Thread: UKIP MEP embarrasses party (sort of) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025981
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
Not quite sure whether this belongs here or in Hell, as I don't know whether it will provoke debate, argument or anything at all, but I'll try it here to start with - Hosts, apologies if it's the wrong place.
I was left speechless by this story this morning. Having got beyond my initial reaction of 'you mean there are people in the 21st century who still talk like this?' and read this report of his frankly fatuous response and that of his party, I was left with a number of questions:
Is telling him not to do it again an adequate response, especially as he seems to be a repeat offender? (scroll down to links at the bottom -with reference to the earlier incident, his party leader actually backed him up over that)
Am I right to try to be charitable and assume he's perhaps dealing with some personal issues (particular reference to the 'Nazi' and 'Vichy' incidents again) or is he just a racist?
Is this going to do any long-term damage to UKIP, or as he suggested 'double his vote'?

[ 07. August 2013, 11:58: Message edited by: Stumbling Pilgrim ]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Racist comments from a UKIP MEP? Who'd've thought it?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
In other news, large ursine creature emerges from sylvan setting to warn "I'd give it at least a couple of hours if I were you".
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
He was on the Today Programme on Radio 4 just before 8AM. Unfortunately, he got off lightly.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
OK, so the horror and indignation is about the unfortunate language he used, rather than about the points he raised concerning the use of foreign aid?

Yes, he was wrong to refer to "Bongo Bongo Land", but I find it rather disturbing that, in some quarters, it seems to be more of a priority to wrangle about people's language and turns of phrase, than about actually addressing their real concerns. It's as if presentation of ideas is now more important than the ideas themselves.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
When the presentation betrays the source of those ideas to be racism and other forms of hatred then the presentation is important.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Yes, the presentation may be important. OK. So we agree it's wrong.

Now can we talk about the ideas. If not, then I assume that the obsession with presentation is merely a politically convenient smokescreen to hide the fact that he may actually have a point about the widespread abuse and often counterproductive effects of foreign aid.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so the horror and indignation is about the unfortunate language he used, rather than about the points he raised concerning the use of foreign aid?

Yes, he was wrong to refer to "Bongo Bongo Land", but I find it rather disturbing that, in some quarters, it seems to be more of a priority to wrangle about people's language and turns of phrase, than about actually addressing their real concerns. It's as if presentation of ideas is now more important than the ideas themselves.
In this case, surely the two are linked? If one wants to deny any responsibility to love one's brothers and sisters, it helps to reduce them to a comical caricature. It reminds me of something I read in a thriller - The Silence of the Lambs I think - about serial-killers needing to depersonalise their victims, and think of them as dolls.

It is easier to say "Do let's stop sending aid to Bongo Bongo Land" than "Do let's stop sending aid to Somalia" and much much easier to talk about not sending aid than to say "Let's not give Anwar any food today."
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yes, the presentation may be important. OK. So we agree it's wrong.

Now can we talk about the ideas. If not, then I assume that the obsession with presentation is merely a politically convenient smokescreen to hide the fact that he may actually have a point about the widespread abuse and often counterproductive effects of foreign aid.
Aid is a foreign policy tool and tends to be focused on countries where Britain has economic and security interests.

"Bongo bongo land" has oil, minerals, diamonds, coffee, tea, fruits and vegetables, and lots of other natural resources that Britain demands and relies on. UKIP is purportedly pro-business and frankly the business community has few to no complaints about British aid providing stability in countries where they operate.

So this is nothing but racist banter aimed at the moronic frothing masses who blame dark-skinned people for their own personal failures.
 
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
Would be grateful if someone could explain how exactly these words are racist?

When I have heard people use this, its always as a shorthand for 'a generic foreign country of which we know very little'. How is that racist? Perhaps people are picking up on the word bongo as African? But the MEP appears also to refer to Pakistan. I could also imagine people using it to refer to Moldova or Belarus or some other East European country of which we know little (indeed people ofen do use a generic name for such countries, as in 'Ruritania').

I can see it maybe carries an undertone that the country is undeveloped or backward. Not sure that is racist either though? It is an opinion. Some people also say that the southern US is backward, not sure they're racist against Southeners.

Genuinely do not understand this one.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
My understanding is that he was referring to Somalia and that it is racist because he is conflating all African peoples into bongo players. He has no interest in who these people really are, but because some people with dark skin play bongos, they're all frigging bongo players. People who think that Africa is all one thing are usually either very young, have been completely denied all proper schooling, or more often are exceedingly racist, in my experience.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Urban Dictionary defines the term as a humorous description of a third world country, usually in Africa. Famously it was used by Alan Clark to refer to sub-Saharan Africa (in the 1980s, I think).

TBH it's a lazy rant kind of term, of a piece with what the rest of the man has to say. He makes generalised accusations of profligacy, but doesn't have specific evidence to offer, and treats one or two extraordinary stories as if they characterise the whole picture of international aid.

It's not as if real information is hard to find it's just that he's not interested in real information - the generalised slur suits his purpose well enough.

[ 07. August 2013, 13:27: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The only - very vaguely if at all - meaningful point he made was about sending F18s to Pakistan when we can't afford them ourselves (if that remark is at all accurate), which is a bit morally different to helping to provide food and shelter.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk
In this case, surely the two are linked? If one wants to deny any responsibility to love one's brothers and sisters, it helps to reduce them to a comical caricature. It reminds me of something I read in a thriller - The Silence of the Lambs I think - about serial-killers needing to depersonalise their victims, and think of them as dolls.

It is easier to say "Do let's stop sending aid to Bongo Bongo Land" than "Do let's stop sending aid to Somalia" and much much easier to talk about not sending aid than to say "Let's not give Anwar any food today."
You seem to give the impression that to question the wisdom of foreign aid is to be racist. Here is a quote from a Zambian economist:

quote:
The notion that aid can alleviate systemic poverty, and has done so, is a myth. Millions in Africa are poorer today because of aid; misery and poverty have not ended but have increased.

...

With aid’s help, corruption fosters corruption, nations quickly descend into a vicious cycle of aid. Foreign aid props up corrupt governments—providing them with freely usable cash. These corrupt governments interfere with the rule of law, the establishment of transparent civil institutions and the protection of civil liberties, making both domestic and foreign investment in poor countries unattractive. Greater opacity and fewer investments reduce economic growth, which leads to fewer job opportunities and increasing poverty levels. In response to growing poverty, donors give more aid, which continues the downward spiral of poverty.

This is the vicious circle of aid. The cycle that chokes off desperately needed investment, instils a culture of dependency, and facilitates rampant and systematic corruption, all with deleterious consequences for growth. The cycle that, in fact, perpetuates underdevelopment, and guarantees economic failure in the poorest aid-dependent countries.
(Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid, Penguin: 2010, p. xix, p.49)

As she makes clear in her book, Moyo is talking about governmental bilateral and multilateral aid, not the charitable work of individual organisations, who can monitor the effectiveness of their operations on the ground (and also not the occasional emergency humanitarian aid in crisis situations). So the criticism that someone like Dambisa Moyo "sees nothing wrong with denying $10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malaria bed net" (Jeffrey Sachs, American economist and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University) is manifestly wrong, because no one would deny the African child his anti-malaria bed net, if we could be sure that the donated $10 actually goes to providing same (and hopefully the anti-malaria bed net is purchased from an African supplier, whose business has been allowed to flourish in an economically stable environment, and has not been undermined by the imposition of foreign goods).

