Monkeyfist.com: Bush's Racist Slur

kendall-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected] Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:42:10 -0600 (CST)

Newsgroups	gmane.politics.leftists.monkeyfist
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Jan. 11, 2002 11:42 am

foo

Monkeyfist.com

Bush's Racist Slur

by [1]Kendall CLARK and [2]Bijan PARSIA

Thursday, 10 January 2002

.....

Fresh from yet another multiweek vacation, President Bush turned his
attention to the very dangerous India-Pakistan conflict ([3]news -
[4]web sites - [5]BBC). Speaking to reporters about the deteriorating
regional conflict on Monday, 7 January, President Bush said,

I don't believe the situation is defused yet, but I do believe
there is a way to do so, and we are working hard to convince both
the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems
without going to war.

The obvious and immediate response is to wonder how much worse he
wants the situation to become. Using a well-known ethnic slur to
describe one side of the conflict is unlikely to defuse anything.
Surely any other modern American president, each one of whom has been
very less verbally inept than Bush, would have been taken, had he
said the same or similar, to be signaling an American preference for
the side not slurred. Given the boundless, miasmic fog of verbal
expression which Bush inhabits, one might conclude that it was merely
a slip, of tongue or brain, and not worth further thought.

Both AP and Reuters wire reports of the incident include curious
characterizations -- respectively: "The term 'Pakis' is considered by
many Pakistanis, particularly in Great Britain, to be offensive"; and
"Most Americans are unaware of the sensitivity of the term. In
Britain, however, it is considered an ethnic slur toward Pakistanis
who emigrated there in large numbers in the 1960s and '70s" -- of the
provenance and history of the term, as if the harm were to be
mitigated by claims about linguistic obscurity.

And, generally, supporters of the president have defended his use of
the slur by the same tactic: it's not problematic because most
Americans are unaware that "Paki" is offensive.

This defense is wholly inadequate: it misleads and is irrelevant.
First, the term is not new, and while its origin is British, that is a
local usage of rather universal reach -- the British media's global
spread is second only to that of US media. And, as Bush likes to say,
when it suits him and his interests, the US and UK are culturally very
close. One of the earliest examples occurred in the Guardian, in 1964,
and continually in British media throughout the 60s and 70s. It
occurred in US media very early as well, specifically in a racist
context -- Charlottesville, Virginia's Daily Progress reported, in
1972 (!), on racial violence against Asian immigrants, which was (and
is still) termed "Paki-bashing". Anti-immigrant violence has been
reported in the US regularly since that time, and the terms "Paki" and
"Paki-bashing" are not as obscure as Bush's erstwhile defenders
suggest.

Especially if among any of the president's staff can be counted even
one careful reader of the New York Times or anyone who listens to or
reads the public remarks of VP Cheney, who referred to Pakistanis as
-- in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 16 September
-- "Paks". The Times ran in response two William Safire columns and an
editorial "chiding", as Safire put it, Cheney for such usage and
instructing accurately on the use of "Pak" and "Paki" as insulting
racial slurs. And, while Bush can hardly be faulted for paying little
attention to his VP, Safire clearly and, to the point, recently made
it abundantly clear, for whomever in Bush's administration was
listening, that "Paki" is unacceptable. Now Bush may not be faulted
for not reading the New York Times; he has, as they say, people to do
that for him. But the very recently discussion of this issue in the
Times clearly establishes the bounds of acceptable usage of such
terms, which is to say, using these terms is unacceptable.

But, second, the ignorance or obscurity defense, even if sound, is
irrelevant. In diplomacy and politics, as under the law, ignorance is
not an absolute defense. Sometimes it's no defense at all. The
question is neither whether most -- or, strictly speaking, any; not,
of course, including the millions of Pakistani American citizens,
about whom more below -- Americans know that "Paki" is a racist slur,
nor is it whether Bush knew that "Paki" is a racist slur. The only
relevant question is whether Bush should have known that "Paki" is a
racist slur, and, further, whether, having known it, such knowledge
would have prevented him from using it.

As to the first question, yes, Bush should have known, assuming he did
not, that "Paki" is a racist slur. The dictates of diplomacy alone, to
say nothing of moral decency, suggest he should have known, as, for
example, every president who dealt with -- the not particularly
analogous, geopolitically -- situation of South African apartheid knew
that, whatever their true views of Mandela or the ANC, the word
"kafir" was a racist slur and was to be avoided at all costs.

