Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Why is prince's 'Paki' comment any more offensive than 'Brit' or 'Aussie'?

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 January 2009
If there is one positive thing to come out of the current storm in a teacup over comments Prince Harry made two years ago (your report, 12 January), it will be the end of the myth that "Paki" is offensive.
To call the term "Paki" offensive is to accept a con perpetuated by self-appointed "community spokespersons" and race relations "experts" whose careers rely on keeping the melting pot boiling over. The word means "pure" (spiritually) in Sanskrit – th
e Indo-Asian equivalent to Latin – thus Pakistan means "land of the pure". Hardly offensive, is it?

No-one objects to the word "Desi" – a term for all South Asians – being appropriated along with the hundreds of other Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit words that have become part and parcel of English (such as Paki's Hindi equivalent, "Pukka"), nor do white Britons object to being called Goras (which means "pale skinned") by their Desi friends and neighbours.

So let's stop this faux offendedness.

MARK BOYLE

Linn Park Gardens

Johnstone, Renfrewshire

The remarks Prince Harry made several years ago were not public utterances, but private chatter between soldiers. Obviously, it would have been better had the comment not been made, and the prince has apologised. It would also have been better had the rather unintelligible conversation not been filmed and extracts later broadcast throughout the world.

"Paki" was, of course, used as an abbreviation of Pakistani. I now wonder how many Britons will take offence at being called "Brits", Australians "Aussies" and so on?

PHILIP BENWELL

Chairman, Australian Monarchist League

South Sydney NSW, Australia

Prince Harry used the word "Paki" in what everyone accepts was a situation where he intended no offence.

The humbug and over-reaction is best exemplified by Keith Vaz MP, who on Monday's Radio 4 Today programme attacked the comments of Prince Harry because he was "third in line to the English throne".

Frankly, many of the Scots, Irish and Welsh will find this far more offensive than Prince Harry's "barracks" banter.

Prince Harry has apologised for any offence these out-of-context remarks may have caused and the matter should be left at that. Will Mr Vaz apologise for his offence?

PHILIP LARDNER

Parkinch

Erskine, Renfrewshire

When I was young, nearly 60 years ago, in the Highlands there were two shops in the main town run by Pakistani families, selling quality clothes at affordable prices. Even then each was referred to as the Paki's shop, not as an insult but as one of endearment because they gave such good value.

I have also looked up an old encyclopaedia and it states the name Pakistan comes from the meaning for "land of the Pakis". So when did it become offensive? My late parents and the rest of our family certainly meant no offence.

TERRY DUNCAN

Greame Road

Bridlington, East Yorkshire





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 January 2009 8:51 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Prince Harry
 
1

Tom in Belmont,

Belmont 13/01/2009 02:25:28
Men at war are not known for their polite language. Read our General Patton's speeches and lighten up!
2

trelayne,

Montreal 13/01/2009 03:29:08
Ah yes, Britain, the motherland of one of the greatest colonial empires of the world. P@ki is racist! Get it through your skull. Its use in the English language has traditionally been used in a derogatory fashion. Bad habits die hard. Or is that not an English saying as well? Only South East Asians should be allowed to call each other P@ki. Because when *THEY* do it, it's meant in the way precious Prince Harry pleads that *HE* meant it---yeah right sunshine boy. Recent studies show that most people are still racist: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/08/racism-tolerate-study.html?ref=rss
So there's no way in hell any of you are going to get the OK to say P@ki. Enough said.
3

viking nz,

newzealand 13/01/2009 05:49:16
Hello all you poms , micks , jocks, taffys, kiwis and aussies .
4

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 13/01/2009 07:03:25
The derivations posted above ("land of the pure" and "land of the Pa\kis") are both incorrect. Pakistan is an invented name for a new country created in 1947, and is based on an acronym. "Pa\ki" is a back-formation from the name of the country.

In any case, this is really beside the point. Words acquire derogatory connotations because people use them in a derogatory way, not because of their derivation. "Psychiatric patient" is neutral, "head case" is derogatory. "Prostitute" is neutral, "who\re" is derogatory.

