California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created:January 10, 2002
Latest Update: January 10, 2002
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

On Thursday, Janauary 10, 2002, Students for International Peace and Justice posted:

Subject: Bush refers to Pakistanis as "Pakis"

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds
From: Islamic News and Information Network
Subject: Bush refers to Pakistanis as "Pakis"
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:36:52 -1000 (HST)

Assalamu'alaikum,

White House says comment not racist
Spokesperson says Bush meant no disrespect with reference to 'Pakis'

Canoe.ca Article:

HAMILTON, Ohio (AP) -- President George W. Bush meant no disrespect when he called Pakistanis "Pakis" in remarks to reporters, a spokesman said Tuesday.

Bush told reporters Monday: "We are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war."

The term "Pakis" is considered by many Pakistanis, particularly in Britain and Canada, to be offensive.

"The president has great respect for Pakistan and for the Pakistani people," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday as Bush visited Ohio to sign an education bill.

He did not apologize or withdraw the comment, but McClellan noted that Pakistan is a key ally in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan." backup

On January 10, 2002, jeanne commented:

Whenever any group of people is center stage, their name comes up often, and our tendency toward jargon, essentially shortcuts to restricted speech that is typical in working situations, the names are shortened. That is what Bush did with the "Pakistanis" in shortening it to Pakis. It probably does not carry any pejorative connotation in hiw working environment. But in the UK and Canada it does carry pejorative overtones.

A peacemaking stance would require that we not make any assumptions about whether the word is or is not pejorative. Once it is so designated, those of us to whom it has no meaning need to acknowledge the pejorative meaning it has to others, and those who are offended by it need to recognize that its pejorative meaning holds true only in contexts where the pejorative meaning may be assumed.

This is the kind of balancing and moderation we are asing for in peacemaking. We can't know what Bush meant. Maybe he doesn't know himself, for connotations are not always conscious. But we can be sensitive to the need to back away from the term when we do not want to send a pejorative meaning. Reality says make this ground zero. Name calling offends and harms. Protestations that no harm was meant do not alleviate the suspicion of ill will. To continue to use a term that is now identified as having an offensive connotation is to intentionally harm.

Lesson: If is say it hurts, please don't use it. Don't assure me it doesn't hurt. It hurts me, and that makes my perception valid. Remind me to pull a cite on this from Catharine MacKinnon. She calls it the validity that recognizes what women say as valid. It works for other groups, too.

---

---