Another 'Royal blunder' [Archive]

SocialRealist

12th January 2009, 19:45

racist fuckwittery runs in the family. It's only to be expected.

I wish Ahmed would have commented on this, as much as I like to stop racism, I think this incident was largely taken out of context. Due to the fact at this time he was not acting as a royal would due to the fact of the setting he was at. I think this is just being strung out of context and made into something it is not.

Dr Mindbender

12th January 2009, 19:54

He is always a royal. Thats why there was a big uproar between the royal family and top brass to have him brought home when he was in afghanistan. They'll never put him in harm's way again.

Dóchas

12th January 2009, 20:05

what a fucking idiot did he really think he could say that shit and get away with it?

Forward Union

12th January 2009, 20:09

This is such normal behavior in thee army.

I don't think he's racist in an ideological sense. But culturally, the army is incredibly racist and homophobic. Lower ranking officers encourage 'jokes' as moral boosters and often (if not all the time) site racist, anti-semitic sexist or whatever else jokes.

Although they are "jokes" and people generally don't believe black people to be genetically inferior (infact even the black members of the army buy into this culture) it creates a subconscious, unintentional racism that I suspect makes it that much easier to shoot brown people all over the world.

Thus soldiers use terms like Paki rag head, nigger, sand nigger etc all the time. People that object would be subject to some suspicion.

Dóchas

12th January 2009, 20:12

so basicly if you are coloured and in the armed forced tough luck? and they seem to put up with it

spartan

12th January 2009, 22:24

Down with the crown!

I hope this sort of stuff turns more people away from the monarchy and demand it's abolition.

Forward Union

12th January 2009, 23:38

so basicly if you are coloured and in the armed forced tough luck? and they seem to put up with it

Well the army continually presents itself as an equal opportunities employer. While all the racism is hidden behind a cheap veneer, as a "joke" it certainly deters people of colour and especially homosexuals from joining. While a lot of the racism genuinely is a joke, the homophobia is very genuine.

And let's not forget the army taking medals away from an ex-paratrooper who decided to have a sex change.

Black Dagger

13th January 2009, 03:03

The way this story has been reported in oz is pretty disturbing. Basically the media has said - 'well he said the wrong, but maybe we should cut him some slack - he didn't mean any harm'

Fuck that. I'm sorry, but if you're part of a family that is notoriously racist the 'i'm just joking' excuse doesn't fly.

It's possible to use words like 'paki' and 'raghead' in a joking fashion that is not offensive - such as satire - but it's very clear that in context the terms were being used as a part of the broader culture of racism in the military that TLS mentions.

'Our little paki' is racist - there is no satire there in context or context - but the crown defends it use because 'no malice was intended' - i'm sorry but whether 'malice' was intended doesn't matter in this context - there isn't 'acceptable' or 'friendly' racism - it' just racism. Something doesn't have to be said with malice to be racist - it's the context that makes it racist. I assume this 'little paki' (at least he didn't call him a 'coolie' or 'boy' i guess - but 'little paki' is a similarly diminishing phrase) is either the only south asian dude in his section or part of a very small minority. Such that he becomes a special novelty - 'oh it's the little paki!' It's racist bullying masquerading as harmless 'guys fun' - 'the lads are just having a go!'

Bilan

13th January 2009, 03:37

A royal is a racist. So? It's not like its the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy#Support_to_Mussolini) .
I don't know why anyone shocked that the Prince of England is racist, or casually dresses up in Nazi uniforms.

Black Dagger

13th January 2009, 04:16

The response doesn't stem from shock - racism angers me regardless of the source.

I also read this today in the australian press:

"While "raghead" is regarded an offensive term for Arabs, St James's Palace has insisted Harry's remark was in reference to the common nickname attributed by British troops to the Taliban."

Wait, what? The 'common nickname' for all taliban soldiers is 'raghead' - how does that make harry's remarks acceptable? 'Oh he was just referencing military parlance' - forgive our error!

Bilan

13th January 2009, 05:11

It angers me, too. But I'm not shocked, or surprised, or anything like that.

Dóchas

13th January 2009, 08:18

Well the army continually presents itself as an equal opportunities employer. While all the racism is hidden behind a cheap veneer, as a "joke" it certainly deters people of colour and especially homosexuals from joining. While a lot of the racism genuinely is a joke, the homophobia is very genuine.

