Harry says ‘Paki’: all aboard the bandwagon!

I posted on W&T the below response to this story, regarding a home video taken by Prince Harry who was filming his army comrades and referred at one point to “…our Paki friend…” Ahmed, trigerring a firestorm of self-righteous moralising. For those of you who don’t know, Paki is a slang term for someone [...]

I posted on W&T the below response to this story, regarding a home video taken by Prince Harry who was filming his army comrades and referred at one point to “…our Paki friend…” Ahmed, trigerring a firestorm of self-righteous moralising. For those of you who don’t know, Paki is a slang term for someone from Pakistan in the United Kingdom.

————————

*Sigh* The comment wasn’t racist.

On this rare occasion I’m happy to agree with Smasher. The comment referred to race, yes, but it contained no prejudice, discrimination or antagonism toward a member of another race: it was not racist. People think it was racist only because we’ve become so sensitive about racial issues and we’re so paranoid about being labelled that way that, without thinking about it much at all, we’ll jump on the politically correct bandwagon out of sheer paranoia. That is the opposite of progressive. It’s flat-out reactionary.

And by the way, language is a strange thing. Many liberal people I know have agreed about the importance of context in language: a word uttered in many contexts is not even remotely offensive or deserving of contempt when said between two old boys in a pub on a Friday night; then it becomes a term of endearment. These same liberal people are the bandwagon-jumpers when it involves race, not because they’ve thought about it hard but precisely because they haven’t (and couldn’t, for fear of what their peers would think!).

In short, Smasher is right: we’re just touchy about it. But the validity of that fact in no way justifies this bandwagon. ”Our P### friend…” [*] is not more or less than a term of endearment between army comrades. It’s how Harry thinks of his friend Ahmed, in much the same way as someone else may spring to mind by their features; a big nose, a bald head, being tall, being short, being ridiculously good-looking, or anything else. Had Harry referred to Ahmed in any of those ways, we wouldn’t even be having this ludicrous conversation.

I refuse to be bullied intellectually into jumping aboard this bandwagon of thinking people who are in these instances unthinking, merely towing their brains behind them lest they think enough to conclude something other than their peers, for fear of breaking the ranks of the liberal elite which, out of paranoia, feels it must scream at every available moment, “I’m not racist!” This faux outrage is beginning to get very, very old.

[* In case you haven't been persuaded of how pathetic the reaction to this is, consider that I was prevented from even citing the term used by Harry in my comment here. Not only are most of the bandwagon-riders content to leave their brains behind them rather than analyse this properly, the BBC feels you are incapable of considering the term yourself too. How very... progressive.]

6 Comments

  1. Liam on January 12, 2009 | Permalink

    John,

    Dull comment from me here, but; Yes, yes, yes and yes again to all of the above. Right on the money mate. The fearful response of fearful, pathetic, cringing dullards is worthy of all contempt and opprobrium that thinking people can muster. Fair play to you John.

  2. John on January 14, 2009 | Permalink

    Liam, appreciate that. The conversation continued from there, but I really didn’t hear a decent argument (or any argument at all) defending the belief that the term is inherently racist. Language isn’t an end in itself; it points to meaning (the meaning and intent of the speaker). That’s the only relevant factor. :-)

  3. kookimebux on February 1, 2009 | Permalink

    Hello. And Bye. :)

  4. Liam on February 14, 2009 | Permalink

    John,

    Thought you might be interested in an explanation of origins of “Paki” and “Pakistan”. It’s actually a term of ethic pride, almost equivalent to Volk, and would certainly be pounced upon as racist supremacy if it had white origins.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choudhary_Rahmat_Ali

    “‘Pakistan’ is both a Persian and an Urdu word. It is composed of letters taken from the names of all our Indian Sub-continent homelands; that is, Panjab, Afghanistan (Pashtunistan), Kashmir, Sindh (including Kach and Kathiawar), Tukharistan, Afghanistan, and Balochistan. It means the land of the Paks- the spiritually pure and clean. It symbolizes the religious beliefs and ethnical stocks of our people; and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland. It has no other origin and no other meaning; and it does not admit of any other interpretation. Those writers who have tried to interpret it in more than way have done so either through the love of casuistry, or through ignorance of its inspiration, origin and composition.”

  5. Liam on February 14, 2009 | Permalink

    “ethnic” pride even, not “ethic”. D’oh!

  6. John on February 14, 2009 | Permalink

    Love it. Proves – further – the foolishness of jumping all over Harry for using it in an affectionate way. The people who did so are towing their brains behind them, I think.

POST A COMMENT

Your email is never published nor shared.

CONNECT

John on Facebook

FOLLOW

John on Twitter

LISTEN

John at KLPZ