Prince Harry Racism
-
Hi Jackson,
@unknownuser said:
Yes, soldiers experience scarier things than "name calling", but how much better do you think they would cope with them if they also knew that their commanding officer thought of them as an equal (or rather a lower-ranking equal) rather than dismissed them as "little Pakis"?
This is a good example of how liberals perform mental somersaults!
How can you be a "lower-ranking equal"?
That is pure George Orwell 1984 doublespeak.Nowhere in the entire history of mankind have military forces ever embraced "equality". It has always been based on the ranking system.
Even the communists figured that one out.
I'm sure lots of peoples feelings got hurt, but winning the battle or the war usually took priority.In your mind he dismissed him as a "little Paki"
I heard him say "little Paki friend".
If you look at the pictures he is little. (Is that Littleism?)
He is of Pakistani origin.
And, perhaps, to help support your point you missed out the important "friend" bit.@unknownuser said:
Even the army itself has, over the last 20 years, recognised the need for soldiers (and especially officers) to have basic diplomatic skills as a means of winning the battle of propaganda in modern warfare.
Please provide just one example where these "skills" won anything. Propaganda or otherwise.
Superior firepower is usually what wins.@unknownuser said:
Yes and no. I am critical of gangster rap lyrics as they perpetuate the oppression and violence of African-American communities. But I'm not as critical of an uneducated black guy from a bad neighbourhood writing lyrics referring to his cohorts as "niggers" as I am of the third in line to the British throne who has benefited from the best education tax-payers' money can buy referring to his colleagues by racist terms.
Yes and no? You mean you find it difficult to condemn black racists to the same degree as white racists. So, uneducated black racists can be understood. Uneducated white racists are just ignorant bigoted thugs. Correct? That's not really treating everyone as equal is it.
Also, I think you'll find that blacks refer to themselves as "niggas"
This spelling distinction is regarded (by todays standards) as acceptable
You, or I, using the word "nigger" is regarded as racist (Oh dear, how will you sleep tonight?)@unknownuser said:
As Harry himself is the third generation descendant of an immigrant (whose parents changed their surname to avoid racism, how cowardly!) maybe we should come up with a new name for him.
This is were the liberal mask starts to slip.
We can read between the lines.
You would just love to call him an upper class toffee-nosed kraut.
Also, you shouldn't really be calling people cowards.
Thats name calling. Tsk.@unknownuser said:
This thread will obviously descend into troll territory soon, right-wingers and left-wingers digging themselves into opposing trenches and lobbing Molotov cocktails back and forth , but neither budging an inch.
On this we agree. Never the twain shall meet.
===============
Solo...
@unknownuser said:
Mr. S, I find myself agreeing with you and Ron on this issue, please do not let this compliance reflect negatively on my 'liberal' status.
Never fear, your liberal credentials remain 100% intact
Regards
Mr S=======
-
@mr s said:
How can you be a "lower-ranking equal"?
That is pure George Orwell 1984 doublespeak.Because he is a fellow human being so he is EQUAL, but his position in the army is subordinate so he is LOWER RANKING... that is why I put it in brackets.
@mr s said:
And, perhaps, to help support your point you missed out the important "friend" bit.
I left it out because it's irrelevant. When a Scotman says to a guy in a pub fight "you're dead pal!" the "pal" part hardly negates the meaning of the sentence.@jackson said:
Even the army itself has, over the last 20 years, recognised the need for soldiers (and especially officers) to have basic diplomatic skills as a means of winning the battle of propaganda in modern warfare.
@mr s said:
Please provide just one example where these "skills" won anything. Propaganda or otherwise.
Superior firepower is usually what wins.
Well, in modern times it certainly wasn't decades of bombs and bullets which brought peace to Northern Ireland and in ancient times the Roman Empire expanded rapidly largely through diplomacy and propaganda rather than killing everyone they encountered. The Vietnam and Iraq Wars show you how far superior firepower alone gets you... not very.@jackson said:
Yes and no. I am critical of gangster rap lyrics as they perpetuate the oppression and violence of African-American communities. But I'm not as critical of an uneducated black guy from a bad neighbourhood writing lyrics referring to his cohorts as "niggers" as I am of the third in line to the British throne who has benefited from the best education tax-payers' money can buy referring to his colleagues by racist terms.
@mr s said:
Yes and no? You mean you find it difficult to condemn black racists to the same degree as white racists. So, uneducated black racists can be understood. Uneducated white racists are just ignorant bigoted thugs. Correct? That's not really treating everyone as equal is it.
Now who is misinterpreting what people say? I compared an uneducated black guy from a bad neighbourhood to the the third in line to the British throne who has benefited from the best education and you pull "uneducated white racists" out of thin air. Read before you reply.