Moyo's point about dependency is interesting. Those who think that the imposition of large scale bilateral and multilateral aid is the answer to poverty in, say, Africa, have an extremely low and cartoonish view of Africans. In fact, that view is about as racist as it gets. This view states that Africans have no entrepreneurial abilities (which is laughably false), have little intelligence and therefore we need to act towards them in an entirely paternalistic (i.e. neo-colonial) way. Aid requires the African to be a perpetual child, utterly dependent on his economic parents (the West).

For all the indignant rhetoric of the left, we know who the real 'racists' are. And it's not those who wish Africans to have the opportunity to stand on their own two feet, even if some of these critics of foreign governmental aid do occasionally indulge in foolish and injudicious language.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
It's possible we're on the same side here, EE. I think we should continuously challenge the methods we use to seek to alleviate poverty. I do also think we should give compassionately and generously.

But all of this is miles away from the subject of Mr Bloom's lazy use of a sneery comic caricature that suggests the world can easily be divided into countries/people like us and Bongo Bongo Land.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
EE; it doesn't follow that lefties are racists and have a low view of Africans, even if Moyo's analysis which you quote is correct. It may simply be that we're wrong about the best way to address global poverty.

I do wish you could debate without assuming the worst about those with whom you disagree. It looks from here as if you largely agree with Moyo's analysis because it gives you another chance to sneer at the stupid wicked hateful lefties you clearly despise so much.

[ 07. August 2013, 14:18: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
For all the indignant rhetoric of the left, we know who the real 'racists' are. And it's not those who wish Africans to have the opportunity to stand on their own two feet, even if some of these critics of foreign governmental aid do occasionally indulge in foolish and injudicious language.
The real racists are the ones who refer to any poor country with dark-skinned people as "bongo bongo land."

Dambisa Moyo I'm sure is just as disgusted with this UKIP fool's comment as the rest of us whose roots are in various "bongo bongos" ourselves. He is not making an economics-based point on foreign aid, he is saying that those people don't deserve our help. Besides the fact that he's wrong - most aid does not go to Ray-Bans and Paris flats. There's not a single piece of evidence to suggest most or even a large portion of foreign aid is spent in such a manner.

You actually insult Moyo by dragging her name into this discussion. Just because she is black does not mean she would support a racist old fool simply because he said "aid" and "bad" in the same sentence.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
My understanding is that he was referring to Somalia and that it is racist because he is conflating all African peoples into bongo players.
"Bongo bongo land" has a long history as a shorthand for a set of sub-Saharan African countries. It doesn't have anything to do with playing bongos - it's a stereotype of the sound of words/names in various African languages, rather like using "ching chong" to describe the sound of Chinese.

Obviously, it's racist, just like "Captain Sum Ting Wong" was racist. It's racism by carelessness and ignorance (cf. "they all look the same to me") rather than an actual prejudice against Africans, but it's still racist.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
I do wish you could debate without assuming the worst about those with whom you disagree. It looks from here as if you largely agree with Moyo's analysis because it gives you another chance to sneer at the stupid wicked hateful lefties you clearly despise so much.
I will happily apologise for this if it really is true that I am accusing all 'lefties' in this way. I was actually being rather more specific about those who hold the view that the simple redistribution of wealth overseas is the answer to the alleviation of poverty. That is disparaging towards those who are forced into a form of economic slavery, namely, the dependency culture. I make no apologies for that point, because it is supported by logic, evidence and, indeed, my own experience of dealing with various African countries.

However, I do think that there is a double standard here. You are indignant at my supposed attitude, but I notice that anyone who dares to support UKIP (not me, by the way) is often accused of being racist or xenophobic. Even daring to want a debate about immigration will elicit from some on the left the accusation of xenophobia! So perhaps you could do well to preach your message to those of your own persuasion.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
You actually insult Moyo by dragging her name into this discussion. Just because she is black does not mean she would support a racist old fool simply because he said "aid" and "bad" in the same sentence.
What an ignorant thing to say. How am I insulting her? Nowhere have I said or even insinuated that she would support the comment from the UKIP MEP!! I have made it clear that I do not support that comment either. And how dare you tell me that I am not allowed to refer to a key book on foreign aid in a discussion about this subject.

The reason I quoted Moyo concerned her point about aid encouraging the dependency culture, which is a form of racism. Don't you think that another point of view should be expressed in order to give some kind of balance to the discussion?

Or are you just trying to censor me?

Far from insulting Moyo, I am actually honouring her by giving exposure to her views. I think she would have the grace and maturity to thank me, and she certainly doesn't need others to protect her, thereby patronising her.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Would be grateful if someone could explain how exactly these words are racist?

When I have heard people use this, its always as a shorthand for 'a generic foreign country of which we know very little'. How is that racist? Perhaps people are picking up on the word bongo as African? But the MEP appears also to refer to Pakistan. I could also imagine people using it to refer to Moldova or Belarus or some other East European country of which we know little (indeed people ofen do use a generic name for such countries, as in 'Ruritania').
So using disparaging language against people with white skin, like Eastern Europeans, can't be racist?

Any language which implies 'I can't be bothered to think of these people as real individuals/nations/cultures: they're just "those others" that we can ignore', is racist.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
My understanding is that he was referring to Somalia and that it is racist because he is conflating all African peoples into bongo players.
"Bongo bongo land" has a long history as a shorthand for a set of sub-Saharan African countries. It doesn't have anything to do with playing bongos - it's a stereotype of the sound of words/names in various African languages, rather like using "ching chong" to describe the sound of Chinese.

Obviously, it's racist, just like "Captain Sum Ting Wong" was racist. It's racism by carelessness and ignorance (cf. "they all look the same to me") rather than an actual prejudice against Africans, but it's still racist.
I wasn't saying it had a thing to do with playing the bongos. Similarly South Africa is not Kenya is not Mali, etc. That was my point--that the speaker used the phrase to emphasize that he didn't care. It was all some bongo-place. He may have not been literally saying they all play the bongos, but I think the racist connection between Africans and music was not a coincidence.

I have heard a guy say a particular town was "rather hip-hop" when they (falsely) meant it was a majority African-American. I lived and worked in that town, and while I have not done a study, I highly doubt the people of that town listen to more hip-hop than people of other towns. That wasn't what the speaker meant. The speaker I heard, and the MEP were insulting their targets by reducing them to something that didn't interest the the speaker (hip-hop, bongos etc.) while referencing an old racist stereotype.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
If his point was that foreign aid doesn't do what it's supposed to, then that's what he should have said. If his point was that it doesn't help the African people in the longterm because X, Y, and Z happens, that's what he should have said. But saying "Bongo Bongo Land" indicates that he actually doesn't give a shit who's getting the money or why - he cares that they're foreigners and he thinks that Brits are more important. Using the term "Bongo Bongo Land" is the ultimate kind of othering, and othering is what's important here. If you refer to Somalia, or Rwanda, or Malawi, then someone listening has a friend, or relative, or neighbour from one of those places, or has heard stories, or has seen something on TV, and suddenly there's a human connection there and the whole country can't be written off so easily. But of course a country that doesn't exist (and is interchangeable with all African countries because they're all basically the same aren't they [Roll Eyes] ) doesn't do that - of course they don't deserve any money when their defining characteristic is just not being British.

