bongo bongo land

the playing mantis

racist or overreaction by the PC brigade?

dynamicbrick

Totally wrong on all levels.

Bongo Bongo Land indeed - just smacks of imperialist fear of the fuzzy-wuzzy

They should use the post-imperial term now;

Bongolesia

Doctor House

Bongo Bongo land, not to be confused with The Congo where they of course drink Um Bongo.

morstar

Doctor House wrote:

Bongo Bongo land, not to be confused with The Congo where they of course drink Um Bongo.

Genuine laugh out loud to this thread. :-)

morstar

But yes, racist I'm afraid. There is a genuine need to debate contentious issues that can be stifled by political correctness. However, such blatantly offensive terminology that portrays other races as savages confirms that people are just putting a thin veneer of respectability over offensive views.

the playing mantis

morstar wrote:

But yes, racist I'm afraid. There is a genuine need to debate contentious issues that can be stifled by political correctness. However, such blatantly offensive terminology that portrays other races as savages confirms that people are just putting a thin veneer of respectability over offensive views.

in what way does bongo bongo imply savagery and its natives as savages?

morstar

the playing mantis wrote:

morstar wrote:

But yes, racist I'm afraid. There is a genuine need to debate contentious issues that can be stifled by political correctness. However, such blatantly offensive terminology that portrays other races as savages confirms that people are just putting a thin veneer of respectability over offensive views.

in what way does bongo bongo imply savagery and its natives as savages?

It's quite clearly alluding to bongo drums, savages, darkies, etc. etc. you and I know exactly that. Any clever word play that suggests otherwise about it being a mythical place may work in the strictest legal sense but the underlying prejudice is clearly evident for anybody not bound by such rigid interpretations.
As a serving MEP it is totally unacceptable terminology to use.

seanoconn

morstar wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

morstar wrote:

But yes, racist I'm afraid. There is a genuine need to debate contentious issues that can be stifled by political correctness. However, such blatantly offensive terminology that portrays other races as savages confirms that people are just putting a thin veneer of respectability over offensive views.

in what way does bongo bongo imply savagery and its natives as savages?

It's quite clearly alluding to bongo drums, savages, darkies, etc. etc. you and I know exactly that. Any clever word play that suggests otherwise about it being a mythical place may work in the strictest legal sense but the underlying prejudice is clearly evident for anybody not bound by such rigid interpretations.
As a serving MEP it is totally unacceptable terminology to use.

Exactly this ^^

Yossie

Utter racist: the man should be thrown out of politics. Well, then again he is BNP. Sorry - UKIP - so what do you expect.

I suffered watching the interview where he tried to defend himself and he came across as a horrible piece of work shocked that someone should dare to ask why he was being utterly racist. The bloke's a weapon, much like Falange. Now he's a tool. A dangerous tool.

team47b

In any other 'industry' that comment would have been the death knell to a career, but in politics it's totally acceptable by the masses, maybe he is actually representable of a large proportion of the general public, other than cyclists obviously.

tw@t.

Yossie

team47b wrote:

In any other 'industry' that comment would have been the death knell to a career, but in politics it's totally acceptable by the masses, maybe he is actually representable of a large proportion of the general public, other than cyclists obviously.

tw@t.

Unfortunately my friend you have knocked the nail on the head - exactly right.

Britain - its not that great anymore .......................

zanelad

Yossie wrote:

team47b wrote:

In any other 'industry' that comment would have been the death knell to a career, but in politics it's totally acceptable by the masses, maybe he is actually representable of a large proportion of the general public, other than cyclists obviously.

tw@t.

Unfortunately my friend you have knocked the nail on the head - exactly right.

Britain - its not that great anymore .......................

But surely, when Britain was great we were exploiting the fuzzy wuzzies and stripping Bongo bongo land of its natural assets.....

giant_man

i find the whole thing very funny, very old fashioned as well, but the mp is right regarding the UK spending billions on other countries, surely this kind of money could be spent on this nation of ours ...

seanoconn

Zanelad wrote:

Yossie wrote:

team47b wrote:

In any other 'industry' that comment would have been the death knell to a career, but in politics it's totally acceptable by the masses, maybe he is actually representable of a large proportion of the general public, other than cyclists obviously.

tw@t.

Unfortunately my friend you have knocked the nail on the head - exactly right.

Britain - its not that great anymore .......................

But surely, when Britain was great we were exploiting the fuzzy wuzzies and stripping Bongo bongo land of its natural assets.....

