open Democracy News Analysis - Dare I disagree with Sunny?, Anthony Barnett - Comments

londonlou on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

londonlou — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:46:45 +0000

Calling someone a 'paki' never has and never will be acceptable. Harry has had the benefit of learning at the top institutions and comes from so called 'good-breeding' so he should be fully accountable for his behaviour in this regard. To say in retrospect that the word 'paki' or the 'n' word or any other racial term was spoken in an unmalicious way is initself a racist explanation because it is based on the premise that the word is not offensive. Whether it is offensive or not is not for the caller of it to decide. The word 'paki' is a broken and abused version of its original and fuller form Pakistani that was invented and popularised mainly by the English. Certainly it appears to have caught on here the most. Just like the people for whom this term was invented it has undergone a forced change after not being deemed worthwhile in its original form. When will racists or people who use this kind of terminology so casually realise the hurt it inflicts on others. It suggests many things most of which are only felt by the person referred to as such. So how dare anyone other than a Pakistani decide what it means for Pakistanis to be called 'Paki'. So many Pakistani youth who are growing tired and resentful of these attitudes are realising that perhaps they will never be accepted for who they are. Pakistanis are the only ones who have ever been picked on for supporting their country. Most specifically in cricket matches- or never Italians when it comes to football (who are generally known to be spectactularly nationalist), or French or even West Indians- only Pakistanis. Pakistanis have really had enough of being picked on and are sick of negative media for example reports that they are mostly on benefits or lazy or for not being 'British' enough. If there was a mass exodus of all Pakistanis to countries where there are better opportunities for them right now (of which there are many) this country's credit crunch would become a blip on the screen of what meltdown would follow. The truth of the culture of Pakistanis is that they are respectful of authority, devoted to the care of their elderly and families whether or not they are employed, hold professional status in high regard and are industrious in pursuance of these things as well as being naturally talented in business. After all the flack Pakistanis continue to get I can very well relate to the young Pakistani teenager who in run down parts of North England where there are few opportunities but the opportunity to get high on drugs and fall into a life of crime, why that teenager decides, after a stream of negative and constant social/ public commentary regarding his racial background whether on the street or from the possible future King of England decides one day that enough is enough and perhaps his Britain is no friend to him but an enemy. And before you can fire a klashnikov the idea of joining the enemy's enemy in a fight against one another seems suddenly very appealing. That may sound shocking but its no surprise its come to this for some Pakistani's. Most Pakistanis I know have tried as best they can to combine the values inherited from their parents generations with the mostly opposite ones in Britain, some of them willingly so but often 'forcedly' through media pressure and labelling of non-compliers as 'pakis' and other insulting words relating to their dress fr instance. The ones who have had problems in adjusting to opposite worlds have rarely had support but only more pressure. Sometimes this pressure has been exerted in the form of bullying and violence. Britain needs to stock take and analyse why such a bizarre phenomenon of home grown 'Talibans' has occurred. How is it possible that people who grow up in a particular place, have their best friends there, fall in love there, go to work there and grow families who will eventually die there- how can they grow to hate that place?? It is a completely unnatural response that goes against the human core and against what we observe everywherelse and yet its happened and probably continuing to happen here, in Britain. Something is and has been wrong for a long time. Can't we take an intelligent and probing approach to tackle the root of the problem? Alienation is the biggest psychological factor at work when someone crosses over to 'the other side' in this case terrorism. Pakistanis are frustrated and increasingly unhappy that they are still regarded by many in the establishment as 'pakis' and rightly so. The Met has a standard statement on every other racial abuse case that this word is considered to be acceptable if not used maliciously. Even though its a malicious word. And hopefully people realise that its exactly this attitude that goes with casual usage of such terminology- as in the Mets case which leads the victim to develop feelings of injustice and radicalisation. If a TV personality is abusive to someone on the telephone it enrages the whole of Britain and he loses his job but if our fine young Prince does the equivalent we should all be satisfied that he has at least bothered to switch off the video journal camera for the time being and pop back to have a public statement issued for him whilst he downs another beer in Mahiki. Its simply more than just about nicknames and supposedly 'pet' use of these words. When will Britain wake up and realise whats happening. Prince Harry may boast about wiping off a few Talibans but these comments of his will likely have grown a few more. But he'll never realise it the fool.

owly on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

owly — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:49:32 +0000

Islam, and therefore Muslims, are not a race, nor ever have been. Islam is a belief and is just as open to question and to attack as anyother belief. By saying or implying it is 'racist' to attack Islam you are trying to protect it in a manner and a way it neither deserves nor warrants.

Toque on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Toque — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:12:34 +0000

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

Mike Small on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Mike Small — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:17:17 +0000

The institutions we have reflect the society we are. Ours are inherently explicitly hierarchical, archaic and undemocratic. Harry and his family are the personification of that reality. If the fact that they behave in this way is deemed an irrelevance to you - that's fine. For me, this is the ambience of Empire that Andrew O Hagan has talked about: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/10/andrew-ohagan-george-orwell-memoriallecture

Toque on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Toque — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:07:21 +0000

Mike,

There's nothing inherently racist about the word Paki, and I hope that there will be a time when, if it is uttered at all, it can be uttered with affection instead of malice.