A more mature way of tackling this debate is to say "This specific amount of aid was invested in this specific region, to achieve this aim. Here's how it was successful and how it was unsuccessful. If we had put that money into this specific British need instead, we could have achieved this specific result, which I think is more important." But that doesn't work with kneejerk xenophobia. So no, it's not possible to divorce the language from the point he was making.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the term "charity begins at home" who didn't think that it should also end there.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What an ignorant thing to say. How am I insulting her? Nowhere have I said or even insinuated that she would support the comment from the UKIP MEP!! I have made it clear that I do not support that comment either. And how dare you tell me that I am not allowed to refer to a key book on foreign aid in a discussion about this subject.

The reason I quoted Moyo concerned her point about aid encouraging the dependency culture, which is a form of racism. Don't you think that another point of view should be expressed in order to give some kind of balance to the discussion?

Or are you just trying to censor me?

Far from insulting Moyo, I am actually honouring her by giving exposure to her views. I think she would have the grace and maturity to thank me, and she certainly doesn't need others to protect her, thereby patronising her.
She has nothing to do with this MEP. There are many intelligent Africans who see problems with aid, none of whom resort to racist or offensive language to do so.

No one here is even remotely suggesting that saying foreign aid is bad for Britain is a racist position in and of itself.

You came into this thread asserting that it is secretly racist liberals who A) are overreacting to the racism and B) are just so sensitive that they can't see through the racism to the very important point about aid.

Your only reason for including Ms Moyo at all is to "prove" that it's not racist to be against aid, because a real-life black African also thinks aid is a bit stupid. Right? Why didn't you mention a white academic to make your point?

The problem of course is that no one ever suggested such a thing in the first place! So...who is the "real racist" exactly?

[ 07. August 2013, 15:25: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
 
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
Angloid: not sure it is. He is effectively calling recipients of aid, whether they be Eastern European, African or Asian, 'people from far-away places of whom I know very little and care even less'. Is that racist? No.

In that, if you want to play that game (and I'm not suggesting he would), East Europeans are generally judged to be the same 'race' as indigenous British people, and, from his platform, I suspect he would oppose aid to them too (well he certainly opposes immigration). Just as during the 1990s, right-wing politicians opposed EU aid to Spain, again the same 'race'. Racism is really the wrong word.

Is he being nationalistic or xenophobic to oppose giving aid to other countries, and to show his disdain and lack of interest in those countries by lumping them together? Possibly, but so what? Its a fairly common opinion, and not likely to lose UKIP many votes (as his fairly minor dressing down by the party indicates). The liberal left will get worked up but I dare say he can live with that..
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Angloid: not sure it is. He is effectively calling recipients of aid, whether they be Eastern European, African or Asian, 'people from far-away places of whom I know very little and care even less'. Is that racist? No.

In that, if you want to play that game (and I'm not suggesting he would), East Europeans are generally judged to be the same 'race' as indigenous British people, and, from his platform, I suspect he would oppose aid to them too (well he certainly opposes immigration). Just as during the 1990s, right-wing politicians opposed EU aid to Spain, again the same 'race'. Racism is really the wrong word.

Is he being nationalistic or xenophobic to oppose giving aid to other countries, and to show his disdain and lack of interest in those countries by lumping them together? Possibly, but so what? Its a fairly common opinion, and not likely to lose UKIP many votes (as his fairly minor dressing down by the party indicates). The liberal left will get worked up but I dare say he can live with that..
DFID spent 1% of its budget on Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East combined in 2011/12 ,versus 45% in Africa and 28% in Asia.

He is not talking about Eastern Europeans.

It's on page 29 of the report.
DFID budget
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Urban Dictionary defines the term as a humorous description of a third world country, usually in Africa. Famously it was used by Alan Clark to refer to sub-Saharan Africa (in the 1980s, I think).
One African who wasn't offended by Clark's use of the term was President Bongo of Gabon, who sent Clark a poster of himself, which I think was put up on Clark's office wall.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Angloid: not sure it is. He is effectively calling recipients of aid, whether they be Eastern European, African or Asian, 'people from far-away places of whom I know very little and care even less'. Is that racist? No.
It might not be 'racist' by a strict definition (except that it is arguably racist to suggest that people can be divided into different 'races' in any case). It shares the same error as racism by using blanket stereotyping to dismiss the real needs and concerns of whole groups of people.
 
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
Seekingsister: I am aware of that (I do not think DFID in general donate aid to EU members, it being through the EU's own development budget). I am trying to explain Mr Bloom's mindset (as I see it: none of us can know for sure what he meant) and linking it to his wider policies e.g. on European immigration.

He has used the term as it is generally used, as a catch-all phrase for countries which are far-away and 'none of our business'. He is not expressing dislike for Africans or Asians or anyone: he is expressing lack of interest or concern in people outside Britain or Britain's zone of affairs. Which is not a racist opinion.

[ 07. August 2013, 17:00: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
But of course a country that doesn't exist (and is interchangeable with all African countries because they're all basically the same aren't they [Roll Eyes] ) doesn't do that - of course they don't deserve any money when their defining characteristic is just not being British.
I think that's going a little far - there are plenty of discussions that we have when we talk about fairly generic sets of behaviour that are typical in "Western Europe", "Eastern Europe", "Former Soviet Union", "sub-Saharan Africa", "South America" and so on. Making such generalizations doesn't imply that there are no differences - only that there are useful generalizations that can be made. If we had to go country-by-country and culture-by-culture every time we said anything, we'd be here all day...

It is easy to go to far, and assume that the general picture applies to every individual person / culture / country / whatever, but that doesn't make all generalization bad.
 
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
Angloid: It is fortunate then that Mr Bloom did not attempt to categorise people into races! He criticised aid to people from several different continents I believe. Therefore not a racist.

Again, to take an extreme example, if he had said "I do not care if 1000 children from around the world die as long as every British person gets a golden toilet seat", he would not have made a racist statement, but a nationalist one.

The reason people like to call him 'racist' is because it is a strong witchhunt word, whereas to be called 'xenophobic' or 'nationalist' does not have the same connotations.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:

The reason people like to call him 'racist' is because it is a strong witchhunt word, whereas to be called 'xenophobic' or 'nationalist' does not have the same connotations.
Or because we think it's racist.

I am entitled to think someone is being racist against me and it is not an attempt to "witchhunt" but a genuine response from disgust and offense. For you to read such into the negative reaction to Mr Bloom says much about you.

Can a minority have a negative response to dog-whistle politics like UKIP's without you thinking it's some ulterior motive and tactic?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
The reason people like to call him 'racist' is because it is a strong witchhunt word, whereas to be called 'xenophobic' or 'nationalist' does not have the same connotations.
So you agree that UKIP is a xenophobe party?
 
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
You're allowed to think whatever you like about whoever you like. However this is Purgatory and if you make quite extreme accusations against someone, I'm allowed to question those allegations.

As I said previously, I did not come here with a preconception. I was open minded about whether he had been racist or not.

But so far it seems to be is a mislabelling of nationalism (which, for what its worth, I don't think is a particularly good thing) for racism (which is worse). He has criticised giving aid to non-British people. That's not racist, because even if race is a viable concept (and I'm not sure it is), noone would say 'British' is a race.

And by the way, really appreciated the 'says much about you', classic passive-aggressive stuff, classic.

[ 07. August 2013, 17:22: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Angloid: It is fortunate then that Mr Bloom did not attempt to categorise people into races! He criticised aid to people from several different continents I believe. Therefore not a racist.

I notice you didn't challenge the substantive statement in my post. It's pointless to quibble about the definition of the word racist while ignoring the fact that Bloom dismissed, contemptuously, whole groups of people in the same way that racists do.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Last week I was impressed by Nigel Farage opposing the Tory use of advertising vans and stop checks at tube stations as being unBritish.