One might hope, as well, that the person who occupies the office of US
president, whatever else his flaws and failings, would take advantage
of the incalculable resources such an office offers to familiarize
himself with the known locations of the neighborhood's mines and
minefields. Are we really to believe that this is Bush's very first
time, ever, to use this word? Has anyone on his staff warned against
its use in the months since September 11? It is not, after all, a
particularly ready contraction of "Pakistani", nor is it the kind of
thing that one hears used normatively -- that is, its context of use
in US media are almost always precisely as racist slur -- often in US
media. Is it something that the Bush circle uses privately? If so,
that some or no Americans know if it as such is not at all to the
point.

A White House spokesperson responded to Bush's comments by offering
further comment -- "The president has great respect for Pakistan, the
Pakistani people, and the Pakistani culture. Pakistan has been a
strong member of the international coalition in the war against
terrorism" -- which only sought to evade the issue, which said much
less than was required by the bounds of minimal decency, and which
conspicuously failed to apologize -- Compare: when Bush indecorously
called the US campaign against bin Laden a "crusade" the White House
apologized swiftly and with good reason -- or withdraw the slur.

Whatever else one might say about Bush, it is conceivable that his use
of "Paki" was merely a verbal slip, the result of being briefed to
never say "Paki" (though the lack of an immediate correction from Bush
tends to weigh against it having been a pure slip). Those of us who
inhabit fogs of personal expression do make such mistakes. What is
truly objectionable, however, is that decent people, having made such
mistakes, apologize and offer to make amends, to remedy harms caused,
to do, in short, what, if anything, may be done to reassert and
reaffirm publicly the dignity and worth of those who have been
wronged.

Bush has done and will be doing none of these -- and very
conspicuously so. Thus there are only three possibilities:

First, Bush used the term knowingly and premeditatedly, that is, he
knew the term is a racist slur, and he meant to use it as a racist
slur; in which case, he is not only a racist but dangerously unhinged.

Second, Bush used the term accidentally; that is, he knew that it is a
racist slur and its use was a verbal or mental slip. Such things
happen, alas. However much we might wish to have a president more in
control of the modes of his personal expression, there are greater
sins. If this is the case, however, one might assume -- if for no
other reason than for the sakes of American citizens and residents who
are of Pakistani origin -- that Bush would have apologized, whether
tersely or profusely, whether immediately or subsequently, whether
directly or by proxy. The lack of any mode of redress speaks louder
than apologists and defenders of Bush's use of the term realize.

Third, Bush used it purposively but did not know, consciously, that it
was a racist slur; in which case, his ignorance is either defensible
or it is not. I find it hard to believe that his ignorance is
defensible, but, in either case, if the term was used innocently of
racist intent, I am equally hard pressed to understand why Bush has
not apologized and sought to redress the harms he's done.

In the present US climate the plight of those of South Asian or Middle
Eastern origin (or stereotypical appearance) is fragile at best. In
addition to facing whatever real dangers the rest of us face, whether
from terrorists or from our own government's contortions, these
persons face further threats and dangers of person, including affronts
to and assaults upon their basic dignity and respect. That Bush has --
intentionally or no -- made life more difficult for them, and that
he's done so without the slightest interest in or attempt at redress,
is simply intolerable.

Niel Bornstein contributed to this article.
_________________________________________________________________

See also Bush Speaks Out (a little) Against Anti-Arab Racism
<[6]http://monkeyfist.com/articles/778>
This is Bush's Racist Slur <[7]http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804>

References

1. mailto:kendall-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]?subject=Bush%27s%20Racist%20Slur
2. mailto:bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]?subject=Bush%27s%20Racist%20Slur
3. http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=India-Pakistan+conflict
4. http://www.google.com/search?q=India-Pakistan+conflict
5. http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/KSEnglish.exe?method=mainQuery&ATNMYFIELD_Headline=&db0=English&xoptions=sortboth&numresults=1000&BATCHHITS=25&querythreshold=50&query=India-Pakistan+conflict
6. http://monkeyfist.com/articles/778
7. http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804