When Political Correctness Becomes Offensive

[Consequential]

I mentioned in my introductionary thread that I'd be typing some observations/comments on the subject of political correctness. Sorry for the delay.

A trend stretching back over the last decade has overseen the distortion through media (mainly audio-visual) of what's a fact, and how you can alter or omit some of the fundamental aspects of that fact in order to appeal (and appease) to the broadest audience possible. Now, some will understandably argue that such a tactic makes perfect economic sense: more bums in seats, crosses boundries, future production potential, etc. But should we continue to sacrifice facts that may not appeal to everyone, but are usually undeniable facts (or in some cases of regional fiction or culture: valid assumptions) regardless, to attract a wider audience?

Many of these recurring distortions are broadcasted or circulated by various media outlets and often manifest themselves (among others) in modern renditions of historical and cultural events i.e - Robin Hood. A 2006 release made by Tiger Aspect Productions for the BBC, the legend of Robin Hood, is a recent-ish case in point. Picture Friar Tuck. Most online results deliver the consensus expectation of those familiar with the character. What made the aforementioned production controversial, to a degree, was that the actor cast to play Friar Tuck is black, as opposed to the classical depiction: a white man. As good an actor as David Harewood is, his casting as Tuck was a contradiction of what's widely acknowledged/expected. This is a clear example of the more obvious axioms of political correctness (alongside intimidation): overall, positive appeal. But where does it stop? If we found ourselves somewhere in the future where actors cast to play slaves in the Transatlantic Slave Trade were white, would black people take offense at such a contradiction that's designed to appeal (and appease) to the widest possible audience, regardless of what the facts are?

I'm guessing they would.

[StraferJack]

I remember the huge outcry across britain when that Robin Hood was broadcast.. oh no wait. there wasn't one

Back and trolling as ever

[Otta]

Character in folk legend / Thousands and thousands of people being kidnapped from their homes and forced to work as slaves.

Come on BBW, you can do better than that!

[Loz]

How many pasty-white Anglo-Saxons have played the role of Jesus throughout the years, when he should be of middle-eastern appearance.

Ditto for Othello, who was Moorish.

[ontheedge]

Inconsequential I think the more that ignore the better

[StraferJack]

edit: not worth it

[Annette Curtain]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Nigel_Farage.jpg/220px-Nigel_Farage.jpg "Anyone got a Cross-Bow"

[JahSE22]

Consequential Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I mentioned in my introductionary thread that I'd

> be typing some observations/comments on the

> subject of political correctness. Sorry for the

> delay.

>

> A trend stretching back over the last decade has

> overseen the distortion through media (mainly

> audio-visual) of what's a fact, and how you can

> alter or omit some of the fundamental aspects of

> that fact in order to appeal (and appease) to the

> broadest audience possible. Now, some will

> understandably argue that such a tactic makes

> perfect economic sense: more bums in seats,

> crosses boundries, future production potential,

> etc. But should we continue to sacrifice facts

> that may not appeal to everyone, but are usually

> undeniable facts (or in some cases of regional

> fiction or culture: valid assumptions) regardless,

> to attract a wider audience?

>

> Many of these recurring distortions are

> broadcasted or circulated by various media outlets

> and often manifest themselves (among others) in

> modern renditions of historical and cultural

> events i.e - Robin Hood. A 2006 release made by

> Tiger Aspect Productions for the BBC, the legend

> of Robin Hood, is a recent-ish case in point.

> Picture Friar Tuck. Most online results deliver

> the consensus expectation of those familiar with

> the character. What made the aforementioned

> production controversial, to a degree, was that

> the actor cast to play Friar Tuck is black, as

> opposed to the classical depiction: a white man.

> As good an actor as David Harewood is, his casting

> as Tuck was a contradiction of what's widely

> acknowledged/expected. This is a clear example of

> the more obvious axioms of political correctness

> (alongside intimidation): overall, positive

> appeal. But where does it stop? If we found

> ourselves somewhere in the future where actors

> cast to play slaves in the Transatlantic Slave

> Trade were white, would black people take offense

> at such a contradiction that's designed to appeal

> (and appease) to the widest possible audience,

> regardless of what the facts are?

>

> I'm guessing they would.

Some people have the ability to understand other peoples comments and for me specially it has

been very clear and I could not argued with that, If I say I didn't because it has taken a lot of time to make sure what

I read on newspapers was right, not to give the wrong opinion to the editor. Perhaps some people work harder to swerve the subject but for some of us has been very clear. So to clarify my concept I would like to highlight that there isn't any ghosts in the town if not the information was given by it's own newspapers. Like for example the Daily Mail

If I have to discuss about the Daily Mail it will take me hours and hours is being a while since.

I will have to go through all my papers and at the moment I

don't have time and some people may disagree and I would never finished writting it. Here is one (STRIKE)

the police etc.

I would like to leave all the comments to the editor because they know what I am talking about.

Was a good exercise for us all and so be more careful

when dealing with other issues like the inoffensive children in the poor areas who get punish by their own parents etc.

Some kids will just let go but bear in mind it will happen one day, some were, somebody.

The police and politicians was there to warn parents that some policies need it to be change for the near

future for the safety of some childrens ! Predictions what can happen in the future no one knows.

I can go now as my job is done and hope everything is clear.

I can only congratulate myself for the job I did in helping the Daily Mail

but they never notice the job I did and I never got pay for that because I was very profession.

I must say they did a wonderful job for me too so I can't complain.

Thanks guys, all the best to all of you.Now I am happy to go as I don't have nothing else to do

was a good game with hamster in future becareful with the broken glasses he,he,he

nobody would commint to a such a thing not even in 100 years.

If I meet my girlfriend I will encourage her to join as nothing has happen here.

Was only a class.

[edcam]

Yawn. I'd advise returning to the Daily Mail.

[Consequential]

If you're emotionally affected by or ill-equipped to debate the OP then don't bother replying and leave it for those want to.

@Otta. I can understand that some people may take exception to the comparison, but it's still valid, nonetheless.

@Loz. You raise a valid point. However, as far as I'm aware, there's no visual/written reference to depict Christ. And like with many things of that nature, his followers and enemies alike will have embodied him in their own image. Let's not forget that much of the early, mainstream writings from when Christ was alive were written by his Roman detractors. The image prevailed.

[????]

Yup. You are right Inqy. It reminds me of the absurdity of David Tennant, fine actor although he is, playing Hamlet....and not a Danish bone in him! What a bowing to 'modern ways'.

Bore off you tedious old troll

[Consequential]

@????. Crying troll instead of constructively engaging a controversial topic is the hallmark of the ignorant and narrow-minded. Step off and let those who want to engage it in a civil tone without negative aspersions and attacks on their character being levelled at them.

You're behaving like a child.

[AllanMcPR]

ontheedge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Inconsequential I think the more that ignore the

> better

The more you ignore the better are you refering what happen in February to the ED residents.

I think all of us we have enough information until now to blame the politicians but nothing

to worry about they will be on your side. After all the research provided on this Forum was a good

job and a good effort and hopefully this will be the end as we are not allow

in real life this kind of researchs about other people private life. Hope nobody will be annoy with my comments

and this will be a lesson for some not to tell others in the future I love you when you want just something else.

It was there where I wanted to get with my research and I am glad I did it :))and just on time and when this happen

the dog run away. I could write a book but was a sad ending at the end :(

[????]

So should David Tennant have taken on the role of a Danish prince by your 'logic'?

[Consequential]

@????. Why not? He's European.

[????]

So's David Harewood you racist numbnuts, he was born and bought up in Birmingham.

Go away, you are either an idiot a troll or a racist.

[JahSE22]

Yes, definitely Yes very different. You can have a good fish if you are hungry as this is the only thing you want easy catch, go for eat :))

[Otta]

@Otta. I can understand that some people

may take exception to the comparison, but

it's still valid, nonetheless.

It's really not.

Anyway, I'm off.

[Consequential]

@????. Although Mr. Harewood was born in Birmingham, according to the profiling on the UK consensus, he's not European. I'm neither a troll or a racist. I've submitted what I consider to be a worthy topic of debate, which isn't racist. The official definition of racism is as follows: "1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

My OP reflects none of those conditions. Crys or suggestions of racism is another hallmark of the ignorant and narrow-minded who fall back on the accusation because they're unable to refute the argument by any other means.

[JahSE22]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @Otta. I can understand that some people

> may take exception to the comparison, but

> it's still valid, nonetheless.

>

> It's really not.

>

> Anyway, I'm off.

Of course not there are some Europeans who are married and ....I have done some work for their parents.

[Consequential]

@Otta. Leaving a statement unsubstantiated followed by abandoning the thread on which you've submitted it leaves it largely invalid and unworthy of consideration. Are you always this reluctant to constructively engage in debates you've shown an interest in, despite the topic?

[????]

Consequential Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @????. Although Mr. Harewood was born in

> Birmingham, according to the profiling on the UK

> consensus, he's not European. I'm neither a troll

> or a racist. I've submitted what I consider to be

> a worthy topic of debate, which isn't racist. The

> official definition of racism is as follows: "1. a

> belief or doctrine that inherent differences among

> the various human races determine cultural or

> individual achievement, usually involving the idea

> that one's own race is superior and has the right

> to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government,

> etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine;

> discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of

> another race or other races."

>

> My OP reflects none of those conditions. Crys or

> suggestions of racism is another hallmark of the

> ignorant and narrow-minded who fall back on the

> accusation because they're unable to refute the

> argument by any other means.

I presume you mean the census rather than 'cosensus', and I'm pretty sure that the 'census' does not include 'European' as an option on ethnic background, rather you are thinking any 'non-white' is not european, because that's your pathetic prejudice (hint this is IN YOUR HEAD NOT ON THE FORM IGNORAMUS)...or your just trollimg

It's just boring arguing with idiots like you anyway

Seriously

[Consequential]

@????. You're quite right. It is indeed 'cencus'. But black people living or born in Europe are not Europeans, no matter how you spell or misspell 'cencus'. And it's 'you're', not "your" if we're going to be pedantic. In any case, you're just butthurt because your accusation of racism was completely and publically tossed out. I bet you weren't expecting that.

It's truly tedious arguing with ignorant, petty fools like you.

[Otta]

But black people living or born in

Europe are not Europeans,

If you are not trolling, then you are at least a total moron.

I suspect you're both.

[????]

er,

census...is how I spelt it, go and look

'Your pathethic prejuidice' is infact your not you're....so even your pedantry exposes you as an idiot. Seriously, do one.