Not long ago, Prince Harry, son of the late Princess Diana and third in line for the British throne, unleashed a storm of controversy after a three-year-old home video was released in which the prince used the terms paki and raghead. The video was shot while Prince Harry was still a cadet at Sandhurst, the Royal Military Academy.
In the first scene the prince pans his camera over fellow soldiers waiting in an airport departure lounge, pausing on fellow cadet Ahmed Raza Khan and referring to him as “our little paki friend.” In another scene, he tells another soldier that he “look[ed] like a raghead.” Prince Harry rightfully caught flak and did the right thing by promptly apologizing, but he’s had more than his fair share of apologists who want us to believe that calling someone a paki or raghead is not really that offensive. But they’re wrong: directing a racial slur at someone is always offensive.
Rod Richards, a former Royal Marine and Foreign Office minister in the Conservative government of John Major had this to say in defense of Prince Harry’s use of the slurs:
I am a Welshman and it was quite common for people like me to be called Taffy. Similar nicknames are also used for people from other parts of the world. The use of the word ‘Paki’ doesn’t surprise me but in a military context, it is not derogatory. People are making an issue out of something that is not an issue.”
And this was the response of Michael Evans, Defense Editor of the Times Online:
Prince Harry was clearly not attempting to be deliberately offensive towards his Pakistani colleague but appeared to be using the pejorative term in a light-hearted way. Similarly, the term ‘raghead’ is used not infrequently in the Army when soldiers are referring to the ‘opposition’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Richards and Evans, and the many others who defended the prince, are missing the point. Paki and raghead are not mere pet names that can be tossed around willy-nilly. They are racial slurs and that makes them offensive. For starters, paki and raghead are used solely in reference to South Asians and Arabs/Muslims respectively, and never as terms of endearment or respect. Furthermore, calling people names based on their skin color, ethnicity, language, or region of origin is plain wrong. Even kindergarteners know that. After all, nobody chooses their skin color or where they were born, and nobody should be called names because of things over which they have no control.
But the bigger issue here is that unlike nicknames, which may stem from an individual’s height, weight, or hair color, racial slurs are used against entire populations. And, unlike nicknames, racial slurs are created and used in specific historical and political contexts. In other words, they are created in a context of inequality in which one group (let’s call them the namecallers) creates anduses a slur while simultaneously doing violence to, marginalizing, exploiting, or otherwise denigrating another group (let’s call them the namecallees). For this reason, it is impossible to separate a racial slur from the context in which it was created.
Take, for example, two common American slurs—nigger and gook. These words were created, and came into popular use, at a time when the namecallers were doing some kind of violence to the namecallees. Nigger came into use at a time when Africans were being captured and sold into plantation slavery in the New World, and continues to be used as a derogatory term to this day. Gook came into being as long ago as 1899 and has been used sequentially against Filipinos, Japanese people, Koreans, and Vietnamese people. Is it any coincidence that these uses followed the sequence of America’s wars in Asia?
Similarly, paki came about at a time when newly arriving South Asians were experiencing hostility, to say nothing of violence, at the hands of native-born Brits. Is it any wonder, then, that attacks against South Asian immigrants came to be known as paki bashing? Michael Evans, the Times editor, lent (perhaps inadvertently) support to this point when he reminded his readers that “the term ‘raghead’ is used not infrequently in the Army when soldiers are referring to the ‘opposition’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Put another way, this means that British and American soldiers are doing violence to Arabs and Muslims, all the while referring to them as ragheads.
Wars might end and time—to say nothing of equal rights legislation—might pass, but racial slurs do not cease to be offensive, nor do they lose their power to denigrate. Because they are conceived and used in violence, they can never go back to being mere words. To call someone a nigger, a paki, a gook, or a raghead is not just to remind them of the violence done to people who shared their skin color, religion, or birthplace. It is also to point out that they are different, that they do not belong, and that they will always be outsiders in the dominant culture. After all, can nigger be separated from the brutality of the Middle Passage, plantation slavery, and Jim-Crow segregation? Can anyone honestly claim to have successfully divorced paki from paki bashing? When will gook lose its connotation of napalm and free-fire zones? And, long after the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan come to an end, what meaning will raghead retain? Will it really be possible to draw a neat, sharp line between the word and the violence done by British and American soldiers to the people they called “ragheads“?
