Skip to comments.Aaron, 9, ‘bullied to death for being white’ [UK]
Posted on 02/24/2013 7:16:11 AM PST by expat1000
THE devastated family of a nine-year-old boy who hanged himself say he took his life after racist taunts by Asian bullies.
.... He said one kid even said to him, My dad says all the white people should be dead.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
Lol and Lol again!
I dated a U.K. soldier who thought the word cun* was acceptable. I had to tell him otherwise.
Amen. It won’t be this way forever though, PapaBear. The only question is, how far do we fall before we shake off our lethargy?
That's because the whole of the Middle East is in fact a part of the Asian continent. Look at a map of the continents. This comes up every other day here, it seems. I'm surprized some long time posters are still puzzled by this (the poster you responded to, not you).
So the Brits use a designation based on continents, not 'regions'. Big deal.
And ‘Yank” is an insult, much like Paki.
I like Scotland. What’s not to like when the Roman Empire built a wall to keep you OUT!
Says a lot.
Yeah, but that was just to protect the Roman’s sheep.
FFS keep your Muzzie-loving sensitivities to yourself.
Right in the ram's-eye!! Hahaha!
Just because I suggest people dont indulge in crude names doesnt mean I am some Muslim-loving liberal. You couldne be more simplistic if you tried. If I cringe at the use of the n-word, as would most white people, does that mean I am a self-hating white man?. No, of course not.
If you think my ‘objection’ makes me some Muzzie lover, that says more about you than me.
All I have said here is that paki in the UK IS a racist insult, and the equivalent here of calling a black man the n-word, whereas in the US it isnt. And as its a British story, I suggested it was unnecessary and crude.
And the gun-toters: Heat Paki.
Not so much as “conquered” but muslims enjoy more cultural and religious protection from the UK government than, say, a Christian.
And while the UK is not conquered fully they are on their way. . . .look at the west end of Oxford St. Used to be posh and nary a muslim in sight, but now it is like being in a suk in Cairo or Saudi. And how about the east side of London? Demographics are not in your favor.
In the UK I saw a debate on TV where a muslim was demanding respect for muslims/islam and argued no one can be permitted to mock, insult or make fun of islam, but this same person argued Christianity can be mocked, insulted and made fun of because it was not the true faith. All to great applause from the studio audience. . .the audience didn’t appear to to be comprised of mosty muslims, but were most certainly the loudest and most aggressive.
And given the amount of stories in the press about muslims filing allegations of insulting islam or accusing someone of a hate crime because they preached Christianity on the street, it appears they are well on their way to “special protection status” and this, my Scot, means they are taking over.
Discussions with taxi drivers is most enlightening, black cab* and mini-cab. I try to avoid mini-cabs but have you ever tried to get a taxi in The City after 1000hrs? Muslim mini-cab drivers all, when I ask, all say they will never consider themselves British and place shariah law above UK law. The black cab driver views “asian” immigration as uncontrolled and taking over. . .and there are areas they won’t go because of the muslim component/threat.
Like I said, not conquered yet, but well on your way.
*—For those that don’t know, “black cab” is not referring to the color of the cab driver. Black cab is the term for the classic taxi driven around London. Used to be exclusively black in color but not anymore. Nonetheless, the name sticks. Black cab drivers (again not referring to the color of the cab driver) is the most professional in the world. Usually takes 2-yrs of training to acquire “the knowledge” and an 8-hr test to become a hackney driver.
The British and Irish see a clear difference between the ME and Asia, be it SE Asia or the Far East. Therefore we do not include Pakistan for example as part of the Middle East, as Americans do. To us, it is South East Asia.
Paki in the US may be a cultural term, in the UK its a racial term.
“I know paki is an acceptable term in the US”
And. . .
I know rubber or fag are acceptable terms in the UK. . . “
Back at ya.
Pointing out a term is offensive in a country isnt being a weakling. Thats a childish, simplistic argument. Asking someone for example not to use the n-word isnt being weak, its just good manners. And god, dont y’all love the d-word.
