[Hellstryker]

Kosh: There is a qualitative difference between a conflict and a condition of apartheid, which parallels the difference I tried to make clear in my last post: that between simple hostility and racism. If you think the history of the relationships between the British and their colonists or the North and the South are even vaguely analogous to the history of pseudo-scientifically reinforced dehumanization that black Americans experienced, then I would say you ought to re-examine history. I never said a word like Yank couldn't be inflammatory-- any word can be inflammatory-- but when a white person calls a black person a nigger, they aren't just invoking some historical referent, they're reenacting a dialectic. That's why a racial slur is different from an insult. It's more than an insult; it's a way of normalizing through discourse the objectification of this person on the basis of something that they are utterly unable to renounce or conceal. A black man isn't called a nigger because of a set of cultural, geographic, or political conditions that gave rise to him as an individual; he's called a nigger because he's black. The word is meant to remind him that whatever he does, wherever he goes, and whatever company he keeps, there is nothing he can do to escape this quality that makes him less than a person. Such a word can't possibly carry the same power when used between people within the group to which it applies. That's really just simple logic. This doesn't mean there can't be a discussion about whether it's appropriate for anyone to use the word; it means that part of a racial epithet's power is necessarily based in who is using it.

And nuclear, that's also why racism isn't the same in every direction; you have to be in power before you can systematically rob a group of people of their sovereignty as human beings. What am I supposed to be reminded of when a black person calls me a cracker? The fact that I'm statistically 1/6 as likely to go to prison? That doesn't mean I appreciate being judged on the basis of my appearance-- it might even make me angry-- but there's a kind of social adversity, often very subtle, that I realize I'll never be able to understand.

As I've said in previous debates of this nature, it's not a blame game. Nobody's trying to send anyone on a guilt trip, but racism becomes more insidious when we try to pretend that it's all over.

You contradict yourself.

[karajorma]

Where did he contradict himself?

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. You might think racism is wrong. I think it's wrong. But I'm not sure you would feel so strongly about it as to threaten perma banning over it, because you've actually (probably) had to deal with it yourself, and as you've pointed out, that does occur less to white people, especially in Britain, I'd imagine (This is just an assumption as I've never actually been there myself, so excuse me if I'm wrong)

I'm sure. I don't give a damn if you don't believe me. Maybe you haven't considered the fact that because I likely to be the victim of one kind of racism I might be more inclined to view other kinds similarly harshly? Simple fact is that I will have a go at anyone acting racist. And that even includes someone using racist flames against white people. For the reasons Ford Prefect has outlines I don't believe that simply using the term redneck or yank/yankee are racist in and of themselves. However if someone were to add those terms to their flames they'd be spending a long time away from this board, if not forever.

In fact I'm fairly sure HLP has permabanned someone for using that term in the past. It was back during the 3dactionplanet days so they aren't going to still be on the ban list.

Well, personally I think you just enjoy it, but then as battuta pointed out, I don't exactly have the most wholesome view of you.

I simply don't think it's right to close a discussion I've taken part in because it's far to easy for an admin to start abusing that power and close any discussion that they are losing. Similarly it's cowardly to try to do the same thing by proxy by posting and then immediately calling for the close of a topic.

What more is there left to discuss? would you rather leave this open until it erupts in an all out flamewar? The only point of it (from my perspective) was for you to change your policies on the matter, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Well for a start I wanted to answer the ridiculous, unfounded assertions that you had made about why I didn't appreciate the use of the term.

Ford and Rian seem to be making a very good point about the nature of racism and there's no good reason that discussion shouldn't continue.

But more importantly, if you feel that there is no point to this discussion why are you still posting?

[Hellstryker]

Where did he contradict himself?

