±«Óătv

Is everyone becoming completely touchy about everything? Whether it's Celtic fans whinging because Rangers fans are singing about the Famine - it was 150 years ago - it's not exactly dancing on your children's grave, or women complaining cos someone calls them a girl. Could we all agree to lighten up a bit?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has announced that it is demanding a formal inquiry into Harry's behaviour - this is beyond all reason.

Racism and homophobia have to be challenged whenever they appear otherwise they will become normalised. This is not about being touchy, it's about a member of the royal family expressing nasty and divisive attitudes. Bring on a republic.

Augustine - I just think its sledgehammer cracking nuts time. I have no personal experience of the British army, but I imagine the language is usually not what you'd like your mother to hear and Harry is being singled out because he is well known. I don't think that is particularly fair.

*Sigh*

The comment wasn't racist.

On this rare occasion I'm happy to agree with Smasher. The comment referred to race, yes, but it contained no prejudice, discrimination or antagonism toward a member of another race: it was not racist. People think it was racist only because we've become so sensitive about racial issues and we're so paranoid about being labelled that way that, without thinking about it much at all, we'll jump on the politically correct bandwagon out of sheer paranoia. That is the opposite of progressive. It's flat-out reactionary.

And by the way, language is a strange thing. Many liberal people I know have agreed about the importance of context in language: a word uttered in many contexts is not even remotely offensive or deserving of contempt when said between two old boys in a pub on a Friday night; then it becomes a term of endearment. These same liberal people are the bandwagon-jumpers when it involves race, not because they've thought about it hard but precisely because they haven't (and couldn't, for fear of what their peers would think!).

In short, Smasher is right: we're just touchy about it. But the validity of that fact in no way justifies this bandwagon. "Our P### friend..." [*] is not more or less than a term of endearment between army comrades. It's how Harry thinks of his friend Ahmed, in much the same way as someone else may spring to mind by their features; a big nose, a bald head, being tall, being short, being ridiculously good-looking, or anything else. Had Harry referred to Ahmed in any of those ways, we wouldn't even be having this ludicrous conversation.

I refuse to be bullied intellectually into jumping aboard this bandwagon of thinking people who are in these instances unthinking, merely towing their brains behind them lest they think enough to conclude something other than their peers, for fear of breaking the ranks of the liberal elite which, out of paranoia, feels it must scream at every available moment, "I'm not racist!" This faux outrage is beginning to get very, very old.


[* In case you haven't been persuaded of how pathetic the reaction to this is, consider that I was prevented from even citing the term used by Harry in my comment here. Not only are most of the bandwagon-riders content to leave their brains behind them rather than analyse this properly, the ±«Óătv feels you are incapable of considering the term yourself too. How very... progressive.]

I disagree.

The context isn't all that important. He may have meant it as a term of endearment, but that is not the point at all.

A term like that can only be endearing if the person it refers to accepts it in that spirit. If the term is used by someone who is in a position of power over the person they use it about, that acceptance isn't entirely clear or apparent, even if no complain has been made.

I may speak about one of my friends by saying "that fat bastard friend of ours"

If I'm the boss of that person, it's entirely unacceptable. He may not mind. he may be extremely offended, but afraid to complain to his superior. It's not entirely clear, nor can it be assumed.


the examples you give, john, prove the point. Referring to your friends in a slightly disparaging way is acceptable. Doing so to someone who you have authority over is not, even if YOU think they don't mind.

For example;

If Harry had referred to Ahmed as

"that fat bastard in our platoon", I think there would still be a fuss about it...though obviously not quite as much.

It's the fact that he is in a position of authority over these people. If he were videoed calling someone a fat bastard, even jokingly, i think it would still be plastered over the papers, although it wouldn't cause quite so much debate. but it would be construed as bullying, or, at the very least, a misuse of authority

Bernard-

You're trying to tell me that if Harry had not been in authority, but had been a peer, nobody would care?

Don't get me wrong, i agree that this is overblown because the comment was "racial".

However, it's a derogatory term. Saying that the recipient was not offended by it doesn't excuse it. It wouldn't be nice to call my friend a fat bastard, even if he claimed he didn't mind. To call someone that i have authority over a fat bastard is even worse, and its more likely that, if they do mind, they still wont complain.

