Wednesday 25 November 2009

PG Wodehouse, Strictly and The P Word

Why this dancer can't waltz away from row over racism

Published Date: 12 October 2009 - Yorkshire Post

THE coverage of Anton Du Beke, the Strictly Come Dancing star who stepped into a race row by telling his dance partner Laila Rouass that she looked like a "Paki", brought to mind some advice offered by PG Wodehouse in The Man Upstairs: "It is a good rule in life never to apologise. The right sort of people do not want apologies and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them." This case shows why Wodehouse got it wrong.

There was a long queue of people fully justified in demanding that Du Beke – or Anthony Beak to give him his real name – should apologise. At the front of the queue was Laila Rouass herself, whose initial reaction was reported by one of the 15 people in the room at the time of the incident. "Laila just stood there gobsmacked, as was everyone else. She just looked at him as if she couldn't quite believe what he'd said… she glared at Anton and just walked out – she was so upset. She just went to her dressing room, collected her stuff and went straight home. She felt totally humiliated."

When a national newspaper picked up the comments, Du Beke first denied having made them, but subsequently confessed and apologised. For her part Rouass showed a great deal of grace and a good deal more class than her dance partner by accepting his apology and saying that it was "time to move on".

Ironically it was the legendary host of Strictly, Bruce Forsyth, who gave added legs to the story on Wednesday, when he suggested the term used by Du Beke was no more than a nickname and that people getting worked up about it needed to rediscover their sense of humour. A similar line was taken by Godfrey Bloom, the MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, who said that being called a "Paki" was no different to being called a "Brummie".

As someone who has been called both of these names regularly throughout my life, I can assure Mr Bloom they are not at all the same. Being called a Brummie is a matter of pride for me. I am proud to come from England's second city, to have been born and brought up on its heritage-laden streets, to have been educated in its schools and universities and even to retain a small part of the local twang in my accent, which is so loved and derided in equal measure by those who lack it.

The term "Paki" is altogether a different matter. I remember hearing it for the first time in the Seventies when being warned about a group of skinheads called the "anti-Paki league" whose sole purpose was to beat up young men of Asian origin. Part of their uniform included the steel toe capped Doc Marten boot, which was to be used with vigour. Unfortunately that was not the only time I was to hear the word, but despite the decades that have passed it has retained the insulting bite that causes humiliation and anger every time it is directed at me.

When I was younger one of my coping strategies at being on the receiving end of the word was to politely inform the person using it that I was born in Birmingham and not Pakistan. That my parents
came from India, not Pakistan, and that calling me a Paki was like suggesting that someone from Germany was Dutch. It
was not only geographically inaccurate, it didn't even
make sense.

Unfortunately, this strategy was short lived. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who shouts the word at you from a moving car, as happened on a number of occasions, or when you're heavily outnumbered and in severe danger of physical harm.

Perhaps more importantly, it totally misread the purpose of the term being employed in the first place. The people who called me a "Paki" did so for one reason: to degrade and insult in the deepest way possible.

It is a term that is designed to dehumanise, alienate and humiliate. It removes every part of my character, individuality and personhood and renders me nothing more than a skin colour – a colour that is different.

It is simply not possible to use the word "Paki" in a way that affirms or that results in a cheery jest. This is why both Bruce Forsyth and Godfrey Bloom got it so wrong when they suggest there is nothing offensive about the term. The word is nothing but offensive, as poisonous in its intent to degrade as the purest toxin.

Demanding that Anton du Beke takes full responsibility for his actions is not seeking mean advantage. It is a recognition that people who enjoy the benefits of the limelight and reap its rewards must also be responsible. In the case of public broadcasters they must also be accountable. This was the lesson of the Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand affair. It is a lesson that Anton Du Beke quickly needs to step to.

No comments:

Post a Comment