National Treasures Live ? complaint

Apologies sometimes it takes 2100 words to express a complex opinion which refers to a complex situation and that such a lack of brevity should not be perceived as a failure of intellect, it’s just not a narrowing of everything, as the dumbing down of television seems to prefer. All things that appear on television are by their nature either a negative or positive promotion / reinforcement of concepts,subjects,ideas,people’s, its how people get their opinions on the world sadly. you write in your initial reply of an “An obligation to reflect the whole of UK society”. Correctly you point out the government has obliged you with laws that have been in place for sometime to deliberately go out of your way to represent all of UK society, what this ends up meaning in reality, is deliberate and artificial representation of minority groups on tv, ie the presenter scenario in which an asian or an african person is deliberately thrown into the mix to appear on tv, just so that you can appear to be fulfilling a diversity quotient of some artificially fostered multicultural remit, so the minority viewer can see himself on TV like some visual form of VOX POP media job distribution ? the problem with the idea of representation of cultural diversity on tv, is it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy from a promotional perspective, once you end up down that road you end up having to have one of each cultural type just to make it look like your fulfilling some diversity obligation, this may well not represent actual numbers, or stand up for the quality or merit of the individuals concerned.

The thing that irritated me greatly about the program was the title used and the content bait and switch relative to it, “National Treasure Live” first of all the Jamaican content wasn’t live ? Secondly populational cultural uk diversity representation, could have been said to be fulfilled by Lenny henry presence on screen itself regardless of the Jamaican content, but then to go on and represent that the Jamaican contribution to british war effort in the second world war within the context of the program was to imply this Jamaicans alliance was a “national treasure” to us all ? this may well be Lenny Henry’s view im sure, and im sure you failed to bring the polish contribution in equal weight or other displaced allies operating out of the UK at that time ? who were not doubt also defending in that process, theyre own cultures ! regardless of the meritorious actions of the Jamaican people or other allies during the second world war and their contribution as a country still within empire control, “it seemed way too much like some form of propaganda to me” ie we should all be thankful of Jamaican immigration to the mother country ? was the net implication of the least we owed the ex RAF Jamaican pensioner living in this country ? truthfully a program about Jamaica’s assistance is not what I would be classing as a “national treasure” maybe that’s just my personal opinion as a native ? surely their contribution to the defeat of classic fascism should be a “Jamaican National Treasure” maybe ? Otherwise it would be to imply, they had nothing themselves to gain or lose from not aiding us or our loss in the war ! except perhaps the inevitable loss, in being part of a greater fascist nazi german empire ? and Jamaicans perception within nazi ideology ? for if england fell then her empire would have been forfeit to germany ? and the nazi’s would have got round to the Caribbean soon enough.

I understand in the current climate and recent events, you perceive that your standard spiel of multiculturalism is the only solution and should be shouted even louder down the populations throat, instead of thinking about the further espousement of the philosophy of multiculturalism, perhaps you should promote and find those elements that unify our culture for all people within it, and reverse the trend to draw segregational multicultural lines within it, after all the groups representation game, just look headless and pointless almost impossible to fairly implement.

As a person belonging to the one minority group that is not specifically represented properly in britain by lobbying/pressure/charity organisations or positively discriminational law ie the “historical british native” is something this culture has yet to recognise the existence of, without condemning it, as a non-existent concept from an intellectual perspective ? both in the media and in politics, to the extent of british nativity almost being perceived as a racist and negative prejudicial concept ? or in fact logically non existent compared to say norman descent, just because the non invading populational groups represented in britain, celts etc had their oral tradition stamped out and the written culture did not exist in a form that has survived well into recent history, does not mean this populational group weren’t very important or can be said, not to exist today from a cultural perspective, perhaps we still have too great a legacy today of those with representational power in todays culture, being descendant from the invasional classes ? in the effect of this non representation of this idea of british nativity ?

