# Nigger’s (Dog’s name) grave at RAF Scampton.



## ian lanc (Jul 16, 2020)

Guys just thought I'd tell you lot if you don't already know this, but Niggers headstone has been changed and they've removed the name 'Nigger' 

It's not Negro or Nigga and the dogs name was called Nigger and was not being racist, around the Bomber Command Community everyone is enraged over this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 16, 2020)

Sadly history is being erased for many wrong reasons

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 16, 2020)

I don't want this to go political. Here's a reference of the word and how it evolved.

Nigger - Wikipedia 

With that said I can understand the frustrations by many as we now enter a world where attempts to make things right with some peoples are being done at history's expense.

I am probably a descendant of Christopher Columbus, not very popular to admit these days but I cannot deny who I am. At the same time my DNA reveals that I am almost 10% indigenous, more than likely Taíno, which was basically bred out of existence by Spanish settlers. Am I bitter or upset about this? No. Would I accept racism or even genocide in today's world? Of course not.

I don't think we can judge people's actions of the past (especially if they happened generations ago) by the standards and norms of today's world.

(stepping off soap box)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
5 | Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2020)

I agree that the rush to "clean" history is unfortunate and (in my opinion, at least) tragic.
What it does, is eliminates the legacy of those that suffered as well as diminishes the impact of those events on today's society, who live in a far safer environment and have the luxury of judging past society from the comfort of their coffee shops and classrooms.

Sadly, I've been judged by my appearance without them taking the time to know my ancestry and if they did, they would soon find that I have a great deal of Sioux ancestry who were FAR less than kind to their neighbors than my Germanic or Scottish ancestors were...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 16, 2020)

Anyone ever hear about what happened when that dog died?

Of course Guy Gibson's dog survived longer than he did. His widow took the dog and moved to South Africa after the war. One night she heard a distinctive whistle, the same whistle Guy Gibson used to call his dog, The dog stood up and then dropped dead. Guy was calling his beloved dog home to him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2020)

ian lanc said:


> Guys just thought I'd tell you lot if you don't already know this, but Niggers headstone has been changed and they've removed the name 'Nigger'
> 
> It's not Negro or Nigga and the dogs name was called Nigger and was not being racist, around the Bomber Command Community everyone is enraged over this.



Nigger and Darkie were both very popular names for black dogs at the time, and later. I remember a friend of the family had a labrador called Darkie when I was a youngster in the early 1960s.
Nobody would use those names today, and quite rightly too. However, there is a word that historians use for the fallacy of viewing history through the lens of today's morality. It's presentism, and this is an example of the worst kind.

It wasn't just the bloody dog either! It was also the codeword transmitted to confirm the breach of the Mohne (?*) dam. 

_. .. _ _. _ _ . . ._. There you go, I said it.

* I'm going from memory here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2020)

I find it upsetting that they still call it a dog, so many negative associations.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2020)

My grandfather had a German Shepherd named "Blackie" and he was as black as the ace of spades.

I recall Blackie from when I was a child and to be honest, a jet-black Shepherd is a bit scary.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 16, 2020)

In the attempt to remove the past by some, that will provides us with a path
which may allow us to forget and then repeat.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AMCKen (Jul 16, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> Anyone ever hear about what happened when that dog died?
> 
> Of course Guy Gibson's dog survived longer than he did. His widow took the dog and moved to South Africa after the war. One night she heard a distinctive whistle, the same whistle Guy Gibson used to call his dog, The dog stood up and then dropped dead. Guy was calling his beloved dog home to him.



Nigger was killed by a car on May 15th before the raid. So Gibson lived longer than his dog.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 16, 2020)

Well, if it wasn't Gibson's dog, whose was it? I guess maybe he got another dog after he lost the one on 15 May.

It appears that Guy Gibson was trying to mark a target with a Mossie that had not been loaded with target markers the night he was lost. The machine assigned to him went U/S and he insisted on taking another one, right away, apparently not realizing it was not a loaded back-up.


----------



## ian lanc (Jul 16, 2020)

stona said:


> It wasn't just the bloody dog either! It was also the codeword transmitted to confirm the breach of the Mohne (?*) dam.


I already know that, just wasn't going to go there.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> My grandfather had a German Shepherd named "Blackie" and he was as black as the ace of spades.
> 
> I recall Blackie from when I was a child and to be honest, a jet-black Shepherd is a bit scary.


"German Shepherd" dogs were officially known as "Alsatians" in UK from n WW1 until 1977.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheRealMrEd (Jul 16, 2020)

To paraphrase: "Those who do not consult their history are doomed to repeat it"...

Ed

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 16, 2020)

It’s unfortunate consequence of what’s happening currently...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 16, 2020)

Sorry, but this is going to be a long post.

Possibly you will find this interesting.

Here in Minnesota we have had a recent example of what we are discussing in this thread.

For those of you not familiar with my state, it is often called the land of 10,000 lakes (there are actually a lot more lakes within our borders than that). One of those lakes has recently become a point of contention between various groups in the state.

The lake in question has for the last ~200 years been called Lake Calhoun, named after John C. Calhoun. It was named after Calhoun largely because he was a famous politician, having served in the South Carolina Senate, the US Senate, as US Secretary of State, and as US Vice-President from 1825-1832 under Presidents John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson (this was back when the vice-president was appointed by the Electoral College).

Over the years, amongst his normal political activities, he became a bastion of pro-slavery, pro-imperialism, pro-genocide (of the Native American indigenous population), and eventually somewhat anti-US (Federal) government. He died in 1850, about 10 years before the American Civil War, so it is not possible to say if he would have been on the side of pro-secession (ie the South) or pro-union (ie the North).

Naming things after famous politicians has been normal, and acceptable, since at least as long as recorded history (ie more than 5,000 years) so there was nothing wrong with the European descended settlers naming the lake 'Lake Calhoun'. Although Native Americans lived in the area and had there own name for it (Mde Maka Ska aka Lake of White Earth) the renaming had no real effect on the indigenous population since they were not required in any way to use or honor the name. The local settlers of European descent of the time knew the lake as B'de Maka Ska (they had a difficult time pronouncing Mde). The lake was the lake. (This was around 1820 and there were no black slaves in the area at that time, although there was a small number of Native American slaves kept by some of the settlers.)

Eventually, the local Native Americans were either forced to move far away, killed, or rounded up and put on reservation (the White Earth Reservation is one that still exists today). The city of Minneapolis grew up around the lake (illegally appropriating most of its land from the White Earth Reservation), and at some point in time it became a requirement (by law) that the lake be referred to as Lake Calhoun.

Calhoun was a slave owner (owning somewhere around 100 at the time of his death) and was actively in favor of slavery. He was also in favor of killing and/or enslaving the Native American, and it was during his tenure as Secretary of War and Vice-President that the beginning of the planned removal or extermination of the Native American population in all US territories began.

This all happened a long time ago, between 170 and 200 years ago. But, it is important to remember that there are African-Americans alive today who's [great-grand]parents were slaves, and Native Americans who's [great-grand]parents were killed by the US Army, under Calhoun's tenure in Federal government.

The descendants of these slaves and Native Americans have no objection to remembering the history of what occurred 200 years ago. They do object to the people of today venerating Calhoun and perpetuating the idea that Calhoun was a fine upstanding human being.

The current situation here in Minnesota, the US as a whole, and other countries, can (I think) be compared to what happened at the end of WWII and afterward. The idea that tearing down the statues and emblems of the Nazi regime is somehow an act of Jewish (or anyone's) revisionist history, or attempting to hide the real history, would be laughed at by anyone sane. How is what is going on relative to slavery and genocide (by the US or other countries) or hundreds of years of racism (by the US or other countries) any different?

Please do not misunderstand me, I agree that the beginning example of this thread (ie objecting to the inscription on the dogs grave) might be silly - particularly if the objectors realized it was a dog. Do we know if anyone of darker skinned ethnicity actually did object to it?

Objection to the renaming of a lake by a 100% 'white' segment of the general population could also be considered silly. But it took a popular movement to get it started, continuing the movement for over 3 years, and defeating a lawsuit filed by people who opposed the name change that went all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court, before the name could be changed officially.