"You're trying to tell me that if Harry had not been in authority, but had been a peer, nobody would care?"

Well, do peers have no authority?

i mean, it is also a genuinely unfortunate word for anyone in the public eye to use.

Unfortunate, absolutely. Racist, not.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

All this is well and good but does Prince Harry reflect the average citizens' views on these matters? Are the things he said typical of what you'd hear in normal private conversation in the UK's culture? If it is, it's not the Prince who should be condemned but the culture itself. NPR started airing a three part series about racism in Europe today. They started with Germany. Tomorrow Italy. I'm sure they'll talk about France. We all know about Spain but I don't think they'll get to it. What do you suppose they'd say if they got around to the UK?

It's on their site but ±«Óătv's server won't allow the link. Anyway, it's on NPR, the program is Morning Edition

I really don't see what the big deal is, it is not unusual for colleges to give each other nicknames, i wander what the future would be like if we get so fussy over every little thing; As far as i'm concern the only thing Harry did wrong was make that recording public, because while it may be alright among colleges onlookers may think differently. C'mon guys, Lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Carey- I agree, thank you.

Care-y you seem to think that harry's only mistake was making a video. So homophobia and racism are OK as long as they are not videoed and made public? A little bit of racism between platoon mates is fine - is that your argument?

Augustine- I think firstly you must establish your own argument alleging racism. Surely the burden of proof is not on Carey or me but on the one alleging? And by racism I mean prejudice, discrimination or antagonism toward a member of another race.

John, just as an aside...is that what "racism" means?

Does it neccessarily involve antagonism, or discrimination?

Isn't it also racist just to have preconceived ideas about a person based solely on their race?

Isn't it also racist to refer to someone's race as the defining feature of that person?

Genuinely asking like...I'm not too sure. But I don't think it's clear cut that racism must neccessarily involve antagonism or discrimination. Surely that's falls under the category of "malicious actions for reasons of race", and not just "racism".

Isn't it racist to say that all black people can dance well? It may not be malicious, antagonistic or discriminatory, but i would still call it racist. wouldn't you?

Bernard-


"John, just as an aside...is [prejudice, discrimination or antagonism] what "racism" means?"

In my dictionary, yes, and in common understanding. In the Merriam-Webster, there are two definitions:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.


"Isn't it also racist just to have preconceived ideas about a person based solely on their race?"

Not necessarily; it depends what the preconceived ideas are. If the preconceived idea is that Asians are all morons, I'd say that's racist (by virtue of being prejudiced). But, for example, I'd say I have a preconceived idea that more black people than white people are musically-minded. Would you describe that as a "racist" belief? (Would the News of the World write an inflammatory story about it, and would the response to the story be as insanely reactionary?)


"Isn't it also racist to refer to someone's race as the defining feature of that person?"

Not everything that references race is "racist". It's simply how Ahmed came to Harry's mind (he was probably one of the only Pakistani guys on the team, so it's natural, normal and reasonable to think of him as 'the Pakistani guy'). Defining features could apply to other controversial areas too; for example, one of the defining features of people is their gender, but it wouldn't be sexist to refer to someone's gender as a defining feature (such as referring to the only woman as 'the girl of the team').


"I don't think it's clear cut that racism must necessarily involve antagonism or discrimination."

No, it could also involve simple prejudice, of which shortening "Pakistani" to "P***" is not an example.

"I'd say that's racist (by virtue of being prejudiced). But, for example, I'd say I have a preconceived idea that more black people than white people are musically-minded. Would you describe that as a "racist" belief"

yes. also by virtue of being prejudiced.

Shortening Pakistani to "P***" (is that word really abnned from use here?) is not racist.

Referring to someone solely by dint of their race, as if that was the single defining feature of them...could be racist.

I think.

Shortening, "over the average weight" to "Fat" is not nasty.

Constantly referring to someone who is such a weight is nasty, and may be "fattist".

"Our friend from Pakistan" is not racist.

"That P***" is racist, because it reduces the person to a mere member of a race, as if this is the salient feature of their lives.

I'm open to argument on this one, by the way. But I still think that calling someone a "p***" IS racist, and is uncalled for.

I also think it's important that Ahmed's family have been offended.

