If they think that the lack of pigmentation in their skin or hair makes them superior,

Think through why they think “lack of pigmentation” makes them superior, specifically in relation to South Asians and those of African origin.

It’s not just purely about skin colour — that’s just a handle for them to attach their prejudices too — and also bear in mind that, at least in relation to South Asians, these notions of superiority didn’t exist until about 200 years ago.

come on, why should you get upset?

Self-respect ?

If they think Asians are monkeys, or half than a normal human… who cares?

Asians who have to deal with being on the receiving end of manifestations of the racists’ bigotry ?

Furthermore, nobody likes to be branded “racist”, even the BNP tries to flee from it. These days, non-racists completely dominate the game. Let’s not pretend like it is the other way around.

Buddy, that’s the official version because, officially, it’s not PC or acceptable to be seen to be openly racist these days. But there are plenty of undercover bigots around, who act on or display their bigotry to the extent that they can get away with, especially in environments where they will be excused and/or tacitly supported in their racist attitudes behind the scenes.

Anyway, maybe this conversation should be continued on one of the newer threads ?

Interesting question. I’ve been called a gwaillo, a b’landa, a khawajah a farang and a kaffir (not to mention gringo and honky). Excuse spelling. Never knowingly been called a gorah.

Khawaja and farang didn’t bother me as I understood them to mean foreigner, which in the circs was what I was. There was a moment when a crowd of youngsters started following me chanting ‘Khawaja, khawaja’ which was a bit off putting until a couple of older blokes sent them off with a flea in their collective ear.

B’landa was a bit annoying as I do not have a large proboscis, but when I made it clear I understood what the word meant everybody got all giggly and sweet.

Kaffir? Yeah, although it is clearly not a racist term it is hostile and I would take issue with it. Depending on context, quite serious issue.

On those occassions I was aware that these were descriptive rather than perjorative terms used by people who were unfamiliar with dealing with Europeans and who were otherwise very welcoming. If I had experience of these words being used to denigrate and intimidate I would have seen things differently.

Because I have never been on the receiving end of racial abuse (as I considered it) it’s difficult for me to put myself in that position. However, anyone using words like ‘mongrel’ or ‘half-breed’ around me is risking a loss of teeth.

Unless Harry is uterly clueless about the way this country has been in recent decades – and to an extent still is – then ‘Paki’ is clearly crass and offensive regardless of context and intent.

Most people would not go to a party with a nazi swastika, so do not underestimate stupidity. That incident, I feel is more embarrassing, because one would expect that the 3rd in line would know a thing or two about what happened in WW2, and the cozy relationship between some members of his family and the nazis.

Don, what word would upset you the most if used against you by an Asian?

Yes and he was decisively shot down the last time he used it here (and rightly so) !

But the term kaffir does appear in the Koran to denote non-believers.

there are plenty of white Brits around who are very well-disposed towards Asians — but I think (with all due respect) you may be slightly naive about the number of people out there who still have obsolete notions about white-Asian power dynamics and about the reasons that such people can be very neurotic about brown folk.

The presence of people who are racist doesn’t bother me one bit. If they think that the lack of pigmentation in their skin or hair makes them superior, come on, why should you get upset? If they think Asians are monkeys, or half than a normal human… who cares? Part of me concludes that I might be genetically superior than them. The other part understands why losers want to believe they are inherently superior than others, despite achieving nothing in life – mind you, it’s not just British whites. British Asians have serious racial and caste issues, as you well know. That’s human nature.

Furthermore, nobody likes to be branded “racist”, even the BNP tries to flee from it. These days, non-racists completely dominate the game. Let’s not pretend like it is the other way around.

However, what really upsets me is the idea of building “taboo” words and ideas, and criminalise or persecute people on that basis as in this case. As if words could ever have an absolute meaning. While there is certainly a need to protect minorities from demonisation, there is always the danger of creating a grand inquisition and enforcing self-censorship.

I’ve been wondering about that, or more specifically the way ‘Pak’ is used as a general adjective. Even here I have seen the word used (e.g. ‘the Pak military’ etc.)without apparent offence.

Unless Harry is uterly clueless about the way this country has been in recent decades – and to an extent still is – then ‘Paki’ is clearly crass and offensive regardless of context and intent. In fact even if he is that clueless it’s still offensive.

But if Harry had refered to ‘Our friend from the Pak army…’, would that have been different?

As a fairly ancient white guy, can I comment on this?

It seems pretty obvious to me that some people are prejudiced. Others are not.

I’ve always operated on the basis that you treat people as you find them.

And I’ve ‘met’ a lot of folk here I would now consider friends, and perhaps more importantly, folk whose judgement I respect. I have also encountered a fair share of assholes, and they can go ‘right back at ya’ if they want.

The point is that what Sunny has done here, bringing together Jews and Sikhs and Muslims and *cough* Christians and folk of no faith at all is quite a remarkable achievement.

