"The latest PC-nonsense from the BBC" Topic

So, just as I've been saying, what we see from the PC police is nothing more than just the other extreme. The pay-them-back mode. They aren't portraying the truth in a balanced way either, because their motives have nothing to do with balance, only payback.

Dan

You keep talking about 'payback'. No one is making anything out of this stuff, though I'd personally be open to HM Gov. giving the odd apology for stuff carried out in the past. I don't much care if the 'good name' of bad people gets smeared – a criminal is a criminal no matter who or what the crime is committed for, that's natural justice.

I do not feel personally guilty for the past sins my country (and countrymen) so I don't take any criticism of them or my country personally. I do feel it important to accept that Britain (and some British people) did some very bad things – and we should be open to being told about them, as specific episodes, so that they become a less abstract thing – because real people suffered and died. That is the only way we can move on and hope not to do the same, or similar, again.

BTW. I don't accept that people only carrying out orders are innocent. We hanged several Germans after WW2 offering just that defence. Justice is for all.

"We should introduce it into the curriculum so that we all know what kind of country we come from."

I agree. And it would pay off in dividends at this very moment to understand why some just don't love the western allies.

Olicana,

LOL. I love it. I have no problem apologizing for my own mistakes.

But would you apologize (and open the door for lots of other things) for what people in the past did? I wouldn't. Would you?

And what would be the point of the apology, coming from someone other than the ones who actually committed the alleged wrong?*. What would it mean then if it wasn't really an apology for what they themselves did?

That's exactly what I meant about payback. Still don't get it? Because I can't make it any simpler.

Dan
* For example, what would be the point of me asking my cousins to apologize to me for what one half of our ancestors did to the other half? Maybe if I focus on just my wealthier cousins? :)

Acknowledging that it happened? Absolutely!

Dan

Skin color at Trafalgar was varied!!!!

link

Excellent! I guess the Navy was ahead of its time in that department.

Dan

So does it bother anyone when Shakespeare characters are cast as other then white male actors, or do you just enjoy it as a play?

Shakespeare? Depends if it's Macbeth in Scotland or a setting in the Mediterranean like Othello (the North African). Or if it's a school play and there weren't enough resources to represent the setting properly. That's why they occasionally change it to modern times.

Would you answer this one then? Would you enjoy a remake of your favorite Zulu movie but with non-black actors/extras playing the part of Zulu warriors? Or would that distract you a bit from enjoying all the excellent performances and the action?

How about an Asian or a Hispanic man playing the part of MLK in the movie Selma?

Dan

These new ice warriors don't "hiss" enough when they speak. I mean sure I can understand what they are saying, but I keep expecting them to sound more like a deflating bicycle tire. It was a more unique "monster sound". ;-)

I was annoyed with the shot or two of soldiers carrying their rifles at the low ready(?). It's something that reenactors complain about a lot (usually when they see other reenactors doing it). It's a modern military way of holding an assault rifle, it wasn't done historically.

Yes, but did they have the right buttons and patches? I've noticed those are really big issues for 19th Century Colonial gamers. :)

I'm being facetious of course. But depicting accuracy is a big thing for this wargaming crowd, as you can see here:

TMP link

Dan

"Yes, but did they have the right buttons and patches"

Looked like the 24th Foot from what I could see.
They appeared to have the Home Service ammuniton pouches but foreign service helmets.
Went around with the valise pattern webbing on a lot, but sans the valise.
Quite a few seem to have decided that their tasks for the day wouldnt include wearing their bayonet/frog/scabbard, which makes me wonder if their NCO was letting standards slip.
And their drill was sloppy, fire discipline was atrocious.

Whole outfit should have been on latrine digging duty, not spearheading the incasion of Mars!

Speaking of historical accuracy. Were there many Colonels in the British Army who had been tried and found guilty of cowardice/desertion, sentenced to death, reprieved due to failed execution attempt -- and still retained the rank of Colonel?

Why? Was that part of a Dr Who episode or some recent film I may have missed?

Or are you just trying to turn this into a bash-everything-about-the-empire thread? I'm not defending the empire, mind you. But that's not what this discussion was ever about.

Dan

+1 Olicana. The UK would be very much better off if more people were prepared to acknowledge the past. It might give them a more realistic view of the present and the future.

And for anyone drawing comparisons, CC particularly, the Zulu storytellers I spoke to at Isandlwana didn't mention any white Zulus (in fact the only white Zulu AFAIK is Johnny Clegg), whereas, as has been pointed out on this thread, there were men of different ethnic origins serving in the British army and navy in colonial periods.

I also think that drawing equivalency between for example Leopold's Colony, and the British Empire is misleading.

By all accounts the scale was quite different, BUT; and this matters, I spent time last week with one of my relatives who served against the Mau Mau, and the atrocities against Kenyan prisoners were real, and within living memory, unlike the Belgian Congo.