What a pity this man has undone that. And then embarked on a fracking exploration by claiming “I think I’m standing up for ordinary people at the pub, the cricket club, the rugby club — the sort of people who remain completely unrepresented under the political system that we have,”. In other words some middle aged white men.

(His attitude to women has been exposed before, and while not as bad as Tertullian's, he certainly doesn't regard them as default state British.)
 
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
Angloid - as I've repeatedly said, he is of course lumping all non-British people together, and ignoring them, of course. I agree. The difference is one of 'which is your idol' (nation or race) rather than way of thinking about those which are not of your group.

I am probably being a bit lawyer-y here (and for the record I do not agree with his opinions re aid). I just think, if one dislikes (rather virulent) nationalism, one should say so. What I dislike is using the word racist, which is of course a curse word, whereas if you called Mr Blooom a nationalist or xenophobe, he would say 'Yup..whats your point', which might lead to an actual discussion. I think its generally accepted that (at least a part) of the growth of the current anti-immigrant climate is people's resentment at being labelled racist every time they voice a right-wing opinion.

Ken: I don't want to throw around opinions unneccessarily - I know very little about UKIP.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Or because we think it's racist.
I don't think "racist" is an accurate description of Godfrey Bloom (who seems to do a splendid job as a UKIP caricature - are we sure he's not Harry Enfield in disguise?).

"Bongo-Bongo Land" is racist, just like "ching chong," although contra Gwai, I don't think it has anything to do with music - I don't think musical Africans is a particularly strong stereotype.

But Bloom himself seems to be more or less an equal-opportunity xenophobe. He doesn't care about the racial background of the foreigners - he cares that they're "not like us" in terms of culture and attitudes.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
For the record I think it is rhythm and Africans that is the stereotype.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S
What a pity this man has undone that. And then embarked on a fracking exploration by claiming “I think I’m standing up for ordinary people at the pub, the cricket club, the rugby club — the sort of people who remain completely unrepresented under the political system that we have,”. In other words some middle aged white men.
Ah yes, of course.

If you are..

1. white
2. male
3. middle aged

Then you are fair game to be stereotyped and victimised.

Funny, but I thought that that practice was known as:

1. racism
2. sexism
3. ageism

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself? Why are you promoting racism, sexism and ageism through your comment about "middle aged white men"? Have you not yet learnt that this kind of stereotyping is wrong? If not, then clearly the education system in this country has failed...

(Of course, every contributor to this UKIP video is a middle aged white male, innit? Oh dear, obviously I need to go to Specsavers... [Frown] )
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I was commenting on Bloom's own choice of people he claimed to be representing. If he had stopped at the pub, then I would not have commented, but he added the cricket club and the rugby club.

He has previously commented about women who fail to clean behind the fridge, and that sensible employers would not employ women because of their getting pregnant, so it is reasonable to assume that he does not feel he is representing women.

I have observed cricket clubs in a South London park. It is apparent that there are very few mixed race teams, and that teams tend to play other teams of the same grouping. I have the impression, which you may argue with, that Bloom's more rural experience of cricket clubs is likely to be even more unmixed, and when he speaks of the people he represents there, he is not being inclusive.

I admit I have no evidence about rugby clubs, and I expect league may be different from union, so my idea that they are likely to be of people who resemble Mr Bloom may be erroneous.

Mr Bloom gives the impression that he represents, and intends to represent, people like him. Maybe that is what I should have said. But I am not sexist, racist or ageist (and I was being generous in saying middle-aged, I think) - I admit to being Bloomist.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I think its generally accepted that (at least a part) of the growth of the current anti-immigrant climate is people's resentment at being labelled racist every time they voice a right-wing opinion.
I agree with that . And because of this there is real danger that many will enter polling booths at the next election, vote UKIP and think to themselves, 'I really don't care if people call me racist'.

It's not the preaching to 'frothing masses' using of the odd outdated colonial phrase that will swing the fortunes of UKIP . No, it's down to whether the characteristic of rebellion is awakened in sufficient numbers of those who feel ,(however irrational), a sense of powerlessness .
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Spot the young Black/Asian woman among this list of UKIP MEPs.

Wow! One of the (eleven) white men on the list is only 32!

Penny S: On the subject of single-race cricket clubs you're quite right. Many of these date back to the nineteen fifties and 'sixties, when Asians and West Indians arrived in Britain, wanted to play cricket and couldn't join the clubs that existed. Some hockey clubs have similar origins.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Spot the young Black/Asian woman among this list of UKIP MEPs.
To be fair, you could ask the same question about these people or these.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Spot the young Black/Asian woman among this list of UKIP MEPs.

Wow! One of the (eleven) white men on the list is only 32!

Penny S: On the subject of single-race cricket clubs you're quite right. Many of these date back to the nineteen fifties and 'sixties, when Asians and West Indians arrived in Britain, wanted to play cricket and couldn't join the clubs that existed. Some hockey clubs have similar origins.
It took me a while to notice it. And I thought it was hugely daft not to have players from those traditions in existing teams - though I can see that if the purpose of the club is to play, it makes sense not to have people in who could move you down the batting order. Or if the purpose is to win, not to play their teams. (Is that a variety of "ist" as well?)
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais
Spot the young Black/Asian woman among this list of UKIP MEPs.

Wow! One of the (eleven) white men on the list is only 32!
I am absolutely shocked and disgusted by this vile list. Not one of their MEPs has red hair. This is just outrageous! Such overt prejudice against a deeply persecuted minority.

You know, comrades, we should send the fascist bastards to the Gulag! [Snigger]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
You cannot know if any of them had it in the first place. Just jumping to conclusions based on the barest of evidence.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
And which of them is 32?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S
Just jumping to conclusions based on the barest of evidence.
Strange to say, but that seems to remind me of certain people... you know, those who seem to think that using a silly phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land" equates to racism.

But hey, I've got rather used to the double standards among the permanently indignant (and utterly humourless) PC community!
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Also strange, but among the people I know, who are, almost without exception (the almost is in there to account for any unobserved variations), concerned with expressing themselves with care for any hurt which might be done to others (aka "correctly" - remember that actually has a positive meaning), there are vast tracts of time when they are not being indignant about anything, and are actually quite amusing. That they do show concern when other people do not exhibit the care that they feel is simple good manners does not mark them out - does it - as people whose opinions should be written off as worthy of ignoring because they are PC.

It is not a defence of the sort of careless expression that can be offensive to imply that it is humour, and that the hearers cannot take a joke - if that is what you implied by using the word humourless - because really good jokes amuse most people, and do not exclude the targets of the words.

If what Bloom said is not racist, then it is still stupid, ignorant and rather silly. But it is also capable of being hurtful and would have been better avoided, and certainly not defended by making more "jokes".
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais
Spot the young Black/Asian woman among this list of UKIP MEPs.

Wow! One of the (eleven) white men on the list is only 32!
I am absolutely shocked and disgusted by this vile list. Not one of their MEPs has red hair. This is just outrageous! Such overt prejudice against a deeply persecuted minority.
To be fair if they were randomly selected from the UK there's only a 30% chance of no red headed chaps. (although we can't see the hair colour of any of the bald people, so there's a fair chance we do have our representative****)
Whereas if from the shires (to be rural) there's a 50% chance of no non-whites* ***.

So in either case it could be coincidence. You'd need someone wiser than me (and more samples).

