talked about loose morals, the movies pictured it for them. If you want a clue to those times look at these movie titles: “Loving Lips,” “Mad Love,” “Temptation,” “Passion Flame,” “Twin Beds,” “Flaming Youth,” “Children Not Wanted,” “On to Reno,” “Trifling Women,” “Why Be Good?”

  You can guess the result. In one year — 1921 — indignant groups saw to it that State legislators introduced nearly 100 censorship bills in 37 States. Most of them were defeated and, fortunately, the industry took the hint and set up a code of its own with the Will Hays office to administer it.1

  The elder laid about him vigorously, preventing the completion of a number of bawdy films already in progress, and in the course of the next eight years gradually evolved a so-called Production Code by which all save a few outlaw producers are still bound. Its text, promulgated on March 31, 1930, and since revised from time to time, is as follows:

  General Principles.

  1. No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

  2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

  3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

  Particular Applications.

  I. Crimes Against the Law.

  These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice or to
inspire others with a desire for imitation.

  1. Murder

  a. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation.

  b. Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.

  c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified.

  2. Methods of crime should not be explicitly presented.

  a. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method.

  b. Arson must be subject to the same safeguards.

  c. The use of firearms should be restricted to essentials.

  d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented.

  3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.

  4. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

  II. Sex.

  The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing.

  1. Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated, or justified, or presented attractively.

  2. Scenes of Passion.

  a. They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot.

  b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown.

  c. In general, passion should so be treated that these scenes do not stimulate the lower and baser element.

  3. Seduction or Rape.

  a. They should never be more than suggested, and only when essential for the plot, and even then never shown by explicit method.

  b. They are never the proper subject for comedy.

  4. Sex perversion or any reference to it is forbidden.

  5. White slavery shall not be treated.

  6. Miscegenation (sex relationship between the white and black races) is forbidden.

  7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not subjects for motion pictures.

  8. Scenes of actual child birth, in fact or in silhouette, are never to be presented.

  9. Children’s sex organs are never to be exposed.

  III. Vulgarity.

  The treatment of low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil, subjects should be subject always to the dictate of good taste and a regard for the sensibilities of the audience.

  IV. Obscenity.

  Obscenity in word, gesture, reference, song, joke, or by suggestion (even when likely to be understood only by part of the audience) is forbidden.

  V. Profanity.

  Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ — unless used reverently — Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other profane or vulgar expression, however used, is forbidden.

  VI. Costume.

  1. Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact or in silhouette, or any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture.

  2. Undressing scenes should be avoided, and never used save where essential to the plot.

  3. Indecent or undue exposure is forbidden.

  4. Dancing costumes intended to permit undue exposure or indecent movements in the dance are forbidden.

  VII. Dances.

  1. Dances suggesting or representing sexual actions or indecent passion are forbidden.

  2. Dances which emphasize indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene.

  VIII. Religion.

  1. No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

  2. Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains.

  3. Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled.

  IX. Locations.

  The treatment of bedrooms must be governed by good taste and delicacy.

  X. National Feelings.

  1. The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.

  2. The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of other nations shall be represented fairly.

  XI. Titles. Salacious, indecent, or obscene titles shall not be used.

  XII. Repellent Subjects.

  The following subjects must be treated within the careful limits of good taste:

  1. Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishments for crime.

  2. Third Degree methods.

  3. Brutality and possible gruesomeness.

  4. Branding of people or animals.

  5. Apparent cruelty to children or animals.

  6. The sale of women, or a woman selling her virtue.

  7. Surgical operations.1

  The Hays office is very watchful, and not only profanity and indecency, but also what it chooses to regard as vulgarity, are prohibited. Late in 1942, for example, the New York Times2 reported that it had ordered a producer to delete the word louse from a film lambasting the Japanese, and had suggested stinkbug as a substitute. It even frowns on such relatively harmless words as belch. Also, it serves as a listening-post for the British Board of Film Censors, and prohibits the use of terms that are offensive in England but innocuous here, e.g., bum, shyster and sissy.3 Nor is the Hays office the only bugaboo in the movie zoo. The producers must also submit to censorship by a committee of Catholics, frequently very drastic in its demands, and there are State boards of censorship in Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kansas, and city boards in Boston, Chicago, Detroit and elsewhere. In the days when the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America was organized the speaking stage, and especially the vaudeville stage, was heavily beset by censors,1 but it has since thrown most of them off, and save in Boston, New York and a few other cities, is virtually free. Thus it can indulge in a vocabulary almost approaching that of Ernest Hemingway, James Joyce, et al.,2 and exhibit the female form in nearly complete nudity, whereas the movies are cribbed, cabined and confined by regulations that would now seem oppressive in a Baptist female seminary. The radio, in the department of speech, is policed quite as rigorously, and its boss, the Federal Communications Commission, has the power to deprive an offending station of its license. This fact makes station and network directors very skittish, and some of them go to extreme lengths to avoid trouble. The following from Radioland3 illustrates their fears:

  Networks don’t always agree on just what is offensive. A Negro spiritual which the NBC deemed harmless failed to pass the Columbia censors because they considered its title, “Satan, I Give You My Children,” sacrilegious. Even a revision which made the title “O Lord, I Give You My Children” failed to pass muster.

