advertisement


"I'm not a wishy-washy Tory..."

Greg said:
It's interesting that amongst some people the phrase "bongo bongo land" doesn't represent any kind of slur on the developing nations which receive aid and in using it isn't seen by them as in anyway indicative of their prejudiced mind. I'm assuming your use of it here is just to try to incite an emotional reaction (aka trolling), but I'm referring to those who really do think it's fine. Quite fascinating.
Click to expand...

Greg, you are as always, correct -partly. Which part you will no doubt inform me of because I have no opinions of my own, only yours.
 
Cav said:
Greg, you are as always, correct -partly. Which part you will no doubt inform me of because I have no opinions of my own, only yours.
Click to expand...
Ok Cav, I'll revise my expressed opinion and I will venture to suggest that you don't think it's acceptable, but in using it you're subtly commentating on those who actually do think it's acceptable. Is that nearer the mark?
 
Greg said:
Ok Cav, I'll revise my expressed opinion and I will venture to suggest that you don't think it's acceptable, but in using it you're subtly commentating on those who actually do think it's acceptable. Is that nearer the mark?
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no problem with the phrase bongo-bongo land. I know what it means and I see nothing racist or xenophobic in it. Others clearly do. Does that help you at all?
 
Cav said:
I have absolutely no problem with the phrase bongo-bongo land. I know what it means and I see nothing racist or xenophobic in it. Others clearly do. Does that help you at all?
Click to expand...
yes, it means my first take was pretty much spot on and I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. As you were :)
 
It was not even remotely racist, thats just a left panic response, i resent money going to Lear Jets and air conditioned gardens, i very much give to charity where i can be sure it goes to the right people needing help (2 charities in our case)
 
Cav said:
But in this case it is neither. The reality i.e. fact is that the UK gives £11billion in aid to the third world aka bongo-bongo land and some people think, given our current parlous state, that it should be spent in the UK. However there are political considerations such that we might not want to piss off India since we have good trade relations and all that...
Click to expand...

None of that changes whether the statement is xenophobic or not.

I was under the impression that refernces to bongo bongo land and Pakistan's air power were simply two unrelated strands of a single xenophobic stream of consciousness rant where one related to an undefined part of Africa, the other related to a specific part of Northern India. I have absolutely no idea whether Pakistan deserves aid or not, And frankly that aspect of it is something I am unqualified to comment about with much certainty here, (much like everyone else, aid is complex and as you say partially there for diplomatic reasons - who sold them their air power?). However I see no advantage to referring to a particular ethnic group as "living in Bongo Bongo land" other than for him to express a particular set of xenophobic (classically defined as xenophobic) feelings.

"And all that..." trails off too quickly. You are perhaps ignoring that we have a colonial history with both of these continents, a history that involved subjugation and economic and political control. Usually under heavy manners. So I would expect any politician to deal with any subject concerning Africa, India and Pakistan and pretty much every other country we colonised, took what we wanted and Then discarded with extreme care, Which was obviously not done in this case.
 
I don't think we "discarded" much of the Empire rather than having it wrest from our grasp.

As such, or even if your "discarded" view is correct, we still seem to consider we have some residual obligation (or guilt if you like) to the former colonies.

Personally, if they (the former colonies, bongo-bongo land or whatever) are in trouble then perhaps they should sort it out for themselves as sovereign nations.
 
If their troubles stem from our involvement then we still have a residual responsibility. Even 50 years on. If they are purely of their own making then it's another matter.
 
stevec67 said:
If their troubles stem from our involvement then we still have a residual responsibility. Even 50 years on. If they are purely of their own making then it's another matter.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget, no one forced them to buy Ferraris and apartments in Paris.
 
Ah yes, because the Ferrari-buying apartment-buyers are the same people who are starving on the streets, right? All Pakistanis are the same, just like all Brits are the same. So because Chris Evans collects Ferraris nobody in the UK needs any help, and the starving tramps are the very people who sent troops to Iraqistan, so they should have spent their fortunes more wisely, feckless fools.
 
stevec67 said:
If their troubles stem from our involvement then we still have a residual responsibility. Even 50 years on. If they are purely of their own making then it's another matter.
Click to expand...

After 50 years, I would imagine any issues are of their own making and their own responsibility.
 
stevec67 said:
Ah yes, because the Ferrari-buying apartment-buyers are the same people who are starving on the streets, right? All Pakistanis are the same, just like all Brits are the same. So because Chris Evans collects Ferraris nobody in the UK needs any help, and the starving tramps are the very people who sent troops to Iraqistan, so they should have spent their fortunes more wisely, feckless fools.
Click to expand...

Presumably. You'd think they'd just move to Paris, although I suppose the French aren't too keen on immigration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top