To be clear, this is not to argue that anyone who uses a racial slur is a racist. The question, ultimately, is not whether it is possible for someone to use these words and simultaneously not be a racist, but whether it is decent to do so in the first place! After all, racial slurs on their own do not constitute racism but their use is an essential component of it. Using racial slurs is an exercise of power by the namecaller, used to establish his dominance over the namecallee and everyone else who shares his skin color, religion, language, or birthplace. In addition to being reminders of past violence, racial slurs let the namecallee know that he does not belong, that he is inferior to the namecaller. The intended use of a racial slur is immaterial: the context in which it was created—in other words, how it acquired meaning and thus the power to offend and demean—is what really matters.
So while Prince Harry may not be a racist (although showing up to a party wearing a swastika armband does little to rule out the possibility), his casual use of racial slurs proves that a top-notch education does not necessarily endow its recipient with common sensitivity, let alone common sense. As for Ahmed Khan, Prince Harry’s “little paki friend” (now a captain in the Pakistani army), there is no way to know how he feels about having been called a little paki: the army has barred him from discussing the matter.
At the end of the day, Prince Harry’s affinity for swastikas and racially insensitive language says a lot about his level of cultural sensitivity, but at least he has enough sense to apologize when he has caused offense. That’s much more than can be said of the people who rallied to his defense and tried to argue that paki and raghead aren’t so offensive after all.
Man, reading the celebrity gossip blogs really pays off sometimes because once in a while, they actually turn up something important. Thanks to my favorite gossip blog, I learned that the cable network A&E announced today that it will resume airing the hit reality show ”Dog the Bounty Hunter,” which was taken off the air a few months back after the show’s star, Duane “Dog” Chapman, was exposed as a racist.
Dog’s racism came to light after his son, Tucker, published a recording of his dad repeatedly using the word “nigger” in reference to Tucker’s Black girlfriend. The recording cost Dog his show after A&E started losing advertisers, who probably didn’t want to be associated with such a racist. At the time anyway.
Fortunately for Dog, his period of penance seems to be over and A&E has decided he has done enough apologizing. Apparently, appearing on a bunch of radio and TV programs and expressing remorse for using a racial slur is enough to convince some people that one is not in fact a racist. Who knew.
Here’s the network’s take on their decision to resurrect Dog’s show:
Over the last few months, Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman has taken and continues to take the appropriate steps in reaching out to several African American organizations in an effort to make amends for his private comments to his son which were released publicly. Since the premise of ‘Dog The Bounty Hunter’ is about second chances, we have decided to give him one.”
I love America, home of the second chance, where there are no racists, only people who throw “nigger” around like their lives depend on it. If I had my way, Dog would never be allowed anywhere near a TV camera again. But I’m just a lowly blogger. And I don’t own A&E, which clearly seems to think that being a racist is OK, as long as you spend enough time apologizing not for your racist attitude, but for your choice of words. After all, there’s no such thing as a racist, right? Dog’s not really a racist, is he? He’s just a regular guy who was caught on tape casually using a word that demeans, denigrates, and dehumanizes an entire population. How silly of me to have confused him with a racist!!!
Now, I’m as big a believer in second chances as A&E: I just happen to believe that there should be consequences for holding racist attitudes, which lie at the heart of so many of the divisions and social inequalities that plague our society today. It took Dog a lifetime to become the racist that he is, and I’m pretty sure that spending a few months “reaching out to several African American organizations” is not going to make him less of a racist. But what do I know. I’m not the star of a hit reality show.
Luckily for Dog, his show was popular and I’m sure plenty of people—who have less of a problem with racism than I do—will be happy to start watching it again. But I’m sure few will be happier than A&E executives, whose decision to put “Dog the Bounty Hunter” back on the air probably has little to do with second chances and everything to do with money. Clearly, they think the loss of advertising dollars was too great a price to pay for taking a courageous and principled stance against racism.
