Prince Harry and the 'P' Word What’s in a name? I groan at the ‘outrage’ caused by the revelation that Prince Harry referred to a fellow soldier as a ‘Paki’. It’s the outrage I’m groaning at – not the event itself. When I was growing up, ‘Paki’ was always a term of abuse. It was always prefixed with ‘F---ing’ and often accompanied by an imperative to ‘go home!’ It’s true that it hurt and I didn’t like it. It made me angry. But things have moved on. Once I started work, I occasionally heard colleagues – who were definitely not racist – casually mention ‘Paki shops’ or ‘Paki food’. I was absolutely sure there was no malicious intent. Even President Bush mentioned something about the ‘Indians and the Pakis’ getting along, and he is definitely not a racist. I have a Pakistani-born relative who worked for him, in the White House. (Of course, we’re all related.) I think it’s just an abbreviation for ‘Pakistani’. Duh ... So, with this word, it’s all about the intent of the user (as well as the conditioning of the hearer). I’m sure that in the army they refer to each other by various terms which might, in a corporate boardroom or school classroom, be construed as offensive. But there is no intention to offend. Clearly, in this private video and context, Prince Harry had no intention to offend. That is absolutely obvious. (Although he shouldn't have called him 'little'). I’ve never heard an Australian complain about being called an ‘Aussie’. Would all so-called Asian, Pakistani and Islamic groups just find something else to get worked up about. Prince Harry risked his life in Afghanistan to free that country from medieval oppression. He is not a racist and certainly not a ‘thug’. Enough said. The only people who should be offended at being called ‘Paki’ are Indians.
Hear! Hear!
Posted by: Yanitan | March 26, 2009 at 04:57 AM