Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/The Magician's Apprentice


 * Moffat's attempts at being PC blow up twice. First we see Black men on what is revealed to be Skaro. Where Davros is. Davros is a Kaled, people known for their NAZI-like racism.
 * The only racism they ever showed, was towards the Thals (and the mutants) who they had been at war with for a thousand years (and going by the hints in the first episodes, its likely they started it). The idea that all Kaleds are white has never been suggested, nor is their any reason to assume they would care about race in their own species. Especially as by this point they are near the end of the war, and down to around one city left. If they are so desperate they recruit children for battles, who would honestly care about whether you were black or white?
 * Because the Thals and Mutants looked different from them.
 * From this wiki's own articles, it is not clear what caused the war, nor why Thals and Kaleds were hostile to each other. Nazi-like does not mean completely identical to Nazis, so black Kaleds (assuming they weren't Thals, as there seems to be little external difference between the two races) are possible.
 * Have you actually watched Genesis of the Daleks? Or Planet of the Daleks? Or even the original the Daleks for that matter? The Kaleds and Thals are both clearly racist societies. Even Sarah Jane is regarded as being "other" racially by the Kaleds. The diea that there are suddenly Black Kaleds OR Thals is totally discontinuous.
 * Yes, I've watched them all. Racist does not mean white supremacist, just Kaled or Thal supremacist. Sarah-Jane is regarded as "other" for not being a Kaled. That's it. Nothing else. Unless there has been a canon example of Kaleds or Thals discriminating on the basis of skin colour rather than species, there is no basis for the claim that black Kaleds or Thals are a continuity violation.
 * And how would they know she's not a Kaled? They never took DNA samples from her, blood samples, nothing. You did notice all the Thals have a particular look, and all the Kaleds have a second, particular, look? And even Srah Jane, who looks much more look a Kaled than a Thal, is still seen as being too different by the Kaleds. So, what exactly is the 'racism' in this case then? You explain it, because they speak the same language, have the same culture etc. The ONLY difference is that all the Thals look one way, and all the Kaleds look a different way. And just by looking at someone, both Thals and Kaleds are able to tell whether a person is a Thal, a Kaled, or neither. And discriminate against anyone whose appearance doesn't conform to their own racial group's appearance. To say nothing of the fact that Terry Nation, you know the guy who created the Kaleds and the Thals, said as much.
 * Why should I explain the racism? I did not start a discussion over nothing, I was not the first to use the word 'racism', nor am I the one who makes assumptions about the motives of the production crew. Still no evidence has been produced of Kaleds discriminating against Kaleds based on skin colour. How Kaleds recognise non-Kaleds is not known, maybe it's just an instinct similar to the way Time Lords can sense each other. That's not relevant. All that is relevant is that there is no evidence that Kaled society is actively anti-black, which is what this conversation is all about. Subtly maybe, which may explain why Davros' bunker had no non-whites, but no evidence for Kaled society being against blacks altogether.
 * All Kaleds are white with black hair. Thals are white with blond. The Kaleds exile anyone who is different. The Thals do the same.
 * Never stated once. Purely comes from you putting human opinions of race on aliens. For all we know the difference between the Kaleds and Thals is one has two appendixes or something.
 * Still doesn't explain how the both the Kaleds and the Thals can tell whether someone is a Kaled, a Thal, or neither just by looking at them. It's race.
 * No, not really. Race has never been brought up about the Kaleds and Thals. All Kaleds have dark hair and eyes and all Thals have blond hair and light eyes. Skin colour has never been mentioned. Sarah Jane is recognizably neither a Kaled nor a Thal because her hair is neither black nor blonde.
 * There one possibility you have all missed out on the Black men could be Dals or Tharons from the I, Davros audio series. Not listened to them and the wiki page on them dose not tell us what they looked like, but who says they are not black? Also speaking of real world racism I like to remind you that Hitler did have Allies in Japan, Iraq and Iran. Not to mention he did ally with Croatia even though as Slavs they would be considered inferior to the Germans under Nazi ideology. Also in Rwanda the Black Hutus killed the black Tutsis, and told them apart because they looked "more Ethiopian" than the Hutus. Not to mention all the white on white genocides in Europe and yellow on yellow genocides in Asia. You don't have to be a different skin colour for it to be racist. Another possibility could be on Skaro hair and eye colour is considered an indicator of race/species (we are not told if the two can breed to make fertile offspring the biological definition of a species)rather than skin. Hence why the Thals all seem to assume the dark haired Harry, Sarah and Doctor are Kaled, while the Kaleds remark that "they don't look like Thals" because they like them are dark haired and eyed. If that is true then Black people with Dark hair and eyes would be Kaleds, and if a the doctor had a blond companion at the time or blond himself the kaleds would think them Thal. Or I guess the black men could be mutos Link title

