12 January 2009
07:2412572Forgive me, I thought the person referred to as a raghead was a colleague of the fair prince and not The Enemy. Fair enough?
Using a term that has for years been associated with insulting an entire nation and keeping its citizens its their Empiric place, even if meant "affectionately" (for gods sake!) is not ok, fair enough, just a laugh or excusable because it is in context or uttered by the Queens grandson. In context, would it be ok to say "some Spazzers are employable"? In context would it be ok to say "my neighbour, the queer", or "my colleague, the Nigger"? Words are not the enemy, but the way we use them can hurt and kill. We need to be very aware of how the words we use can make a difference.
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
12 January 2009
07:4212575I agree with Barry, it is pc gone mad again.
Surly for it to be racist it is not what is said but how it is said, there is no hatred or malice in his comment.
In life you come out with comments you do not always mean and often wish you had not said because they have been taken out of context. If Prince Harry had meant this in a racist way it would have come out a lot different to the way it did. I am sure it was an off the cuff comment and he regrets he said it. Have some of you never been there?
One of my best friends in the army was coloured, we lived next door to each other in married quarters; we often called each other different names in fun and yes some comments could well be classed as racist but we did not get upset at it.
This to me is someone making a few bob out of the press by giving them the video, I detest that far more. Prince Harry has apologised so time to move on but then I expect the anti Royalists who of course are not racists will want to have a field day with it.
Hey I must remember to get upset when I am next called a Pommy or even Pommy B*****d.
12 January 2009
07:4812576With respect, that is not the point. Even if harry were not an extremely public figure (who has already dressed as a nazi for a merry jape), however he meant the words, they are used as a tool of oppression and abuse. How hard can it be simply not to use words that are known to give offence? At the very least it draws into question his judgment and awareness. I understand that he might have thought he meant it affectionately, but that is not the point - the fact that he felt a term of global abuse might be an affectionate nickname says it all.
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
12 January 2009
08:1012577Have you never said something to some one you regretted saying, you have never made a comment, which was taken out of context.
I am not a racist and I hate people being such, but I have used words, which could be taken that way and no I am not proud of it. I am sorry but this is stupid he used the word in a mild comment not in a racist way at all.
Prince Harry has apologised and as far as I am aware the Officer concerned has not yet commented, but should he accept that apology then that should be the end of the matter. If he does not, then like every other soldier in the forces there is a military procedure to deal with it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 January 2009
08:3912580Bern, the raghead exchange was about a friend of Harry's called 'Dan the Man' who was wearing a headress that made him look like a 'raghead'. That was the point, it was a jocular remark about a friend (white) and not an abusive remark to a coloured member of his platoon.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
12 January 2009
11:0012586I agree that the term 'Paki' is abusive, I believe this remark was made by Prince Harry a few years ago on a personal video and was not meant as an abusive remark in any shape or form and hopefully not taken as such. But also being in the 'media's eyes' he has constantly got to be on his guard as anything he either says or does could and will be taken out of context.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
12 January 2009
11:1712588Here is a few more for our pc friends;
A Irishman will henceforth not be referred to as a 'Mick or Paddy'. Irish people are sensiive and the comment is racist.
Frogs is hurtful to the French.
Wales shall not be referred to as 'sheep s...ging country.
Going for a 'Chinky' is insulting to the Chinese.
Let's be sensible, these are everyday terms along with a lot more. There not meant to be derogatory or raciist. Good god haven't any of the pc correct been in the services or worked in a factory or on a building site. Live in the real world for gods sake.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 January 2009
11:2912589Well said Dave.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
12 January 2009
12:1212590Well, if I used any of the terms 'Paki', 'Chink', 'Yid', 'Raghead' and so on and was overheard by management or offended a staff member even without intending to I would potentially be up for disciplinary proceedings or worse. That's how it is with the civil service these days - one has to be ultra careful with everything one says and does. Culture has changed, diversity reigns and there will no going back, for better or worse.