Writing in the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell argues that IQ is not fixed, and it has nothing to do with race but everything to do with the environment in which a person is raised. And also on the type of IQ test administered. Apparently, the standard IQ test, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), has been modified four times over the last century or so, because it gets easier for each generation that takes it.
Gladwell’s a much better writer than I am, and he’s done a lot more research on the subject, so I urge you to read the entire article.
Here’s an excerpt:
[I]t shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. ‘The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized. It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.’ The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in.”
I don’t imagine the people who’ve been arguing on this blog that Black people are genetically less intelligent will read Gladwell’s article in its entirety. It’s got too many big words.
The BBC reports that a man caught trying to have sex with his bicycle has been sentenced to three years on probation.
Robert Stewart, 51, admitted a sexually aggravated breach of the peace by conducting himself in a disorderly manner and simulating sex.
Sheriff Colin Miller also placed Stewart on the Sex Offenders Register for three years.
Mr Stewart was caught in the act with his bicycle by cleaners in his bedroom at the Aberley House Hostel in Ayr.
Gail Davidson, prosecuting, told Ayr Sheriff Court: “They knocked on the door several times and there was no reply.
“They used a master key to unlock the door and they then observed the accused wearing only a white t-shirt, naked from the waist down.
“The accused was holding the bike and moving his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex.”
Both cleaners, who were “extremely shocked”, told the hostel manager who called police.
Sheriff Colin Miller told Stewart: “In almost four decades in the law I thought I had come across every perversion known to mankind, but this is a new one on me. I have never heard of a ‘cycle-sexualist’.”
Stewart had denied the offence, claiming it was caused by a misunderstanding after he had too much to drink.
The bachelor had been living in the hostel since October 2006 after moving from his council house in Girvan.
He now lives in Ayr.
I can’t even write anything witty or sarcastic about this story. I’m still in shock. Or is it befuddlement? Hard to say.
It’s the ultimate betrayal…a crime so disturbing, many victims never tell a soul. According to reports, about 1.5 million women are raped or physically assaulted by their partners every year.
Although spousal rape is punishable by law in all 50 states, many offenses go unreported. Two women who hid their shame for years are finally speaking out. They want every woman in America to know it can happen to anyone.
In 2005, Tascha, a wife and mother, was crowned Mrs. Oklahoma. “Whenever someone sees the crown they think, ‘She has it all together, she’s beautiful, she’s well spoken, she’s well rounded and educated,’” she says.
What many people don’t know is that Tascha is a spousal rape survivor. “Underneath it all, there was a really dark period in my life that no one suspected, because I didn’t share with anyone,” she says. “Friends didn’t know, family didn’t know. It was something that I basically took on myself, by myself.”
Read more about Tascha’s and other women’s stories here.
Is this guy for real? Isn’t it bad enough for everyone that his own son caught him on tape using the word “nigger” like it was going out of stlye? I mean, you should have heard Dog in that conversation, dropping the n-bomb like his life depended on it. The way Dog was saying “nigger,” you’d think he was suffering from terminal cancer and God had just told him that repeating the n-word was a mantra that would miraculously cure him. Since then, Dog’s been touring the TV circuit apologizing for using the slur. If you ask me, he’s just garnering some much needed TV publicity for himself, since A&E took his show off the air—as far as I’m concerned, the sooner this racist jackhole is out of the spotlight, the better off we’ll all be. What next? A tell-all book? Please!
But I digress. The Superficial reports that Dog recently said on FOX’s Hannity and Colmes program that he had always considered himself Black, so he thought it was OK for him to say “nigger.” Here are his exact words:
In other words, my whole life I’ve been called a half-breed, a convict, king of the trailer trash, this and that . . . so when I stood there and said, ‘I kind of know what you feel like, because I’ve been there, too,’ that I felt that I could embrace and like, as brothers . . . say the word.”
“I now learned I’m not black at all, and I never did it out of hate. This sounds so stupid. I always did it out of love. Other white guys would be like, ‘Boy, who does Dog think he is? Dog can say that.’ And black guys would be with me and walk with me and respect me.”
“So, I went too far with that.”
