It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
@mtm
The intolerance that comes with racism is bad. I take it we agree on that. But when those who are willing to fight said intolerance do so by demanding that statues be destroyed, books taken out of publication, films and TV series censored, ... I'd say that's a pretty dangerous form of intolerance too. Let me stay ahead of you (because clearly, as @Benny said, you're looking for an argument) and acknowledge that, of course, only a minor few anti-racism activists will go to those extremes. The vast majority wants us to sit down, talk, reflect on things and work towards a better world, not crusade against art and entertainment that is to be regarded with some judgement.
I'm happy to see the Fawlty Towers episode restored in the programming and the HBO Max initiative put forth. I'm not sure, however, what point you were trying to make. It is a fact, isn't it, that the original episode was edited? Comedy is absolute, mate. Comedy will always offend someone or many someones. You can find it in bad taste, even dangerous, but you can also walk away from it. If we're no longer allowed to laugh at everything, especially at ourselves, we're doing it wrong. There are many comedy acts that aren't for me, that others have a good time with but not me. I'm not going to demand that anything is changed about them, nor am I going to call their fans heartless bastards. Some comedy works for me, some doesn't. But censorship in any shape or form, including minor edits, I am entirely against.
"If you’re going to get angry you need to pay attention to the actual facts: there’s an awful lot of uninformed kneejerking in your post." What are you getting all worked up about? What 'kneejerking'? Okay, semantics, I get it. So they don't pretend the episode doesn't exist but they do pretend a certain part of it doesn't exist. I stand corrected. :)
And like @Benny, I have no issues with you. I was merely surprised by the fact-checking comment. My post started from one simple fact (decisions reported yesterday) and the rest of it was my own opinion. I didn't even care who pulled GWTW from its programming (hence "Netflix or whatever") as I merely care about the act itself. Sorry if my words mislead you, friend.
I have no issue with you either...? I'm really confused to be honest.
@mtm
I would like to say that your responses to both Benny's most and mine tended to come off as somewhat 'critical' (which is, of course, absolutely fine, let there be no doubt about that) and also nitpicky in your fact-checking of comments that were general and primarily opinion-based. It's no surprise that Benny, as did I, felt that you were looking for an argument and that we may, unintentionally, have offended you. I hope that takes away the confusion and I'm glad we can leave this behind us now. :)
No statues are being destroyed. Removing symbols of celebration is not the same as erasing history. If you think no-one in Germany remembers Hitler because there aren't statues to him then you'd be very mistaken.
Which books are being taken out of publication?
Some TV series may be censored for language which is not acceptable today. What's dangerous about that?
That's unnecessary. You're the one replying to me, I may point out.
And some judgement says that some language and opinions don't have a place being broadcast. Nothing is removed, as I keep pointing out, the originals of these are all still available.
This version wasn't edited, no. As I said in my last post, it's unclear as to whether it's going to be.
As I said, it's unclear as to whether it will be the edited version being put on the UKTV platform. It is being added with guidance.
It's not semantics, you get a lot of facts wrong and at worst replace them with emotive language, leading to a OTT reaction. They're not 'pretending it doesn't exist'- they were reviewing it and then putting it back; it's not Netflix etc. Talking about these things and getting angry about requires everyone to actually understand the situation first, otherwise things get blown out of proportion.
And don't forget, this whole 'Fawlty Towers, Churchill statue' thing is a massive distraction away from the real issues to try and turn people against the BLM movement.
And I have no issue with you..? Why are folks saying that, as if to debate these issues we have to be somehow hating each other? This isn't about you or me or Benny.
I disagree with what you're saying, yes; I'm unclear how it's wrong to express that? I'm not calling anyone names or being abusive... I don't understand this? And yes, I think the facts are massively important in this case, and getting them right is key. Saying that folks are doing things that they're not (people claiming that they're being called racists, items being removed completely etc.) and then reacting against that as if that's happening takes the debate in completely the wrong direction. I can't apologise for pointing out that reactions based on untruths aren't helpful to anyone. It's how rumours develop and grow and how things get worse.
There's a bunch of extreme right wing thugs standing around the Churchill statue today, making Nazi salutes whilst saying they want to stop the statue getting destroyed. That's not a good thing, and it shows they don't even understand what's going on. Being informed and not being manipulated by half-truths and lies is key (I'm not including you in this by the way: I'm not saying you're lying: just that there's a lot of it going around)
Thank you.
I'll be just as literal then.
I never said they are. I said it is demanded by some that they are. Or haven't you been following the news? In my own capital of Brussels, large groups continue to demand that statues of Leopold II be destroyed. Some have been destroyed in the past few days, in fact. See? Fact. Some want these statues destroyed, some have already begun destroying them. Fact. I checked it.
