Guy Gibson's dog

[bhaexpress]

They never taught WW2 to me at school. Just as well, since I had to spend my entire childhood listening to my parents drone on about it.

Ditto, plus there were enough bomb sites around in my childhood in any case.

 

[Arkwright]

I find the whole thing disrespectful to the memory of the dog ******. I had a cat called Ginger once who died and I still remember him as Ginger, am I being gingerist or should I change his name to Marmalade. A mate of mine had a dog called Fatty, he is being fatist, some how I think not.

Sorry the dog will and should always be called ****** it's all part of history and you can't change that.

As a society I think we have moved on from the old racist days.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

One of my grandchildren told me that according to the history that they do now World War II did not exist or rather they are not taught anything about it as it upsets other Europeans.

In my GCSE History in the late 80's we learned the history of 1930's Europe right up to the invasion of Poland; then jumped 6 years and picked it up again at Yalta, leading into the cold war. The reason given was that there was way too much going on to be able to teach it properly; with the subtext that history learning is more about changes over long periods of time than detailed analysis of specific events. I think that's fair enough. I found it fascinating anyway so bought a lot of books on the subject and read them at home.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I imagine removing a word that in general shocks in its every utterance prevents the story being interfered with. Some would giggle, others would squirm, whilst some still would argue for its relevance. Very few would ignore its existence when heard, and i doubt the makers want such an item to stand out in the film.
I seem to remember they changed the name of one of Agatha Christie's stories a couple of times because the titles became offensive. Words have different meanings and inferences as time and experience changes around them, so we're best to accept change and understand not everything stays as it is.

YES CORRECT...Ten Little Niggers.....Danm...Danm...Danm....I mentioned the unmentionable.......

 

[Gonzo]

To be honest i couldn't care less what they call the dog. The importance is the story is told. You know the bit about british ingenuity and the bravery of the bomber crews. Keeping racially insensitive dogs name accurate hardly ruins the story and it strikes me it's only people who look for things to get upset about that will really care either way.

This.

Probably the most relevant thing that's been said on this thread. Who gives a damn what the dogs name will be? It's just another chance for people to cry about the 'PC Brigade'. Quite ridiculous, really.

 

[KZNSeagull]

The importance is the story is told. You know the bit about british ingenuity and the bravery of the bomber crews.

If they are going to remake the film, then I agree entirely. At least with Stephen Fry involved and the rights being owned by David Frost, then hopefully historical inaccuracies with be minimal. I hate to think what would have happened if Mel Gibson had kept the rights.

 

[Brovion]

This.

Probably the most relevant thing that's been said on this thread. Who gives a damn what the dogs name will be? It's just another chance for people to cry about the 'PC Brigade'. Quite ridiculous, really.

Because it wasn't just the dog's name, it was also the codeword to say that the dam had been successfully destroyed. In the original the scene where they report back that the dam has been destroyed is one of the key moments, so it's either got to be left out or history will have to be re-written (again). Also, strange as it may seem, the dog is quite a central character as Gibson had a better relationship with it than he did with a lot of people.

However What REALLY annoys me is the way they've bowlderised the current 1950s version of the film by dubbing over every mention of the word '******'. Sure I understand that some people might not like hearing the word in any context, but then they could just broadcast the film with the standard warning at the beginning saying that it contains language that some people might find offensive. That's what they do for swearing and blasphmey that others find offensive.

 

[life on mars 73]

Surely the point is that if you go back 50 - 60 years or more, what is now classed as completely unacceptable racism was the absolute norm. People took it for granted that white people, specifically the British, were obviously superior to all other races. Hence the British Empire, etc. Read what Churchill had to say on the matter.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Surely the point is that if you go back 50 - 60 years or more, what is now classed as completely unacceptable racism was the absolute norm. People took it for granted that white people, specifically the British, were obviously superior to all other races. Hence the British Empire, etc. Read what Churchill had to say on the matter.

Then leave it in and keep the story accurate. Sadly, though, if they do that, the controversy surrounding it may detract from the main story.

I assume the purpose of remaking the film is that it is a great story of ingenuity and bravery that they want to recreate to expose the younger generations to, who I guess are unlikely to watch a black and white version from the 1950's, as good as it was. I am all for keeping stories accurate, warts and all, but perhaps it is a sign of the times that the average film watcher these days may be distracted by racism to the point that they ignore the crux of the story.

 

[mr cgull]

He is 10 and apparently it is no longer in the curriculum.

Definitely is. Perhaps that school chooses to do the Victorians instead, it is a choice.

Key stage 2 | History | Subjects | Key stages 1 & 2 | National Curriculum

 

[Edgefield]

But why not just say "****** the Dog"?