Firstly, the Indian and Pakistani immigration into the UK happened in the 1950’s and early 60’s, so it was 25-30 years before the extremism we see festering now started to creep up in the UK (late 80’s, Satanic Verses time). The notion that millions of ‘pakis’ came into the UK and immediately started causing problems is a nonsense.
Secondly, and rather obviously, the ‘adversarial’ Muslims in the UK, the extremists, are a minority. I know its hard for Americans to grasp, but the vast majority of British Muslims are normal, decent, hardworking, law abiding people.
There IS a problem with a vile, extreme section of the community, but contrary to US myth, they arent the majority or run the country.
The c-word in the UK and Ireland is used solely by men aggressively towards other men. It doesnt have any of the female ‘angle’ it does in the US. Men dont use it in anger towards women (we have other words lol) and women in the UK simply dont use.
Its a surprise to both British sexes that the US use is so completely different.
It is, in the UK.
In America it isnt, I get that. But in the UK, it is very much a serious racial insult. Just as the c-word has completely different uses and level of offence in the US and UK.
All I said was that to use it to describe Pakistanis (thats a nation of people, not the Muslims in the story) is unnecessary and crude.
I am just trying to warn people here, should they ever set foot in the UK. Using ‘paki’ is not accepted and will get you into serious trouble. Dont say I didnt warn ya.
You have chosen an interesting ideological hill to make your metaphorical stand upon. In response to a story about how a young boy was tormented to the point of suicide, you choose to admonish people for using a verboten word? Quite a curiously verboten word, at that.
The term -stan naturally means something akin to “homeland of...”. So, naturally, Afghanistan is the homeland of the Afghan people, just as Tajikistan is home to the Tajiks, and Uzbekistan is home to the Uzbeks, and unsurprisingly Kazakhstan plays host to a people called Kazakhs.
I suppose any right-thinking, morally upstanding citizen of an enlightened nation should find it frankly shocking and outraging that in a civilized nation someone from Pakistan would be given the moniker “Paki”. Just scandalous. Almost as bad as someone from Scotland being called a Scot, or someone from Britain being called a Brit, or someone from Australia being called an Aussie. Just deplorable.
The only reason “Paki” is considered a slur in your homeland is because rabidly irrational and confrontational social crusaders once discovered that they could short-circuit any rational political or social discourse by making baseless accusations of racism against their ideological opposites. Hence, ANY term you may use to refer to another group, regardless of how linguistically or taxonomically correct such term may be, can be self-righteously transformed into a “racial slur” by parties intent on derailing a debate. It becomes functionally impossible under such conditions to rationally discuss ANYTHING about the UNNAMEABLE group.
I will continue for the rest of my days to insist that the word “Paki” is no more of an angry, hateful slur than the word “Scot” or “Brit”; even if said words were to be used in anger or for the admonishment of their respective groups.
So, that thrilling little lesson in political and social applications of etymology aside, let’s stop derailing the debate by baseless accusations of “RACIST! RACIST! YOU USED A BAD WORD!” Really, it is time to desist, or I shall be forced to call you a dirty scotsman with so much tongue-in-cheek that I risk spraining the muscle in question.
The heart of the issue is that a young boy was tormented to death in his own homeland for the supposed crime of being a certain color. Even the headline for this story is telling, as the reporters would certainly have far more inflammatory language to use if the races of the perpetrators and victim had been reversed.
I am enough of a student of human nature that I can confidently predict that in the brief day or two that this story is allowed in the light of day that veritable mountains of verbiage will be built in the discussions of this story, in personal discourse, in print, and in electronic rambling the whole web over. I can also predict that most such mountains will be made of sentiments that have absolutely nothing to do with the damned story in the first place. People will invariably wish to dissemble and misdirect, either willfully or with the uncomfortable urge to change the uncomfortable subject, rather than discuss the pressing social issues touched upon by this incident or the very real heartbreak and tragedy of this specific atrocity.
It’s easier for polite people to find something less... confrontational and offensive to talk about. Musn’t offend others, ya know. It’s easier to get into a few pages of discussion about what words one is not allowed to use than risk saying something FAR more truthful and potentially FAR more offensive.