Um . . . where do I begin? “So, I went too far with that” might go down in history as the understatement of the century. When Dog referred to his son’s Black girlfriend as a “nigger,” he definitely went too far. Way too far.
But seriously, what the hell is up with this “half-breed, convict, king of the trailer trash” nonsense? Did Dog seriously think he was Black just because he’s been called all those things?! It definitely DOES NOT MAKE HIM BLACK because Black people ARE NOT ALL THOSE THINGS!!! Is Dog out of his freakin’ mind? Is that really what he thinks Black people are? It’s offensive that he would look at his own sad life and then think, “Hey, I’m a f*ck-up from a f*cked up background. That’s what it means to be Black. I must be Black too.”
Well, I have some news for Dog. There are plenty of Black people—and I’m including myself—who’ve never been convicted of murder, who’ve never been to prison, and who’ve never seen the inside of a trailer park. Sure, for millions of people, it really sucks to be Black in America and, for a while, it sucked to be Dog, but he really shouldn’t think he’s Black just because he comes from a messed-up background. And, even if Dog were really Black, it’s still not OK for him to call any Black person a “nigger.” Far as I’m concerned, it’s not even OK for people who are ACTUALLY Black to call one another “nigga.”
I bring up “nigga” because I think Dog is in serious need of a quick lesson in pronunciation and context, so I’m stepping up to fill some crucial gaps in his knowledge. Some Black people, especially men, do refer to each other as “nigga.” You might not hear the difference in pronunciation but it’s there. Say it with me. “NIGGA.” “NIGGER.” Subtle difference in pronunciation, HUGE difference in context. Because when Black people use the word “nigga,” they usually mean it as a term of endearment. Of course, it could also be used as a term of disdain or criticism of individual Black people. Remember when Chris Rock said there’s a civil war between Black people and niggas?
“Nigger,” on the other hand, is a word used by people to denigrate, demean, devalue, and dehumanize ALL Black people. But more importantly, there are many, many Black people—again, I’m including myself—who DO NOT use the word “nigga.” EVER! Just because some Black people are ignorant enough to call each other a word that sounds an awful lot like a racial slur does not give Dog the right to use the actual racial slur!! And saying he thought it was OK because he thought he was Black is the most RIDICULOUS excuse I’ve ever heard from a White person for using the word “nigger.”
Here’s what I think Dog should say next time he finds himself in front of a TV camera and feels the urge to explain to the world how he’s notreally a racist and how he really loves Black people:
I really regret having been caught on tape using a racial slur that everyone knows is deeply offensive to Black people and millions of other decent, sensitive, and well-intentioned Americans. There is no excuse for what I said. I sincerely apologize for causing offense to so many people. As a White man, I have no real understanding of how much pain that word causes to Black people. Nothing in my history or my family’s experience in America can compare to the violence, brutalization, and dehumanization that is associated with that word, nor to the painful memories it conjures up for Black people whenever they are called “nigger” by a White person.
If, right about now, you are asking yourself, “Who is this Celtic beauty with the flowing red hair and radiant smile,” you’re not the only one. You see, I asked myself that exact question when I first laid eyes on Elizabeth Kucinich. Kucinich? Kucinich . . . Kucinich . . .? Why does that name sound so familiar? Oh right! Dennis Kucinich! You know, the Democratic Congressman from Ohio, the one who’s challenging Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and the rest of the Democratic candidates for the presidency? Yes, that guy. Elizabeth Kucinich is none other than his wife.
See, you probably didn’t even know who Dennis Kucinich is, because he hasn’t been getting the kind of press a candidate of his caliber deserves. But it seems that having Mrs. K—I like to call her that because my last name starts with the same letter and I think it has a nice ring to it—on the campaign trail is paying off. The major networks are finally taking notice of Dennis. Of course, most of the time, they really only want to discuss his gorgeous, red-haired wife on the show but, whatever. Any publicity is good publicity. Search Youtube for Elizabeth Kucinich and see what comes up. I bet she’s getting more screen time than Dennis.
