Golliwogs, Sooty and Pakis…
by Guest Contributor Lola Adesioye, originally published at Lola Adesioye
It has been quite fascinating watching the recent controversy surrounding the use of some racist terminology by members of Britain’s supposedly upper classes, who are still clearly dealing with a bad case of Post-Colonial Traumatic Stress.
First of all we had Prince Harry referring to a colleague as a ‘Paki’ – a word which will all know to be a derogatory one.
Then we found out that Prince Charles calls a dark skinned friend of his ‘Sooty’ as a term of endearment.
And then last week Carol Thatcher, daughter of Margaret Thatcher, was sacked from the BBC for referring to a French tennis player several times as a ‘golliwog frog’, a ‘half-golliwog’ and other ridiculous racist names.
Aside from the fact that these people are using language that I haven’t heard for around 20 years (I mean, the least they could do is keep up with the latest racist terminology!) what surprises me most is that people are actually defending their right to use racist language.
We’ve heard that neither Harry’s colleague or Charles’ friend object to being called Paki or Sooty…Therefore, that apparently makes it ok.
Writing in The Guardian newspaper Catherine Bennett protests that Thatcher is being pilloried for a ‘thought crime’ and that it doesn’t matter that she said the words out loud anyway because they were said in private (which isn’t actually true – she made the comment in the workplace). According to Bennett, condemning Thatcher’s repulsive words curtails her freedom of speech and thought.
While America celebrates electing the first African-American president, people in England are coming up with reasons that make it acceptable to racially insult people at will.
And we wonder why we won’t see a black Prime Minister anytime soon. *sigh*
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
mdc wrote:
The worst thing about the unacceptable use of certain words or language is that people do not say anything when they hear it. Every tut tuts and agrees that it is unacceptable but no-one has the guts to confront individuals. In this day and age, everyone should be aware that certain worlds should be removed from their every day lexicon but the royal family and anyone of a certain age are very behind the times.
Who knows when they will catch up and realize that we are now in the 21st century.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 9:30 am ¶
cocolamala wrote:
So, this sophisticated businessman, a property developer, a member of the board of the Polo Club where he and Prince Charles belong, he has an “affectionate” nickname, but do you think he “affectionately” calles Prince Charles anything but Your Honor?
I doubt he calls him Horseface or Dumbo to his face. He’d probably lose his seat on the board pretty quickly if this “affection” went both ways.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 9:30 am ¶
cocolamala wrote:
I got nothing for Carol Thatcher, other than “her mother ain’t raise her right.”
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 9:36 am ¶
Sobia wrote:
I had heard a while back form a friend visiting the UK that racially derogatory terms where much more acceptably used, among Whites there. The difference may be that they are just not as PC as we are (?).
“While America celebrates electing the first African-American president, people in England are coming up with reasons that make it acceptable to racially insult people at will.
And we wonder why we won’t see a black Prime Minister anytime soon. *sigh*”
Obama did not win because racial slurs are not used in the US. He won despite it. Although we may be more PC in North America, the thoughts that are behind those words are still here. And that’s what really counts.
I don’t think comparing countries is necessarily productive or accurate. Each country has its issues that affect its citizens in serious ways.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 10:19 am ¶
Ash wrote:
I’m currently living in France as an English assistant. There’s another assistant from England here, and I’m shocked by the frequency with which she refers to French citizens as “frogs” or “gollies.” And when I ask her, if she’s so cool with using demeaning words about the people, why did she choose this country, she tells me to lighten up. After this post, maybe I understand a little better why she thinks it’s no big deal.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 10:34 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
British tend to pride themselves on irreverent humor.
Great. But irreverent humor has no necessary correlation with racism. You can be humorous and not racist, or you can be humorous and racist. Using humor as an excuse for racism is willfully stupid.
“You want me to stop being racist… that means you want me to stop being FUNNY!” No, it means they want you to stop being racist.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 11:25 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Sobia
The difference may be that they are just not as PC as we are (?).
What exactly does this mean? Why are they “just” not as PC? What is Political Correctness really?
@ atlasien
Here here.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 11:40 am ¶
Ayo wrote:
@atlasien
Thatcher calling the black tennis player “golliwog” and the prince harry stuff ultimately has nothing to do with irreverent humour. If these people can be bothered they may use that as an excuse, but usually they’ll just echo the “political correctness gone mad” thing back at you. The situation we brits have over here is pretty dark. There’s no discourse on the subject of race because we simply don’t care.
I used to think a lot about it and i realised following the BBC “white season” (Honestly can the americans in here find me an equivalent of that) idiocy that unfortunately a lot of whites lack the capacity to empathise and then ultimately understand that we have a really big race problem over here.
Just taking a peek at the comments for any Yasmin Alibi posts on the independent website, or look at the comment section for the supposedly liberal guardian website for any article pertaining to race and it will give you a clearer picture of how many British whites feel about minorities and political correctness.
To be blunt Thatcher and Harry’s attitude reflects the old British attiude which says unabashedly “we’re the owners of this house we can say and do as we bloody well please. who are you to tell us what to do. We had an empire y’know.”
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 11:52 am ¶
Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:
As an Indian who was born in England but raised in UK/USA, a lot of South Asians in America have NO idea that “paki” is a very racist, hateful term that came from the UK, while British Asians are absolutely offended by the term.
I’ve had to explain to many Desi Americans why so many people in the UK were offended by Prince Harry using “paki” in that infamous video.
To be honest, I’ve never even heard of the racist term “sooty” and had no idea it was used for people’s dark skin.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
“You want me to stop being racist… that means you want me to stop being FUNNY!” No, it means they want you to stop being racist.
YES.
I read somewhere on a blog a suggestion that we stop using the term political correctness and replace it with ‘having class,’ (that is, behaving in a decent and grown-up manner, not belonging to a specific social sect). These assholes have no class.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 12:05 pm ¶
rob wrote:
Great, a British one!
1. Prince Harry. I dont think you will find much evidence as to Hazzas alleged racism. The name he usedfor his friend may have been offensive when taken out of context but in the military close knit environment it seems harmless enough. His friend didnt care and im pretty sure harry gets called carrot top or ginge or somesuch alot.
Harry went to a very multi ethnic school and lots of his friends would have come from all over the world. However they were without exception incredibly wealthy so if he suffers from any ism, i think it most likely to be class based. He may have black or asian friends but does he have working class ones?
Thebritish army has a history of strange nicknames. Black soldiers are often called midnight or chalky, ginger soldiers and big eared soldiers also get nicknames, personal ones. so do short and tall ones. As long as the person who gets the name doesnt mind and their is no discriminatory behaviour, why does it matter so much?