Well, this bit of reflexive politeness presents ethical problems when there are issues of pressing, yet emotional, importance to be discussed. Particularly troublesome about politeness is that being polite more often than not entails ignoring obvious truths. You see, many things that can categorically fall under the title “the truth” are a little less than polite. You wouldn’t wish to hurt the feelings of one of your friends or neighbors by pointing out that his or her clothing is so eye-burning atrocious that it caused dogs and small children to flee in terror, now would you?
As a matter of fact, once you get down to the real meat of the matter, the truth is often a very ugly thing - frightful really - and sometimes it’s more than can be expected of a man to ask him to roll over first thing in the morning and confront that ghastly thing known as the truth. I suspect that most of humanity is engaged in a daily effort to ignore unsolicited realizations of truthfulness, if for no other reason than the fact that our continued survival often depends on the artful and polite non-observance of the objectionable.
But mankind’s innate urge towards politeness can be dangerous when it comes time to rationally discuss the present and the future, before events rush to a point where the only decisions left to be made must be made quickly and irrationally. Further, the reflexive politeness of socially self-conscious individuals can be manipulated for political gain by unscrupulous social crusaders.
There are a number of uncomfortable realizations suggested by this article, and throwing politeness to the four winds I will enumerate a few of the more glaringly obvious ones:
First - This story will be promptly forgotten. It’s just not newsworthy, there’s no profit to be made and no political gains to be made in stirring up the natives. There aren’t any racial or religious advocacy organizations that are going to step up and carry the banner of this dead child. No special prosecutors will be appointed to seek out justice, no passionate speeches will be made in the halls of government, and you can rest assured that you won’t be confronted with the uncomfortable details of this story every time you turn on your television or pass an archaic example of physical newsprint. The boy was the wrong color for any of that, so we’ll be right back to business as usual.
Second - The conditions that allowed this event to take place will continue to fester. There will be no mass-candlelight vigils to remind the community of the injustices of racism, there will be no protests and vociferous action campaigns to demand a change in policy from the school administrators or local government. At the current time your society’s institutions as well as the forces of community decree are ideologically aligned to protect the interests of the abusers, not the abused.
Third - If the races had been reversed this likely would not have happened. Herein lies a particularly poignant element of tragedy.
Did the boy’s teachers hesitate to apply the same protections to this boy that they would have applied to his dusky classmates if the white boy and his mates had been the racist aggressors?
Did school officials, if they even were made aware of the conflict, decline to intervene as passionately as they would have if the racial balance of conflict been more ideologically suitable for their rarefied and enlightened sentiments?
Did the parents of the abusers support and further the actions of their abusive offspring, feeding the children a steady stream of anti-white racial invective, self-righteously supporting the bullying, or the like?
Did the popular media play a role in shaping the opinions of the abusive youth and the abused alike - with music, movies, television and the news painting a picture of white people as worthy of scorn, derision and abuse, and portraying other peoples as justified in aggression towards whites?
Did the parents of the deceased boy play a part in this tragedy as well? As heart-wrenching as it may be to contemplate, is it possible that the boys parents did not protect him as passionately as they should have? What words of support did they offer him when he came home crying, when he begged not to be sent back to his daily hell, when he called for help? Did they inspire in their child a strong sense of self, and pride, or did they fall prey to the creeping sense of self-hatred afflicting the polite native peoples in western civilization? Did the parents march down to the school and self-righteously berate the staff for the unacceptable racist abuses heaped upon their child, or did they shy away from confrontation and racially charged action after making a token objection? Did the parents of the dead boy confront the racist parents of their son’s abusers, or did they cringe at the thought of “being one of THOSE people” that get upset at minorities.
The answers to a few of those questions can be found in the article. Quote:
I went to see head Martin Collin a few times, but he only said, You didnt have to come to this school, you chose to come here.
Tell me, do you really think hate-crime laws are going to be used to protect YOU? Do you think affirmative action, hiring quotas, and racial justice legislation will be used to benefit YOUR people when you are discriminated-against-minorities in your own nations? Do you think that crusaders against racism like the Rev. Jackson and Sharpton will organize marches and vigils for someone of YOUR color brutally murdered by racist thugs? Do you think that anyone in the government or in the schools will shed any tears if another little white boy gets abused by racists? Do you think YOU would have better protected your own child against racist attacks than this child’s parents did?
The truth is often an ugly thing. It won’t win you any friends. But it still needs to be spoken regardless.
Yep. One of those things. I was like “Dude! You can’t say that!” Lol!
You’re awesome, man.
Words are words, you jackass.
There are some that I don’t use in public or private, some that I don’t use in public, and many I don’t care to hear most anytime.
But I don’t go around “hyphenating” any bloody (is THAT word okay with you, Scotsmarm?) terminology because some race-baiter or faint-hearted fairy or wretched wingeing Scots-half-a-man feels put upon.
You know damn good and well upon what I base my opinion of you: you are the one who has defended the 911 attacks on just these blood-soaked grounds you lure us toward today: that somehow “sensitivities” and heedlessness and the behavior of ugly Americans is at least partly to blame.
I say go to hell.
Yep. One of those things. I was like “Dude! You can’t say that!” Lol!
‘Not so much as conquered but muslims enjoy more cultural and religious protection from the UK government than, say, a Christian.’
Actually they dont. As the victorious cross-wearing Christian in the recent High Court case showed.
‘And while the UK is not conquered fully they are on their way. . . .look at the west end of Oxford St. Used to be posh and nary a muslim in sight, but now it is like being in a suk in Cairo or Saudi. And how about the east side of London? Demographics are not in your favor.’
And London equals Britain?. Why is it Americans argue because London is heavy-ethnic that that means the UK is?. So is NY and LA, does that means they represent the ethnic makeup of ALL America?.
I am sick and tired of hearing how Islam swamps the UK. Heres the facts, my friend:
95% of the UK is NOT Muslim.
92% of the UK is white.
Scotland is 99.16% non-Muslim.
Wales and NI have even less Muslims.
The majority of England is still white and Anglo-Saxon.
95.2% of England is NOT Muslim.
This stupid American idea that the Muzzies will breed out the Limeys is, well, stupid.
‘In the UK I saw a debate on TV where a muslim was demanding respect for muslims/islam and argued no one can be permitted to mock, insult or make fun of islam, but this same person argued Christianity can be mocked, insulted and made fun of because it was not the true faith. All to great applause from the studio audience. . .the audience didnt appear to to be comprised of mosty muslims, but were most certainly the loudest and most aggressive.’
Funny, as an actual Brit, I have never seen a debate like that where someone who argues no criticism of Islam gets cheered. I have seen plenty where all religions get a bashing, to great applause though.
So the Muslims were loud?. All that proves is that empty vessels make the loudest noise. I could stand outside my home and shout that Catholics should be burnt at the stake again. Dosent mean its gonna happen.
‘And given the amount of stories in the press about muslims filing allegations of insulting islam or accusing someone of a hate crime because they preached Christianity on the street, it appears they are well on their way to special protection status and this, my Scot, means they are taking over.’
No, they are not. They havent, they wont. I am talling you as an actual Briton who actually lives here, as opposed to someone who gets their ideas from the internet and TV.
‘Discussions with taxi drivers is most enlightening, black cab* and mini-cab. I try to avoid mini-cabs but have you ever tried to get a taxi in The City after 1000hrs? Muslim mini-cab drivers all, when I ask, all say they will never consider themselves British and place shariah law above UK law. The black cab driver views asian immigration as uncontrolled and taking over. . .and there are areas they wont go because of the muslim component/threat.’
That is sad, and a concern. BUT that dosent equal all UK Muslims feeling that way, or that the UK is a conquered nation where Islam is concerned. Anymore than a NI Catholic in Belfast or Derry who hates the UK and considers themselves (Southern) Irish means he/she is going to plant bombs and strap on an armalite...
And there are sadly plenty of areas in the UK where plenty of taxi drivers wont go. Of course, most of those areas are WHITE, some are black (caribbean) or mixed. And they wont go because of the violence. Of course the fact of no-go areas that arent Muslim doesnt quite fit your narrative.....
‘Like I said, not conquered yet, but well on your way.’
As I said, not even close. Sorry to disappoint.
I know Americans love this idea that they will be the last bulwark of western civilisation after the Limeys, Irish and Euros are conquered, but its drivel.
Well stated. Well put. Put the entire episode into perspective.
I understand your frustration and inclination to lash out, so I take no offense to your post.
I suppose I could have gone on to describe in great detail the same impressions when traveling across the UK; mostly Dover, Lands End, Aberystwyth (where my son went to grad school), East Anglia (Felixstowe and Ipswitch), Cambridgeshire (Alconbury, Huntingdon and Wyton), London (all over), Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Inverness, Lossiemouth, heck even Wick (never made it to the Orkney’s or Shetlands).
Sadly, to do so would take too much time and frankly, I simply haven’t the time.
Cheers, my FRiend.
oh I had no idea, thought it was just an abbreviation.
Personally, I prefer the term "middle eastern" only because then you can tell for sure that they are talking about pakistanis vs. chinese for instance. But that is just me.....
But as you said, more people need to recognize that other people have varying uses for terms...
I hope I am not being too aggressive or rude.
I am not saying the UK dosent a problem with (a minority) of UK Muslims, but I get angry at the usual ‘the UK is a dhimmi and conquered nation’ stuff that I read on here. 99% from people who have never been to the UK, and just believe what FR, Rush, rightwing radio and Fox tells them. Much of it is not only wrong, but hysterical.
You at least have been here, so whilst we may disagree, I respect your opinion more than most.
Banter is a blood sport in the UK, so, I remain your friend as I enjoy an impassioned exchange of thoughts.
Respect returned. . .especially since you are a Scot (UK’s version of a Texan, independent and hardy).
Cheers, my FRiend. . .and
Would the use of the word "paki" get one into more trouble than openly voicing the opinion that Mohammed was a delusional pedophile?
How about the level of trouble that one would get into in the UK over openly burning a Quran?
Or publicly voicing the opinion that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization? Or openly expressing a desire to nuke Mecca?
We KNOW that "paki" is a pejorative term that some people will get upset over. You need to understand that it's not that we don't KNOW, it's that we don't CARE.
That was very impressive. Rarely do we see that level of discourse here or anywhere else.
I think the word ‘Paki’ has become the n-word because Muslims and leftists have used the vilification of a mildly offensive word to advance their agenda and to silence people who criticize the Islamists.
For God’s sake, we call the British limeys and sorts of things and people are not trying to shut that down. It’s a shame that it has become verboten — it may be a little crude, but it’s not that crude. No more offensive than saying Jap for Japanese which was common during World War II. That was crude. But it is hardly on the scale of the n-word.
I’ve been to the UK many times and have never used the word because it isn’t polite conversation. We’ve come along way since the time when we had real freedom of speech and people who hear a few off-colors comments and go about their business and not go into cardiac arrest over an imagined offense.
For years, the UK tolerated the rantings of Anjem Choudary who screamed death to Britain, death the Queen, death to freedom, death to everything in the West and who hates Christians and vilifies them — and that was not considered offensive? He is vile beyond belief and deserves to summarily arrested, tried for treason and shot by a firing squad. But it’s taken forever just to ban the vile organizations he has created. And yet people get worked up about “Paki’s.” Good grief.
The offense business is a one way street that only advances a leftist and Islamist point of view. No one is ever offended if a white person or a Christian or Jew or anyone who isn’t in the protected class is vilified and insulted. Indeed, the insults and attacks are non stop.
Yes, NSS, but he asked "Please dont use the word paki. Esp when its a British story." If the word "Paki" offends in the UK, who cares. We should be able to say that here if we want to.
Response: I would not argue too strenuously against your statement. I meant poor in the sense of poor spirited.
I do not bow well.