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. You might think racism is wrong. I think it's wrong. But I'm not sure you would feel so strongly about it as to threaten perma banning over it, because you've actually (probably) had to deal with it yourself, and as you've pointed out, that does occur less to white people, especially in Britain, I'd imagine (This is just an assumption as I've never actually been there myself, so excuse me if I'm wrong)

I'm sure. I don't give a damn if you don't believe me. Maybe you haven't considered the fact that because I likely to be the victim of one kind of racism I might be more inclined to view other kinds similarly harshly? Simple fact is that I will have a go at anyone acting racist. And that even includes someone using racist flames against white people. For the reasons Ford Prefect has outlines I don't believe that simply using the term redneck or yank/yankee are racist in and of themselves. However if someone were to add those terms to their flames they'd be spending a long time away from this board, if not forever.

In fact I'm fairly sure HLP has permabanned someone for using that term in the past. It was back during the 3dactionplanet days so they aren't going to still be on the ban list.

Well, personally I think you just enjoy it, but then as battuta pointed out, I don't exactly have the most wholesome view of you.

I simply don't think it's right to close a discussion I've taken part in because it's far to easy for an admin to start abusing that power and close any discussion that they are losing. Similarly it's cowardly to try to do the same thing by proxy by posting and then immediately calling for the close of a topic.

What more is there left to discuss? would you rather leave this open until it erupts in an all out flamewar? The only point of it (from my perspective) was for you to change your policies on the matter, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Well for a start I wanted to answer the ridiculous, unfounded assertions that you had made about why I didn't appreciate the use of the term.

Ford and Rian seem to be making a very good point about the nature of racism and there's no good reason that discussion shouldn't continue.

But more importantly, if you feel that there is no point to this discussion why are you still posting?

@Fords post: I put it in bold text in his quote, re read it.

The point I was trying to make is you yourself have probably been exposed to racism a far greater deal than I and a lot of people on HLP have. Therefor you probably have a harsher outlook on it, which I honestly think is completely understandable. If you had been born white, things probably would've been a lot different, and your outlook on the matter probably would be more lax. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not trying to say that would've been a good thing, but I still think that perma banning over it is wrong. NGTM posted an excellent example, and is what i personally would do in such a situation were I an admin.

And as for sticking around, I was awaiting your response on the matter. So you're right, there is no further reason for me to be here. I shall now take my leave.

[karajorma]

The point I was trying to make is you yourself have probably been exposed to racism a far greater deal than I and a lot of people on HLP have. Therefor you probably have a harsher outlook on it, which I honestly think is completely understandable. If you had been born white, things probably would've been a lot different, and your outlook on the matter probably would be more lax.

Again not true. One of my white friends from secondary school was much more strongly against racists than I was, going so far as to beat the crap out of anyone who used any racist terms in his earshot. If you take a look at demonstrations by the anti-nazi league you'll probably notice that many of the people shouting themselves hoarse are white. There are a lot of people who haven't ever faced racism personally but understand why it's wrong and have the desire to stamp it out where ever it raises it's ugly head.

So it's actually quite a racist point of view to try to claim that the only reason I react harshly to racism is because I'm not white.

[Hellstryker]

Again not true. One of my white friends from secondary school was much more strongly against racists than I was, going so far as to beat the crap out of anyone who used any racist terms in his earshot. If you take a look at demonstrations by the anti-nazi league you'll probably notice that many of the people shouting themselves hoarse are white. There are a lot of people who haven't ever faced racism personally but understand why it's wrong and have the desire to stamp it out where ever it raises it's ugly head.

Well then good for you and him, but this sparks a whole debate about what qualifies as racism, and what's worse, racist comments or censorship, which I am choosing not to partake in, since it's ultimately meaningless.

So it's actually quite a racist point of view to try to claim that the only reason I react harshly to racism is because I'm not white.

It's not racist at all that your skin color (could) put you in a certain situation, it's simply a fact of life, as is the fact that I live in a rural area with an extremely white majority, so I take a more (unfortunately?) liberal view on the subject. Again, it's all about context.
Were I calling you a "d1rty t3rr0rizt p4k1!!111" That would most certainly be racist.

Now, for real this time, I shall take my leave.

[karajorma]

Let's go back a step and look at what you posted.

