Page 4 of 4
Re: Crusaders in trouble
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:14 pm
by Kittwazzer
bikerharry wrote:
BNP style propaganda? Give me a break. This is what is wrong with this country. You voice a opinion and it's "you can't say that it's racist" Why is it racist for me to want to safeguard the future of my country for me and my family.
Actually, I agree with you totally. Point I was trying to make, badly as it seems, was that there seems to be a very fine line between wanting to protect your heritage and being accused of out and out racism.
Another valid point made earlier is that the words Turk, Afghan, Uzbeki, Iraqi, Kurd are all perfectly acceptable with regard to natives of their countries. Why should Paki be so different!
Re: Crusaders in trouble
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:59 pm
by bikerharry
In Scotland "Paki" is a perfectly acceptable term, even within the Asian community. It is not considered at all derogatory. The first time I was up there I went into a shop looking for something, but couldn't find it. I asked the Asian guy behind the counter if he sold it, and he replied "no, but if you try the Paki shop down the street, they'll have it"
Re: Crusaders in trouble
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:01 pm
by trotski_tgwu
bikerharry wrote:In Scotland "Paki" is a perfectly acceptable term, even within the Asian community. It is not considered at all derogatory. The first time I was up there I went into a shop looking for something, but couldn't find it. I asked the Asian guy behind the counter if he sold it, and he replied "no, but if you try the Paki shop down the street, they'll have it"
Correct Harry and if you heard an interview by GW Bush about the war between india and pakistan he said the indian and paki's need to get together to sort things out. So how can it be rasist?
Re: Crusaders in trouble
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:24 pm
by exile in Tiger country
Kittwazzer wrote:bikerharry wrote:
BNP style propaganda? Give me a break. This is what is wrong with this country. You voice a opinion and it's "you can't say that it's racist" Why is it racist for me to want to safeguard the future of my country for me and my family.
Actually, I agree with you totally. Point I was trying to make, badly as it seems, was that there seems to be a very fine line between wanting to protect your heritage and being accused of out and out racism.
Another valid point made earlier is that the words Turk, Afghan, Uzbeki, Iraqi, Kurd are all perfectly acceptable with regard to natives of their countries. Why should Paki be so different!
Because the others are correct descriptions of nationality. The correct term for some from Pakistan is Pakistani. Paki can be construed as racist. I note that the countries you have chosen as examples all have none Caucasian indigenous peoples.
Anyway, the Celtic players apparently haven't done anything wrong this year according to Boots'n'all, the offences were all committed in the previous two seasons
Re: Crusaders in trouble
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:48 pm
by Kittwazzer
Getting back to the thread. I wonder how many of the 6 could, under different circumstances, have qualified to play for England or Ireland?
Re: Crusaders in trouble
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:09 am
by bikerharry
Was wondering the same myself, and how many will have european grandparents?
Re: Crusaders in trouble
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:27 am
by robjoenz
Kittwazzer wrote:bikerharry wrote:
BNP style propagandaAnother valid point made earlier is that the words Turk, Afghan, Uzbeki, Iraqi, Kurd are all perfectly acceptable with regard to natives of their countries. Why should Paki be so different!
I went to school near Liverpool and when people talked about a
paki they meant your
packed lunch.
The difference between Turk, Afghan, Uzbeki and Kurd is that Paki is a shortening of Pakistani whereas the others are the full word. More often than not (when I've heard the word used) it is meant in a derogatory way.