What is a Bigot?

Bigot - Definition of Bigot

What is a bigot?

An idea of the answer to that can be given by these definitions:

  • bigot - (or bigos ) originally, in French (12th Century) , it was used as a derogatory term applied to some tribes of southern Gaul.
  • bigot - feminine bigos (16th century) the French meaning changed, and the English took up the word to mean 'religious hypocrite'. It is not surprising that the word was taken up in English as at that time the Royal Court of England spoke only French.
  • bigot - the word became more commonly used to mean someone who obstinately, blindly and intolerantly holds a particular religious opinion, refuses to listen to reason and is ready to force others to agree with their point of view.
  • bigot - the meaning of the word has more recently been modified to views held, as above, generally religious but also political, racial and ethnic.
  • bigot - its contemporary use is a zealous view on any subject.

So which definition of bigot is being used today?

Who is a Bigot?

Well, with a definition as wide as the last one, I reckon everyone in the world is a bigot. If we take out the 'ready to force others' bit then everybody holds some view about which they obstinately refuse to budge.

In religious terms everyone that holds a religious belief, tenet or credo is a bigot if they are not to be persuaded by an alternative religious view. Every person that holds the same religion, but a different faction of a religion, is bigoted. This is shown especially by the fact that anyone with a different view is a heretic - a name given to others of a different religious ideology, by a bigot.

In political terms, unless you are a 'floating voter', you are probably a bigot (if the contemporary definition is taken). You are seen in all the pubs, all the forums, all the rallies, in all the land, arguing your case. And politicians are all bigots. They have a particular world view and they stand behind a manifesto that solidifies that view in writing. We are all expected to agree, adhere and comply with that view when a political party is voted in. We give our vote, our consent to one person, to act on our behalf, but on their conscience, in any matter political.

And be aware you politicians, that the electorate is beginning to understand that no party is wholly compatible with each individuals views. And that is why we hold no fear of a hung parliament, because then, perhaps, we are more likely to get a greater proportion of our views implemented - or at least that is what we think will happen.

In terms of race, although we (I am speaking UK here) are a multicultural, multiracial society there are still those in each racial community that have a view on their race that they would wish to impose on another. This is racial bigotry whether it be white on black, yellow on white or black on yellow.

In terms of ethnicity we are seeing more and more attitudes against 'migrants' or 'economic refugees' that are bigoted. In my view anyone that holds and espouses the view that these people do not have a right to live and work in the UK, if they come from any EU country or from the Commonwealth, is a bigot if they do not accept the fact that we, as a Nation, have colonised and taken our families to foreign lands to make a better life for ourselves. Those that would have these people repatriated must accept that, if that is implemented, all ex-pat British citizens must be repatriated back to this country, otherwise that can be called nothing other than bigotry. And how overcrowded would we be then?

Brown Calls Woman a Bigot - Political Gaff

Mr Gordon Brown, yesterday, aired his view, in private, that a woman, with a view on immigration and economic migration that she was unwilling to change, despite solid argument against her view, was a bigot.

Good on you Mr Brown.

About time someone called it as it is. It is all very well bringing an argument to the table, that is not bigotry. It is quite another to be given a reasoned argument against your view and still forcibly following the particular stand on the point that you came in with.That is bigotry. She is a bigot.

And Mr Brown is a bigot. You are a bigot. I am a bigot. We are all bigot's in some way on something. What we don't like is being told we are bigot's. Get over it. It is just a word that describes us all, at some time, in some way.

Mr Brown was right to have the view that she is a bigot. She may not like being called a bigot, but then none of us does. But we should all look into ourselves and ask 'Do I have a bigoted view on anything?'. If you are truthful, the answer will come back - 'Yes'.

Brown - What did he do Wrong?

In my view, Mr Gordon Brown did the following things wrong:

  1. He wanted to engage with the people - Gordon, you are no good at this. Stop trying. Your smile is false and your body language is all wrong. Keep to what you are good at. Tell us your policies from a platform. Tell us all the facts and figures about the economy. Tell us how the economic recovery will be achieved. In this way you may just get the election to be about the economy. Your strength.
  2. He courted the media - as above, you are no good at this. What you must learn is that they are not your friends giving you air time to show everyone that you are a man of the people. What they are is vultures. Circling above you, and all politicians, waiting for you to trip up and fall. Waiting for predators to finish you off and to pick at the bones. Waiting for that perceived gaff that will so inevitably come. It will be Clegg next and then Cameron. You are not alone as one of their targets.
  3. He gave them ammunition - leaving your microphone on whilst having a private conversation is an amateurish thing to do. He should have been wiser, more professional, more slick and advised better. They had the gun waiting. He gave them the bullet with which to shoot him.
  4. He showed an emotion - not that he had said something that he believed but that he thought looked like a blot on his character, his leadership, his chances of election. That was a killer blow for me. To be seen by the media, recorded by the media (gaff number two in the professional stakes) with his hand to his forehead showing his realisation that his belief was out there with the public, was a major disaster.
  5. He apologised - why did he think he had to apologise? What did he think he did wrong? Aired an opinion that many of us thought, but did not dare to say, that 'she is a bigot'. My opinion, an opinion of many.

