Colonel Bob Stewart, writing at the Guardian’s Comment is Free:
Prince Harry’s comments were little more than everyday army banter. He’s no racist – his heart is definitely in the right place.
Since the comedy stylings of Professor David Flint AM have been absent from Crikey recently, and wondering what Australia’s leading monarchist had to say about the latest Royal brouhaha, I was lucky enough to happen upon “No Republic!”. At first, I thought Prof. Flint was maintaining a dignified silence. His latest post refers to the important and pressing issue of the refusal of royal assent in Luxembourg. However, scrolling down, I found the Australian monarchist case from the horse’s mouth, and it’s not “he’s just a lad”. It’s all a Murdoch led conspiracy, apparently. And an act of revenge!
There is actually a serious side to Prince Harry’s comments, if not to the Prince. That’s neatly discussed at The Global Sociology Blog.
F*ck me, Flint’s website quoting from and linking to TMZ.
(Online TMZ poll, 74% say “leave dude(Prince) alone”, to 26% “racist douchebag”.
Flinty didn’t censor ‘douchebag’ in his quote.)
A contrary perspective to the Colonel’s from the Graudian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/12/prince-harry-monarchy
From Global Sociology Blog:
“In this case, negative behavior receives lower sanctions (largely of the symbolic nature) than similar behavior from lower-status individuals.”
But in this case, similar behaviour from “a lower-status individual” would not have attracted any attention whatsoever – let alone several thousand quid from the News of the World – because, taken in context, it’s hard to see a deliberately racist or offensive intent in the video.
That it was ill-judged is beyond question but the brouhaha is over the top.
Agree Geoff,
There have always been groups of people who want to determine which words we can and cannot use, and other groups of people who then go out and use those words whenever or wherever they think they can get away with it.
The groups wishing to exercise social control change over time, as do the proscribed words.
As to the proposition that those in positions of influence get a better deal, well maybe, but Eugene Goosens may have had a different thought on that one.
As for some young soldier half way round the world, who cares what he says anyway? If he were electioneering for King of Australia, it might even do his election chances some good methinks.
Siddique outlines the impact of the term ‘Paki’ in the UK. Generally I fear this would be lost on most Australians, where, so far as I can work out, the term isn’t used. (And our country has quite a reputation for colourful racist abuse.
Aside from the peculiarities of Harry’s family history ie Phil’s propensity for offensive comments about race – I’m not sure Charles and Diana would have encouraged Harry to use such language. But lets not get too serious here – he is a young kid who is very privileged showing off in front of his mates wanting to be normal. And we all know defence forces aren’t paragons of virtue when it comes to offensive and racist language. I don’t know if its encouraged, especially in regard to an enemy, to stimulate the necessary contempt/dehumanisation etc so you can kill them with a clear conscience, still. Military history shows it definitely used to be, going right back to the ancient Greeks calling non Greeks ‘barbaroi.’ It was a hallmark in both sides in WW1 and WW2.
“I’m not sure Charles and Diana would have encouraged Harry to use such language.”
Maybe not, but Grandpa Phil would surely approve.
“Online TMZ poll, 74% say “leave dude(Prince) alone”, to 26% “racist douchebag”.”
False dichotomy.
It’s not the complete beat-up by the UK press over this triviality that gets me, it’s the fact that the Australian press cares as well. Oh and LP. Really, there is a world of more interesting stuff out there. To the question “Is Prince Harry racist?” surely the only answer is “who cares…”
“Who cares”? this is “casual racism”, which is to me like a series of creeks and tributaries which feed into the river called racism and hate. If you don’t think that’s important in Australia, think of the Maroubra riots. The MySpace pages of people tangentially involved with the recent shooting of a teenager in Northcote are promising race riots on Australia day.
Harry’s friend might have been OK with it but really, faced with a person of such privilege, what choice did he have?
Are you a middle-class, white male Wilful? Is it possible that it’s easy for you to choose not to care? What if you were a woman with a case of agoraphobia because the last time you went to the mall, some kids ripped your scarf off and called you “raghead”?
The hobbits revolted in Cronulla, not Maroubra. The last large-scale punch-on the Bra Boys tried to start was in a hotel lobby full of off-duty cops.
Worst. Riot. Ever.
