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

Underground > Head Shop >

Anyone fancy a fag? Is "hate speech" in the eye of the beholder?

Page: 1 2(3)

16:20 / 23.04.02

Cavatina - I agree with all of your post except the following which I'd like to explore in a bit more detail -

I would think that its current dominant meanings are commonly very well understood, except by the very young.

Where does the dominant meaning come from? Is the dominant meaning universal? Is this uniform dominant meaning so clear, despite the acknowledged complexity, that it is accesible to all?
Surely meaning comes from environment and it is possible for the same word to hold different meanings under different circumstances. For example, imagine an environment where a "hate word" such as faggot is constantly used as general cussword divorced from any direct reference to homophobia. Isn't it then understandable that this word could be adopted simply as a superficial insult rather than a homophobic one? In that case the dominant meaning isn't universal but simply a function of environment. Would it be fair to force the dominant meaning from our environment on to others?
If we don't accept this and decide that "hate words" are a uniform, universal currency then where does the meaning reside? It could be encapsulated within history and culture. This would mean that access would be limited to those with the necessary tools, those with the necessary education and within the necessary environment. Where else does the meaning come from? Where is this egalitarian, easy access place we are talking about?

21:29 / 23.04.02

"If you know a member of the African Diaspora who actually feels this way, could you please be so kind as to introduce us to hir?"

No can do. Registration is closed.

"to continue to use terminology that is knowingly offensive to other people shows an inability and/or refusal to handle the responsibility inherent in free speech."

If free speech has an inherent "responsibility"- by default it is obviously not free speech.

Further on Buk's "if we are unable to place our own meaning into the language we use, if instead it is a complex blend of past intention" deal, if we are unable to place our own meaning into the language we use how the fuck is language gonna evolve?

"We are not free, however, to imagine that our linguistic choices don't matter, are without consequence."

So now we're not free to imagine that our lingustic choices don't matter? We're free to imagine whatever we want; the Thought Police are only Orwellian. Maybe imagining that uttering the "nigger" is without societal consequence is a little delusional, but that's about the furthest it goes.

23:46 / 23.04.02

"...imagining that uttering the "nigger" is without societal consequence is a little delusional..."

Just so, Rage - and it's not just '*a little* delusional.' Where I live there could also be a legal consequence.

Quickly:-

With rights go responsibilities; otherwise - simply in practical terms - our freedoms would soon disappear.

Re your response about language: did you read my response to Buk? Of course language evolves with developments in society, as we relativize meanings in different contexts, coin new terms, develop new discourses or extend existing ones and so on. But we're talking specifically here about the example of 'hate speech' and its past/present dominant meanings in societies in which racism, sexism and homophobia have been/still are alive and well. You can choose to use such terms, offend, and flame divisiveness - or not. The linguistic choice and responsibiity for that choice lie with you.

22:21 / 24.04.02

""Paki" is an insult because Pakistanis are insulted by it. Not necessarily all Pakistanis, but there is enough of an English-speaking diaspora and reinflux that GWB's use of the word caused a diplomatic ripple. Since presumably comparatively few Pakistanis a) live in Australia and b) listen to cricket commentary" - Haus

An ethnocentric outlook from Haus. Why would Pakistanis consider "Paki" an insult? I suspect this is only the case in England. Apparently Haus believes that a majority of Pakistanis have lived in England and that very few are interested in cricket. And, for your information, there are a large number of Pakistani people in Australia.

How many Pakistanis do you think have lived in England, heard Dubya's speech and wouldn't have realized that everywhere in the world except one island, "Paki" is not used as an insult and not considered an insult by anyone?

22:24 / 24.04.02

Pseudo-intellectual word of the week: diaspora.

23:00 / 24.04.02

Before people start to complain, I apologize for harking back to an earlier sub-topic but I was away for a few days and had no opportunity to respond.

I've just done a search on Google.com regarding the issue of Bush using the word "Paki". It seems to me that the "diplomatic ripple" mainly consisted on British journalists, to a lesser extent Canadians, and a few pseudo-intellectuals who like to inappropriately use the word "diaspora", which is more traditionally used to denote the Jewish communities living outside Israel.

