Monday, January 12, 2009

He said "Jehovah" !

(Hastily edited after a correspondent informed me that council firewalls were classifying the post as 'hate speech' !)

I was hoping to ignore the Prince Harry brouhaha, but as it was the main story on BBC news yesterday, occupied most of John Pienaar's 2 hr R5 'politics' programme and was the phone-in topic on R5 this morning ... a few points :

a) this was another Murdoch press-sourced story. The Dirty Digger, now a Dirty Yank, has never got over his lack of honours and social acceptance for his services to soft porn and the general coarsening (parental advisory) of British life over the last 30 years. His papers are as a result republican. If Prince Philip really had the power that Al Fayed thinks he has, Murdoch would long ago have been at the bottom of Sydney Harbour in a concrete overcoat.

b) '****' is about as racist as 'Brit'. It's a nickname, a diminutive. A year or so back my daughter and I were looking at a globe, and I was showing her all those fascinating countries northwest of Tibet and west of China.

"All the countries round there end in -stan, because that means country in Persian, which is what their languages are based on. There's Uzbekistan, the country of the Uzbeks, where the Uzbeks live, Turkmenistan, where the Turkmen live, Kirghistan, where the Kirghiz live, Kazakhstan, where the Kazakhs live, Tajikistan, where the Tajiks live, Afghanistan, where the Afghans live - and Pakistan, where the Pakistanis live !"


It's true that, unlike the preceding countries, Pakistan isn't named for one ethnic group but (by this guy) for many geographical regions (Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, Turkharistan, Afghanistan, BaluchistaN) - but I bet the BBC don't know that - I'm sure I didn't.

"It means the land of the Paks- the spiritually pure and clean. 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"


c) why's it considered to be racist, then ? Because white people use it. Given that any nicknames /diminutives for ethnic minorities will at some time be used by some bad white chap in an assault - and at that point will be used to classify the assault as a hate crime (aren't ALL assaults hate crimes ?), it therefore follows that white people who do not wish to be considered racist can have no nicknames or diminutives for people of another race. Not allowed.

Indeed, it's best if they allow others to tell them what the acceptable form of words is. Remember that the use of 'coloured', fifty years ago considered more genteel and polite than 'black', was presented at the Lawrence tribunal as evidence pointing towards an officer's racism. The poor chap just hadn't kept up. Didn't read the Guardian or New Society.

So - no nicknames, no diminutives, no spontaneous descriptive creation - all things the Brits are rather partial to. Instead, use the words you're told to - and when they change, you change your language.

This only applies to whites addressing non-whites or possibly Jews. A google of "Welsh Windbag" produces 4,000 references, nearly all to Neil Kinnock - but nobody is likely to be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred. Laban calls Charles Kennedy the Great Chieftain of the Pudding Race - an obviously disparaging reference to his ethnic origins (as well as his resemblance to a pudding that's been well laced with Glenlivet) yet the post survives. No, it's a non-white - or at least non-British thing.

It works inversely too. Kanye West can rap about the n-word as much as he likes, but the BBC don't mind. The killers of Christopher Yates can shout "We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in P*** business" but the judge doesn't call them racist.

d) I forget which linguist, probably all of them, said that you can control thought by controlling language, and make some ideas literally unthinkable for lack of words. Let's just ask the question - what are the equivalent words, nicknames, diminutives that an Asian or Afro-Caribbean would use to describe whites ? Gora ? Cracker ? I don't know, the BBC and Guardian certainly won't tell us. Anyone out there know ? As we've seen, they don't in themselves have to be insulting. What are the magical words which make an attack a racist one ? The ones that the courts and BBC will present as indubitable proof of anti-white racism ?

You see. The words (officially) do not exist. It's easy to 'prove' a racist element to an assault or murder by whites. Evidence that any one of a few words was used is sufficient. The prosecutor seeking to prove a racist asaault ON a white person has no such handy shortcut (btw, I'd be interested to know what Christopher Yates killers actually said - and in what language). No wonder non-white racism has such a low profile - there are no words to describe it or identify it, so how can it exist ?

