Down the Rabbit Hole

Laurence Fox probably overreached himself when he criticised the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in 1917. He has apologised for his mistake.

However, he wasn’t entirely wrong. Indeed he was both right and wrong. He was wrong historically because empire soldiers did indeed fight alongside British regiments. As the war progressed and units were wiped out, it was not unusual for orphaned soldiers to end up in different regiments. My great uncle ended up in the Northants regiment for example.

Despite Tony Blair’s best endeavours, this country is predominately white European with a Judaeo Christian heritage. This is absolutely fine if you are Irish, Welsh or Scots, but shameful if you are ethnically English – i.e. you have a mix of Saxon, Viking, a dash of Roman and various other bits and pieces flowing through your veins. If you are white English, then you should be ashamed of yourself and your heritage, and your opinion can be ignored because of some perceived privilege – and, not least, because you are a slaver, having invented the concept.

Yet, despite only around 8% of the population being of another ethnicity, watching any drama production these days, you would think differently. I’ve never seen so many black or Asian coppers as I do on police procedural shows. And Victorian England is full of ’em. Sure, there will have been some folk from across the empire, but not to the density that television dramas would have you believe. This is not to mention black-washing where a role is taken out of context by a black or ethnic minority actor, making the drama even less believable. Take, for example the latest David Copperfield who has now changed race. Or the Duke of York at Agincourt or Margaret of Anjou. Indeed, we have had a black Henry IV in RSC productions – yet dare to cast a white Othello and see what happens. It irritates – not just the incongruity that destroys the period feel in much the same way as, say, including modern technology, but the obvious double standards that the wokerati will try to dismiss with their incredibly tortuous arguments where black is now white. And that is why Laurence Fox reacted the way that he did.

The reason that Fox is both right as well as being wrong is to do with this context. In the age of the racist wokerati, where everything is about race and microagressions and diversity and equality is being thrust into our faces at every turn, the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in a film about the great war is likely to jar when your sensitivities are heightened to incongruous inclusion of ethnic minorities – even if, as on this occasion, it was a false alarm.

The current backlash triggered by Fox’s comments last week continue to reverberate because outside of the metropolitan bubble, the wokerati have little sway. Ordinary people dislike political correctness. And, no, it is not merely being polite to use it. Intersectional politics is not about politeness, it is about controlling language and with it, thought. It is fascism disguising itself as civility. Fox’s eye rolling at the white privilege canard was fairly typical of ordinary people when faced with this tyranny. As an aside, the white privilege attack is also a textbook example of the poisoned well fallacy – the accuser is using immutable characteristics to divert from the argument. It needs to be called out and that is why Fox doing so resonated with so many people.

Talking of Foxes, Emilia is currently appearing in the latest run of Silent Witness. I just watched a couple of episodes centering around domestic abuse. What was an interesting plot-line – the killer was one of the abused women who killed one abuser and framed another – was spoiled, however, by the overt political messages being peddled. Subliminal, they most certainly were not. We had the issue of false allegation raised. A good thing, you might think. Nah, this is the BBC after all. The falsely accused was not being falsely accused at all. Indeed, the sub plot here revolved around a gentlemen’s club whereby a safe seat (Tory, one presumes) is being offered for discrediting evidence of wrongdoing. The whole supposition being that false allegations are nothing of the sort, but a sleazy attempt by the patriarchy to cover up wrongdoing along with a very unsubtle swipe at men, the Tories and the patriarchy in one fell swoop. As a consequence, the whole premise of the false allegation was effectively undermined. You know, I believe her even if she is lying through her teeth. The BBC doesn’t even try subtlety any more. I felt like I’d been lumped between the eyes with a sledgehammer.

9 Comments

  1. This is black washing pure and simple. Anybody reading this blog knows exactly what that is and why it’s being done.

    If it’s all about “challenging roles” there is a very simple question to ask (select variant of choice).

    So in the forthcoming drama about the slave trade you are so fixated with, the captain of the slave ship will be black will he?

    Now that we are leaving their beloved toytown Austria-Hungary, expect that the BBC to double down on this shite (out of pure spite probably)

  2. It’s the same with advertising. All couples and families in adverts these days are either black or mixed race. Totally unrepresentative of society as a whole.

    I watched a program last year that was ruined by political messages – Designated Survivor. It started well with a terrorist attack blowing up the American political elite and a nobody being left to assume the role of President. Once he took to the position, he started ‘tackling issues’ with a loony lefty perspective and the whole thing went from good to, pass the sick bag

    • Designated survivor, I saw that. Couldn’t help notice how the “good” special forces were quite diverse and the “bad” were all white.

      That tiny oriental CIA lass beating the shit out of one of the latter (despite this guy chinning her fair and square a few times) – and if I recall she did this in heels.

      The FBI guy who was black and wasn’t one of the special advisors Muslim who, apart from a slight tan and endlessly pointing this out, was utterly indistinguishable from a regular American Joe.

      Etc etc etc.

      And don’t get me started on the last season of man in the high castle! Why didn’t they do that to the confederacy?!

      • I got bored with the Man in the High Castle after the first season, so don’t know what you mean. Is it worth me carrying on with it?

        I remember one scene in Designated Survivor where they met a bunch of women who had lost children to gun violence. They fawned all over them rather than pointing out that making legal guns illegal, would not have save any of their gang banger kids. I think that where I lost patients with it

  3. It’s the fault of the SJWs that Fox made the “mistake”. Even though it might have been technically true that there might a Sikh soldier in the circumstances seen in 1917, does anyone think that that historical accuracy was the main reason for the casting?
    If the film had been made 20, 30, 40 years ago then Fox, and I, might simply have thought, “oh, there were Sikh soldiers serving alongside Tommies in WW1” and thought no more about it.
    In fact there is a Sikh pilot in 633 Squadron (1964)and most people, including me, might have noticed but were entirely happy with the casting. I don’t remember anyone ever complaining about it.
    Now, such casting is mainly deliberately rammed in your face “diversity” and so anyone not obvious casting is going to be assumed to be there to make a point. The casting is meant to be provocative so it’s a bit rich to complain when anyone does comment on it.

  4. Bucko caught on my favourite niggle of the moment – the mixed race households and resulting children in adverts. I’m now pursuing a policy of not buying from the guilty advertisers – I bet that’s got their shareholders trembling!

    Recent episodes of Vera have shown what a racial melting pot Northumberland is . . .

    Thankfully I’m 50/50 English and Scottish so I hate everybody!

  5. On the subject of slavery. There was a time when it was pretty much universal throughout the world. Was it not the British who first recognised that it was wrong and then invested considerable resources in stamping it out?

  6. To be accurate when they show African slavery they need to show how the stronger tribes caught and sold their rival tribes to the white man for beads, guns etc. Yes it was wrong and a bad part of British history but how could a few white men in a small ship go into the untamed lands and capture all those natives? The Africans were sold by their own kind, they just need to read the history books.

    Then read up about British history and how the housewives were horrified when they heard how slaves were being treated and boycotted the buying of sugar. That was the start of the end of slavery. If you have no idea what is happening you cannot do anything, but once enlightened by those in the know, the ordinary person will act.

Comments are closed.