h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So.... Positive discrimination simply doesn't exist. Except where is does exist! Gotcha.

Relax! Think of it as deciding by the toss of a genetic coin.

(Happy to discuss further...on another thread)

I watched this episode the other night, off and on, and while I couldn't really care less about this, I did note that they did actually create a couple of new characters who didn't have to be black but were.

So I think they were trying to make a point in some way - but a good point nevertheless.

If the BBC (or whoever) hadn't told the press in advance, would anyone have noticed that it was an all black episode? I'm not sure I would have.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/University-Challenge-Oxfords-Corpus-Christi-Disqualified-For-Using-Ringer-BBC-Says/Article/200903115232781?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15232781_University_Challenge%3A_Oxfords_Corpus_Christi_Disqualified_For_Using_Ringer%2C_BBC_Says

Ooops, looks like no matter how smart Miss Trimble was, she forgot to ask whether all her teammates were eligible!

Not a good way to now lose the contest!

In another context, if uniquely mine, this statement from the directors of the University Challenge gives proof to the true greatness of Britain:

>> ...find ourselves in the regrettable position of having no choice but to disqualify Corpus Christi from the final. <<

Where else in this god forsaken whirled would preserving the rule of law be more important than common sense or even decisions ruled by emotion.



Orc!
>> ...a couple of new characters who didn't have to be black but were. <<
Was it that obvious? But then again, how so?
Perhaps some insight into situations where the character would need to be black: Othello, Mandella, blicky-badger, Tiger Woods, Obama, Cassius Clay, and that F1 chappie who won the whirled chimpionship last year. (Egads, my accent is degenerating into cynical Kiwi - chimpionship lol - and not a white one either!)



And speaking of chimpions I gots to ask EdwaRDO why we can't continue to discuss this here:

"Think of it as deciding by the toss of a genetic coin.
(Happy to discuss further...on another thread)"

I think your genetic coin-toss analogy is spot on! That's why we invented the concept of best 2 outa 3.



And finally, if I may speak to the question of the thread for the first time, I'm shocked and saddened to hear any of you actually could have thought the name Great Britain was some sort of self-gratifying, self-congratulating compliment to the "nation's" prowess. It is in fact a geographical description, just like Little Big Horn which refers to the smallest of three tributaries that eventually form the Big Horn River.

Some islands are born big and some have biggins thrust upon them. Just keep an open mind and continue to support the rule of law against all threats from the delusions of misperceived 'realities'.


~j~

Re: the University Challenge thing: Gail Trimble was actually a reserve player initially and only got into the team when someone dropped out.

>Was it that obvious? But then again, how so? erm<

Well the one that stuck out was a new member of staff, never seen before, in the hair salon. Just an extra and unlikely to be seen again.

I guess you have to be familiar with the regular cast too. Which sadly I am as my partner is one who insists on watching the main soaps throughout the week.

I only spotted this and looked out for it due to press coverage of the fact that the episode was going to be all black people.

All I'm saying is that they *were* making a point of this otherwise they would most likely have stuck to their usual cast of walk-ons and extras.
And as I said, I don't think I'd have noticed this watershed moment in British TV had I not been warned in advance.

>> this watershed moment in British TV <<

Wasn't the cast of Desmond's exclusively black, at least for the first series? I think that someone forced the makers to include a white character after season 1...for "balance", presumably?

RF

Maybe I should have put watershed in inverted commas.

"Where else in this god forsaken whirled would preserving the rule of law be more important than common sense or even decisions ruled by emotion."

In any other year the BBC would probably have just swept it under the carpet, but they seem to be under great duress with any sort of 'competitive' programme to ensure that rules are followed after the phone scandals across many of the stations, Blue Peter, Strictly Come Down On Ice-Factor.

Wasnt Desmond's apprentice a white actor and his daughters best friend a white actor as was his son's PA at the bank?

Also in the realms of made up stuff many white actors have played Othello.

The closest I ever saw someone in real life coming to the authors spirit of Othello was Maggie Thatcher. She loved being leader of the Tories but had it snatched away from her when she'd outlived her usefulness. Now people despise the spinelss plotters who stabbed her in the back and miss her style of leadership dearly.



Anyway the examples in the OP arent why Britain isnt great anymore.
Britain was "Great" because we got the jump on most other countries in the world by stealing whole bleeding continenets from the people who lived there. Used what amounted to torture on children to brainwash them into unfeeling state sanctioned genocidal maniacs otherwise known as the public school system. then to ensure financial prosperity we forced the captive nations to buy the bulk of their manufactured goods from us.