Anyway, on a lighter note, Prince Philip has been 'getting away with it' for years. Here are some of his top faux-pas:
1. China State Visit, 1986
"If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed."
2. To a blind women with a guide
"Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now?"
3. To an Aborigine in Australia
"Do you still throw spears at each other?"
4. To his wife, the Queen, after her coronation
"Where did you get the hat?"
5. When asked if he would like to visit the Soviet Union
"The bastards murdered half my family"
6. To a Briton in Budapest
"You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly."
7. To a driving instructor in Scotland
"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?"
8. After the Dunblane shooting
"If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?"
9. To a student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea
"You managed not to get eaten, then?"
10. To Elton John after hearing Elton had sold his Gold Aston Martin
"Oh, it's you that owns that ghastly car - we often see it when driving to Windsor Castle."
11. On the London Traffic Debate
"The problem with London is the tourists. They cause the congestion. If we could just stop tourism, we could stop the congestion."
12. To the President of Nigeria, dressed in traditional robes
"You look like you're ready for bed!"
13. Unknown
"If you see a man opening a car door for a woman, it means one of two things: it's either a new woman or a new car!"
14. On key problems facing Brazil
"Brazilians live there"
15. To the matron of a hospital in the Caribbean
"You have mosquitos. I have the Press"
Sid Pollitt
12 January 2009
14:2612600I was very serious when I compared what Harry said to the Ross and Brand issue, both are in the public eye and said what they said while at work. Ross and Brand directing their comments to one person rather than a group so the comment by Harry is worse. Unless you are saying that some racist insults are acceptable you have to to say all are not.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 January 2009
15:3212604He insulted no-one at all. You just have to see the context to see that Sid.
What I find appalling is how you in the PC brigade by this kind of action are effectively downgrading what is real and nasty rascism and, indeed are almost making it respectable to be rascist.
Look at it this way....
Harry refers to his little Paki friend in a friendly manner as he did.
The someone else is expressing real hatred for 'Pakis' and demanding the enforced repatriation of those they deem 'Paki', or perhaps directing insults and abuse towards them.
Having branded Harry a rascist, where do you go from there with the second example. There just is no comparison between the two. The second is an out and out nasty rascist and deserves to be condemned. By branding Harry you are condeming many people who would not dream of doing the latter.
If what Harry said means he is a rascist then that makes me one too, and all of us on this Forum with whom you are disagreeing, including PaulB, Dave, our Harry. Yet none of us would discriminate against someone on the basis of race, none of us would insult someone because of their race, none of us would advocate violence towards a member of a minority community.
What you are doing therefore is making rascism acceptable, resulting perhaps from many people a shrug of the shoulders, @if Harry is rascist, I am too so I might as well vote BNP...' Do you really want to make it respectable for people to vote BNP? Do you really want more and more people to accept that they are rascist just because the definition has been absurdly widened? Do you not see just how dangerous this pc attitude is to our society? How long before there is a reaction, perhaps this is whats happening in some parts of the country that are seeing BNP councillors elected.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
12 January 2009
16:4412605In one of the pubs I had there was obviously a mixture of people of all sorts. For instance we had Chalky who was black, Paddy who was Irish, Foo Man Chu who was Chinese and Gladys who was gay. Did the y take exception to their nicknames, not in the slightest they knew they were meant in a friendly manner, but god help anybody that came in and was insulting.
Yes and I agree Barry the definition has been absurdly widened to the point where before long it will be politically incorrect for anybody to be given a nickname.
Incidentally I was known as the old git.
12 January 2009
17:2112606It's not about being PC or not, and it';s not about being personally insulting or meaning to hurt. it's about us now understanding that those terms are rooted in hatred and to keep using them knowing that is unacceptable - even if the people they were designed to keep in their place don't object. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of verbal abuse understands how the words can wound and degrade, however they are intended. Using them as affection simply validates them. Why are you so keen to hold on to them?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
12 January 2009
17:2912607non pc values bern.for those who dont conform to pc rules devised by a nanny state.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
12 January 2009
17:3312609Bern, perhaps you could explain to me how the examples I gave are rooted in hatred. I cannot comment on your personal experiences as I do not know what they are, however I can say that none of the people I am referring to and that includes myself took it any other way than a term of friendship.