The word "Pa\ki" has acquired derogatory connotations because that's how people in general have used the word since it came into use. It isn't comparable to neutral casual terms such as "Kiwi" for a New Zealander or "Geordie" for a Northumbrian.

As for Keith Vaz, his comments were offensive too, and he should apologise.
5

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 13/01/2009 07:41:18
The words in question are only offensive in the eyes of the non whites in this country. Whites call each other all sorts of names and not a word is said.
If these people do not like our manner of speech they should return to from whence they and their forefathers came.
They are the ones responsible for the alleged racism by their gross misinterpretation by remarks made in private which some lowlife sold the the News of the World.
6

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 13/01/2009 07:59:58
I think if the Prince has followed his use of the work p@ki through with "b@stard" and started it with "ugly" and used a certain degree of vehemence, then it could be construed as offensive.

As it happens, it was followed by "freind" and started with "our" and is a 3 year old video tape showing a bunch of young lands being over excited (or asleep in the main).

It's smokes and mirrors and a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from GB and his utter failings as PM.

Get over it.
7

Jingo,

Edinburgh 13/01/2009 09:18:11
Do some folk have to use the @ instead od a? it's very annoying!
8

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 13/01/2009 09:29:19
8

Ok, try writing p@ki or b@stard with an a and see how you get on.
9

Miss H,

13/01/2009 10:46:13
I think the comments about what 'P@ki' means are a bit naive. Today the word P@ki is generally followed by the word 'b@stard'.

Whatever it may have been in the past it is now an abusive term for someone of Pakistani origin. The proof of that is that the Scotsman will not allow us to use the word when posting! Like n@gger or y@d or f@nian it has become a derogatory term although those words may also have, or have had, other less offensive meanings in the past.

If I called someone who was Jewish a y@d and then said oh but I didn’t mean to be offensive, I don’t think anyone would believe me - even if I then said oh but 100 years ago it just meant someone who spoke Yiddish.

Having said that, I do have a certain amount of sympathy for Prince Harry. People can say things for a laugh which they don’t really mean.

What tempers my sympathy is the fact that if you or I met him we would be expected to call him ‘Sir’ and kow-tow to him because he is a ‘royal’. When in fact he is just a rather dense member of the upper class.

10

Thrawn,

UK 13/01/2009 11:38:28
#4: The word "Pommie" is often followed by the word "b*stard", though some Aussies would swear that this could be a term of endearment. However, how would you react to being called an "ocker", which is what one should call those Antipodeans who use the word Pom offensively?

#5: I don't think that "prostitute" always has neutral connotation, though I support your contention. The BBC and the Guardian prefer the term "sex worker". Don't forget that there is nothing neutral in saying someone is prostituting their talent.

#9: people from ethnic minorities sometimes refer to themselves by what are deemed offensive terms, but is that any different from one Scot calling another "a typical Scot" for being stingy? One might object if an Englishman said such conduct was typical of the Scots. And don't forget how the appendage -bashing was often used in conjunction with P*ki in the 1970s.

#12: what offends me about the Prince Harry affair is how the News of the World obviously paid a fat sum of money to obtain the video - as the Sun did to get that picture of Harry in Nazi uniform - in an attempt to discredit the Royal Family; but then, the owner of both rags, Rupert "The Dirty Digger" Murdoch has a republican agenda. Harry made a mistake and has apologised. A line should now be drawn under the whole affair.

You are wrong about having to call Harry Sir. He was seen on television saying "People should call me Harry, not Sir" a few years back.

11

G,

dundy 13/01/2009 12:23:02
Ask anyone who has been called it whether they think it is racist....
It is another of those terms favoured and supported by those who like to find differences between people so that they can brand them as "other" or different..... and often hate them...
As for drawing a line under this.....this will run its course but it has done considerable damage to the royal family, associating them with attributes we may have thought they had.
12

G,

dundy 13/01/2009 12:27:15
Mr Duncan and all ths others....the term P@ki "became" offensive when those people you deemed to be P@akis decided they didn't have to put it with it...I call that progress and no amount of bleating about Brits, Aussies, will change things ...so get used to it...
13

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 13/01/2009 13:11:52
There seems to be a right load of royal a*se kissers writing to the paper this week. We all know that this is used as an abusive term for everyone of Asian appearance by racists.