Paki, generally is an offensive and racist term if applied to an individual but i have heard people of all races say they are just going to the paki shop ( small corner shop) as in this context it refers only to a type of shop. But to call a stranger paki is fighting talk.
Interstingly pakistanis have started to reclaim the word a little. At pakistan cricket matches in the uk and abroad pakistan fans sometime hold banners up saying paki power
Chazza calling his friend sooty seems a bit silly but i dont think its outsiders place to comment on individual relationships. If his friend is not offended and charles does not call people who dont want to be called sooty by that name, then is it really anybodies business?
Sooty is a reference to the colour of soot and a popular childrens tv character. ( a bear glove puppet) many cats and dogs are called sooty. It is not a reference to anything other than colour and i dont think people have in mind black people when they give their pets these names.
Carole thatcher is a strange one. A few years ago she shot to fame on a reality tv show and she won because she seemed such a nice and warm person. not what you would expect from maggies kid! Rumour has it that knives have been out for her for some time at the bbc and her sacking and the furore around her words has been whipped up by people with ulterior motives. Dont know if its true, just giving you guys a bit of background. To say a tennis player looks like a golly ( not is one) was stupid of her and she should have seen the results but to totally write her off as an asshole or whatever because of one pretty harmless remark is too much.
Woo. Sorry if its all a bit rambling but i just got in from work, and ive got to go to the pub now but i always read racialicious and a uk based topic is too interesting to ignore, but my mates are waiting so no time for spelling grammar and well writtewn arguments!
Hope everyone has a good friday night!
rob
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 12:52 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
I’m just thinking, who would speak up if it’s the effing PRINCE saying racial crap. Of course you’re going to say you aren’t offended, he’s a PRINCE.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 12:58 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
Rob’s comment is pretty entertaining.
“Hi everyone, I’m a long-time reader but a first-time racism-apologizer!”
Thanks for wishing us a good Friday night though
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 1:08 pm ¶
Ric Reyes wrote:
“While America celebrates electing the first African-American president, people in England are coming up with reasons that make it acceptable to racially insult people at will.
And we wonder why we won’t see a black Prime Minister anytime soon. *sigh*”
This part was kind of weird, like, America is always at the top on the war against racism, right?
And I’m not english, I’m mexican
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 1:38 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
Blargh at “it’s ok to use Paki/Sooty” because such and such POC said so…In the first place, isn’t it kinda racist to make one person the representative for their whole race? And also, who’s gonna say to a member of the ROYAL FAMILY “please don’t use that epithet with me”. Well, some people will, but generally I don’t think anyone’s gonna call them out. I mean, according to English mythology those peeps were ordained by God.
@Sobia
Haha, I think you just got a sense of the irritation I experience when, as a Canadian living in the US, Americans tell me how much they love Canada and how it is so much more progressive than the US…
While there are many things about Canada that I can be proud of, the attitude that US = backwards and Canada = socialist wonderland totally obscures many social issues in Canada. Like the homelessness epidemic, or the high rates of child and urban poverty, or the political situation for Aboriginal people, or the lack of real socio-economic equity…
It seems like as soon as a country does just one thing right, in the view of other countries all their other problems fall away. So yes the US has a president of colour, which is thrilling and meaningful for people all over the world…but as you note US racism is not exactly over.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 1:39 pm ¶
Nate wrote:
I think what this post is missing is that the key excuses (in the formal of external drivers)people used to justify their prejudice are different (or perhaps, differently skewed) from the US over here.
For the ‘mainstream opinion’ there is less acceptance of mass immgitration, and its tied into the old school labour movement biais heavily over here – the old perception (and partly why the fascist/NF movement have been largely working classed based) that mass immgiration was put in place by the state/bosses to drive down labour costs.
Not that racism confined to people who get their hands dirty for a living (which is gennerally t-he liberal perception here)would have people. But at the middle/upper class level, its been done more under the veneer of ‘polite hypocrisy’, blackballing, ’seeking ‘good’ schools, ‘exceptionalism’ for successful peope of colour, or relegating peple of colour to being the ‘butt’ of a social group.
Harry and Charles are definitely predicated by this.
I’ve been incredibly broad-brushed here put hopefully the gist has come though.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 2:11 pm ¶
Nate wrote:
Apols for the crap grammar. I menat to say (’which is the general liberal percpetion of where prejudice exists in the uk’). But at the middle/upper…
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 2:13 pm ¶
luckyfatima wrote:
Just because Pakistanis do sometimes use the term Paki in a different way as short hand (not a “reclamation,” but a separate usage) does not make it okay for anyone to use the term in the UK cultural context where it is a racist slur.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶
Luis wrote:
“For the ‘mainstream opinion’ there is less acceptance of mass immgitration, and its tied into the old school labour movement biais heavily over here – the old perception… that mass immgiration was put in place by the state/bosses to drive down labour costs.”
That’s the perception of immigration in every industrialized nation. In fact, blaming immigrants for your poor labor laws is a classic American pastime. Google the AFL and Samuel Gompers.
****************************
The problem here is quite obvious. If the Princes and Carol went around calling their favorite black Brits “nigger” or “my nigger,” even in the sweetest, most endearing way, there would be a problem. The trick about maintaining both negative and condescending epithets is to keep running from old ones and running to new ones.
“Golliwog” is a classic example of that. I keep hearing it more and more from across the pond. Because it references an American children’s book character (which in turn was based on blackface minstrelsy), people can take a criticism of its racism and portray it as an attack on cultural patrimony. You can’t attack the word without attacking the heyday of Anglo-American culture and power. That quickly produces resentment from the English-speaking white public and shuts down the discussion of what the phrase is actually being used for–to describe black people in a condescending manner.
Don’t let the conversation get side-tracked. Don’t debate whether or not the Princes or Carol are racist people. That’s not important. Interrogate their actions and take control of the direction of the conversation to keep from getting bogged down into these little quagmires established to allow the perpetrator to escape from the debate. This applies to personal conversations, printed opinion pieces, and televised discussions.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 3:03 pm ¶
Ike wrote:
I don’t know about you guys, but where I live Pakistani people (my friends) used “Paki” as quick/slang way of saying Pakistani. That’s how I picked it up. I never heard about it being “offensive” until a situation was mentioned on the news. Anybody know why “paki” is offensive?
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 3:54 pm ¶
Jessica wrote:
Some ppl call it racism, but why don’t we address it for what it is, a PART of Fascism. I feel fascist movements are whats encouraging ppl to question the need for decency towards certain groups of ppl.
Its not just ppl of color who are being singles out, but also women ( as more and more politicians fell an urgent NEED to tell them what to do- through motherhood, sex and ideals for women).