And your criticisms of someone else’s expressions of friendship is but one of a series of creeks that leads to a river of censorship, totalitarianism and ultimately all kind of nasties like war and mass murder. So why don’t you cease to comment because I can create a bullshit link between what you say and something you didn’t by misinterpreting your words.
No, I’m not seriously suggesting you refrain from commenting, it was just an example of how ridiculous
And of course the problem is with the word and not the assault or harassment.
“The hobbits revolted in Cronulla, not Maroubra.”
The central focus was Cronulla but it spilled into Maroubra as well. I know a few streets where every car was smashed up.
Shouldn’t we make a distinction between observation of racial difference (yes, even using coarse terminology) and discrimination on its basis?
Isn’t that the important thing? I find it pretty easy to spot the difference.
Desipis, I think Paul Burns is on the money here. ‘Paki’ is a word fraught with a history of racism and hate in England. Using it isn’t harmless. Words and actions are connected. It may not soun like a huge thing in Australia because our history is different. But, imagine calling an aboriginal person a ‘boong’, for instance. It’s just wrong.
And that point is made in some detail in the post I linked to @ 2.
True, and that’s taken a while to catch on here Fine. I remember a big hoo-ha when Pakistan toured Australia for some cricket, and (I think) the actual official TV ads called them Pakis. Certainly when I went to primary school in North London it was ‘Pakis’ for Pakistanis (and Indians!), ‘blackies’ for West Indians, and after casting about for a while, ‘kangaroos’ for me and my little sister. It’s surprising how annoying ‘kangaroo’ got (complete with mime), just from knowing that the intent was to annoy. My best friends were a Paki and a Blackie, though of course I can only imagine how hateful and pervasive the abuse was for them.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a racist interpretation of the word, but it’s not the only interpretation of the word. If we banned any words that had negative meanings or connotations we’d have no words left to use. Context is important, and in the context it was used it meant a greatly different thing to the historical usage you refer to.
This illustrates my point. Any word can be used to harass or abuse, focusing on the actual word used is missing the issue.
The Global Sociology Blog’s comment that higher-status actors receive lower sanctions for negative behavior fits rather neatly with this article from the SMH today. (The Herald has also recently had a group of “high-status actors” complaining about their horrific equal treatment under our speeding demerit point system, to the jeers of better drivers.)
I get the impression Paki is to Pakistani’s kind of like Wog is to Greek’s/Italians. I have two Italians friends. One finds being called a wog offensive. For the other it was water off a duck’s back and is always quick to respond with Skippie or, often something much wittier.
Diepsis, what’s another interpretation of the word ‘Paki’? And please don’t tell me it’s simply descriptive.
Fine – it’s short for ‘Pakistani’. Y’know, the thing they call themselves.
As racist terms go, it’s surely amongst the most innocuous in and of itself.
But why the distinction FDB? – in and of itself? Surely any word is innocuous when emptied of its connotations?
Nigger comes from Negro meaning Black. In and of itself, innocuous much? I dont think so.
Its the history of racism inhered in the word that makes it so loaded right? Its not innocuous in and of itself because it cannot be separated from the race hatred that it connotes.
You might no be able to mentally separate the word from its alternate uses, but not everyone is so mentally limited.
Dear dear. Its called basic linguistics. Go argue with Sasseure’s limitations, not mine.
Yes Robbo, but that’s your friends, and no particular wonder why it’s also the Royal Family’s explanation of the incident.
As opposed to the “fuckin’ Pakis who moved in next door”, about whom at lunch one day I had the delightful experience of listening to a London colleague’s mother not shut up.
Sorry FDB but I’ve never heard that term used publicly or privately in the UK in an endearing or even just plain innocuous sense. “In and of itself” as a term maybe, but that’s where that ends.
Despisis, do you think “Can you Pakis tell me the time?” is an acceptable usage?
Nick, that would depend on the context and intent of its use.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a racist interpretation of the word, but it’s not the only interpretation of the word. If we banned any words that had negative meanings or connotations we’d have no words left to use.
See, here’s the thing. No-one had spoken of banning. The general consensus is that this kind of speech is the thin end of the wedge, the tributary of the stream, the first sneeze that might or might not be influenza, if you will – but an epithet like “paki” is one of the tools of those who definitely think themselves superior to the people on whom they’re using it. But back to the intent: Like the brouhaha over the Jyllands Posten cartoons, no-one was denying anyone freedom of speech. The consensus was that the cartoons were offensive, stupid and likely to hurt people with no dog in any fight, and that it reflected badly on a MSM newspaper to print them. The trouble with freedom of speech is that it cuts both ways. You can defend your right to use an offensive term like Paki to the death, while I am allowed to point out equally that it is offensive and its use reflects badly on you.
