Is that comment directed at me, Mike?  I can't tell.

Yes, culture is important.  In England the BNP seem to have shifted their emphasis aways from Blacks and Jews towards Muslims.  Racism towards Muslims is easier to justify because of the perceived 'threat' to British culture and our way of life.

In Scotland racism towards the English is easier to justify because of the large numbers of English immigrants (and because you have a huge dominant neighbour to your south).

It's essentially insecurity, combined with a bit of fear and ignorance.  But a culture's racial scapegoat can, and does, change.  I'm sure that there will come a time when 'Paki' is not offensive, but judging by the overreaction we're far from that stage yet.

I do partake in my fair share of popular culture, but believe it or not I tend to skip over stories about the Royals, just as I do with Big Brother and stories about Soap Operas - we don't take the Daily Star, even though it is a credit-crunch cracking 20p. 

Not all of Middle England is obsessed with the Royals.  Last time I saw the Queen she was in Edinburgh.  Manda, the wife, a loyal Canadian subject, had never seen the Queen so I took the day off work and we stood on the Royal Mile in the rain waiting for the procession up from Holyrood.  Eventually she whizzed past with a cavalcade of horses and we didn't even catch a glimpse of her - unbelievable how fast a carriage can travel on cobbles.  Drowned our disappointment in the World's End.

Racism is Scotland is in the news at the moment, but as with the Harry story it's being rather overplayed. The BNP heat map of the UK is basically a heat map of immigrant numbers, concentrated around population centres.  There's evidence to suggest that visible minorities are accepted into Scottish society more easily than in England, but given that BME's only account for about 2% of Scots it would be foolish to assume that you might not have the same problems as England in years to come.  I hope you don't, but don't be smug or complacent about it. 

It's irrelevant whether Paki is short for Pakistani, or whether Pakistanis in South Asia use 'Paki' for their own use.

We're talking about usage of the word in the British context. Words don't live without their context.

Anthony, maybe its because I pay little attention to what the Royal Family does or whether they have any influence that I can't be bothered to get annoyed about this.

If it was an elected member of Parliment however, my reaction would be a lot stronger :)

Anthony, what you say about Harry may or may not be true, I'm not a royal observer so I don't really know much about him.

However, I do have a few friends in the services and they say that this sort of banter is run-of-the-mill.  In the past the army used racial epithets to dehumanise the enemy, which is a useful thing to do if you want to have fewer qualms about killing them.  Although that's no longer done (apparently) the mentality persists.

I imagine that Harry is himself subject to quite a lot of german and ginger quips.  Whether he makes a conscious effort to 'dumb down' to the level of us great unwashed, or whether he's subject to peer pressure and the pressure to conform - just like the rest of us - is what we don't know.

Good comments! as Steven Lukes says - and he's written a book about it - most jokes are only about matters that are really serious. Toque spot on, it's people not words that are racist. Both Courtney and Antiqua get this but perhaps not my larger point made brilliantly from their silly pov by Samizdata.
The point being that Harry is not a "normal bloke". Indeed by pretending to be so not only is the Prince patronising, he reinforces and encourages a perception of the unwashed as vile and prejudiced. Sunny meanwhile has issued a clarification of his views and we don't disagree after all, phew!

"on radio phone ins everywhere throughout Middle England"

That's a bit of an unfair comment Mike.  Having lived in Scotland I know that use of words like 'Paki' are more common up there than they are where I live now.  In Scotland you still hear people saying that they are "going out for a Chinky", but in England, or more specifically in the SE of England, such language is now deemed politically incorrect. 

I appreciate that it's de rigueur to demonise 'Middle England' as if the people that reside in that mythical place are some form of alien sub-human, but whoever they are I'd be surprised if they are much different in attitudes to Middle Scotlanders.

In Edinburgh - which is more Middle England than most of England - you are much less likely to hear Paki than you are in Dundee or Motherwell.  Does that mean that people in Edinburgh are less racist?  Tough call, but on personal experience I'd say not.

