‘Coconut’ : Racist Slur or Political Critique?
Trigger warning: Racial slurs, racism, historical racism, abuse / sexual violence and difficult content.
We have been mulling this article over for a while now, as we closely follow the ongoing controversy, debate and criminal investigations around the use of terms like ‘coconut’.
It’s not hit mainstream news much so you may be coming to this article fresh, but it has created much concern and debate within anti-racist spaces.
We were aware of the meaning of the term ‘coconut’, but first felt prompted to write something about it after the high profile arrest of a teacher, Marieha Hussein, in November 2023.
Marieha was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence, after she used an image of coconuts next to the faces of Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman on a protest placard at a march calling for a ceasefire in Gaza (pictured).
Marieha Hussein holding a placard with pictures of coconuts at a pro ceasefire march in London
Her arrest came soon after Suella Braverman described the protests as ‘hate marches’ and Rishi Sunak labelled them ‘disrespectful’.
On the 13th September she was acquitted, to much relief and celebration in the anti-racist community, as well of course to her young family (she has also had to deal with this court case whilst pregnant). However, the relief of her acquittal was overshadowed by news that acclaimed Black academic Kehinde Andrews, the UK’s first professor of Black studies, is under criminal investigation.
This is due to a video he posted in June which he called right-wing GB news commentator, Calvin Robinson, a ‘house n*gro’ and argued that ‘coconut’, ‘house n*gro’, ‘co*n’ and ‘uncle Tom’ are “vital expressions of Black political thought that should be celebrated and not policed”.
Kehinde Andrews (left) and Calvin Robinson (right)
History of the term
‘Coconuts’, alongside other words such as ‘bounty’ or ‘choc ice’ are used to describe someone being Black or Brown on the outside but ‘white’ on the inside. Other terms like ‘house n*gro’ and ‘uncle Tom’ are not quite the same but have similar meanings. All of these terms are often used interchangeably.
The long history of these terms are rooted in the deep, intergenerational and collective trauma of enslavement, colonisation and centuries of racism.
A good place to start, is with the term ‘house n*gro’. This term stems from chattel slavery when a select few enslaved African people were placed in the enslaver’s home to provide labour, rather than out on the plantation. By virtue of living in the enslaver’s home they were treated ‘better’. Often, but not always, these enslaved people would be lighter skinned. This was due to the practice of enslavers raping the Black women they enslaved. This meant that it was not uncommon for enslavers to have multiple mixed heritage offspring.
Some of the enslaved individuals living in the enslaver’s house would begin to enjoy their status and fail to recognise, acknowledge, or even see themselves as enslaved, identifying more and more with the enslaver.
A good depiction of this can be seen in the film Django Unchained. Although this film was problematic in many ways, Samuel Jackson played the ‘house n*gro’ role well.
Once enslavement of African people was abolished, some Black people were treated better than other Black people, again often due to having lighter skin.
The same or similar could be said of indentured enslaved people from India. Black and Brown people who embraced their better treatment without complaint were often perceived as taking advantage of this state of affairs. They were seen to be failing to support or help other Black and Brown people. This is sometimes termed ‘shutting the door on the way in rather than opening it wider for others to follow’, and it was considered a betrayal by those who were left to struggle.
Terms like ‘house n*gro’ are directly linked to this specific dynamic which happened during the period of chattel slavery, but as we know, language evolves as time passes to fit into modern culture. Fast forward to the 80s, when we were all eating chocolate bars like Bounty, terms like ‘bounty’ and ‘choc ice’ began to be used instead of ‘house n*gro’ to describe similar things.
Today, ‘coconut’, ‘choc ice’ and ‘bounty’ are all terms used by Black and Brown people to call out other Black and Brown people who, regardless of intention to do so, uphold structural racism. This means that they play a part in structures and systems that oppress and disadvantage other Black and Brown people. Often the reason for upholding structural racism is that they will benefit from doing so within a “culture of white supremacy” (we will explore what we mean by that phrase later in this article).
When Black and Brown people use these words to call out another Black or Brown person, it is often rooted in a strong feeling of betrayal.