As I've said before, I'm extremely uneasy about the whole hate crimes concept. But given where we are, I'd like some racial equality when it comes to the definition of such. Give me.

26 comments:

Edwin Greenwood said...

I forget which linguist, probably all of them, said that you can control thought by controlling language, and make some ideas literally unthinkable for lack of words.

I think you may be referring to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, Laban. Interesting idea, but currently out of fashion, probably a bit too deterministic for today's tastes. Fictionally elaborated in, natch, Orwell's Newspeak and Jack Vance's novel, The Languages of Pao.

TDK said...

You missed the memo

Racism = Power + Prejudice

Since black people are deemed to be deprived of power (as a group) then cannot be accused of racism. Or conversely since only white people do have power only they can be racist.

David Thompson captures it here and here

moriarty said...

c) why's it considered to be racist, then ? Because white people use it.

Not only that I'm sure - I'd bet the problems all started not because Pakistanis were called 'Paki', but because Indians were too, which is probably a bigger insult to a hindu than the race angle is.

blimpish said...

I agree, obviously.

Have also decided to have a go at blogging again.

Rob said...

As Mark Steyn pointed out, people can yell "Kill the Jews!" in public and no-one batters an eyelid, yet Harry can say this (three years ago?!) and the whole liberal establishment dances to the tune.

It is bizarre but understandable - anyone who steps out of line and says "this is a hysterical reaction, get a grip" would be annihilated.

Anonymous said...

'Paki' is about as racist as 'Brit'. It's a nickname, a diminutive.

Oh for goodnessake man!

It's not the word itself!! It's the meaning behind the word and the context in which it's used. 'Paki' is the 'nickname' given to Pakistanis by National Front skinheads in the 70's and 80's. They went around attacking and terrorising Pakistanis. They called it 'Paki bashing'. Graffiti sprayed on walls said 'Pakis Out'.

That's why it's a racist term. If it WAS simply an abbreviation, like 'Brit' for British, or 'Trini' for Trinidadian, there wouldn't be an issue. This is blindingly obvious.

JuliaM said...

"It's not the word itself!! It's the meaning behind the word and the context in which it's used."

Precisely. Shame for your 'argument' then, that the three-year-old video ISN'T of Prince Harry attacking the young cadet while all his chums spraypaint graffiti over the wall...

I refer you to any rap video on the market today - are the rap stars calling each other the 'n' word white supremacists...? By your reasoning, they must be!

"This is blindingly obvious."

It would appear life is more nuanced and more complicated than you'd like it to be.

TDK said...

I'm intrigued by Anon's comment:

He argues: It's not the word itself!! It's the meaning behind the word and the context in which it's used.

"Context" - you give us accounts of 'Paki bashing'. Graffiti sprayed on walls said 'Pakis Out'. I fail to see the relevance of the diminutive. Would the offences have been somehow better if the skinheads had shouted "Pakistanis out" or the graffiti had read "South Asians go home". Would the beatings have been more tolerable if the correct term was used? To ask the question is to expose the nonsense behind your thinking.

"Meaning" - Laban expends a large number of words exploring what it might mean. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what you think it means - why your account differs from his. Certainly I'm open to the possibility that words pick up different connotations but you have yet to demonstrate it.

'Paki' is the 'nickname' given to Pakistanis by National Front skinheads in the 70's and 80's.

Maybe so but the fact that a term is used by racists doesn't make their every utterance racist. Nor that the same terms used by non racists make them racist by association. Laban raises the possibility that the only reason we think the term Paki is racist is because generations of anti-racist campaigners have promoted that falsehood and we have allowed it to pass.

Anonymous said...

In which case, you should test your theory. I suggest that the next time you bump into a large group of young Pakistanis, you call them 'Pakis' and see what happens.

TDK said...

You know I did get beat up once because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Disrespect you see.

If I indoctrinate a young group of thugs that calling him a "Trini" was the height of racism then place him with you, you'll be beaten up as well. I'll have give him a reason to suspect that you disrespect him.

But then "Trini" is not racist. A nice man just told me so.

Your ball.

Anonymous said...

