BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Hate speech or descriptive diminutives?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:07 / 29.12.02
'Paki', and there was a court case about this a couple of years ago which the user of the word won, is arguably a descriptive diminution. 'Chinky' likewise.

It's just that the people who tend to use these two words are often prefixing them with 'Fucking...'


First up, obviously, I'd be interested to learn more about this court case.

Second of all - are Paki and Chinky in themselves benign, and only offensive if prefaced by some threatening adverb or similar? I recall Auszilla arguing that "Paki" was not offensive if used outside England, but "Chinky" is a new one on me. Have I been denying myself two handy diminutives through overcaution?
 
 
w1rebaby
15:33 / 29.12.02
Reference to where this post came from please?

I've heard both words used in contexts where there was no direct offensive intent ("I'm just going down to the Paki shop", "anyone fancy a Chinky?"). I think you could make a good case for them being diminutives, whether preceded by "fucking" or not. Not quite sure how this necesarily makes them less offensive.

are Paki and Chinky in themselves benign

In the UK? No. I think the meaning is, right now, inherently malign, and arguably if you're claiming to use them in a friendly way in general speech, you've got the meaning wrong.

In isolated subgroups, the meaning may change, but I think there's generally enough cultural interaction for a certain level of offensiveness to have diffused throughout the country.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
16:01 / 29.12.02
are Paki and Chinky in themselves benign

No time to say more right now, but I'd definitely say *no*.

In whatever context they're used, these words have history of being used as hate speech. To the point where it gave me a jolt seeing it the words in a subject header, to me they're not words to chuck about, Even using them for shock value/effect is something I think one has to be pretty careful about.

Or am I missing the joke here? As I'm not sure it's that funny.

And before someone chimes in, I've (Indian) family who'll call each other 'Paki' but this *is* different.
 
 
iconoplast
17:17 / 29.12.02
"And before someone chimes in, I've (Indian) family who'll call each other 'Paki' but this *is* different. "

Is it different?

I don't think so. Mind you, I don't think "It's not different, so we can all say paki or heeb or kike or whatever," but, "It's not different - slurs are slurs, no matter who uses them or how."

Which, as I think about this, means I probably need to look at my current vocabulary and maybe curtail the use of a few choice phrases. Then again, calling someone a communist is always fun. 'Pinko' is a great slur.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
17:21 / 29.12.02
"I've (Indian) family who'll call each other 'Paki' but this *is* different."

Absolutely, in the same way that I can call my lesbian friends 'fucking dykes' but being called that by a stranger would be hostile and offensive. We've been here before, haven't we, with reclaimation of language, context, etc? I find it disturbing that this ground has to be retrodden. Saying you're going out for a 'chinky' or 'down the paki shop' is racist language, although it does not necessarily make the speaker a racist - often they're not thinking enough about what they say. So that doesn't make it okay. Same as calling someone a 'cunt' doesn't automatically make a person a misogynist, even though they're using a misogynist term.

I'm really convinced that re-thinking language would get us (the world in general, although it goes for Barbelith, too) heading in the right direction. People yell that thinking about this kind of stuff is 'political correctness gone mad' (yawn) because they don't want to have to engage brain before mouth.

Haus - can you link to the thread you've quoted from?
 
 
some guy
17:55 / 29.12.02
Same as calling someone a 'cunt' doesn't automatically make a person a misogynist, even though they're using a misogynist term.

Actually, they're using a term that some people feel is misogynist. It's an important, powerful distinction, and it's the reason why discussions on language become so charged.
 
 
that
19:11 / 29.12.02
I have to disagree with bip and sfd. Indians (as in people from India/with Indian heritage) using the word 'Paki' in a 'friendly' sense is not necessarily much different/better than anyone else using it, IMHO. Although the word is used to refer to Asian people from many regions, the word 'Paki' still comes from Pakistani, and there is often tension to say the least amongst Pakistani and Indian communities.
 
 
Persephone
22:06 / 29.12.02
To the point where it gave me a jolt seeing it the words in a subject header, to me they're not words to chuck about, Even using them for shock value/effect is something I think one has to be pretty careful about.

Or am I missing the joke here? As I'm not sure it's that funny.

Ditto --but that's just emotional reportage, for what it's worth. I'm actually a little mad, if you want to know.

