Re: re Bush's racist slur

On Sun, 04 May 2003 21:22:50 -0400, MILLARDN8=YDxpq3io04 wrote:

> Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones but names
> will never hurt me"?

Hmm, people grew up and realized that, in fact, this kind of hateful talk
is harmful, especially when it reinforces material inequality and
injustice. I can only assume that you don't know (because if you knew and
didn't care, you'd be an asshole...) that "paki" was often used as a bit
of racist hate speech, especially in the UK during the 60s and 70s, the
peak period of immigration from Southeast Asia. (Though how you can fail
to know this since it's mentioned in the piece you are "responding" to is
an interesting question.)

  The fact is,  the only paki's who find the word paki
> offensive are paki's who are ashamed to be pakistani.

I'm neither Pakistani (and so not ashamed to be Pakistani) and I found
Bush's use of the word not only offensive but possibly dangerous. As an
empirical claim, this falls flat on its face: there are of course proud
Pakistanis who find this term offensive.

> It is merely an
> abreviation, British people don't mind being called Brits and
> Australians don't mind being called Aussies.

Bad analogy, not only because Brits and Aussies haven't been
systematically harassed and oppressed, using these terms as terms of
derision, but it also fails factually: in fact, the abbreviation most
commonly used by Pakistanis and other SE Asians is "Pak".

  To call someone a dirty paki is not racist
> it is just a simple insult because of the adjective "dirty" If I was to
> say "I am going down the paki shop" that does not make me racist.

Perhaps not (though I'm skeptical); but it would make you a person who
uses and (in the context of this email exchange, at least) defends
perjorative, hateful racist speech.

But the more interesting question -- which we'll never have an answer for,
of course -- is why President Bush, after the NYT, including William
Safire, made very clear that "paki" is a racial slur, used it anyway. And
why, having used it, whether accidentally or intentionally, he did such a
spectacularly poor job of making amends.

Not very impressive for a "uniter, not a divider".

> The simple
> truth is paki;'s are more racist than whites, it is ok for them to
> complain to their children that they shouldn't go out with whites but if
> a whote family told their kids not to marry a paki they would be called
> racist.  And the funny thing is, all white people know this,  paki;'s
> perpetuate their own inferiority complexes by squealing racism at every
> turn,  they should get more tolerance, stop segregating and congregating
> themselves and join in with the real world.

Hmm, now you've wandered into straight up racist nonsense. There are
several possible responses to and explanations of these social phenomena
(assuming that you're even very accurately describing the relevant states
of affairs), including the very common and unobjectionable tendency of
immigrant communities to cluster together. That's not in the *least* bit
racist.

  I know a lot of paki's and can only get on with a few of
> them as the rest are too tied up in their own families inferiority
> complexes to be able to feel comfortable around whites.  Why can't they
> be like Blacks and Whites and mix with everyone.

If I were a Pakistani, I would not be able to "get on" with you because,
or so I would suspect, you harbor racist attitudes. In fact, I wouldn't
"get on" with you as a white person for the same reason.

> Conclusion,  Pakis need to stop being ashamed of being pakis.

Conclusion: people like you need to stop saying stupid, hateful things in
public.

Kendall Clark

_______________________________________________
Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos