BBC cuts racist lines from classic Fawlty Towers
Posted by: James L on 24 January 2013
"The corporation took the decision to cut a line from the show, in which Major Gowen, cantankerous permanent resident at Fawlty Towers, talks about the time he took a woman to see India play cricket: "The strange thing was, throughout the morning she kept referring to the Indians as ******s. 'No, no, no,' I said. 'The ******s are the West Indians. These people are wogs.'" "
What other lines from Fawlty Towers will be trimmed in the future?
(BTW, the offending word is the 'N' word).
Juliet - as in "Romeo and Juliet" - was 13. Self-harm, statutory rape, gang violence .. How much of Shakespeare would make it to the screen today?
How many infants have seen or know well Romeo and Juliet?
ATB from George
I think that some people on this thread have missed to the point.
Yes, society or culture "moves on" but the past doesn't. To attempt to change or deny the past is fundamentally, morally, wrong. To change the past (particularly to suit contemporary sensibility or to save the squeamish) is in effect an attempt to deny that it happened.
There is only one answer:SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP.
+1 x 100 for the whole piece - very well summarised argument with excellent examples.
Political correctness & aiming to rid ourselves of racism & the language it encompasses is all well & good. Problem is the kids we are trying to protect use this kind of slang in everyday language, just go look at the average 12 year olds Facebook & twitter language. It’s human nature, people who are different (colour, size, anything) from the majority all get the same treatment. We will all get called names that are identifiers, insulting or something in-between. I've been on the receiving end & more than once - mlungu – soutie – & more
Warty Towels - Fatty Owls - Flowery ****s - Farty Towels is the way it was in 1970 let’s just enjoy it & stop justifying our own morals we assume today by messing with it.
& please note the FORUM sensor will not allow the commonly used t.w.a.t.s word !!!! Ohh dear how childish
I think Kevin-W makes a very cogent and powerful argument here. Tinkering with history least some people today might find the reality offensive or upsetting is a slippery slope. Our species has shown itself capable of both the most awful and wonderfully uplifting behaviour. If we do not learn from history, particular about our darker side, we are more likely to repeat it. Denial is rarely a successful strategy.
MDS
Dear MDS,
This is not re-writing history. It is bringing an old comedy show into line with the requirement for common decency of the family audience early in the evening.
I think Kevin and I are agreed that it might have been more sensible to show the un-edited recording after the watershed, but there is no question of this being re-writing history. The original version is on DVD for anyone interested to buy and watch.
What is your view on modern editions of Enid Blighton [spelling?], where racism and other horrors are removed? I was never allowed to read this stuff as a child precisely because it was regarded as so odious in any case even forty years ago, but that is another question. Some people are slower to see the un-acceptable, even nowadays.
Re-writing history would be to remove study of the Holocaust from schools, for example.
It is not a matter of degree, but two entirely different situations.
ATB from George
I'm not so sure. I think the behaviour is learned, or at least nurtured. We choose the groupings according to "our" tribe and act according to the norms of the world in which we live. We often choose to act in ways that are divisive and discriminatory, but we may certainly choose not to to act in those ways.
Hi George
I don't think there's much between on this and I very much agree with your point about the Holocaust. I also agree that as children we are impressionable and we should be mindful of that. The 'watershed' is a well intentioned measure and I agree it should be used to shield young eyes from broadcast material that is judged only suitable for adults, though I tend to think of violence, sex and horror stuff.
That said, as a parent I have always thought that I have the principle responsibility to educate my children about what is right and wrong. Indeed I can recall some difficult conversations with one of children when they were young on the sensitive topic of racism when it became apparent that they had a poor understanding of the phrases they had used. I corrected that patiently but firmly. There was no repetition and I think my child was wiser for the discussion we had. What I'm not convinced about is air-brushing away the fact that terms and phrases were used in the past which are not acceptable today. Rather, when this old material is broadcast and such phrases are noticed and commented upon we should use that as an ideal opportunity to educate. In other words showing that we have moved on and for the better.
MDS
Dear MDS,
I really don't think that the difference between us amounts to even an argument.
My proposition is that not all parents are as able as you or I might be to contextualise such as the "embarrassing" aspects of that film of Faulty Towers. I know that I have sat with my English Grandmother - died 1989 - watching TV and neither of us knew which way to look. She could not explain why she saw the humour, and I was far too young to get what was either funny or big or clever about it. Basically it went over my innocent head.
But the young today are far more informed, and yet still emotionally innocent ...
I cannot claim to know thew the answer. I just want the young to grow up slower, and if this means shielding them somewhat, then I am all for it.
Not re-writing history, but keeping young eyes from it too soon ...
ATB from George
Yes, George, it seems we very much share the same objective here and are in agreement after all. Its been an enjoyable discussion to have. I shall enjoy our parallel one on the referendum about the UK's membership of the EU.
My best
MDS
Was this censorship enforced by EU law or was it a local (UK) law or BBCs own decision?
Was this censorship enforced by EU law or was it a local (UK) law or BBCs own decision?
A BBC decision.
I sort of disagree winky, a group of kids for example not pre-influenced by any form of peer racism will naturally pick out those that are different in color size, behaviour, clothing, habits - anything.
It may be the group giving an individual a nickname that reflects the difference or name calling or bullying or one group not mixing with or even being aggressive towards another. It happens that way, its natural.
I do agree strongly however if what you are inferring is that minor racism as may be overheard with talk by e.g. parents is "taught" in that a kid will pick up on & empathize when a name or description of color, size or whatever & they assume that as "normal".
Racism as in tribalism is also taught the same way in that its not seen as "bad" between similar color groups. The problem begins with that type of racism when it includes differentiation between colors & community groups.
Blatant bigotry - as in KKK, Nazism, etc is taught.
I'd prefer the way Fantagraphics went with their re-edition of the old Mickey Mouse strips by Floyd Gottfredson. Some of these strips really are offensive by today's measure but apparently the racism was common at their time.
Instead of rewriting and -sketching the strips every story is accompanied by a foreword in which the nasty parts are clearly pointed out and no doubt remains that the editors disapprove of them. A good compromise I think.
Additionally, since the comics are prohibitively expensive there is little chance for them to fall in the hands of children.