To claim Talons of Weng-Chiang as one of your favourite Doctor Who stories in 2019 is to court controversy. Not because it lacks quality; far from it. Talons is a sublimely well scripted and performed, genre-mashing banger of a serial – a supernova collision of the best writer, producer and lead actor in Who history with expert BBC costume drama, a much-underrated companion and supporting characters of spin-off series quality. It is all-time top ten material, all day long. But that shouldn’t mean it gets a free pass on racism, which is sure to feature prominently in the Who Back When review.
The usual defence of Talons is that it reflects the racist attitudes of the era in which it is set, and there is some justification in this. The story is drenched in late-Victorian literary allusions and there is no denying the colonial attitudes and racist terminology of Kipling, Conrad and particularly the Fu Manchu novels of Sax Rohmer which are so clearly influential to the story. Society at large would have reflected these prejudices, and I would much prefer to see this depicted naturally (as opposed to New Who, which occasionally prefers to write ‘history as it should have been’). But the Doctor should be the one character enlightened enough to challenge this backwardness, and the major problem with Talons is that he doesn’t, even when Litefoot uses the term ‘Chinks’; indeed, at times, the Doctor actually seems to endorse these prejudicial attitudes with comments about, for example, ‘little men’ or ‘epicanthic eyebrows’.
The ‘yellowface’ aspect (more of which later) will also undoubtedly be troubling to modern viewers, but as we condemn it let us also recognise that John Bennett puts in an absolutely extraordinary performance as Li H’sen Chang – by turns mesmerising, terrifying, charming, sympathetic and vulnerable.
Whilst The Talons of Weng-Chiang was one of the last Doctor Who stories to have an overt issue with racism, it was by no means the first. The high watermark came 11 years earlier, in Spring 1966. Three out of four stories airing between March and June are extremely problematic. This was a time when one former British colony after another were declaring independence and, once you view The Ark as a polemic firmly opposed to this movement, it is impossible afterwards to see it any other way. The black-skinned Monoids, mute ‘savages’ at least in the first two episodes, are an expendable servant race to the civilised, white-skinned crew of the ark (and, by extension, the miniaturised human cargo). Upon overthrowing their former masters, they prove themselves to be, by turns, violent, incompetent and comedically stupid, apt to accidentally blurt their out nefarious plans. They are portrayed as completely incapable of self-governance; a society falling to pieces without the white man’s civilising influence.
Any hopes that this might have been the nadir of Doctor Who racism though were immediately quashed with the next serial, The Celestial Toymaker. The Toymaker’s robes and hat are clearly Chinese and it is well documented that ‘celestial’ was a term commonly interchangeable with ‘Asian’ in the 1960s (indeed Li H’sen is described as ‘The Celestial Chang’ in Talons). But any ‘yellowface’ offence is dwarfed by the astounding decision to include the Eeny Meeny Miny Moe rhyme with the audible n-word (removed or disguised on subsequent releases). The Wikipedia contributor for the story suggests that its use was still acceptable in 1966, but Elizabeth Sandifer of the always excellent TARDIS Eruditorum blog (who also highlighted the imperialist overtones of The Ark) correctly disputes this, pointing out that Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None had its title changed from Ten Little N- as early as 1940 to avoid offence. There is no possible justification for its inclusion.
Then, two stories later, we have The Savages, claimed to be a parable about Apartheid-era South Africa, with some of the actors in ‘blackface’. It is difficult to reconcile though – in what is ostensibly a ‘utopian society hides a shameful secret’ story, in which the primitives are enlightened and the Elders exploitative and evil, how does it aid the allegory to have the Elders played in ‘blackface’? At least doesn’t instinctively feel as if there is an unpleasant agenda here – possibly the opposite, in fact.
