Bush's Racist Slur

Fresh from yet another multiweek vacation, President Bush turned his attention to the very dangerous India-Pakistan conflict (news - web sites). Speaking to reporters about the deteriorating regional conflict on Monday, 7 January, President Bush said,

I don't believe the situation is defused yet, but I do believe there is a way to do so, and 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 obvious and immediate response is to wonder how much worse he wants the situation to become. Using a well-known ethnic slur to describe one side of the conflict is unlikely to defuse anything. Surely any other modern American president, each one of whom has been very less verbally inept than Bush, would have been taken, had he said the same or similar, to be signaling an American preference for the side not slurred. Given the boundless, miasmic fog of verbal expression which Bush inhabits, one might conclude that it was merely a slip, of tongue or brain, and not worth further thought.

Both AP and Reuters wire reports of the incident include curious characterizations -- respectively: "The term 'Pakis' is considered by many Pakistanis, particularly in Great Britain, to be offensive"; and "Most Americans are unaware of the sensitivity of the term. In Britain, however, it is considered an ethnic slur toward Pakistanis who emigrated there in large numbers in the 1960s and '70s" -- of the provenance and history of the term, as if the harm were to be mitigated by claims about linguistic obscurity.

And, generally, supporters of the president have defended his use of the slur by the same tactic: it's not problematic because most Americans are unaware that "Paki" is offensive.

This defense is wholly inadequate: it misleads and is irrelevant. First, the term is not new, and while its origin is British, that is a local usage of rather universal reach -- the British media's global spread is second only to that of US media. And, as Bush likes to say, when it suits him and his interests, the US and UK are culturally very close. One of the earliest examples occurred in the Guardian, in 1964, and continually in British media throughout the 60s and 70s. It occurred in US media very early as well, specifically in a racist context -- Charlottesville, Virginia's Daily Progress reported, in 1972 (!), on racial violence against Asian immigrants, which was (and is still) termed "Paki-bashing". Anti-immigrant violence has been reported in the US regularly since that time, and the terms "Paki" and "Paki-bashing" are not as obscure as Bush's erstwhile defenders suggest.

Especially if among any of the president's staff can be counted even one careful reader of the New York Times or anyone who listens to or reads the public remarks of VP Cheney, who referred to Pakistanis as -- in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 16 September -- "Paks". The Times ran in response two William Safire columns and an editorial "chiding", as Safire put it, Cheney for such usage and instructing accurately on the use of "Pak" and "Paki" as insulting racial slurs. And, while Bush can hardly be faulted for paying little attention to his VP, Safire clearly and, to the point, recently made it abundantly clear, for whomever in Bush's administration was listening, that "Paki" is unacceptable. Now Bush may not be faulted for not reading the New York Times; he has, as they say, people to do that for him. But the recent discussion of this issue in the Times clearly establishes that referring to Pakistanis as "Pakis" is unacceptable.

But, second, the ignorance or obscurity defense, even if factually sound, is irrelevant. In diplomacy and politics, as under the law, ignorance is not an absolute defense. Sometimes it's no defense at all. The question is neither whether most -- or, strictly speaking, any; not, of course, including the millions of Pakistani American citizens, about whom more below -- Americans know that "Paki" is a racist slur, nor is it whether Bush knew that "Paki" is a racist slur. The only relevant question is whether Bush should have known that "Paki" is a racist slur, and, further, whether, having known it, such knowledge would have prevented him from using it.

As to the first question, yes, Bush should have known, assuming he did not, that "Paki" is a racist slur. The dictates of diplomacy alone, to say nothing of moral decency, suggest he should have known, as, for example, every president who dealt with -- the not particularly analogous, geopolitically -- situation of South African apartheid knew that, whatever their true views of Mandela or the ANC, the word "kafir" was a racist slur and was to be avoided at all costs.

One might hope, as well, that the person who occupies the office of US president, whatever else his flaws and failings, would take advantage of the incalculable resources such an office offers to familiarize himself with the known locations of the neighborhood's mines and minefields. Are we really to believe that this is Bush's very first time, ever, to use this word? Has anyone on his staff warned against its use in the months since September 11? It is not, after all, a particularly ready contraction of "Pakistani", nor is it the kind of thing that one hears used normatively in US media often -- its contexts of use in US media are usually reportings of it being used precisely as a racist slur or as a description of anti-immigrant violence. Is it a word that the Bush inner circle uses privately? If so, that any or no Americans know that it is a racist slur is especially irrelevant.

A White House spokesperson responded to Bush's comments by offering further comment -- "The president has great respect for Pakistan, the Pakistani people, and the Pakistani culture. Pakistan has been a strong member of the international coalition in the war against terrorism" -- which only sought to evade the issue, which said much less than was required by minimal decency, and which conspicuously failed to apologize -- Compare: when Bush indecorously called the US campaign against bin Laden a "crusade" the White House apologized swiftly and with good reason -- or withdraw the slur.

Whatever else one might say about Bush, it is conceivable that his use of "Paki" was merely a verbal slip, the result of being briefed to never say "Paki" (though the lack of an immediate correction from Bush tends to weigh against it having been a pure slip). Those of us who inhabit fogs of personal expression do make such mistakes. What is truly objectionable, however, is that decent people, having made such mistakes, apologize and offer to make amends, to remedy harms caused, to do, in short, what, if anything, may be done to reassert and reaffirm publicly the dignity and worth of those who have been wronged.

Bush has done and will be doing none of these -- and very conspicuously so. Thus there are only three possibilities:

First, Bush used the term knowingly and premeditatedly, that is, he knew the term is a racist slur, and he meant to use it as a racist slur; in which case, he is not only a racist but dangerously unhinged.

Second, Bush used the term accidentally; that is, he knew that it is a racist slur and its use was a verbal or mental slip. Such things happen, alas. However much we might wish to have a president more in control of the modes of his personal expression, there are greater sins. If this is the case, however, one might assume -- if for no other reason than for the sakes of American citizens and residents who are of Pakistani origin -- that Bush would have apologized, whether tersely or profusely, whether immediately or subsequently, whether directly or by proxy. The lack of any mode of redress speaks louder than apologists and defenders of Bush's use of the term realize.

Third, Bush used it purposively but did not know, consciously, that it was a racist slur; in which case, his ignorance is either defensible or it is not. I find it hard to believe that his ignorance is defensible, but, in either case, if the term was used innocently of racist intent, I am equally hard pressed to understand why Bush has not apologized and sought to redress the harms he's done.

In the present US climate the plight of those of South Asian or Middle Eastern origin (or stereotypical appearance) is fragile at best. In addition to facing whatever real dangers the rest of us face, whether from terrorists or from our own government's contortions, these persons face further threats and dangers of person, including affronts to and assaults upon their basic dignity and respect. That Bush has -- intentionally or no -- made life more difficult for them, and that he's done so without the slightest interest in or attempt at redress, is simply intolerable.