But seriously, I think Dennis Kucinich is the best of all the Democratic candidates. In fact, if the election were tomorrow—and if I could vote in this country, where I’ve lived longer than I did in the country of my birth but I’m not bitter or anything—I would vote for Dennis Kucinich. Would I vote for Dennis because he’s the tallest or best-looking candidate? Hell no! If a candidate’s looks had any effect on how I voted, I’d vote for Hillary Clinton. Hands down! And not simply because she’s the only female candidate and I’m the kind of guy who’s uncomfortable admitting that another man is good-looking. Not at all. I’ll prove it. Watch. I think Barak Obama’s good-looking. His chiseled jaw kinda reminds me of my own. And John Edwards? Does anyone have a nicer, more winning smile? Besides me, I mean? Anyway, I digress. I think Hillary’s FINE! I liked Hillary when she first came to DC and, 15 years later, I still dig her.
However, unlike the average voter, I’m less interested in how a candidate looks than I am in what she/he has to say about the issues that matter to me. Besides, as far as Dennis Kucinich is concerned, Elizabeth K (another of my pet names) has enough beauty for the both of them. But seriously folks, we need to move beyond looks. Let’s see where Dennis stands on some of the issues.
If Darfur had oil, we’d be occupying Sudan. (Jun 2007)
Reject war as an instrument of foreign policy. (Jun 2007)
Americans have been misled about the Iraqi war. (Jan 2004)
Affirm intention to work with the world community. (Nov 2003)
Promote international treaties but reject global corporatism. (Aug 2003)
Lead world to sustainable energy production. (Aug 2003)
Foreign aid for peace incentives, not conflict. (Jul 1996)
There’s a lot more information on the voting records of Dennis Kucinich and the other candidates at http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm. See for yourselves. Of course, Dennis doesn’t get his own link. Oh no. They’ve got him under “and others.” But here’s a shortcut to his voting record.
To be quite honest, not one of the other candidates’ policies align so closely and perfectly with my own views and attitudes. I, for one, do not intend to “hold my nose” and vote in the upcoming elections. Dennis Kucinich is a regular reader of this blog so I know he will read this. I am going on record here and promising my vote next November to Dennis Kucinich. Provided I can vote by then.
OK, gotta stay focused . . . gotta stay on message. Dennis Kucinich’s wife is beautiful. Smart too. At least I’m pretty sure she is. I muted the Youtube videos when I watched them, but from the way her mouth was moving in slow motion, I can tell that she was saying something really intelligent. Just kidding!!! JUST KIDDING!!! (I KNOW I’m going to pay for that joke). Elizabeth Kucinich IS really smart, and compassionate, and she has done a lot of humanitarian work in Africa and India, working to provide education and sanitation to some of the world’s poorest and most marginalized people. She even worked with Mother Theresa. She’s also staunchly anti-war, pro-environment, and generally just an awesome, intelligent person. Just like me. Which is why we both like Dennis Kucinich. In different ways, of course.
If a woman as intelligent, well-educated, compassionate, and well-traveled as Elizabeth Kucinich can see how great Dennis Kucinich is, why can’t the rest of the voting public?
It’s probably because . . . ooooh! . . . can’t finish thought . . . reality TV about to start . . . pizza guy outside . . ..
What? You say there’s no such thing as the Nostradamus Award for Prescience? Really? Well, somebody should create one immediately. Then they should present it to the people who write The Onion. For those of you unfamiliar with The Onion, it’s a faux newspaper that publishes fake, parody news.
I mean, I’m not normally a superstitious person but I have to admit that I have no other way to explain what I’m about to show you. I don’t know what kind of dark magic they have over there at Onion headquarters, but they must have some serious ju-ju going. Maybe they’ve got a team of seers or psychics or something working full time. Maybe they created a time machine and were able to send people into the future. Who knows! But for the love of all things good and decent, how else could they have known all this back in 2001?
WASHINGTON, DC—Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that “our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.”
“My fellow Americans,” Bush said, “at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us.”
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
“You better believe we’re going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration,” said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. “Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?”
