Comments on: Prince Harry & Elite Racism

By: Toby

Toby — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:13:31 +0000

Mr. Van Dijk should get a real job. His contention that prince Harry’s words are a reflection of white dominance over people of color is nothing more than the usual leftist ideology of Totalism.

Totalist language denies the role of the individual in word or deed. No, Harry didn’t just say those things: {white} people did!
Totalist language uses such words as elite racism, white dominance, progressive, exploiting classes, etc, etc., No one bothers to define these terms because “feeling” them is all that matters.
Go to any army, in any part of the world, and you’ll hear the same kind of inter-ethnic slurs being used.

By: stuart clarke

stuart clarke — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:35:50 +0000

Hi Jessie, thankyou. I agree with ALL of what you wrote. However Time does move on and Harry is not of an age where he would be aware (first hand) as older people are of the horror that the national front in the ’70’s dealt in the streets of England. I am not trying to defend him but i do come across severel words now being used by younger generations that are oblivious of their origins or roots. NAFF being one and BERK being another. Whilst neither of these words have racist tones they are i feel very rude and not acceptable to be used in public. Not as how they are used now but from their origins.

Being British and having lived in the States for quite some time i was treated every now and then to a “Brit go home” in the tone of the Boston Tea Party. On the 4th July celebrations would many a time be pushed into the swimming pool with a similar comment as well. Many of my African American friends would call each other the “N” word, this confussed me as if a non African American person did so it would be wrong.

I guess what i am poorly trying to explain is words and their meanings change with each generation. Madona years ago saying “that’s BAD ” meaning it’s good. In the U.K. there is a saying “wicked” which doesn’t mean that it is wicked. I am old enough and have learned along the way things are offensive and do offend. My Mother raised me to believe there are only 2 kinds of people on this planet. Not Black/White ,Tall/Short, Goodlooking/ Ugly, Clever/Stupid, Fat/Thin. You are either a good person or a BAD person …. it’s your choice to make. Again i would never say Paki because i think it is offensive and upsetting to hear but there is no real education that keeps us informed and also keeps up with how younger people use these words.

By: Jessie

Jessie — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:04:39 +0000

Hi Stuart ~ It’s a reasonable question, I think, and one that’s difficult for Americans, or others not in the UK context, to understand. British writer, Murad Ahmed, does a good job of explaining it here:

Some people have asked why, if it is acceptable to use “Brit” to refer to British people, and “Aussie” to describe an Australian, what’s wrong with using Paki for Pakistanis?

Simple. It’s because of history.

Paki is a word from a different age – one where it would be spat out just before an Asian received a swift Doc Marten boot to the head. It was more often heard in the phrase “go home, Paki” than “my Paki friend.”. It was intended to be a form of violence and intimidation towards immigrants who had come to these shores from the Indian subcontinent. It became, through its very use, racist.

To put it politely, anyone who thinks that the word Paki is acceptable is unaware of this sordid history or unable to understand its significance. Put another way, if you think that it’s all right to call someone a Paki you’re ignorant or stupid. See how using words in a certain way can come across as insulting or cruel? That’s the point. Words are powerful, and we should take care how we use them.

By: stuart clarke

stuart clarke — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:32:02 +0000

i don’t agree with what “Harry” said however can someone please explain to me (in my ignorance) why the word Paki is offensive but “Brit,” “Limey,” “Pommi”, “Yank” are not. Paki is after all the first 4 letters of the word Pakistan as is Brit for Brtain/ British. So why is one offensive and the other not.

By: macon d

macon d — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:55:24 +0000

Great overview of this episode, and of some useful responses to it. I like how you point out how seemingly moderate and humane expressions of racism (elite or otherwise, it seems to me) maintain and legitimate dominance. They’re not merely “distasteful” or “offensive.”