Do you see the point here? You know damn well it will cause offence, so you didn't use it, despite your transparent claim not to understand.

No it doesnt cause offence, otherwise why do black people forever call each other ******, it only causes offence if a white person were ever to use that term.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Definitely is. Perhaps that school chooses to do the Victorians instead, it is a choice.

Key stage 2 | History | Subjects | Key stages 1 & 2 | National Curriculum

BUT, by the time the student has finished compulsory history, an aspect of WW2 is in fact the ONLY thing that must have been covered in history.

 

[public school boy]

Would it be considered offensive if the dog had been called Winston taking into account that many black children are also called by this name?

 

[Meade's Ball]

Would it be considered offensive if the dog had been called Winston taking into account that many black children are also called by this name?

Of the black men i know, none are named Winston.
No one can sneak into the mind of a writer and know that he or she called a character a casual name like Winston because it was black or because he/she thought all black people are like dogs. The word "******" has one meaning and a clear message in the modern world. To temper tales to prevent outrage seems a reasonably wise thing to do if it's the story you're really interested in telling.

 

[life on mars 73]

Yes, but if, for example, you were writing a WW2 tale about SS officers, you wouldn't hesitate to put words such as "filthy Jewish swine" - or similar - into their mouths. Deeply offensive, of course, but it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

However, when we come to, say, Guy Gibson, who is a kind of national hero, embodying many of what we believe are fine British characteristics, we feel uncomfortable that he may well have been casually racist in a way that we just couldn't accept nowadays. The political orthodoxy of the time was that white people were naturally superior to all others, and that we British were clearly the finest of the lot. That was what was taught in schools - the political correctness, if you like, of the times.

So we airbrush out the bits that are embarrassing by today's standards. But let's not kid ourselves that 60 - 70 years ago, most people accepted unquestioningly that we British were a superior race, and it was our job to keep "lesser breeds" in their place.

 

[El Presidente]

He is 10 and apparently it is no longer in the curriculum.

How strange, my daughter was examined on it last week in her GCSE History class. I suspect someone is pulling your plonker BG.

 

[Meade's Ball]

You'd throw in the commentary of an SS officer to confirm that they were a representation of human badness. It fits with the character or the stereotype we are comfortable with. Now to keep the heoric status of somebody from the past, we don't sew into them something we now deem justly as despicable.
Cinema is not an exact mirror of life. It is edited and exaggerated to suit audience tastes, so don't expect to wander in with a cardboard box of popcorn and expect to be told facts.

 

[El Presidente]

In the South Park episode "With apologies to Jesse Jackson", '******' is used 42 times and the show is superb. It was also praised by African-American leaders.

The word is not an issue, context is.

 

[Brovion]

Yes, but if, for example, you were writing a WW2 tale about SS officers, you wouldn't hesitate to put words such as "filthy Jewish swine" - or similar - into their mouths. Deeply offensive, of course, but it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

However, when we come to, say, Guy Gibson, who is a kind of national hero, embodying many of what we believe are fine British characteristics, we feel uncomfortable that he may well have been casually racist in a way that we just couldn't accept nowadays. The political orthodoxy of the time was that white people were naturally superior to all others, and that we British were clearly the finest of the lot. That was what was taught in schools - the political correctness, if you like, of the times.

So we airbrush out the bits that are embarrassing by today's standards. But let's not kid ourselves that 60 - 70 years ago, most people accepted unquestioningly that we British were a superior race, and it was our job to keep "lesser breeds" in their place.

Are you saying that we're MUCH better people now with far superior sensibilities than those poor, uneducated saps were sixty years ago? They didn't know, bless them, that their attitudes were 'wrong' so it's up to us to retrospectively correct them by 'airbrushing out' all the bits that we now know to be offensive. Not their fault of course, they were just ignorant people.

If that IS what you're saying then I think you're being very patronising. This bowlderising of the past because it doesn't fit with current 21st century sensibilities is just as bad a crime as the use of racist language. Even worse is the implied claim that we're somehow 'better' people than they were sixty years ago because we have different attitudes, and because we're right and they're wrong this gives us the right to alter the past and remove the bits we don't like.

 

[mistahclarke]

at least it wasn't called Mohamed.... then they'd be real trouble! (i.e it seems to be more white middle class getting upset by the use of some words, where-as Mohamed the bear and subsequent cartoons have almost caused wars)

FYI, I was taught all about the World Wars in school, even watching the film Galipoli. That was the 90's.

My Spanish friend did tell me they were taught the Spanish Armada was sunk by bad weather and not the British though.