I’m always amused by these people who claim “but, but, we won’t be able to say anything!” We self-censor every day when faced by people to whom we owe respect, whether genuine or feigned (in order not to get fired f’rinstance.) Try walking into your CEO’s office, or your grandmother’s living room, and saying “Make me a damn sandwich you f##ing c##t!” But if brown skinned people just ask for some common decency for one of the best educated, best fed and privileged men in the land – Harry – well, that’s just wrong.
Context is important, and in the context it was used it meant a greatly different thing to the historical usage you refer to.
Since the context you mentioned was banning at best and ultimately mass murder, I think you’re the one who has the context wrong. The context was the idea that a hugely privileged social leader shouldn’t behave like a douchenozzle.
Really, cause I would have thought it depended on whether you felt like being punched in face. But if you know better about such matters, be your own guest around the streets of London.
“fuckin’ Pakis who moved in next door”
Okay, how much less offensive is this:
“fuckin’ Pakistanis who moved in next door”
???
None FDB, I was just providing an example of the common ‘context and intent’ of the word Paki as used in a sentence – an expression of bigoted anger and resentment often accompanied by an expletive.
As opposed to the term of endearment Robbo can use with *one* of his Italian friends.
Which is the problem with the Royal Family’s press release. It’s all very well to say ‘they were mates’ but how can we know his army colleague didn’t detest being called Paki anyway?
In very specific contexts. Your example “Make me a damn sandwich you f##ing c##t!” is something I’ve said (more or less) to a friend and they’ve not been the least bit offended, because they understood the context in which I was using it. But I certainly wouldn’t say it to either of my grandmothers.
The point is that just about everything is offensive to someone, somewhere. However, this doesn’t mean that these things are offensive everywhere.
You need to tune your satire detector.
I don’t believe anyone has spoken of how people from Pakistan are inferior either. You seem to have missed that I incorrectly contextualized your comments to illustrate that you incorrectly contextualized the use of the word “paki”.
“but how can we know his army colleague didn’t detest being called Paki anyway?”
The boy’s father has released a statement saying it was a hate word.
If you actually watch the video, he says nothing, and doesn’t look at all happy.
Thing is, he wasn’t in a position to say whether it was OK or not. That is the important context – if you’re in the spray paint shop alone with your friend Mario and you know he thinks it’s hilarious to do the Wogs out of Work schtick, then knock yourself out; but if you’re third in line (?) to the throne and you know your every remark will be reported on, you’re in a workplace, you’re in a responsible position, and you’ll probably be taken as a role model by the young and silly (what a lad! Oh the hilarity!) then, no. Why is it so hard to show a bit of maturity in a role like that?
The man has clearly still got some growing up to do. He doesn’t seem to understand the level of responsibility that comes with his position, and that he will be scrutinised whether he likes it or not. I note also that this would be less of an issue – and the offered explanations more acceptable – if he hadn’t shown poor judgement in the past.
When Harry said Paki, um ah. This dude reminisces in Al Guardian:
Well that’s true. ‘Paki’ has a nasty connotation. Like the ‘N’ word (which is so nasty I reckon I’d be stuck in the bin if I actually used it here) it’s denotation is simply a description, like Aussie. N**ger is a corruption of a word meaning ‘black’ and in these hip-hop times you’ll find groups of B-Boys of all races using this word as a term of endearment.
.
Still it’s nasty connotation prevents anyone who isn’t black from using it at least in the States.
.
But does anyone remember the inaugural Gay and Lesbian Pride in Brizvegas? The organizers decided to print posters with pejoratives like: pouf, dyke, fag etc. The theory, and this was hotly contested, was that by using such words as normal descriptions it took the inherent sting out of them. Thing is, it worked!
.
In Britain the educated folks all pride themselves on their multicultural tolerance. But in my experience it’s a bit of a grim and strained facade. I remember one such fellow who I camped with outback used to (politically) correct my speech. I used to cook couscous for dinner with some kind of N African bean dish. The old Aussies would pass comment on this ‘exotic’ (ie non meat n’ potatoes) stuff and rib me about it. And I’d say: yep more wog shit!
.