But something is clearly up with the women there's effectively no chance (0.05%) of selecting a pure group of men (or indeed vice versa for women).

Although of course they aren't picked entirely by Ukip. And Ukip aren't the only party with the problem. And many other things (including FPTP) could contribute... but....


*if you include say Southern European as being recognisable, or assume include the others, it could be 9-15% in quite a few shires**. In others you really need to scrape the barrel to get the 50%.
But in any case the point is, it's odds you could put a flutter on***.
**bizarrely the county town ones and Leicester not the cities.
***not in Greater London.

[**** actually given the real prejudice against 'gingers' it's probably not surprising if they are more likely to have shaven heads]

[ 07. August 2013, 22:04: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
Shame we didn't get a deadpan statement from DFID saying that Bongo Bongo Land is not on the list of countries that are recipients of the British overseas aid budget.

There are better ways of dealing with silly people than accusing them of evil.

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I was actually being rather more specific about those who hold the view that the simple redistribution of wealth overseas is the answer to the alleviation of poverty.
Calling that method of attempting to assist racist is ignorant. Many people who fund, or support funding, by sending aid money are unaware of the actual process. They are doing what they are able, what they think will help. For some it is laziness, to be sure. Drop a tenner into the box and your done. But many cannot do more than this and are not better informed by the agencies and NGOs.
Accusing people without thinking things through? Now who was accusing people of doing so just now?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Shame we didn't get a deadpan statement from DFID saying that Bongo Bongo Land is not on the list of countries that are recipients of the British overseas aid budget.

There are better ways of dealing with silly people than accusing them of evil.
Spot on. Like this music shop that has sent Bloom some bongos with a sarcastic message.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
those who seem to think that using a silly phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land" equates to racism.
I'm pretty sure I've never heard 'bongo bongo land' used in a respectful way.

If you have, do tell us where ...
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
There's a huge difference between two people using such a phrase informally as a joke in a chat between friends (be honest, who has never done that?) and someone who uses them in public in an official capacity.
 
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :
 
Foreign Aid is a tool of the state, used as a way of giving us diplomatic influence. In other words, bribery and corruption. Sometimes it also benefits 'our' industries. If anyone thinks it's primarily about feeding starving children, they are kidding themselves. If that was the state's objective, they could save a lot of paperwork by just making giant donations to Oxfam and Save the Children. Funny thing is, they leave these charities to the mercy of private individuals. Fancy that!
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
There's a huge difference between two people using such a phrase informally as a joke in a chat between friends (be honest, who has never done that?) and someone who uses them in public in an official capacity.
Not sure there is, to be honest. (I think everyone has been assuming that "Bongo-Bongo Land" has nothing to do with the nepotistic Gabonese Bongo pere et fils.)

If, as I suspect, "bongo-bongo" is an imitation of the sound of African languages then its use has exactly the same racist content as if you were telling a story about some Chinese people, and rendered their speech "ching chong".

As racism goes, it's not the greatest sin, but it's still racist, and it's just as racist whether you use it in private conversation with your friends, or you broadcast it on national TV.
Certainly speech that you make in an official capacity is more heavily scrutinized, whereas mild racism might be socially acceptable amongst your friends, but that just means that you'll get away with it amongst your friends, not that it is less bad.
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
Oops, didn't mean to post and run, real life got in my way!

I think everything I would want to say has already been said, most succinctly by Liopleurodon. The debate about foreign aid is clearly one that needs to be had, but I don't think the likes of Mr Bloom have anything useful to add to it - it's hard to believe that what was in his mind was whether foreign aid was the best thing for the receiving countries when he couldn't even be bothered to recognise them as real places.
When I wondered if he might be dealing with some personal issues, it was more this incident I had in mind. Added to the fact that he has said he sees himself as part of the 'maquis' against the 'Vichy' coalition government (although there might have been a bit of leading on in that interview, he started it!), I get a kind of "Europe = Germany = Nazi" feel from him. In that sense I feel kind of sorry for him, although that doesn't excuse insulting fellow MEPs (and ISTM that 'Nazi' is an order of magnitude worse as an insult than a more general term like 'fascist').

Messed up the attempt to quote, but I want to visit that drum shop! [Killing me]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I am probably being a bit lawyer-y here (and for the record I do not agree with his opinions re aid). I just think, if one dislikes (rather virulent) nationalism, one should say so. What I dislike is using the word racist, which is of course a curse word, whereas if you called Mr Blooom a nationalist or xenophobe, he would say 'Yup..whats your point', which might lead to an actual discussion. I think its generally accepted that (at least a part) of the growth of the current anti-immigrant climate is people's resentment at being labelled racist every time they voice a right-wing opinion.

Incredible.

In your view the current anti-immigrant climate is the fault of minorities who call racists racist.

You seem terribly concerned with the imprecise use of the word "racist" but only mildly bothered by an elected official referring to large parts of the world (and former British colonies, by the way) as "Bongo Bongo Land."

The offense was meant for Africans and Asians, and that's where it's been felt. For you to tangentially be upset that the offended parties dared to say so, shows a startling lack of empathy.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound
Foreign Aid is a tool of the state, used as a way of giving us diplomatic influence. In other words, bribery and corruption. Sometimes it also benefits 'our' industries. If anyone thinks it's primarily about feeding starving children, they are kidding themselves. If that was the state's objective, they could save a lot of paperwork by just making giant donations to Oxfam and Save the Children. Funny thing is, they leave these charities to the mercy of private individuals. Fancy that!
I agree with you.

What I find rather remarkable is that many of the contributors to this thread are obsessed about the 'sin' of Godfrey Bloom using a phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land" and how - possibly - perhaps - by implication - it could hurt the feelings of a mass of humanity (of course, without actually consulting the members of that mass of humanity to find out what they really think about this), but I don't see any denunciations of the vile corruption and craven greed of elites in large parts of the developing world, who often benefit from governmental aid.

If we really care about the feelings of the downtrodden and oppressed overseas, then perhaps we should listen to THEIR concerns, instead of patronising them by assuming that they could really give a shit about the use of a silly phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land". Certainly if I were living in the slums of Nairobi or Calcutta, I would be more concerned about issues of justice in my own society, and concerned that foreign governments do not encourage corruption among the elites under whom I am forced to live, than with a stupid phrase used by someone who was, after all, making quite a good point about the foolishness of foreign aid. And I would be particularly angry with those in the West, who delude themselves into thinking they are the ones who care about me (by obsessing about how I would feel about the use of loose phraseology), when in fact, as far as I am concerned, they're just a bunch of hypocrites, who are more concerned about upholding their own politically correct ideological agenda than about my well being (and in fact, who are exploiting my plight in order to score political points in their own country.)

I have visited various sub-Saharan African countries quite a number of times (Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Nigeria and Ghana), and I have spoken to Africans, none of whom have ever had reason to criticise the West and every reason to criticise their own elites. Perhaps the PC brigade could listen to them, or perhaps these people are just to be regarded as little children, whose views are not worth considering "because we are the ones who know best!"

The moment the patronising, perpetually indignant PC brigade show some genuine concern for the well being of the poor in Africa and denounce the real perpetrators of evil, is the moment I will take them seriously. Otherwise I will continue to regard their spineless utterances as the craven bullshit they certainly are.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
If we really care about the feelings of the downtrodden and oppressed overseas, then perhaps we should listen to THEIR concerns, instead of patronising them by assuming that they could really give a shit about the use of a silly phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land".
As an African with family living in Africa and with personal knowledge of many individuals who benefit from foreign aid programs, I do give a sh*t, thank you very much.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
From the fool's own mouth:

"At a public speech in the West Midlands in early July I used a term which I subsequently gather under certain circumstances could be interpreted as pejorative to individuals and possibly cause offence.

