The BBC has been swooning at the success of the film “Slumdog Millionaire” at the Oscars all morning. I haven’t seen the movie yet so can’t comment on it but I do note that several of the young people that star in the movie repeatedly refer to their home city as “Bombay”. The BBC really must have a word with them – don’t they know it is Mumbai?
SLUMDOG ALERT
Bookmark the permalink.
Why don’t the BBC call Paris “Paree” or Moscow “Moskva”. It would appear that anglicised names are fine for those two capital cities.
Andy | 23.02.09 – 10:03 am | #
Surely you mean “collective of leftist public-sector parasites.” rather than “collection” or even “The BBC…a gulag of leftist public-sector parasites.” Or even: “The BBC…a commune of leftist public-sector parasites.” Or perhaps: “The BBC…a shedload of leftist public-sector parasites.”
“Given the history of the Mumbadevi temple, it is obvious that the claim that ‘Mumbai’ is the original name of the city of Bombay is merely mythurgic: the malicious invention of the Marathi colonists as an instrument of Cultural Genocide, by destroying the original names and replacing them with Maharashtrianised names!
The renaming rests entirely on the goon power of the Marathi colonists’ Brown Shirt party, the terrorist organisation that styles itself the Shiv Sena. ”
http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/bombay.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena
“Of course some people in Mumbai call it Bombay, the same as some residents still call St Petersburg; Leningrad or even Petrograd – but it’s official name is still St Petersburg.”
Hardly the same St Petersburg reverted back to its historical name after the fall of the USSR.
I can’t wait for the BBC to start calling Germany, Deutschland or Greece – Hellenes. They are their official names are they not?
Regarding the BBC love-fest over Slumdog, if the movie was about a “Slumdog” who used reason and aspiration to start up a business and create real wealth for himself and jobs for others, overcoming obstacles along the way through his determination and resolve, demonstrating what can be achieved in life, no matter what one’s circumstances, as opposed to a slumdog getting lucky on a gameshow, I am sure the BBC would have given it a wide berth.
The movie is over-hyped and typical movie nonesense that is the standard these days. I suppose it was just better nonesense then the others which gave it the 8 Oscars.
I can’t wait for the BBC to start calling Germany, Deutschland or Greece – Hellenes. They are their official names are they not?
Jon | 23.02.09 – 9:07 pm |
Well, they rarely call England England. I wouldn’t be too expectant, Jon 😉
I wonder what is it about this particular subject that has suddenly attracted all MWL’s friends to come on?
probably already said above, but “Mumbai” was imposed by a Hindu Nationalist local government. It was specifically imposed in a Hindu supremacist manner. yes, its a racist term.
Average Indians prefer the more inclusive “Bombay”…
best film of the year in my humble opinion was “Taken” with Liam Neeson.
trouble is , it wont get any awards, as Neeson bumps off dozens of Albanian human trafficers, before climaxing in an orgy of violence against their Arab paymasters…
thumping good film though – one hell of an adrenalin rollercoaster of a film.
archduke | 23.02.09 – 11:25 pm |
Did Eastwood’s Gran Torino get a mention / nomination? Probably not… they had to hand an Oscar to Sean “I hate America” Penn instead.
I’ve decided I’m not going to watch the Oscar’s again.
“I posted a comment on BBC’s “Have Your Say” forum suggesting the film’s success was motivated by political correctness and that the same film made about a white child in a British city would not have won any Oscars.”
Erm… Billy Elliot? And hosts of other “rags to riches” stuff.
Brits aren’t in general politically correct but have been flocking to see it because (gasp) it’s good??!! The Wrestler was better though.
Rob Santiago:
and you will notice that all the bad guys in Slumdog are indeed hindus.
The only other person I know of who has noticed this muslim bias is Charles Moore in his column in this week’s Spectator.
Rob Santiago | 23.02.09 – 4:11 pm |
Good point, and some Hindus are shown killing some muslims. But although this point will be observed by muslim viewers, a non-muslim British person would probably not distinguish between the attackers and the attacked as belonging to different religious groups – the word muslim is mentioned briefly once in relation to the attack, and it is not explained, only shown. If you were looking down at your popcorn for a second, you would not have followed that bit of the plot.
The film is still non-PC in the sense that it shows India – a group normally given PC protection – how it is, ie cruel and corrupt.
A PC group (Indian muslims) are allowed to make a non-PC film about another group (Indian Hindus).
However, I take your point,, and no way would a film like that be made set in Pakistan where the baddies went to the mosque or wore veils.
Ricky Martin 23.02.09 – 9:04 pm:
Ricky, all great! DV, take your pick.
My point, wonderfully ignored by some, is that I find it interesting that some people who live in Bombay call it, erm, Bombay. In comparison, the BBC seem loath to say the B- word.
David Vance | Homepage | 23.02.09 – 8:22 pm | #
Except in the online article about the film’s success the BBC specifically refer to “Mumbai (Bombay)”
As usual, when provided with evidence that is contrary to your opinion (in the absence of evidence and links that is what your post is), you ignore the evidence and restate your opinion.
Sounds just like a place/thing we all know and love 🙂
Sarah Jane
I have not heard the BBC talk about Bombay in all the mentions of this story on the radio or TV. It was always Mumbai.
People get their news mostly on air – not by online articles.
Sarah Jane 8:09
Ah , the “exception that proves the rule”, straight from the Mikewineliberal book of argument.
Unfortunately for your argument Grant I am from the ‘John Reith’ school of keeping more than one example up my sleeve:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7908496.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7843960.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7909343.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7753342.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7681283.stm
I could go on. And on and on and on.
Here is a feed to save the bother:
http://newsapi.bbc.co.uk/feeds/search/news+sport/Mumbai(Bombay)
Duck and weave, Sarah Jane, duck and weave.
It is clear from everything you posted from the website that the BBC’s preferred usage is Mumbai, not Bombay. Bombay features only in brackets halfway down – never in the headlines.
Just look at these recent headlines :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7908496.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7756616.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7779819.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7887670.stm
In some stories on the website the word Bombay is omitted entirely.
And on the TV and radio – it is always Mumbai, not even Bombay in brackets.
There are hundreds more website stories more like that – always Mumbai, with the name Bombay sometimes mentioned in brackets.
Obviously there is a dictum at the BBC that Bombay should always be called Mumbai. Why dispute it ?
Given that Mumbai is the city authorities preferred name for the city, that is clearly the best way to refer to it, you wont find me disputing that. And only an idiot would say otherwise. However given that Bombay is still used then Mumbai(Bombay) doesn’t seem like a bad thing does it? (Or Chennai (Madras)).
Which rather negates David’s point.
All he had to do was look at the article about the film, or any recent article about Mumbai(Bombay) and he would have seen that his point was incorrect. But why let the facts get in the way of what you know is true?
Mumbai is called Mumbai – FACT. Some people still call it Bombay – FACT.
So Mumbai (Bombay) seems like a healthy compromise. To say that is is bias or PC is undermine any legitimate criticisms that people may have
But many many BBC articles do not refer to Bombay at all. Just Mumbai. No compromise.
And TV and radio coverage is always Mumbai, seldom any mention of Bombay.