A young child may have gotten so used to being called a "fat bastard" in school that he accepts it as a term of endearment. when his parents find out that this is how their son's so-called friends refer to him, they're horrified. And rightly so

Did anybody ask if Ahmed was offended? Everyone is offended but him, it seems. (Not saying he isn't, but I'd be surprised.)

You say referring to someone as "Pakistani" is not racist, but referring to him as "P***" is. (And yes, unbelievably, that word is banned here at the ±«Óătv.) I think you need to explain how you quantify the difference between "Pakistani" and "P***" as the difference between a respectful reference and a racist slur (indicative of prejudice). It's an abbreviation, is it not?

Abbreviations are generally thought to be less respectful though, aren't they.

But I get your point. it's not neccessarily the simple abbreviation of a word. that particular abbreviation have a history of derogatory use.

The words "fenian" or "taig" are not in themselves sectarian, for example. But the history of thier use is, without doubt.

And anyway, what about his homophobia?

What was it, he called someone "gay" or "queer" did he?

I mean, to be fair, i expect no better from him, so I suppose in that sense this is all much ado about nothing

Bernard-

You hit the nail on the head. This is guilt by association. The argument, were it to be articulated (though it never is) would look something like this:

1) Many abbreviations of the word "Pakistani" to "P***" have been as a racial slur.

2) Prince Harry used the abbreviation "P***".

3) Therefore, Prince Harry used a racial slur.

It's faulty logic, but, as I said above, the bandwagon riders in this case are largely towing their brains behind them in this case and not thinking about it hard enough to decide whether it really is or is not racist; they're simply frightened to be seen defending anything that could ever be construed by their peers publicly to be 'racist'.

Sometimes perception, not reality, is most important.

I'm not sure I agree with that...

Surely it supposes some ignorance...

Casually using a term with long-established links to racism at least carries some kind of legitimate association with racism, unless you do so completely unknowingly.

If he had no idea that the term was generally used in a racist sense, fair enough.

If he had been making some linguistic point about the use of the term, fair enough.

But to casually use a term with a long association with racism, and to do so not in ignorance, or for the purpose of making a linguistic point, but solely out of a casual acceptance of that word and the history of its use...at least implies a casual racism.

To hear the word "n****r" for the first time in a rap song and go on to use it in ignorance is one thing.

To hear the word "n****r" in a rap song and make a point about the evolution of its use, and its reclaimation by african americans is another.

To casually use the word "n****r" as if its the most natural word to refer to black people, very strongly implies a casual racism, which may not be explicit, or even conscious...but it is there.

The ±«Óătv won't accept *that* word either, even if used in an entirely detached, linguistic way.

Nazis!

:)

Bernard-


"But to casually use a term with a long association with racism, and to do so not in ignorance, or for the purpose of making a linguistic point, but solely out of a casual acceptance of that word and the history of its use...at least implies a casual racism."

I don't accept that. Language is important for two parties, the speaker and the hearer. In this case the hearer was someone who presumably would not regard it as racist: they were fellow army cadets, they were "friends", the tape was a home video. Surely you wouldn't argue that there was an expectation of formality in this instance? People use slang all the time, words or phrases that they wouldn't use in a more formal context. Even if we were to argue that Harry should never do so because of who he is, it wouldn't amount to racism because he didn't.

When the hearers turn out to be a wider audience who are hearing the words of the future King of England, it becomes guilt by association, by virtue of the fact that Harry is no longer speaking to someone who knows the statement does not contain prejudice, discrimination or antagonism.

(By the way, Bernard, what if it's TRUE that more black people than white people are musically minded? Is it still a racist belief?)

What really annoys me is why anyone should be even remotely concerned at the jejune utterances of Harry Windsor. They are typical of a common subset of person from his background and education - they effectively demonstrate his remove from the susceptibilities of a large section of the British public and his unfitness for any respect whatsoever. The sooner the grotesque charade that is the British Royal Family hits the dustbin of history the better.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"what if it's TRUE that more black people than white people are musically minded? Is it still a racist belief?"

Well, if you've ESTABLISHED that its true, then no, it's not racist.

But in the absence of any conclusive study, your belief is prejudiced.

At the end of the day though, Portwyne is spot on. It doesn't surprise me that he uses this language. It's not a shock. It doesn't surprise me that the recipient has probably heard it so often that he is no longer offended.