And let's not forget the army taking medals away from an ex-paratrooper who decided to have a sex change.

you think that they would be more open to different people to get more recruits instead of basicly just being fully open to white people by the looks of it

Fuck that. I'm sorry, but if you're part of a family that is notoriously racist the 'i'm just joking' excuse doesn't fly.

ye i agree joke should be some light hearted comedy to amuse other not discriminate an entire group of people

"While "raghead" is regarded an offensive term for Arabs, St James's Palace has insisted Harry's remark was in reference to the common nickname attributed by British troops to the Taliban."

so he wasnt being rascist towards an individual just an entire nation/group of people...well thats ok then :rolleyes:

OneNamedNameLess

14th January 2009, 15:26

It was reported the other day that Charles also uses racist names to refer to a friend.

This is not surprising at all, any of it. The British armed forces should not forget the number of soldiers from the empire who died fighting in our imperialistic wars. Just look at India for example.

Vanguard1917

14th January 2009, 16:58

apathy maybe

14th January 2009, 19:55

So much fuss over a couple of words, and no criticism made of the fact that Prince Harry is being trained by the state to order the shooting of 'ragheads' dead as part of his job.

In this bizarre PC culture, with its range of 'anti-racist' etiquette codes of behaviour, the silly words uttered in private by an annoying little brat are somehow seen as more worthy of public attention and condemnation.
No criticism is being made of the fact that Harry is part of the army, because, for me at least, it is assumed that we are against it.

Much of the discussion is over the way the media is treating the issue, and the media is hardly likely to raise as a problem the fact that yet another Brit is being trained in the army to kill people.

Getting worked up over the fact that some idiot is being trained to kill people for the state is a waste of time on this forum, where almost everyone will agree that it isn't a good thing.

Other parts of the discussion relate to how people behave in the army more generally. And condemning this behaviour in the army more generally.

I'm sorry, but, at least in this thread, most of the discussion hasn't been over "a couple of words".

(Oh, and condemning "PC" :thumbdown:, sounds like a right-wing thing to do. Wait, never mind, it's capitalist Vanguard1917.)

(Has anyone else noticed we can't "thank" people in this forum? It's annoying...)

Vanguard1917

14th January 2009, 20:49

Getting worked up over the fact that some idiot is being trained to kill people for the state is a waste of time on this forum, where almost everyone will agree that it isn't a good thing.

Actually, i was refering mainly to the media's response to it.

Much of the discussion is over the way the media is treating the issue, and the media is hardly likely to raise as a problem the fact that yet another Brit is being trained in the army to kill people.

Yet it feels it a matter of urgency to highlight just how impolite and un-PC the third in line to the British throne has been, as though the public doesn't have bettter things to preoccupy itself with than that spoilt brat's personal shenanigans.

What the media and political reponse to this incident shows is that what 'anti-racism' means to the elite is nothing more than promoting a new speech etiquette for the public.

For us old-fashioned leftists, on the other hand, racism, when it exists, is a social phenomenon which has very little to do with naughty words being uttered by knobheads in private.

(Oh, and condemning "PC" :thumbdown:, sounds like a right-wing thing to do

Only to simpletons like 'Apathy Maybe', who could not be bothered to properly analyse what's been going on.

apathy maybe

14th January 2009, 21:51

For us old-fashioned leftists, on the other hand, racism, when it exists, is a social phenomenon which has very little to do with naughty words being uttered by knobheads in private.
Funny thing, "old-fashioned leftists" are certainly wrong on many issues. Certainly racism is a social phenomenon, however, to say that it has "very little" to do with what people (whether they are "knobheads" or not) say in private, is also certainly wrong. Racism is spread by what people say, in public, where it reaches a wider audience, but is more likely to be condemned, and in private, where it is less likely to be condemned. Confronting racism in private is just as important as confronting it in public. Racism isn't acceptable anywhere.

(Oh, and condemning "PC" , sounds like a right-wing thing to do
Only to simpletons like 'Apathy Maybe', who could not be bothered to properly analyse what's been going on.
Except that your second post seems to be going the same way as the first. "PC" isn't a bad thing.