Shame on you Kara, you blew this whole thing out of proportion over this:
http://www.diaspora-game.com/team.html

Hassan "Karajorma" Kazmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kazmi&go=Go

There's no qualification there. You attempted to chastise me for blowing it out of proportion based on the fact that I have an Iranian surname. You didn't ask me if maybe that was why. You assumed it was why. That is a racist assumption.  You've ascribed a motive to my actions based on my race. Furthermore you continued to assume that you were correct even after I pointed out that I'd be similarly inclined to go after anyone using racist terms regardless of whether or not they are personally relevant to me.

It's already been pointed out that there are degrees of racism. It's not just a case of calling names. Making assumptions about people based on their skin colour is usually racist too. Now while it's not in the same league as being insulting it's certainly nothing to be proud of.

[Kosh]

As I put it before. How many complaints have you actually seen on here about the use of the word previous to this thread?

Irrelevant. If I said Gook but there were no Asians on the website to take offense to it, does that make it any less bad? I think not.

What am I supposed to be reminded of when a black person calls me a cracker?

That they hate you, the rest is nonsense.

[Hellstryker]

Let's go back a step and look at what you posted.

Shame on you Kara, you blew this whole thing out of proportion over this:
http://www.diaspora-game.com/team.html

Hassan "Karajorma" Kazmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kazmi&go=Go

There's no qualification there. You attempted to chastise me for blowing it out of proportion based on the fact that I have an Iranian surname. You didn't ask me if maybe that was why. You assumed it was why. That is a racist assumption.  You've ascribed a motive to my actions based on my race. Furthermore you continued to assume that you were correct even after I pointed out that I'd be similarly inclined to go after anyone using racist terms regardless of whether or not they are personally relevant to me.

It's already been pointed out that there are degrees of racism. It's not just a case of calling names. Making assumptions about people based on their skin colour is usually racist too. Now while it's not in the same league as being insulting it's certainly nothing to be proud of.

That was a dumb post. I should've gone more in depth with what I meant.

[General Battuta]

I'm continually astounded by Kara's patience in the face of such persistent misunderstanding.

The man gave a warning. People wanted to contest whether there was grounds for such a warning, it went on for pages of potentially really painful personal attacks on him, and he's still letting it go. Heck, his posts aren't even particularly disgruntled.

[karajorma]

Well I am actually rather annoyed by the whole business. But if someone has a legitmate complaint I'd rather hear it than lock the thread and ignore it.

As I put it before. How many complaints have you actually seen on here about the use of the word previous to this thread?

Irrelevant. If I said Gook but there were no Asians on the website to take offense to it, does that make it any less bad? I think not.

So your defence is that there are no Americans on HLP to be offended by the term Yank?

HLP has a large and varied American demographic. To claim that the term is offensive yet they couldn't be bothered to ever post about the fact in the 8 years I've been here is rather strange to say the least.

Yes you can't say that because no one raises an objection a word obviously isn't offensive, there may simply be no one around to be offended. But I'd have a very hard time trying to buy the claim that there is no one around to be offended by derogatory terms towards Americans, Brits or Australians.

[Mars]

Honestly at times I have been offended by the perception of Americans on this board. I believe some people went so far as to say that all Americans were by necessity ignorant because we elected Bush. However, Yank is hardly offensive, and I use it to express my nationality all the time.

[tinfoil]

Which is why this debate is never... going... to... end

[Daniel P]

Honestly at times I have been offended by the perception of Americans on this board. I believe some people went so far as to say that all Americans were by necessity ignorant because we elected Bush. However, Yank is hardly offensive, and I use it to express my nationality all the time.

I say American instead of Yank, because, Yank might offend some people.

[Black Wolf]

Wow. This is massive. OK, first off, let it be known that I'm all about the permaban for iamzack. She's a troll, and if she wasn't a girl she'd have been banned ages ago. But, from my perspective, nothing untoward or racist was in that original post.

