when institutionalisation meets affaires courantes

Is Harry a racist? The online dictionary's definition of racism includes "...usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others". Humour can be seen in the fact that ones own "race" (or bloodline in this case) does indeed have the right to rule over others and by definition is therefore superior. whether that "right" is right or not is a debate for elsewhere.

Pedantics aside I can't decide how serious this issue is. "Paki" is a term which is generally considered as offensive. It is frequently used as a racial insult. I pondered the fact that the British army might be referred to as the "Brits" and the Pakistani army could - in pure linguistic terms - be referred to as the "Paks" for instance. However, the point is that when a word gains negative connotations through being used with offensive intentions it is by all accounts an offensive word. Perhaps therefore it would be fine to refer to the Pakistani army in this way if the term "Paki" had never been used in the racist way which it often is. So i dont think the word should be used on these grounds.

The other point of potential defense is the context which the word was used in. The army's institutionalised stereotypes are common - race based or not. the racism seems to go both ways. It is not abnormal to be branded with nicknames associated with the way you look - usually drawing on the negative in a depricating way. Even those with the names will defend them with the fact that they add to the camaraderie and therefore help with morale. Still where terms are instittutionalsed the people branded with them are covertly forced to accept them. Arguably therefore they are taken for granted and accepted and all possible offense is buried.

A problem for Harry is that if all of his peers in the army refer to peoples nicknames then he would be obliged to. obviously it can be suggested that an heir to the throne should be able to retain his absolute integrity and should not therefore use a general superficial expectations as an excuse.

I conclude that Harry's remarks were damaging and offensive. They were uncalled for and action should be taken. The action taken however should be very much in light of the context the remarks were made in. The racist witch-hunt of the modern era would do much better to look behind the racism rather than by just finding new people to accuse. If a person is offended the remarks were offensive but incidental racism is different from racial abuse and should be treated as distinct: not to suggets that the former is acceptable but to understand that incidental racism arises from circumstance more than from the deliberate mens rea of the culprit. On the other hand much of the media has neglected to mention that Harry also referred to people as ragheads - surely a comment with far less scope for justification yet a comment which recieved relatively little outcry.