Duane “Dog the Bounty Hunter” Chapman just got outed to the National Enquirer for being a racist jackhole. A&E, the network that carries his reality show has pulled his show off the air indefinitely. And how did Dog get outed? Well, he was letting his son, Tucker, know that he didn’t like Tucker bringing his Black girlfriend over to their house. What Dog didn’t know is that Tucker, obviously sick and tired of his dad’s racism, was taping the conversation. It went something like this:
Dog: Look son, I don’t like you bringing your Black girlfriend over. It’s not that I’m racist or anything. I really don’t have anything against your girlfriend. I just don’t trust her. But that has nothing to with the fact that she’s Black because, as I’ve already told you, I’m not a racist. It’s just that . . . well . . . you know . . . we use the word “nigger” a lot around here and I’m worried that your “nigger” girlfriend might get drunk one day and decide to tell the National Enquirer that I use the word “nigger” a lot, which would give people the false impression that I’m a racist which, of course, I’m not. And if people start thinking I’m a racist, that would spell the end of my career, not to mention tarnish the sophisticated and polished image I’ve worked so hard to cultivate over the past 30 years.
The Superficial has an excerpt of the actual conversation. I only gave you a gist of it here. I don’t do Dog justice, though, so you should read the excerpt yourselves to get an authentic Dog experience.
But you know, I kinda feel where Dog is coming from. I know he’s not a racist. It’s just so much harder for Dog to stop using the word “nigger” than it is to ban his son’s girlfriend from their house. And it’s definitely a lot harder than convincing his son to break up with his girlfriend.
Hey Dog, I bet you’re pretty disappointed that your son Tucker turned out so rotten, eh? Here he is mixing with colored folks and doing God knows what with that Black girl when the lights go out. Oooh! That must have really been burning you up! So you did what any reasonable, rational, non-racist parent would do in your situation. You tried to give him some fatherly advice about the perils of dating Black girls. And how does the ungrateful wretch repay you? He tapes a private and personal conversation between a concerned, non-racist father and his son, and gives it to the National Enquirer! Why on earth would he not see your point and break up with his girlfriend immediately? What is the world coming to?
But cheer up, Dog. Now that A&E’s indefinitely suspended your show, I’m sure you’ve got a lot more time on your hands. And I’ve got just the thing for you. I’ve been toying with an idea for a great new reality show. It’s called “Dog the Imbecile Racist Who Doesn’t Know When to Keep His F*cking Mouth Shut.” You’d be perfect for the starring role. Better yet, somebody ought to give Tucker a show of his own in which he can talk about how much he hates his father’s f*cking guts for being such a racist pr*ck. Come to think of it, that’ll be much more entertaining than watching anything Dog the Racist is in.
Man! I bet Thanksgiving dinner over at Casa de Chapman is going to be very interesting this year.
James D. Watson, the eminent geneticist who ignited an uproar last week with remarks about the intelligence of people of African descent, retired yesterday as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, and from its board.
When is a Racial Slur not Offensive? Never.
Posted in Politics, Race Relations, Racism, Uncategorized, tagged Current Events, Prince Harry Paki Raghead, Race, Racial Slur, Racism, Social & Political Commentary, Thoughts on February 3, 2009 | 8 Comments »
Not long ago, Prince Harry, son of the late Princess Diana and third in line for the British throne, unleashed a storm of controversy after a three-year-old home video was released in which the prince used the terms paki and raghead. The video was shot while Prince Harry was still a cadet at Sandhurst, the Royal Military Academy.
In the first scene the prince pans his camera over fellow soldiers waiting in an airport departure lounge, pausing on fellow cadet Ahmed Raza Khan and referring to him as “our little paki friend.” In another scene, he tells another soldier that he “look[ed] like a raghead.” Prince Harry rightfully caught flak and did the right thing by promptly apologizing, but he’s had more than his fair share of apologists who want us to believe that calling someone a paki or raghead is not really that offensive. But they’re wrong: directing a racial slur at someone is always offensive.
