Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What? An inquiry?
There's video evidence of him saying it.
What the fuck would an inquiry achieve?
who naturally will think there's nothing wrong with our expensive yet pointless royals being racist homophobes
all that money and time on 'the left getting one over on the right'?
but you know this is what the result would be once it gets onto newsnight and people like polly toynbee get stuck in
then they will have a lot of work to do. It's quite a big list.
you see the video?
The stupidity derives from him filming the offending statement.....other then that, it aint that bad
as long as no one finds out?
then calling someone gay in a negative way
I used to engage in racial banter with a Muslim boy from my school. There was no political dimension to this, it was just a string of jokey remarks. I've seen a Nigerian and a Bangladeshi call each other 'curry lad'' and 'devil crook' in the sunny, sunny town of Southend-on-Sea. No one griped or moaned...because it's humour. As long as there's no underlying acrimony behind these playful remarks, and as long as both parties are willing to partake....whats the fucking harm?
if it's okay for a prince to say it then why should the boy who threw a book at one of my co-workers and called her a fucking paki and told her to go home or the group of kids who shout speak english at the polish girl i work with think that there's anything wrong with what they do?
and legitimising the use of abusive language
I said 'as long as there's no acrimony, and as long as both parties are willing to partake,''.
Do the examples you threw up have any bearing on my arguement? No. Because throwing a book at a girl and shouting 'paki'' is clearly a case of vile bullying. It's not banter. And I'm sure if you switched your light box on you could differentiate between what Harry has been accused of, and intimidating someone because of their ethnic origins.
I take a similar view of racist words as certain feminists do with 'cunt'. Use it often, use it without menace, and you remove all the sting. The idea that a word should be off limits regardless of intent is just wrong.
it's the trickle down effect of him being able to get away with saying what he has that causes the very real hurt and damage to the lives of people.
Do people actually think like this?
"the trickle down effect of him being able to get away with saying what he has that causes the very real hurt and damage to the lives of people."
like i said before - it legitimises casual racism and the language which accompanies it.
because in some peoples eyes if this casual stuff is just 'banter' then they won't see the problem with the more hurtful or even directly malicious actions - like the kids who saw nothing wrong with racially abusing some of the people at my work.
it allows the media, the army and palace officials to highlight what these words mean to a lot of people.
no not at all.
disarming the words can be a good thing (as has happened to a word like queer), but legitimising them, saying that prejudiced stereotypes and historically abusive terms good correct things to be saying and ways of thinking about people aren't.
What people should be bothered about is the feeling behind it. Not the word itself.
No doubt the BBC will have had loads of guest speakers on talking about how people have fought for decades to rid the world of this evil term and how Harry is setting a dreadful example etc. etc. etc.
the media will give it a lot of notoriety.
In the context he was saying it in, I don't think he's done anything wrong. There was nothing meant by what he said. A lot of people don't like the word because of the way it's used, which is fair. But for the 'equality commission' to hold an inquiry into the fact it's one of his colleagues' nicknames and he said it, is a massive, massive joke.
the raghead one is far worse, especially when you consider where he was and what his job was
if there's no malice behind words, they're not offensive. it "legitemises" it in the sense that it makes it less offensive, definitely not a bad thing. no one's going to start calling you a racist, relax.
maybe he is a massive racist, that would be quite exciting.
clearly just a bit of banter right?
I want it exactly quantified as to how much of an ignorant over-priveleged fucktard he really is.
I suggest using the 'mili-peaches' unit of measurement whereby someone who is 500mp is about half as fuckwitted as peaches geldof.