And it’s at this point that I want to loop back to earlier Doctor Who. There are ‘yellowface’ and ‘brownface’ depictions in earlier stories – particularly Marco Polo, The Aztecs and The Crusade – yet, perhaps perversely, I don’t take much issue with these. Even as a very left-leaning person, I don’t necessarily find ‘colouring up’ immediately 100% offensive. If characters are portrayed respectfully and three-dimensionally – Bernard Kay’s Saladin or Keith Pyott’s Autloc, for example – it is considerably less of a problem than when the portrayal strays into caricature or stereotype.
Consider the talent pool that the BBC had at its disposal in the 1960s. The 1961 census recorded a Chinese ethnicity population of just 38,730 in England and Wales, of which no more than a handful would have made their way into acting and the union Equity, which ruled the stage and the airwaves at the time. Until 1988 every entertainment professional was required to be a member of this union, so from a casting perspective, the very limited Equity listings were all you had to choose from. It would likely have been impossible to cast the likes of Marco Polo with actors from an appropriate ethnic background. There were enough actors and actresses of colour in the Equity ranks to suggest that the very occasional representation in 1960s and 1970s Doctor Who (such as the excellent Carmen Monroe in The Enemy of the World) was racism by omission, but still nothing like the numbers of today. Does this paucity of casting options mean that Doctor Who should never have attempted stories based outside Caucasian countries? Some might say yes, but I would respectfully disagree – that would have made it a tremendously parochial programme and one that would have failed in its initial educational remit.
The upshot was that ‘colouring up’ was still a core element of British television in the 1960s and 1970s. As late as 1981, for example, four years after Talons aired, Anthony Hopkins played Othello in full ‘blackface’ in a landmark BBC televised play.
‘Blackface’ is rightly consigned to history now, but one or two questions remain. Is it unacceptable for any actor to portray a character of a different racial background? In which case, why should it be acceptable for a British actor, black or white, to portray the Moor of Venice? Brits playing Russians in Killing Eve and Chernobyl? Mark Eden playing Marco Polo? Patrick Troughton playing the Mexican Salamander? Of course we criticise the appalling ‘mute brute’ racial stereotypes in consecutive 1967 stories Evil of the Daleks and Tomb of the Cybermen, but not the fact that in the former a Trinidadian actor is playing a Turk. Are we saying then that an appropriate skin tone confers a ‘pass’?
Sensitive questions and, in some ways, I wish we could avoid them altogether. With a racist US President and an apparently racist UK Prime Minister emboldening more widespread racist attitudes, it is easy to see racism in everything and find ourselves playing at the sort of ever-more-intersectional identity politics which causes even the most enlightened liberalism to eventually consume itself; all at a time when liberals should be uniting in the face of existential threats to society (and indeed the planet) as a whole. When very reasonable people are arguing between themselves whether Zoe Saldana is dark-skinned enough to play Nina Simone, for example, it is hard not to conclude that we are enabling ‘divide and rule’ by dividing ourselves.
One final, deliberately provocative but genuine question – what purpose does condemning racism in 1960s and 1970s Doctor Who actually serve? On whose behalf are we offended? Because it is certain that the majority of those taking offence are doing so from what Drew once beautifully described as ‘the top of privilege mountain’. I am amongst them, but still recognise that there may be an element of virtue-signalling in the reaction. Isn’t the fact that it couldn’t and wouldn’t happen now enough? Should we not simply view the likes of Talons as a museum piece; the product of a less enlightened age, but no less beautiful for it?
Without lived experience of racism, my answers to questions like these frankly carry very little weight. I still have Talons of Weng-Chiang in my top three stories of all time and Marco Polo in my top ten. Is that wrong?
“Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None had its title changed from Ten Little N- as early as 1940 to avoid offence.”
There is a lot of confusion about this, not least because this is one of a number of Christie novels that had different titles for the British and American editions. It has been complicated further by various adaptations using “Ten Little Indians” and, reportedly, some editions of the book being retitled to tie-in with the adaptations (though from what I can tell, these were mainly American editions).
The British edition was released in 1939 with the Ten Little N- title. By and large the book retained that title here until the mid 1980s. The American edition came out almost simultaneously and used “And Then There Were None”. Inside it used the “Indians” version of the nursery rhyme (which was the form better known in the US) and renamed the setting to “Indian Island”.
