Derogatory Or Not?

[Kerryd]

Hmmm. Something just struck me.

As a poster mentioned above, Pakistanis come from Paki-stan. If it isn't PC to call them Pakis, then what do we call people from:

Afghani-stan (Afghanistanis ?), nope, we call them Afghanis (even their currency is called "Afghanis")

Uzbeki-stan (Uzbekistanis ?), nope, they are called Uzbekis (or Uzbeks)

Tajiki-stan (Tajikistanis ?), nope, they are usually referred to as "Tajiks"

Turkmeni-stan (Turkmenistanis ?) no quite, I believe the normal term is "Turkmen"

Kyrgyz-stan (Kyrgyzstanis ?) don't think so (Kyrg's maybe ?)

Kazakh-stan (Kazakhstanis ?) or is it "Kazaks"

Definition of "stan":

The suffix -stan is formed from the old Iranian root *sta- "to stand, stay" (related to English "stand" and "stay") and means "place where one stays," i.e. homeland or country. Names such as Afghani-stan, Tajiki-stan, Turkmeni-stan, Uzbeki-stan are formed by adding this suffix to the usually pluralized names of the people living in that country, as the Afghani (one Afghan) live in Afghanistan. However, Pakistan was formed from the initial letters of "Punjab," "Afghanistan," and "Kashmir" and the questionably extended suffix -istan.

So, one could argue that if Afghani-stan means "place where Afghanis stand/stay", then Paki-stan would mean "place where Pakis stand/stay".

Problem being is that prior to 1933, there were no "Pakis" as a people (though there were Afghanis, Tajikis, Uzbekis and others), so a name was created for them (by them), using the letters from surrounding areas.

But now they do have a homeland, and identify themselves as being from that place, so technically (?), they should be referred (as a people) as Pakis, and their homeland is Paki-stan, the place where Pakis stand/stay.

(I still think the term is derogatory though, because of the way it has been used)

[dantilley]

I agree, when you study the supposed origins of the word it seems like a perfectly reasonable word to use to define people from Pakistan - especially comparing to the Afgani equivalent.

It's just the connotations that have grown around the word in recent times - many derogatory racist terms have relatively inoffensive origins, take calling Chinese peolpe "Chinkies" (or "Chinks") for example - close to the word Chinese, not too far removed from calling people from Australia "Aussies", yet has developed its own stigma as being an offensive word; and hence is offensive and taboo in the same way that "Paki" is.

[garro]

The point is, my friend, the place they went to stay in wasn't British until they arrived there. The same way that you would be hard pressed to find anywhere where the British have integrated well.

Why should Pakastanis adopt a culture which offers them so little. I don't see the British rushing to adopt other cultures when they live abroad.

The place they went to was British as it's the 2nd biggest island in the British Isles. And the Scots after whom Scotland is named were a tribe that originated from Ireland and crossed over what is now Scotland and invaded and conquered it so the Scots were only going back to their ancient homeland in reality.

I really dont know what more they need to do to integrate in your eyes - speak Gaelic ? maybe the rest of the population should do that 1st,. Become Roman Catholic ? start voting sinn fein ?

As for The British not integrating well I'd disagree to a certain degree there. Take the British in Thailand as an example - many have married into the local community and they allow their children to choose to become Buddhist if they so want. The number of Pakistanis or Bangladeshis who marry into the indigenous population in the UK is absolutely minimal. Women from these communities are often murdered by their own families for having relationships with anyone not chosen by their parents.

And if the British culture offers them so little then why the hel_l did they come here in the 1st place, surely they would have been far better off staying where they were far away from the vile Western corruptive ways they so despise. In fact it's not too late for them to go back.

I have not heard many people from the Irish Republic referring to themselves as from the British Isles but this is beside the point. You obviously feel you have a much better grasp of the whole Irish/British thing than I and to be honest it is not important enough to me to argue about. My point remains that there are British people (or Irish for that matter) who equally do not settle in their adopted countries but maintain their own distinct idenity. I am not saying that this is bad only that the same allowances should be given minorities living in Britain.

I disagree about the British in Thailand. I would say they lag far behind other nationalities in their ability to integrate in Thailand. The Swiss and Germans appear much more able to speak the language and appear much more respecting of the Thai culture.

[keebone]

The Swiss and Germans appear much more able to speak the language and appear much more respecting of the Thai culture.

Does this include defacing images of his Majesty the King ?

