But are polish people not the,same race as the british but they cry racism.
Well as someone mentioned about people of different descents a few posts up there's a lot of hurt around about the past and all sorts on different people. I mean if you were for example forcefully taken from your place of work to go work in another country and never paid, and then displaced to yet another country and had to go every week to sign in at the police station as an alien your descendants might be very upset by what you posted there...
Well, that just proves it. Remember how he was so big on the Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire? Note: 'human'. Despite it apparently encompassing "millions of species".
And the fourth one, at that! It appears that, contrary to expectation, the Doctor is all about the subjugation.
Not only that but the sixth Doctors costume is clearly promoting Christianity because it's harks back to Joseph and his amazing technicolor dreamcoat and don't even get me started on the third Doctor's Jimi Hendrix inspired, drug induced ruffles.
Not only that but the sixth Doctors costume is clearly promoting Christianity because it's harks back to Joseph and his amazing technicolor dreamcoat and don't even get me started on the third Doctor's Jimi Hendrix inspired, drug induced ruffles.
Always count of Disco to lighten the mood... :rolleyes:
Always count of Disco to lighten the mood... :rolleyes:
Sorry, I was taking it seriously. Really, I was but then it started getting silly when there were accusations of the Doctor's costume having negative connotations, so I resorted to ridiculing it
I would suggest that the problem doesn't lie in the costume itself but the interpretation of the costume.
Sorry, I was taking it seriously. Really, I was but then it started getting silly when there were accusations of the Doctor's costume having negative connotations, so I resorted to ridiculing it
I would suggest that the problem doesn't lie in the costume itself but the interpretation of the costume.
No I'm happy you did... I just saw red over the Polish comment... I'm a little bit Basil Fawlty sometimes...:o
On the subject of this book: obviously none of us have read it yet but my take on "Doctor Who" is that it reflects the attitudes of the time. This is true for all programmes on TV at any time.
This means:
1. The people writing and casting for a show will have attitudes which reflect the culture they live in.
2. Only in recent decades have policies been put in plaxce to counter racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace.
The people behind Doctor Who were never separate from these two facts. They worked on DW and other shows. They absorbed the attitudes around them and were part of the culture.
Now the big contentious issue is has modern post 2005 DW been racist? Presumably the production team has had to abide by equality laws but that doesn't control decisions made about characters. I can't seen any racism in modern DW. Perhaps someone can point out an overtly racist piece of dialogue?
I've just sent the editor of the book my opinions on the matter of prejudice against British voices.
I will reprint her reply here if and when she responds.
Sure, that in itself is prejudiced, by assuming that a non-British voice is incapable of rationally assessing a British TV programme for evidence of prejudice?
Sure, that in itself is prejudiced, by assuming that a non-British voice is incapable of rationally assessing a British TV programme for evidence of prejudice?
Not really. I didn't say a non British-voice was incapable - I said there weren't enough British voices.
I received a reply from the editor of the book today. Iwill reprint my email and then her email response:
(Me)
Dear Dr. Lindy Orthia,
I wish to point out some concerns of mine about the yet-to-be published book: "Doctor Who and Race."
I have a problem with this book. I know I haven't read it yet. But the website promoting it is clear as to who contributed to it.
It is prejudiced against British contributors. Why is this?
There are 21 authors 13 of whom live in the USA, 6 live in Australia and only 2 are in the UK. This book poorly represents the opinions of British people. Based either on population statistics or viewing figures British voices should be at least second to those from North America.
I therefore hope that you, as editor in charge, can explain this example of bigotry and amend it before publication.
Kind Regards,
XXXX
Dr. Orthia:
Dear XXXX,
It's not bigotry or prejudice at all - I published all the contributions sent to me that were on the topic. One submitted suggestion for a paper wasn't about race, and two authors who I suggested rejigger their suggested topics slightly didn't take the opportunity to resubmit their ideas. Everyone else was included. You can still find the original call for papers at http://doctorwhoandrace.blogspot.com, and find references to it all over the internet, twitter and facebook - it was advertised far and wide, the site was visited by people from at least 43 countries, and included about 1000 visits from people in the UK. There was ample opportunity for UK people to submit to the book, as well as people from all kinds of places.
I admit this is a sensible approach that on the surface may give the impression of racism.
Which may well be how some DW episodes appear in terms of their production.
Sometimes for a project you don't obtain the interest from all sections of the community. So you don't have the choice to represent such groups.
How many Chinese actors actually auditioned for Talons? How many Asian actors auditioned to play the 9th/10th/11th Doctors?
What happens if you get dozens are great white actors auditioning but only one mediocre Asian actor?
Remember you are making a show to be enjoyed by millions of viewers, not trying to tick boxes.