From http://www.commondreams.org/index.htm A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community:
However, the term may reverberate with more force outside Pakistan than inside the country.

Athar Razvi, a Toronto-area writer who often visits his native Pakistan, said the word lacks impact there.

"Actually, this [word] is a creation of the British media. The British are known for giving names to peoples and nationalities. It started in Britain, the word Paki, and it was here [in Canada] about 25 years ago, and it was taken as a kind of bad name to call a person from the subcontinent. . . . But I don't think the very word Paki, in Pakistan, will be taken as seriously or in as bad a connotation as people may think. If he had said something bad about Islam, that would be something different."

Oh, a creation of the British media? Hmmmm, interesting...

Where else was the word "Paki" frequently used as an abbreviation for "Pakistani"? Omaid Weekly, the most widely read Afghan publication in the world. Well, that's understandable - Afgans wouldn't know that "Paki" is an insult, would they?

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:27 / 24.04.02

And as soon as you demonstrate an understanding of what the word "diaspora" actually means (hint - its origins are Ancient Greek, and it existed ), then we can decide how "pseudo-intellectual" it is. The capital-D Diaspora is generally used to refer to the Jewish diaspora. This does not mean it is the only diaspora, which the OED defines secondarily as "any group of people similarly (to the Jews among the Gentiles) dispersed". The belief that it has only one meaning may be an impression gained from the sort of scholarship that likes to inappropriately split infinitives.

You may also wish to consider that to say a slang term in English may not have quite the same effect in a nation the first language of which is not English.

Hang on, why did I even just explain that? Am I a UNICEF mission all of a sudden?

23:47 / 24.04.02

You might not have noticed the qualifier "more traditionally". Or you could be a jackass who uses a few reference books to try to appear more informed than he really is, and furthermore avoids the real issue when he knows he's whipped.

The point is that the term "Paki" cannot be assumed to be racist independently of context, except by a Pom who believes that Brittania still rules the waves and the English language.

23:51 / 24.04.02

Furthermore, the people of Pakistan are NOT "similarly (to the Jews among the Gentiles) dispersed". Most of Pakistanis still live in Pakistan, so the term "diaspora" is inappropriate no matter which dictionary definition you want to use.

But you wouldn't know that because you don't realize there's anything outside England.

00:07 / 25.04.02

"You may also wish to consider that to say a slang term in English may not have quite the same effect in a nation the first language of which is not English"

Like the USA, Australia and New Zealand? In every one of these countries (and countless others, no doubt), the word "Paki" is not considered an insult.

I am uncomfortable with the very idea that merely stating someone's national origin is considered an insult. The insult is the insistence that the word "Paki" is itself necessarily insulting. I'm convinced this is a British thing, or perhaps (hopefully) merely English.

00:10 / 25.04.02

In the last sentence of my previous post, I was referring to the English nationality, not the English language.

Someday we'll have to find a better name for this language than "English".

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:18 / 25.04.02

My God - Knodge-esque, but with a huge post-imperial chip on its shoulder. Fan-tastic. Do like the idea of words existing "independently of context", though. That's a whole world of fun.

Of course, the easy way to do this would be to ask somebody.

Now, if I recall correctly, there's a Barbeloid who lives in America and works for a Pakistani businessman. If s/he's around, could s/he possibly offer us an insight on how hir employer would react to being called a "Paki"? And then maybe Aussie can stop obsessing...

00:25 / 25.04.02

"independently of context" - I was quoting the Topic Abstract, Haus.

I happen to live in the USA, and there mingle with a wide range of people from all the continents of the world (except Antarctica, although I do know someone who has visited the North Pole), so I am aware of the idiosyncracies of US English.

00:28 / 25.04.02

Topic Abstract, for the uninitiated and Haus:
"Can terms generally assumed to be racist, sexist or homophobic function independently of context?"

Who writes this crap, if not the originator of the thread?