It is extremely painful for Black and Brown people to see others who look like us acting like that ‘house n*gro’ that is in our collective memory. It brings home the painful truth that the same power dynamic that was forced onto the ancestors by enslavers in order to disempower and divide us, is playing out amongst Black and Brown people as descendants now. So the word, although not a racist slur (we will go into this later too), is purposefully derogatory to put across the disbelief and indignation that a fellow Black or Brown person is behaving in a way which denies their Blackness and implies white is better. Ultimately this is not only a rejection of their Blackness but contributes to the oppression of Black and Brown people as a group.
When Black and Brown people use these words to call out other Black and Brown people, we do so as a political critique of their behaviour. Marieha Hussein who is a Brown woman, and Kehinde Andrews who is a Black man, were using the terms in this way.
White supremacy
We’ve written about this one before (you might want to take a moment to click on the link, to remind yourself what we said). We know the term ‘white supremacy’ often makes people react with a sharp intake of breath.
Let that happen, pause, breathe through it and keep going because the next bit might be hard to digest; as with almost anything looked at through an anti-racist lens, all roads lead to white supremacy.
The reason some Black and Brown people act in a way which upholds oppression, is because they benefit from doing so within a culture of white supremacy. In some ways it is an inevitable act of self-preservation. Just as the whole concept of a ‘house n*gro’ was put onto the ancestors by enslavers, the reality of some Black and Brown people acting in a way which leads to them being called out as a ‘coconut’ comes down, in the end, to white supremacy.
Upholding racism v being racist
Let’s take a moment before we go into this further. Take another breath. Exhale. Now ask yourself how do you feel about what we’ve covered so far?
If we were going to hazard a guess we would probably say that you might be (tentatively) agreeing with why Black and Brown people might use the word, given what we’ve explored about the history.
But we’re also going to guess that you might be finding it hard to get past the uncomfortable sense that calling someone a ‘coconut’ just feels wrong. It feels “racist” because the word “coconut” is only used to criticise a Black or Brown person.
You might also be thinking, surely it’s racist because both Maheira and Kehinde were faced with police action for using the word.
The key thing here is the difference between “upholding racism” and “being racist”.
Although the term ‘coconut’ is undeniably racially coded, the point is to think about who is using it and why. If a white person were to say the word it would be racist. However, when a Black or Brown person uses the word to specifically call out white supremacy and the complicity of other Black or Brown people within it, it isn’t being racist, it is calling out those who are upholding racism.
So why is it different if a white person used the term then? This is because of how the word is rooted in Black and Brown history and the trauma inflicted on us by white supremacy. If a white person picked up the word, they would be doing so with none of the understanding, context, experience or knowledge of the word. It’s not ‘theirs’ to use.
It is comparable to the n* word which is often used by Black artists and rappers, but is different if a white audience member sings it back. When a white person uses the n* word, it embodies all the historical power that word had when it was used by white people to oppress Black people.
We could talk more here about power dynamics and how racism is ultimately about that power, but we appreciate this has already been a tough article to get your head around so we’re going to save that one for a future article, one that talks more about the definition of racism and that old chestnut, ‘reverse racism’. For now, let’s return to this upholding racism business.
Upholding racism can be done with intention, for instance when a Black or Brown person uses their positions of power to push white supremacy ideals, narratives and policies.
Kemi Badenoch and Rishi Sunak have both been criticised for this. Whilst they have defied the odds and come into a position of power in UK politics, they consistently deny racism and drag anti-racism into a culture war by labelling it as divisive and ‘anti-white’. They implement policies such as the Rwanda Scheme which harms Black and Brown people, and whip up racist rhetoric.
The two images below show Rishi Sunak speaking in front of his pledge to ‘stop the boats’ and Kemi Badenoch rejecting the fact that Britain’s wealth was built on colonialism (The Guardian)
Upholding racism can also be done unintentionally, usually by way of assimilation and doing everything in your power to keep white people comfortable. Examples of this can be as simple as saying ‘racism isn’t so bad’. Ultimately, this is something that’s been learned as a behaviour that appeases white people. This is then used by white people to deny racism is a problem. So much so, the phrase ‘But…I have a Black friend and they don’t think it’s racist!’ has become an eye-rolling familiar refrain in response to any conversation about racism.
