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

Underground > Conversation >

Nick Nack Paddywhack revisited (nonsense rhyme)

Page: 1 2(3)4

miss wonderstarr

15:36 / 11.08.06

My point is there is no punctuation mark that can stand in for using language carefully and sensitively. You can’t just pick a symbol and decide it means ‘I’m not using this word in an offensive way’. Just don’t use it in an offensive way. If you can’t, don’t use it.

Someone above asked about House (Christ, I wrote "Haus" there first)... House Style guidelines. If I remember rightly, tabloid newspapers tend to use "n****r" just as they would use "w****r" and "f**k". So there is, I'd suggest, some agreement and understanding that certain use of punctuation can signify "I'm just trying to indicate what someone else said, without endorsing it or reproducing it."

Is it possible, I wonder, to use "P*ki" in an inoffensive way, unless you're within an ethnic group that has some right to reclaim and appropriate it? In what way could I have gone about that above, when I wanted to talk about a word that had, strictly speaking, a neutral or positive meaning of "pure", but had acquired racist connotations? "The p-word" isn't easily enough understood, I think. I considered asterisks, didn't use them, then edited to add them.

I'm not challenging you here ~ I am interested, because I've found it a challenge on this thread when wanting to make it clear what word I mean (eg. "spastic") despite not liking the word and being aware that its appearance, whatever the intention, could cause upset or offence.

paranoidwriter waves hello

15:39 / 11.08.06

OK, I went away (hence my name change), had a think, calmed down (the time for which I expected to take a lot longer), and tried to find something to support my argument.

So far, unfortunately, the only source I've find which might possibly throw some light on the term and it's history and meanings is by an Irish author, Robbie McVeigh, who's article is in a book that isn't in my local library and which I'm (for various reasons) unable to order online.

Therefore, while I keep trying to get hold of this book and look for other sources, I thought I might post the book info here, in case anybody else had a copy or had a better chance of getting hold of one (I assume some people here might have connections to academic libraries?).

The info is:

Article: McVeigh, Robbie, ‘Nick, Nack, Paddywhack: Anti-Irish racism and the racialisation of Irishness’

Book: Ronit Lentin and Robbie McVeigh (Eds.), 'Racism and Anti-Racism in Ireland' (Belfast: Beyond the Pale, 2002a).

Again, sorry for losing my temper and getting all stroppy.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:57 / 11.08.06

Is it possible, I wonder, to use "P*ki" in an inoffensive way, unless you're within an ethnic group that has some right to reclaim and appropriate it? In what way could I have gone about that above, when I wanted to talk about a word that had, strictly speaking, a neutral or positive meaning of "pure", but had acquired racist connotations?

That's not quite right, though, is it? The term was never used of a person to describe them as pure. The term is an abbreviation of "Pakistani". So, there is no term of address equivalent but without offensive intent, and certainly not in the UK. As such, I think the answer to your question is "no".

16:10 / 11.08.06

Paranoidwriter, that looks like an excellent source and some people here do have good library access so it's possible they can look it up. I think you are apologising unnecessarily, it doesn't read as if you did lose your temper and even though you may have been fuming as you typed, what you have actually written are posts from someone who is making a rational and valid point. I don't think you have anything to apologise for and I think you should stop.

paranoidwriter waves hello

16:17 / 11.08.06

Thanks, Olulabelle. That means a lot.

I am very self-conscious and often this might be seen as narcissistic (which is a hard trap to avoid), but I try to be honest, I don't like making people feel bad, and arrogance is probably my worse fear; hence my sometimes over-use of apologies to try and insure others know I really am assessing my own behaviour as well as that of others, and that I don't think I'm the bees-knees.

But again, thank you. I've felt awful all day and your kind words have made me feel much better, and it's much appreciated.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:22 / 11.08.06

Actually, Lula, I think the bit where he compared the use of the word "paddywhack" to the action of "whacking" black people in the most offensive wayand using the most offensive word possible - that is something to apologise for. However, it's been apologised for, I think, so that seems to have been resolved satisfactorily. Let's see if we can find someone with academic library access and see where we go from there...