00:36 / 25.04.02

I can imagine Haus flipping through his OED and two-volume encyclopedia now, perhaps quickly scanning a couple of issues of National Geographic...

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:59 / 25.04.02

Yes. It was not the quote that was at issue, but the understanding of it.

I think we are getting into some personal issues of yours that threaten to interfere with the thread, Aussie, especially as rather hilariously you are getting quite inflammatory in your anti-English rhetoric. Not being English, I can relate.

Certainly I don't think anyone was claiming that Bush was setting out to offend, only that he might not have been ill-advised to do some homework, especially as he had previously been unable to name the leader of Pakistan. Nor was anyone suggesting that English, or whatever name you would prefer, was not spoken in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the United States, only that it was not necessarily the first language of many Pakistanis resident in Pakistan.

So, if we want to continue down this avenue, how about Syed Adeeb of the Pakistan Times (based in the United States of America), who said: "Not only here but Pakistanis in Pakistan and all over the world feel this is insulting and derogatory. President Bush is not the only offender. A lot of Pakistanis in the New York area have complained to me that government officials have been using the word".

Or the South Asian Journalist's Association style guide:

Paki: A derogatory slang word for people of Pakistani origin. Is the South Asian equivalent of "Jap" or the "N word." Do not use under any circumstances. If you are quoting someone saying this, be sure to treat the word with the same caution you would treat "Jap."

Actually, while checking around moi-meme - and believe me, if I wasnt in too much pain to sleep right now I would be tucked up in bed - was the question "Could the Prime Minister of Australia refer to Black Americans as 'niggers', on the grounds that the term has no cultural currency in Australia?" Which is an interesting one.

But, to be honest, this particular case is confused by ideas of what a statesman should be doing as well as what people in general should be doing, which is possibly a slightly different question.

ONLY NICE THINGS

01:23 / 25.04.02

Oh, stuff it; one more time, which is incidentally where my questioning of your comprehension of "independently of context" came from:

I am uncomfortable with the very idea that merely stating someone's national origin is considered an insult. The insult is the insistence that the word "Paki" is itself necessarily insulting.

Because that assumes not that words function independently of context per se, but that they are interchangeable as long as they have a certain number of letters in common. That "Brit" and "Briton", for example, mean exactly the same thing, and have exactly the same function within a context. Or "Canadian" and "Canuck". "Pole" and "Pollack". "Pakistani" and "Paki".

And, presumably, by extension, "French" and "Frog", "Italian" and "Itie", "Hispanic" and "spic"...how many letters have to be the same before it can be said to be nothing more or less than a "statement of somebody's national origin"?

Because "Paki" is not simply a statement of somebody's national origin. It is an abbreviation if you are a President who does not understand that using abbreviations, especially ones not cleared by the diplomatic corps first, is a bad move. It is a racial slur if you are a Pakistani living in Britain, or it seems Canada. It is an affectionate nickname for the Pakistani cricket team in Australia (and again, if anyone has perspectives to add to that one, I'd be interested to hear them). And, in the South Asian press, it seems to be acknowledged as a derogatory term, although its penetration into the national culture of Pakistan is as yet unestablished.

Even-handed enough? But, ultimately, it seems that there is a certain degree of ambiguity at present about how offensive a Pakistani, be that Pakistani living in Pakistan or elsewhere, might find the term. So, anyone defending their right to use the term must presumably accept that there is a chance that any Pakistani in the area might hear it as "the South Asian equivalent of the N-word". Or they may not. But the chance exists in a way that it would not if one didn't use the term in the first place. So it is obviously not "merely stating someone's native origin", as "Pakistani" or "Norwegian" might be.

02:04 / 25.04.02

But this is exactly what I don't understand. Why should an abbreviation be considered to be a slur? Is "Brit" really different from "Briton" and "Aussie" different from "Australian"? Why does "Pole" actually get lengthened to "Polack", and why do people of Polish descent (not even there parents have been to Poland) gleefully call themselves "Polacks"?

My point is that the sense that a word is a slur or racist doesn't have much to do with the word itself. It is the connotations and associations an individual person has with that word that cause it to seem to be a slur in that person's ears.