Exactly! Removing symbols of celebration is not the same as erasing history, which is why I'm trying to tell people that rather than destroy such statues, we might as well "dethrone" them from their eye-catching positions in the middle of a beautiful town square and keep them in a museum, with the proper context and explanations next to them. Destroying them won't help. Destroying them is the very form of intolerance I was talking about and which you wanted me to elaborate on two or three posts ago. If the very existence of these statues has become intolerable, then one extreme is simply met with another. Again, we don't resolve racism this way. We're saying the same thing, you and I!
No books are taken out of publication but it is demanded by some that they are! (As I've been saying all along!) One such example is TinTin in the Congo. Activists have for years been trying to get the book banned or restrict children's access to it. It has a few painful moments, don't get me wrong. I know, I've read all TinTin books countless times and that first book always makes me cringe. So we like to use the book in school as a lead-on to thorough examinations of our colonial past and all that was wrong with it. That is how you do it because once again, as you say, banning it won't remove the past.
Because where will it end once we've started doing that? Come on?! Are we going to watch the next editions of the Bond films with "bleeps" or altered lines? "Quarrel, you're looking spry this morning!". "I've got a nice gentleman on my tale. Couldn't miss him, it's like following a really good-looking person." Personally, I am offended every time they do this. Let me cringe. Let me go, "ugh, that's so wrong". Let me hear stuff I don't like and call it out. But leave it in! Don't woke-wash TV episodes or films from the past. Even if we're only talking about one or two lines in the entire episode!
They've been removed as far as I'm aware. Generally the thoughts on all of these is that they be taken to museums where their importance can be put in context. If they're damaged, that's just part of its history.
Yes, that is generally the plan for all of these. It's just a case of not celebrating it or accepting it as normal in some way.
I agree, no ban on that is useful, but it's also no longer fit for its original purpose of entertainment. It is a historical document now. Nothing wrong with that, but it just has to be accepted.
Agatha Christie's 'Ten Little N******' got a new title in 1964 in the UK. In the US it got it in 1940. Should we have been campaigning for its original title all these years, or is it perhaps not worth getting worried about?
It already happens when there's swearing or violence in them and they're shown in the middle of the afternoon, why is it any different?
Yet again, I must point out that these aren't the collectors' editions of Fawlty Towers we're talking about: it's the streaming version. It's basically the same as broadcast. If you want the full one you can still buy it. And there's no sign that you won't be able to.
I also think any thoughts about 'what happens next' often gets exaggerated and isn't helpful. It's best just to worry about what is actually happening rather than an imagined version.
It's fine if you like that, some folk find it distracting from the actual jokes because you're no longer watching it as it was originally intended, you're watching it with a 2020 mindset. I think it should always be made clear that this stuff is not normal.
One minor thing about the destruction of statues, though. I saw on the news, just a little over three hours ago, how activists in masks (i.e. the hooligan fraction of activism, rather than proper activists) tied ropes around a statue, pulled it down so it broke, threw paint on it and ran. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not 'removal', that's 'destruction'.
To be absolutely clear about something, I'm happy that something is moving again. (I'm also afraid it'll die a quick death fast. In a few weeks, BLM will be old news, alas.) But I'm always happy when we sit down and warn future generations for the dangers of racism and for the many forms (some very obscure) that racism can come in. In fact, even though I teach chemistry, I'm having such discussions with my students from time to time. Our school population is very 'inclusive'; various colours, creeds, sexual persuasions ... roam our school halls. And we pride ourselves on that. But once in a while, a nasty comment is dropped and I always make a big deal of that. I will force my students to sit down and reflect on what's happened. Out of principle, because I strongly believe that no such incident can be left unchecked. But, and I will be happy to agree to disagree with you on this one very thing, I'm also principally opposed to any tampering, even the smallest, with an existing film, TV series, book, ... out of fear that it might offend people. Technically, everything can be offensive to someone, after all.
It still exists though. And if anything, the damage will give it more of a story to tell in any museum it ends up in.
That's good to hear, but I don't think the n-word and w** are things which 'might' offend people: they definitely do. I certainly agree that offence culture has reached silly proportions and folks claim offence at stuff which is too light, but I don't think that's true in every case and can't just be ignored without thought for the subject actually being considered, or indeed the context of where it will be seen. Principles have to be applied in the right places.
What’s the answer?
Yet another reason to admire the sanity of Scandinavia. No hysteria or need to patronize the audience.
A nuanced approach that considers the subject under discussion and the context of it.
And to remember that this whole debate has been created by those seeking to delegitimise the voices of those with genuine concerns. It's not about accurately reflecting history, it's about changing the terms of the narrative to promote a particular political narrative. This is all being put together by folks who, rather than concede any matter on a factual ground, would want to adjust the narrative of the conversation to make out that those who are trying to make the world a better place are actually the bad guys.