Please try and live in the real world.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
12 January 2009
17:4612610In 'the real world', as you say yourself Dave, the terms were used in a closed group and unwelcome from others. Constant use of abusive terms as 'nicknames' or supposedly friendly references merely serves to blur the lines and validate their use by those of a less friendly pursuasion. Refering to such terms as anything other than racist is demeaning to those against whom the terms are being used, no matter what context. It is also a lazy use of language by those who should know better. What sort of example is it if instead of credible English you prefer to resort to slang and old insults?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
12 January 2009
17:5012611You know what? Everyone has had their say on this, some agree some disagree but one thing is for sure - never the twain shall meet. To be honest, now this has been discussed and argued over I reckon there are far more things going on in the world today that we should be worried about. Harry said what he did and has apologised - can we not let it go now and concentrate on the real problems we have to face with unemployment, a recession, rising prices, falling interest rates etc.
Let's not let this go on and on and round in circles til it disappears up its own whatsit! Time to move on methinks?
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
12 January 2009
18:5312614Hold on, I haven't had my say yet, a few people have asked me about this today!!!
I don't think Prince Harry was being racist or intended any malice in his comment. I'm sure his friend took it for what it was and this kind of harsh but friendly banter goes on all the time between groups of people. The context however is the problem, this isn't a group of friends taking the pee out of one and other in isolation, this is something that has managed to make it to the public domain, and purely because he is a prince, son of the heir to the throne. The prince overlooking the fact that he is a public figure, and on tape making such a comment is actually more significant than the comment itself. Which really just shows him to be a bit silly. I don't think he is a racist and it is purely the media that has blown this out of proportion, confusing (but not necessarily extending) the boundaries of what racism is! I also see it as a shame that such stories take prominence over the harsh realities of the warfare in Afghanistan and the fantastic job that our troops are doing there.
However the bottom line is that the term he used is one which is offensive, used as a derogatory and oppressive term. Now if the meaning is reclaimed, redefined or desensitised between friends or a group, there is no problem (e.g. nigger in the black communities) however, the act was placed in the public domain and quite understandably caused offence, and is therefore unacceptable. The Prince has done the right thing and apologised for his thoughtlessness, but it still relies on the general public to detach the signifier from signified in his naïve/stupid comment!
Unfortunately Prince Harry did not choose to be a public figure and I'm sure sometimes he wished that he wasn't. I feel quite sorry for him in the same way I do for children born into deprivation (it's our old friend determinism again!) Unfortunately Harry's ability to make diplomatic decisions isn't quite up to the same level as his responsibility. But then why should he be diplomatic? There are no required qualifications or intelligence or diplomacy test to be a royal, you just have be born! Some of his fellow soldiers probably tease him about the lack of genetic diversity in royal blood lines (is that politically correct enough?) but I'm sure it takes it all in good humour!
Speaking about pubs Dave, a few weeks ago I experienced a group of blokes in a pub having a harmless laugh. Now amongst themselves, they obviously had no problem with each other's colourful language, it was only as their volume increased that they started to offend some of the people around them. Which is why, if they knew they were likely to get louder in volume, they should have made an effort not to swear in the first place.
Just to conclude before people start getting all touchy because someone talks objectively about the royal family (as I have experienced on this forum before) I have no problem with the Royal Family and do not think they are awful, oppressive or bad people. I just think they raise some interesting food for thought when examining our culture! If we can be critical of those of which we vote in then surely we can be of those which we don't!
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
12 January 2009
19:0412615I am sure that people can be offended or insulted by any other 'normal' word if used in the right context or maliciously.
If the work referred to was so insulting, what is it endlessly being quoted over the television news throught the day ?
Been nice knowing you :)
Sid Pollitt
12 January 2009
19:1012620Who is going to tell the child in the schoolyard which words are acceptable or less offensive? Better to say none are dont you think?