Re: Bush's Racist Comment

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Tony Zeigler wrote:

> I have no love for Bush. However, your argument that
> it was a racist comment is simply idiotic. In the
> american version of english (that I happen to speak as
> a first language) 

Why, so do I! And Kendall too!

> referring to someone by a shortened
> name is often a way of expressing affection or
> closeness.

You mean like "Jap" for Japanese and Japanese-American? Bzzzt. 

> Thus, if Bush says 'Paki' instead of 'Pakistinian' it
> is more likely showing affection for pakistan.

You're confusing speaker intent with the meaning/connotation of the
term. We didn't claim that Bush *intended* to slur the Pakistani. The
facts are that it *is* a racist slur. I've known about it for years
(having first seen it in a movie). If he was "showing affection", why not
apologize?

> Further, you argue that Bush should have avoided the
> term because in England, it is used as a racial slur.

It *is* a racial slur, though originated in the UK. Would you think it's
ok for Tony Blair, *when talking about African-Americans, in a speech
likely to be examined by them*, used the N-word? Come come.

> Yet, by arguing it is a racial slur, you MAKE it a
> racial slur.

Sorry, no. We didn't argue, we reported. There *is* a difference.

I'm *sure* there are folks who would argue that the N-word is "just a
name" and can be used neutrally, and it's bad effects are due to people
"arguing that it's a racial slur". Sorry, no.

> Anyone who reads and believes your
> article will now take offense to being called a Paki.

It's likely that people of Pakistani origin already knew the
term. Really. Check out the history of the term. Check out the OED, for
pete's sake. It was first reported *as a racial slur* in the US in the
1970s.

> That you argue Bush is at fault for making the comment
> unwhittingly,

Well, he'd be at fault if it were unwittingly...and more at fault if he
just didn't care, and even more at fault if deliberate (which it may have
been, for all we know, as a signal to the Indians and a caution to the
Pakinstani). Sheesh, he's *president*. His words are reported and
analysed. It's not like he was speaking Mandarian and blew a tone. This is
his so called native langauge. And why not apologize? Is it ok if he used
it in the future.

Plus, given the nature of his comments (try to cool down tensions between
India and Pakistan) using "affectionate" langauge for the Pakistani (and
not the Indians) is a problem in itself.

> and then you serve to propagate the term
> by your own lack of judgement 

Reporting on the actual use of a term, while condemning it as racist, is
not "propagating" it by any sane standard. So, should we burn *all* the
newspapers that reported on it going back? The Films that use it when
portraying UK Pakistani life? Get a grip.

>- it just goes to show
> how absurd the whole topic is.

No, it goes to show how absurd *your* judgement is that we're "making it a
racist term" or even merely "propogating" it.

(That is, the topic isn't absurd if your thesis of term
construction/propogation does hold. *You* introduced that thesis, the
burden is on you to defend it. It's only with that thesis that there's any
tension. THus far, you've merely asserted it.)

 > Now my question to you - did you intend to expand the
> anger that the people of Pakistan feel for the world
> around them 

HAHAHAH. Right. Bush smearing them and then not apologizing wouldn't have
"expanded the anger" of the Pakistani EXCEPT with our article? Ok, let's
take a more reasonable position that our article would expand the anger
*already expanded* by Bush (after all, if Bush hadn't said it, we wouldn't
have written the article), then Bush shouldn't have said it because there
are people who will write articles like ours. So it's all Bush's fault!

(And, considering how some radical groups in Pakistan *and* India might
use his slip, that's a good reason for him to apologize.)

Note that it's the lack of apology that settles the problem. You did get
that, yes?

In any case, I think the Pakistani news agencies are *perfectly* capable
of reporting this story without help from us. Given that his use of the
term is *likely* to cause pain and fear and worry to *MILLIONS* of people
(in the US and UK!!!), isn't the "compassionate" thing to apologize?

> for your own nefarious purpose? 

Er....which are these? The "speaking/spreading the truth" one or the
"Fighting racism" one?

>or were
> you simply being a dullard? 

I give you points for a relatively novel (in the current mail about the
article) bit of logic chopping. But I really don't see that the *reductio*
holds.

Indeed, we hope that the article does some *good* by 1) educating people
about the term, and 2) reassuring some Pakistani that not all US citizens
are either racist or insenstive.

Y'know, when *I* learn that a term I've been using is *seriously*
offensive, I 1) stop using it, 2) apologize, 3) feel a bit bad that I may
have inadvertently done harm. How is this a *difficult standard*?

I notice that people who *don't* mind hurting people, especially because
of their race/class/sex/sexual orientation, tend to bluster, claim
innocence and ignorance (the latter as a point of pride), say that they'll
keep using it because they're innocent and ignorant (even though they
aren't anymore), blame the person/people they're harmed, and blame the
person that brought the matter to their attention or criticized them for
that matter.

Telling, isn't it.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.