Dani Garavelli: A black and white issue

Published on Saturday 17 January 2009 18:32

THERE'S a part of me that thinks laying into Princes Charles and Harry for the inappropriate way they refer to friends of ethnic origin is just too easy. And too obvious.

Of course the terms "our little Paki friend" – used by Harry to describe fellow Sandhurst cadet Ahmed Raza Khan – and "Sooty" – the nickname Charles uses for his polo-playing pal Kolin Dhillon – are condescending and racist (albeit in a Black And White Minstrels Show rather than a skinhead-on-the-rampage kind of way). But complaining that members of the Royal Family are too exclusive and colonial is a bit like criticising lions for being too predatory; or fish for having a short attention span.

There are countries, I understand, where the monarchy is more in touch with modern mores. The Netherlands, for example, where those of noble birth fraternise with commoners and ride around on bicycles. But the UK isn't one of them. It is unrealistic, is it not, to hand the Windsors wealth, status and a clutch of palaces as their birthright and expect them to then treat other people in a forward-looking and egalitarian way?

And even if it isn't, we should be used to their xenophobic tendencies by now. Over the past few decades, they have given us plenty of insight into their narrow take on other cultures. Prince Philip referred to the Chinese as slitty-eyed; the Queen Mother spoke of "huns, wops and dagos" and Prince Michael of Kent is said to have once told a fellow diner: "You need to go back to the colonies." If you take the John B Bogart "dog bites man" definition of what constitutes news, then revelations that Prince Charles and Prince Harry are reducing other people to crude racial stereotypes wouldn't merit more than a couple of paragraphs.

On the other hand, I can't buy into the notion, much pedalled in the last few days, that because the princes intended no offence by their remarks and none was taken (at least by those they were made to), they should be dismissed as innocuous.

It is true that name-calling, violence or active discrimination towards individuals is a lot more damaging than the mere use of the word "paki" or "chinky" as lazy shorthand for anyone from south or east Asia, which may be indicative of nothing more than intellectual lethargy. But the two are not unconnected in that it is the casual grouping together of a large group of people on the basis of their race that allows more sinister prejudice to flourish.

In any case, the test of whether or not a given term is racist is not whether the person it's levelled at is upset by it, but the balance of power between those involved. Hence the fact that even though some sections of the black community have reappropriated the word "nigger" or "nigga", and use it as a statement of their empowerment rather than their victimhood, this does not make it any more acceptable when used by other races.

Since members of the Royal Family hold the balance of power in all their relationships, they ought to be especially careful about the terms they use to describe other people.

Instead, Prince Harry chose to call Raza Khan "our little Paki friend", the "little" a reference not just to his height, it is possible to infer, but to his diminished status (although he was a high-flying trainee presented with the coveted overseas sword). Prince Charles chose to call Dhillon, a multi-millionaire businessman, "Sooty", suggesting the only thing marking him out from the crowd was the colour of his skin.

The suggestion that, far from being insulting, these phrases are "terms of endearment", only holds water if you believe the situation could be reversed. Can you imagine Raza Khan recording a photo diary in which he referred to Prince Harry as "our little whitey friend", or, down the Cirencester Park Polo Club, Prince Charles being known as "Honky"? Moreover, could you imagine him welcoming this slur as a sign of his social acceptability?

That was Dhillon's almost pathetically grateful contention: that he like being called "Sooty" because it proved he really belonged. "I must say you know you have arrived when you acquire a nickname," he said apparently oblivious to the fact his uninspired tag demonstrates not the inclusiveness of the Cirencester Park Polo Club, but how unusual it is to see a black face in its corridors.

Not that you would expect the royals to understand this, their superiority complex being reinforced by centuries of imperialism. In his own eyes – and those of many commentators – Prince Charles is a model of racial tolerance and religious ecumenism.

And, to be fair, he is a rare white, secular leader who has reached out to British Muslims marginalised by the war on terror. Prince Harry – who once wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party – has rebranded himself since the video diary was recorded in 2006 and was recently photographed among children with Aids at a Lesotho orphanage.

But a statement issued by Clarence House in the wake of last week's PR disaster served only to highlight their paternalism. "To imply the Princes are racist is ridiculous," it said. "Through their charity work, all three of them are committed to helping people both in the UK and abroad regardless of who they are."

Oh yes, the Royal Family love the ethnics. They love black babies with pot bellies in famine zones or Aids hospitals; or rootless black teenagers in inner city ghettos. What they can't seem to get to grips with is the concept of ethnic minorities as proud and independent individuals; people who want not their tolerance or their sympathy, but their respect.