Although quite clearly no such personal usage was intended, I understand from UKIP party chairman Steve Crowther and leader Nigel Farage that I must not use the terminology in the future, nor will I and sincerely regret any genuine offence which might have been caused or embarrassment to my colleagues." BBC - UKIP MEP Apologises
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
<snip> I don't see any denunciations of the vile corruption and craven greed of elites in large parts of the developing world, who often benefit from governmental aid. <snip>
Perhaps if Godfrey Bloom had done this himself, with specific examples, rather than a generalised accusation that the aid budget is wasted. The implication of his remarks is that (a) we shouldn't be spending money on overseas aid to "Bongo bong land", a phrase widely perceived as a dismissive and derogatory reference to sub Saharan Africa; (b) the money is misused by 'them' when it gets 'there', and (c) it was used to supply F18s to Pakistan.

He's fairly clearly wrong about (c). Since he hasn't specified either country or individuals in (a) and (b), it looks much more like generalised mud-slinging against overseas aid than any real attempt to critique it either on grounds that aid doesn't help but just leads to dependency, or criticisms of specific examples of corruption. ISTM that he hasn't done any actual work on it at all - he's just taking a politically convenient pot shot at an easy target.

Perhaps we need a thread devoted to the question whether/ how aid is used to fund lavish/ inappropriate expenditure by some in aid recipient countries, with examples, and what might be done about it. It's an important question. Let's get it away from this silly man with his sloppy thinking and sloppy (at best) use of language.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

What I find rather remarkable is that many of the contributors to this thread are obsessed about the 'sin' of Godfrey Bloom using a phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land" and how - possibly - perhaps - by implication - it could hurt the feelings of a mass of humanity (of course, without actually consulting the members of that mass of humanity to find out what they really think about this), but I don't see any denunciations of the vile corruption and craven greed of elites in large parts of the developing world, who often benefit from governmental aid.

If we really care about the feelings of the downtrodden and oppressed overseas, then perhaps we should listen to THEIR concerns, instead of patronising them by assuming that they could really give a shit about the use of a silly phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land". Certainly if I were living in the slums of Nairobi or Calcutta, I would be more concerned about issues of justice in my own society, and concerned that foreign governments do not encourage corruption among the elites under whom I am forced to live, than with a stupid phrase used by someone who was, after all, making quite a good point about the foolishness of foreign aid. And I would be particularly angry with those in the West, who delude themselves into thinking they are the ones who care about me (by obsessing about how I would feel about the use of loose phraseology), when in fact, as far as I am concerned, they're just a bunch of hypocrites, who are more concerned about upholding their own politically correct ideological agenda than about my well being (and in fact, who are exploiting my plight in order to score political points in their own country.)

I have visited various sub-Saharan African countries quite a number of times (Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Nigeria and Ghana), and I have spoken to Africans, none of whom have ever had reason to criticise the West and every reason to criticise their own elites. Perhaps the PC brigade could listen to them, or perhaps these people are just to be regarded as little children, whose views are not worth considering "because we are the ones who know best!"
Let's have a look at some of the fallacies here. First up there's the "but what about -?" one. It's possible to care about more than one thing. It's possible to be pissed off that someone used racist and dismissive language about a huge segment of the world's population, AND see that there are problems with the way in which aid is administered, and that there are greedy elites everywhere who grab stuff that's not intended for them. It's even possible to think that the whole aid system is rubbish and doesn't work, and STILL be pissed off at this guy's attitude. If someone says something offensive it's possible to confront that and at the same time be aware that he was criticising a system that is not perfect.

Then we have the "if I were a completely different person I would think -" yeah. You don't know what you would think if you were a different person with a completely different set of experiences. Nobody does. You might very well be primarily concerned with issues immediately affecting you. Foreign aid might or might not be a part of that. Again, it's possible to be concerned about immediate issues and still - if you happened to find out that some distant politician in a foreign land effectively doesn't even consider your country important enough to name in its own right - it's still possible to think that guy's a racist wanker. But this message of "if I were one of the people being dismissed as a BongoBongolian I'd be fine about being dismissed" - yeah, you don't know how you'd feel in that situation, because you're not there.

Next fallacy: ignoring the fact that it's possible to be pissed off that someone insulted people who aren't you. Some would say that's a matter of basic decency. I care when people suggest that millions of people don't matter because of the country they were born in. So it's not actually about whether the BongoBongolians hear his words and have their feelings hurt. It's that that is an unacceptable attitude to have to other members of the human species.

What in the world makes you think that the "PC Brigade" (I suppose I'm a member of said brigade in your book) DON'T listen to the concerns of people in these countries? Why are you assuming that we think we know better than them? Oh, right - because we think that something is offensive that you think you wouldn't care about if you were a completely different person who lived in a Nairobi slum. Not that you've been that person, but you're pretty sure you know what it'd be like.

And let's not kid ourselves that his main point is that the system as is doesn't help people. He's trying to say that the people it's trying to help are not important - certainly not as important as British people. Africans in particular have suffered a long history of being considered less important than white people, of being less valuable and more expendable. These particular comments are not the cause of this attitude, obviously - they're a symptom of it as an ongoing problem. They are a symptom of a disease that kills, because it's far too easy for many people to hear about an appeal regarding a drought or a civil war or some other problem and think some version of: "Ah, yet more troubles in Bongo Bongo Land" and switch over.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:


If we really care about the feelings of the downtrodden and oppressed overseas, then perhaps we should listen to THEIR concerns, instead of patronising them by assuming that they could really give a shit about the use of a silly phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land".
Yeah, they're too hungry to care if we're rude and dismissive.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
It seems to me that there are several factors all intertwined in this unfortunate situation:

Firstly communication. Why, oh why do politicians, church leaders etc let loose in public dialogue people who cannot be trusted to express themselves appropriately? Before he died, my dad worked with Cardinal Hume in the public affairs office at Westminster Cathedral and nothing was ever said in the public arena that had not be carefully crafted and prayed about beforehand.

Secondly there is definitely a debate, preferably a dialogue to be had (and probably on an on-going basis)about Aid in general: how/ when/ where/ for how long/ if at all....I'm living and working in Africa and have spent considerable time in several countries and there's a whole host of things we could discuss.

But here's the thing: our underlying attitudes to other people will always need checking and challenging. Our reasons for being pro/ anti Aid need to be based on valid information and not on our blind spots. We need healthy dialogue sometimes to tease these out.

Finally, something I've noticed is that entrenched positions result in an inability to listen and express ourselves graciously. Having served one term of office in local government, I clearly remember debates which degenerated unwittingly into territory of insulting vocabulary.....what's inside us comes out under pressure especially when the cameras are rolling and it's often quite ugly.

And sadly, this man and many others in UKIP are no exception!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

What I find rather remarkable is that many of the contributors to this thread are obsessed about the 'sin' of Godfrey Bloom using a phrase like "Bongo Bongo Land"...
Oh what bollocks. No-one thinks him going on about "Bongo-Bongo Land" is causing grievious pain to millions of poor Africans. They've mostly got better things to do. The fuss is abotu British politics. And the reason for the fuss is because that sort of language shows him up for what he is. And its also quite funny to see people like him slip up.