I think that LLB is right, it's a term that I feel is racist. There's a logical argument behind that, but the logic is secondary to me.

But you know, what is to be done? I'm not particularly for policing language. I don't want mandated change, I want to change people's hearts and minds laughs derisively at self but I don't hope for too much. And I hate that I think this whole topic is about scoring points against Duncan and that now I have to see this fucking word blazoned across the Head Shop.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
22:33 / 29.12.02
Paki is something that I have seen used in a non-offensive context. I have never seen Chinky ever used non offensively, no to say it couldn't. Chinky is not a direct diminutive form of Chinese as paki is to pakistani.

I think the only context where these are non offensive is like when two black people call each other nigger, you know reclamation.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:02 / 29.12.02
My bad - the context is here. The exact post is:


'Paki', and there was a court case about this a couple of years ago which the user of the word won, is arguably a descriptive diminution. 'Chinky' likewise.

It's just that the people who tend to use these two words are often prefixing them with 'Fucking...'

Is anyone actually offended by 'poof'(excluding aforementioned prefix?) It's such a jolly word.

Which obviously addresses a different question, but did make me wonder; those who know me are aware that I am spectacularly out of touch both with the cutting edges of critical theory and with the way the young people express themselves. Those terms seemed to me utterly beyond any form of reclamation, unless that reclamation came from within. And if these terms are actually acceptable currency, then I am totally behind the curve, which is possible but, I like in my vanity to believe, somewhat unlikely. Which is why I am curious as to this court case, because the words make me recoil, in a purely literal sense. That is to say, if somebody used them around me, I would react very badly indeed.
 
 
w1rebaby
23:34 / 29.12.02
Well, they are used without malicious intent by some people, I've heard it done on more than one occasion. And, to some people, they are offensive, too.

I said above that I thought that the words were on balance malign, because any user in the UK should really be aware of the history and implications. But I think I'm actually going back on that now, a little bit anyway. "Paki" and "Chinky" do not have abusive meanings, but abusive connotations.

How much is a speaker responsible for interpretations of his or her words that are completely outside of his or her experience? "Paki" is not a priori offensive. I would have thought before that if you live in the UK, own a TV and pay vague attention to the world around you, you would have realised that it's a term associated with racism, so you probably shouldn't use it - but apparently that's not the case. Unless I was just talking to particularly thick people.
 
 
some guy
23:35 / 29.12.02
I think the only context where these are non offensive is like when two black people call each other nigger

Actually, I get offended when two black people call each other nigger. So the question becomes What offense is paramount? Are there certain groups of people whose feelings are more important than others? Is there a hierarchy of offense that we should take into account? Because if the answer is context, as I'm sure SFD and others might assert, then we must face the (unpalatable to some) fact that intent is context (see the "gay" thread)...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:54 / 29.12.02
There's certainly a difference between using words in text and vocally but I'd rather not get caught up in it because I'm sure that everyone here is quite aware of it already.

'Paki' is a word that I find more offensive then most, I grew up with a lot of Asian children and the word wasn't used when I was very young unless it was a direct insult. When I moved away from London to a very white middle class area none of the other kids understood what they were saying when they generalised in that way and I think it made it even worse then it had been. I view it as a swear word that's much worse then most of the others because it's directly aimed at a racial group and I've never heard it properly disassociated.

When the word 'cunt' is used I react to it like I would to 'bastard', 'bitch' or 'fuck', not at all. When 'gay' is used in a bad way I ignore it though a couple of years ago I might have told whoever it was to shut the fuck up and I've never heard anyone use the word 'chinky' so I can't comment at all about it.

I really don't have the energy to care if anyone calls someone of their own colour/sex/race blah blah a word that is derogatory, that's their problem, if I want to turn round and insult someone a fucking insomniac (and insomniacs are frowned upon by the rest of society) then surely I have a right to reclaim that word. Why would I be insulted if someone called me something that was just as insulting to them as me? The context takes on a completely different role as does the intent.
 
 
w1rebaby
01:52 / 30.12.02
Actually, I get offended when two black people call each other nigger. So the question becomes What offense is paramount?

Hm. I would say that before we consider that, we should consider exactly what it is to find a word, or the use of a word, offensive, and why.

