Having nothing better to do, the British media has created a little hubbub over remarks made by the ever-entertaining Prince Harry. His Royal Highness was caught on camera calling a member of his platoon “our little Paki friend” (in another clip he tells a friend he looks like a “rag-head”).
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadan Foundation, says “Prince Harry, as a public figure, must ensure that he promotes equality and tolerance and this rant, whether today or three years ago, is sickening and he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.”
Now that’s a bit much. There’s no question that British Asians, in most contexts, rightly take offense at the term “Paki,” because it is, in most contexts, a term meant to express contempt for British Asians. But what I know about male bonhomie in general and military bonhomie in particular suggests that no offense would have been either intended or taken. Despite Harry’s history of comments that arguably are racist, St. James Palace’s claim that he was using an established nickname for a highly popular cadet (and his own friend) seems entirely plausible to me.
Disturbing as some people find the fact, human beings, left untended by career egalitarians, persistently recognize differences and (with shocking indifference to the moral imperative to constantly promote equality and tolerance) make light of them. This “rant,” as Mr. Shafiq calls Prince Harry’s lightly joking narration over a camcorder, was not a public address. His addressing an exhortation to, say, his “loyal Paki subjects,” would be cause for popular displeasure, but this . . . this is nothing.
If there’s anything in this story, it’s Harry’s faked conversation with Queen Elizabeth, which I actually think is funny: “Granny I’ve got to go . . . send my love to the corgis and Grandpa . . . God Save You . . . yeah, that’s great.”
Much funnier, however, is the collection of rude remarks by public figures Daniel Freedman (taking Harrygate Part XXXXI as his pretext) has assembled.