I'll have one more crack at explaining the obvious, and if that doesn't do the trick I'll stop flogging a dead horse and leave you lot to it.

OK. Suppose that Laban Tall had five lovely daughters. Now suppose that a gang of paedophiles preyed on them for several years, turning their lives into a misery.

One of the things the paedos did was to give the abused girls a nickname, in this case 'Tallies'. Whenever a paedo saw one of the girls on the street, he would sneer "Tallie" at her and she would be intimidated. Further, they would write graffiti on walls about how they had abused the "Tallies". Understandably, the girls came to associate the word "Tallie" with their abuse.

Now imagine that that some of their neighbours - people who had not personally been involved in the abuse - started refering to th egirls as 'Tallies'.

How do you think Laban's daughters would feel? How would Laban feel? Would he say "What's the problem? I'm part of the Tall family, so my kids are Tallies"

Anonymous said...

I'll have one more crack at explaining the obvious, and if that doesn't do the trick I'll stop flogging a dead horse and leave you lot to it.

Actually its not obvious is it. Laban had a reasonable stab at being well...reasonable about it. Its you that doesn't get it.

Its true the power of a word comes in part from those with the clout and influence to dictate the meaning of that word as used.

For years, race hustlers and their white leftist enablers have decided which words are acceptable and which are not. Hence there are all sorts of nasty words for non-whites which whites arent allowed to use (but non-whites are) and a distinct lack of commonly known nasty words for whites as used by non-whites.

Back when I was still a liberal I was always concerned not to use language considered racist, and you know, I still wont, good manners cost nothing after all. Not point in upsetting people for nothing.

Of course I also had certain concerns over non-whites using what could be seen as abusive language but I glossed over that, the essential logical inconsistency of the liberal position I suppose.

Actions are important too and the rate at which some non-white groups violently victimize whites far exceeds the opposite. Whats that compared to a few nasty words?

Now though I dont give a toss if a non-white insults me. Its just a word, so what? I'm better than that, I'm better than them.

Your petty cultural marxist bleating about the power of words is not about protecting anyone from being insulted. Its about controlling the discourse, about de-legitimizing the interests of whites, literally erasing their interests from the terms of discussion.

If you are non-white and you dont seem to think that white interests are as worthy as yours, fair enough, but dont dress it up in the language of 'fairness'.

If you are white (which is most likely), then you are just a sell-out. Its not too late for you to wake up though, you will have to one day anyhow.

Ranting Bob.

Anonymous said...

I said sell-out.

Traitor is better word, more poetic!

Anonymous said...

I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to call someone by a nickname that they knew to be offensive. Unless they either intended to be offensive, or they were ignorant.

The stuff about race hustlers, liberals, sell out and traitor: I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with this sort of discource and I don't know anyone who talks in these terms. Most people I know are just ordinary. I hope I haven't stumbled on a BNP website by mistake! Either way, I think this debate has run its course, so thanks and bye.

Foxy Brown said...

Does the murder of Charlene Downes qualify as a "race-hate" crime? It has all the hallmarks.

She was referred to as a "maiiah" by one of the defendants, who spat the word out with scornful disdain. No one has yet discovered what this term means.

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2007_05_24_archive.html

TDK said...

I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to call someone by a nickname that they knew to be offensive.

I fully agreed with you that Pakistanis would today find the word offensive. And I'll go further and state that I would never call anyone a Paki in person or in print. The question Laban is exploring, is when and why did it become offensive? And why that taking of offence is selective?

The stuff about race hustlers, liberals, sell out and traitor: I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with this sort of discource and I don't know anyone who talks in these terms.

My first comment gives links to posts concerning Lee Jasper and Joseph Harker. Do these fit the picture?

Anonymous said...

The stuff about race hustlers, liberals, sell out and traitor: I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with this sort of discource and I don't know anyone who talks in these terms. Most people I know are just ordinary.

No, quite. How convenient that mainstream discourse has ruled these terms out of bounds to 'ordinary' people.

Race hustler - a shakedown artist of sorts. A racial minority 'activist' or 'community organizer' who hustles or shakes down the majority (white) population. Give us what we want (money, resources, status, sinecures) or we will riot, take you to court, complain in the media etc. Check out Lee Jasper, Barak and Michelle Obama and many more.