To consider a word, in itself, offensive, I would claim is nonsensical. You could have a visceral reaction to hearing a particular term because of the context you have always heard it in, which may be understandable, but unless you have some sort of magickal justification for claiming the word is bad in itself... no.

If you consider a word offensive because it's being used as an insult to you directly, implying something bad about yourself, I think that's reasonable. That would be pretty much what "offensive" means. If it's an insult to someone that you care about, that's reasonable, though it's not a direct insult. If you consider that the word is being used to express, or reinforces, attitudes that you find offensive, then that's reasonable too.

In theory, if I believed that using the word "flipper" to reference black people was offensive, then I would be justified in taking offence at its use. However, you have to consider whether what you're claiming as to the use of the word is actually true. If you think that black people using the word "nigger" to each other is helping to perpetuate the use of that word and born of self-hatred, then you'd better be prepared to defend that, because there are good arguments against. I don't think that there is a definitive answer at all. Whether those people mean and take offence or not is a contributory factor in this is relevant, but not paramount, because you're not arguing that the word is always offensive to black people (if you were, you would be wrong, because this is a counter-example).

Because if the answer is context, as I'm sure SFD and others might assert, then we must face the (unpalatable to some) fact that intent is context (see the "gay" thread)...

Not entirely sure what you mean with this, but surely, context includes intent of the speaker, and without context, words are meaningless.
 
 
cusm
06:21 / 30.12.02
While "paki" is diminutive of "Pakistani", "chinky" is derived from "chink", which is an older and most specificly malign slur for "Chinese."

Is paki used commonly for anyone other than Pakistani folks? Has it come to be a more general term for dark skinned asians, and thus used as "nigger"? I'm pretty far removed from London street slang, so I don't know how this is commonly used. If it keeps on target to Pakistanis, it is far less malign a term overall than if the tendency is to apply it to any dark skinned asian you don't like. Then its just another bigoted slur, with really no excuse for it.
 
 
illmatic
11:23 / 30.12.02
Cusm: It's got a long-ish history of use in the UK ie 30-40 years or so - It'd be interesting to see if there was any usage of the word before this. This coincides with large scale Asian immigrantion into the UK - mid/late 60's - early 70's. And, unsurprisingly, it's usually not a descriptive term for people of Pakistani origin, it's a term of abuse for any (non-"oriental"?? - don't know a better descriptive term, sorry) Asian person.

I can recall this phrase becoming more and more taboo to use throughout my lifetime.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:26 / 30.12.02
I would be surprised if the person describing another as a "Paki" had generally stopepd and enquired first whether they were in fact Pakistani, as opposed to, say, Bangladeshi or Indian, in terms of statehood, or Punjabi, say, in terms of language and culture.

I don't suppose anyone has anything more about this court case, do they?
 
 
Char Aina
11:36 / 30.12.02
i and my friend bandy about 'rinky dink' and various other slurs. he started it, and he is as rinky dink a chink as you ever did see.

does it offend you that i am able to find humour in racial differences? even if it is only in the stupidity of them and their importance?

the usual context for these conversations is the world of the game cube in which i am a paltry second to his asian powerhouse. it is yet another thing to throw at each other to pschye each other out and to crow over victories.



i dont feel it is fair for you to fight for the rights of someone(ie me and leo) who doesnt want your protection.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:57 / 30.12.02
So, you racially abuse him while he dominates you? Well, I've seen kinkier relationships...

Question there being one of consent, surely? You are friends, and over time have developed a comfort zone, in the same way that BiP's family are comfortable with calling each other Pakis or SFD's friends know each other well enough to call each other fucking dykes in the knowledge that no condemnation or insult is meant. But, at the same time, would you on the first day of a new job call any oriental-looking fellow in your workplace a "rinky dink", on the assumption that he or she would "get it", and see how cleverly you were laughing atthe stupidity of racist terminology by using it?
 
 
some guy
13:56 / 30.12.02
Because if the answer is context, as I'm sure SFD and others might assert, then we must face the (unpalatable to some) fact that intent is context (see the "gay" thread)...
Not entirely sure what you mean with this, but surely, context includes intent of the speaker, and without context, words are meaningless.

In the "gay" thread there is disagreement as to whether speaker intent is the prime context when judging offense. In other words, if the speaker calls a film "gay" but is not intending a link with homosexuality, the usage is arguably the same as two black people calling each other "nigger" if intent trumps reception. To pull it back on track, the usage of "Paki" or "Chinky" would be similar, with the family example a good demonstration.