I’m just trying to look at the big picture, when economics are good,ppl of color tend to make strides and break more barriers. Times are bad and we are the first to loose ground.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 4:24 pm ¶
Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:
Ike, it depends where you live. It’s not an offensive term in the USA or Canada, but it’s seen as a racist word in the UK.
besides, in Canada and USA, “paki” is a short term Pakistanis use around each other. It’s just a short abbrevation term and not considered racist.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 4:36 pm ¶
caroaber wrote:
Ms. Thatcher’s words are hardly surprising. Her twin brother, Mark, a former Spouth Africa resident, was tried and convicted for his role in a coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea. Margaret Thatcher’s children are a disgrace, and the House of Windsor is looking pretty shabby, too.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 5:13 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
@rob and @Ike (sort of)
I’m not at all knowledgeable about British slang or slurs, but I would imagine (and please someone correct me if I’m off base) that it would be a matter of historical context. For instance, “Jap” would seem a perfectly sensible shortening of “Japanese” if it weren’t for the fact that it was historically adopted as a slur by a lot of racist people doing some pretty awful things. That history overshadows the abbreviation. And because it’s context based, if you aren’t part of a community that’s familiar with that offensive history, the word might not seem like a slur. That’s my guess, at any rate.
Which brings me to the @rob part – I’d read that part of the defense of Prince Harry by his press people was that he was often called ‘ginger’, and that that was somehow comparable, which just baffled me. Is calling a redheaded person ‘ginger’ really that offensive in Britain? From my perspective, calling a redhead ‘carrottop’ or whatever seems like mild teasing, while calling someone a racial slur is in an entirely different league of offensiveness. Is there some sort of historical/persecutory context that puts the terms in the same ballpark? In general I think comparing insults is counter-productive, but the differences in degree in this case seemed just so ludicrous to me I couldn’t help but wonder. Is this one of those situations where I just don’t get it because I’m not coming from a British perspective? Is being a redhead stigmatized in the UK in a way that it just isn’t in the US?
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 5:27 pm ¶
AintIAWoman wrote:
This is all pretty appalling.
For what it’s worth, my bf’s father is Pakistani. He moved to the UK and then the US when he was in his 20s..in the 70s. and he was severely traumatized by his time in the UK, not nearly as much in the US. He frequently talks about signs on UK stores like “No Pakis” or “No Dogs or Orientals.” He cites this as mostly the reason he never taught my bf Urdu when he was a child–because he was traumatized into trying to assimilate and forget it.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 5:30 pm ¶
Meg wrote:
If you’re interested in more info you could head to these couple of links from the Language Log blog. It is a linguistics blog so a bit of a different tone to racialicious:
“Pakigate, sootygate and gollygate”
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1110
“Half golliwogs and other UK linguistic news”
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1113
And this post is more technical but still on topic:
“racial epithets, pragmatics and semantics”
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1120
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 7:17 pm ¶
foshothoyo wrote:
i just wish they could say it to the wrong person, just once.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 7:44 pm ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:
To anonymous who asked: “Is calling a redheaded person ‘ginger’ really that offensive in Britain?”
For some strange and historic reason lost in the mists of time, being red-headed is the source of quite remarkable abuse. Although strangely enough, this distrust and dislike for red-heads thankfully has not travelled to Britain’s former big English-speaking colonies e.g. S.Africa, Australia, America etc.
In the UK, I do know that it is one of the few largely unchangeable physical features – i.e. like height, eye colour, skin colour – that is absolutely perfectly acceptable to torment people about and considered a great source of amusement to all. Interesting piece here:
http://www.dollymix.tv/2007/04/big_question_why_is_it_ok_to_h_1.html
Of course this isn’t the same thing as racism, but it is rampant bigotry none the less and people can be massively damaged by the constant little barbs, put-downs and abuse.
Personally speaking I love red-heads, my three major relationships have all been red-heads of various shades
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 8:48 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
I read somewhere on a blog a suggestion that we stop using the term political correctness and replace it with ‘having class,’ (that is, behaving in a decent and grown-up manner, not belonging to a specific social sect). These assholes have no class.
I completely agree. To me, referring to someone in any way other than their name is BS.
It’s interesting how some things aren’t offensive here that are offensive in other places; I didn’t know about the Paki thing until a few years ago. I originally thought it was short for Pakistan. As for Ginger it depends; there’s some people that don’t care but others that will knock you out over it. Personally, I just try not to use terms like this, period. What’s wrong with simply referring to people by name, or by where they are from?
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 9:40 pm ¶
J.Von wrote:
@ anonymous
I think that in the UK ‘ginger’ is used in a more derogative fashion than ‘redhead’ would be in the US or Canada. The phrase ‘ginger minger’ springs to mind. That said, ‘paki’ is a much, much more offensive term and I’m kind of appalled that Rob would suggest that people talking of going to the ‘paki shop’ is okay. It’s interesting that in North America it is seen only as an abbreviation, I think that part of the reason it is seens as racist here is because it is not used by people from Pakistan to describe themselves but instead by white/British people to describe a generic brown ‘other’ regardless of whether the person is Pakistani, or Indian or something else.
Also, I’m studying in a very white town in the north of England and the local tat shops still sell golliwog dolls, so there is still a culture in some places of seeing it as harmless nostalgia.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 11:08 pm ¶
Christie wrote:
@Ayo: To be blunt Thatcher and Harry’s attitude reflects the old British attiude which says unabashedly “we’re the owners of this house we can say and do as we bloody well please. who are you to tell us what to do. We had an empire y’know.”
@Thea Lim: And also, who’s gonna say to a member of the ROYAL FAMILY “please don’t use that epithet with me”.
—
Both these comments are spot on, I think, and this is what the hordes of apologists don’t see/ don’t want to see (like Rob). It shows the very high level of entitlement that still exists amongst the white people of England.
–
@Rob: If his friend is not offended and charles does not call people who dont want to be called sooty by that name, then is it really anybodies business?
–
Yes, I think it is everybody’s business when the 2nd in line to the British throne is behaving in this way, and his friend (who wants to *stay* his friend for obvious reasons) goes along with it, too. It is a disgrace.
I am white and from the U.S., but lived in the U.K. for 5 years, and my husband is Indian but born and raised in England. For our family, hearing this kind of news about the royal family is just another nail in the coffin of our opinion about them. I am teaching my children the true nature of these people who happened to get so much wealth and privilege by an accident of birth. If they could just behave semi-decently it wouldn’t be so bad. You would think they were trying to get fired.