Exactly. As you'll see above, I agreed about acknowledging the past.

We can't do anything about how past generations portrayed events. Both sides had good and bad in every conflict, and rogue units and officers have done horrible things even in the best of armies. Those should still be acknowledged.

But if we claim to be making movies and shows that portray the truth about wars and battles (and I'm not talking about Dr. Who here) then they shouldn't just present it from the opposite side only. That would be just as unbalanced, divisive and as bad as the propaganda the official side has pushed at times.

Anyway, I think I've already explained my point of view on this subject*. Everyone else is entitled to a different opinion, of course.

Dan
* Specially about the real topic of this discussion, which was the visual representation of troops with some historical accuracy in period films and shows. I've actually learned many new things about troops of the period from you guys, and for that I thank you.

Dan,

I'm guessing you didn't watch the Doctor Who episode in question?

My comment about colonels had to do with the backstory of a particular character in the episode. I'm not attempting to derail the discussion, instead I'm trying to point out there were other issues with the historical accuracy in the episode.

I don't actually know if there's a historical precedence for the colonel's background, but it seemed very unlikely to me. I could see family connections getting the whole thing hushed up (i.e. no charges, no trial), and I might even accept the story if he had been reduced to the ranks. My suspicion is there were more black soldiers in Victoria's army, than there were such publicly disgraced officers retaining their rank.

Thank you Mike Target for pointing out the technical inaccuracies of the equipment and discipline. I'm not informed enough to make such an observation about the equipment, but I did feel that way about the drill/discipline.

Sorry for my reaction. I thought it was an attempt to drag me into another moral discussion of everything colonials ever did.

Thanks for the clarification.

Dan

As for the officer in question I'd have to rewatch it to be sure, but it doesnt seem to be clear on his back story-

He was referred to as the hero of Isandlwana, and it was implied this was what he was famous for. Presumably he can't have been a colonel at the time because both colonels (Durnford and Pulleine) died there.

Possibly he performed some action or claimed to have done something that got him promoted making him one of the officers that escaped.

I missed the bit about why they tried to hang him alas…

Dan,

No problem.

Mike,

I probably need to rewatch it too, but I think Colonel Godsacre was hanged for desertion/cowardice, then given an official reprieve because the execution failed.

There's a little bit of information about the character on the BBC website:
link

From the website:

1--"Hero of the Battle of Isandhlwana"

2--"Served in the British Army in South Africa in 1881"

I think we can stop arguing about "historical accuracy" now.

But don't stop arguing about SOMETHING--this is fun!

"1--"Hero of the Battle of Isandhlwana"

2--"Served in the British Army in South Africa in 1881"

I think we can stop arguing about "historical accuracy" now."

Not really- both those statements can be true. There were people who acted heroically at Isandlwana (presumably just not for very long) and the British army was deployed in SA in 1881.

True enough--they could be referring to the first Boer War.

That's not the impression I got from the site,though.

Hey,there's something we can argue about!

Are you guys arguing about historical accuracy in a show about a 2000-year-old alien who travels all of time and space in a magical police box?

Still, I was upset as well. The British Army never fought the Ice Warriors! Shame on the BBC.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm a little cranky. I've met my share of people who could be considered to be overly PC -- even been accused of being a "privileged white male" on a couple occasions -- but I have not seen nearly as much whining from them as people who love to whine about "PC culture."

The British Army never fought the Ice Warriors!

TBH I was more concerned with how badly they fought them…a steady dose of volley fire would almost certainly have sent johnny moonman packing!

Are you guys arguing about historical accuracy in a show about a 2000-year old alien who travels all of time and space in a magical police box?

Yes. Yes we are.

And your point is?

This is serious stuff here!

Another issue that I haven't seen mentioned is that we are trying to push our current society's value systems onto events that occurred when most prevailing thought processes and values were different. A lot of things from various cultures that occurred in the past are reprehensible to me (as a person in living now), but I can't really judge them for that.

As for the casting of a person of color as a Colonial British soldier in
An episode of Docto Who……who cares? It's science fiction.

"Another issue that I haven't seen mentioned is that we are trying to push our current society's value systems onto events that occurred when most prevailing thought processes and values were different. A lot of things from various cultures that occurred in the past are reprehensible to me (as a person in living now), but I can't really judge them for that. "

In the episode Bill makes allowances for Catchloves Victorian attitude on the basis that he is in fact Victorian…

Let's go back a little further and look at the painting The Death of Major Peirson, which is in the Tate Gallery in London.

link

And who do we see shooting the sniper who killed Major Peirson?

According to the MoD – at Trafalger Nelson's fleet included crewmen from 62 (modern) countires.

187 from the Caribbean
28 from Africa
23 from India

Here's another painting, from Liverpool's Walker Art Gallery :