It's not a matter of ticking boxes or just trying to justify your views by saying its about getting the best actor for the job but in today's multi cultural society the power of representing today's Britain lies in the hands if the producers and writers who create characters. So far they have mainly failed to do this. Creating a character called Amy Pond probably isn't going to be played by an Asian actress. There aren't many Asians in the uk with names like this. Quite a few other dramas on TV have been much more successful at this.
It's not a matter of ticking boxes or just trying to justify your views by saying its about getting the best actor for the job but in today's multi cultural society the power of representing today's Britain lies in the hands if the producers and writers who create characters. So far they have mainly failed to do this. Creating a character called Amy Pond probably isn't going to be played by an Asian actress. There aren't many Asians in the uk with names like this. Quite a few other dramas on TV have been much more successful at this.
If the right actress came along then they could simply change the name of the character. Amy wasn't originally intended to be Scottish but they changed this because Moffat thought that it suited the character better once he cast Gillian.
It is true that the showrunner will have a vision for a companion and then look for the best actor to take that role. So if they see the companion as being a leggy girl then it would exclude Muslim women (who wear burqas for example) from auditioning!
Then the question is: should the showrunner think more diversely? Shouldn't he create a character from an ethnic minority who may be less appealing for many viewers?
And that leads to the point: only if DW is about ticking boxes and not appealing to the licence fee paying public.
It is true that the showrunner will have a vision for a companion and then look for the best actor to take that role. So if they see the companion as being a leggy girl then it would exclude Muslim women (who wear burqas for example) from auditioning!
Unless being leggy was an integral part of the role, it wouldn't be a problem. The example that people have already given is Amy. Moffat may have envisioned Amy as English, but on finding the right actress, he was able to adapt the finer details to suit her.
As another example, Douglas Adams, on adapting Hitchhiker's Guide for the cinema, was quite happy for Ford Prefect to be played by a black American - his only stipulation was that Arthur Dent be English.
Comments
Well as someone mentioned about people of different descents a few posts up there's a lot of hurt around about the past and all sorts on different people. I mean if you were for example forcefully taken from your place of work to go work in another country and never paid, and then displaced to yet another country and had to go every week to sign in at the police station as an alien your descendants might be very upset by what you posted there...
Not only that but the sixth Doctors costume is clearly promoting Christianity because it's harks back to Joseph and his amazing technicolor dreamcoat and don't even get me started on the third Doctor's Jimi Hendrix inspired, drug induced ruffles.
Always count of Disco to lighten the mood... :rolleyes:
Sorry, I was taking it seriously. Really, I was but then it started getting silly when there were accusations of the Doctor's costume having negative connotations, so I resorted to ridiculing it
I would suggest that the problem doesn't lie in the costume itself but the interpretation of the costume.
I will reprint her reply here if and when she responds.
No I'm happy you did... I just saw red over the Polish comment... I'm a little bit Basil Fawlty sometimes...:o
Haha academics eh?
Probably best not to mention Fawlty Towers in a discussion about racism and xenophobia. You mentioned it once but I think you got away with it
This means:
1. The people writing and casting for a show will have attitudes which reflect the culture they live in.
2. Only in recent decades have policies been put in plaxce to counter racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace.
The people behind Doctor Who were never separate from these two facts. They worked on DW and other shows. They absorbed the attitudes around them and were part of the culture.
Now the big contentious issue is has modern post 2005 DW been racist? Presumably the production team has had to abide by equality laws but that doesn't control decisions made about characters. I can't seen any racism in modern DW. Perhaps someone can point out an overtly racist piece of dialogue?
Don't mention the Time War!
possibly but they are the same race. Different nationalities both are typically caucasian.
(Me) Dr. Orthia:
I admit this is a sensible approach that on the surface may give the impression of racism.
Which may well be how some DW episodes appear in terms of their production.
Sometimes for a project you don't obtain the interest from all sections of the community. So you don't have the choice to represent such groups.
How many Chinese actors actually auditioned for Talons? How many Asian actors auditioned to play the 9th/10th/11th Doctors?
What happens if you get dozens are great white actors auditioning but only one mediocre Asian actor?
Remember you are making a show to be enjoyed by millions of viewers, not trying to tick boxes.
If the right actress came along then they could simply change the name of the character. Amy wasn't originally intended to be Scottish but they changed this because Moffat thought that it suited the character better once he cast Gillian.
What a strange reply!
Then the question is: should the showrunner think more diversely? Shouldn't he create a character from an ethnic minority who may be less appealing for many viewers?
And that leads to the point: only if DW is about ticking boxes and not appealing to the licence fee paying public.
As another example, Douglas Adams, on adapting Hitchhiker's Guide for the cinema, was quite happy for Ford Prefect to be played by a black American - his only stipulation was that Arthur Dent be English.