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 11:34 pm ¶
Christie wrote:
Correction: Sorry, Charles is not really “2nd in line to the British throne”, but 1st in line… a more clear way to say it would be “next in line”, I guess?
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 11:38 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
@A.D. Nix:
What exactly does this mean? Why are they “just” not as PC? What is Political Correctness really?
I had the question mark in brackets to indicate that I wasn’t really making a statement but rather just speculating. And what I was speculating was that perhaps, because of our strong focus on political correctness in North America we have learned to be more sensitive to words, but not really tackle the real issues of racism, whereas the same sensitivity may not be present in the UK (or other places for that matter) yet the same ignorance of real issues of racism is present. However, to me, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how sensitive we are to certain words if our ways of thinking about race and ethnicity are not changing for the better and becoming more nuanced.
@Thea:
“Haha, I think you just got a sense of the irritation I experience when, as a Canadian living in the US, Americans tell me how much they love Canada and how it is so much more progressive than the US…”
Totally! I’m a Canadian still living in Canada and I get irritated. Although I think that things are a tinge better here (sorry for any irritation) we still have a very long way to go yet.
@UDMPG:
“Ike, it depends where you live. It’s not an offensive term in the USA or Canada, but it’s seen as a racist word in the UK.
besides, in Canada and USA, “paki” is a short term Pakistanis use around each other. It’s just a short abbrevation term and not considered racist.”
I’ve lived in Canada my whole life and this is the first time I’ve heard of the term Paki not being offensive and racist here. I can assure you UDMPG it is racist in Canada to call someone a Paki. It may have originated with the British but its made its racist way across the pond. Just because many South Asians, or Pakistanis, have either reclaimed it or use it in a different way altogether does not mean it has lost its initial racist connotations and that non-Pakistanis can use it.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 12:12 am ¶
rob wrote:
Back from the pub.
1. atalasien. I am not a racism apologizer. i am questioning wheteher the people in question are really racist in the sense that they discriminate and look down on non whites or whether they are guilty of being simply clumsy in their manners. As i said before i really dont think these royals are racist. class (a much more british obsession) plays a far bigger role than race.
To prince harry a rich, well connected pakistani or nigerian is a far more appealing associate than a poor white american or brit.
For those wondering how the use of paki as an insult came about (ike) it is simply a shortening of pakistani but it was said with such hate and venom that spitting out the word paki became a stock british racial insult.
Anonymous. Im not saying being ginger is looked down upon especially in the uk but ginger people do suffer discrimination and abuse all their lives simply because of their hair and skin colour. although their are no
historical parallels between blacks and gingers being a ginger kid im sure is made tougher by the insults you are guaranteed to get. It is a definite fact that ginger men find it much harder to attract women. It seems similar to the problems faced by asian men. Well a little. Im not ginger but i have a few friends who are and they definitely feel that sometimes the teasing could be very hurtful, especially when they were young. Being a prince would obviously help to soften the blows a little.
Aintiawoman. I gots to call bullshit as you americans say. Their are anecdotal stories of signs in the uk (in the sixties, before it was illegal) saying ‘no blacks, no dogs, no irish’ but i have NEVER heard of signs in lodgings that said no orientals. Oriental in the uk refers to persons from the far east and their were very very few such people resident in the uk so long ago. Im not denying the racism that was there just the example you give.
As some posters mentioned above in the us and canada the word paki is just a shortening with no unpleasant undertones. I think this is to be applauded and you over the pond shouldnt stop using the word in case someone in the uk is offended. There is nothing wrong with being a ‘paki’ it is only because the word was said with bad intentions it became taboo. No one minds being called a yank, brit or aussie. Hopefully in the future at some point paki in the uk will only be a convenient way to save to syllables.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 12:32 am ¶
Elanor Brachwasser wrote:
Christie said “It shows the very high level of entitlement that still exists amongst the white people of England. ”
I would add to that the amount of classism that’s probably prevalent among the British aristocracy. Though I can’t speak from personal experience when it comes to Britain, I’m familiar with Swedish aristocracy and other members of the Swedish elite, and often the sense of unbelievable entitlement just blows me away. It’s probably even worse among people who aren’t directly in the royal family, because they aren’t taught to be as aware of their responsibility to their family/country.
Words that I have heard among young people in Sweden that appalled me tend to be a lot more racist than classist (there are definite prejudices towards “Arabs and Russians,” and people from the middle east are often referred to as “sand n****rs” – I heard this from the son of an ambassador, no less!) but I think class has a lot to do with the sense of entitlement. Also, just straight up ignorance, I suppose.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 3:24 am ¶
Ayo wrote:
@rob
atalasien. I am not a racism apologizer. i am questioning wheteher the people in question are really racist in the sense that they discriminate and look down on non whites or whether they are guilty of being simply clumsy in their manners.
Rob please just zoom out here and take a look at what’s been confirmed to have happened. Paki and golliwog in the UK are loaded terms which are inherently pernicious and degraded when spoken in the way they’ve been spoken by these two.
Can’t you see that “a term of endearment” translates to “my pet name for that coloured fellow”
think what on earth could his “paki” friend say back to him that is an equivalent of the term “paki” a needless term when a name will do fine. “Whitey” ? if he did call him that you know Harry would’ve brought that up in his defence.
Anyone over the age of 16 should have had it enmeshed in their heads (especially during these so called “Politically correct times) that you DO NOT casually speak in the way Harry and Thatcher did.
The really depressing thing i’ve noticed in the UK is this conservative/nationalist -knee-jerk reactions which i believe is just a subtler version of racist arrogance, where anything that can be perceived as racist is automatically justified and the accusers told to shut up and stop whining.
Thatcher called a black person Golliwog for gods sakes. I can’t believe there’s even a debate here
lol even if she sees defending herself saying “oh its just a joke…poppycock. golliwogs are lovely”
Can’t you see that she’s dehumanizing him?
This is what i meant in my post about a lack of empathy from whites. You should no bang straight away whats monstrously wrong about the thatcher incident. But you take a look at comments on the independent, daily mail, or Guardian websites relating to the article and you just despair.
Over here i found some (not all) of my closest white friends just cannot understand why language they hear and actions they see are racist.
I spent 07’s new years in edinburgh with some friends from chester and some of their friends from cornwall.
sitting at a pub i’ll always remember this incident where a group of East Asian students came into the pub, and one of the white guys with us gruffly said, “get out!!”…”get the hell out!”
and started laughing.
It apparently was implicit that he was being jokingly racist- but think about it, how would an east asian kid sitting with us been able to participate in that — joke?
should he have laughed, smiled it off like the miley cyrus kid?