To put it plainly the man's a xenophobic cunt. We know he's a xenophobic cunt because he's a UKIP MEP, which is proof enough. His stupid bongo-bongo language just shows who he is. He's letting bits of his his inner nature leak out through the fake shiny surface.
 
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
Ken, whilst I find that I pretty much agree with everything you say on these boards, I'm very disappointed that a decent chap like you uses parts of the female body as an insult.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Have the debate about Aid - I read some interesting views on the issue a few years ago when I was in Zambia about dynamics in receiving economies etc and think their is a space to discuss.

But that needs to be informed discussion and throw away comments using offensive slang for communities have no place in that or any other debate.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's pointless to quibble about the definition of the word racist while ignoring the fact that Bloom dismissed, contemptuously, whole groups of people in the same way that racists do.
I'm reminded of a spoof news item, (NTN O'clock news), where the reporter of a plane crash , or some such, made a graduated dismissal of the people groups killed according to their race .
The point being that our daily diet of World News is routinely dismissive of whole groups of people according to their race, or place on the Planet in which they happen to live .
No shouts of racism there.

Also you have Australia with it's tightly regulated immigration policy , or Norway happily co-existing with Europe while not being a member . Neither of which seem to be regarded as neo-fascist, racist low-life.

Trying to catch UKIP out on the racist thing, and attempting to brand their entire membership as bad eggs has already been tried . If the By-Elections were anything to go by it had the opposite effect.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Trying to catch UKIP out on the racist thing, and attempting to brand their entire membership as bad eggs has already been tried . If the By-Elections were anything to go by it had the opposite effect.
Nobody has suggested that the entire membership of UKIP are 'bad eggs'. This thread is about one particular senior member and spokesman for that party. I would have thought UKIP themselves would be worried (and to be fair there are indications that they are) about allowing such unreconstructed drivel free range.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps the PC brigade could listen to them, or perhaps these people are just to be regarded as little children, whose views are not worth considering "because we are the ones who know best!"

The moment the patronising, perpetually indignant PC brigade show some genuine concern for the well being of the poor in Africa and denounce the real perpetrators of evil, is the moment I will take them seriously. Otherwise I will continue to regard their spineless utterances as the craven bullshit they certainly are.
Which of the posters on this thread do you imagine you are addressing with these words?

Or are you just shadow-boxing again?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Trying to catch UKIP out on the racist thing, and attempting to brand their entire membership as bad eggs has already been tried . If the By-Elections were anything to go by it had the opposite effect.
That's a very fair point which illustrates a kind of racism that is very common within British society. It isn't the overt BNP brand, but something not too distant, which finds its main outlet in being rude, disparaging and derogatory about anyone who isn't Quite Like Us. As such it doesn't end at race and Bloom, stated in the European Assembly that "no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age" while Geoffrey Clark, a UKIP council candidate, asserted that disabled children are merely a burden and should be aborted.

That should tell anyone where UKIP's heart is.

eta: Ricardus: if EtymologicalEvangelical means me, I really don't mind!

[ 08. August 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Incredible...

...You seem terribly concerned with the imprecise use of the word "racist" but only mildly bothered by an elected official referring to large parts of the world (and former British colonies, by the way) as "Bongo Bongo Land."

The offense was meant for Africans and Asians, and that's where it's been felt...

...a startling lack of empathy.
Seems to me that threads relating to the R-word always generate a lot of heat.

The underlying issue is one of what restrictions on our freedom of speech we allow. And in the long run that's vastly more important than politicians slagging off groups of people who'll never vote for them anyway in the hope of impressing people who might vote for them.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. We are not free to slander others, and if "racism" means the collective slander that dark-skinned people are racially inferior to fair-skinned people, then I imagine most people here are content with the idea that this is a speech-crime, a poisonous idea that we are not free to put forward in public.

As well as free speech, we prize the principal of equality under the law. So if it's not OK for Peter to slander Paul's race, it's equally wrong for Paul to slander Peter's race. Regardless of the history.

This doesn't mean that any statement that is disrespectful of others is similarly disallowed. You can't legislate that everyone must express esteem for every person and every nation in the world.

Using the same word for morally and legally objectionable slander and simple expression of disrespect or lack of esteem sounds like a totalitarian point of view that wants to make it a crime to disagree with one's own view as to who or what is worthy of respect or sympathy.

You haven't said why you feel offended. I guess you may think that the use of "Bongo bongo land" carries an underlying message that "black African governments shouldn't be taken seriously because black Africans are racially incapable of responsible civilised behaviour". I'd agree that such a statement would be racist (that is, an objectionable slander against a race of people). But he didn't actually say that. He'd probably claim he meant by it no more than "somewhere very foreign, very unBritish".

If racism is a crime, then just like people accused of any other crime, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Some of us want to live in a world where people are free to say anything except certain well-defined categories of thing that are by common consent prohibited, where all people are equal under the law, and all people are innocent until proven guilty. And consider these important things worth defending.

And if the choice is between "effectively tackling racism" or retaining those common-law freedoms - and no-one has yet made the case that that is indeed the choice - then I for one would rather see for my children a society which retains those freedoms.

Nothing incredible here....

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Bloom stated in the European Assembly that "no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age"
If the small businessman was a dispassionate rational economic actor with a pool of equally-talented candidates of both sexes to choose from, Bloom is correct here - a purely rational actor would not hire the young woman, because she is more likely to get pregnant and require maternity leave than her male counterpart, and more likely to want to stop working to raise the child than her male counterpart.

It is, of course illegal to discriminate on such grounds, but it's really difficult to prove a discrimination case in a small business hiring decision.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Incredible...

...You seem terribly concerned with the imprecise use of the word "racist" but only mildly bothered by an elected official referring to large parts of the world (and former British colonies, by the way) as "Bongo Bongo Land."

The offense was meant for Africans and Asians, and that's where it's been felt...

...a startling lack of empathy.
Seems to me that threads relating to the R-word always generate a lot of heat.

The underlying issue is one of what restrictions on our freedom of speech we allow. And in the long run that's vastly more important than politicians slagging off groups of people who'll never vote for them anyway in the hope of impressing people who might vote for them.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. We are not free to slander others, and if "racism" means the collective slander that dark-skinned people are racially inferior to fair-skinned people, then I imagine most people here are content with the idea that this is a speech-crime, a poisonous idea that we are not free to put forward in public.

As well as free speech, we prize the principal of equality under the law. So if it's not OK for Peter to slander Paul's race, it's equally wrong for Paul to slander Peter's race. Regardless of the history.

This doesn't mean that any statement that is disrespectful of others is similarly disallowed. You can't legislate that everyone must express esteem for every person and every nation in the world.

Using the same word for morally and legally objectionable slander and simple expression of disrespect or lack of esteem sounds like a totalitarian point of view that wants to make it a crime to disagree with one's own view as to who or what is worthy of respect or sympathy.

You haven't said why you feel offended. I guess you may think that the use of "Bongo bongo land" carries an underlying message that "black African governments shouldn't be taken seriously because black Africans are racially incapable of responsible civilised behaviour". I'd agree that such a statement would be racist (that is, an objectionable slander against a race of people). But he didn't actually say that. He'd probably claim he meant by it no more than "somewhere very foreign, very unBritish".

If racism is a crime, then just like people accused of any other crime, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Some of us want to live in a world where people are free to say anything except certain well-defined categories of thing that are by common consent prohibited, where all people are equal under the law, and all people are innocent until proven guilty. And consider these important things worth defending.