I don't think Ahmed can hear him? It's more the case of quiet mumbling stream of consciousness, to himself, which is even worse as it shows the way his stupid brain really works and the sort of thinking he judges acceptable. Complete and utter prick. It IS about setting an example. HE should be made an example of and at the least thrown out of the army.
the defence that his crime was being caught that people in the media are using is full of shit.
either defend the words or not, but to say it's fine as long as no one catches you is pathetic.
thought = language. The way you speak shows the way your brain works. And his works like a prick.
i dont like that language but jeeeeeeez get over it.
it was clearly not meant in a racist way.
like that bit of stand up i linked above says - those sorts of words have a whole host of negative cultural and historical connotations that are inherent in their use.
And it's also why, given he about knows the media interest in him, he was an idiot to say them on video. But a lot of words have negative connotations - you can still use them with your friends in certain contexts, because the relationship between you is such that they know you don't have anything against them.
If it is true that the Ahmed in that video genuinely didn't mind his nickname, and it really was all a bit of friendly banter, then I wouldn't have any problem with it - it was just stupid of him to video it.
The raghead thing is a bti different.
Prince Harry is a cunt, but we knew that anyway
and those friends have parents from Pakistan. It's a racist term, he should be reprimanded accordingly. He's probably not racist at all, but someone in his position and with his education should know better. Why people are trying to defend him beats me.
The army has a derogatory name for their enemy.
Big fucking deal.
the video is another helpful addition to the debate about institutionalised racism - ethnic minorities in public life SHOULD expect to put up with racism is what it would mean, unless there's some inquiry.
'our little paki friend' sounds patronising and demeaning and if that's everyday banter, then that's fucking worrying. sure, harry probably doesn't think he's racist, but i wonder if his friend ahmed actually knows that his 'friends' refer to him as a paki outside of jokey times when he's there? i suspect not.
shall we assume you see nothing wrong with 'Arry's comments and that there's no relationship between them and wider society because he was just having a laugh?
saying we should get people to stop saying these things and route out the people who do it in private. And I think he said harry should say sorry in person and not just through the palace offices (but that might've been the next interviewee, i only had it on in the background)
IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!!!
you couldn't make it up
firstly...why do the news of the world allow us to feel the full force, in audio and subtitles, of the 'horrific racial slur'...but fuck gets bleeped and asterixed out. and then later, he clearly says shit with no bleep, but this then gets the asterix treatment on the text below. yet raghead and paki are shown in full. this doesn't make sense does it?
secondly, i think a distinction needs to be made between using racial terms and being offensive and actually being a 'rascist'.
third, the whole comparing this to being called fat or ginger doesn't fly. i refer you to stuart lee and his jimmy hill chin/nigger bit.
but i think words like paki and nigger can be used in banter, the same way sarah silverman and others can get on stage and do their thing...but obviously its all about the trust of the people involved and the understanding of the people involved
but the video made me feel uncomfortable because you don't know if this is the case. he looked about 12, he said little paki, makes him sound like the runt of the litter, and i can imagine him getting called paki by everyone and him just shifting and smiling uncomfortably as not to want to cause a scene. if he was with him when he said it, and the guy was all 'waheyy...fuck of you ginger prick' then its ok. what if the guy takes stuff like paki from him but doesn't want to retaliate because he is royalty. we just don't know. we can't say anything at all from what we have seen...but this instance certainly doesn't feel like banter.
and bumbler, your stance on sachsgate is coming back to bite you in the arse and i told you it would. you can't be against wossy and brand but for harry. you said, in refering to manuel, and i quote...'things like this are ok as long as one person isn't being singled out'....well...there was only one boy in the video and we don't know if he banters along or cries himself to sleep at night. could be either.
i'm not sure i'd feel comfortable using paki and nigger on their own to banter with someone. i'd banter about race using other words and phrases...but i still don't think i would still just use those two words on their own in a banter tete-a-tete type situation.
passed out of Sandhurst with the award for best foreign cadet, so he was probably a pretty tough nut.
the bit about Sachsgate is far more true of the debates on news website comment boards than it is here - the exact same people calling for Brand and Ross's heads are falling over themselves to come out in support of Harry. Even if he wasn't being racist there are a lot of people online who seem to be using it as an excuse to be.
possibly not the exact same individuals. sentence fail.
the thread is breaking down a little
wasn't really a wider statement about how people have treated the two.
fair enough...maybe he eats royalty for supper, but i'm just going by the video and saying you can't make a definitive statement on it all, just based on that one video.
