[deleted]
[deleted]
Why does Ryan's nan need to be quoted regarding her support for other figures in order for you to not assume that she was solely concerned with Rosa Parks? What if none of the rest of the series visits an historical earth figure? What if it does and it's say, Archimedes? Is Grace's approval of Archimedes required in order for her familiarity with Rosa Parks to remain valid?
Don't get it.
Since Rosa Parks was the subject of this story, Grace's affinity with the subject was germane to the story being told in episode 3. How that should constitute a "query" that needs to be addressed is a bit weird.
As it happens, the reason the guy in this episode chose to disrupt this moment in history was precisely because Rosa Park's story DID inspire many people, particularly historically oppressed people. You might as well be typing I hope the show acknowledges the importance of other historical figures besides Rosa Parks because it would raise some sort of query.
As it happens, I know plenty of people who are experts on one topic or person and there's nothing weird or even remotely suspicious about it.
[deleted]
It's explained to you why the Tardis has brought them to Montgomery. Because a significant moment in the history of the people of the universe is being disrupted. The moment is one of significant resonance with people who have historically been oppressed. It's no coincidence that Grace, as we are told by Graham, was well read on Rosa Parks. It's a statistical high probability for a woman of Grace's age and background.
The show wasn't about Claudette Colvin. The Tardis didn't take them to an incident involving Claudette Colvin. They weren't trying to trace the steps of Claudette Colvin in order to preserve a moment in Claudette's and the universe's history. Except in a very broad topical sense, Grace's affinity for Claudette Colvin would have sounded out of place in a story about shadowing Rosa Parks's movements.
"But Black Londoner woman knows about Black America circa 1950's is too convenient if left unchallenged.
And you know this."
What are you talking about? What do I know? Who should or shouldn't know about Black America in the fifties then? Are you a "black londoner woman"? How do you know what Grace should or shouldn't know about?
You really need to explain why that should be seen as an unlikely coincidence because it struck me as quite probable and generated profound sympathy for Graham's regret that Grace could not be there in person to give them the benefit of her knowledge. If it was such an unlikely coincidence then it wouldn't have been quite so effective.
"Can you imagine what the hubbub would be if Yaz's grandmother's memories was a key component to a story about Pakistan in the past within Jodie's first series?"
But we're not talking about Grace's memories. We're talking about her being conscious of history, and Grahams memories and emotions regarding her passion for history. Including, not unsurprisingly, the history of the person who's story the Tardis has brought them there safeguard.
[deleted]
Grace is dead.
The memories of who and why she was important to Graham and Ryan will come from them as and when they are germane to the stories and those particular characters relationships to them.
It's not important in itself. Just the presumed "coincidental" nature of Grace's awareness and the implied debit the show now owes you now that it has been applied to Rosa Parks, the subject of episode 3.
Grace's awareness of Rosa Parks is not a leapfrog onto socially progressive points. Grace's personality and qualities, her outlook on life were discussed in the previous episodes. If you ignore them then maybe you could choose to be suspicious about the invocation of her knowledge of black history (and how it then became Graham's knowledge too) in this episode.
I'm concerned with how you presume to know what a black londoner woman would or wouldn't know. And why your specific comments regarding the show are confined to pre-empting some sort of racial bias by omission on the forthcoming shows.
What's NPC?
You're right about Rosa Parks being loaded if it prompts people to construe a black woman from 21st century england being au fait with the topic as something suspicious unless it's balanced with knowledge of other historical figures besides. Does that imply that if Grace had been white, there would be nothing inherently untoward and no requirement to expand Grace's knowledge beyond the black figure that's the subject of the story.
Remembering Grace while the companions help the Doctor tackle the problem enhances the show in a completely valid and credible way. It's one of the "real treats" of the story. It shouldn't be apologized for in any way.
[deleted]
Why shouldn't I be concerned with an issue you've chosen to raise in a public internet forum? If it's no concern of anyone else's, don't post it in a place where a facility to reply with comments is provided.
There's no logic to what you're saying. You seem to be anxious about something that doesn't exist possibly being confirmed to have existed, retrospectively, in the even of a lack of balance in the future.
At least if Grace was white person with that knowledge you wouldn't have the excuse to insinuate her character as being just a skin colour.
It makes as much sense as fretting about Graham's character providing insight into bus driver culture in this episode, unless at some stage he is also able to give his input regarding the plight of the private motor car driver. That way he's not pigeonholed as merely a cipher for promoting communal public transport etc.
[deleted]
"Don't rob the character of their value solely on the issue of their gender and skin tone."
[deleted]