And the British fellow (who always ate meat n’ potatoes himself) would correct me: Mediterranean Adrien, Mediterranean.
.
Now three things: #1 ‘Wog’ means something different in Britain and the British always refuse to acknowldge this. #2 In Austrlia, particularly Victoria, the term is no longer pejorative in most instances. It’s used in casual conversation. #3 In Australia we may be a bunch of racists (as several English persons have told me) but we somehow have managed to avoid the extremes of ethnic conflict that they have. Makes you think ‘ey. Or not.
.
Thing is you won’t make the world a better place by putting words in word jail.
.
So now that Prince Harry’s revealed himself as a bone fide Nazi does that mean that D Piddy is gonna withdraw his invite to his White Party
for A-List wankers. Or does he hate Pakis too?He’s a human being. When he’s not acting in an official role he should be entitled to as much immaturity as the rest of us. Unless you’re suggesting that the royal family be cold and disconnected from the rest of humanity.
From what I’ve seen it’s not clear he even hears it, so his reaction on the video doesn’t say much at all. What is clear is that the context is light-hearted banter filling in what would be a rather dull time.
Maybe he just doesn’t have the necessary personal resources to behave properly. Hasn’t it already been demonstrated on a number of occasions that the poor kid is as thick as two short planks?
Hasn’t it already been demonstrated on a number of occasions that the poor kid is as thick as two short planks?
.
Not necessary. Inbreeding. Always produces idiots.
.
What I wanna know is what Diddly Poo’s excuse is.
“Unless you’re suggesting that the royal family be cold and disconnected from the rest of humanity.”
Well that’s how they’ve been raised.
Look, on the one hand, Harry is a boisterous and not particularly self-aware princeling, perhaps somewhat emotionally addled by the fact he now knows he’s literally a bastard, who said something stupid in private. Has that not all happened to us when we were his age? Aside from the bastard princeling thing.
On the other hand, he has been by an accident of birth born onto a world of amazing privilege and entitlement which is supported in various ways by the taxpayers. There it behooves him, and those who raise him, to at least show some simple politeness and common courtesy to his potential subjects fellow citizens and brother officers.
See, I agree with everyone here. ’scuse me while I extract this fence post from my strides.
Basically though the Windsors have never been quite top drawer. A bunch of bumptious German arrivistes frankly. Though QE2 has been a class act.
It’s just another entertaining silly season story.
But wait till Chuck 3 hits the throne. Then the shoes will really fly in all directions.
“Inbreeding. Always produces idiots”
I don’t quite follow, who is being slighted with the allegation of inbreeding, the Spencers or the Hewitts?
Good point SATP. One would have thought that having one’s bloodline reinvigorated by good local breeding stock not sourced from the Euro studbook would be a positive for one’s ongoing family spawning.
Nabs, have I missed something? I know the story about Harry being James Hewitt’s has never gone away, but is it official now? If you look at photos of him and Charles side by side and then cover up the bottom half of their faces and factor in the maternal uncle’s red hair, it starts too look as though he’s not a bastard princeling at all — he’s got those weasel eyes that are far to close together, just like Charles’s. And in this photo you can see Charles’s big nose and worried-looking mouth as well. In fact he looks an awful lot more like Charles than William does, although William in turn is a dead spit for Peter Phillips except less good-looking.
I suppose it’s possible that Hewitt is just related to all of them.
Eek, what got me moderated there?
But wait till Chuck 3 hits the throne.
.
(Queasy feeling in stomach). Bring back Chuck the Second I say. He knew that it was good to be the king. Who wants a bet that there’ll never be a William IV?
Eek, what got me moderated there?
.
Your indiscreet exhalations viz your powerful attraction to the Prince of Wales no doubt.
I’ll take that bet. How much is on wager?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom
Whoops. I forgot about that William. Alright is it Billy the Fifth? Or sixth? I mean Chuck’s kid. Whaddya reckon? He’ll have to get a real job or what?
.
Ach. The Kings of England! A bunch o’ croquet-playin’, bath-taking, underpants-wearin’ lily-huggers. This is a real Willy the King..
The hell with Willie the King. Set your ears to stun with FZ/CB’s “Willie the Pimp.”
Forget all other Willies except this one. He should rule the world. He’s got great policies:
Now that’s a leader. In fact he should run Canberra. And there’s nary an animal that can outrun him when he’s greased up.