BTW, if you're going to mock my colloquial terms of speech, why not comment on the silly suggestion that speech can be in the eye of the beholder? Perhaps you were thinking of ASLAN...

02:33 / 25.04.02

Where was that routine in which the comedian spoke to some gold fish in a bowl saying things like "you're nothing but a FISH"? In that skit, the word "fish" became an insult. Perhaps if the word "Briton" (as an example) was frequently used as an insult it would become a racist slur. Perhaps ANY word can become an insult if used as such, particularly using a deprecating tone of voice.

06:56 / 25.04.02

aussie - the french have a nickname for the english - 'roast beef'. it is fairly derogatory, in the same way as 'frogs' for the french is over here. but when my sister was called a 'roast beef' in paris, she laughed. the term has no history of hostility attached to it. if she'd been called this term and then given a good kicking, then called the term again by various officials, shopkeepers etc and given zero service, she would begin to associate it with hostility and a derogatory attitude. on its own, it's rather silly.

in this country, people who say paki *mean* for it to be derogatory. but it's not just using a word, it's having power over that person as well.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:25 / 25.04.02

But this is exactly what I don't understand. Why should an abbreviation be considered to be a slur? Is "Brit" really different from "Briton" and "Aussie" different from "Australian"?

Very good question. And the best answer I can come up with is "an abbreviation doesn't have to be considered a slur". "Brit" is not generally used as a term of abuse, neither is "Aussie". "Jap" and "Paki" are. That's not because they are abbreviations, nor is it impossible because they are abbreviations. It just happens that they are also terms sufficiently complicated by their abusive connotations that using them as abbreviations without any intent to offend is possible, but using them knowing that a fair chunk of people would find them offensive and then demanding that you be given the freedom to abbreviate how you wish when there are pre-existing and abusive uses of those is probably not.

So, nobody thinks GWB was seting out to use a term of abuse. But, by abbreviating to "Paki", he could be said to have both used an abbreviation andaccidentally to have used a term of abuse. Now whether, now that he knows that there are Pakistanis in various places, including apparently South Asia, who would not be happy to hear the word being used 1) because of its racist overtones and 2) becase when you are the POTUS you should try to be a little more respectful of your strategic allies.

Now, whether Australia gets special dispensation to continue to use the term "Paki", because to them it's just an abbreviation I don't know, but I can see that that approach may cause problems when visting Britain (or Canada, or Southern Asia).

10:04 / 25.04.02

For what it's worth, Aussie and Haus, the Macquarie Book of Slang: Australian Slang in the Noughties has the following entry for 'Paki':

Paki n . 1. Often racist. a Pakistani. -phr. 2. the Pakis , the Pakistani Test Cricket Team

Can't say that I've heard the term used by cricket commentators or seen it in the press; but I don't follow the cricket closely so that probably doesn't mean much.

13:17 / 25.04.02

Very interesting and enlightening. I've released on parole from Australia a number of years ago, and it is quite possible that some recent convicts transferred from the Old Dart have introduced the derogatory use of the term "Paki". When I am next in Australia I will be careful not to use it unless I am specifically referring to the Pakistani Test Cricket Team.

I think this is evidence supporting the hypothesis that "hate speech" is in the ear of the listener, if not the eye of the beholder. Any word could be considered "hate speech" if it is "sufficiently complicated by... abusive connotations." A word that is completely acceptable today could be abused or merely used with a particular tone of voice over the next few months, and by the end of the year be considered a derogatory term by a significant number of people.

I suggest we begin today to all use "Haus" as a derogatory term. What do you think, Haus? Do you think it will work, you freakin' Haus? (joking, of course... although...)

The Return Of Rothkoid

13:21 / 25.04.02

I seem to recall that the only real shortening of cricketing teams' names in Australian broadcasting is to truncate "West Indies" to "Windies". Or, even, "the Windies". I can't recall the term "Paki" being used - though I'm not quite as up on my Richie Benaud as I might be. Most of the time, I remember hearing the word "Pakistan" in the context of "Pakistan are now...". If the phrase "Pakis" makes it into the common press, it's probably in tabloid journalism - I think I might've seen it there, actually - which is on par with UK tabloid journalism in terms of being right-on. Hm.