And then in Essex 1138, there are very clearly Black people among those watching the Doctor playing the electric guitar, standing next to a tank. Of the three, the leats likely one is actually the Black people in Essex in 1138.
 * Um, their actually were black people in England during the middle ages, not many sure. But they did exist, many came over with the Romans during the invasion or settled their during the occupying period. Others (such as Moorish traders and mercenaries) came over at different periods. Legitemently concepts such as racism didn't really become mainstream until the slave trade.
 * Wrong again. First, the Moors were Semitic, and looked like Iraqis, not Black people. Secondly, racism has always existed. And what do you mean by "until the slave trade"? Slaveyr has always existed too.
 * The previous user was not wrong. It is clear that 'slave trade' in that context refers to the Triangular Trade, where organised mass enslavement of blacks really took off. This website: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/intro/intro.htm indicates that blacks have been around since Roman times, and that 'Moor' in Medieval Britain was a generic term that included blacks. Class & ethnicity were the main issues in the Middle Ages, not race. Assimilated Medieval Black British is completely plausible and not just PC nonsense.
 * That site if revisionist PC rubbish. There were no Black troops in the Roman army. Well, not in the modern sense of the term. In Ancient, Classical, and Medieval terms, 'White' meant Germanic/Scandinavian, 'Brown' meant Italian/Greek/Spanish, and 'Black' meant Arabic/Indian. There was another word for what we today call 'Black' starting with an 'N'. The Moors were 'Black' in the sense that they looked Arabic or Pakistani. And note how that exhibition can only start circa 1500, despite CLAIMING that "there have been Africans and Asians in the UK for 2 millennia'......Meanwhile, Black people(in the modern sense of 'Black') have been enslaved for thousands of years, and millions of Black people are still slaves today...in Africa. It was only for a very brief period, beginning around 1500(when your exhibition not-so-coincidentally starts) that European people ALSO started buying Black people (in the modern sense of 'Black people') as slaves. And hundreds of years after the transatlantic slave trade has ended, slavery is still widespread in Africa today. You are really trying to push a ridiculous revisionist fantasy. That scene set in 1138 was complete multiculti fantasy nonsense.And the Moors looked like Raj's father from the Big Bang Theory, not what you claim.
 * Oh I am not trying to push anything. This is a discussion that comes up every time someone looks out of place. Then again, any source anyone produces will likely be rejected as 'revisionist PC rubbish.' First, what myself and the previous user meant by the slave trade refers to a specific phase, obviously. Yes, I noted that the exhibition started going into detail around 1500, presumably it simply wasn't an issue for those before then. Besides, evidence has been produced of black presences, such as the Ivory Bangle Lady, who resembles what most would agree to be 'black.' According to the Independent, there are traces of what modern scientists call 'black' in this woman.Unless the Independent is also being too PC (which would be plausible except the Mail also believes the story, even if some of it's readership doesn't, so even the right-wing, anti-PC paper agrees with a paper with opposing political views). The evidence is clear, unless the scientists are themselves conveniently overly PC, along with their computer, all their equipment, and everyone checking their work. So no, this is not a fantasy. It's not even PC. We are not being politically correct, we are just being correct.
 * Yes, modern media does push a PC agenda. And if there were so many Black people in England before the transatlantic slave trade, why is this never mentioned? They never show up in art, literature, census records, anything. Blacks in 16th century England were a major issue, and Elizabeth I herself ordered their expulsion. There is no trace that there were any Black people at all in England before the transatlantic slave trade. In fact, it's only in very recent history that there have been any Black people living in the UK> Which leads to groups like the BNP interpreting that they're not "really" British. Which leads to the PC media explaining that there's nothing new about this. Which leads to gullible people like you believing that. The simple fact is the Black people in Essex in 1138 is an enormous error. And some revisionist bs doesn't change that fact.
 * You think I'm a gullible PC drone? Funny, I'm normally regarded as un-PC, to the point of describing Political Correctness in a negative manner on YouGov. I do find the suggestion the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, and MailOnline are pushing a PC agenda to be the funniest thing I've read in the last few hours; follows the prediction I made exactly. Still no response to the actual archaeological find. As for lack of mention, maybe the local people simply didn't care? Why care? They're not doing any harm simply by existing. They're not a special case, as they would be if French. That's one possible answer, but I don't have time to come up with them all; then again I'm not the one trying to prove a negative. But never mind that, the archaeological find. The scientists could have made a mistake, but I did a search, and there seems to be no evidence of a proper scientific rebuttal, only laymen who seem to want a black-free early England position. Nothing to show there was not at least one person describable as 'black' in the modern sense in Roman times. Black people in Essex 1138 may not have been the cleverest thing to do, but it is not an enormous error, and repeatedly calling all evidence to the contrary PC nonsense doesn't change that fact.
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/black_britons_01.shtml
 * So you're not a PC drone just because you say so? Yeah, sure, buddy. In any case, your new link says that Black people have been in Britain since the 12th century, contradicting your earlier claims. And, the article says that Black people were brought in as chattel, to do hard manual labour. Certainly not the multi-cultural idea you promoted earlier.
 * Doesn't this wiki have a policy about Doctor Who and real life not necessarily sharing the same history? Besides that, the Doctor could have made them let the black people watch as another anachronism, as Missy indicated they could be slight.
 * Has this restarted? First of all, I am not the person who made that link. I had never even been on that website until today. Page history indicates that was somebody else. I always use the same IP address. You are to use against me personally only the arguments I have submitted. Second, the above user makes 2 good points, but I won't go into that, considering I thought of the first, but chose not to use it. Third, tying into my first comment, you have now breached T:ATTACKS. Fourth, if we are to use that website, it says "at least the 12th century", not "the 12th century", there is a difference. The latter (your version) says that was the ultimate start point. The former (actual version) indicates the possibility of settlement beforehand, and therefore fits with what I said. 12th century also fits into the time period this whole discussion started with. It also states the bringing in of manual labour was the policy of the British Empire, not the Kingdom of England. All points rebutted.