[rgs2001uk]

The point is, my friend, the place they went to stay in wasn't British until they arrived there.

when james the 6th of scotland succeeded his distant cousin elizabeth to the throne of england, ireland as a subject kingdom of the english crown became a potential settlement area for scots.

ireland had been nominally under the english crown since the 12th century, but it was only at the end of the 16th century, that ulster, the last irish province to resist was brought under english control.

the name ulster scots came in time to be applied to the entire non-irish population of the province, which included large numbers of english from lancashire, chesire,london, east anglia and devon.

there were also much smaller numbers of welsh and some refugee french.

the great mass of early settlers were however scottish, from lanark, ayrshire,and the lothians.they gave ulster a scottish flavour which it never lost.

one of the most harmful myths about the ulster scots is that they are an immobile people entrenched in a rampart of ancient prejudice, scots-irish history, as a whole offers a completely antithetical viewpoint, a people who in many ways were the epitome of mobility and change.

many of the famous names in american history came from ulster stock, davy crockett and kit carson, the civil war generals stonewall jackson and ulysses s grant. in the world of business, the millionaire dynasties of the gettys and the mellons.

the ulster scots played a leading role in drafting the declaration of independance. 10 united states presidents were of ulster scots origin,including andrew jackson and woodrow wilson.

to the developing lands of canada,australia and new zealand the ulster scots sent farmers and engineers,doctors and clergymen,who played a major role in forging these new societes.

on the whole, for a people who didnt integrate, they didnt do too bad.

i wont bother wasting my time wondering what would have happened had they integrated.

[garro]

The point is, my friend, the place they went to stay in wasn't British until they arrived there. The same way that you would be hard pressed to find anywhere where the British have integrated well.

Why should Pakastanis adopt a culture which offers them so little. I don't see the British rushing to adopt other cultures when they live abroad.

The place they went to was British as it's the 2nd biggest island in the British Isles. And the Scots after whom Scotland is named were a tribe that originated from Ireland and crossed over what is now Scotland and invaded and conquered it so the Scots were only going back to their ancient homeland in reality.

I really dont know what more they need to do to integrate in your eyes - speak Gaelic ? maybe the rest of the population should do that 1st,. Become Roman Catholic ? start voting sinn fein ?

As for The British not integrating well I'd disagree to a certain degree there. Take the British in Thailand as an example - many have married into the local community and they allow their children to choose to become Buddhist if they so want. The number of Pakistanis or Bangladeshis who marry into the indigenous population in the UK is absolutely minimal. Women from these communities are often murdered by their own families for having relationships with anyone not chosen by their parents.

And if the British culture offers them so little then why the hel_l did they come here in the 1st place, surely they would have been far better off staying where they were far away from the vile Western corruptive ways they so despise. In fact it's not too late for them to go back.

I have not heard many people from the Irish Republic referring to themselves as from the British Isles but this is beside the point. You obviously feel you have a much better grasp of the whole Irish/British thing than I and to be honest it is not important enough to me to argue about. My point remains that there are British people (or Irish for that matter) who equally do not settle in their adopted countries but maintain their own distinct idenity. I am not saying that this is bad only that the same allowances should be given minorities living in Britain.

I disagree about the British in Thailand. I would say they lag far behind other nationalities in their ability to integrate in Thailand. The Swiss and Germans appear much more able to speak the language and appear much more respecting of the Thai culture.

touche

Although it must be admitted that your average British tourist probably wouldn't know which picture to paint anyway.

[garro]

i wont bother wasting my time wondering what would have happened had they integrated.

Your point is?

As I have said I have no interest in British/Irish history as I live in Thailand. As you have said yourself they did not integrate and my point is that Pakistani folks should not be expected to either. This is the only point I am trying to make.

[qwertz]

The nomenclature of the region now known as Pakistan was changed with the coming of independence in 1947.

The territorial bulk retained the name of India, its people predominantly Hindu in religion.

To the north-west, the new and almost entirely Muslim state of Pakistan was declared.

It acquired its name from the inspiration of some Indian undergraduates at Cambridge University over half a century ago.

They were dreaming of a homeland that might one day be dedicated to Islam alone.

They cobbled together the title from the names of the Indian provinces and adjacent areas whose people had long been mostly Muslim.

It's a self build word kit made up of of Pathan, Kashmiri and Afghan.

Their Pakistan consists of folk from the Punjab, from Afghanistan, from Kashmir, from Sind and from Baluchistan.

Its boundaries would be the Arabian Sea and the Himalayas, a trucial line.

The name itself is invented and most Pakistanis in the UK, and probably in Pakistan too don't know this.