To try and reform the word and claim it is equivalent with 'Brit' is desperate hypocritical dross, all to try and pretend 'good old prince Harry' the ten week hero isn't a racist even though he also said one of his comrades looked like a 'rag-head' when he wore a turban.

Personally I blame the parents...

The fact is that racism is rife within the army and British society and comes from the ancient Empire which for a long, long time pretended Britons were better than anyone else - who were all inferior natives who needed to be civilised.

We can break the cycle by having a modern progressive independent state which represents our values and our identity as proud welcoming Scots, not delusional xenophobic Brits!
14

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 13/01/2009 14:44:40
Different descriptions and expressions mean different things to different races of people?

Should we just accept these differences and revert to
name calling, dependent on whether you are Scots, English, Welsh, Irish, African-Americans, Asian, Jew, Oriental, Aborigine, native-American, physically disabled, learning disabled, obese, mad, etc, etc? The list is endless.

We all know the racist and demeaning descriptions of all the above because at one time or another everyone has used them, and indeed, there are still many who, for whatever reason, will never stop calling a Scot a Jock, or an Englishman, a Percy, Cyril, or Sassenach, or a Welshman Taffy, or even worse.

In truth we are all hypocrites, including members of the Royal Family!
15

Pollock Bain,

Kinross 13/01/2009 17:56:38
If you look at the video, the actual phrase used was, "our little P*ki Friend", which if not offensive - and as a white Scot, I am not qualified to judge, is certainly patronising.

What I did find offensive, as a recently serving officer, was that Mr Wales saw fit to conduct an "O" Group with a lit cigarette between his teeth, which he spat out when it bothered him. Definitely "conduct prejudicial to good military order and discipline", definitely disrespectful to those being briefed.
16

Colin Punler,

Thurso 13/01/2009 19:21:20
Language constantly evolves. Words we use every day will become redundant in time and be replaced by others. Words with common currency 30 or 50 years ago have none today. The term "p*ki" may have been in innocent use 30 or 40 years years ago. But language evolves. The term increasingly came to be regarded as a term of abuse, largely because it was heard preceding "b*****d" in a racist context more often than not. As such, many tolerant people abandoned its use out of respect for the dignity of others, and their desire to disassociate themselves from those who gave the term a racist meaning. I don't cringe very often reading newspapers. But I do when I read people defending the indefensible.
17

Mark Boyle,

Johnstone 13/01/2009 21:08:40
#6 "The derivations posted above ("land of the pure" and "land of the Pa\kis") are both incorrect. Pakistan is an invented name for a new country created in 1947, and is based on an acronym. "Pa\ki" is a back-formation from the name of the country."

The term Pakistan was coined in 1934 as Pakistan by Choudhary Rahmat Ali (allegedly dreaming it up whilst on a London Bus!), who explained it as "it means the land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean" (from the manifesto 'Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever?'). He further went on to explain: "It symbolizes the religious beliefs and ethnical stocks of our people; and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland. It has no other origin and no other meaning; and it does not admit of any other interpretation."

'Nuff said!
18

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 13/01/2009 21:45:33
Re #21 : interesting. Wikipedia's entry on Choudhary Rahmat Ali says that he originally (in 1934) coined the name Pakistan based on an acronym, and the bit about "the land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean" was expounded only in a book he wrote in 1947.

Personally I find the idea of a "land of the spiritually pure and clean" very distasteful, to say the least. There are saints and sinners everywhere.
19

Joe Macdelta.,

18/01/2009 09:32:07
A bit of banter between comrades, totaly blown out of proportion by the news of the world, which is after all only a rag not worth reading, unless of course you are only interested in scandal. This paper has been plumbing the depths of bad taste ever since it first printed, any reports by said rag should be taken with a bit of disbelief, just not worth reading.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.