"No Africans in Africa?? According to BBC??" Topic

Sounds like BBC has edited out several Mitchel and Webb look sketches.

Including one where English reenactors get bored, so decide to reenact African conflicts in stead.

Actually sounds like a good idea to me.

You can get all the kids involved easily enough.

Obviously, do you want white Africans, like I'm assuming the BBC does, or dark skinned Africans for authenticity of the reenactment?

I'm assuming anyone who would gripe is probably not going to be attending either way.

Next you won't be allowed to have British playing french, or what have you.

I'll also go out on a limb and assume plenty of white characters are played by black people in Africa.

Heck just look at Arial in the US, and such like.

So, you can't try to be accurate, but you can try to be inaccurate?

I think that's been the story for years. So, then why change the show, if they think it's inaccurate for today's audience?

So they can't really complain too much.

Thank god for DVDs.

I'm sure David and Robert are very grateful for your purchase of their DVDs of 20 year old shows. And I am sure that the BBC appreciates your continued support for the licence fee.

It's the BBC, color me surprised. Not.

Cultural appropriation is a one way street.

Apart from "verify News thoroughly"?

YouTube link

("and they don't even have ads").

Colour you jealous, SMM

It is well known that the Bantu expansion occurred 300-400 AD.

Prior North Africans were more Semitic in features

"Cultural appropriation is a one way street."

Not always.

There's also forced cultural appropriation going on.

In Oz, some groups get around in hoodies with rap music, while trying to force you to use funny names for things and tell you your not even here!?

Only some people, mind.

"I'm sure David and Robert are very grateful for your purchase of their DVDs of 20 year old shows."

If it's being broadcast with bits missing, I'm sure they are.

Got a problem with DVDS?

My Dundee can answer questions others can't.

I've got shows, and actual DVDs far older than a year 20 years. I've got pre tv serials for a start. Then DVDs themselves dating back to at least late 90s. Still playing fine, by the way. And with all the bits. I know, because my Dundee checked.

I've also got VHS and a some Bluray. Would like to get some laserdiscs to try. Also the odd betamax and 8mm paraphernalia.

PS

It's all just future proofing IP.

In a few years they'll release them again, likely on disc, complete and unabridged, for even more money. So, there is that.

I'm with Stone Mountain on this. Bonkers leftism is the BBC's default, and should not come as a surprise.

What, like match of the day and test match special. Or strictly come dancing, or gardener's weekly? Or do you mean the great British sow off, or call the midwife or the antiques roadshow…or EastEnders or bargain Hunt or countryfile or Wilderness with Simon Reeve, or Golf pga, or the traitors, or mastermind or Richard Osman's house of games, or emergency 24/7 or Michael portillos 200 years of the railways, or the weather forecast for the week ahead, or pointless, or…

…farming today, You& Yours, Moneybox, The Radio 2 Folk Show, Piping Sounds on Radio Scotland, The Good Groove with DJ Spoony, Sherlock Holmes read by Hugh Bonneville, BBC Proms, ….The shipping forecast….Kizzis House Party Mix…

basically what I am saying is that I think you know very little about the BBC and its total output across multiple TV channels, multiple national radio channels, multiple regional radio channels and multiple local radio channels. Listen to Radio Jersey much? Didn't think so.

You're just repeating what someone has told you. And they were wrong.

I'm sure there is much to the BBC I haven't exprienced. Listening to BBC World Service describe American politics cured me of any desire to seek it out. Descriptions of the recent Dr Who series and the tender for the new contract confirmed me in that decision.

For all I know, Radio Jersey is straightforward news. But then I only gave Leni Riefenstahl two chances too. How much bonkers politics and slander should I put up with before regarding the source with suspicion?

I am also sure that there's much on the BBC you haven't experienced – it has 4 main tv channels, that's about 60 hours if broadcasting per day.

Add in 56 radio stations and obviously no-one can be aware of everything broadcast by the BBC in one day.

And yet these sweeping generalisations – and as you say yourself "descriptions of the recent Dr Who" are what you are making your sweeping generalisations on. Not even personal assessment. And can we note that for all the Froth it generates Dr Who is approximately 0.04% of the BBC's television output in those years that the show is on. In 2026 it will be 0% of the BBC's output.

American politics is a very small part of the World Service – being the most militarily powerful nation on the planet and with currently a very active approach to foreign policy in all its forms will attract a lot of comment – that has been a fact from the Roman Empire onwards. But the world service is also Just A Minute and cricket coverage.

I would recommend anyone who enjoys the skirl of the pipes to check out Piping Sounds for the best in piping – and it's not just bag pipes, it's bellows pipes as well.

Which is to make the point that the BBC is tasked with catering for as many people as possible – to characterise it with lazy sweeping generalisations based on hearsay about one of its smallest (in broadcast time) shows is not the basis for a strong or convincing argument. In my opinion – you're free to do what you want, naturally.

Time Portal, wasn't the Bantu expansion southwards ? Northern African peoples were always more "Mediterranean" than "black", at least north of Nubia.

Plenty of bagpipes on youtube, 20th--and they come without politics. And I notice you're not saying "BBC is actually conservative/libertarian/sane if you watch Program X." You're just saying I need a sample size larger than any single human being can possibly accumulate.

I tend to go on the chocolate sampler approach: once one of them turns out poisonous, I try to avoid the whole box.

Oh. And it was actually in the Obama administration when I gave up on BBC World Service. A couple of years of being stuck in DC traffic while the Beeb shifted vocabulary so that the leftwardmost electable politician was the only reasonable choice, anyone to the left of that was a "progressive idealist" and anyone disagreeing from a conservative or libertarian perspective was a drooling "right-wing" fanatic. That wasn't a momentary glitch: that was and continues to be how the BBC editorial policy at the highest level decides to spend the money of tax-paying Brits. Well, that's the Brits' business--until I listen or subscribe: then I'm complicit.

Anyway, about the topic,

No one said boo when Peter Jackson dressed up a bunch of women as men as they were short on Rohan riders.

Of course add a decade or two and a hoo haa would have likely occurred twice.

So I don't see the harm in painting your face to better suit the event your trying to portray.

"Black face" is supposed to be about being mean to black people, from my understanding.

Apart from the obvious gun violence, reenactment has nothing to do with that.

Having bunch of obviously white people, with no attempt made for accuracy at all, would just look wrong.

Painted faces and hands would look pretty good, at a reasonable distance.

Just like horse women in helmets.

And don't look up Flashdance.

Is Tom Cruise German?

Look at the Simpsons. Its ok when it's an old lady voicing a little boy. But you can't have a white man voicing an Indian. Apparently. Even when it's one of the best characters. Must suck to be an Indian, or any fan, you just lost your character,but at least you can feel good about it, because that said so.

Actually, I was only thinking of them using a guy for a spin in Flashdance. But he was also black. So they were double dipping.

Again, no one complained, banned it or called it racist.

I wonder if that shot gets edited out next???