It’s important to understand though, that when Black and Brown people uphold racism, either intentionally or unintentionally, it comes from a place of self-preservation. In a culture of white supremacy, the reality is that keeping the status quo is beneficial. It makes life easier. There are more opportunities. More ways to ‘get to the top’.
In other words, we have long understood that the closer we are to whiteness, the better we will get on in life. This is known as ‘proximity to whiteness’.
Criminalising Black Political Thought
So by now we’re beginning to see that this isn’t about the term being racist, and actually it is often the person who is being described as a ‘coconut’ who is upholding racism, not the person critiquing them by using the term.
So what’s going on here? Why is the use of these terms being treated as a racially aggravated offence?
What happened to Marieha is an example of how the state uses its power to double down on Black and Brown people and over-polices them. The aim of Marieha’s arrest was to remind us all where the power lies. It is what structural racism looks like. The Crown Prosecution Service should never have allowed the case to get as far as it did.
Unfortunately, our law is based on precedent, and ever since laws against discrimination began, they have been flipped and used against us. Take the Race Relations Act which became law in 1965. Despite the law coming into force as a result of the work of many Black activists, of those first early criminal prosecutions in 1967, five out of the six convictions were for racism against Black and Brown people. This particular example is also about two tier policing. Black activists were working hard to ensure that the law recognised racism that was being perpetuated by white people at the time in housing, public sector spaces and employment. Yet once that law came into force, the early statistics showed it was being applied differently to Black and Brown people compared to white people. This is the same two-tier policing we are seeing in the cases of Marieha and Kehinde.
There are many examples of influential white people getting away with explicitly racist comments and even incitement of violence towards Black and Brown people. Cast your mind back to Boris Johnsons ‘letterbox’ comment about Muslim women, or more recently, when Frank Hester said Diane Abbot made him ‘want to hate all Black women’ and that ‘she should be shot’.
Neither Johnson nor Hester were dragged through the court system. Both of them were defended vehemently. There were constant excuses and variations of ‘it’s not racist’ thrown around. One Conservative minister was even quoted by the BBC during the Hester scandal as warning against ‘cancelling anyone who has ever said anything’. Where is his concern over cancelling people now in response to what Marieha and Kehinde are going through?
What we witnessed then, and what we are witnessing now, is state criminalisation of Black political thought. The erosion of our right to critique those who uphold racist systems. The erosion of democracy.
And this isn’t the only example of the censorship which is happening around us. We need only look at Prevent, a major part of the UK’s counter extremism policy which The UN committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (alongside respected UK charities such as Runnymede Trust and Amnesty International) is currently calling on the UK government to suspend.
This is due to disproportionate referrals of Muslim people. As reported by Amnesty International, ‘people of Muslim faith [are] referred eight times more than non-Muslims in the healthcare sector’ and ‘nearly half of the children referred are Muslim or of Asian descent’.
Critics of Prevent have increasingly been labelled as terrorist sympathisers or Islamists and there have been referrals based on support for Palestinians, anti-racism, or climate activism. You can read the full report by Amnesty International here.
What all of this shows is the cogs of white supremacy kicking into gear, and punishing any activists that take any steps to challenge racism – even if just in the form of a protest placard or Tik Tok video.
Where does this leave us?
We don’t use the terms like the ones in this article at ARC.
This is not because we don’t agree that Black and Brown people have a unique right to use them as part of a political critique (we do!). We don’t use the terms because ultimately we think the focus should be on the systems which uphold racism: white supremacy.
Arguing about whether or not the terms should be used are just ways to avoid addressing the real issues at stake. And that’s where anti-racism comes in.
Anti-racism is about digging deeper. It’s about challenging the status quo, and only by creating opportunities for real structural change can we dismantle the racism embedded in our communities, institutions, and systems.
Whilst Black and Brown people have a legitimate position to use terms like ‘coconut’, and certainly should not be criminalised for it, white supremacy would like nothing more than for us to be distracted fighting amongst ourselves, whilst whiteness remains king.
Further Reading
Psychosis of Whiteness ~ Kehinde Andrews
Black Skin White Masks ~ Frantz Fanon Classic Text
