0
Usenet Posted 21 years ago
Usage
Paki - offensive?
Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "Paki" as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive.
I maintain that it is not.
It is no more intrinsically offensive than "Jew".
For people who dislike Jews or Pakis, both words can be used in an offensive way, but the offence lies not in the word, but in the attitude of the speaker.
Tony Cooper gave the example:
[nq:1]Most certainly the word is used pejoratively in the US. Any time the nationality of the person is designated when ... gave me the wrong change." Pejorative: "I think that Paki clerk down at the 7/11 gave me the wrong change."[/nq]
But it is not the word itself that is pejorative, but the racist attitude of speaker that makes it so. The ethnic origin of the clerk is irrelevant to the alleged offence (giving the wrong change).
And the same applies if someone said "I think that Jew clerk down at the 7/11 gave me the wrong change."
It doesn't make "Jew" intrinsically pejorative.
The same can be seen in exchanges like the following:
"My cousin was murdered by burglars last week."
"Were they white or black?"
I've heard many people say things like that. It does not make "white" or "black" pejorative. It all depends on the context in which the word is used.
Just Google "Paki cricket" or "Pakis cricket" and count the number of times the word is used pejoratively in the first 10 hits.
It will show that the idea that "Paki" is intrinsically pejorative is nonsense.
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
I maintain that it is not.
It is no more intrinsically offensive than "Jew".
For people who dislike Jews or Pakis, both words can be used in an offensive way, but the offence lies not in the word, but in the attitude of the speaker.
Tony Cooper gave the example:
[nq:1]Most certainly the word is used pejoratively in the US. Any time the nationality of the person is designated when ... gave me the wrong change." Pejorative: "I think that Paki clerk down at the 7/11 gave me the wrong change."[/nq]
But it is not the word itself that is pejorative, but the racist attitude of speaker that makes it so. The ethnic origin of the clerk is irrelevant to the alleged offence (giving the wrong change).
And the same applies if someone said "I think that Jew clerk down at the 7/11 gave me the wrong change."
It doesn't make "Jew" intrinsically pejorative.
The same can be seen in exchanges like the following:
"My cousin was murdered by burglars last week."
"Were they white or black?"
I've heard many people say things like that. It does not make "white" or "black" pejorative. It all depends on the context in which the word is used.
Just Google "Paki cricket" or "Pakis cricket" and count the number of times the word is used pejoratively in the first 10 hits.
It will show that the idea that "Paki" is intrinsically pejorative is nonsense.
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Top answer
[nq:1]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "****" as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive. I maintain that it is not. [/nq] "Jew" as an adjective is claimed to be offence.
- [nq:1]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "****" as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive.
- I maintain that it is not.
- [/nq] "Jew" as an adjective is claimed to be offence.
- As a noun, it's all right.
- This stuff is way too complex for me.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
101 Answers
0
[nq:1]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "****" as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive. I maintain that it is not. It is no more intrinsically offensive than "Jew".[/nq]
"Jew" as an adjective is claimed to be offence. As a noun, it's all right. This stuff is way too complex for me.
Even though the world knows that these areas are susc
"Jew" as an adjective is claimed to be offence. As a noun, it's all right. This stuff is way too complex for me.