And how would the east asian who’d walked in know he was joking when he didnt even explain the “joke” to them? he didn’t even speak to them.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 6:14 am ¶
Jess McCabe wrote:
I think it’s letting Prince Harry and Carol Thatcher (and their defenders) off the hook to say that these terms are more accepted in the UK.
I struggle to believe anyone in the UK would honestly be under any confusion that these could be acceptable words to use or sentiments to express.
To me it speaks to a normally hidden level of open, unreconstructed racism in the upper classes. I mean, if you think about who these people are, the privileges they’ve had going through life, and lack of people willing to challenge them, I think it becomes clearer why they thought/think it’s acceptable behaviour… I mean, this is the royal family we’re talking about, an institution that until the middle of the last century headed up an empire responsible for a big portions of the problems we have today. And the daughter of hard right former PM Margaret Thatcher.
I don’t mean to dismiss the idea that there’s a lot of racism in UK society, there certainly is. But actually I think the reactions defending these twits in the media is more indicative than what they actually said. As in, it’s like it’s bubbling under the surface and Carol Thatcher & the idiot princes gave them the excuse/opportunity to say what they thought themselves.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 6:34 am ¶
TeakLipstickFiend wrote:
What Carol Thatcher’s defenders don’t get (or, rather, ONE of the things they don’t get) is that there is no loss of freedom of speech. She can say whatever idiotic things come into her head – but she must also be ready to take the consequences.
On the red-head issue: making fun of red-heads seems to be a staple of British comedy and if you have any sort of empathy you can see that it is offensive.
Have to agree with all those who note that Harry’s and Charles’ friends probably don’t dare to speak up. And I would think this is the case in any incident where POC seemingly have no problem with a racist term.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 7:41 am ¶
Davina wrote:
Rob:
‘As some posters mentioned above in the us and canada the word paki is just a shortening with no unpleasant undertones. I think this is to be applauded and you over the pond shouldnt stop using the word in case someone in the uk is offended. There is nothing wrong with being a ‘paki’ it is only because the word was said with bad intentions it became taboo. No one minds being called a yank, brit or aussie. Hopefully in the future at some point paki in the uk will only be a convenient way to save to syllables.’
If either a stranger or a friend called me a paki, even in a non-malicious way, I would be offended. My sister can remember it being yelled at her in the 70s and I can remember it being yelled at me in the 90s. And we’re not even from Pakistan – my parents were born in Bangladesh but their children were born in the UK. Obviously, though, Pakistan is the same as Bangladesh! And India. Obviously. Duh.
*sighs*
The issue here has as much to do with class as race, as well as the current UK fashion of saying ‘it’s PC gone mad!’ when actually, no, it’s pointing out racism.
When I went to Cornwall I was shocked and offended to find golliwogs being sold in a shop, and when I went to Borders recently, shopping for my niece’s birthday, I discovered ‘Tintin in the Congo’ which had some disgusting racist content. You could argue that they are products of their time just as the Royals and upper-class people are products of their environment – but times have changed and it is NOT OK that these racist products are still being sold today and it is NOT OK to use racist language.
Saying that, my boyf is Jewish and as I as raised Catholic we do have a lot of private jokes which if said in a different context would be hideously offensive. However, we are not public figures of national/international importance. If we were, we probably wouldn’t make those kind of jokes. We’ve both had our fair share of racist abuse, so we know the difference when something is said with hate and something is said in jest (not as a term of endearment…that’s just weird).
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 7:49 am ¶
Davina wrote:
Some more information re: Cornwall in particular – every year they have a ‘Darkie Day’ when they dress in blackface and sing songs about niggers. Yes, I kid you not.
Also, the UK unfortunately does mock ginger people, and I would say in some cases it does border on a type of racism. I’m thinking of Chris Moyles here (a Radio One BBC DJ) who had quite a long campaign against Nicola in Girls Aloud, saying that he fancied all of them apart from ‘the ginger one’. Needless to say, Moyles is also a fat white man who really should not be judging the attractiveness of young women, especially not on national radio.
It’s definitely a pale skin, red hair thing – I dyed my hair red for years and never got any stick for it.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 7:57 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
“atalasien. I am not a racism apologizer. i am questioning wheteher the people in question are really racist in the sense that they discriminate and look down on non whites or whether they are guilty of being simply clumsy in their manners. As i said before i really dont think these royals are racist. class (a much more british obsession) plays a far bigger role than race.”
But think about it… is there any incident on this site that you’ve commented on where you haven’t defended the party facing accusations of racist behavior? What behavior, short of racially-motivated violence would you consider racist? What kind of person, short of a neo-nazi/American klansman would you consider racist? You say discrimination’s bad… that’s a start, but what would you consider an example of real — de facto, not de jure — discrimination by an individual or group? Do you find the BNP or the types of racial hate speech that are deliniated and prohibited by British law racist? Because in Ms. Thatcher’s comments, you’ve found yourself in the peculiar position of defending slurs loudly said in the company of hundreds, and you’ve got me — and presumably atlasien wondering — “What does it take, really”?
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 12:29 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Sobia
Yes, I got that it was speculation.
It’s the :”just” that I find problematic. Why do you think “Political Correctness” (whatever it’s supposed to mean) would be more prevalent in the United States? How do you think that happened? People talk about Political Correctness like it’s begins and ends with language and just appeared out of thin air and became the (supposed) status quo with no work, no progress behind it.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶
Roseanna wrote:
I’ve lived in Britain my whole life. In some ways I’d say racism is dealt with similarly here to my impression of how it is in America. Most people take more offense at being called racist than they do to being called sexist or classist, or any other “ist”, really. A lot of people try to maintain they are “colourblind” and ask those same two infuriating questions that seem to dominate the American discourse on racism: “Why do we still have to TALK about race? Aren’t we PAST all that?” And of course, the answer is, “No, we are not. That is why we have to talk about it”.
I suppose the major difference, as far as I can tell, is that a lot of people here think racism is just kind of “cute” and harmless. British history is horribly, shamefully racist – but not a lot of people here really know about it. Of course, people know we had an empire and have a sense that some bad shit went down – but if you ask the average Brit what some of that shit was, I doubt you will get a satisfying answer. Our education system simply does not impress upon our children what a bloody, racist history we have. I learnt about slavery at school, but more in the sense of: “Britain was involved in the slave trade early on, but then we saw the light and got rid of it, in 1807, WAAAY before those immoral Americans.” End of story. I never learnt about British imperialism, at all, in any context, before I went to university and specifically opted to.