I can understand the housing schemes of Britain producing white uneducated racists just as easily as the projects of America producing black uneducated racists. Either way it's a sorry state of affairs.@mr s said:
Also, I think you'll find that blacks refer to themselves as "niggas"
This spelling distinction is regarded (by todays standards) as acceptable
Do they? All your black friends do that do they? I've never heard any of my black friends call each other that, whichever way it was spelled.@jackson said:
As Harry himself is the third generation descendant of an immigrant (whose parents changed their surname to avoid racism, how cowardly!) maybe we should come up with a new name for him.
@mr s said:
This is were the liberal mask starts to slip.
We can read between the lines.
You would just love to call him an upper class toffee-nosed kraut.
Also, you shouldn't really be calling people cowards.
Thats name calling. Tsk.
Wow, sorry should I have put that in parenthesis with "SARCASTIC" on either side so everyone got it? I thought it was obvious enough. It was a dig at you implying that a soldier who doesn't like being racially abused shouldn't be in the army when Harry's own family went out of their way to avoid exactly that. Or maybe he'd be happy to change his name back to Henry Charles Albert David Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? -
Clearly this thread has gone waaaaay to far.
Can't see anyone really changing their stance, but it's fun trying!
Personally I don't see a problem with harry's remarks given the circumstances.
Good thread!
Pav
-
How to get a black eye from an Indian, call him a Paki, it's the ultimate insult.
Sorry, but if as a result of being of British I have to accept being called a "Brit" (a contraction of Britain) then what's the difference with someone of Pakistani origin being called a "Paki". In both cases it's the first four letters of the name of a country!Bottom line, it's all a scam for a court case where "no win no fee" lawyers are out to get rich quick through "com pen say shun".
And I'm still more concerned about next weeks redundancies, for being White, Male, Married and Christian I am automatically placed at the back of any queue for assistance, this being decided by public service workers, those overblown wages are paid by my taxes, doing "non-jobs" as advertised weekly in The Gruaniad.
-
What's next a person of the Jewish persuation from Isreal to be called what? A Jew, Isreali? which one is right?
I really see nothing wrong with 'Paki' if indeed the person is Pakistani, I see more wrong in calling black folk here in the states 'African Americans' when they are many generations American and really have to search for any reminants of their African heritage.What's in a word?, I say grow a chin to those that bitch about such trivial matters.
-
From http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/129512.cms
A Liberty spokesman said, "Using the word Paki to incite racial violence is clearly an illegal act but chatting among your friends in the pub is a very different matter.
Should these sites be banned then?
-
Mike, read your own quote and you'll see that the Liberty spokesman didn't say it wasn't offensive to use the term while chatting to friends in the pub, just that it wasn't illegal per se. Very odd that the Times of India quote a spokesman of a human rights organisation defending a convicted racist without reporting the spokeman's name.
I never said anything about banning websites (what is it with forums that everyone likes to put words in others' mouth when the evidence to the contrary is in plain view for all to see?). I'm not sure about the recipes one, but the first one you posted to appears to be a "catch-all" website, i.e. it automatically links to websites with the word "paki" in the title or content rather than actually being run by any organisation. I doubt it can legitimately be held up as representing the Pakistani community.
Seeing as you're so keen to pull up as many random articles and blogs to "support" your argument (anyone could justify just about any behaviour using that strategy... NAMBLA anyone?) here's a dictionary entry for "paki" for you:
NounSingular
Paki
Plural
Pakis(UK, Canada, offensive, racial slur) A Pakistani, or, more generally and incorrectly used, a person who is perceived to be from South Asian or the Indian Subcontinent origin which is still considered offensive. See usage notes.
AdjectivePaki (not comparable)
Positive
Paki
Comparative
not comparable
Superlative
none (absolute)Short for Pakistani.
(UK, Canada, pejorative, offensive and racist when spoken by non-Pakistanis) Pakistani, or perceived to be Pakistani."The abbreviation Paki acquired offensive connotations in the 1960s when used by British tabloids to refer to subjects of former colony states in a derogatory and racist manner. In modern British usage "Paki" is typically used in a derogatory way as a label for all South Asians, including Indians, Afghans and Bangladeshis. To a lesser extent, the term has been applied as a racial slur towards Arabs and other Middle Eastern-looking groups who may resemble South Asians. During the 60's many emigrants were also dubbed as "black" to further segregrate them from the white community. Some would say such a division still exists in parts of England.
In recent times there has been a trend by second and third-generation British Pakistanis to reclaim the word. The word has been turned into a keepsake for the young British Pakistani community that is not acceptable for someone outside the community to say it, including Indians and Bangladeshis.
"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paki
Mind you, everyone knows that dictionaries are only written by dictatorial liberals hell-bent on corrupting society with their craaaazeee political correctness.
-
It doesnt have to be offensive, though. Can you see that jackson?
