Ok your still misunderstanding my main points....

Firstly, the term Brit was never 'intended' to be used as a racist term and when used predominately today, it IS NOT used as a racist term...

On the other hand, Paki was 'intended' to be racists and today is used predominately as a racist term...

There is a difference, right?

Underlying all this is the intention of the person -

Brit - If someone uses this term with the intention of offending the person simply because of their race, yes, they are a racist...

Paki - If a peson uses this term with the intention to offend it is racist also...

The difference is, Paki was intended to be a racist term - so why should a person use it knowing that most of the people that use it are racist, and that if said to a Pakistani they will find it offensive

As with Brit, it was not intended to be racist...so if someone calls you it, you do not expect them to be racist (whereas you would expect a person using Paki to be racists) - however, the person maybe using it as a racist term in which case it is wrong

The difference is the context of the word - I hope you understand this point....this is my main point, the context of the word...

If you were going to be racist you would say a lot more than Paki?

What's your point....? The fact is, racists use this term to be racists and even racists say a lot more than just that, but that doesn't mean the term becomes 'un-racist' all of a sudden...


I told you, a more appropriate term would be Asian - people use this to describe Pakistanis and Indians, and because it was never intended to be racist (racists would never really use this) Pakistanis and Indians do not find it offensive, or shall I say, they do not EXPECT it to be offensive when the term is used....