It is possible that he was offended the first time he heard it, but has gradually got used to its widespread use in the army, and is no longer offended. does that make it less racist though?

Hmm, someone can't handle a rational discussion with examples, it seems. There was nothing in comment #29 that was offensive; each example I gave was self-censored in case the ±«Óătv bots objected, and all of this serves to illustrate for me exactly how wholly unevaluated these reactionary, politically-correct opinions are, and how little real discussion is actually possible when it's shut down early in every instance lest people smell the scent of "racism". It's truly pathetic.

To your last post, Bernard:

"It is possible that he was offended the first time he heard it, but has gradually got used to its widespread use in the army, and is no longer offended. does that make it less racist though?"

One must establish that it IS racist in the first place. We've been over that above in depth, and I still haven't heard a compelling argument that it is. It could be offensive until someone understands how it is being used, the intent and meaning behind it. Language is never an end in itself, Bernard, it only points to the meaning, intent, of the speaker. So what you say could be true: he may have been offended the first time, perhaps because of the fact that the word is often used in a derogatory (and therefore racist) way. But language is dynamic (not static) and it was not racist if the speaker did not intend prejudice, discrimination or antagonism, and if the hearer knew that was the case.

Ever consider the possibility that your comment was removed because it was too FAT?

BTW, specifically, I read nothing offensive in it. As far as I remember you used a lot of asterisks in the examples you gave; surely, surely we have not reached the stage when particular words, sounds in a sequence, are being described as intrinsically offensive, not when language and meaning are constantly changing.

I tell you what John, certain aspects of your libertarianism are winning me over. I think it's the judgementalism of the secular state that's doing it, all they have done is to change the list of sins and sinners. Some might call it hypocrisy!

Indeed. This morning I was on an American radio show as a guest where we touched briefly on this issue: everyone else in the studio (all American) thought P*** was to Pakistan what Afghan is to Afghanistan or what Croat is to Croatia or what Scot is to Scotland! They couldn't understand the controversy and needed me to explain it to them! Sins and sinners indeed.

John it is indeed difficult to say how a word becomes offensive or ceases to be offensive, and the intent of the person using the word must also play a role.

Thus, some black Americans use the N-word, though no white Briton could use that word of a black person without (rightly) being regarded as racist.

The P-word, in this Prince Harry story, is certainly an abbreviated version of the word "Pakistani", but that doesn't mean the word is not racist. To be racist the word needs to be perceived as demeaning by the group in question. This word was used for many decades by neo-Nazi and far-right anti-immigrant groups in the UK, so that now it is FELT to be racist by British Asians. This makes the word offensive, because it is widely HEARD that way by British Asians. Other words may divide people in their response, but this word, given the cultural background to the word, is generally taken to be racist. For this reason, were this word to be used of an Asian guest on one of my shows, I would intervene quickly and decisively to challenge that use.

"Afghan" is the standard term of identification when speaking of a citizen of Afghanistan. The equivalent term for Pakistan is "Pakistani".

Other terms, such as "Paddy", and "Jock", are disrespectful, stereotyping and ultimately demeaning; and I would feel obliged to intervene in a discussion to challenge those terms as well.

William-

There are words which are offensive to many hearers in many contexts but not to all. The army strikes me as precisely the kind of situation where words which could be offensive in many other contexts could be perfectly acceptable between the bonded group of guys that make up an army section, in much the same way that two black men could exchange the use of their words and that two old boys in a bar could exchange use of their words (for prime examples of the latter, watch Clint Eastwood's latest film Gran Torino, which I saw last night and which explores some of this in a fabulous way).

"This word was used for many decades by neo-Nazi and far-right anti-immigrant groups in the UK, so that now it is FELT to be racist by British Asians. This makes the word offensive, because it is widely HEARD that way by British Asians.

It was not intended to be widely heard. Language communicates meaning from the speaker to the hearer. Both speaker and hearer in this case understood each other, and it was the leaking of this private tape to a media keen to exploit it to a politically sensitive public that made it anything more than a friendly exchange between comrades.