-
A slight based on ethnicity (beyond the discussion of whether the Prince is guilty or "Paki" is a slight) has importance.
Words do mean something.
No one should be "banning" speech (or internet sites, for speech alone).
Neither should we accept hate speech, if we see it that way.
The slight becomes a stereotype, a disrespect, then a suspicion, a grudge, a hatred. Before you know it: "Kristallnacht" (just a little stone throwing), then genocide. Well there is a long history there, but language is part of it. It just becomes disgusting to hear the words when you know what they condone, from beginning of time. So try reading some history.
We all dislike different people, cultures etc. Humans are prone to distrust others who are not like them. We may even feel justified in vilifying them with words. But I say, be careful. It can all lead to a very evil end.
So the question, "What's next?" Which way do YOU want it to go?Whether or not the Prince was wrong: I don't think he meant anything. I don't think it's a big deal, he's young and will make some mistakes. But as a representative of his country, he needs to watch himself more than others. Hence the explanations. If anyone needs to be "politically correct", it would be a statesman, which he is.
"What's next a person of the Jewish persuation from Isreal to be called what? A Jew, Isreali? which one is right?" (sic)
a "Jewish Israeli" I think is the right term, as opposed to an "Arabic Israeli" ("Arabic" seems to have a different usage, perhaps "Arab" is OK too here, as an adjective) etc. What else? Israeli is a national identity. Jew is an ethnic one (and except that gentiles have been putting it together with derogatory terms for centuries, it's just a word that Jews use themselves.)
-
so it's decided then? everyone needs to chill out a bit?
wicked.
Pav
-
@pav_3j said:
I have a friend who I call nigger, and he calls me white nigger, not once have we had a fight.
Yes I am poking fun, but not at my friend, at racism.That's a good point you got there, Lucy. Try not to call that friend a nigger while riding the bus, though. I once had had an elderly 'gentleman' chime in when I told a Turkish friend of mine to 'sod off back to her own country'. (She wanted to borrow €10 - I had to say something!)
Like Jackson, the 'gentleman' didn't get the joke, though his motives were clearly less noble. Sad. (Not you, J-man.)
-
ha ha, genius stinkie.
What would you have said if she asked to borrow €100?Please refrain from calling me Lucy though, where I come from that is highly offensive.
Pav
-
@solo said:
Mr. S, I find myself agreeing with you and Ron on this issue, please do not let this compliance reflect negatively on my 'liberal' status.
LOL...I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. What happens in the forums, stays in the forums.
-
Nothing like a good debate
Fair dues to Jackson he is holding up his side and it is hard to find cracks!Mick
-
Speaking of cracks...blacks call whites "Cracker" and "White Bread". Who among us takes offense at these terms? I believe it's intended to be offensive but it doesn't work on me.
-
I've never been called that Ron. I think I would be offended. Not in a big way. I'd be saddened mostly, and in the right circumstances SCARED.
It would be a good indication that the speaker only judged me by my skin color. But how can you step out of history and pretend there's no difference? If someone called my father that, and it wouldn't be likely, he'd not have to bow his head and fear lynching in the bargain. Or will we have someone now deny that blacks were ever oppressed in the U.S. It has a different context completely.
If I heard it on TV, for example I would not be incensed, but I would write the person off my list of "people to meet".
But let's be reasonable. I wouldn't expect it from the Prince. What if Obama used "cracker". No one would complain? Would you expect Desmond Tutu to use it and still garner respect?
-
Yet again Google Adsense proves it can get a laugh out of any subject. George Carlin was right!
-
Mick
You Irish are way too subtle!
Jeremy
-
..... say he with tongue in cheek
-
I don't really mind what I'm called although I may 'show' indignation! But as long as I am NEVER called too early in the morning anything else goes over my head.
On a more serious note. Ireland over the past 10 years has seen a huge (proportionally) influx of non Caucasian nationalities. There has been some ups and downs but overall I see little racism. My attitude is simple, as long as they do a day's work and pay their way everyone is welcome to make a home here.
Paul McGrath, a Black Irish international footballer (great character!) was telling his life story on the Late late Show some years ago. He explained that when living in Donegal and had never seen another Black man until one walked down his street while he was playing with other kids.
The other kids started calling the black man various names and Paul joined in but after a while the penny dropped with Paul and he realised that he was much the same colour. He pointed this out to his friends and then the penny dropped with them! The point Paul was making was that his young friends did not actually see his skin colour only him as a person. I suppose the message here is that we should all make the effort to look at people for what they are rather than what shade they are. After all we ALL came from Lucy in Africa many thousands of years ago.
Just a small point! In Gealic a black man is called Duine Gorme which translates directly as Blue Man! I often thought to search for the reasoning behind this.
Mike
Advertisement