Liberals- now you are just being silly.

Traitors - what could be more straightforward?

Either way, I think this debate has run its course, so thanks and bye.

That's right, run away.

JuliaM said...

"Does the murder of Charlene Downes qualify as a "race-hate" crime? It has all the hallmarks."

Was anyone ever brought to justice for that?

"That's right, run away."

He didn't know we were going to use facts and reason. He was only armed with emotion and self-righteousness. It was a bit unequal...

Laban said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Interesting YouTube video of 'p*kis' in action in London on the 3rd of January on the Simon Darby blog (scroll to bottom of page)

P*kis chasing police through the streets of London

Anonymous said...

Would people here be quite so sanguine if Prince Harry had referred to a Jew - Melanie Phillips say - as a 'yid'?

If not, why not?

Anonymous said...

Re Harry and 'yid'.

Wouldnt happen, you arent going to find any Jews in a British combat unit or anywhere close to it.

Anonymous said...

True enough. According to this webpage, there are six times as many *Buddhists* in the Army:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/military/religion.html

Maybe then a remark aimed at an old school chum.

Actually, who really cares anyway? It's not a big deal, except for the News of the World making it one.

Laban said...

a) the word 'P***' was in use long before National Front skinheads. I was alive then and I'm not sure you were.

b) your hypothesis and your 'Tallie' example implies that the experience of Pakistanis at the hands of the host community is limited to or mainly composed of beatings and abuse. That would have been an offensive travesty of the British thirty years ago, let alone today.

c) The IRA and Welsh Nationalists routinely sprayed 'Brits out' in 'their' areas. That doesn't mean that any Irishman who calls me a Brit must be a racist. I AM a Brit, goddammit (although a bit of a mongrel by birth)

d) there is ONE context in which the word can cause extreme offence. Don't try it on a Sikh.

8:51 PM

TDK said...

The exchange with anon left me feeling annoyed.

Here is a quote from Francis Wheen's "The Sixties". Francis Wheen is a person who AFAIK remains on the left.

The skinheads were thus heavily influenced by the new Jamaican culture. However, paradoxically, they also believed that they were reaffirming what they saw as the traditional attitudes of the white working class—racism, conservatism and a contempt for the middle classes. The skinheads' uniform resembled that of the rudies; but, with its braces and heavy boots, it was also an exaggerated version of the dress of a stereotypical white manual worker. West Indians were acceptable because they were, in the skinheads' view, 'just like us'—rough and alienated. For Asians, however, skinheads had nothing but hatred. 'Paki-bashing' rapidly became one of the favourite pastimes. Des, a young Birmingham skinhead, gave an illuminating account of the skins' mentality:

"I'll tell you why I hate the bloody Paks. I'll tell you a story. A week or so ago I was walking down the street with a couple of mates. I wanted a light for my fag, so I walk up to this Paki git and ask him: You got a light, mate?' And what do you think the fucker did? I'll tell you. He walks—no, runs—into this shop and buys me a box of matches! Now, I ask you! What the fuck could
I do with a bleeder like that but hit him? And another thing.
Have you ever been in their restaurants? Have you seen the way
they grovel round you, the way they're always trying to please
you? I hate them, that's all." (Quoted in Rock File, 1972.)

The skinheads' racism was, in other words, a continuation of the class war by other means. The West Indian immigrants, were thought to have allied themselves with the working class. But the Asians—all of whom were called 'Pakis'-had aspirations to join the middle class.

Similar attitudes dictated the skinheads' hostility to middle-class white youths who, the skins believed, were undermining traditional working-class versions of masculinity. 'Hippy-bashing'and 'queer-bashing' were depressingly common, and just as the term `Paki' was used to describe anyone from the Indian sub-continent, the word 'queer'was applied to any man who had long hair or frilly clothes.


This shows that the the phenomena raised by anon has far more nuance than he is prepared to concede.

Lone Stranger said...

Hmm. Then I guess calling Obama's inauguration an iniggeration would be considered racist?