I'll put my horse back in the barn now.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 16, 2020)

About 30 years ago, I was in Hong Kong. I was quite amazed when I found "Darkie" brand toothpaste.
It had a green, white and black package with a smiling black black faced minstrel type face in a top hat on the package.
I had to buy a couple tubes to take home with me and can probably still find one to photograph if anyone is interested.
I asked my hosts about the name for the brand and what they thought about the racist connotations.
They were pretty matter of fact in their response: Black people have whiter teeth than everyone else, right? So if you also want to have white teeth like THEM, use this brand of toothpaste..... That was the logic of the naming.

I found it again in a Chinese grocery several years ago. It is now called "Darlie". The colours are the same for the package but the face is no longer shaped like a big grinning black face minstrel. It looks more like a black skinned white man (no negro features) in a top hat.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> But, it important to remember that there are African-Americans alive today who's parents were slaves,


Just going to step in here for a moment and point something out. 

I'm 57 years old and I knew my Great Grandparents as a child and they were born in the 1880's.
The 13th amendment was ratified on 6 December 1865, making it very unlikely that anyone today had parents who were alive prior to 1865.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 17, 2020)

Hey GrauGeist,

Sorry, you are correct. Thank you, I meant to say great-grandparents. Edited my original post.


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2020)

It seems to me that 'Overlord' has all sorts of connotations of supremacy, oppression and subjugation.

Maybe we should come up with a new name for the Battle of Normandy? I vote for 'Operation Inclusive'

Neptune was a god with several dislikeable traits, and was also a god to whom bulls were sacrificed. I'm sure none of us would support such animal cruelty. Perhaps the landings should also be renamed? How about 'Operation Paddling Pool'?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## skyskooter (Jul 17, 2020)

The title of this thread should be amended to Nigger’s grave at RAF Scampton. The correct use of the apostrophe makes an enormous difference to the meaning. For one moment there I thought there might be hundreds or thousands of people of dark skin colour buried in a mass grave at Scampton. I believe it is the RAF which has seen fit to make the change. Is that right?

Talking of a toothpaste called Darkie once available in Hong Kong it is a fact that in British prisons there is a soap available for certain inmates with a particular skin tone called Simba.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 17, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't want this to go political. Here's a reference of the word and how it evolved.
> 
> Nigger - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


This is why one would want to see more sources then wiki. This article is writen in light of the amercian expierience of the word. Now it is fact the word is longer in circulation then that and more important with a different loading. It is also not only a word that sprouted in english. It also is seen in Dutch French Portugees. But all stamming from tbe latin niger, meaning black.
Now i hope anyone can see Gibson loved his dog to bits. He obviously used the word to describe the colour of the dog namely black. For very certain he would not call it in the late 19th centuary loaded manner. Why use a racial slur to call something you loved.
Secondly, why in this discussion is the fact that Gibson fought very bravely endangering his life time and again and in the end lost it, in a war against evil is not given any credit. Yes the word is offensive if one gives a racial tone to it. And nowadays it has. But Gibson did not. He just wanted to get out of is shot up Lancaster and call his beaufull black dog.
A sign just telling that next to the grave of the dog should be enough. Even for the politic activists who can just do what they want to do because of men and women just like Gibson.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2020)

I just read an article in the Guardian newspaper (which is distinctly left leaning) and it managed to do the story without once mentioning that the dog was called 'Nigger'. Self censorship at its best!


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 17, 2020)

Let's give the dog's owner _some_ credit for being aware of the connotations of the term, which was not, insofar as I am aware, used in any way other than as a derogatory term for non-white people. The dog was certainly not aware of any racist intent; dogs don't seem to have formed any sort of racial hierarchy. 

Britain, rather obviously, has much worse racial baggage than a dog with an unfortunate name. Sometimes, though, dealing with the relatively trivial deflects attention from the bigger issues, which may well have been the intent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 17, 2020)

Snautzer01 said:


> A sign just telling that next to the grave of the dog should be enough. Even for the politic activists who can just do what they want to do because of men and women just like Gibson.