And if the choice is between "effectively tackling racism" or retaining those common-law freedoms - and no-one has yet made the case that that is indeed the choice - then I for one would rather see for my children a society which retains those freedoms.

Nothing incredible here....

Best wishes,

Russ
All I've done is express my dissatisfaction with Bloom's comments. Never suggested that racism is a crime, or that he should face legal action.

I am offended because my ethnic origins are in a former British colony in Africa that received aid from the UK. Corruption in those countries has nothing to do with aid but rather with natural resource extraction and backroom deals between Western corporations like Shell and Rio Tinto, and a handful of politicians that they bribe to get their oil or gold.

Putting aside the fact of his racist language, Bloom is wrong. Many journalists have already pointed out the inaccuracy of his position.

So I think he is a racist fool. And I'm as free to say that as he is free to call me a "Bongo Bongo."
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
Ken, whilst I find that I pretty much agree with everything you say on these boards, I'm very disappointed that a decent chap like you uses parts of the female body as an insult.
Oh, I don't know - he's been pretty even-handed: 'bollocks' in the same post, so male and female anatomical parts used equally to insult.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's pointless to quibble about the definition of the word racist while ignoring the fact that Bloom dismissed, contemptuously, whole groups of people in the same way that racists do.
I'm reminded of a spoof news item, (NTN O'clock news), where the reporter of a plane crash , or some such, made a graduated dismissal of the people groups killed according to their race .
Ah, yes, the 'Briton hurt' skit.

It seems appropriate (or possibly highly inappropriate) to also remind viewers of Spitting Image's Tory Atlas of the World from the same era; this presumably forms part of the welcome pack for new UKIP members...

[ 09. August 2013, 08:51: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Meanwhile...
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Let's try again... http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/we-dont-get-any-aid-says-president-of-bongobongoland-2013080777988
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Mr Bloom is still digging...

Antelopes

Yeah, I know, I have just come out as a Guradianista with an ethnic print skirt and hand knitted lentilburgers....
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Hmm. So "bongo" means "antelope".

I guess what he was saying was "Antelope Antelope Land"?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Hmm. So "bongo" means "antelope".
I'd have gone with Gabon - it's much more believable.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Bloom stated in the European Assembly that "no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age"
If the small businessman was a dispassionate rational economic actor with a pool of equally-talented candidates of both sexes to choose from, Bloom is correct here - a purely rational actor would not hire the young woman, because she is more likely to get pregnant and require maternity leave than her male counterpart, and more likely to want to stop working to raise the child than her male counterpart.
Yes, to be fair to Godfrey Bloom, IIRC the comments came during a debate on maternity rights, and he was trying to say that if pregnancy in a female employee creates too many obligations on an employer, then the employer has a strong incentive against hiring women, which is counterproductive from the POV of women's rights. He expressed himself in a phenomenally stupid way but I don't think it was an inherently invalid point.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That should tell anyone where UKIP's heart is.
There is no doubt that UKIP does contain some undesirables , whether this mr bloom is one of them I wouldn't like to say.

As with most Middle Englanders I don't normally wish to align myself towards extremist politics . Maybe talk the talk occasionally but not overly keen to walk the walk . However, I do get the feeling that if UKIP stay on message over their 'freeze on immigration' then they are going to gain ground.

I don't claim to know whether being in the EU is a good or a bad thing , or indeed how much worse off the UK would be if it exited . If exiting is the only way we regain control over immigration then I, for one, may be tempted to vote that way.
Not rational I know , because immigration doesn't affect me directly , it is though some a kind of underlying feeling that probably does derive from a base instinct that some might want to call the 'R' word .
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
He expressed himself in a phenomenally stupid way but I don't think it was an inherently invalid point.
Well, as he seems to have a track record of being phenomenally stupid, perhaps he would be better off out of public life. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I agree, I just felt the urge to be generous.
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
A cynical way to get coverage for drudge work that wouldn't be a newsstory otherwise. UKIP are all about publicity. Also, the slur is ripped off from Alan Clark, of whom this person is presumably a fan.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
all I've done is express my dissatisfaction with Bloom's comments.
No, you went beyond disagreement and expression of your feelings; you specifically accused him of racism. Using the word three times.

Now if there's nothing legally or morally wrong with being racist, if it's an ill-defined whinge word used whenever the person you're unhappy with happens to be a little bit whiter-skinned than you, then that's just part of the inevitable give-and-take when two people don't see eye to eye.

But just suppose for a moment that "racism" referred to a serious social evil, something vile and contemptible, a despicable prejudice beyond the pale of acceptable public discourse.

In that case, then whatever the niceties of the legal code in any particular state, it would be possible to falsely accuse someone of holding this despicable prejudice. Possible, and morally wrong, to slander them - blacken their reputation, besmirch their good name - by publically saying that they are this socially-unacceptable thing when you have no evidence that this is the case.

If your remarks were in a more public forum (and the legal status of the internet is something of a grey area) you might find yourself sued for damages, be required to compensate the victim of your slander for the promising political career you took from him when you destroyed his good name.

And the idea that the fact of your taking offence is sufficient to establish his guilt would be literally laughed out of court.

Good job you're only whingeing, then.

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
You bumped this thread just to fantasise about how you'd like to ruin non-bigots?

[ 15. August 2013, 19:41: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
all I've done is express my dissatisfaction with Bloom's comments.
No, you went beyond disagreement and expression of your feelings; you specifically accused him of racism. Using the word three times.

Now if there's nothing legally or morally wrong with being racist, if it's an ill-defined whinge word used whenever the person you're unhappy with happens to be a little bit whiter-skinned than you, then that's just part of the inevitable give-and-take when two people don't see eye to eye.

But just suppose for a moment that "racism" referred to a serious social evil, something vile and contemptible, a despicable prejudice beyond the pale of acceptable public discourse.

In that case, then whatever the niceties of the legal code in any particular state, it would be possible to falsely accuse someone of holding this despicable prejudice. Possible, and morally wrong, to slander them - blacken their reputation, besmirch their good name - by publically saying that they are this socially-unacceptable thing when you have no evidence that this is the case.

If your remarks were in a more public forum (and the legal status of the internet is something of a grey area) you might find yourself sued for damages, be required to compensate the victim of your slander for the promising political career you took from him when you destroyed his good name.

And the idea that the fact of your taking offence is sufficient to establish his guilt would be literally laughed out of court.

Good job you're only whingeing, then.

Best wishes,

Russ
I'll be waiting for the old racist to take me to court then. He can explain why he thinks I'm from Bongo Bongo land to my face.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Meanwhile....

Where do they get these people from?

Largely the Conservative Party it seems...
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I'd like to hear Victoria Coren's* response to this guy and we may be lucky enough to get an Observer column giving it.

* interesting that she's not changed her website, but she's changed her name to Victoria Coren-Mitchell for Only Connect.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
It was also reported, by The Times, that UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom told the same event he and party leader leader Nigel Farage wanted an invitation to a "bunga bunga" party hosted by former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
I suppose they wanted to experience at first hand what Bunga-bunga-land was like. Though it strikes me that UKIP is most at home in such territory: sprawling suburbs of neat lawns and bungalows.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
You bumped this thread just to fantasise about how you'd like to ruin non-bigots?
No, I don't want to ruin anyone.

I do want to see the law be colourblind, to protect the bad guys from the excesses of the good guys as well as vice versa.

I do want to see words used honestly, and not describe a subjective feeling one minute and a serious moral crime the next minute.

Apologies if my slow response spoiled the flow - some days I don't get much time for this.

Best wishes,

Russ
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0