If it wasn't for Harry, I wouldn't allowed to steal next doors milk with as much moxy as a fleet of Britons licking pendants of Thatchers staunch, impudent countenance. Harry is for the British....and, as a Briton, I'd happily burrow up Harry.
What a joke.
oh wait, yes I do. people LOVE a bit controversy and Harry loves to stir some up. i fucking love the cunt, he's the best out of that mad house and he knows it.
He ain't going to be king so he can say what ever he wants and do what ever he wants. plus - it was a joke to a mate that wasn't offended. christ.
and then says quietly, "There's our little paki friend".
I mean I don't know what Harry's relationship with the guy was and certainly know people who mutually casually racially abuse each other as part of their friendship so get that these things happen.
But it does piss me off when you get, say, Gordon Brown basically saying "it's all fine, his apologies sincere and the public should forgive him" whereas Jade Goody or Emily (?) off Big Brother or whoever else would get vilified for variations on the same thing.
Whether its a big deal or not, the fact he's a member of the Royal Family shouldn't have any bearing on people's views of what's happened.
Jade's attitude was both racist and nastily bullying and was seen over a greater period of time constantly in full public view. And as I remember there were international rammifications thrust on Big Brother that (so far) don't seem to have touched this case.
What was the PM's response after Jade Goody publically apologised? Didn't she do that in full glare of media and in a way that was seen directly by those that had been having a go at her.
In Gordon Brown's case he can say what he wants about Harry, and given he's pretty much honour-bound to not attack the Royal Family for political reasons, the public will still keep their opinions. By and large I think Harry's considered a lot lower in the public's eyes now than Jade Goody, though both are let off for their circumstance, which is the more important thing: Him for being a toff in the army and her for being poor and working class so both apparently 'don't know any better'...
but yes, this is different from CBB
Maybe using Jade Goody discredits my point but Emily used the word pretty casually in a way clearly not intended to offend and got universally condemned.
Emily was the one that said "Are you pushing it out you nigger?"
She was a contestant on the non-celebrity version.
she got kicked off the show cos they were ultra sensitive about anoter racism row, and she called a girl she wasn't on very good terms with "you nigger" and she wasn't that vilified and cetera
And very few people cared because it was clear she was being unwise and thoughtless, not malicious.
that they just don't actually care about this because there are much more serious issues of institutional racial equality that need to be addressed?
in that, the video gives you an insight into how racism within some institutions is acceptable, so long as the individuals targeted go along with it.
It MIGHT give you that insight. It MIGHT also just give you an insight into some banter among mates.
and referring them to as a 'little paki friend' could be classed as banter 'among' mates.
that it would be sensible to make a concrete judgement on the matter using on several seconds of isolated footage.
but the apologists, the army and the palace of st.james have managed to turn this into a 'nah mate he's only havin' a laff, doesn't matter long as he says sorry right? aye' kind of thing. which has deflected commentary and investigative eyes away from looking into how prevalent in the armed forces, and if all the people i know from school who left to be squadies is anything to go by 'proper' racism is probably rife and almost systematic (see the bayonet 'die paki' training session that got caught not too long ago)
it'll be swept under the carpet to save as many blushes as possible before any real substantial investigation takes place
He used the terms. It would seem no-one it actually involved cared.
Acknowledging that racism is a problem within the armed forces/society in general and needs addressing is quite compatitible with thinking that Harry's abuse of/nicknames for his fellow squaddies isn't really massively important
they should be looking into wider issues of racism within the armed forces
I wasn't really sure what was going on here
I'm sure I'm not out of line in saying we've had instances in the past of people claiming they were routinely abused in (I think) the police service and these claims initially being met with, "Oh but it was just some harmless joking amongst friends!" Actually accusations fo sexism has been met in the same way.