Or more likely you're trying to elevate the word Yank to the same level of racism as words that are quite clearly are very offensive. Most people would consider Yank to be on the same level as Limey or Kraut or Aussie. Sure the word can be used in a derogatory context as a flame but most of the time it simply means an American, is done in jest and is not racist.

See, here in Australia that's exactly what Paki is. Since we're talking about actual Pakistanis, from my, personal perspective that's not offensive. Hell, when the Pakistani cricket team are touring australia, that's just what they're called. Someone mentioned "second grade logic" - I remember a class project to write a song in I think year 4 - one of the songs was about cricket and directly referred tot he Pakistanis as Pakis. If iamzack hadn't gotten smacked down for it, I'd have gotten into the thread and busted out "Paki" all over the place. I'm aware that it can be a racist term in Britain (exactly like kraut can be, incidentally), but I would have meant in a purely contraction-y way, and not intended to get anyone angry. I wouldn't have even considered that anyone would have gotten offended, given the context.

All that aside, Iamzack was politely told to stop and refused. If this'll get her banned I'm all for it.

No irony in a thread lamenting a hate crime that people are gleefully justifying their right to use hate speech because it doesn't offend them. No irony at all.

This wasn't a hate crime. This was terrorism, pure and simple, designed to scare cricket teams away from Pakistan and make people come over to the attackers political view/. Cricket is almost like a religion in the subcontinent, and for a low risk target to attack, this is likely one of the most effective.

[Kosh]

So your defence is that there are no Americans on HLP to be offended by the term Yank?

Your defence is that just because people HERE are not offended by something makes it non-offensive, and I'm picking holes in it, although perhaps I should have been more clear.

I remember a class project to write a song in I think year 4 - one of the songs was about cricket and directly referred tot he Pakistanis as Pakis.

See, in Australia they teach rascism! lulz.

[Dilmah G]

I remember a class project to write a song in I think year 4 - one of the songs was about cricket and directly referred tot he Pakistanis as Pakis.

See, in Australia they teach rascism! lulz.

It's not that they teach it, it's just the way we live. We're more laid back than most people, I said Paki without the racist connotation even coming near my mind. People refer to me by many racist terms, I'm still hard pressed to find ones that offend me. This would be the total opposite in say, England or America.

[redsniper]

I just want to say that all you crazy crackers suggesting Southern Americans take offense at the term 'redneck' are off your rockers. Redneck is practically a badge of honor around here.

[Ghostavo]

I don't understand why Paki is considered racist. Pakistan means literally land of the pure, or with a slighly less literal interpretation, land of the pakis.

Regarding the link karajorma showed at the beginning of the thread, isn't limiting the usage of the word paki to a part of the population (in this case, asians) a form of discrimination or a double standard?

[Dilmah G]

I don't understand why Paki is considered racist. Pakistan means literally land of the pure, or with a slighly less literal interpretation, land of the pakis.

Regarding the link karajorma showed at the beginning of the thread, isn't limiting the usage of the word paki to a part of the population (in this case, asians) a form of discrimination or a double standard?

It's not wether it's considered racist or not, if someone here finds it offensive fair enough, then shouldn't we show them some respect?

[karajorma]

I don't understand why Paki is considered racist. Pakistan means literally land of the pure, or with a slighly less literal interpretation, land of the pakis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6740445.stm

Its first recorded use was in 1964, when hostility in Britain to immigration from its former colonies in the Asian sub-continent, was beginning to find a voice.

Despite being an abbreviation for "Pakistani", its proponents tended to be less discriminating about its application - directing it against anyone with brown skin, be they Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi. Sometimes even non-Asians who happened to have a dark complexion found themselves on the receiving end.

Forty years on, use of the word is still highly sensitive and has the potential to cause great offence.

Regarding the link karajorma showed at the beginning of the thread, isn't limiting the usage of the word paki to a part of the population (in this case, asians) a form of discrimination or a double standard?

Which is why I tend to agree with the opinion at the end of that piece.

The P-word which "encompasses anyone in brown skin... should be consigned to the dustbin of history,"