(And getting worked up that the mainstream media isn't condemning the existence of an army is silly. Did I mention that already?)

Decolonize The Left

14th January 2009, 22:04

Yet it feels it a matter of urgency to highlight just how impolite and un-PC the third in line to the British throne has been, as though the public doesn't have bettter things to preoccupy itself with than that spoilt brat's personal shenanigans.

You should well know that the public often has little better things to do than preoccupy itself with celebrities... The vicarious 'living one's life through others' is a common phenomenon throughout the industrialized nations of our world - most notably within the United States.

For us old-fashioned leftists, on the other hand, racism, when it exists, is a social phenomenon which has very little to do with naughty words being uttered by knobheads in private.

Well then you're just wrong. Racism is a belief which is rampant in our world, and this belief is transferred from individual to individual in many different ways, including (but most certainly not limited to) "naughty words being uttered by knobheads in private."

It is simply stupid to claim that racist remarks have nothing to do with racism...

- August

Vanguard1917

14th January 2009, 23:38

Funny thing, "old-fashioned leftists" are certainly wrong on many issues. Certainly racism is a social phenomenon, however, to say that it has "very little" to do with what people (whether they are "knobheads" or not) say in private, is also certainly wrong. Racism is spread by what people say, in public, where it reaches a wider audience, but is more likely to be condemned, and in private, where it is less likely to be condemned. Confronting racism in private is just as important as confronting it in public. Racism isn't acceptable anywhere

Racism, as a social phenomenon, has a meaningful existence insofar as it exists in the public sphere. Racism has never been a problem of private name-calling, but of public actions, specifically the actions of the social and political elite.

"PC" isn't a bad thing

Of course it is.

You should well know that the public often has little better things to do than preoccupy itself with celebrities...

That's your personal prejudice. Such snobby perceptions of the public are certainly not ones that i, or socialists in general, share with the likes of yourself.

Decolonize The Left

15th January 2009, 00:09

That's your personal prejudice. Such snobby perceptions of the public are certainly not ones that i, or socialists in general, share with the likes of yourself.

For a self-touted leftist your blatant and consistent ignorance of simple social phenomena is disturbing.

It is not personal prejudice to make a fairly obvious statement - if I said "Americans like hamburgers and french fries," would you still claim personal prejudice? No, probably not...

Your post is pushed even further into doubt by your unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to address the substance of my post. Instead you simply leave it out, making the above-quoted nonsensical remark as an attempt to appear... I'm not really sure...

- August

Vanguard1917

15th January 2009, 00:16

For a self-touted leftist your blatant and consistent ignorance of simple social phenomena is disturbing.

It is not personal prejudice to make a fairly obvious statement - if I said "Americans like hamburgers and french fries," would you still claim personal prejudice? No, probably not...

Your post is pushed even further into doubt by your unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to address the substance of my post. Instead you simply leave it out, making the above-quoted nonsensical remark as an attempt to appear... I'm not really sure...

What substance? What you said is simply not true, and stinks of middle class prejudice.

Decolonize The Left

15th January 2009, 00:26

What substance? What you said is simply not true, and stinks of middle class prejudice.

Actually, since you're entirely incapable of holding a meaningful discussion, here's what I said and you refuse to address:

Well then you're just wrong. Racism is a belief which is rampant in our world, and this belief is transferred from individual to individual in many different ways, including (but most certainly not limited to) "naughty words being uttered by knobheads in private."

It is simply stupid to claim that racist remarks have nothing to do with racism...

Logical? Yes. Rational? Yes. "Middle-class prejudice?" Not really... try again.

- August

Vanguard1917

15th January 2009, 00:29

No, what you said was that the masses 'often [have] little better things to do than preoccupy [themselves] with celebrities'.

Decolonize The Left

15th January 2009, 00:32

No, what you said was that the masses 'often [have] little better things to do than preoccupy [themselves] with celebrities'.

Wow... simply amazing.

In the first place, the statement which you are fixed upon isn't untrue. Unless you can prove that they are often not preoccupied with celebrities (and the prevalence of celebrity worship and obsession in the US will be tough to counter) it's a perfectly sound statement.

In the second place, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself, you are consciously ignoring the second half of my post.