 * If Davros has had the sonic screwdriver his whole life, why have we never seen him use it before?
 * Have we ever seen him in a situation where it would have come in handy? Also, it's very possible that he would have no interest in a device that doesn't kill, wound or maim, especially by the time we meet him in Genesis.


 * How did the Daleks know where to find the Doctor, and thus who to convert into a Dalek puppet? Isn't Coloney Starf wasting his time hunting the Doctor if the Daleks already know where he is? And if they have Bors there, what's to stop him from stunning the Doctor and transporting him like in Asylum?
 * Its possible he was infected by the Coloney's snake that strangled him.


 * In The Day of the Doctor, it is implied that Clara remembers all those her lives in the Doctor's timestream. (The Eleventh Doctor states she had 'seen' the Tenth Doctor and the War Doctor.) For someone who've been saving the Doctor for his whole life, her ignorance about the Skaro, Davros, and creation of the Daleks is quite surprising.
 * The events are hazy to Clara as stated in the 50th anniversary special when the Doctor had to remind her she'd seen his 10th incarnation before


 * Why does the Doctor assume the child in the battlefield is the same Davros that will create the Daleks? After all, Davros could be a common name for boys on Skaro.
 * Theoretically, yes, but the chances of him encountering someone else on Skaro also named Davros are pretty minimal.


 * To add to that, the name Adolf wasnt unique - but today if you met someone called Adolf you would still shudder abit inside, and be reminded of WW2 in a way the Doctor feels more passionately about


 * Who is the apprentice? Clara? And, for what it's worth, although it's not a question about this ep, but they might be connected - who was the familiar? And what does 'Heaven Sent' name mean? Hell Bent, i guess, is the Doctor being stubborn to save Clara?
 * Yes, it's a bit esoteric, isn't it? I think Clara may be the apprentice, though, for a change, she's not the focus of the story; the relationship between Davros and the Doctor is.