This ^^

the playing mantis

ok so its racist, and godfrey has form on this, he is a bit of a nut if you look back at his record of gaffes, is he right though?

the playing mantis

Yossie wrote:

Utter racist: the man should be thrown out of politics. Well, then again he is BNP. Sorry - UKIP - so what do you expect.

I suffered watching the interview where he tried to defend himself and he came across as a horrible piece of work shocked that someone should dare to ask why he was being utterly racist. The bloke's a weapon, much like Falange. Now he's a tool. A dangerous tool.

do you disagree with ukip's policies, or the way they go about putting them across.

mybreakfastconsisted

Bloom confessed that he used to visit brothels in Hong Kong, claiming that "terrified young women beaten into prostitution often from Eastern Europe [...] is only a very small aspect of the flesh trade", and concluded that "in short, most girls do it because they want to."

There's a good chance that at least one of the young women Bloom paid to have sex with was trafficked, which makes him a rapist.

ballysmate

The language used undoubtedly has racist connotations. The language used has become the story and the point about foreign aid being abused has been lost. UKIP is a one trick pony of a party and don't have detailed policies that bear scrutiny, but there does need to be a proper debate about Britain's foreign aid level and its distribution.

the playing mantis

Yossie wrote:

Utter racist: the man should be thrown out of politics. Well, then again he is BNP. Sorry - UKIP - so what do you expect.

I suffered watching the interview where he tried to defend himself and he came across as a horrible piece of work shocked that someone should dare to ask why he was being utterly racist. The bloke's a weapon, much like Falange. Now he's a tool. A dangerous tool.

sorry to shock you, and that i dared ask such a question, is it not perfectly valid question? bongo bongo clearly refers to some african country, but not sure how people can say it relates to savages, surely in the context he was saying it should be read as a euphemism for a foreign country, i cannot see what benefit or relevance it would be to the subject matter for him to imply it refers to savages, thats (whetehr it goes to people deemed as savages) irrelevant to International development budgets, if he did imply it as relating to savages then he's clarly stupider than he looks as it was completely unnecessary and undermines a point that should be discussed (such as the money sent to india, for 'development', that they dont want, that is maintained in fact to try to grease palms for business, but has pretty much failed in that aspect)

if he had said something like timbuktu, would that have had the same connatations?

despite my 'love' for nige (and my support for english devolution)i'm not condoning what this chap has said, look at his previous and his wanky bowler hats, and the fact he visits brasses, he is a knob, im just trying to understand if im seeing it all in the wrong light and not taking things at face value when they have deeper meanings that have gone over my head, and getting my post count up so i can leave.

Yossie

the playing mantis wrote:

Yossie wrote:

Utter racist: the man should be thrown out of politics. Well, then again he is BNP. Sorry - UKIP - so what do you expect.

I suffered watching the interview where he tried to defend himself and he came across as a horrible piece of work shocked that someone should dare to ask why he was being utterly racist. The bloke's a weapon, much like Falange. Now he's a tool. A dangerous tool.

do you disagree with ukip's policies, or the way they go about putting them across.

Both. They're a bunch of white collar racists hiding behind the media propagated myth of immigration destroying "Great" Britain. Nothing at all to do with most fekkers being so lazy that they won't a) do the jobs that the immigrants are doig opr b) prefer to spend their live son the couch claiming benefits, propagating their "children" and having a go at, errrrrrr, immigrants who are doing low level low paid jobs.

Yossie

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Bloom confessed that he used to visit brothels in Hong Kong, claiming that "terrified young women beaten into prostitution often from Eastern Europe [...] is only a very small aspect of the flesh trade", and concluded that "in short, most girls do it because they want to."

There's a good chance that at least one of the young women Bloom paid to have sex with was trafficked, which makes him a rapist.

Seriously? And he's allowed to continue in the public eye? FFS. And people vote for this bunch of weapons?

the playing mantis

Yossie wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

Yossie wrote:

Utter racist: the man should be thrown out of politics. Well, then again he is BNP. Sorry - UKIP - so what do you expect.

I suffered watching the interview where he tried to defend himself and he came across as a horrible piece of work shocked that someone should dare to ask why he was being utterly racist. The bloke's a weapon, much like Falange. Now he's a tool. A dangerous tool.

do you disagree with ukip's policies, or the way they go about putting them across.