16:46 / 11.08.06

this is some kind of elaborate prank, right?

like, if someone started a goofy thread where everyone wrote the next line to a poem or story, and then five posts in someone decided to have fun by starting an in depth conversation about one facet of the last line posted, all tongue in cheekish, and everybody got it and jumped on board doing the same thing until the original stupid thread idea had been buried under mounds of pap, and idiots like me sitting there reading it and wondering if it weren't all some huge inside joke but afraid to look stupid by asking if it were all some huge inside joke, you know what i'm saying here?

16:47 / 11.08.06

Yes Haus you're right and one apology for that I accept as necessary, but I still think there is no need at all for the continual apologising. It's a valid point PW makes and he is entitled to feel upset by what he sees as an abusive term being used in jokes.

He might not feel the need to apologise quite so much if WP had apologised to him for using a term he felt was offensive in the first place, but instead he was brushed off and called a killjoy. I know that's been addressed by people, inculding you so that's good but I just think that might be some of the reason why he has posted so many apologies.

miss wonderstarr

17:52 / 11.08.06

The term was never used of a person to describe them as pure. The term is an abbreviation of "Pakistani". So, there is no term of address equivalent but without offensive intent, and certainly not in the UK

I agree, "p*ki" as a term of address is not used to my knowledge in the UK to mean "pure person". But the word itself apparently means "pure" (Wikipedia: 'The name "Pakistan" means "Land of the Pure" in Urdu and Persian.'), which is what I was referring to when I said that a neutral or positive term (in Urdu and Persian) had been contaminated (in the UK at least) by racist connotations. The word has also been reclaimed by some British Asians (as has the "n-word" or variants thereof by some Black British and African American people) in an attempt to rid it of those racist connotations and turn it (back?) into a proud badge of identity.

So, the term as used by racists is an abbreviation of "Pakistani". But the same term is also half of the phrase "land of the pure". And it is that meaning that some British Asian people are attempting to foreground, I believe.

Madly off-topic, I know, and I also recognise that the the term "P*ki" has been arrived at in different ways in these two different contexts (an ignorant abbreviation of Pakistani / a translation of its original meaning).

18:57 / 11.08.06

Someone above asked about House Style guidelines. If I remember rightly, tabloid newspapers tend to use "n****r" just as they would use "w****r" and "f**k". So there is, I'd suggest, some agreement and understanding that certain use of punctuation can signify "I'm just trying to indicate what someone else said, without endorsing it or reproducing it."

I don't think there is agreement here. The Guardian and the BBC permit it when talking about those words.

I dunno.
Haus, are you saying that it is impossible to use these words in an inoffensive way unless you're in an ethnic group with a right to reclaim it? Should dictionaries list 'n*gger' thus?

paranoidwriter waves hello

19:13 / 11.08.06

Another thought I've had, and which I'm still researching, is the potential use of the ligamentum nuchae in weaponry (i.e. slings, whips, bows, catapults), and how this might relate to why "paddywhack" is an alternative name for this ligament; whether as a weapon / term used by the Irish, English, or any other nation.

At first I thought, maybe in the past people used the ligamentum nuchae in making whips, which has taken me down some interesting avenues (e.g. anybody else never heard of whipboxing before?) but I'm having difficulty finding anything on the use of ligaments in the history of whip making, and rawhide appears to have been the material most cultures used.

However, subsequent research has found one source that suggests that certain societies may have used the ligamentum nuchae in making "siege engines", when horse hair wasn't in abundance. (see footnote 5 in this piece about "ancient Seige Engines" -- I'm still looking for other sources.)

