I was dozing away in front of the TV on Saturday morning, when on comes a programme called How. Could this be related to the one I watched as a kid, I found myself wondering. Yes, it was, but it was fronted by three 'youngsters' with that 'I'm your wild and wacky pal' style of presenting, of the fixed broad smiles and staring eyes variety that I so despise. I found myself wishing that Fred Dineage was back presenting it, when a stylised visual of his face appeared momentarily on screen. "Ah, well," I thought, "at least they're acknowledging his place in the show's history."
Then the great man himself popped up, in filmed inserts where he's described as 'Head Of How'. I don't think he actually appeared with the three newbie presenters, but it was great to see him still connected with the show. I seem to remember when the original How with the first set of presenters first appeared on TV, but it could well just have been its first broadcast in Scotland on STV, back in the '60s.
The pilot was hosted solely by its creator Jack Hargreaves and shown late at night, originally intended to give its adult audience interesting things to talk about when they were next in the pub, drinking with their mates. Then, after a rethink, Jack thought it would be better suited to kids, and it went out on an afternoon slot, at first with Jack again being sole presenter. It wasn't long before others joined him, such as Fred Dineage, Jon Miller, Bunty James, and Marian Davies, to name just the better known ones.
The original show ran from 1966 to 1981, which surprised me, as I think the last time I saw it would've been in the '70s, though there's a chance I've simply forgotten viewing after that date. It was revived as How 2 in 1990 until 2006, again with Fred Dineage, and actually lasted a year longer than the original run, though with fewer episodes. The series from which the episode I saw was made in 2020, so maybe I was watching a repeat, but it was good to see Fred again, in essentially the same show I viewed as a kid. I hope they make some more.
I preferred the way kids shows were presented back in the '60s, with there being no difference in the way presenters addressed their young audience to that of older viewers. There were no unnaturally wide smiles, popping eyes, and manic movements; no condescending, patronising delivery - just presenters who behaved in the same professional way regardless of the age of their audience.
Whaddya think, Crivs? Am I making too much of things, or are some of you in agreement with my observations? Tell all in the comments section.
(Update: I've now seen bits of another episode since first publishing this post, and even old Fred seems to be going for a slightly more 'enthusiastic' approach than he did in the old days. Must be catching, whatever it is.)
******
Here's what I consider an interesting thought. Nowadays, the photo at the top of the post would likely be criticised for 'cultural appropriation', even though Red Indians (aka native Americans*) who walk about in denims and tee-shirts get a free pass.
(*At least until someone decides that the word 'native' is offensive on the grounds that it suggests uncivilised and primitive.)
19 comments:
Kid, I certainly remember HOW and you're right about the awful presenters on Kids' TV nowadays - a few months ago I watched Blue Peter out of curiosity and the presenters were exactly as you described. Sadly it's all because of the "dumbing down" of our culture which has occurred over the last few decades. But I'm still going to watch another episode of Blue Peter to see if they still make the advent crown, that contraption made of wire coat-hangers, tinsel and candles.
I wish the BBC would show 'classic' Blue Peter on one of their channels, CJ, so that we oldies could watch episodes we saw in our childhood. I'd certainly watch them anyway. And you're right about the dumbing down of our culture - it's happening all the time.
Isn't 'Native American' just a term invented by English speaking Americans to lazily lump together a wide range of tribes from North America and therefore not entirely PC?
Jim B
To be honest, I don't know so you may well be right. All I know is that whenever I say 'Red Indian', someone's bound to tell me I can't say that, and that the 'correct' name is 'Native American'. I'm still trying to work out why some folks say the description 'coloured people' is offensive, yet they don't seem to have a problem with 'people of colour'. It's a crazy world.
"How" was one of my favourite shows as a kid back in the 1966 to 1971 period. I saw an old show on YouTube not that long ago and it still had a charm to it. For some reason I link "How" to the Odhams "Smash" comic as I remember them showing you how to make a leaping frog toy which was based on a free gift in issue 2 of that comic. I don't like that zany new presentation style that kids TV have now, maybe if I was ten years old would like it but I was more than happy with the s blokes that presented our shows. Native American or American Indian are as far as I am aware correct terms for the original people of North America Kid
Yeah, How was a good show, educational and entertaining at the same time. I remember Jack Hargreaves did a show about fishing as well, which was very relaxing, though I don't really like fishing.
Are Indians American though? after all, they were there before the country was ever called America. I don't take being classed 'white' as offensive, so I wonder if they really mind being called 'red'. All colours are equal, whether as rainbows or people.