Both. They're a bunch of white collar racists hiding behind the media propagated myth of immigration destroying "Great" Britain. Nothing at all to do with most fekkers being so lazy that they won't a) do the jobs that the immigrants are doig opr b) prefer to spend their live son the couch claiming benefits, propagating their "children" and having a go at, errrrrrr, immigrants who are doing low level low paid jobs.

agreed, however wages need to be raised for the lowest paid jobs that may incentivise the 'lazy fekkers to work and reduce there benefits accordingly, to make working mean they are economically better off than being on the social. however once that happens, (it wont though) something would need to be done about unlimited migration. on a small crowded island, particularly in the south east infrastructure is at breaking point and will only get worse with unlimited inward migration, even if infrastructure is improved hand in hand with it. imo (yes im a nimby) the SE is developed enough and new infrastructure/housing is undesirable if we are to avoid an even bigger conurbanation forming. as such, something needs to be done to stop population growth at its current rate (so something to stop unlimited migration), and also for jobs/development not be so SE centric to ease the pressure here. but the argument could be said if the flow of cheap workers was stopped employees would be forced to raise there wages to make it worthwhile for the lazy fekkers.

benefit reform is the key to it, all but it will never happen to the extent its needed so immigration is the easy answer for everyone. its a vicious circle.

Yossie

the playing mantis wrote:

Yossie wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

Yossie wrote:

Utter racist: the man should be thrown out of politics. Well, then again he is BNP. Sorry - UKIP - so what do you expect.

I suffered watching the interview where he tried to defend himself and he came across as a horrible piece of work shocked that someone should dare to ask why he was being utterly racist. The bloke's a weapon, much like Falange. Now he's a tool. A dangerous tool.

do you disagree with ukip's policies, or the way they go about putting them across.

Both. They're a bunch of white collar racists hiding behind the media propagated myth of immigration destroying "Great" Britain. Nothing at all to do with most fekkers being so lazy that they won't a) do the jobs that the immigrants are doig opr b) prefer to spend their live son the couch claiming benefits, propagating their "children" and having a go at, errrrrrr, immigrants who are doing low level low paid jobs.

agreed, however wages need to be raised for the lowest paid jobs that may incentivise the 'lazy fekkers to work and reduce there benefits accordingly, to make working mean they are economically better off than being on the social. however once that happens, (it wont though) something would need to be done about unlimited migration. on a small crowded island, particularly in the south east infrastructure is at breaking point and will only get worse with unlimited inward migration, even if infrastructure is improved hand in hand with it. imo (yes im a nimby) the SE is developed enough and new infrastructure/housing is undesirable if we are to avoid an even bigger conurbanation forming. as such, something needs to be done to stop population growth at its current rate (so something to stop unlimited migration), and also for jobs/development not be so SE centric to ease the pressure here. but the argument could be said if the flow of cheap workers was stopped employees would be forced to raise there wages to make it worthwhile for the lazy fekkers.

benefit reform is the key to it, all but it will never happen to the extent its needed so immigration is the easy answer for everyone. its a vicious circle.

Right to a certain extent, wrong to a certain extent.

Example 1. Squaddie basic pay on entry - what are we looking at - £16k (then take off tax, living, etc). Benefits for a year? Errrr, its a no brainer to stay on benefits to some people. A serving Marine in Afghan gets less than a mobile phone salesman. Go figure .........

Example 2: Factory worker, KP, etc: whats that then? £4.50 an hour or something? None of these benefit fekkers are going to do that.

Example 3: Work in a factory/KP/café/Maccy D etc or sit on the couch: they'll sit on the couch even if you pay £10 an hour because they view honest, hardworking get your hands dirty jobs as below them and "get an immigrant in to do it" - its nothing to do with benefits, its to do with a loss of the working backbone.

Ok, there are exceptions, but the majority of them I have met are lazy, bone idle useless fekkers.

rick_chasey

UKIP's fundamental problem is too many of them are stupid. Have stupid political ideas - attract stupid people.

the playing mantis

yes it has become ingrained in many, the whole idea of working and getting a job, is alien to many many people, and thats a social/cultural thing, i dont know how that can be fixed, so maybe reducing benefits wouldnt work much. if benefits were so low people would only be able to 'survive' and could only afford the very basics, might work, but wouldnt be allowed to be implemented, but then again it would probably fuel black markets and crime potentially. if benefits were reduced hand in glove with significant increases in minumum wages that could be a solution. but how u would get the private sector to fund such a thing would be nigh on impossible without some sort of gov subsidy, which would eb another form of benefit.

morstar

the playing mantis wrote:

sorry to shock you, and that i dared ask such a question, is it not perfectly valid question? bongo bongo clearly refers to some african country, but not sure how people can say it relates to savages, surely in the context he was saying it should be read as a euphemism for a foreign country,

Anybody who is a public speaker or a writer uses words to try and portray mental imagery, to connect with the reader or listener.