So, I'm posting this because there's a chance that the etymology of the phrase may be related to the history between England and Ireland, and the prejudice experienced (by both sides); and which others may have more info about. I'm also a little tired and need to take a break before reading through loads more Google results pages, and I think I might try a quick search on desmology related sites next to see if there's any relevant info there.

Oh, and if anyone has any relevant info which might help me research this subject (etc), please feel free to PM me and let me know.

19:54 / 11.08.06

Mist: I love your Lovecraft version!

Perhaps Paddy was just used here in the states more?
In New England and Boston specificly 'Paddy' is an offensive term when not used by people identifying as such.

As a factoid there are antique signs posted in many irish Boston pubs of "No Blacks nor Irish Need Apply" as grim reminders.

Don't call me Bridget

paranoidwriter waves hello

20:15 / 11.08.06

Yeah, we had that in England too. Richard Harris used to tell an anecdote about how when he first arrived in London from Ireland looking for work, he saw an accommodation notice saying "No Irish, No Niggers, No Dogs" behind an outdoor glass fronted billboard outside a shop. Apparently, he was so angry he punched through the glass, took the piece of paper, and threw it away.

Of course, anti-Irish sentiment goes back a long time in England. Also, St Patrick is a Catholic patron saint, which is probably worth remembering.

________________________________________________________

Mod' Edit / Correction: I was trying to picture the TV interview I saw with Richard Harris (might have been with Michael Parkinson), and I'm pretty sure he said that he kept it and still had it, as some kind of "never forget" reminder.

xk, I forgot to say thanks fot that link: very interesting. I had never even heard about the "Bridget" thing before. Also, an elder relative of mine is called Michael, and gets annoyed when/if people shorten his name to "Mick", rather than "Mike" for the reasons stated in that piece.

miss wonderstarr

20:47 / 11.08.06

I don't think there is agreement here. The Guardian and the BBC permit it when talking about those words.

I meant "agreement in tabloid newspapers", ie. "some agreement", but this is a minor point.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:20 / 11.08.06

Haus, are you saying that it is impossible to use these words in an inoffensive way unless you're in an ethnic group with a right to reclaim it? Should dictionaries list 'n*gger' thus?

No dogs, no Irish, no reductiones ad absurdum.

21:44 / 11.08.06

Ah, I thought that was unlikely. It's just that when wonderstarr asked:

Is it possible, I wonder, to use "P*ki" in an inoffensive way, unless you're within an ethnic group that has some right to reclaim and appropriate it? In what way could I have gone about that above, when I wanted to talk about a word that had, strictly speaking, a neutral or positive meaning of "pure", but had acquired racist connotations?

You said:

I think the answer to your question is "no".

But I gather you only meant "no" when used as a term of address, rather than when talking about the word (which is what I think wonderstarr meant).

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:12 / 11.08.06

In part, yes - and also that pretty much by definition you can't really reclaim a racist insult if it's never been claimed to use against you in the first place. I just don't see how a white person would even start going about reclaiming hate speech used against non-white people, or why it would be something they were ... entitled? Entitled to do.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:24 / 11.08.06

So, when talking about the word - well, in those terms it doesn't really make sense to start talking about etymology, as I think Miss W now agrees. You just have to acknowledge that some words will have an impact simply by dint of the context in which they are most often encountered. What you do with that is matter for personal choice and discussion. You can try to break up the pattern by blanking out letters, and by doing so also demonstrate that you are using the term, you can try to avoid using racist insults in everyday discourse entirely, by talking round the word itself, or you can "take responsibility" by using the word unedited - although as an approach that does seem rather to focus on the person who isn't a potential victim of racial abuse as the person whose feelings are important in this situation. In any case, certain words can have a negative impact on people who regularly encounter them as racist abuse directed at them, regardless of the intentions of the person writing them.

What a dictionary is doing, on the other hand, is something manifestly different from what a private citizen writing or saying a word is doing.

