Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[loinburger]

Nobody was offended when he used the word Negro because we understood the context of its use, and I doubt that anybody was offended when you used the word Paki. He only would have gone into ******* territory if he'd continued to use Negro after others had explained that it was an archaic, slightly offensive word; sort of like how you've continued to argue that you should continue to use the word Paki because apparently morphology is more important than the opinions of the group you're referring to.

[Felch]

I think it's absurd to twist and distort language just because some Brits are racist. Pak or Paki should be the term to describe people from the Land of Pak(i)s. Pakistani is silly and patronizing.

[giblets]

How is it more patronizing than the term that a large number of people from that country find offensive?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Similarly, you're being an *******.

This.

He is also suffering from "I don't want to admit I was complete wrong" syndrome, which therefore leads the person to advocate more and more ridiculous positions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is it more patronizing than the term that a large number of people from that country find offensive?

Especially since it's the term that just about all Pakistanis use to describe themselves.

"Paki" doesn't have a negative racial connotation in the US, but every Pakistani I have ever know has used the term "Pakistani" to refer to themselves.

[Felch]

It's patronizing because it implies that Paks can't handle being called by the name that they chose for themselves. It's silly because of the hyperbole of comparing "Paki" to "******." As if Paks have been enslaved, lynched, and systematically persecuted in the same way and at the same scale as blacks in America. And if a large number of Paks think that their name is offensive, maybe they should change the name of their country. Why not call it "The Islamic Republic of Mehrgarh" or something like that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

News flash: there is no ethnicity called "the Paks". Hence you name them after their country - Pakistani.

Do you call New Yorkers, Yorks? Or Delawareans, Dels? ($10 says you are going to pull out "Okies" as 'evidence' that 'everyone does it that way')

Do you want to dig your hole even deeper?

[giblets]

News flash: there is no ethnicity called "the Paks". Hence you name them after their country - Pakistani.

Do you call New Yorkers, Yorks? Or Delawareans, Dels? ($10 says you are going to pull out "Okies" as 'evidence' that 'everyone does it that way')

He's from Maryland. Call him Mary

[C0ckney]

loin is right about this one.

in portuguese, black people refer to themselves as negros, which refers to the race rather than colour and it's the accepted term. the word for the colour black 'preto' is only used for things which are black. i used it when i was talking to a black guy here in rio, and he explained that it was not a term used for people and that it was considered offensive, he told me that the word i should use was negro. i said that i didn't know and explained that in english the accepted term is the same for colour and race, which is why i'd said it. he was totally cool about it, but if i'd continued to use preto, he probably would have thought i was an arsehole.

when i'm teaching english sometimes students will refer to black people as negros or even ******s and i have to explain that the former is not a generally used term and the latter is offensive and derogatory. i explain that 'black' or in the united states 'african american' are the words to use.

it's just a difference in culture and it's really not a lot to ask that people respect that.

[Felch]

News flash: there is no ethnicity called "the Paks". Hence you name them after their country - Pakistani.

I don't recall saying that Pak is an ethnic group. Is Pakistani an ethnic group? No. There are Pashtun and Punjabis and others, but no Pakistani ethnicity. Anyways Choudhary Rahmat Ali came up with the name and apparently it was meant to be an acronym including the various regions of Pakistan, along with a double meaning in Persian and Urdu of "Land of the Paks," or "Land of the Pure". One thing is certain. Pak or Paki is not an invention by racist whites like "******," it is a name chosen by the Muslims under British rule in India.

Do you call New Yorkers, Yorks? Or Delawareans, Dels? ($10 says you are going to pull out "Okies" as 'evidence' that 'everyone does it that way')

Do you want to dig your hole even deeper?

Does New York mean "Land of the Yorks" or Delaware "Land of the Dels?" No. Have any more bull**** strawmen you want to throw my way?

By the way, I do call people from Aghanistan "Afghan," and I call people from Kazakhstan "Kazakh." Does that make me a racist?

[Ecthy]

Pakistan doesn't mean land of the Paks. There's no such group. It's an artificial name meant to cover a number of groups, far from covering all who live in that vast country. By this alone reducing a person to being from there is sort of racist since it negates all possible particular identity. And then there's the fact the term paks was produced in a racist environment, where a minority is permanently shat upon.

[Felch]

Pak is an Urdu and Persian word meaning Pure. It was chosen by Choudhary Rahmat Ali. It was not "produced in a racist environment," unless you're saying that Pakistan is a racist environment.

"reducing a person to being from there is sort of racist"? What the hell? How does Pakistani not achieve the same goal?

[Pax]

Ben, you have no understanding of the American way of thinking. You also missed my point. You simply don't undestand what it means to be american now and you don't understand what it meant to be an american then either. You are an outsider.

Seperate issue, On your point about Canada and Great Britain you miss the point that the North had all but abolished slavery and had no need for slaves. The south economy was based on slave labor. If the south had been apart of the British Empire it remains to be seen how they would have handed the slavery issue.

Of course, Americans have taken a long time for equality no argument but under British rule as I have pointed out we don't know that we would be any better or worse. South Africa comes to mind.

The question of secession from the union has been answered. You can't get out. Thinking of leaving is treason. So if some one pre-civil war thought that secession was possible that was a matter of debate. Now, the question has been answered. That's why, Rick Perry is a dick and we'll never be President because he thinks Texas has an option.

Had there been no american revolution, these other countries would not have been able to leave the British Empire add to that the French and Brits realized that far flung empires were untenable when all they really wanted was the resources. Add to that the fact that popular opinion in those countries was going against being in the British Empire and the British had no desire for wars to try to hold these countries after America and there ongoing issues in Ireland.

Buchanan is not a traitor he is like Bush Jr. leaving a mess for someone else to clean up but not a traitor.

You can't invade your own territory. And once again you can't secede from the U.S., Once you start the option of staying in good times and leaving in hard times the whole thing falls apart. Once again, you are an outsider and don't understand. Let's tie this in with Texas, Americans shed blood on behalf of Texas. Texans chose to join the Union to keep themselves from being reconquered by the Mexicans. Now if things get bad after Americans from Maine to California have shed blood and lost lives to benefit Texas and they try to leave the union. That's not happening.

I have lived in Connecticutt, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Ga, California, Virginia and Texas for long periods of time. The only division as far as North v. South generally experienced was in Texas. Some Texans seem to think that they are the real south and also in Southern states that are a number of CSA flag wavers. But the General Pop in all these states are loyal U.S. citizens.

No one ever told me that I could not attend public schools. I came to school after the time of seperate but equal. I enjoyed more equality than my parents did.

Blacks in the U.S. are better off than most blacks that are in former British Empire countries. Even if you don't count the African continent. I would rather be a black in the U.S. than a black in almost any former British Empire country. So even though British freed slaves earlier what has been the experience of Jamaicans and other blacks in the British Empire and Commonwealth.

[Ecthy]

"Paks" or "Pakis" as a term used to address imigrants from Pakistan was created in the UK no doubt.

As far as the name of the country is concerned, it appears it's meant to mean two things at a time. The one, what you said. The other, land of Punjab, Afghan border region, Kashmir, Sind etc. (check it out at wiki), so it's a technical term.

Now, are you to claim that anyone who calls Pakistani immigrants Pakis is highlighting their purity, or paying hommage to their home provinces in southern Asia? It's a superifical reduction and nothing else. And yes, nicknaming migrant minorities is a racist practice.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think the construction, generally, is race (e.g. anglo, afghan, etc.) plus country suffix to represent the nation-state of those people (e.g. england, afghanistan). Then, residents of that nation-state can be denoted by an additional suffix, like the pakistanis.