Boris Johnson quote - was this racist?

As you may or may not know, the London mayoral elections take places today. The two main candidates are Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. (Asking Londoners to choose between these two is rather like asking a veal calf to choose between the parmesan and the tonnato, but I digress…)

The Guardian newspaper has nailed its colours to the mast with a big anti-Boris rant today. Among its criticisms of the floppy-haired one was that he is clearly a vile racist who “despises Africans”, as evidenced by this quote:

Johnson’s quote was in response to Tony Blair’s visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2002, and was published in the Daily Telegraph.

The main media outcry seemed to concentrate on the phrase “watermelon smiles”. Not the most sensitive turn of phrase, I’ll grant you, but isn’t Boris being taken rather out of context here?

The way I read that piece is as an attack on Blair’s simple-minded belief that the “natives” will settle down if he jets in as an ambassador from the civilised west. Johnson was deliberately using the outmoded colonial-speak to criticise Blair’s arrogance.

Or am I crediting Boris with too much intelligence, and he really is a Tory-boy Eton racist?

Seems to me that Boris was being sarcastic, not racist. You’d think a British newspaper would be more attuned to that sort of thing.

It’s not the only time he’s used phrases like that, the use of ‘picaninny’ is another, and various comments about cannibals. Not to mention his general disdain for what he sees as the lower social classes (see his comments on Liverpool and Ken Bigley).

He’s a racist who disguises it with an air of bufoonery.

He’s also a blithering idiot, his plans for public transport in London are the height of stupidity.

The choice between Ken and Boris is nothing like how you put it, Ken has a record of improving life in London (even though he has courted controversy whilst doing it) whilst Boris is banking on his fame and populistic ploys (striking down the Kensington and Chelsea extension, Routemaster II etc).

Quite frankly, anyone is better than Boris!

I like the way Charlie Brooker puts it.

You’re not. Boris quite clearly meant it in the way you talk about.

The problem is that it’s too easy to take out of context and be used for political gain. It’s unfortunate that the modern western world is like this but it is. Politicans have to be careful what they say because there are always people looking to take advantage of a lazy, sarcastic etc. statements.

We are to blame though becuase we let these manufactured outrage events happen. When it happens to someone we support you see it rightly as silly and stupid but if it happens to a person you don’t support a lot of people are willing to turn off their brain and jump on the bandwagon of bullshit.

There are many many reasons why Boris is not as good a candidate as Ken, although on a personal level I really like Boris, but this isn’t one of them IMO.

Brooker was also quoted in The Guardian (unsurprisingly, as he is a regular columnist).

But the best quote in the Grauniad’s hatchet-job was from Sharon Horgan:

(Note for Americans and the public-transport-impaired: Bendy buses.)

Actually, we have them in several cities. (We call them slinkies (from the toy) or articulated, but they do pretty well in our cities where both the overall street and the individual lanes tend to be a bit wider than in central London.) My guess would be that New York’s slinkies are kept out of lower Manhattan, for reasons similar to some of London’s problems, but out on the grid patterns of wide streets in flat Columbus, they work OK.

It’s the Guardian, the British version of Pravda and the last refuge of the Loony Lefties (the serious Lefties go to the Socialist Worker or similar). That doesn’t make it wrong, but you have to take what’s there with a huge pinch of salt, just as you would reading something from Fox News, or the Daily Mail, or the Telegraph, or the BBC, or pretty much any news source.

In this case it’s just sarcasm, but without the wit of William Hague.

Are there any news sources in the UK that are considered more or less unbiased?

Of the main daily papers, probably the most neutral are considered to be The Times and The Independent, which tend to be moderately right- and left-of-centre respectively.

The BBC, of course, is totally unbiased. :stuck_out_tongue:

:confused: Why the :stuck_out_tongue: ? Sorry, but over here we mainly associate the BBC with Monty Python.

Just Google “BBC bias” for more than you could ever care to read.

One sample. Another, from the Beeb itself.

It’s become a bit of a standing joke now that the BBC is desperate to be seen as unbiased, squeaky clean and whiter-than-white.

The BBC try harder than most to be even handed, they don’t always succeed though.

I would trust them more than any other media organisation but I wouldn’t have 100% trust in any organisation.

They get accused of being biased by all sides of the spectrum so they can’t be too far off the right path.

You will get lots and lots of people who don’t like the Beeb though. Mainly because they have reported negative things about the things that the person cares about.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

The name of the blog says it all.