22:31 / 11.08.06

I might be misunderstanding you (or wonderstarr here) but I thought we were talking about whether 'P*ki' needs the asterisk when used as wonderstarr used it here.
So when ze asked, more generally, Is it possible, I wonder, to use "P*ki" in an inoffensive way, unless you're within an ethnic group that has some right to reclaim and appropriate it?, I assumed ze explicitly meant circumstances other than when the writer is reclaiming it.

What a dictionary is doing, on the other hand, is something manifestly different from what a private citizen writing or saying a word is doing

What do dictionaries do? Don't they talk about the meaning of words? Isn't that what wonderstarr was doing on page 2?
Am I being thick?

22:36 / 11.08.06

Mist: I love your Lovecraft version!

Thank you, xk!

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:39 / 11.08.06

What do dictionaries do? Don't they talk about the meaning of words? Isn't that what wonderstarr was doing on page 2?
Am I being thick?

Well, let's start by considering the differences between Miss W and a dictionary. Does a dictionary have limbs? Is it possessed of a single consciousness? Does one, reading an entry in a dictionary, feel that the dictionary made a choice to use a particular word at that particular moment?

22:44 / 11.08.06

Well, one feels that the dictionary (or those who chose the words that comprise a dictionary) chose what words to include. Not sure exactly what limbs or a single consciousness have to do with it, but I'm sure to be missing something.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:54 / 11.08.06

Well, let's take it a bit further. If you look up the word "wanker" in a dictionary, could the dictionary be said to have called you a wanker? Could it be said to have said "wanker"? Or would we more correctly say that you had looked up the word "wanker" in the dictionary?

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:58 / 11.08.06

So when ze asked, more generally, Is it possible, I wonder, to use "P*ki" in an inoffensive way, unless you're within an ethnic group that has some right to reclaim and appropriate it?, I assumed ze explicitly meant circumstances other than when the writer is reclaiming it.

That's a fair assumption, certainly. I think part of the problem here is the word "inoffensive". What does that mean. Without wishing to cause offence? Indubitably. Without risking offence being caused? No, I don't think so. The discussing of the Urdu for "pure" is a side-issue there, since a) I don't know if that is the angle taken by reclamation movements among British South Asians and b) it is not relevant to any discussion of the use of the word. To put another way, in the context of an Urdu/English dictionary, or an essay on the etymology of the word "Pakistan", one could presumably create a textual environment in which the likelihood of the word being upsetting to the reader is proportionately reduced by an awareness of context.

However, if the question is "can a person (who has never run the risk of being racially abused with this word) use it in the sense of a racial insult aimed at people of South Asian origin and be confident that it will not cause any person of South Asian descent to feel upset or offended?", I'd stick to the answer "no". You might not cause anyone from that group offence, but you might not. And, speaking microcosmically, I don't think it's particularly fair to expect members of Barbelith's non-white communities, which are often numerically very small, to have to act as representatives each time it happens.

23:01 / 11.08.06

When I opened this thread and read the post that referred to the meaning of the word "P*ki", could the board be said to have called anyone a "P*ki"? Could it be said to have said "P*ki"? Or would we more correctly say that I looked up the word "P*ki" on Barbelith?

23:06 / 11.08.06

Can't we create a textual environment here in which the context minimises the risk of upsetting the reader?

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:19 / 11.08.06

Or would we more correctly say that I looked up the word "P*ki" on Barbelith?

No, obviously we wouldn't. Looked at, yes. Different.

As to context - well, I imagine we have already created an environment in which the word is less potentially upsetting than when it is shouted by a large number of unpleasant-looking people on a deserted road late at night, or is written as part of a racist diatribe on a hate site. One can no doubt take further steps. Asterisking out vowels is one such step. Making it absolutely clear why we have found it necessary to use the term is another. And so on. Can we guarantee that etc? No. Can we say with absolute confidence that we know exactly where the line should be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable risk of offence? Even if we are very clever? I'd say no again.

23:26 / 11.08.06

Well, one might browse through a dictionary and look at word there. I don't, obviously, but one might.