So, calling someone a Paki, would be to deliberately insult folk I rather admire. And if anyone called me a ‘kaffir’ I suppose I’d be insulted too.

And that has never happened.

Despite my sometimes gauche approach to folk I have disagreed with, I have never, ever, encountered any personally directed racism on here.

Which says a lot.

For you, dear reader….

When you mentioned “unbalance” in the other thread, what did you mean by that?

Okay Ravi, let’s work through this. I’ve already given my rationale on the other thread and on another discussion a while back, but let’s start again at the beginning.

During the course of the past 40 years or so, since the arrival of the majority of the older Asian generation, why do you think that white Brits who are racist have decided that Asians are suitable targets for abuse and harassment ?

More recently, why has there been such hysteria about call centres being outsourced to India, or (depending on your professional circles) “credibility issues” when confronted by highly competent IT professionals from India, or the fact that in the really prestigious lines of work, Asians have to fight much harder to a) break in and b) get to levels of seniority and authority, compared to their white British counterparts and even compared to white immigrants from other countries ? Why is there such hysteria in some sections of the media when an Asian man hooks up with a high-profile glamourous white woman (eg. Imran Khan/Jemimah, or Arun Nayar/Liz Hurley), where the guy’s motivations, credibility and (most of all) the likelihood of the marriage being successful are forcefully called into question ? Why are there people in the UK who feel threatened by Asians they deem “not to know their place” ? Why is someone “just” a Paki ?

It’s not just about Asians being “minorities” in this country, even though the fact that Asians are outnumbered in the UK as a whole and in many daily situations is certainly exploited by many rednecks (Shilpa Shetty wasn’t the first person to find that out, although her experience was a textbook example of the sequence of events that can occur and was horribly familiar to many British Asians).

I can tell you the answer, but let’s hear your own thoughts and we’ll take it from there.

Ashik uses it all the time,

Yes and he was decisively shot down the last time he used it here (and rightly so) !

Perhaps I am being too optimistic about where we are,

Not necessarily “too optimistic”, mate — there are plenty of white Brits around who are very well-disposed towards Asians — but I think (with all due respect) you may be slightly naive about the number of people out there who still have obsolete notions about white-Asian power dynamics and about the reasons that such people can be very neurotic about brown folk.

http://www.paki.com

Nothing I have said implies any such assumption. In fact, the opposite is the case — the fact that, particularly where the 2nd-generation is concerned, Asians can and do defend themselves against verbal aggression, makes me wonder about the rare occasions these days when Asians do not, or when it is suggested that Asians should shrug off such abuse.

When you mentioned “unbalance” in the other thread, what did you mean by that? I got the feeling your point was that because we are a minorities, that we are automatically victims of a verbal aggression if a white person calls us “paki” or other racial epithet. In that view, Sunny was a victim of a verbal aggression because his friend called him a “sweaty Arab”, even though he replied back at the same level. In my view, it was a zero-sum game.

But – from what I understood – you do not believe that Asians can achieve a zero-sum game because we are minorities. This is why you say that whites should never use the term “paki”. Which is why I believe that context matters, and this Harry story is nothing more than sensationalist trash.

I might be wrong, of course. Perhaps I am being too optimistic about where we are, and we might need a few more generations to take race, and ourselves, more lightly.

I think you and I also both know how the term is used to refer to non-Muslims by those who are bigotted about such matters, and the fact that the term in itself is not complimentary.

Ashik uses it all the time, and he is a good Muslim…

I also think you are an extremely intelligent, clear-thinking guy, which I why I feel that (for some reason) you have obviously misinterpreted my attitude and assumptions on this topic. Your own words make that clear.

Your argument lies on the assumption that Asians are weak and helpless victims, and cannot defend themselves against verbal aggression.

Nothing I have said implies any such assumption. In fact, the opposite is the case — the fact that, particularly where the 2nd-generation is concerned, Asians can and do defend themselves against verbal aggression, makes me wonder about the rare occasions these days when Asians do not, or when it is suggested that Asians should shrug off such abuse.

and I can only assume you are saying that being “brown” is somehow a handicap that prevents us to answer in return.

Given the fact that both Shamit and I have been particularly belligerent about the fact that “answering back in return” is the appropriate response, and that in my experience this reaction has certainly been the norm amongst the majority of 2nd-gen Asians I have met, I have no idea where you’ve got the idea that I think being “brown” is a “handicap” in such matters.

What is the definition of “paki” anyway, if not a brown person – except that you are supposed to be offended by it?

I’ve given my views on previous occasions regarding what “Paki” means — and it’s a hell of a lot more than just “brown person” — but perhaps you should ask a racist who thinks it’s an appropriate word to use. You may not get an honest answer, mind you.

I mean, if a racist shouts “paki”, and Asians don’t give a fuck, aren’t we frustrating the racist?