  But not even the radio is under such oppressive censorship as the magazines and newspapers, which may be barred from the mails, and hence subjected to ruinous loss, at the fiat of a Postmaster General who maintains a bureau of snoopers and smut-snufflers for harassing them. In the proceeding against Esquire in 1943–44 these Dogberries actually objected to its use of such perfectly harmless words as backside, behind and bawdy-house.1 It is thus no wonder that American newspapers, with few exceptions, continue to use the euphemisms inherited from the Victorian age, e.g., criminal operation, house of ill repute, statutory offense, intimate relations, and felonious assault. Sometimes the result is extremely amusing. Not long ago, for example, a New York paper reported that a fiend had knocked a girl down, “dragged her down the cellar-steps, beat her with an iron pipe, and then assaulted her.”2 In 1943, when a wealthy lady of café society named Lonergan was murdered in New York by her husband, all the local papers avoided mention of the fact that the accused claimed to be a homosexual, and in fact had made it an essential part of his defense. Finally PM broke the ice by referring prissily to “indications of an abnormal psychological nature,” and a few days later “every paper, as if by common agreement, came right out with the word homosexual.”3 Romance is constantly used to designate an illicit love-affair,4 and love-nest has been widened in meaning to in
clude the more elegant varieties of houses of prostitution. In 1931 a Chattanooga paper made journalistic history by reporting that a man in that town had been arrested for “walking the streets accompanied by a woman.”5 It was generally recognized by the brethren that this was a euphemism for something else, but precisely what that something was did not appear, and they speculated in vain. It is in England, however, that this fear of plain terms produces the most absurd extravagances. In AL4, p. 311, I give some specimens from the News of the World. Others that have accumulated since are a certain illness (syphilis), mode of living (prostitution), certain suggestions (a proposal that women go on the street), a certain result (abortion), improper assault (rape), to interfere with (to rape), and associating (living in adultery). In 1936, when a female lunatic stripped off her clothes in St. Paul’s Cathedral, “the Daily Telegraph described her as unclothed, as did the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. The Daily Herald went so far as to call her nude in a heading but used unclothed elsewhere. The News-Chronicle favored unclothed and unclad. Not one was able to face the horror of the word naked.”1

  306. [Ever since the beginning of the Sex Hygiene movement, c. 1910, syphilis and gonorrhea have been struggling for recognition.] Since this was written, in 1935, they have forced their way into general newspaper use, and promise to shoulder out such former euphemisms as social disease and vice disease. In 1934 the New York Times Index indexed no reference whatever to either syphilis or venereal disease, but in the 1935 volume there were six references, in that for 1936, 18; in that for 1937, 72; and in that for 1938, 92; and since then the old ban has been definitely off.2 The Chicago Tribune claims credit for having been the first American newspaper to print syphilis and gonorrhea.3 This was in 1913, and the claim may be valid, though I printed both words during the same year in the Baltimore Evening Sun. The other newspapers followed only slowly. In 1918 the editors of the Scripps Northwest League decided to stick to vice diseases, and in 1933, twenty years after the Tribune’s revolt, the New York Times was still using blood disease. But soon afterward came the break, and today all save a few of the prissier papers use syphilis, and large numbers also use gonorrhea, which, for some mysterious reason, seems to be regarded as a shade more offensive.4 On the entrance of the United States into World War II the surgeons of the Army and Navy began to discuss both syphilis and gonorrhea with the utmost freedom, and the plain people became weathered to placards and circulars telling the soldiers and sailors how to avoid both. The only surviving opposition to such plain speaking seems to come from Catholics, who hold that any open discussion of prevention breaks down moral restraints and so inspires to sin. When, in the Summer of 1944, a body of altruistic advertising agents called the War Advertising Council prepared a series of advertisements couched in realistic terms and proposed that the newspapers sell them to patriotic advertisers, there was an earnest protest from the national commander of the Catholic War Veterans, Inc. Such advertisements, he argued, would “weaken the sense of decency in the American people,… increase immorality by promising to make promiscuity safe,” … and “ignore a fundamental fact in human conduct, that shame and embarrassment are among the strongest deterrents to the sins that spread VD.” The campaign of the advertising agents was backed by the Public Health Service and the OWI, but that of the Catholic war heroes had the support of the Knights of Columbus and many of the Catholic diocesan weeklies, and when the latter began to hint at a boycott of both the sponsoring advertisers and the beneficiary newspapers there was some abatement of the initial enthusiasm.1