Does a soldier from Pakistan on training in the UK really think it's a good idea to raise any formal complaints about being referred to as a 'paki' if he feels upset by it? I've met enough bullies in school and uni who would be perfectly intelligent enough to know what they're doing and be looking for precisely a reaction of dislike about such namecalling.
I just think it is pathetic for so many people to get so wound up about several seconds of isolated footage when they know next to nothing about the true nature of the relationship between Harry and the possible victim. I think anyone would concede that this is at very least a complete lapse of sense on the part of the prince insofar that it must have been obvious to him that these comments would, regardless of how they were meant, cause upset.
A great deal of the controversy also seems to stem from the idea that Harry will get away with using this sort of language whilst others in the armed forces most definitely wouldn't, which blurs the issue of institutional racism somewhat.
I think what's funniest about this is the papers who've spent the most time laying into Harry for it pretty much have a monopoly on the monarchist demographic.
I think the rest of us, who couldn't give two shits about the Royal Family really, just assumed Harry was always like this. He's clearly cut from the same cloth as his legal grandfather, even if they're not related by blood.
people say - take it in the context of mates
but what about the context of an organisation that is pretty much run on institutionalised bullying and has racist attitudes running right through it
that this whole case is definitely a matter of institutional bullying, rather than the use of inappropriate and unwise language, so while I haven't ruled it out as a possibility, I've also not managed to not jump to conclusions.
At that point people complaining on the basis of this tape are in a trickier situation.
that so many people are using it as an excuse to say being casually racist is fine as long as *you* don't mean it.
It's not *you* that it effects, and those arguments help make it seem okay for people who do mean it to see nothing wrong with the hurt that they cause.
in a military force occupying/policing a foreign civilian population it is VERY dangerous to allow too much them and us, ....describing the other as something that can be easily lumped together.......in afghanistan NOT ALL 'ragheads' are the enemy, some are fighters some are not....to reinforce use of a stereotype that includes all under one banner is dangerous, especially when the 'battle for hearts and minds' should be paramount....these situations are delicate.
To see a prince (someone who should be versed in diplomacy) reinforce and reassure what is probably a soldiers vernacular is not the best....he should be setting an example......considering his grandmas high diplomatic skills and public etiquette to other cultures.
Even Charles (though i dislike other aspects of him, has stressed how he feels like 'his people include all creeds who live in the UK....he has been particularly eager to try to ensure that the muslim population of the UK do not see him or the monarchy as being just for non muslim uk citizens........There is a battle for peoples hearts and minds........someone like a privilaged young prince, who should be well aware of diplomacy and tact (above all his fellow grunts) should set a high example......Harry is obviously NOT a leader or potential monarch as he would be regarding all his potential subjects....he is obviously just a private at heart and wants to be one of the lads (denying the fact that he isnt he has privilage and with it comes responsibilities) or party animal
But is NOT a good thing in policing operations, where the civilian population are actually meant to be the people that you are helping (in vietnam I believe that the US grunt would refer to any vietnamese as 'dinks'...or somesuch.....the attitude that accompanies this sort of referrence is contributary to why they lost the 'battle for hearts and minds'
(OK afghanistan or Iraq are not as 'hot' as vietnam, but the public perception of the western military in these countries is a very important thing)
cos it begs comparrison, and he is obviously no Henry V
Do you not think that this will aid the cause of those who would try to recruit the undecided, to the cause of the taliban or Al Q?....and that the uk is an enemy? it certainly won't help, and it therefore by extention, imperils other uk soldiers around the world (just a little bit)
Its a gaff....it doesnt matter how you look at it...also the case of the us warders mistreating iraquis being filmed, was surely evidence enough that you shouldnt film stuff that would cause outrage....its stupidity/ignorance