I'm interested by your analysis of "offense" and Haus' use of the word "abusive." The latter seems much easier to prove, and I wonder if our reaction to words like "Paki" has less to do with offense (and really, Why exactly are we being offended by such slang?) and more to do with abuse (Because the words carry the intention of abuse; "Paki" includes the message Different, Unwelcome). If the words are divorced from connotations of abuse, are they still inherently offensive, or are we merely uncomfortable because we are not yet used to the new meaning?
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:10 / 30.12.02
Just an aside to say ta to Persephone for saying something that I couldn't put into words:

And I hate that I think this whole topic is about scoring points against Duncan and that now I have to see this fucking word blazoned across the Head Shop

With the subsequent discussion, I'm less inclined to think this than I was, but shouting about using hate speech and then using it for effect is pretty ironic... likeisay, if you're suggesting that people use these words with care/consider where they might be used/asking for an examination of the problem, I'm not sure that making use of their offensiveness is a great way to go about it.

and yeah, if we're talking about what we find offensive, we are talking about context and consent, so I guess it's really my problem that I get a stabbing pain every time I look at that header.

My emotional/experiential baggage rears up. And I'm feeling a pressure to apologise for that, seeing as we're in the Head Shop. But I'm not going to. Because if a discussion of race doesn't want to engage with the effects of these words *as they happen*, there seems little point to the discussion.

and yeah, angry too.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:50 / 30.12.02
Anywaaaay. back on topic. Lots of food for thought here.

To answer cholister and others re 'reclamation', my answer would be that while these terms are used at us - whoever the 'us' may be in this case, as hate speech, by one group against each other as a weapon, then it's neccessary to do something to take the sting, the violence, out of those words. To gain a space for response/take back some power.

If I thought the word Paki was never going to be used derogatively again, I couldn't justify its 'friendly'/sub-cultural use. But as long as it used in seriousness, there are peope have grown up with it being used *against* them. Using it themselves is one way of taking the sting out of it. If people aren't going to put the master's tools down, it's a little difficult to defend yourself if you don't have them as well.

In the case of Paki (and I suspect Chinky, in the UK, though I don't know for certain about this, but a Malaysian friend has had chinky thrown at him his whole life), a bunch of Bengalis for example using it amongst themsleves emphasise the ludicrousness of the fact that anyone from the Indian subcontinent, however they identify themselves, is lumped in as a Paki.

And they reference *shared experiences* (like, oh, being told to explain to the scary kid that's yelling it at you that 'you're not a Paki, because you're Indian', or being told to 'ignore it and they'll go away'. Er, no. but bless 'em for trying ) as well as hightlighting the precariousness of the space that such groups inhabit. Processes which, while I wish they weren't neccessary, damn well are when subgroups have their lack (of whatever characteristic makes them 'lesser' eg of whiteness, of heterosexuality) thrown at them *constantly*.

Using words like 'dyke, Paki' is much more than having built up a space of intimacy in which 'outside rules' can be dropped by common consent, using these words in safe contexts is a response to having had them used at one in entirely unsafe situations, a way to take that power.

I find it interesting, that as far as I know, it tends to be the younger generations of immigrants that go in for this kind of thing. In my family eg, its the second generationers (from teens to 30s) that do it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:48 / 30.12.02
And I hate that I think this whole topic is about scoring points against Duncan and that now I have to see this fucking word blazoned across the Head Shop

Right. Since Persephone appears to have decided to make this National Impute Motives to Haus Day, I am going to let you all in on a Tannhauser family secret. Used wisely and regularly before meals, this secret will prevent gassy buildup and situations where I have to rot my own threads.

If you want to know why somebody has done something, rather than making up a convincing reason in your head, why not try *asking them*? PMs are good for this. This family secret owes its efficacy to the fact that other people are not just characters in the bildungsroman of your life, but people in themselves, and thus that they might have an idea of their motivations other than the one they would have if you had made them up. The downside of this is that it means people will often have motivations that are other than those it would be convenient to believe them to have, for example in order that you might feel righteous indignation more successfully.