So either you concede that I am correct and don't wish to say so, or you don't know how to reply and so focus on another statement which you can't adequately respond to and so resort to unjustified claims.

- August

Vanguard1917

15th January 2009, 00:38

In the first place, the statement which you are fixed upon isn't untrue. Unless you can prove that they are often not preoccupied with celebrities (and the prevalence of celebrity worship and obsession in the US will be tough to counter) it's a perfectly sound statement.

The idea that working class people think about little else than celebrities was your argument. My point was that such prejudices are characteristic of middle class snoobery, and are, in fact, obviously untrue.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

In the second place, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself, you are consciously ignoring the second half of my post.

The point you made was addressed in my post in reply to the poster 'apathy maybe'.

Decolonize The Left

15th January 2009, 00:45

I'm sorry I missed your response as it wasn't addressed to me... :rolleyes:

Racism, as a social phenomenon, has a meaningful existence insofar as it exists in the public sphere. Racism has never been a problem of private name-calling, but of public actions, specifically the actions of the social and political elite.

You accuse me of "middle-class prejudice" and then proceed to use arbitrary private/public definitions?

Racism is a belief. Beliefs are transmitted from individual to individual in many ways, including your "private name-calling." This isn't hard to understand...

The idea that working class people think about little else than celebrities was your argument. My point was that such prejudices are characteristic of middle class snoobery, and are, in fact, obviously untrue.

What's that I taste in my mouth? Oh yeah, it's words you're shoving in there. Please attempt a certain degree of integrity when you post.

Here's what I said:

You should well know that the public often has little better things to do than preoccupy itself with celebrities... The vicarious 'living one's life through others' is a common phenomenon throughout the industrialized nations of our world - most notably within the United States.

My statement and your interpretation of my statement are far from synonymous.

- August

Vanguard1917

15th January 2009, 00:59

Racism is a belief. Beliefs are transmitted from individual to individual in many ways, including your "private name-calling." This isn't hard to understand...

From an idealist standpoint, yes, racism is a 'belief', it's an 'opinion', an 'idea', and so on. From a materialist perspective, however, racism is a real life phenomenon, with a basis in real life conditions, and with real political and social sources.

From this perspective, private name-calling, while it may indeed be a symptom of racism, is not necessarily indicative of the actual existence of racism in society, as a social force.

Also, context it key. If i call an Asian friend of mine a 'paki', i may be being affectionate, playful, teasing, etc., without ever being racist. Words and labels do not exist outside of particular contexts. The context defines the meaning of the word.

What's that I taste in my mouth? Oh yeah, it's words you're shoving in there. Please attempt a certain degree of integrity when you post.

In what way are they different?

apathy maybe

15th January 2009, 10:31

Racism, as a social phenomenon, has a meaningful existence insofar as it exists in the public sphere. Racism has never been a problem of private name-calling, but of public actions, specifically the actions of the social and political elite.
Racism is a lot broader then public actions. It is perfectly possible for an individual, or a small group to insult another individual based on the perceived race of said other individual. This can happen in private.

Racism is a fuck load more than the actions of any sort of "elite".

Lynch mobs were comprised, not of the elites, but instead, by the lower classes. Most "race motivated" violence is done by people who aren't part of a "social" or "political" elite.

[Regarding "Political correctness" being a problem or not] Of course it is.
And you are a fucking crazy right wing nut bag if you think that "political correctness" is a problem. Insulting somebody because of an innate attribute (for example, the colour of their skin or their sexual preference) is not politically correct, it is racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever (depending on the innate attribute being referred to).

As leftists, we are opposed to racism, sexism etc.

And fucking idiots who seem to think that it doesn't matter, because it doesn't relate to the economic class of the person... They remind me of the "socialists" who say that they don't want immigration, because it would drive down wages, which would be bad for the average worker. (Racism, of course, had nothing to do with it...)

Fuck "old fashioned socialism", this is the fucking twenty first century, let's make it fucking mean something. Old fashioned socialism is over 100 years out of date. It stopped being useful in the 19th century.

Vanguard1917

15th January 2009, 14:28

Racism is a lot broader then public actions. It is perfectly possible for an individual, or a small group to insult another individual based on the perceived race of said other individual. This can happen in private.