What image is the speaker trying to portray in this instance? For me, and I suspect most others, my immediate mental image is of atribal African in traditional clothing playing the Bongo drums. This is probably heavily influenced by Hollywood on my part but that is what I infer from his choice of words. I also believe that is his intended portrayal. In context of his speech, he is being disparaging. We may have to agree to differ here as you will not convince me otherwise.

However, forgetting about this individual politician who has at best been very clumsy with his choice of words or, as is more likely, is both a racist and seeking exposure by any means...

There are some important issues to debate. The aid issue is one that should be debated openly. I do hear people echoing similar views that it doesn't make sense so rightfully, the issues should be in the public eye regardless of mine or your opinion.

The other is political correctness. There are many people who hold views that are by many peoples standards racist but by others standards widespread and unspoken truths. With few exceptions nobody in this country will admit to being a racist and yet racism does still exist. So why do these 'possibly' racist people not feel empowered to air their views publically?

At present it is because such views have entered the territory of socially unacceptable. The question is, should that be reversed and it become socially acceptable to admit to being racist and be able to justify why in public?

One part of UKIPs appeal is attracting those with 'possibly' racist views who feel they represent them whilst trying to look like a party that could actually govern (unlike BNP).

Personally, I think such views are based in an idealistic view of what Britain was and should be. The reality is that even without immigration there would still be wrongs in this country and a different sub-set of people would be there to blame. Racism will still exist throughout eternity as it is an easily distinguishable difference (and we love to hate differences) but I think I'd prefer to live somewhere where you do have be discrete about your unsavoury opinions.

pinno

There are (unfortunately) many people in the UK who would be bought by that sort of talk. I come from Bongo Bongo land - well at least thats what they said at schooll when I got here. Oh and 'Why aren't you black?' 'Did you live in a mudhut?' 'If you liked it so much, why don't you go back?'
As a society, we may not be outwardly racist but there are many who are real life, not satirical Alf Garnetts.
UKIP appeals to the xenophobic ''off to Majyorka on their 'ollidays brigade". As cyclists, we watch the TdF, the classics etc etc either by the roadside or on the telly and I think I can safely say that we have a different view on the world.
For every £1 in aid we give to the 3rd world, we take back £7 in resources and goods. So to say that we shouldn't be paying them anything is a little blinkered to say the least. We in the west owe them and we are busy exploiting them to beat hell on another level.

Slightly off topic:( Metaphorically speaking) still think majonnaise on chips is foul but you can always wash it down with a good Laffe. Having travelled far and wide, I don't see stark differences between European cultures and us.

The Hotel from Heaven:
An Englishman at the reception
An Italian doing the PR
A German doing the organisation and
A Frenchman doing the cooking

The Hotel from Hell:
An Englishman doing the cooking
An Italian doing the organisation
The German at the reception and
The Frenchman doing the PR.

It takes all sorts and UKIP sum up all thats bad about British Culture and some inherent xenophobia. Thank christ they still represent a small minority and they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Frank the tank

Take the term Bongo Bongo Land out of it and the sentiment is one many would agree with.

Between now and the next general election UKIP, its members and its policies will be picked at as never before and they'll be revealed for what they are.

team47b

Rick Chasey wrote:

UKIP's fundamental problem is too many of them are stupid. Have stupid political ideas - attract stupid people.

matching your attributes to the most potential voters has always been the way to get elected, so you get the party which reflects the majority - stupid wins.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

UKIP's fundamental problem is too many of them are stupid. Have stupid political ideas - attract stupid people.

You can't dismiss people who hold different political views to yours as being stupid. UKIP have been quite astute so far, in identifying a concern that a lot of people hold, and subsequently playing on it. As 47b states, that is how the game works. Say something that people want to hear and the votes will follow.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

UKIP's fundamental problem is too many of them are stupid. Have stupid political ideas - attract stupid people.

You can't dismiss people who hold different political views to yours as being stupid. UKIP have been quite astute so far, in identifying a concern that a lot of people hold, and subsequently playing on it. As 47b states, that is how the game works. Say something that people want to hear and the votes will follow.

Very true, however, it's ok spouting what appear to be popular policies but when placed under the microscope and the bones start to be picked at that's when some things start to be not so simple.

Politics in a democracy are difficult and compromises have to be reached and promises get broken.