So I don’t think white Britain is all THAT aware of its racial baggage. My impression is that many Americans are, because it is taught in school (maybe not the way we would like it to be, but at least it’s THERE), because of the enormity and temporal proximity of the civil rights movement, and because where we are addicted to class, America is addicted to race. Race is an important force here, of course, just as class (largely reformulated as populism vs. elitism) is an important force in America; it’s a difference of emphasis and consciousness. I’m NOT saying we don’t have racism, or that British PoCs don’t face many of the same kinds of racism as Americans. I suppose what I’m saying is that we are just more indulgent of racism, particularly if it coming from certain parts of the population.
A lot of racism, particularly that stemming from the more privileged sectors of society, is seen as a harmless, if a bit “silly” – a relic of the British imperial identity which has quite an odd place in modern British culture. The idea of the British upper-class twit still holds a major appeal, as a vulnerable, child-like relic from another time – and racism kind of comes with that. Thus we are willing to indulge ignorance about race and what constitutes racism, particularly from the monarchy, because there is an enduring impression that they DON’T really mean it. They’re NOT in the twenty-first century, and they’re not even SUPPOSED to be.
This is a really simplified, impressionistic explanation of what I think is going on here, but I hope it makes at least some sense!
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 2:23 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
I am also tired of the term “politically correct” being used in a scathing way. I’ve actually heard a lot of vaguely racist speech from very educated, “enlightened” people (I’m a graduate student in US Literature). One of my out-of-town friends and her roommates threw a “Friday Party” where they all wore do-rags, moved the upholstered furniture onto the porch, and drank malt liquor from 40s. Another acquaintance invited people to a pumpkin carving party in an email using his version of black street dialect, with a lot of references to knives, hos, cutting, and the like. I’ve felt uncomfortable in situations like this, especially with what I know about minstrelsy, but I haven’t known how to (or even if I should) frame an objection.
I grew up in a small town in rural North Carolina where there was no self-conscious irony in racist behavior; it was intentional, and it was ugly. The people I now see engaging in these racist appropriations and misinterpretations are usually from much more urban, affluent backgrounds. I found myself thinking “X can’t possibly be racist because he is an environmental lawyer!” I felt that maybe my discomfort signaled a lack of cultural sophistication and was evidence of a certain primness. From now on, I will speak up.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 3:24 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:
#37
@Jess
You have made me think about the roots of this callous behavior in a completely different way.
I never thought about how being part of the family that literally embodies colonial power (in the US, also known as being “the Man”) probably isn’t fertile ground for developing racial/cultural sensitivity.
But, being powerful is exactly when you’re supposed to “at least appear” to be the most gracious/generous. If no one can even remotely threaten you (socially) there is no reason not to treat everyone with respect. otherwise, you’re just being a bully.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 3:58 pm ¶
Reiter wrote:
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the “macaca” incident yet. People need to smack public figures who continue to think it’s ok to use racist dialogue. Otherwise, they’d never learn that it’s not cool to use these stupid, racist (and often made up, in the case of macaca) terms and gestures in public discourse, and never take responsibility for it.
Posted 22 Feb 2009 at 9:49 am ¶
rob wrote:
DivergentDana,
Im pretty sue i haven’t defended all the people accused of racism on this blog. I dont know if there is a facility to check but i would certainly not defend people such as those putting nooses in tree or those with a habit of being deliberately and actively nasty towards any body. For any reason.
What I find a little troubling is the instant condemnation of people on the basis of one reported remark. None of us really know what these people are like and to come to such swift judgement doesnt seem appropriate.
For people to be really and problematically racist I believe they have to actively discriminate against other races and peoples. I dont think that in any of the cases outlined in this particular topic it can be said that that any of the stories prove that.
Most people are not like this however but the next level of racism is I think much more prevalant but not necessarily a problem. At one end of the spectrum I can think of lots of people (of many races)I know and have known make racist jokes, be guilty of stereotyping etc etc but they would never dream of actually doing anything to belittle or demean anyone to their face. The example someone gave a few posts earlier about ‘gruff white guys’ shouting ‘get out’ at some asians in a pub would have never occoured with the people I am referring to. But they do (privately) laugh at racist jokes and stereotypes. At the other end of the spectrum there are people who would never make a racist remark and indeed go out of their way to be nice to persons of a different complection because they are worried about seeming to be racist.
The common point is that they are all good, decent and polite people who are nice to everyone despite being very aware of race or privately disparaging of other races or people even just for a laugh, in the real world their actions can be seen to be anti-racist. At least in some sense.
To me it seems that requiring people to change their deepest internal dialougues as well as their surface behaviour is very difficult as well as morally dubious as it starts to enter the realms of ‘thoughtcrime’
Its often said here that it is impossible to be colour blind and if that is indeed the case then isnt it an impossible task to get everybody to ‘get it’ at the same level? Im not saying there is no point in trying to educate people or that we should all be indifferent to others feelings its just that if everybody ‘had class’ as a poster up top put it and could just display common courtesy and decency to each other then the comments and jokes people make would carry a lot less weight. And they would make them less as everybody realise how nice it was to get along.
I used to work in a shop right in central london selling the cheapest stuff to the poorest people in london. Who came from all around the world. Everywhere. You would meet people everyday who would confound stereotypes and live right up to them one after the other all day long. Many of these people had im sure in the past said bad things about white people or laughed at anti white jokes just as I have laughed at jokes you would find appaling. Whatever. When we met, interacted, did business and made deals a lot of the time there was a great atmosphere we had a lot of fun and both of us went away with a good ‘energy’.
To my mind the more encounters and experiences people have like that, really just getting along with others then more of our problems with race and otherness would subside. Saying thankyou to the bus driver and please to the shop assistant and holding doors open for people even if it just seems like silly little things would, I believe have a snow ball effect and greatly benefit society as a whole.
Posted 22 Feb 2009 at 1:47 pm ¶
rob wrote:
davina, I think you find the Darkie Day goes back along way and the ‘darkie’ bit doesnt refer to black people.
A long time ago in England there were things called Mummers Plays and the actors covered themselves with blacking so that they could not be recognised by employers etc as the Mummers had a reputation for debauchery and drunkeness.
Of course in recent times it is impossible to see a blacked up white man outside of the context to which you refer and asks the quetion should the Darkie Day be banned or should others respect this old cultural practice. To my mind the behaviour of some attendees wearing afro wigs and stereotyping black people is stupid, crass and deserves nothing but contempt. But does that alter the meaning behind the actual event and turn it into a racist thing?
I dont really care if Darkie Day gets banned. If something is very obviously a magnet for people bent on being stupid and nasty then its probably not worth it. A bit of an own goal for some of the racist Brits attending who talk proudly about their own culture!
Posted 22 Feb 2009 at 1:58 pm ¶
Jessie wrote:
20 years ago?