Yeah, I agree that while we can (and do) take various steps to minimise the risk of offense, we can't guarantee it. But this comes back to whether putting asterisks in a word (while ensuring that it's still readable as that word) does anything to further that.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:31 / 11.08.06

If you are refusing to accept that there is any difference between interacting with a message board and interacting with a dictionary, then I don't think I'm able to take that one any further. Sorry. I'm not young any more.

On asterisks - tell you what, why not ask somebody who is directly affected how they feel? Maybe several people? That might provide a useful user group to start with...

23:40 / 11.08.06

I'm not refusing to accept that there is no difference between interacting with a dictionary and interacting with a message board, I'm just trying to work where a textual environment becomes one where it's plainly acceptable to use certain words (eg. a dictionary) and where it's not - and particularly where the textual environments found on Barbelith fit on that scale.

But mostly I'm wondering how asterisks function in making certain words acceptable.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:47 / 11.08.06

Well, I've talked a little to people from groups who encounter this, but I don't think you're going to accept anything I say which contradicts your inclination, and I am going to avoid frustration by leaving the conversation and going to bed. As such, I would suggest once again that you ask people who find themselves on the receiving end of racial epithets how they feel about seeing those racial epithets in the specific context of an Internet message board, with and without asterisks. It might be worth at the same time seeing how they feel about knowing that these these racial epithets are also recorded in dictionaries.

23:55 / 11.08.06

Oh I'm assuming that anybody directly affected will take this as an open invitation to tell me.

I don't think you're going to accept anything I say which contradicts your inclination

Don't you? It worries me a little that I've given that impression. I didn't mean to.

miss wonderstarr

05:56 / 12.08.06

"can a person (who has never run the risk of being racially abused with this word) use it in the sense of a racial insult aimed at people of South Asian origin and be confident that it will not cause any person of South Asian descent to feel upset or offended?", I'd stick to the answer "no". You might not cause anyone from that group offence, but you might not

Strictly speaking, "no" is correct in that you cannot feel absolutely confident as to whether starring out a vowel, or giving the word some context, will neutralise your use of a racial slur to the point that no person in the "target group" (those to whom such a word might have been directed as an insult) will be offended to read it.

However, I think it's also correct that tactics like those can very probably reduce the level of offence, and at least make clear the author's intention.

I agree the most sensible and useful thing to do would be to ask people who had been on the receiving end of these racial slurs how they felt about it. On the internet though, that's difficult because you don't often know someone's ethnic identity and background ~ unless you seek out and join a specific community ~ and in real life I think canvassing such a group has its own difficulties.

miss wonderstarr

06:04 / 12.08.06

I thought we were talking about whether 'P*ki' needs the asterisk when used as wonderstarr used it here.
So when ze asked, more generally, Is it possible, I wonder, to use "P*ki" in an inoffensive way, unless you're within an ethnic group that has some right to reclaim and appropriate it?, I assumed ze explicitly meant circumstances other than when the writer is reclaiming it.

The way I used it there was a little bit borderline I think, as I was referring to the word as both having an "original" Urdu meaning, which I later noted was part of its reclamation as a positive term among some British Asian people, and being a racial slur. I think Haus is right in that I'm not a dictionary and that as an individual posting on an internet board ~ as a person who might also talk about her childhood and taste in comic books, or argue with another person here, or even post when drunk (possible) ~ what I write is going to be read in a different context from what you read when you open a dictionary.

I think we can try to frame/phrase words in a way that approaches that dictionary neutrality, though. I can imagine a paragraph in which an individual on here who is known to be a white British person uses the "p-word" in a post but explains very clearly that they are just quoting it as the term re-appropriated by certain British Asians, which would, I'd assume (as noted above) significantly reduce risk of offence, although not entirely neutralise it.

miss wonderstarr

06:06 / 12.08.06

PS. Do you think we could/should have the thread summary changed.

Page: 1 2(3)4