There are many things in the news to find depressing and offensive, but this news item is pretty far down my list. What I find more depressing is the rush to take offense.

Tony Curzon Price on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Tony Curzon Price — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:58:12 +0000

Sunny - I agree that this is how it _should_ be --- we should be able to let the Royal family be racist in its corner, and only worry when it is those who wield the power of state who demonstrateracist attitudes ....

But of course, they do wield and represent an important power in English society. The institutions that make this English elite - public schools, the services, parts of the City - are deeply anti-plural. The culture of insults in public school, for example, (which seems identical to the one of the officer's mess we've seen in the video) is designed to say: "you can be part of the group as long as you are prepared to laugh at your identity (unless you are English establishment, in which case you are exempted)." This apparent inclusiveness -- "no one (or almost) is exempt" -- is at the cost of self-rejection, even self-hatred.

When the culture of an important part of the elite is so profoundly designed to crush pluarlity, the whole country will have trouble accepting others.

---

tony

Mike Small on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Mike Small — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:29:34 +0000

Dear Gareth, I must say I find your comments that: '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' - both depressing and offensive.

But perhaps I am alone in this feeling.

Toque on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Toque — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:46:52 +0000

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.

Mike Small on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Mike Small — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:11:08 +0000

I'll just repeat Gareth: "you're right you can find racists in Scotland too."

There's no room for complacency about racism either. I wholly agree with you.

I think there's something about BMEs being accepted into Scottish culture because it is less of an imperial culture though (see Michael Gardiners 'The Cultural Roots of British Devolution' EUP). You can't just mechanistically chart BNP voting patterns against immigrant concentration, nor ignore different political cultures (can you?).

Quoting David Marquand Gardiner points out: 'British identity as such was imperialist, and is incapable of re-making itself.'

But the point is that Harry is not just anybody, a point Sunny refuses to take on board.

Toque on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Toque — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:53:35 +0000

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.

Mike Small on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Mike Small — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:19:03 +0000

Sunny wrote: "...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."

Is it?

It's not about their influence - though the propaganda usage of Harrys 'deployment' in Afghanistan was, I'm sure, highly useful.

Do you feel the same about his use if the term "Raghead". In the BBC piece Anthony links to it doesn't say.

Apologists for racism repeat a line quoted from Shukeel Chohan, 41, "a British-born Pakistani and former officer in the British army, said it was a generally accepted part of army culture to mock and ridicule each other."

"If someone had said something to me, you'd say something back, whether they were ginger, fat, Scottish, Jewish, Welsh, no one ever means it maliciously."

I've heard this line again and again over the last few days, the line that its the same as being a called a 'Jock' 'Mick' or 'Taff', though interestingly no-one offers such a term for the English soldier.

Mike Small on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Mike Small — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:21:18 +0000

Gareth I meant Middle England the condition, not the place and you're sure right you can find racists in Scotland too - though not interestingly 40+ BNP councillors. I think the number is 0.

You don't need to be a 'Royal Observer' to know anything about Harry - you just need to imbibe popular culture, and presumably you dont need to be a 'Royal Observer' to know we pay for him. As for the 'great unwashed' you speak for yourself. No doubt you and others will wish this away. The fact is his language is blatantly racist and in other jobs he'd be sacked. This is indisputable.

Sunny H on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Sunny H — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:06:45 +0000

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 :)

Toque on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Toque — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:16:14 +0000

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.

Anthony Barnett on "Dare I disagree with Sunny?"

Anthony Barnett — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:32:00 +0000

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!

Dare I disagree with Sunny?, Anthony Barnett

Anthony Barnett — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:23:55 +0000

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Since I started blogging I found that one of the best rules of thumb is to agree with Sunny Hundal, who is wise, practical and funny - and brief and to the point. Oh dear. Is he getting old before his time, and a touch too tolerant? Or am I becoming hardened? I refer to Sunny's extraordinarily relaxed, let's not get hot under the collar reaction as reported by the BBC to a member of the Royal Family thinking it normal to call people Paki. In my view, if this is what an Eton education does for you we should be worried: racism starts at the top.

This is not the language a young officer should be using. It is loaded with disrespect and laced with the presumptions and arrogance of rule. In cases like this I always think about the US Army. It may well be used for imperialist ends but it is an exceptionally effective multi-racial organisation. It did not get that way by casual tolerance. Colin Powell, I believe, was one of those who decided to rid the Army ranks of racism towards each other (I'm not talking about Abu Graib). How could they rid it of snide remarks about food and diet? They forced the entire army (it is said) to eat specific ethnic foods on a given day. They trained themselves to know what it was like to be the other. OK, that is putting it rather grandly. But there was a determinatioin to stamp out prejudice not pander to it or treat it lightly. One result was Powell's extraordinarily powerful and influential endorsement of Obama when he said that an American muslim had every right to aspire to be president. Can you imagine Harry saying to a TV interviewer, "Why can't a Paki one day be king?".

The point, not to go on about it too long, is that the Prince is not an ordinary bloke. He is a commander, trained as such, born to lead. Now the BNP can shout 'Harry, Harry, Harry' as they kick someone's head in, and we will all know what they mean. But can you charge someone with racist chanting and taunting if they proclaim their allegiance to the third in line to the throne?