Yes, but what matters is its social existence. If a person makes a racist comment in the home, this could be a reflection of racism in wider society, but it may also not be. Even if it is, we as leftists seek to challenge racism in the public space, since we know that that's where its roots lie, rather than any futile attempts to promote PC codes of speech etiquette for people to follow in the privacy of their own homes.

And you are a fucking crazy right wing nut bag if you think that "political correctness" is a problem. Insulting somebody because of an innate attribute (for example, the colour of their skin or their sexual preference) is not politically correct, it is racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever (depending on the innate attribute being referred to).

As leftists, we are opposed to racism, sexism etc.

And fucking idiots who seem to think that it doesn't matter, because it doesn't relate to the economic class of the person... They remind me of the "socialists" who say that they don't want immigration, because it would drive down wages, which would be bad for the average worker. (Racism, of course, had nothing to do with it...)

Fuck "old fashioned socialism", this is the fucking twenty first century, let's make it fucking mean something. Old fashioned socialism is over 100 years out of date. It stopped being useful in the 19th century.

You've lost me.

The phenomenon known as 'political correctness' is not a positive one for a number of reasons, and these reasons have nothing to do with what you have just, sadly, wasted your time describing.

brigadista

16th January 2009, 22:35

its racist shit from an aristo eejit. UK is a class obsessed society and while there is a royal family in the uk there will always be this kind of nonsense. the question is why would anyone be surprissed at this? The media lackeys apologists and others this week making public excuses for this particluar aristo parasite , just reflects the class ridden stupidity existing in the uk.

brigadista

16th January 2009, 22:37

on "political correctness" it seems that this is always mentioned and critised by right wingers when people try to assert their rights.

benhur

17th January 2009, 08:02

The Feral Underclass

17th January 2009, 12:19

:ohmy:

I for one was very shocked to discover that members of the royal family were racists. Very shocked indeed.

Led Zeppelin

17th January 2009, 12:26

I am sure people of working/middle-class backgrounds will rush forth to defend their 'prince,' even justify that he's really a nice guy who was only joking, that we have more important matters etc. etc. Seems as if working class people, for all their diatribe against the rich, do worship the rich, always defend them, no matter what. On this point, ironically, workers of the world are united.:rolleyes:

Is it fun attacking working-class people and ridiculing them?

It's definitely a great way of helping working-class people to become class-conscious; ridiculing them for their "backwardness" like a true elitist.

Also, I'm curious, is it your aim to make Trotsky and Trotskyism look bad by having a Trotsky avatar and "Trotskyist" in your member title?

18th January 2009, 01:48

Insulting somebody because of an innate attribute (for example, the colour of their skin or their sexual preference) is not politically correct

I don't know if that was a typo or if you're just talking dribble. Clarification would be nice.

Dóchas

18th January 2009, 21:09

I don't know if that was a typo or if you're just talking dribble. Clarification would be nice.

i think its pretty self explanitory :confused:

benhur

21st January 2009, 06:23

Is it fun attacking working-class people and ridiculing them?

Who's ridiculing them?:confused: This is true for the most part. Which world are you living in, anyway? After Di's death, for instance, working/middle class women were all tears, wonder if they cried for workers dying in wars?

And this isn't an exceptional case either. Most of them have zero sympathy for the poor, they say snide things that these poor are lazy and stupid, all the while complaining about inflation, taxes, and all the rest, not realizing that such problems are due to the rich people they worship so much.

So this is the working class for you. Blame the poor, even though they've done nothing wrong, worship the rich even though they're responsible for most of your problems. And you expect me to sympathize with such people?

21st January 2009, 07:58

Who's ridiculing them?:confused: This is true for the most part. Which world are you living in, anyway? After Di's death, for instance, working/middle class women were all tears, wonder if they cried for workers dying in wars?

You can fuck right off.

And this isn't an exceptional case either. Most of them have zero sympathy for the poor, they say snide things that these poor are lazy and stupid, all the while complaining about inflation, taxes, and all the rest, not realizing that such problems are due to the rich people they worship so much.

You can fuck right off.

So this is the working class for you. Blame the poor, even though they've done nothing wrong, worship the rich even though they're responsible for most of your problems. And you expect me to sympathize with such people?

Is it me or is this thread attracting amazingly obvious and/or nonsensical statements?