Haus:
"Could the Prime Minister of Australia refer to Black Americans as 'niggers', on the grounds that the term has no cultural currency in Australia?"
Threadrot, and not related to the topic at hand, but it wouldn't surprise me if Howard did or does. The little ferret.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:41 / 25.04.02

Fair point. Although, I think we could all do with being more up on our Richie Benaud. I mean, what a *ride*! All patrician and leonine. Grrrr.

13:46 / 25.04.02

What? Richie Benaud is certainly not leonine. He looks more like a squished wombat.

13:51 / 25.04.02

Hehehe. hehehe. I like it.

13:56 / 25.04.02

Please leave the wombats alone. Koalas are fair game - drunken little tree-rats...

14:24 / 25.04.02

Now, if I recall correctly, there's a Barbeloid who lives in America and works for a Pakistani businessman. If s/he's around, could s/he possibly offer us an insight on how hir employer would react to being called a "Paki"? And then maybe Aussie can stop obsessing... – Haus

That Barbeloid would be me. You know, the one who used the pseudo-intellectual word-of-the-week, diaspora.

My boss would kick your ass if you called him a Paki.

If he were in a situation where ass-kicking may not be appropriate, he would still make it very clear that such language was unprofessional and unecessary in order to conduct business. And then he would make it a point not to do business with you.

15:54 / 25.04.02

If my memory serves me well, the main "offender" (if that is the correct word) in using the term "the Pakis" when referring the Pakistan Test Cricket Team would be Tony Grieg. Perhaps the next time Pakistan tour Australia (or vice versa) I could keep an ear open to check if it still has currency. I still listen to the live audio of the TV commentary via Internet. Alas, no radio commentary (always far superior) or video.

15:57 / 25.04.02

Lerne, it wasn't actually your use of the word "diaspora" to which I referred. You might ask your boss whether he considers himself a part of a Pakistani diaspora, as suggested by that Haus of a Haus, Haus.

wembley can change in 28 days

17:19 / 25.04.02

Question:
How do you refer to native Americans/Canadians? I used to think that "native Canadian" or just "native people" was the a-ok way to go, but every person I've met of the native persuasion refers to him or herself as Indians. So I've started saying Indians again in most situations, because I know they do.

The Apple-Picker

17:44 / 25.04.02

Well, I refer to peoples original to America as Native Americans (if I don't know whether they are Cherokee or whatever else), and I do that to avoid confusion. Because...

when I think of Indians, I think of people from India.

when I think of American-Indians, I think of people from India who are US citizens.

Right or wrong, those are the associations each term has for me.

I've only met one person who's major ancestry was Native American, and she referred to herself as Cherokee, for obvious reasons. I have Cherokee ancestry, also, but by the time it's dribbled down to me through the family, it's been pretty watered down. So I don't think I can call myself Cherokee anymore than I can call myself Irish or German.

16:43 / 26.04.02

Wouldn't people from India who are US citizens be "Indian Americans" rather than "American-Indians"?

17:11 / 26.04.02

Well all the terms have a kind of ludicrous-ness about them. "Native Americans" reinforces Eurocentrism because it warn't no Senecan who cam up with "America"; "Indian" has the advantage of being rather a joke on old Cristobal Colon, who went to his death bed believing (or trying to believe) he had found a passage to India . . . --it's a continual reminder of the short-sightedness of the metropolitan "conquerers." In Canada, correct me Zoom?, I often hear the term "first people," on the other hand, which I basically _never_ hear in the US. A few years ago, in fact, the students at "Haskell Indian Junior College" in Lawrence, Kansas, voted to change their name, upon achieving a couple of four year programs, to "Haskell Indian Nations University." They could have voted to get rid of "Indian" altogether, but they didn't. I think it is because of the issues I've laid out above.

Page: 1 2(3)