Because, unlike us, they don't take the trouble to ask questions which are not fundamentally Muslim in character.

From my teaching experience in England I learned from these people people that Moses and many other prophets were Muslims.

They know this because their mullahs told them so it must be true.

I had always thought that Moses lived about 4,000 years before Islam.

You live and learn.

How do I know all this?

Because I read books that they are not encouraged to read.

So I suggest we all remain true to PC and wait until we integrate with them so they can tell us what we are permitted to call them.

I suspect it won't be long.

[rott]

And you're not bigoted garro??

Regarding integration; the last time I looked Adams, Morrison and McGuinness were all

Scottish Protestant names.

Pots, kettles etc.

L.O.L.

rott

[garro]

And you're not bigoted garro??

Regarding integration; the last time I looked Adams, Morrison and McGuinness were all

Scottish Protestant names.

Pots, kettles etc.

L.O.L.

rott

Huh?

There are lots of decendents of slaves in the US with Scottish surnames is this proof of integration?

[keebone]

The nomenclature of the region now known as Pakistan was changed with the coming of independence in 1947.

The territorial bulk retained the name of India, its people predominantly Hindu in religion.

To the north-west, the new and almost entirely Muslim state of Pakistan was declared.

It acquired its name from the inspiration of some Indian undergraduates at Cambridge University over half a century ago.

They were dreaming of a homeland that might one day be dedicated to Islam alone.

They cobbled together the title from the names of the Indian provinces and adjacent areas whose people had long been mostly Muslim.

It's a self build word kit made up of of Pathan, Kashmiri and Afghan.

Their Pakistan consists of folk from the Punjab, from Afghanistan, from Kashmir, from Sind and from Baluchistan.

Its boundaries would be the Arabian Sea and the Himalayas, a trucial line.

The name itself is invented and most Pakistanis in the UK, and probably in Pakistan too don't know this.

Because, unlike us, they don't take the trouble to ask questions which are not fundamentally Muslim in character.

From my teaching experience in England I learned from these people people that Moses and many other prophets were Muslims.

They know this because their mullahs told them so it must be true.

I had always thought that Moses lived about 4,000 years before Islam.

You live and learn.

How do I know all this?

Because I read books that they are not encouraged to read.

So I suggest we all remain true to PC and wait until we integrate with them so they can tell us what we are permitted to call them.

I suspect it won't be long.

You left something out of the Pakistan story. When Pakistan became independent of Great Britain and split from India it also included what is now Bangladesh which was known as East Pakistan. Many of the Bangladeshis living in the UK are arguably the children of Pakistanis as their parents were born in the state of Pakistan.

[qwertz]

Thanks for the addendum, keebone.

It's an old book, maybe that was after it was published.

[rott]

Slavery to us today is unthinkable, but a few hundred years ago people thought differently, and I seem to remember that the (devout) Roman Catholic

countries were not behind the door in this.

[keebone]

The most famous Irishman in the world today is probably Bono. He is of course a Protestant born of a Catholic Father and Protestant mother whose maiden name was Rankin which I believe is a Scottish surname.

[Lucifer]

What should the Brits call people who resist integration?

Don't know, but obviously not offensive racist terms.

And there is the rub, dantilley

If people don't bother to get to know our culture and mind set, anything we say to them is potentially offensive.

The fault is not just ours.

Does this apply to farangs in Thailand?

Imagine all farangs speaking Thai, eating Thai, socialising(?) mostly with Thai's.

Anyone caught speaking English,in public,is just not integrating.

And there is the rub....

The fault is all yours.

[qwertz]

Integration in LOS, lucifer?

Is this something new?

Must read the board more often.

[MrEarl]

Whether or not "Paki" carries a pejorative meaning depends entirely on context: both social and semantics.

In Australia there is a pakistani cricket team who call themselves the "Pakis".

In Pakistan the word is not considered derogatory.

If you refer to an east indian in the UK as a "paki" that is considered quite offensive.

So it appears that the pejorative context for the word is rather narrow limited mainly to the UK.

So anyone taking offense is also putting themselves in a rather narrow minded "politically correct" context.

Sad really that some ill informed people here insist on transposing their narrow mindedness outside of their country.

Edited June 18, 2007 by MrEarl

[garro]

In answer to the OP. I would not use the term 'Paki' because of the risk that it could offend somebody. It is no great hardship not to use it. I would also immediately stop using the term 'Aussie' if I thought that it would cause offense. Again no great hardship. I fail to understand why anybody would use potentially hurthful terms such as 'Paki' unless they enjoy causing insult. It has nothing to do with what these terms originally meant but rather their how people react to them today.

