Prince Harry a racist?

[Guest]

Someone from Scotland is called a Scotsman, this is shortened to Scot. Ball's in your court crystalclear.

the point is that not every one who gets called a 'paki' is from pakistan. it's an umbrella term for people who might be from many different countries, but who all have the same colour skin. and I couldn't agree more with you Anon, that 'paki' IS a racist term.

However.

I believe that the guy in question WAS actually from Pakistan. And so it is likely that Harry, knowing this, did abbreviate it, in the same manner that you can abbreviate Scotsman to Scot. If he didn't know where the guy was from, then that certainly doesn't make him look good.

I don't think Harry is a racist, but it does bother me that someone of his influence can't learn that it doesn't matter what kind of social situation he is in, he can't afford to forget political correctness. If I was Prince, I know I would have a bit more sense.

[RedCelt69]

If I was Prince, I know I would have a bit more sense.

By releasing an album that was on a par with Purple Rain?

[munchingfoo]

the point is that not every one who gets called a 'paki' is from pakistan. it's an umbrella term for people who might be from many different countries, but who all have the same colour skin. and I couldn't agree more with you Anon, that 'paki' IS a racist term.

However.

I believe that the guy in question WAS actually from Pakistan. And so it is likely that Harry, knowing this, did abbreviate it, in the same manner that you can abbreviate Scotsman to Scot. If he didn't know where the guy was from, then that certainly doesn't make him look good.

The words, "Guilty until proven innocent", spring to mind...

[Garnet]

You could say it all the way until the Telegraph becomes a Labour newspaper, it won't make it any more relevant or correct, unless you have some evidence to support it? I'd even accept a reason why you "would say" that, rather than just a sentence of opinion.

A sentence of opinion, from my general observation, on an internet forum, dear me, the exam pressure must have got to me yesterday - here is my relevant reference: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/paki?view=uk .

[Person]

I also can't believe that people here think it's acceptable to call someone a Paki. The word has racist connnotations and is NOT the same thing as calling a British person a Brit. You can be a stubborn asshole and believe whatever you want to believe about what the word really means, but when it comes down to it and you use the word 'paki,' you're likely to offend someone, if not a bunch of people. You might want to believe that because Brit means the same thing as Briton, Paki should mean the same thing as Pakistani, but in modern English that is NOT the case. Paki is a racist term just like nigger and gook and even 'negro' which, like Paki, has an innocent and offensive etymology but has come to mean something negative. I could understand if someone accidentally used the term Paki, thinking they were original and not knowing that such a term exists. But when you know that most people consider a term offensive, why go on using it? Why offend people when it's totally unnecessary?

All you do is come across like an asshole and make other people feel uncomfortable or angry. It's like when people (Americans usually - it's not as weird a word in Britain I guess) try to justify calling someone a 'faggot' by saying that it really means a bundle of sticks or whatever. Sure, maybe it used to mean that, but everyone nowadays is fully aware that that is NOT what it means, so unless you want to give off the message that you hate gay people and look down upon them, don't use the word and expect everyone to be okay with it!

As for Harry, he should really know better. As someone interviewed in the article I read said, it's pretty annoying that he gets all this money and privilege and expensive schooling for being a royal family member, but he can't even speak politely/respectfully. Someone who has grown up in the public eye should know better than to use offensive language, especially on camera. For all the privilege he gets, I expect higher things from him. And yes, I know he has put himself in harms way, but that doesn't mean he can't do any wrong. Plenty of Pakistanis join the armed forces as well and they don't deserve to be disrespected.

[Haunted]

Has he actually discriminated against people by race? Or has he just been caught using good natured colourful (no pun intended) banter that none of us would be surprised to find in the armed forces?

[LonelyPilgrim]

All you do is come across like an asshole and make other people feel uncomfortable or angry. It's like when people (Americans usually - it's not as weird a word in Britain I guess) try to justify calling someone a 'faggot' by saying that it really means a bundle of sticks or whatever. Sure, maybe it used to mean that, but everyone nowadays is fully aware that that is NOT what it means, so unless you want to give off the message that you hate gay people and look down upon them, don't use the word and expect everyone to be okay with it!

Hey! I use 'faggot' to mean a bundle of kindling sticks, although I'd not call a person that. Calling someone a bunch of sticks wouldn't make sense, no matter what their sexual orientation. I certainly don't hate gay people - at the risk of stereotyping, I'm in the theatre and if I hated homosexual folks, I'd hate half the people I know!

Some people are just too damn sensitive for their own good. I don't know if the Prince is racist, I don't know what he really meant... neither do you, none of us were there. We can speculate all we want, but it does absolutely no good.