Rod Richards, a former Royal Marine and Foreign Office minister in the Conservative government of John Major had this to say in defense of Prince Harry’s use of the slurs:
And this was the response of Michael Evans, Defense Editor of the Times Online:
Richards and Evans, and the many others who defended the prince, are missing the point. Paki and raghead are not mere pet names that can be tossed around willy-nilly. They are racial slurs and that makes them offensive. For starters, paki and raghead are used solely in reference to South Asians and Arabs/Muslims respectively, and never as terms of endearment or respect. Furthermore, calling people names based on their skin color, ethnicity, language, or region of origin is plain wrong. Even kindergarteners know that. After all, nobody chooses their skin color or where they were born, and nobody should be called names because of things over which they have no control.
But the bigger issue here is that unlike nicknames, which may stem from an individual’s height, weight, or hair color, racial slurs are used against entire populations. And, unlike nicknames, racial slurs are created and used in specific historical and political contexts. In other words, they are created in a context of inequality in which one group (let’s call them the namecallers) creates and uses a slur while simultaneously doing violence to, marginalizing, exploiting, or otherwise denigrating another group (let’s call them the namecallees). For this reason, it is impossible to separate a racial slur from the context in which it was created.
Take, for example, two common American slurs—nigger and gook. These words were created, and came into popular use, at a time when the namecallers were doing some kind of violence to the namecallees. Nigger came into use at a time when Africans were being captured and sold into plantation slavery in the New World, and continues to be used as a derogatory term to this day. Gook came into being as long ago as 1899 and has been used sequentially against Filipinos, Japanese people, Koreans, and Vietnamese people. Is it any coincidence that these uses followed the sequence of America’s wars in Asia?
Similarly, paki came about at a time when newly arriving South Asians were experiencing hostility, to say nothing of violence, at the hands of native-born Brits. Is it any wonder, then, that attacks against South Asian immigrants came to be known as paki bashing? Michael Evans, the Times editor, lent (perhaps inadvertently) support to this point when he reminded his readers that “the term ‘raghead’ is used not infrequently in the Army when soldiers are referring to the ‘opposition’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Put another way, this means that British and American soldiers are doing violence to Arabs and Muslims, all the while referring to them as ragheads.
Wars might end and time—to say nothing of equal rights legislation—might pass, but racial slurs do not cease to be offensive, nor do they lose their power to denigrate. Because they are conceived and used in violence, they can never go back to being mere words. To call someone a nigger, a paki, a gook, or a raghead is not just to remind them of the violence done to people who shared their skin color, religion, or birthplace. It is also to point out that they are different, that they do not belong, and that they will always be outsiders in the dominant culture. After all, can nigger be separated from the brutality of the Middle Passage, plantation slavery, and Jim-Crow segregation? Can anyone honestly claim to have successfully divorced paki from paki bashing? When will gook lose its connotation of napalm and free-fire zones? And, long after the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan come to an end, what meaning will raghead retain? Will it really be possible to draw a neat, sharp line between the word and the violence done by British and American soldiers to the people they called “ragheads“?
To be clear, this is not to argue that anyone who uses a racial slur is a racist. The question, ultimately, is not whether it is possible for someone to use these words and simultaneously not be a racist, but whether it is decent to do so in the first place! After all, racial slurs on their own do not constitute racism but their use is an essential component of it. Using racial slurs is an exercise of power by the namecaller, used to establish his dominance over the namecallee and everyone else who shares his skin color, religion, language, or birthplace. In addition to being reminders of past violence, racial slurs let the namecallee know that he does not belong, that he is inferior to the namecaller. The intended use of a racial slur is immaterial: the context in which it was created—in other words, how it acquired meaning and thus the power to offend and demean—is what really matters.
So while Prince Harry may not be a racist (although showing up to a party wearing a swastika armband does little to rule out the possibility), his casual use of racial slurs proves that a top-notch education does not necessarily endow its recipient with common sensitivity, let alone common sense. As for Ahmed Khan, Prince Harry’s “little paki friend” (now a captain in the Pakistani army), there is no way to know how he feels about having been called a little paki: the army has barred him from discussing the matter.
At the end of the day, Prince Harry’s affinity for swastikas and racially insensitive language says a lot about his level of cultural sensitivity, but at least he has enough sense to apologize when he has caused offense. That’s much more than can be said of the people who rallied to his defense and tried to argue that paki and raghead aren’t so offensive after all.
Read Full Post »