Now, Duncan stated 1) that a case could be made for two particular words to be "decriptive diminutions" and 2) that in the case of one of these words, this belief had been vindicated in a court of law. Now, since records of court are kept, proposition (2) is very simply either true or not true. If not true, then we can discard it, but to say without evidence that it is not true and thus should be ignored seems to me terribly rude. If it is true, then it needs more detail and more context before it can be of any use in a discussion of proposition (1)that a case could be made for two particular words to be "decriptive diminutions", and by implication not in themselves offensive or to be avoided. Personally, I think this proposition is highly contentious and certainly deserves further analysis, which is what is happening here (not least because there is no "k" in "Chinese person", and thus it strikes me that the word "chinky" logically contains a reference to the characteristic appearance of South-East Asian people's eyes, just to stagger back ontopic for a second)

I would like Persephone, and anyone else who believes that the intent of this thread was "to score points against Duncan", to explain, by PM if possible, exactly how quoting somebody's words without alteration and then asking two questions based on those words asking for more information and opinion on the propositions therein can be written off as the fulfilment of some (as far as I know non-existent) vendetta. But somehow I doubt that will happen. I will settle for sincere attempts to stay on topic.

(Moderator hat - BiP is quite right to say that use of arguably offensive terms in thread titles, where they will appear on the front page of the Underground and cannot be avoided, is something to be treated with caution lest offence be caused or taken. The title has been changed to reflect that).
 
 
The Falcon
16:10 / 30.12.02
Well, I don't feel scored against...

The court case involved a Glasgow police officer being sued for racial discrimination against (and I think it was, as opposed to Bangladeshi or Indian) a Pakistani man, who he had chased shouting 'Stop, Paki!' or somesuch.

His defence was that this was a common diminution for Pakistanis in the region. Which is, technically, correct. And he won.

I never say 'Paki' as it's generally a negative use-all term for people from the subcontinent, but I have talked of 'getting a Chinky', a Chinese meal. That's the only context I've ever used it in, though.

As for black people calling each other 'nigger', it fails to offend me whatsoever. Certainly, in an entertainment context, the only arena I've heard it in, it seems to have positive connotations - 'my nigga' = 'my friend'. Likewise 'son', the old white police officer's favourite, is utilised thus: "I call my brother son, 'cause he shines like one." (I think that's from 'Wu-Gambinos' on Raekwon's 'Only Built 4 Cuban Linx', btw.) It's pleasing to see meaning transmuted like that.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
17:07 / 30.12.02
Regarding this, some dictionary stuff: according to the OED, 'Paki' first surfaced in 1964, while the first reference for 'Chinky' is from 1879:

1879 W. J. BARRY Up & Down vii. 51 We..had a good passage to Hong-Kong. When we arrived, the first Chinese war with Britain had broken out, and there was every appearance of plenty of fun to be shortly had with the Chinkies.

Part of a long and infamous history of English xenophobia and colonial attitudes, both of them. The OED defines 'Chinky' as 'A Chinaman (derogatory)', and 'Paki' as 'A Pakistani, spec. an immigrant from Pakistan.' Interesting - and disturbing - that 'Paki' is not marked as 'derogatory' (this is the 1989 edition, btw, but I think it should still have been in there). They are both given as diminutives. Also interesting that the OED ignores the way in which both terms have been used (as BiP says) to describe or attack any person of sub-continental or far eastern extraction respectively.

I think it's perhaps important to note that both terms originated in periods where there was some engagement between the English and the Chinese or Pakistani people - where previously there had been some distance, and they had not been brought into direct contact. In the case of the Chinese it was the war, and in the case of the Pakistanis it was immigration (and comparatively recent separation of Pakistan from India, which would have prevented the term arising much earlier - during the Raj, for example), but in both cases it's probably important to recognise that the derogatory terms were not mutations of previously-existing, neutral diminutives, but were brought into being as derogatory terms - and this is bound to affect subsequent usage.

My personal opinion is that the use of such terms as hate speech is despicable, and that anyone who uses either term casually outside certain contexts (such as BiP's family one, or toksik's friendly one) must either be ignorant or thoughtless.
 
 
Persephone
18:26 / 30.12.02
Oh God, I'm feeling genuinely anguished here... plus this is the second time in as many days as I have not complied with a Haus request to go to PMs, for which I ask your pardon. If you want to know, I obscurely feel that it would be letting the side down to take my argument into hiding, as I think very strongly that it is relevant to the thread. But I wish you to know that I come absolutely in peace and that, as aliens are wont to say, I mean you no harm.