British adaptations for stage and television from the 1940s until the 1960s continued to use the N- word title though films used “Ten Little Indians” (probably with an eye on the American market). American adaptations (including bringing over the stage play) used a mixture of “And Then There Were None” and “Ten Little Indians”; some publications of the book used the latter title to tie-in with it. In 1985 British editions started using “And Then There Was None”. There was a British film under the “Ten Little Indians” title in 1989 but otherwise the title has largely settled as “And Then There Were None” in all English-language markets.
So to say the title was changed in 1940 because of the offence caused is a very American perspective.
Your comments about Trump being racist are both unnecessary and untrue. Smearing both Trump and Boris Johnson with racism shows a lack of objective thinking.
Hi Fred,
I can tell that we have loads in common. For example, we both read this article. Thanks for that. I hope that you found it interesting despite it clashing with some of your personal opinions.
As I run this website, I just wanted to add that I was immensely pleased to have the opportunity to publish this article here above. It’s insightful and well-written, and clearly a tremendous amount of research went into it. It may very well be that the one sentence on which you’re commenting is subjective — subjectively, I happen to agree with it — but it’s also worth lending some consideration to the word “apparently” applied to part of it. While on the subject, your use of “unnecessary and untrue”, ironically, comes across as somewhat subjective.
I for one am thrilled that this website and our podcast have readers and listeners from all across the political spectrum. As someone who apparently finds that the aforementioned politicians embody a spirit of diversity, you’ll surely join us in celebrating diversity of opinion as well. In any case, the political comment above was an aside that I trust did not offend. Who Back When is just about all things related to Doctor Who and our boundless love for the show.
Cheers,
Leon
Trump has a long recorded history of saying and doing racist things, starting his denial that his grandfather’s firm barred blacks from renting properties and his defence of the manager who implemented the policy. More recently he has supported and emboldened white supremacist organisations like The Proud Boys.
Boris Johnson is famously the author of many racist quotes, including the infamous “picanninies with watermelon smiles”. The only error is the use of the word “apparently”.
This is the stakeholder actioning comment for this universe
Anyone who thinks Trump is not racist is an imbecile and not worth paying attention to. Move along, cultist.
The truth will always be necessary, especially when these two, in particular, don’t have a single truth to share between them.
Is it ironic or Orwellian that Trump named his now-failed social media platform “Truth” – just like Russia’s Pravda.
Our only hope is that Trump is not re-elected while Putin & Boris Johnson are still in power – an isolated UK, a fascist US & a wounded, authoritarian bear. It would be mankind’s darkest period if that happens – all have nukes.
I totally agree with you, sir. The author’s true colors were shown with that statement, which is a pitty as I was pretty much on board with his analysis up to that point.
Trump literally first became famous for calling for innocent black children to be executed, with paid adverts, so stridently it damaged public confidence in the honesty of their trial. To this date, with their innocence proved, he’s never admitted he was wrong.
He’s so famously racist, he was prosecuted for racism by the Nixon administration – and you have to really _work_ to be too racist for Nixon. He’s so racist, one of his first signature laws was thrown out by the _conservative_ Supreme Court, five times, for being unconstitutionally racist. He’s literally officially endorsed by the KKK.
What the fuck else does it take? How could he possibly do anything _more_ racist?
_Someone’s_ true colours are certainly exposed by this discussion, but I regret to inform you it wasn’t the author’s.
Barring the link to the moronic Liz Sandifers crappy blog (sorry, but I do not respect anyone who blathers about occult claptrap, let alone whilst writing a nerd interest fanblog – her observations on how racist the original Dr Who could get ain’t unique anyway), the only other quibble I have with this is that this wasn’t the last time original show was really racist – that dubious honor would go to ‘Time Flight’ a few years later, with the character of Khalid aka Anthony Ainley in godawful yellowface makeup with huge buckteeth – sheesh!
