Using the term Paki

Unre4L

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I've usually seen Stan translated as 'land of' or 'home of'. Pakistan is ethnically heterogeneous so the Pak bit doesn't refer to an ethnic group (e.g.link) unlike Tajik/Uzbek/Kazakh/Turkmenistan. I can't remember offhand what Afghan refers to but that's also ethnically heterogeneous.

It was coined to include the 5 major regions

Punjab
Afghnia
Kashmir
Sindh
Balochistan

The i was later added so the English speaking world could easier pronounce it turn it into a derogatory term.

The correct terms would be Pak/Pakistani/Pakistanis

Paki has never been used and holds no meaning.

positron

Unre4L wrote: »

It was coined to include the 5 major regions

Punjab
Afghnia
Kashmir
Sindh
Balochistan

This was concocted by Pakistanis after losing Bangladesh. Originally Pakistan was West and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) remember? Where does B or Bangla in this name?

Original reasoning for the name is the word "Pak" which means something like pure in Urdu. So Pakistan is "Land of the pure" or something to that effect. And their founding father Jinnah was pretty ticked off when he learned Nerhu and rest of Indian administration has decided on the name India rather "Hindustan" (land of Hindus) which is what Jinnah was hoping for with his ideology of separate land for Muslims. Anyway, Pakistan as nation is unfortunate in many ways right from inception, and has been going bad to worse in last two decades.

ElvisChrist6

Unre4L wrote: »

Paki has never been used and holds no meaning.

It does hold meaning. Means 'clean' in Arabic, I think...

Hoop66

Did you even read the previous post to yours?

It was very clearly stated that the word Pak means pure in Urdu, NOT the word Paki.

Ashbx

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When a term is used 99% of the time as a racial slur, it loses any other meaning it may have had.

This definitely applies in this case.

Agree...the word "gay" is another example! Who uses that in the sense of feeling happy these days!?!

Unre4L

positron wrote: »

This was concocted by Pakistanis after losing Bangladesh. Originally Pakistan was West and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) remember? Where does B or Bangla in this name?

Original reasoning for the name is the word "Pak" which means something like pure in Urdu. So Pakistan is "Land of the pure" or something to that effect. And their founding father Jinnah was pretty ticked off when he learned Nerhu and rest of Indian administration has decided on the name India rather "Hindustan" (land of Hindus) which is what Jinnah was hoping for with his ideology of separate land for Muslims. Anyway, Pakistan as nation is unfortunate in many ways right from inception, and has been going bad to worse in last two decades.

Why are you posting so incredibly false information as fact? Seriously, is there a genuine reason for this behavior?

Pakstan was the original name. Bangladesh was not meant to be part of Pak and hence not included in the name. It was a surprise move.
Jinnah was actually ticked off that India was named "India" since the term was derived from the Indus river, a Pakistani river flowing from Tibet, Kashmir then to the rest of Pakistan.

Please cut this revisionism. If you are trying to say that India at the time was a bastion of secularism its utterly misleading. Everything that happened in that era was a result of divide and conquer strategy on Muslims and Hindus. Hindus fell for it too. Why do you think Jungadh acceded to India despite voting to join Pakistan? Because it was Hindu majority region and secularism took a backseat.


Also just for the record, Hindustan is the official name of India. And nothing in "Pakistan" signifies "Muslim only".

positron

Unre4L wrote: »

Why are you posting so incredibly false information as fact? Seriously, is there a genuine reason for this behavior?

Pakstan was the original name. Bangladesh was not meant to be part of Pak and hence not included in the name. It was a surprise move.
Jinnah was actually ticked off that India was named "India" since the term was derived from the Indus river, a Pakistani river flowing from Tibet, Kashmir then to the rest of Pakistan.

Please cut this revisionism. If you are trying to say that India at the time was a bastion of secularism its utterly misleading. Everything that happened in that era was a result of divide and conquer strategy on Muslims and Hindus. Hindus fell for it too. Why do you think Jungadh acceded to India despite voting to join Pakistan? Because it was Hindu majority region and secularism took a backseat.


Also just for the record, Hindustan is the official name of India. And nothing in "Pakistan" signifies "Muslim only".

Seriously? You accuse me of posting "incredibly false information" and you go on to do even worse? Are you joking, because I can't really tell?

India as originally used by the greeks I believe is the general notion of the land beyond the river Indus (which is now in Pakistan). And that very name Indus originated from the Sanscrit name for that very same river which was Sindhu, which actually only means river in general. So you are now claiming because the river called Indus is in the newly divided Pakistan, India shouldn't use that name.

Oh, Hindustan is not India's official name. The only official names India has are India, Republic of India and Bharat (named after Emperor Bharata, who unified pretty much a lot of land form Iran to Afghanistan and perhaps up to Thailand etc, as various dynasties in the region often did, even before the Mogals, for instance the Chandraguptas).

And finally, sure nothing in "Pakistan" signifies "Muslim only", except that it's a urdu word (isn't Urdu for Islam like Latin for Christians? I could be wrong, feel free to correct me on this), and finally finally, the fact that the country was formed as a independent Muslim state right from the inception of Pakistan Movement

PS: I didn't know Bangladesh was originally not part of Pakistan in 1947, so that explain the flaw in my previous argument. Looks like Pakstan was indeed for P, A, K and Sindh etc and because it means Clean/Pure in Urdu, so I'll give you that.

Formosa

This place is swarming with them.

I had an English friend over a few years ago who was astounded by the name when we drove past.

Hoop66

positron wrote: »

isn't Urdu for Islam like Latin for Christians? I could be wrong, feel free to correct me on this

I correct you!

(you're probably thinking of Arabic, the language the Qur'an was written in)

positron

Thanks I wasn't sure. I love Urdu by the way, it's very polite and beautiful to listen to. Not sure if Arabic is anything like that, is it?

Femme_Fatale

Reekwind wrote: »

Intent is secondary to reception, however.

If a person uses a term which caused another offence, and there was genuinely no malice intended (e.g. calling a Japanese person a Jap without realising that's deemed an offensive term - I myself didn't realise that) I think it's only fair to bear in mind there was no harm intended.

After that though, intent is secondary to reception, yes.