In fact I do not think that you have a personal vendetta against Duncan. I think that you are trying to settle a question, and that's fine. I also think that you are already yourself decided on this question, as you say, the words make me recoil, in a purely literal sense. That is to say, if somebody used them around me, I would react very badly indeed. To which I say, exactly. I believe I once said that for me seeing that word is like getting stabbed in the eye. As it happens, that word was used around me and I did react very badly indeed. And I really felt worse "knowing" --perhaps I should say "assuming"-- that these are offensive words to you, and you went ahead and used them very prominently. And I should say at this point that I feel palpably relieved that they have been removed.

What this is making me think is, there's a luxury in being able to bat these words around in a debate. When they cannot be applied to you. Whereas I can't seem to help feeling batted around myself. It's telling to me that the verb you use is "recoil," but bengali and I say "stab." This is what I was trying to get at --that this thread, in a sense, is an instance of privilege.

Which is not at all to say that you can't talk about anything you like, but that some things will be reacted to. How you process these reactions is, again, entirely up to you.
 
 
Char Aina
19:26 / 30.12.02
But, at the same time, would you on the first day of a new job call any oriental-looking fellow in your workplace a "rinky dink", on the assumption that he or she would "get it", and see how cleverly you were laughing atthe stupidity of racist terminology by using it?


well, obviously not.


in answer to the accusations of ignorance and or thoughtlessness, i would say that they are unfounded and actually offensive to me.
if i wear heavy metal tshirts, or even just a misfits one, with the skull design, i offend some people. fuck them. they should be more tolerant. but at the same time, if they have some habit or hobby that i dont understand, then i am able to let them partake of it without it upsetting me, or my thinking them ignorant.
to do otherwise would be arrogant.
i realise i am countering your 'insults' with very similar statements, but i dont feel that i am in any way impinging upon your life when i talk to leo. i feel that you are on mine when you tell me i am unaware, or lack in thought.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:43 / 30.12.02
Toksik: Nobody did. The only thing that is likely to make us think you are ignorant is if you continue to pay so little attention to the thread that you reply to accusations nobody has made. The question is whether "chinky" or, if you'd rather, "rinky dink" is a non-offensive diminutive descriptor. You have told us about your usage of it with a friend, where it is meant as an insult but an insult thrown companionably at a friend while you play with your Gamecube. Not very relevant to the discussion, but nobody has, as far as I can tell, accused you of any of the things you appear to believe were imputed. Please stay on topic, however.

Duncan: Interesting, but that raises more questions than it answers. Did he know the man was Pakistani, or did he make a guess, as opposed to shouting "Stop, Punjabi!", for example? Why was it important that the man be identified as a Pakistani? Were there lots of Caucasians on the street who might otherwise have felt obliged to stop? All very peculiar...

Persephone: I'm afraid I simply don't know how to respond. So, the allegation that this was "about scoring points against Duncan" was in fact not meant at all? Then why did you say it? If what you actually meant was that seeing the words in the thread title was very upsetting to you, why didn't you say that, as it seems to suggest, apart from anything else, that there is something to the terms beyond "descriptive diminution". I understand that, and am wondering if there is a way to avoid the use of the words without infringing the freedom of Barbespeech - a general resolution to substitute P. and C., for example, with people moderating themselves? But that has some fairly far-reaching implications generally...

I can't find anything on the Glasgow case yet, but some of these links might be interesting:

City banker driven out of job by slur

Campaign to tackle racism in Scotland

Guardian editorial on the Bush quote

Employment tribunal rules on persecution in London Underground
 
 
grant
20:46 / 30.12.02
I think your conversations with leo count as privileged space, not a general sort of public thing. He's family, in a way.

OK.