Excellent article–insightful, intelligent and spot-on in every area of discussion. Another episode that is worthy of noting in this conversation is “Planet of the Spiders.”
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, you’re spot on with Planet of the Spiders. I guess it may have had the same Equity/casting issues as the likes of Marco Polo, The Abominable Snowmen etc but the portrayal of Asian characters is sometimes excruciating. As Barry Letts was a Buddhist himself though, perhaps it squeaks a pass for trying to do something instructive in that regard? All the best, Rich
I just came across this well-written article, and just wanted to explain why blackface in particular is offensive.
It’s not about someone of one race portraying another. It’s because the US has a history of white actors portraying black people in exceedingly offensive ways. Usually the white person was black faced, and the lips were painted bright red. From Wikipedia: “In the United States, the practice gained popularity during the 19th century and contributed to the spread of racial stereotypes such as the “happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation”
“…the late 19th- and early 20th-century American and British stage where (blackface) last prospered[27] featured many other, mostly ethnically-based, comic stereotypes: conniving, venal Jews;[28][29] drunken brawling Irishmen with blarney at the ready;[29][30][31] oily Italians;[29] stodgy Germans;[29] and gullible rural rubes.[29]”
I hope this explains why this practice is so historically offensive, and how protests against white people playing other ethnicities are valid.
Found this an intriguing article. Was greatly interested at the statistics about the Chinese population in England at the time of the production of these serials. I personally have no problem with an actor portraying a role of a different ethnicity or heritage of their own, but I do hold that nine times out of (or similar) heritage; this is especially true for roles like Othello, Shylock, or Robin Hood whose nationality or identity are intrinsic to their character.
Whilst perhaps of a different political persuasion to the writer of this article, I can find unity in our common desire to see history presented ‘warts and all’, our wish to see characters of all nationalities portrayed as three dimensional human beings of equal worth, and our love of a brilliantly written Doctor Who serial that is a product of its time for good and for ill.
I am actually watching this episode on the Dr. Who channel right now. The MOST racist ‘thing’ I’ve seen (heard) is pretty blatant. Unless I heard it wrong, the Dr. made the comment that “he’s going back to be with his ancestors”….when Chang ran down into the tunnels with the giant rats (as if to imply Chang’s ancestors were rats). But, a later scene more made it appear that the Dr. was referring to Chang’s ‘Chinese’ ancestors. Beyond any ‘innuendo’ of this kind, I really don’t think the alleged racism is as harsh as a few stereotypes. But, here’s the thing. MANY stereotypes….are TRUE. So we ALL have to ‘lighten up’ when it coms to the reflections of REAL (and TIMES) life in entertainment’….especially as ‘rich’ as these ‘old school’ productions were. Every Who episode/miniseries was TRULY a spectacle to behold. THAT is the ‘takeaway’.
I just watched Talons of Weng-Chiang and i can’t really see what’s racist about it.
It just so happens that Li H’sen Chang and the others happen to be chinese, but they could might as well have been dutch, australian, russian or americans. Would it still have been accused of racism then? I think not.
Thank you, Richard Tarrant, for writing this article. It is a fascinating analysis of a sadly unfortunate problem–unfortunate for those of us who love Doctor Who. “Talons” is indeed a conundrum for the reasons you’ve stated. Having a white actor play a Chinese character is, for me, a problem. “Yellowface” is just as bad as “blackface.” (I’m a Black American.) The production could have easily hired an Asian actor for such a leading role. And yes, the racism of the Victorian Era should have been contextualized by having the Doctor soundly rebuke it, rather than tacitly support it. Such a great pity, because it is one of the best stories of the classic era.
Danger Man (Secret Agent in the US), from the 1960s, never had problems casting Black actors for episodes set in Africa or the Caribbean. In fact, there are two stories where virtually the whole cast is Black, with the exception of Patrick McGoohan and maybe one or two others. Ralph Smart, the show runner, was quite ahead of his time.
Thank you again for this thought-provoking article.