Someone called me paki 20 mins ago when I parked up outside my house…seriously
Posted 22 Feb 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶
doloresUK wrote:
As a black British person I feel racism and the denial of racist behaviour is getting worse. The reason for this is British white people feel that the ‘PC’ culture has gotten out of hand and they feel their culture and beliefs are being taken away from them so the backlash has begun in full force. I strongly believe that ‘Golliwog’ and ‘Paksi’ are offense words and I do not feel they should be used in private or public. If people have any knowledge of racism in the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s will know that these words are extremely offensive. I agree with Roseanne’s comment about the lack of knowledge about the slavery trade and the wealth it generated for Britain and the horrors of British imperialism. I found it very interesting that the British keep going on about Amercian racism but does not want to address it own.
Posted 22 Feb 2009 at 8:17 pm ¶
Bagelsan wrote:
Rob, keep talking! I almost have bingo!
Posted 22 Feb 2009 at 9:47 pm ¶
Nathan wrote:
Swear to god, up until now I’ve been thinking the UK press was simply reporting the paki part because it comes across as so much softer than the ‘towelhead’ he was also recorded as having flung around, but I guess not. Didn’t realise it was considered a derogatory term in the UK (or in Canada according to at least one commenter here).
I know that over here in Australia and, from what I’ve heard of the Pakistani guest commentators at the cricket, in Pakistan, Paki is simple a shorthand rather than a slur. Typically used in relation to the cricket actually, one of the various team shorthands, “The Pakis”, “The Aussies”, “The Proteas”, “The Kiwis”, etc. etc.
So when I first heard that, I was scratching my head. The fact he used towelhead though, absolutely floored me. I mean, here is someone who had just recently (assuming I’m not mixing my Royals, since I’ve never been able to to give enough of a damn about our putative heads of state to keep proper track of them) been deployed to Afghanistan and surely SOMEONE had to tell him that that was a no-no.
And I can understand the soldier not reporting, no matter his feelings. British Army is not the place to be rocking the boat, and even if he had ironclad evidence, being that kinda whistleblower would have been curtains for his career, I expect.
Mind you, I’d be one of the first to believe accusations against Harry; no love for English Royalty in this Commonwealth subject, I’m afraid…
I have to confess though, I have issues with England that I try to work through; achieving varying levels of success…
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 12:12 am ¶
Ziggy wrote:
“While America celebrates electing the first African-American president, people in England are coming up with reasons that make it acceptable to racially insult people at will.”
I think it’s fair to say that a few upper-clas twits (one of them including Prince Harry, who’s always getting into scrapes like this) have VERY LITTLE in common with the vast majority of Britons. This was an interesting article but it didn’t need that smug, “we’re better than them” little spin right at the end.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 6:36 am ¶
rob wrote:
bagelsan, ha ha! very droll. I love it when people try to dismiss my views and opinions by doing the racism bingo thing! If i was trolling and just taking the piss why would I bother with such long winded and personal arguments. And if im not trolling or taking the piss why are you trying to belittle me?
The main point of the article is that the princes and thatcher are all irredeemable ‘assholes’ etc etc all on the basis of a a very few comments with no deep investigation or analysis. I think it is wrong to condemn people when you dont have all the facts. Prove it to me that Hazza goes out of his way to really hurt and disadvantage other races (apart from shooting some of them) and you will have my full support.
Maybe americans are much more racially sensitve than brits because you dont have as much invested in class systems. But do you really think that the ordinary white people two or three hundred years ago, working 14 hour days in factories or coal mines or dying of exotic diseases in the massed ranks of the british army really had it so much better than anyone who got conquered by the empire? Of course the people at the top did just fine but workers of all colours and creeds have more in common with each other than they might believe. We are all being shat on from up high and maintaining divisions between us works only to the benefit of the bosses.
Nathan, Australia is much more blunt in the language used to describe non white aussies and foreigners. Lebbos’ (lebanese) Wogs’ (italians NOT blacks) spring instantly to mind and im not suprised paki is said without a thought over there. As i said before the reason ‘paki’ is offensive up over is that it was said with hate and venom so of course it came to have the negative connotations we know today.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 11:05 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
Um, what do you think about the opinions of the non-white Brits that have posted here saying that yes, the comments are offensive, racist, and hurled at them with frequency and ill intent by their fellow countrymen?
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
And you know that rob, by your definition, the vast majority of Nazi skinheads wouldn’t be “really and problematically” racist as long as they kept among their own kind (as the less violent ones are wont to do) and were in no position to discriminate — as your average person with a swastika tattooed on their neck and/or penchant for quoting Mein Kampf isn’t likely to be. Your personal definition takes the maintenance of a racial hierarchy and contempt for racial groups out of the equation… I’d have to say that your definition of malignantly racist differs vastly from the one held by most — and not just most anti-racists, most Joe Bloggs…
“Im pretty sue i haven’t defended all the people accused of racism on this blog.”
I didn’t say all mentioned on this blog… I said in all subjects that you’ve personally commented on. However, my memory definitely isn’t perfect, so you’re free to cite an incident in which you’ve commented and conceded that a certain person, incident and/or pop cultural phenomenon was/is indeed racist.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 5:19 pm ¶
Nathan wrote:
“Nathan, Australia is much more blunt in the language used to describe non white aussies and foreigners. Lebbos’ (lebanese) Wogs’ (italians NOT blacks) spring instantly to mind and im not suprised paki is said without a thought over there. As i said before the reason ‘paki’ is offensive up over is that it was said with hate and venom so of course it came to have the negative connotations we know today.”
Rob, its not just non-white foreigners, and not just non-Aussies.
As a West Australian, I’m a sandgroper, and proud of it. I’m part-American, so I’m a Yank too, and (…usually) proud of that (if often sorely abused for it, depending on the political climate). If I were a South Aussie (Aussie itself being another short hand just like all the others), I’d be a crow-eater, or a Vic as a Victorian. If I were from New Zealand, I’d be a Kiwi, if from England, a Pom(e).
Or a Banna Bender from Queensland.
Wog, mind you, became a pejorative through time, though it has in a way been reclaimed by the Italian immigrant community (cf the movie Wog Boy).