Even though the world knows that these areas are susc
00
Steve Hayes wrote on 26 Jan 2005:
[nq:1]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "****" as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive. ... that makes it so. The ethnic origin of the clerk is irrelevant to the alleged offence (giving the wrong change).[/nq]
I think this analysis is too simplistic. How many clerks are there at the local 7/11? It could ve
[nq:1]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "****" as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive. ... that makes it so. The ethnic origin of the clerk is irrelevant to the alleged offence (giving the wrong change).[/nq]
I think this analysis is too simplistic. How many clerks are there at the local 7/11? It could ve
00
[nq:2]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work ... is not. It is no more intrinsically offensive than "Jew".[/nq]
[nq:1]"Jew" as an adjective is claimed to be offence. As a noun, it's all right. This stuff is way too complex for me.[/nq]
It's not rocket science. In a given society, if usages A, B, and C are known to cause offense, then you either avoid them because
[nq:1]"Jew" as an adjective is claimed to be offence. As a noun, it's all right. This stuff is way too complex for me.[/nq]
It's not rocket science. In a given society, if usages A, B, and C are known to cause offense, then you either avoid them because
00
[nq:1]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "****"as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive. I maintain that it is not.[/nq]
In the US and UK it is. I can see from the Web that the situation is different in Asia (including the non-continent of "Oceania"/"Australasia"), so maybe in South Africa too? Having said this, the more usual, and safer, short
In the US and UK it is. I can see from the Web that the situation is different in Asia (including the non-continent of "Oceania"/"Australasia"), so maybe in South Africa too? Having said this, the more usual, and safer, short
00
[nq:1]It's not rocket science. In a given society, if usages A, B, and C areknown to cause offense, then you either avoid them because you don't wish tocause offense, or you use them because you wish to cause offense![/nq]
This is right: but omits the catch that interlocutors do not necessarily belong to the same "given society" of usage. Examples:
1. Jonathan Milller (British) explai
This is right: but omits the catch that interlocutors do not necessarily belong to the same "given society" of usage. Examples:
1. Jonathan Milller (British) explai
00
[nq:2]"Jew" as an adjective is claimed to be offence. As a noun, it's all right. This stuff is way too complex for me.[/nq]
[nq:1]It's not rocket science. In a given society, if usages A, B, and C are known to cause offense, then ... don't wish to offend Jews (and others who don't care for offensive language), then don't use "Jew" as an adjective.[/nq]
But how do you know that they cause o
[nq:1]It's not rocket science. In a given society, if usages A, B, and C are known to cause offense, then ... don't wish to offend Jews (and others who don't care for offensive language), then don't use "Jew" as an adjective.[/nq]
But how do you know that they cause o
00
[nq:2]It's not rocket science. In a given society, if usages ... for offensive language), then don't use "Jew" as an adjective.[/nq]
[nq:1]But how do you know that they cause offence? Who do you believewhen they say it causes offence? This appears to me to be the crux of alot of debates like that.[/nq]
No Tiger Team needed here, surely? If somebody tells you something's offensive, you take
[nq:1]But how do you know that they cause offence? Who do you believewhen they say it causes offence? This appears to me to be the crux of alot of debates like that.[/nq]
No Tiger Team needed here, surely? If somebody tells you something's offensive, you take
00
Maybe it should be added that, in that usage, "bloke" means an English speaker of either ***; more specifically, an English Canadian. As to the word's general inoffensiveness, I think the distinction by society of usage is relevant. I remember reading a novel in the '70s, whose name I don't recall, featuring an American soldier stationed in England who used the word quite offensively, as an adject
00
Steve Hayes typed thusly:
[nq:1]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "****" as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive.[/nq]
I'm not sure that any word can be intrinsically offensive. It's culture and context which make a word offensive. In the UK, "****" is offensive - that's just the way it is.
David
==
replace usenet with the
[nq:1]Discussion in another thread raises the question whether the work "****" as a short form for "Pakistani" is intrinsically offensive.[/nq]
I'm not sure that any word can be intrinsically offensive. It's culture and context which make a word offensive. In the UK, "****" is offensive - that's just the way it is.
David
==
replace usenet with the
00
[nq:2]Just Google "**** cricket" or "Pakis cricket" and count the ... that the idea that "****" is intrinsically pejorative is nonsense.[/nq]
[nq:1]What about the word "***"? It is directly analogous to "****", but "Jew" is not: There is no one-word long ... By analogy a flawed mode of argument then, "****" should be and probably is as pejorative as "***".[/nq]
**** don't play cricket much
[nq:1]What about the word "***"? It is directly analogous to "****", but "Jew" is not: There is no one-word long ... By analogy a flawed mode of argument then, "****" should be and probably is as pejorative as "***".[/nq]
**** don't play cricket much
0
Related Questions