I also despised the twee section you had in the program, to “educate” a rather deliberately dimly selected informed and patronisingly regional caricature, that his surname, shock of shocks is probably descendant from the norman “invasion” of 1066, perhaps in these times sexistly not adding any weight to the validity of interbreeding and his possible maternal line, versus the patriarchal lineage, this also seemed to be an attempt to highlight he was some sort of immigrant himself ? with its proximity to the previous Jamaican section, feeling like a crude allusion to : ie ‘you who perceive yourself as british, are in fact nought more than a norman immigrant from times past ?’ without really portraying in fact the unifying nature of the interceding 900 years of passing time in that equation between the two forms of immigration ? within this program about “National Treasures” ? of course only subconsciously, not clearly illustrating for the viewers both romano and norman britain, were in fact the created through “invasion” and not open door immigration ! An important and subtle difference meaning that natives lost their lives in an often “tribally segregated” british culture of fragile alliances (perhaps to be perceived as multicultural ?) and thereby fractured and offering a futile defence, against often much more organised and unified european powers, and the “normans” weren’t french civility they were “normans > Norse Men > men of the North” ! ie vikings who a hundred years earlier prior to 1066 had been ceded normandy by the french as part of a peace treaty to resolve continuing viking incursions ? so what seems to be represented by the program, is perhaps only in the tv version of history, does it take just 100 years for viking barbarian norsemen warlords to be defined as civilised french invaders by the amplification of the false written history of the victor ?! Those were invasions, and not “multiculturalism in action” nor should it be portrayed so by the media ? there is a great deal of difference between a door being unguarded and left open (multiculturalism) and a door being battered down (invasion) as that would be-little the cultural sacrifice of the poorly documented people who attempted to defend this culture from invasion by laying down their lives in defence of it, even if history tends not, to write or represent the story of the “marketed as illiterate” vanquished, who by the way would always remain part of the breeding culture regardless of invasion.

The cultural representation of britain should never attempt, to segregate us into lots of disparate groups, the history of war throughout the world portrays this folly, the purpose of the “British” broadcasting corporation within its output in the majority, which will inevitably function as some form of propaganda in its delivery whether desired or not, should at least attempt to unify the population under the banner/idea of being “british” which regardless of current philosophy’s is a large part of the titular name of the organisation itself. Through this inevitable propaganda you will have to make, rather than the segregational multiculturalist representational idea you’ve been subconsciously pumping at us for 40 years in the visual imagery you present, without any attempt to actually comprehend exactly how tribal people are in nature in the first place, multiculturalism im sure looked good at its philosophical outset, from the perspective of people actually heterozygously mingling, though im sure the powerful internationally fluent and minded wealthy brits who implemented this philosophical idea and were by money independent of its results, were probably unaware how the lower and poorer classes who have a little stake in such philosophical beliefs, and must pay the consequences of immigration in terms of competition, cling quite deeply to their cultural identity and unity as they dont own much else or have a stake much other cultural capital, and certainly have money to compensate for the loss of it or retain their own well being separate form its impact.

The populational culture we experience today has mainly been descendant in a recognisable way from the last 200-300 years of history, and prior to the present days 70 year long immigrational agenda, from quite a cohesive unified populational body of people, yes theyre has always been some form of immigration, but the current era of mass immigration numbers wise, can only be represented in a strictly truthful sense exceptional novel and without precedent, excluding the definition of “900 year old historical invasions” as some form of immigration ? The population without invasion or internal squabbling was unified and rightfully so under a banner of britishness that “sense of unity” helped to defend this isle from all incomers for a very long period of recent history without any invasion. And as a person with long standing Welsh heritage who knows what the word “Welsh” actually means and whose chapel ancestors helped to break the dominance of English overlords in Wales, I still understand the necessity and usefulness of a single bordered island nation having no war like tribal tendencies and unnecessary divisions within it. and creating a sense of unity under a single banner. The current ethos, segregational version of multiculturalism and the “european project” ((code for dilute all cultural and national identity in the vain attempt to prevent fascism) seems to be doing the opposite of its intention ?) these things the BBC has consciously or not, been promoting through representation in a specifically positive light for the last 40 years, do little to add to that sense of unity or common bond of cultural identity of the “british” population, or your preferential description those people s/minority/community’s from wherever, who live within the confines of this isle ? The majority of the last 50 years of media has been spent in the attempted enforcement and idolisation of everything foreign, including the liberal agenda of importing people to this country as a solution to global poverty, which in fact betrays the ignorance and refusal of a “certain class” to except the shrinkage of britain in an empirical sense, the extreme ego of ammicability offered by one class at the expense of another, towards all people’s foreign, the BBC’s love of everything not british is in fact a hangover from BBC empire propaganda days, and such is only moderated, when it comes to global power conflicts in which the bbc denigrate such foreign people s under the auspices of media manipulative government led propaganda.

whichever the output needs to be more intelligent and representative of the truth, and properly independent ie not taking direct instruction from the Israeli state as regards broadcast images relating to operation cast lead in 2008 for example. And obviously the output of the BBC needs to be unifying of british culture, rather than toadying to some artificially enshrined positive discriminational, deliberately dilutionist segregational multicultural agenda.

or if not … we need to start perceiving the native people’s of this isle from a historical perspective as just another minority group that needs legislated protection through law, the same as all the others represented by such laws, as currently I feel the british population is currently perceived as not to actually exist in any tangible sense of the word ? ie the bedrock is somehow invisible by a presumption the current legislation somehow represents it, whereas in fact it does no such thing, since all laws and protections should apply to all within the boundaries of this country. And those that are specific on the basis of race or cultural origin are in their true meaning, in fact in law negative against those not mentioned in or represented by them.

Leave a Reply