A lot of it is dying out, however, as Australian dominant culture continues to morph and change with new influxes of people and international influences.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 12:36 am ¶
doloresUK wrote:
I disagree with Ziggy about Prince Harry and Carol Thatcher comments not having any connect to the thinking of ordinary white Britons. Can you explain to me why there are petitions on websites by ordinary white Britons defending Carol Thatcher’s behaviour and asking for her to be put back on TV.!!? If she and Prince Harry didn’t feel comfortable saying these words they would not have said them in the first place. I think America can feel very proud about addressing their racial issues in the open and not hiding behind ‘we don’t have a problem’ – racism is for idiots attitude’ that the British has because unless we start to address the issue of race in a open and honest way, I can not ever see a Black Prime Minster being elected in the UK.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 11:09 am ¶
Melanie wrote:
I live in Canada (Mississauga to be exact; with a large Brown population) and i can assure you, “Paki” is an extremely offensive term most definitely. I kinda thought everyone knew that? Haha, i guess not…
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 2:28 pm ¶
Roseanna wrote:
@ doloresUK – “I think America can feel very proud about addressing their racial issues in the open and not hiding behind ‘we don’t have a problem’ – racism is for idiots attitude’ ”
Erm… Really? You think everyone recognises racism as an issue in America? Sorry, that would be “post-racial” America these days, right? The UK and the US are both racist countries. Saying one is or is not does not move this discourse forward AT ALL .
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 4:38 pm ¶
Squidfly wrote:
Rob:
Mummers were mimicking the Black population that had been residing in England since Henry VIII.
WOG: Western Oriented Gentleman, demeaning to say the least.
Golliwog: Black rag doll, meant to resemble a blackface character.
Paki: came from East London/Brick Lane skinhead culture of the 60’s, when they went “A Paki Bashing”. As long as that person was Brown skinned it didn’t matter everyone was a Paki. Whether you were Sikh, Hindu, Bangladeshi it didn’t matter. Therefore the terms attachment to fear and violence are clear to anyone from S.E. Asia.
Darky: Brit Colonial speak for African.
Please get your Historical racist facts correct.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 5:15 pm ¶
doloresUK wrote:
Rosenna -’Erm… Really? You think everyone recognises racism as an issue in America? Sorry, that would be “post-racial” America these days, right? The UK and the US are both racist countries. Saying one is or is not does not move this discourse forward AT ALL .’
I’m not saying America is a post-racial society- far from it but at least America tries to address its racial issues rather than stating all the time ‘we don’t have an issue’ and the denial process that generally happens in the UK. What I’m arguing for is an open and honest dialogue between minorities and the white majority population which is not happening at the moment- all we have ‘anti PC ‘ dominates the race debate. I believe this actually takes the debate further rather than a hostile respond/ comment.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 5:19 pm ¶
Ziggy wrote:
DoloresUK said:
“I disagree with Ziggy about Prince Harry and Carol Thatcher comments not having any connect to the thinking of ordinary white Britons.”
Please reread my comment, I NEVER said white, nor did I say ALL Britons. I said that the thinking of Carol Thatcher and Prince Harry has very little in common with “the vast majority of Britons.” Fwiw, I’m British Bangladeshi.
Of course there are racist idiots in the UK! Sadly they are everywhere! No one’s arguing with you there.
The article makes important points. There SHOULD be zero-tolerance towards racist terminology everywhere. I wasn’t disagreeing with that either.
My only point in commenting was to say that the article did not need to conclude by saying that that America is in any way less racist than the UK. It just didn’t need that jingoistic little “look, we’re better than them” spin.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 6:16 pm ¶
bluesky wrote:
The author of the post is British, not American.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 9:28 pm ¶
Roseanna wrote:
doloresUK- Regardless of whether or not you’re saying America is a post-racial society, a hell of a lot of Americans are, causing me to wonder how a country can “address its racial issues” if it doesn’t think it has any anymore.
And, generally, “Paki” is definitely an offensive term, but I have also come across some white people (generally poor whites) who use it because they don’t know any better. It is sometimes used a non-offensive context to describe some one, ask where they are from etc., with no hostility attached to it. However, most people recognise it as an offensive term – certainly Price Harry would have known how it could have been taken.
When this story came out I was caused to wonder whether or not this guy was REALLY ok with being singled out because of his race, or whether he was just laughing along because he didn’t want to “make a fuss” – I can’t imagine an army unit is the best place to admit you’re offended by something. It would be considered feminine and weak..
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 6:27 am ¶
Ziggy wrote:
My mistake.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 6:39 am ¶
new starter wrote:
i take offence at the guardian commentator reducing this to a freedom of speech argument.
it isn’t. not by a long way.
yes,i’ll admit i read the guardian and as someone who ”grew up” through the thatcher years most of my bile towards carol is i guess due to the fact she’s maggie’s offspring (though at least truth be told she’s not organising a coup somewhere or getting rich via the pergua dam)
Carol used the term golliwog,not once but twice.
now,if this was nly in a light hearted context,ask yourselves this..do you think she’d have used the term twice if a person of colour HAD OF BEEN PRESENT IN THE ROOM!?
i doubt it very very much.
and for those of you out there that don’t think it’s an offensive term.
it really is quite simple…
first coloured person you meet in the street,just walk up to them and say hey golliwog,change a fiver,you got the right time etc etc,
see the response you receive…….
it’s colonial rhetoric. simple.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶
Coralie wrote:
@ Ike, apols if this has already been mentioned but the root of the impact with the term “Paki” is not the shortening, obviously, nor even so much that it became an insult (as many insulting words are being reclaimed “cunt” by women, “fag” by the LGBT community etc) but that Paki became a term used indiscriminately to describe absolutely anyone of even vaguely South Asian origin. Calling Australians ‘Kiwis’ in a derogatory manner, and when corrected, blowing off the distinction, is obviously so unsettling for the person accosted-you can imagine the effect of “Paki” and that became it’s intent. Even more than this, increasing immigration in Britain at this time saw increased scape-goating of the immigrant communities (very many from Pakistan but often from elsewhere in the region) because of the economic climate. Britain, long known as a nation of shop-keepers, was seeing its identity taken over by immigrants it was far from ready to tolerate, let alone assimilate. Britain has long taken solace in the fact that Black immigrants have higher levels of “social failure” and, with our complete inability to cheerlead for anyone, even ourselves, grudgingly admitted mixed-race couples and a new generation of Black Britains (we were happy in the knowledge that they weren’t overtaking us economically – thus reinforcing our own long-held prejudices). In Asian immigrants however, with (statistically) much higher levels of achievement, high levels of business start-ups and successes and some inevitable “ghetto-isation” (plus a ready made success story in the shape of our addiction to curry, and an inability to beleive a white-man can spice his way our of a paper-bag) Asian immigrants, culture and more were “too much too soon” for racist britain and of all the fronts we have tackled racism on, “Paki” is one of the remaining strongholds, especially in “the North”, especially upper and lower classes. (NB- were in complete denial of our continuing class system and pretend we don’t have one)
I think that covers it, just about.
Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 9:57 am ¶