Not always; it depends on the specific individual. As with all bullies, some find that the lack of a response from their target takes the wind out of their sails, others will just keep doing it (and will even start escalating their harassment) until there is a sufficiently strong counter-response to make them cut it out. Sometimes fear of retaliation and punishment is the only thing keeping such people in check.

By the way, “kaffir” means non-believer – it is not really a slur if you are not of the Muslim faith.

I know what the term means. I think you and I also both know how the term is used to refer to non-Muslims by those who are bigotted about such matters, and the fact that the term in itself is not complimentary.

Imagine if there was a group of Pakistanis, with a solitary English guy among them, and one of the Pakistanis was quietly filming them and made the remark “Ah, our little kafir friend…..Michael”.

You know what pisses me off, Jai?

Your argument lies on the assumption that Asians are weak and helpless victims, and cannot defend themselves against verbal aggression. You – and I am glad you spelled it out – mentioned the “unbalance” – and I can only assume you are saying that being “brown” is somehow a handicap that prevents us to answer in return. Mind you, I am not condoning bullying or systematic verbal aggression, but it seems like “paki” is a densed word where planets revolve around it.

What is the definition of “paki” anyway, if not a brown person – except that you are supposed to be offended by it? Isn’t that convenient for racists?

I mean, if a racist shouts “paki”, and Asians don’t give a fuck, aren’t we frustrating the racist?

By the way, “kaffir” means non-believer – it is not really a slur if you are not of the Muslim faith.

The Sikhs that I know don’t talk about Bengalis disparagingly and on the single instance many years ago that someone I used to know did make insulting remarks about Bengalis, yes I did call bullshit on it.

**********************

Douglas,

Good to see the numbering back, i’nt it?

Agreed.

Sorry. Your point is well made and I can’t, apparently, read.

Good to see the numbering back, i’nt it? Tries desperately to change the subject…..

To my understanding, ‘takfir’ refers to other Muslims.

However, regarding ‘kafir’, I mentioned it myself in the hypothetical scenario in my post #20 above. And yes, of course it would be offensive and unacceptable when used against the target in that situation, even if it was allegedly “in jest”.

What’s that exclusive word – takfir, or kafir or something – that Muslims use under their breath? Can I take it you disapprove of that too?

Sometimes people know damn well what they’re doing, even if they claim otherwise.

“If I see someone (who) comes in that’s got a diaper on his head and a fan belt wrapped around the diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over,”
- Former Republican Congressman John Cooksey of Louisiana.

“going to go out and shoot some towel-heads”, Frank Roque before he shot dead Sikh gas station owner, Balbir Singh Sodhi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Roque

The other soldier thankfully has a brain and recently related to me his trip to Ypes recently, where he witnessed the sacrifice of Sikhs in World War I.

Prince Harry should be given a history lesson on how so called ‘rag heads’ saved his families’ arse and empire in the 2 World Wars.
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/newsandgallery/news/trh_pay_tribute_to_sikh_veterans_of_the_second_world_war_528418.html
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/lionsofthegreatwar.htm

*************************

If some people here are happy for white people (“friends” or otherwise) to call them “Paki” under certain circumstances then we’ll have to politely agree to disagree. For the record, though, I’ve never heard of a black person on either side of the Atlantic saying it’s okay for a white person to call him/her a nigger “in some contexts”, and I can’t imagine this being the case, but maybe that’s just me.

Anyway…..

In response to people making remarks about “context being everything”, both on this blog and in the media, let me suggest the following scenario:

Imagine if there was a group of Pakistanis, with a solitary English guy among them, and one of the Pakistanis was quietly filming them and made the remark “Ah, our little kafir friend…..Michael”.

Would there still be people in the media making excuses about “context”, “intent”, and so on ? Would Michael himself be okay with being referred to in this way ? Would anyone else (particularly other white people) expect Michael to not have a problem with this — and if so, would they be saying he should shrug it off and “take it as a joke, it’s just light-hearted banter/an acceptable nickname” ? Would the reaction be positive if the latter suggestion was made by Pakistanis themselves ?

The answer to all of these questions is “Hell no, of course not”.

In fact, the film would probably end up on “Undercover Mosque part 3″ or something.

Think about it, people.

By the way, there is such a thing as letting people take advantage of your good nature and letting them get away with a little too much. It’s also worth bearing in mind that sometimes bullies use the phrase “it’s just a joke” as a smokescreen to excuse their own actions and to undermine their target’s justifiably aggrieved response and their right to take appropriate countermeasures. This is a general statement and, in this case, as I said on the previous thread I’m certainly not saying Harry himself was necessarily motivated by such intentions, but these things do happen, ie. “I can say whatever I want to you and treat you as badly as I can get away with, as long as I can plausibly claim it was in jest and with no deliberate malicious intent”.

Sometimes people know damn well what they’re doing, even if they claim otherwise.