Eddie Izzard: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (...if they have a gun)"

It's not the word that's racist, it's the person.  Words are only tools, and by overreacting in this way I think people are guilty of making "Paki" a more powerful racial epithet, increasing it's ability to offend and also the likelihood that people will be offended by it.  You're handing back a more powerful word to the monkeys that will use it indiscriminately (to describe anyone from the Indian subcontinent, or who looks like they might be).

Michael Calderbank is right, we shouldn't be surprised that Harry and his class have deeply regressive and offensive attitudes, it is after all what the highly privileged and isolated education we all pay for breeds.

 Neither is it at all surprising that the political class should immediately defend the Prince, when in other 'professions' such conduct would be deemed a sackable offence.

What is disturbing is the mainstream societys efforts to justify or condone blatant racism (as witnessed by comments above and a stream of conciousness / vox pop babble on radio phone ins everywhere throughout Middle England).

 Constitutionally the issue does highlight the absurdity of the Monarchy and the urgent need for a republic. The only possible argument for a Monarchy is that they are useful as some sort of symbol or figureheads in a society. If they blatantly fail to live up to even the most basic standards of civilised society,  they should be removed.

The only way this is remotely likely to happen is as part of the general dis-assemblage of the British State - an issue that has been steadfastly avoided by the SNP thus far. But a latent thread of popular Scottish Republicanism is never too far from the surface, and hopefully will re-emerge more strongly articulated in light of such disgraceful behaviour.

Sunny was right – the illiberal liberal media have made a mountain out of this mole hill. As Sunny argued, he often uses the word ‘Paki’ when in private with his mates, there isn’t a problem with that, is there? However, it appears that many commentators have afforded the word a special status – that seemingly needs to be controlled by a liberal thought police.

Anthony Barnett et al, are treating the word ‘Paki’ as if had some unbelievable independent power. Racism does indeed start at the top, however, there is no real connection between racism, Prince Harry and his Pakistani friend, Ahmed. Racism was not the context in which the word was used.

Such debates over language usually end up in one familiar direction these days – with censorship. Indeed, what ‘language’ should army officers be using, in private, amongst their friends Mr Barnett?

I would like to direct evrybodys' attention to this website that claims to be the biggest online Pakistani community: www.paki.com

Among other things it has links to:

Paki Auctions
Paki Soul Food
Paki Internet Friend Finder
Paki Free Games
Paki Pay.com
Paki Gift Shop

Presumably this site should be banned in this country.

What a storm in a stupid PK teacup!

Michael
(an Anglo/Taffy mongrel)

Excellent comment. The logic of sovereign power assumes that a degree of extraordinariness separates the subjects from the sovereign. Surprisingly, what is being vehementely argued in Harry's favour is his supposed ordinariess as an army officer indulging in laddish behaviour not uncommon in army circles. But Harry is not a regular guy which is why his speech act is commanding endless public attention. The point is not to dwell upon it, but to dismiss it as 'everyday trivial stuff' is to miss the larger arguments of privilege and attendant responsibility. The word 'Paki's is yet to be emptied of its original meanings of prejudice and outright rejection - it still conveys the same emotions of hatred.  

It's interesting the way that the use of "Paki" has been isolated by the media as though Harry's offence was just to use one word with dodgy connotations - when it was his whole attitude: the "it's all good in the empire" bigotry towards "ragheads" abroad and suspicion of "queers" amongst his colleagues.  It suggests that the military as a whole is contaminated with a deeply reactionary, prejudiced culture of barrack room "banter" to which the authorities turn a bline eye and are, as such, totally complicit.

Harry is a stupid lad - but given that his Grandad's penchance for racist putdowns, let alone his Gran, (the Queen)'s anti-Irish bigotry revealed in papers released under the 30 years rule), or his great Gran's support for the racist white supremacist apartheid regime in South Africa, this is pretty low level.  The monarchy is a bastion of reaction?  Now there's a surprise!