Someone tell Uncle Grant when a diminutive form of a word - especially a general category descriptor - is NOT generally offensive? Or is that too much for your iddle-widdle heady-weadies?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:49 / 30.12.02
Well - I don't find 'Brits' especially offensive. I don't like it, because I think it often has ugly connotations with which I am ashamed to be associated, but the term per se doesn't offend me - YMMV though...
 
 
that
20:52 / 30.12.02
I asked for my post to be moderated, but it hasn't been. So my meaning came out fucked, and was never fixed as I meant it to be. This is what I meant to say:

I have to disagree to some extent with bip and sfd. Indians (as in people from India/with Indian heritage) using the word 'Paki' in a 'friendly' sense is different than, for instance, a white person using it, in whatever sense. However, although the word is used to refer to Asian people from many regions, I would suggest that it is important to remember that the word 'Paki' still comes from Pakistani, and there is often tension to say the least amongst Pakistani and Indian communities.
 
 
that
20:58 / 30.12.02
But that's probably pretty much academic, anyway. And I do certainly understand Persephone's point about : there's a luxury in being able to bat these words around in a debate. When they cannot be applied to you. Whereas I can't seem to help feeling batted around myself. I'm ducking out of this debate now anyway, but I wanted to apologise...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
21:21 / 30.12.02
Just some interesting additions from Australia's own Macquarie dictionary: "chink" and "paki are described as being "noun, colloquial (derogatory) - a Chinese person." and "noun, colloquial - a Pakistani", respectively. "Wog", frequently used for individuals Mediterranean origin - and reclaimed by many (cf: Nick Giannopoulis and crew's The Wog Boy, Wogarama and Wogs Out Of Work shows) is listed in the same way as "chink", while such terms of reference for Australian Aboriginals - "abo" (and the more offensive (possibly) and more redneck "boong") get these:

Abo: noun (also lower case) Australian Colloquial (often derogatory) 1. an Aborigine. --adjective 2. Aboriginal. [shortened form of ABORIGINE] Usage: This is one of the small group of words which when used within a community have no derogatory overtones, but when used by outsiders often have such connotations, so in Australian English Abo is derogatory, in Aboriginal English it is not.

boong: noun Colloquial (derogatory) 1. Australian an Aborigine. 2. NZ a Maori or Pacific Islander. 3. Australian, NZ any black person. [? Aborig.; or ? from BUNG2] Usage: This is one of the small group of words which when used within a community have no derogatory overtones, but when used by outsiders often have such connotations.

I thought it was interesting that these two terms are worth flagging, to the Dictionary's editors, whereas equally racist - though not as politically sensitive - terms aren't. A function of a dictionary started in 1981, perhaps?
 
 
Persephone
22:49 / 30.12.02
So, the allegation that this was "about scoring points against Duncan" was in fact not meant at all? Then why did you say it?

For heaven's sake, Haus... have you never expressed anything imperfectly in your life? Not even in extremis? It was not meant particularly, no. It was meant to carry a general meaning of... I don't want to get all tribal on you, but "my people" have a saying that goes when whales fight, shrimps' backs get broken. I'm sorry to laugh, but... it just seems to me that the shrimps don't tend to argue about whether terms such as Paki or Chinky are offensive! So I did mean something and that was something more like there go the fucking whales again...

If what you actually meant was that seeing the words in the thread title was very upsetting to you, why didn't you say that, as it seems to suggest, apart from anything else, that there is something to the terms beyond "descriptive diminution".

I did say that! That was the part about that fucking word being blazoned yadda yadda...

I understand that, and am wondering if there is a way to avoid the use of the words without infringing the freedom of Barbespeech

I don't think that there is. I don't think that I want there to be. I think it would be *nice* for Barbelith --for any community, really-- to naturally hew away from words that personally cause offense to its members, at the very least. But I suppose that my second choice would be that everybody is free to use whatever words they want and that anybody is free to scream about words they don't like from time to time. If you think about it, this isn't really an insane mechanism as people do generally moderate their behavior in groups --e.g., you can't scream about everything.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
22:51 / 30.12.02
yet again, persephone articulates something I've been wrestling with perfectly:

What this is making me think is, there's a luxury in being able to bat these words around in a debate. When they cannot be applied to you. Whereas I can't seem to help feeling batted around myself. It's telling to me that the verb you use is "recoil," but bengali and I say "stab." This is what I was trying to get at --that this thread, in a sense, is an instance of privilege.

Yeah. totally. you get to throw this stuff about. we don't.

And the idea that you were picking a personal fight, haus, would be ludicrous if it were not one of your accepted and typical techniques to quote out of context and ask 'innocuous questions' , which you then claim ignorance as to the other implicatins of, in oder to prove points.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply