Why is Paki an unacceptable word, but not Brit? Because of Britain's bitter racial history

London Times ^ | January 12, 2009 | Murad Ahmed

[GOPGuide]

Our little Paki friend... Ahmed.” Oh boy. I've heard that one before. But not as recently as the friends I spoke to yesterday in Oldham, a place where racial tensions spilled into riots not long ago. Apparently, they still get called Paki all the time. By whom? “Oh, just little kids on the street. What can you do? They're only children.” Prince Harry is not a child. He is unlucky only in that, unlike most young men, his worst moments end up splashed across the front page of newspapers.

That he thought it acceptable to use the word Paki to refer to a Pakistani colleague represents a pathetic failure in his upbringing. Someone, somewhere along the line - a wise grandparent perhaps - should have told him to cut it out. These days the word Paki is used only by those who don't know any better, rather than by those who should. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission thinks that we need an inquiry into the Prince's behaviour. What would we discover? That the third in line to the throne is a bit of an idiot? That is an open-and-shut case. But we should have an inquiry about the word Paki.

[river rat]

"What is most demeaning is that the utterance of the word is the fastest way to say one is less than another, a lower class, something sub-human, something not worth bothering with. No other word has been so summed up as being so degrading as this one word."

But, isn't it amazing how appropriate that word is to describe so many of the sub human residents in America?

There is hardly another word so descriptive or capable of expressing the high level of contempt for those who have earned the term..

Samples can be found here:
www.thugreport.com

[lentulusgracchus]

Surely the Brits had bad names for various Indian groups but Paki sounds pretty generic.

I don't see how it could be construed as offensive at all.

"Pak" is an ethnic descriptor, as "Hindu" is a religious one. What are they going to do, ban the geographical names "Pakistan" and "Hindustan"? How about "Luristan"? Sounds pretty "lurid" to me. Arabistan is an area of Iran that is inhabited by ethnic Arabs. Is "Arab" off the list now? Or "Arabi" (as in, Arabi, Louisiana) and "Araby" (old and poetic English name for Arabia)? Turkmenistan is identified with the Turkmens or Turkomans, Uzbekistan is the home of the Uzbeks, and Baluchistan is the home of the Baluchs -- is "Baluch" off-limits, too? God, this PC stupidity will never end.

[lentulusgracchus]

"Whatever its origins, by the early 1800s it was firmly established as a denigrative epithet."

Which didn't stop Abraham Lincoln from condescending to use it in figures of rhetoric in half-a-dozen of his debates with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, when he was contesting Douglas's Senate seat.

[lentulusgracchus]

I visited the site, and if Pakis are going to use the term "Paki" themselves, doesn't that disarm their complaints against the British using it?

They're just playing games -- pimping the Brits for being British, or white, or taking the opposing side of an argument or beef, or whatever. It's simple sand-in-the-eyes recrimination and dirty pool.

[ViLaLuz]

I found out that with Brits, “paki” is unacceptable, but “pak” is OK.

[blueplum]

the London Times has completely lost it’s everlovin mind

Long Live Prince Harry !

[imintrouble]

Good lord we are going to PC ourselves into perpetual silence in fear we will offend someone in our world.

The Brits have opened their tiny isle to the world and have condemned their own residents from speaking anything which may hurt feelings, especially with the recent arrivals.

I grew up in a Canadian city where a large number of people migrated from the middle east and many of them from Pakistan. As Canadians are apt to do - they abbreviated the word and “Paki” became an adoption of the people now living in the province - no harm intended.

Just as we were often called Canucks whether we ever held a hockey stick in our hands or not - nobody was hurt.

What can we expect from a group who still think having a monarch is A-OK. Now that’s politically incorrect in my book - The British media are a bumbling bunch of nannies.

[Marysecretary]

Oh no! splatpaki!

[Cronos]

But because it was used for a race that was enslaved and lynched and denied basic rights, it has horrible associations.

Not really, the n word is used as an insult, just like the word honky (I can't figure out the origins of THAT) or the word Paki.

[Cronos]

I thought Paki was only offensive if you called an Indian person a Paki. My bad.

Actually I thought the same too -- Indians would hate to be compared to a Pak

[Cronos]

Calling someone from the US, “gringo” can be used as an insult in S and Central America.

[Cronos]

I read that the term Yankee derives from the time when the British were battling the Dutch for North America (the first name for New York was New Amsterdam) and they called the folks from that area as Jan Keese.

[Cronos]

Whatever the term MAY mean, if it’s used disparagingly, it’s an insult. If a person of Latino origin calls you a yanqui, that signifies, to THEM, a despicable person. That is then an insult.

[Cronos]

but it is a derogatory term in every country.

Yup, you said it -- Pakis are derogatory in any case :)

[rmlew]

Paki seems like a rather normal diminutive for Pakistani.
Raghed is an insult, but who cares. Harry was talking about his enemies.
The appropriate response would be to laughingly call him German Import.

[rmlew]

EB White has a cute aphorism.

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

Of course this was before the New York Highland Yankees became known simply as the Yankees.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

My understanding is that “Yankee” was the same as calling someone a “jack-o§§” today. The Brits have a way with words that probably should be tempered with a bit more common sense. I'm sure that denigrating your enemy made it easier to put one between his eyes, but probably wouldn't outfit one for the Foreign Service.

My father almost passed out when I called someone a “Jerk” as a young woman. It never occurred to me that the term had a rather unsavory history. I stared in disbelief as he lectured me on his disappointment that the finishing school for which he paid a rather handsome price had failed to produce a young lady. Thank God he's in a better place today or he'd definitely be on his way.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Note to Harold: You have a target painted on your backside, Dearest. Understand this and make allowances for it. What you say will always carry twice as much weight as it should. What you do will never carry the weight it should and, in the end, you will save yourself a great deal of pain if you subscribe to the old axiom, “A little less lip and a little more action.” Learn to love the chalk line.

Love,
Mom

[swarthyguy]

The word for Englishmen is BRITISHER.

Brit sounds like some cute furry kid’s doll.

You never heard of the game PAKI MAN?

[gondramB]

GondramB: “ I wonder if Paki is really in that category though. Surely the Brits had bad names for various Indian groups but Paki sounds pretty generic.”
—

Oztrich Boy:’ “Paki” wouldn’t have been one of them. Because Pakistan is a created acronym from Punjab, Afghania Kashmir, Sindh, and it didn’t exist before Indian/Pakistani independence

As for it being offensive http://www.paki.com/ ‘

---

Thanks for that info. I didn’t know Paki’s origin as an acronym or that it was in use by the Pakistani’s themselves.

Now, the cynical side of me says none of that will prevent a double standard from being applied.

The whole thing remins me of this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_guilt

BTW, this is my favorite part

>>Liberal criticism

Commentator Sunny Hundal, writing for The Guardian, states that it is “reductionist” to assign political opinions to a collective guilt such as “White guilt” and that few people on the left actually hold the views being ascribed to them by the conservative writers who expound on the concept of “White guilt” and its implications.[8] Hundal concludes:

“Not much annoys me more than the stereotype that to be liberal is to be full of guilt. To be socially liberal, in my view, is to be more mindful of compassion and empathy for others.” <<

I laugh every time I read that.