[garro]

The most famous Irishman in the world today is probably Bono. He is of course a Protestant born of a Catholic Father and Protestant mother whose maiden name was Rankin which I believe is a Scottish surname.

The religious affiliations and ancestry of famous people is obvious of great interest to you but I fail to see what this has to do with the term 'Paki' being offensive. Here in Thailand Bono is far from famous and very few people could point out Ireland on a map. Probably the most famous Irishman here is Roy Keane but I have no idea what his religion is or where his surname comes from.

[borracho]

In answer to the OP. I would not use the term 'Paki' because of the risk that it could offend somebody. It is no great hardship not to use it. I would also immediately stop using the term 'Aussie' if I thought that it would cause offense. Again no great hardship. I fail to understand why anybody would use potentially hurthful terms such as 'Paki' unless they enjoy causing insult. It has nothing to do with what these terms originally meant but rather their how people react to them today.

You probably enjoy homogenized milk as well.

It is weakness of mind not to use ones natural powers of discrimination.

Even the animal world can discriminate between food and excrement.

Embrace diversity.

[kmart]

Lot of people here getting their panties in a bunch over any perceived racial / ethnic slight that is hardly Thailand-related...? Unless someone wants to debate if the word "farang" is derogatory..?

One of the many benefits of living here in LOS is the lack of fascist PC double-speak that so afflicts any social lateral thinking in the West.

[garro]

Lot of people here getting their panties in a bunch over any perceived racial / ethnic slight that is hardly Thailand-related...? Unless someone wants to debate if the word "farang" is derogatory..?

One of the many benefits of living here in LOS is the lack of fascist PC double-speak that so afflicts any social lateral thinking in the West.

Kmart, as you are aware Thailand is hugely influenced by Buddhism which emphasises the avoidance of harmful speech which could cause offense. In Thai culture the term 'farang' is not meant to be derogatory although it is sometimes used this way. I am sure if Thai people knew this term caused offense many would stop using it.

It is well known that many Pakistanis, especially those who have had contact with the UK, dislike being called 'Paki' so why call them this? Is the right to say what you want about who you want more important then other people's feelings. Should we revert back to using terms like 'queer', '<deleted>','sambo' and 'faggot' in order not to appear PC.

[kmart]

Lot of people here getting their panties in a bunch over any perceived racial / ethnic slight that is hardly Thailand-related...? Unless someone wants to debate if the word "farang" is derogatory..?

One of the many benefits of living here in LOS is the lack of fascist PC double-speak that so afflicts any social lateral thinking in the West.

Kmart, as you are aware Thailand is hugely influenced by Buddhism which emphasises the avoidance of harmful speech which could cause offense. In Thai culture the term 'farang' is not meant to be derogatory although it is sometimes used this way. I am sure if Thai people knew this term caused offense many would stop using it.

It is well known that many Pakistanis, especially those who have had contact with the UK, dislike being called 'Paki' so why call them this? Is the right to say what you want about who you want more important then other people's feelings. Should we revert back to using terms like 'queer', '<deleted>','sambo' and 'faggot' in order not to appear PC.

I'm not calling anyone a "Paki", am I? The words to offend or denigrate anyone based on a percieved ethnic difference will unfortunately always be with us... The willingness to use this as an excuse for shortcomings will too.

[keebone]

The most famous Irishman in the world today is probably Bono. He is of course a Protestant born of a Catholic Father and Protestant mother whose maiden name was Rankin which I believe is a Scottish surname.

The religious affiliations and ancestry of famous people is obvious of great interest to you but I fail to see what this has to do with the term 'Paki' being offensive. Here in Thailand Bono is far from famous and very few people could point out Ireland on a map. Probably the most famous Irishman here is Roy Keane but I have no idea what his religion is or where his surname comes from.

I'm sorry but who was it who brought Irish Scots into this thread - me or you ?

[keebone]

What should the Brits call people who resist integration?

Don't know, but obviously not offensive racist terms.

And there is the rub, dantilley

If people don't bother to get to know our culture and mind set, anything we say to them is potentially offensive.

The fault is not just ours.

Does this apply to farangs in Thailand?

Imagine all farangs speaking Thai, eating Thai, socialising(?) mostly with Thai's.

Anyone caught speaking English,in public,is just not integrating.

And there is the rub....

The fault is all yours.

