FOUR-LETTER WORDS
The media: Paul Johnson on the hermeneutics of the term Taki'
A CONTROVERSY is raging among jour- nalists about the use of the word 'Pak? in headlines. This is a nice, short, convenient sub-editor's word. But is it racist? Its defenders claim that it is a mere contrac- tion, implying no abusive connotation. It is like, they say, calling a Baluchistani a Baluchi or an Afghanistani an Afghan; neither of these usages has ever aroused comment. Not so, say the critics. Mr Phil Dourado, writing in the UK Press Gazette, argues that 'PAP is not a contraction of Pakistani but is 'used widely as a term of abuse for anyone who looks Asian. At school and university I was occasionally on the receiving end of the word as I am half-Indian.'
It is an ineradicable human propensity to contract long words into short ones and we are not going to stop it. But that does not mean to say that the subs, a powerful tribe, should always get their way. I seethe with rage whenever I think of the manner in which they have foisted the term 'gay' on us, thus destroying the original meaning of that delightful word; using gay in this spurious sense is at least as offensive to the normal majority as 'queer' is to homosex- uals. Racial contractions, however useful to subs, are nearly always risky. I don't think Argy, for instance, is acceptable, except in wartime and when the context makes it clear it is soldiers' slang. The dreadful Spiro Agnew (himself, it must be said, the object of much ethnic abuse) got himself into fearful trouble by referring to somebody as 'the fat Jap'. I suppose 'the thin Jap' might just have passed, but you never know: America is a minefield of unacceptable diminutives.
On the other hand, I don't think profes- sional writers should allow themselves to be bullied by zealots into a state of race-sanitised terror. The difficulty lies in the subtle distinctions these epithets con- vey, especially to those so described. In general people from actual or former top nations don't mind what they are called. New Englanders, in my experience, never resent the term Yank, though Southerners rightly reject it as inaccurate. The English are particularly impervious to what for- eigners call them for `to be born an Englishman is to draw first prize in the lottery of life'. I don't in the least mind being called a Porn by Australians, or a Limey by Americans (actually they always call me 'Professor', which does irritate me). But I find the word 'Brit', a recent and I suspect Irish coinage, objectionable as it lumps us with the Scots and Welsh, with a suggestion of football hooliganism thrown in.
The real test, as Mr Dourado says, is whether the term used is intended to be a `fighting word'. To call the French frogs, at least informally, is not designed to cause offence and arouses none. But English characteristically has many words for the same thing, even in slang forms, and each conveys a slightly different meaning, not least in the field of national epithets. In the second world war, British soldiers called Italians `Eyeties' and that was purely de- scriptive; if they wanted to be abusive they used 'Wop'. Similarly, when critical they might call Egyptians 'Wogs', but usually they preferred the neutral term `Gyppos' (the word gypsy is likewise descriptive in origin, as is Romany). When the English call Spaniards Dagos' they mean to be nasty, and it's odd they have no nice name for them, the Inquisition probably being to blame. It's odder still they have no nasty name for the Germans: British soldiers always called them Jerries, which meant no offence. If they wanted to be hostile they had to use the American term Kraut or the French boches (usually preceded by sales).
A further difficulty is that the moral implications of such terms, and their de- gree of acceptability, is always changing.
`Do you do "Mild Euphoria '?' As T. S. Eliot says, 'Words do not stand still;' they slip and slither away across the smooth surface of usage. An obvious case is the use of the terms 'Scotch' and `Scotchmen' to describe those who some- times, in the late 18th century, insisted on being called North Britons. Many writers from Scotland, such as Walter Scott and Burns, or those with Scottish connections like Byron and Macaulay, always used `Scotch'. But since the end of the last century it is deemed to refer only to whisky: one must write 'Scots' or 'Scot- tish'. I date this insistence from the Celtic revival and the re-emergence of Scottish nationalism.
Some changes in acceptability, however, seem to defy any historical analysis. Be- tween the wars the Colonial Office, an- xious to eradicate any hint of racism in official documents, insisted that its em- ployees should all use the safe and neutral term 'Asiatics'. By the post-war period that word too had seemingly acquired racist overtones, at least in the ears of some of those thus described. Instead the term `Asians' had to be employed. When I was a boy I 'was firmly told it was rude to call anyone a black: the polite term was Negro. In recent decades, on the insistence of the Race Relations Industry, Negro has been classified as racist and we must all refer to blacks; indeed, some fanatics would have us call Asians blacks too. As Caxton remarked in 1470, `Loe, what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte? Certaynly it is harde to playse every man by cause of dyversite and chaunge of language.'
What is clear, all the same, is that where there has been persecution and the imposi- tion of inferior status in the past, we should tread very warily indeed and take particu- lar care not to hurt the feelings of those we are describing. Here the Jews are the outstanding example. There is now no acceptable non-official term for Jews, in any country. All the terms that have been used in the past, however mild and whatev- er their origin or the intention behind their coinage, have acquired connotations of discrimination, oppression and even race- murder. So Jews who live outside Israel are Jews, and those who live within it are Israelis; nothing else will do.
We ought to bear the example of the Jews in mind when we consider the case of the term 'Paki'. The issue is a moral one, at its deepest level, but it is also a matter of good manners. Manners maketh man but they do not, alas, make for mass- circulations. Subs will use whatever terms they think they can get away with. Pakista- ni immigrants to this country have usually been poor and have sometimes met with hostility, discrimination and violence. If a significant number of them see the use of the term Paki, however well-intentioned, as derogatory, then we ought to respect their feelings and drop it. They are British citizens after all. Perhaps we ought to call them Brits, God help us.
Previous page
