Prince Harry Racism
-
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
-
With this depression/recession we will be seeing more and more racism becoming apparent.
It was interesting to see on the news last night that 25 out of 27 companies (interviewed), when seeking reception staff, were refusing people on the basis of different colour/race. The one answer which stuck to my mind was that they wanted "normal" people... So racism is still out there but it is somehow wrapped in denial. -
I'd say lack of sensitivity to other people's feelings is part of the job description of being in the army and the Royal family. It's rather fitting to his psychological profile. The only mistake he is going to be reprimanded for is the fact that it leaked to the press.
I don't expect any better from this national shame of an institution. -
@mike lucey said:
How can anyone seriously expect any member of the Royal family to be PERFECT 100% of the time. Heck! I don't know how any of them can hold their cool with those newspaper cameramen running around after them 24 hours and day 365 days a year.
I couldn't agree more with your second sentence, I wouldn't switch places with the Royals for all the money in the world and if every party any of us ever attended was documented on film I'm sure we'd all be judged guilty of grand moral turpitude at one time or another.
Nevertheless Harry was not being papped- he was holding the camera, he was narrating the film, technically he was working at the time and he was wearing the uniform of the British Army. If none of those facts were enough to suggest to him that it might not be the best time to use racist terms to refer to his colleagues then the Windsors seriously need to practise their media training.
I looked at the forum you posted a link to, the first poster, a British soldier wrote:
@unknownuser said:
Imagine for instance a group of soldiers airmen or sailors and within the group there are several called John, how would you distinguish them in a time of crisis?
If one is from Ireland he will probably be called Paddy.if one has red hair he will be called Ginge etc.Well... that argument might have some validity if the guy Harry was referring to had the same name as several of his colleagues, but in what way would it have threatened military efficency to have called him simply Ahmed or Khan? Just out of interest Harry's "little Paki friend" (note the "little" denoting inferiority) won the award for the best overseas cadet at Sandhurst. Maybe Ahmed should be narrating a video describing Harry as "the spoiled little brat who is only playing soldiers because his family make him, who gets more glory in the media for going about his normal duties than colleagues who excel and risk their lives in acts of selfless valour while he flounces around the battlezone, more well protected than any other serviceman or woman".
@jackson said:
I guess it's okay to call a colleague "faggot", "mick", "nigger", "jap" (unfortunately I already know Ron's answer to that one) or "bitch" then? Or do you draw the line somewhere?
@remus said:
I frequently do, as i know it will be taken in jest.
You don't know it will be taken in jest, you assume that it will be taken in jest and one day your assumption will be wrong. Where do you think the expression "children are so cruel" comes from?
@remus said:
Using those rules there would be very little being said.
Huh? Somehow I, my friends and colleagues manage to socialise and work every day without using racist, or sexist or homophobic terms, entire books are written, TV programmes are made, forums buzz along for years without need for these words. What world are you living in where by omitting offensive terms you would find it almost impossible to communicate? It's 15 years ago since I was 17 years old, but even then I probably only heard racist language used in school a handful of times in 6 years at secondary school.
@bellwells said:
Jackson, I don't consider "Jap" to be any more derogatory than "Yank". Political correctness is nothing more than a mechanism to control thought and speech. And as a member of the politically correct crowd, you've been well conditioned.
It's irrelevant what you consider to be offensive to another race. If you told me you didn't want to be called a "yank" as it had negative connotations I'd happily oblige (although it's not a term I use anyway). The fact that "jap" has been used, especially since the Second World War, to insult and intimidate the American descendants of Japanese immigrants should be enough to suggest that it's not a term which should be used in general terms.
I actually hate the term "politically correct"- it's got nothing to do with politics, it's to do with common courtesy, respecting other people and treating them as you expect to be treated. As this thread up to now has been populated by (AFAIK) only well-educated able-bodied caucasian heterosexual males I would suggest that we attempt to put ourselves in someone else's shoes and to realise that we were born into extremely priveleged circumstances, where we would never expect to be publicly abused, assaulted or turned down for a job on the basis of something we can do nothing about. I for one am grateful for that throw of the cosmic/genetic dice, but I'm not going to sit back and think "well, the current setup worked for me, screw everyone else". You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
Advertisement