The huge difference is that the Farangs Living in Thailand are not 2nd or 3rd generation born in Thailand. They more often than not are either married to or otherwise romantically involved with Thais and they usually socialise with Thais to a certain degree.

[garro]

I mentioned Ulster Scots as an example of a people (similar to the Pakistanis) who maintained their identity when they moved to another country. It has been pointed out that this seperateness allowed for the development of many good things. It was not my intention to discuss the religious affiliations of British/Irish pop stars, as my life is too short and luckily I was not brought up in an environment where such things were considered important.

[Lucifer]

What should the Brits call people who resist integration?

Don't know, but obviously not offensive racist terms.

And there is the rub, dantilley

If people don't bother to get to know our culture and mind set, anything we say to them is potentially offensive.

The fault is not just ours.

Does this apply to farangs in Thailand?

Imagine all farangs speaking Thai, eating Thai, socialising(?) mostly with Thai's.

Anyone caught speaking English,in public,is just not integrating.

And there is the rub....

The fault is all yours.

The huge difference is that the Farangs Living in Thailand are not 2nd or 3rd generation born in Thailand. They more often than not are either married to or otherwise romantically involved with Thais and they usually socialise with Thais to a certain degree.

I think you'll find Hindu Indians, integrate perfectly ell with native brits. Most drink, smoke and socialise in bars and restaurants. Infact, I know quite a few 2nd, and 3rd generation Hindu Indians, can not speak Hindi.

However, Muslims, don't do this. They don't go to pubs, restaurants. They put very little effort socialising.

Also, I take it most farangs living in Thailand go to school to learn to speak and write Thai.

[keebone]

What should the Brits call people who resist integration?

Don't know, but obviously not offensive racist terms.

And there is the rub, dantilley

If people don't bother to get to know our culture and mind set, anything we say to them is potentially offensive.

The fault is not just ours.

Does this apply to farangs in Thailand?

Imagine all farangs speaking Thai, eating Thai, socialising(?) mostly with Thai's.

Anyone caught speaking English,in public,is just not integrating.

And there is the rub....

The fault is all yours.

The huge difference is that the Farangs Living in Thailand are not 2nd or 3rd generation born in Thailand. They more often than not are either married to or otherwise romantically involved with Thais and they usually socialise with Thais to a certain degree.

I think you'll find Hindu Indians, integrate perfectly ell with native brits. Most drink, smoke and socialise in bars and restaurants. Infact, I know quite a few 2nd, and 3rd generation Hindu Indians, can not speak Hindi.

However, Muslims, don't do this. They don't go to pubs, restaurants. They put very little effort socialising.

Also, I take it most farangs living in Thailand go to school to learn to speak and write Thai.

My Brothers GF is a Hindu Indian and she is no different in anything she does from a native British person except for not eating beef and I myself have had a Hindu Indian GF in the past. So I need no telling about how Indians integrate.

But as you yourself said muslims do not make much if any effort to integrate and this thread is about pakistanis who are overwhelmingly muslim.

I'm not saying Farangs are perfect when it comes to integrating into Thai society but they integrate infinitely more than pakistanis and bangladeshis do into British society. I've never heard of a Farang family killing 1 of it's members because they got romantically involved with a Thai !

[sonnyJ]

I would be interesting to have a debate about the possible connotations of "Farang" in Thailand and abroad.

What comes to 2nd an 3rd generation people of Indian decent, who have integrate much in to the thai society are still called Gaek, "guests". If you ask bout them from an average Thai they don't like them because they are different, they smell and always cheat Thais. (I could say they have higher culture than Thais, being much older race) but that would be racist wouldn't it.

My conclusion would be that Asians are worlds most racist people but are able to hide it in the complex social structures. Same goes for westerners (if you allow the term) when talking about corruption.

[qwertz]

I would be interesting to have a debate about the possible connotations of "Farang" in Thailand and abroad.

What comes to 2nd an 3rd generation people of Indian decent, who have integrate much in to the thai society are still called Gaek, "guests". If you ask bout them from an average Thai they don't like them because they are different, they smell and always cheat Thais. (I could say they have higher culture than Thais, being much older race) but that would be racist wouldn't it.

My conclusion would be that Asians are worlds most racist people but are able to hide it in the complex social structures. Same goes for westerners (if you allow the term) when talking about corruption.

So I guess farang must mean "paying guest".

Anyway, I always thought that PAKI meant Personable And Kingly Individuals.

Wrong again.

Back to patronising PC double speak - British citizens of Asian extraction.