Am I to understand that you ascribe to language static properties which makes certain words and sounds inherently prejudiced? If not, my point here is simply to say that this word (which I'm not even permitted to write here!) was only offensive if Ahmed was offended by it. I'd suggest he was not, and in doing so I'm taking less of a leap of assumption than anyone who claims that he was. :-)

John, we are getting deep into this one, but I'll pursue it further. You make interesting points, as always. OL, to respond:

1. The Army. The military chiefs are clear that racist language is unacceptable in their context as much as it is in civilian life. They have made a clear criticism of this language use. Even if they hadn't responded so clearly in that way, I wouldn't accept your point that language considered racist by the rest of society should be tolerated in the army.

2. It was not intended to be widely heard. this doesn't work either. Even if I use a racist phrase in a room without only one other person with me, it's still a racist phrase. I suspect this context is the most common venue for racism, in fact.

3. The word is only offensive is Ahmed found it to be offensive. Ahmed's father is clearly offended, as is much of the Asian community in the UK. If a particular individual is not offended, or says he is not offended by language others would consider offensive, we should ask why that may be the case. Is it because of a power imbalance in the relationship? A desire not to rock the boat? I don't know.

4. Static. No, I clearly don't argue that offensiveness is an essential feature of some words. Usage, context, word-history, and a host of other things contribute to the moral use of a word. In this sense, there are no "bad words", but certain words or phrases can be deployed in a way that is offensive, or can be so mired in a history of offensiveness (as this word is) that their use will always raise a claim of racism.

Will,

As always, you're formidable. I don't think we'll agree on this one, though. A word carries with it the attachments of usage, context, history and such, you say, and I agree. Isn't interpersonal usage, context and history considered too? (ie. at the micro level as well as the macro level?)

If we went out to lunch and I greeted you by saying, "William, you old b, how are you?", it would not be construed by you, the hearer, as offensive (I presume). Why is that? Because you'd know it was being used as part of a friendly rapport, not as a means of hostility, prejudice, antagonism, or of offending you. The fact that that word carries with it a history of offense in no way makes it inherently offensive: context is everything. Perhaps if we were both black, we'd use a different word to greet each other which is rightly interpreted as racist in a different context.

Thus, language is a tool between speaker and hearer, and is dynamic, and entirely context-specific. As to the homophobic statement... I haven't even gotten that far. Haha!

John,

And if Prince Harry was from Pakistan, I'd say you have a point, you old codger.

;)

W

And while we're at it, let's test your earlier point, John:

What if (I know, I know, but go with it) ... what if Ahmed found the prince's language racist and offensive? What would your view then be? That Ahmed needs to understand interpersonal affective speech, or that the prince crossed the line?

LOL.... interesting question. I'd say in that case it would likely have been settled very early on in their relationship: Harry would have upset a friend and would know not to 'go there' again. It's genuinely that simple, I think. But my view is that those of us in the media are so used to dealing in news stories that we tend to 'paint too broadly'; we generalise and become predisposed to see everything in such broad liberal terms that we are blind to how ordinary people interact and how completely benign (and non-racist) a comment like that can be in the right contexts. The News of the World did so too; they took advantage of an interpersonal comment and presented it to the general public as though Prince Harry had addressed the nation of Islam. That's disingenuous at best, and exploitative at worst.

And despite your comments I'd like to point out that I've paid for everything I've ever owned!

("codger", see "cadge" Brit., informal: looking for an opportunity to obtain something without paying for it.)

John I do believe you side-stepped that question. Tut. And you can have that response of mine for free.

Would it be ok if we called Harry “ginge”? I doubt it. Not because he is red-haired, but because we aren’t his close friends. He would be the judge of whether it is ok to call him that – it’s his right. Could he file a lawsuit against the perpetrator based on his “minority status” as a strawberry blond? The grounds and arguments are almost the same as with his friend. He might accept it from pals, but not a random in the town square, a reporter or anyone else. The same applies to the friend he called “P***”. It was up to the friend to decide if HE felt offended, not us the general public. As he has not made a formal complaint (it was specifically made towards him and not the entire Pakistani/Muslim world, please note), then an issue should not be made of it. The likelihood is that he feels that the spotlight has been put on him by some thoughtless do-gooders when he didn’t want to be singled-out for being different. Well done, you have made a huge issue of his colour and ethnicity for no reason! People have jumped on the over-sensitive, politically correct bandwagon which is almost as destructive as being racist itself – all it does it infer all over again that other races and colours ARE different, and possibly inferior, to our own. It completely undoes the process of acceptance and normalisation.