[Delts]

I love how everyone ignores some of the original reporting that said the officer had possibly suggested the nickname of Paki himself.

Also if the person it was directed to didn't mind (which since he didn't complain and hasn't since would appear to be the case) then people who are bothered should grow up and stop whinging about things that don't concern them. It would be like someone being offended if a friend called me a faggot. I don't care and neither should you.

Grow up you bunch of soft minded nannied eejits.

[Hennessy]

Just in time for this debate we get a taste of Czech prejudices:

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=100465

I thought the depiction of France was particularly good, but given that Britain was totally excluded from this artistic success I think we should take full advantage to laugh up the prejudices of our European allies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7827747.stm

And to cap it all off several of the new EU states have broken rank and switched from unilateral EU negotiations to bilateral talks with the Russians, perhaps going a bit too far in flaunting the dithering and weakness of the union when faced with a determined and hostile opponent. No wonder the Russians don't take us seriously, I wonder what the stereotype for "British" is in the land of the bear anyway, probably something not very flattering.

In light of all this the fuss over the domestic use of the term "Paki" has been softened a bit in my view. Yes, racists may use it as shorthand for 'unwanted in this country', but one suspects that is because it is easier to say than most other epithets, suiting the underdeveloped intelligence of those who hurl the abbreviation around as an insult.

As for raghead, I believe it has already been explained away as a dehumanising term. Harry's a bit of an idiot too, but I doubt he is a committed racist.

Storm in a teacup, notice how all of those who have marched out in order to voice their strongest possible concerns all lean traditionally regard with suspicion or even active animosity to the constitutional monarchy

[Anon.]

At least the gaffe-prone-royal succession is secure for when the Duke of Edinburgh shuffles off this mortal coil, far distant may that time be.

[Person]

Actually, I quite like Prince Harry and I'm not a UK citizen so I don't think I really have the right to hold an opinion about the constitutional monarchy as it's not really my business. But it is pretty disappointing to see someone brought up with the best education and in a very affluent family, etc., someone who is supposed to be representing Britain and whatnot, throwing around terms like Paki and raghead. Did he really not learn anything from the whole Hitler costume fiasco?

Raghead is bad specifically because it is so dehumanising. The British army is meant to be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan in part to protect the democratic/human rights of the 'ragheads' who make up the bulk of the population. Doesn't say much that someone fighting there refers to the enemy as 'ragheads,' as it suggests hatred or a generally negative attitude towards Muslims/Arabs, regardless of whose side they are on. Maybe it's just me being naive, but I don't think hating a military foe for their culture, religion, or customary dress is a good way to go about rectifying any violent situation, as it only perpetuates hatred and intolerance.

[Gubbins]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090117/tuk-prince-is-not-a-racist-soldier-6323e80.html

Looks like the officer in question thinks what pretty much the sane half of the population reckon - that is can be racist, but wasn't meant that way. Not that that ever stopped people coming out of the woodwork to complain. And I wonder why no-one else seems to have run this article...?

Oooh... I am turning into a grumpy old bugger.

[Jono]

I have no love for Prince Harry. To my mind, he embodies everything that's wrong with the monarchy. Nevertheless, in this case, I don't think he's in the wrong.

We have a knee-jerk reaction to racism in this country, whereby any given incident results in pillorying regardless of intent or irony. Racism, as a rule, is an ugly thing, and should not be tolerated. One of the very, very few exceptions to this is private banter between two friends, which *I think* is the case here (the military culture of 'taking it like a man' without complaint blurs the edges somewhat). This is the feral media's fault! It's all so simple!

One thing I find unpalatable about this situation is the way everyone is leaping to Harry's defence! The Prince's only legitimate defense, In my opinion, is the one above; private banter. It is NOT relevant that he's served his country. In this country we do not show clemancy to serving or former soldiers who commit crimes or outrages just because they've fought in wars!

I feel like the political establishment is guilty of some astonishing hypocrisy over this . If a politician or public figure had called a friend a Paki, everyone would have dived onto the bandwagon with nary a second thought. There would be dictated apoligia at best, and forced-resignations at worst. Just look at that situation last year, with Patrick Mercer's Comments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6431005.stm! Yet Prince Harry, even more prominent a public figure, is apparently held to different set of rules! Let me guess; he is young, he is learning!

[WashingtonIrving]

You know what I find funny? Look in the Daily Mail, bastion of blabbering 'anti-PC' nonsense, you get pages and pages of coverage. Look in the Guardian, bastion of blabbering PC nonsense, you get proper news on the front page and none of these mystifying and hilarious editorials where the writer encourages Harry to 'grow up'.