Let me tell you Gordon. If you want to get elected say it as it is. Do not apologise for something that you have not done wrong. Why?

  • because the non-bigoted (whoever they are) think the same as you - she is a bigot. Just the same as you are a bigot. As is Cameron and Clegg and all politicians and everyone else in the country, on some issue or other.
  • because having a private view is nothing to be ashamed of.
  • because bigotry gave us WWII.
  • because the electorate want the truth, not spin-doctored falsehoods
  • because the newly politicised want to be able to follow a view, a tenet, a credo that is held passionately and that aligns with what they think they are thinking. And the majority want compassion, inclusiveness, action and hope. Give it to them straight. They can take it. They will know if you are holding anything back. They will know if you believe you can deliver. They can see through the smoke-screen of personality. They will recognise a view that is held with conviction but that is not open to negotiation and the contradictory view.

And that is bigotry.

More by this Author


--- Remarks, Observations and/or Criticisms are Welcomed --- 6 comments

mayette 6 years ago

let bigots be bigots.


humagaia profile image

humagaia 6 years ago from United Kingdom Author

Nothing that we 'know' is the ultimate truth and proof of that 'knowledge'. As knowledge is improved all that we learn is that we did not fully understand what we thought we knew. Basing the 'knowledge' of a God on belief is but a of transferring what we 'are' to an out-of-body alternative. We transfer our guilts elsewhere. Basing our 'knowledge' on what science tells us is always an incomplete 'knowledge'. Science strives towards an ultimate understanding. Religion bypasses all evidential processes and concludes that it has that ultimate 'knowledge' just because the powers that be have sought to control the populace by stating that their 'knowledge' is the truth. Too much time is wasted by each of us discussing, arguing and fighting over the merits of one God over another (or none at all) and killings in the name of a God, that could so much better be employed in other activities.

Bigot I am, bigot you are, bigots are we all - until it is proved otherwise.


KFlippin profile image

KFlippin 6 years ago from Amazon

Interesting hub as well as comments. I'd say religious folks who do 'believe' in God are bigots by the current definition as you've so well explored in your hub, as they can't prove 'objectively' their belief.

But, at the same time, someone who says there is no God, is a bigot as well if they base their 'belief' there is no God merely on lack of objective evidence. The rational scientific speculation that say the creation and evolution of the chicken -- which did in fact come before the egg we all just learned in the past few weeks -- occurred from some accident of atoms is equally unproveable, and just more palatable to the non-spiritual person, and therefore a bigoted stance as well.

As you've so well said, we are all bigots!


humagaia profile image

humagaia 6 years ago from United Kingdom Author

As you can see I have allowed the comment from SeekOn. My comment is that bigotry occurs on both sides of the religion debate. Neither side can categorically state that a God exists or does not exist. No categoric undeniable proof has been put forward by the religious bigots and there is no possible way of proving a negative as the non-religious bigots are compelled to do. Although I would argue the issue from both sides and encourage debate on the issues in order to understand why someone might or might not have a particular religious belief I am bigoted in the sense that there would need to be solid undeniable proof of the existence of a God or gods. As a scientific investigator I cannot rely on belief alone. 'Belief' propagates bigotry as belief infers lack of proof. In my view a bigot is simply someone who has not been informed sufficiently to make a rational decision based on proof. If you say you 'believe' there is a God and your faith involves that belief then you are likely to be a bigot. If you say you 'know' there is a God then you are definitely a bigot and a liar into the bargain. Pure blind faith is not proof of the existence of a God. And as for relying on writings from thousands of years ago to determine what should be done today, well, it beggars 'belief'. Now if that is bigotry then I am pleased to be labelled as such. Think consciously, replace belief with knowledge. If there were proof of a God why is there still debate on the subject?


SeekOn 6 years ago

If you look at some of the threads and posts in the religion forums here, you can get a very clear definition of religios bigotry, posted by some of the anti-religion members. Of course it's up to the heads of this site to allow or disallow it and so far it is being allowed to its fullest extent. This is not an attack comment against this site, it is simply a fact.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

We are all bigots in one way or another. The problem is when we don't recognise and admit it. And bigotry will ultimately kill us all if we don't do what we can to overcome it, in ourselves and in our societies.

Thanks for sharing this very interesting Hub.

Love and peace

Tony

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working