Given his position, Harry should have been more careful perhaps, but millions of people across the world have private terms of endearment for one another which, when used towards us by a complete stranger, would be considered cruel or offensive. To me, and your average rational man on the street, hair colour and skin colour have little difference. Once upon a time that may not have been true, but it is now largely the case. It’s only the two extremes – politically correct over-sensitive types and vile racists – who put a spanner in the works. The rest of us manage fairly well – minorities and majorities alike. Of course, remember that had Harry’s friend used a white racist term in jest towards him, no-one would have said anything – particularly these so-called “progressive” do-gooders. The majority can’t be seen to feel offended, can it? Some people just enjoy playing the victim, even if they are actually living through someone else’s situation – simply to draw attention to themselves.

Change the scenario slightly: is it ok that we insinuate that his father is actually James Hewitt? There is no proof after all. In my view, it’s not remotely acceptable, but as he is a) white and b) a royal, he is expected to put up with that from reporters and the general public. To me, that is the height of rudeness, causing great offense, embarrassment and potential damaging. Especially when his mother is deceased and unable to address the rumours herself. It really is none of our business, no matter what his societal status is. Perhaps various do-gooders and reporters ought to issue Harry with an apology on those grounds?

PS Please note the comments of Peter Tatchell, who gives a more rational outlook on the situation, compared to Ben Summerskill's predictable "victim" account. As a gay man, I am not remotely offended by what Harry said for very similar reasons as I mentioned in my previous post. But then that's because I am not a pity-seeking, self-hating, self-victimising member of society. In fact, I wanted to point out the fact that I was gay and not offended, but I was concerned that people would not give me the response they wanted to - for fear of upsetting me! Do-gooders assuming that I am a flimsy, weak individual in need of rescuing from hate because of my sexuality is just as insulting and someone calling me a dirty queer and wanting to smash my teeth in. Both of these views assume that I something else other than what I am. In fact, I am a very normal, middle-of-the road bloke who fits neither of these stereotypes. And just because people might be grossed out by homosexuals, wouldn't want to live next door to one or for their child to be one, it doesn't mean they hate them, want to kill them or wish them any harm. I don't particularly fancy black guys - does that make me racist? Course it doesn't, I'm just not attracted to them on the whole. It doesn't mean I want them dead or never to speak to them. Do-gooders would presume I was against them based on that statement, though if they knew I was gay, they would probably agree with me for fear of upsetting me (as I am a minority). Talk about weird!

So, please people, don't hold back. Say what you think, otherwise no-one will know where they stand.

Tryingtoberational-

Love your screen name. And I agree with you entirely. We could be best friends, you know. That's how much I like all of what you said!


Will-

Perhaps I did sidestep the question. Let me go back:

"What if (I know, I know, but go with it) ... what if Ahmed found the prince's language racist and offensive? What would your view then be? That Ahmed needs to understand interpersonal affective speech, or that the prince crossed the line?"

That the prince crossed the line. A phrase like that has the potential to be considered racist, and unless he was sure it wouldn't cause offense then it would have been inappropriate. And, to clarify further, I've never used a term with such obvious racial overtones myself. But maybe that's easy, since I've never had a close friend from Pakistan. Could it be that the fact of Harry's friendship with Ahmed across racial lines is more important than the history of the terms of endearment they use between each other?

John you seem to think a term is only racist if the person referenced thinks it's racist.

What if one Asian person has no problem with a racist term, but other Asians rush forward to criticise him for facilitating that term by his silence? Some Asian commentators have been making that point this week: that, sometimes, other Asians may participate in a class or social system in order to get ahead and they may tolerate or co-operate with racist values on the way. Some say that any Asian who tolerates being called a P*** is making life more difficult for others Asians throughout society.

Augustine,

Appreciate the comment. But you've already decided that the term is racist, inherently and universally. I'm saying there's no such thing as an inherently racist term, and Ahmed is tolerating nothing by accepting it's use between friends. By pretending that language is morally biased, you're prejudging on behalf of both the speaker and the hearer their usage of it.

John

You make be interested in this:

Peter- thanks!

Money quote:

"The Prince called me by a nickname which is usually very insulting but I know he didn’t mean it that way. We were close friends when we were training and I know he is not a racist."

-Ahmed, Harry's ... Pakistani ... friend.