Its since we became more civilised stopped shamelessly stealing other people and their land and possession that we havent been able to glory in bullying the rest of the world.

I think this is (on the whole) a good thing.

Snobbery pervades all humanity and being rude to other people is not a sign that Albion is about to sink into the sea.

That's somewhat inaccurate.

Sorry to wade in, but Azahoth - can you at least point out which bits you disagree with?

Like a lot of the stuff Blicky says, I agree with more of it than I disagree with. The fact is, that like most of Europe we punch above our weight globally because of our Imperial past. Blicky's coming at it from a fairly extreme viewpoint, but as far as the facts go, our class system and the (at times brutal) public school system created generations of people with the zeal and drive to impose British rule on a massive chunk of the planet.

I think that like all things, the truth is somewhere between the "Empire = bally good show" and "Empire = horrific colonial oppression" camps, but he's putting forward a fairly accurate anti-Imperial viewpoint.

We can't all be post-revisionists...

Is it really so obscure?

I sided with not going into a wordy response because it's been established over time that not amount of fact penetrates the man's rant-red sunglasses.

OK...

"Britain was "Great" because we got the jump on most other countries in the world by stealing whole bleeding continenets from the people who lived there."

The "Great" is of disputed origin.
Was used in the original post linguistically, shall we say and has little of anything to do with harking back to days of Empire.
Britain was a successful trader.
Influence began to be established off the back of our ability to defend our sea trade routes. But the wealth and power really got going off the back of the slave trade, this was underway before got anywhere near taking entire continents and subcontinents under our management.
The most important event was the industrial revolution. Taking the subcontinent was made "us" into an empire in the minds of the Victorians, but really what us "Great" was the industrial revolution, and what stopped us being "Great" was everyone else catching up because gave the technology away.

"Used what amounted to torture on children to brainwash them into unfeeling state sanctioned genocidal maniacs otherwise known as the public school system."

Colourful, too colourful to even say it's true in spirit.

"then to ensure financial prosperity we forced the captive nations to buy the bulk of their manufactured goods from us."

True enough. e.g. In the case of India they grew cotton, we processed it and then sold it back.

"Its since we became more civilised stopped shamelessly stealing other people and their land and possession that we havent been able to glory in bullying the rest of the world."

Indeed now we bully in shadows.
And the exploitation of people is just fine because it's done by people the same colour, or who speak the same language. And it's China that takes commodities from Africa at artificially low prices and sells the processed goods back.

>> The "Great" is of disputed origin. <<

While I do not, can not and will not disagree or dispute with anything you have said about the history of the empire I have to once again point out that the origin of the name Great Britain is purely geopgraphic. It is the largest, biggest, grandest (as the French would say) ie: greatest of the many islands of the Britannic Archipelago, a chain of islands running north and west of Britanny.

We have here, off the coast of Nova Scotia, many islands, sometimes in pairs that get names such as Big Tancook and Little Tancook. The big, the little, suggesting nothing more or less than their respective sizes. Great Britain (or Grand Breton) means simply the biggest. It is not my fault that the great has since been misconstrued by those who actually believe that bigger must mean better.

And because it was the funniest thing I've said for days (and got not one laugh or mention) let me also repeat my profound dictum that:

'Some islands are born big while others have Biggins thrust upon them.' Maybe the capital B will help.


~jwf~

I only recently realised what made Great Britain great. It's that unique combination of the guile and inventiveness of the Scots, the talent and conciliatory nature of the Welsh, and the sheer bloody-minded aggression of the English.

Yes, jwf, I was being clumsy. I am of the understanding that how the term came to be the cartographers standard was disputed, in light of the implication being made that it was some kind of Imperial ego trip. Not on the meaning of the term "Great", which is as you say are very old term to distinguish between the big and less big of the two larger islands of off Europe.

Alternatively

The official use of the word Great Britain dates from 1603 when James 1 united the crowns of England and Scotland and he called himself King of Great Britain. He was not a popular monarch and there was objection to the style he gave himself which was declared illegal by the courts of law, but it prevailed. The word had been used before but quite loosely to distinguish Great Britain from Little Britain or Brittany.

or

Incorporating the Union of England and Scotland in 1706-07 led to the introduction and adoption of the title Great Britain. This was the time of the War of the Spanish Succession, with France on the losing side against England and its powerful allies, Holland and Prussia — the Duke of Marlborough destroying the French and Spanish army at the Battle of Blenheim. The new title was immediately recognised by the two allies and thereafter across the world.

Well there we are then, aren't facts wonderful?