Yeah have you seen that? Johnson called the BLM protestors thugs last week, so if he doesn't do the same this time, with that horrendous bunch making Nazi salutes at the police, it'll be a very poor show.
There's a photo of one of them taking a piss next to a memorial to a policeman murdered by a terrorist out there. Obviously showing how they're genuinely driven out of respect to public memorials...
I haven t seen any footage of any of that, no.
And although you have people who campaign for BLM, and you have racists who are utterly opposed, folks who sympathise with black people but saw themselves as outside of the debate and generally don't get involved read headlines about Fawlty Towers being erased from history and find themselves being manipulated into a negative view of a movement which is based on human rights, and thus you find black people delegitimised yet again. It really isn't about Basil Fawlty, someone just wants to make sure that people think it is.
And it isn t about statues, either. I am sure those at the top of society who exploit and abuse people in this day and age, are absolutely thrilled that people take out their frustration on lumps of bronze, stone or marble.
Having said all of that, if the focus of the media is to highlight the differences between people, and highlight problematic stereotypes, then I have no problem with it being taken away (Disney's decision to never include Song of the South on Disney+, and the world getting rid of every Nazi thing ever, for example). I think it has to do with the focus.
@Fire_and_Ice_Returns brings up a good point here though; there does need to be some kind of a balance with regards to what is available to whom, otherwise it's possible we could forget about atrocities of the past.
This episode of the show you're talking about obviously has some material in it that could be considered offensive, but the main focus of the show/episode is not to highlight problematic stereotypes, so IMO it should still be available, maybe with a disclaimer at the beginning (which you act as, when watching films with your children; but you won't always be around every time they watch a film/consume media).
On the (off) topic of all these statues, f*** a statue. I'm glad they're tearing down statues of racist people; the entire concept of a statue is to celebrate someone, and if not for their ideals, than for what? If we want to make sure we never forget about what a dickhead Robert E Lee was, put his name in a book about the confederate history of the US.
I like Churchill a lot, and I know there's been some discussion about whether a Churchill statue should remain standing, or be brought down because he was no-doubtedly a dickhead to some people. But then it makes me think, who cares about statues? Bring them all down. As long as innocent people are being murdered for no reason whatsoever, we as human beings are so far below "statues" on Maslow's Hierarchy of Societal Needs.
Anybody deserving of a statue throughout history doesn't give a sh** if there's a statue for them anyways, I guarantee it.
This is a man without whom, we would most likely live in a different world. I'll be damned if I'll accept the vandalism of his monuments and condone the actions of those who agree with it.
A good point, and it reminds me that those who want the statues removed often seem to know more about history than those who want to keep the statues in place. It is because they know the grim reality of the lives of the individuals celebrated as statues that they want the statues removed.
There’s an entire Wikipedia article about Churchill’s racial views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill
The British people of the Second World War era seem to have been much more ambivalent about Churchill than we are today. It is striking that the British electorate voted him out of office by a landslide at the very first opportunity they had, in 1945. I do not think they saw him through the same rose-tinted spectacles that we wear today.
Yeah it is quite funny that there are all of these people complaining that ‘history matters’ whereas id say they’re actually learning more about history from these campaigns! :)
Then learn more about the man and his acts, some of which were decidedly dodgy. He was a hero, but he also did some controversial things and held some horrible views, even for his time. No-one is simply ‘good’ or ‘bad’. You’re in Australia aren’t you? Here’s some of his thoughts from 1937:
"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
His statue gets vandalised in pretty much every march through London, it’s happened countless times before. I can’t imagine why all of the racists have turned out on this particular occasion to ‘protect’ it...
I don’t think his statue should come down, but if we’re advocating that Fawlty Towers should stay as it is so we can be educated about past attitudes, then we should be willing to actually learn a bit about why these protests are happening. Read up on the Bengal Famine of ‘43.
Not sure who’s suggesting that. The graffiti took place on an anti-racism march, it was rather the topic of conversation on that day.
It's not the same place. But without the likes of strong men like Churchill the world we live in, in 2020 would be a far worse world to live in.
I’m not, no; as I said, some of his opinions were extremely strong for his time and he was pretty hard right. The quote I posted about whites being a superior race is from 1937, hardly Victorian times, and his attitudes on Gandhi and the Bengalese people were criticised at the time. A lot of his warnings about Hitler in the 30s went unheeded because he’d made very similar warnings about Gandhi not many years before.
As I said, have a bit of a read-up on the subject.
I’m not completely down on him and he certainly did great things but anyone who sees him as whiter than white (excuse the pun) just needs to do some learning on the subject. Doing a great thing doesn’t put anyone above criticism, and to pretend it does is a form of erasure of history in itself.