The word "Indian" has 2 meanings , the obvious one being someone from the country of India. It also refers to any indigenous person from the Americas (north and south,). So you can call them American Indians but not Indians ( they're not from India) - American Indians are known by tribal named (not all people work on bordered nations names) so it makes it easier to class them as such and as far as I have read they are ok with that. I don't think it's an issue calling someone black, but it not really right calling them "coloured" as in general we don't call / class "whites" as coloured when we use that term. Bottom line just treat everyone as a person and be nice were all the same after all. Not sure if calling a Native American as red is offensive or not Kid. If it is the answer is simple we shouldn't do it.
My own view is that if a word is not offensive per se, McS (unlike the word 'c*nt') and I don't use it in order to be offensive, then that should be taken into consideration by the other person. However, there are certain ethnicities (and 'white' people too) who are determined to take offence at just about anything white people say about persons of another race for the sole purpose of them having some kind of power over us, and have us apologising all the time for, essentially, just being white. And I can practically guarantee that they have their own pejorative words for other races - it's just white Britishers who aren't allowed to be 'racist' not anyone else. All races are racist to some degree or other, but 'whitey' has to pay for all the sins of their ancestors, because as everyone knows, we're responsible for every bad or negative thing that's ever happened to any and every other race of people across the globe (in their eyes).
I've heard black people refer to themselves as 'a person of colour', which is exactly the same thing as 'a coloured person', so why do they take offence at the way we say it, yet not their own way of saying it? I'll tell you - because we're white and they're as racist as the next guy. I don't consider being referred to as 'white' as offensive, so neither should anyone referred to as 'red' do so either. In my humble view of course.
Well your assuming all black people take offence at being called a person if colour or a coloured person. I personally work with several black people and they don't care either way, they don't like being called the "n" word or other similar names. The same way a white person doesn't like being called honky or a spook. As you say there are of course always folk in all races willing to make a fuss over nothing and the press are always happy to report on that . As long as people aren't being ignorant and just treat others as they would themselves and ignore extremists on either side of any argument the world would be a lot better.
No, McS, I'm not assuming that ALL black people are like that, only that black people who are like that are like that (if you know what I mean). And quite a lot of blacks use the 'n' word themselves. Personally, I wouldn't care about being called honky (and I have been - by Pakistanis, who also used the word Paki in regard to themselves), and spook is actually quite funny. You're right in your last point of course.
Incidentally, I wasn't saying that ANY black people take offence at 'a person of colour' - quite the opposite. (There might be some though.) However, a lot of them seemingly take offense at white people saying 'coloured person', and for the life of me, I just can't see the difference between the two phrases.
Re HOW - it was great show I remember well, which I presume went off the air when Southern TV lost its franchise in 1981. Jack Hargreaves of course was well known for his countryside magazine show "Out of Town" (with its great song that was re-purposed to other words by naughty school children). Southern TV was my local station of course. You can find the Southern TV closedown program on YouTube and it brings a lump to the throat and a tear to the eye (seriously), although they cut out the bit with Jack Hargreaves taking a well-aimed rant at the system which replaced Southern with TVS which I well remember.
Re "Native American" - as McScotty says the official term is "American Indian", and is used in the official US Naturalization materials. Of course, we used the term "Red Indians" as kids when we were young, but we knew no better, and had no inkling of the reality of the genocide wrought on those tribes. So using the correct term seems a mark of respect to me.
Re the use of "Coloureds" - well the term is charged with memories of racial segregation in the US (eg "Coloreds at the back of the Bus", etc.) and I think to some lesser degree in the UK as well ("No vacancies for Coloureds" was common in the late 50s in boarding houses), so it makes sense to me to steer clear of labels which have offensive connotations or stir up memories of past inequities, even if the speaker has the best of intentions..
I'll look for that clip on YouTube, B. Good to know it exists.
I suppose genocide is genocide, whatever name you happen to be called, but I just don't see 'red' as an offensive word. And I'm still none the wiser as to why people like Oprah can refer to herself (and other black people) as 'a person of colour', yet take offence at 'coloured person'. Surely it's the exact same thing that's being said? It's all a mystery to me.
Was Jack Hargreaves the guy who presented a show from a garden shed? Can't remember the name of it, but I think it was him.
Fred Dinenage co-wrote a book with Ronnie Kray, which is a bit of a change from kids TV.
Might've been, DS - perhaps it was his fishing show. Or maybe he did a gardening one as well.
Maybe Fred and Ronnie co-wrote a fairy story - or How... To Be A Gangster.
"Hello, I'm Fred Dinenage, and this week I'll be showing you HOW...to dispose of a body."
There must be a TV show in that, surely, DS? They could start by disposing of the three young presenters.
Fred’s still broadcasting daily down here in the South on the regional news show. As loveable as ever.
Great to hear, CN. A TV legend for sure.
Post a Comment