I agree whole-heartedly with with your point. Your solution of an explanatory sign makes complete sense and is utterly rational, but when you deal with "political activists" you are not dealing with rational people. They are single-minded in their objective and how it must be "correctly" achieved, and if you disagree with any aspect of their plan, you are the enemy. This applies to all of them, left or right. Reason is in short supply among these people and the subtlety and contradictions of history are lost on the narrow-minded. I will use one example. P.G.T. Beauregard was a American military officer who joined the Confederate Army after the succession of the Southern States. I do not know if he personally owned slaves, but he did rent them as household servants during his military years. So yes, he supported and used the racialized system of the South, and shared the same racist attitudes that the majority of Americans, even Abolitionists, held. After the war, however he eventually realized the reality of the new nation, and supported black suffrage and wanted the civil rights of African-Americans protected. He even advocated for the education of black children. So, he was a racist, a Confederate, and supporter of black political and civil rights. More complex, but too complex for activists that want to paint every thing with a broad brush.

And why? Because it is not about the past. It is not about Lee, or Washington, or Jefferson. Or, historical accuracy or contexualization. It certainly involves the the past and history, but I am convinced it is about control and power. I am reminded of George Orwell's line from _1984_, "Who controls the past controls the future."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 17, 2020)

The vast majority of statues erected in memory of Confederate generals were erected in the very late 19th Century through the 1950s. One of the Confederate generals in whose name very few, if any, statues were erected was Longstreet, who was probably one of the most important and successful of the Civil War generals.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Jul 17, 2020)

I like the suggestion to change COON cheese!!!!!!

The mans Name was Coon, an american who developed the process of making the cheese known as Coon!
I remember the Gay family years ago wanted the Community to stop using the term!
It's a world gone mad.


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 18, 2020)

I am going to borrow FLYBOY J's soapbox for a moment;

I am a natural born citizen of the United States so I only speak to this issue from that viewpoint.

The use of the 'N' word here in the United States is extremely offensive to most African Americans when it is used by other races. Given our history of slavery and racism here in the States, I am more than willing to grant them the offense. All men are created equal, expect for the slaves who are 3/5 of a man. The prejudice was built into the system from the very establishment of this country. Just because the word was socially acceptable in the past does not mean it will always be acceptable. Reflection, and a greater understanding and respect for our fellow human beings is not some type of weakness of character, it is progress in our civilization.


swampyankee said:


> Let's give the dog's owner _some_ credit for being aware of the connotations of the term, which was not, insofar as I am aware, used in any way other than as a derogatory term for non-white people.


While the achievements of Guy Gibson are historically significant, his use of the slur is also part of history. No human being I know of is without flaws, that is the nature of the beast. It has nothing to do with the dog. If your neighbor named their dog after Guy Gibson's dog, and ran around the neighborhood yelling the dogs name would you find that offensive? We have the Right to Free Speech in this country, but not all speech is free.

Racial insults must be judged by the recipient of the slur, not the person using the slur. Otherwise we can never move forward.


ThomasP said:


> The idea that tearing down the statues and emblems of the Nazi regime is somehow an act of Jewish (or anyone's) revisionist history, or attempting to hide the real history, would be laughed at by anyone sane. How is what is going on relative to slavery and genocide (by the US or other countries) or hundreds of years of racism (by the US or other countries) any different?


Should we subject the Jewish community, and other communities, who were victims of the Nazis to the painful memories and reminders on every corner? Somehow we seem to have a collective memory of the atrocities without preserving every single image of the Nazi regime. Our collective societal memory would better served by enhanced education rather than preserving every single physical reminder.

The Confederate memorials in the South subject the African American community there to the same type of painful memories and reminders. Most of those statues were erected between 1890 and 1930, coinciding with the era of Jim Crow and the height of membership in the KKK. They were erected in part to intimidate African Americans, not just to commemorate the "Heroes" of the Confederacy. Otherwise we would have seen more of the statues erected in the first 35 tears following the end of the Civil War. General Lee himself was opposed to the notion of statues as he felt they would contribute to keeping the wound of the Civil War open rather than allow healing.

Oh and by the way the Confederate Army and the Confederacy lost the Civil War. In what country do they erect statues to commemorate the losers of a war? I am guessing they are few and far between. Let's take the statues down and put them in museums where we can go and see our history at a time of our own choosing. Rather than subject a significant portion of our population to daily reminders of a shameful and painful past.

This is not revisionist history, or erasing our past, or "Political Correctness", it is a show of respect to those who are rightfully offended. It is the progress that keeps a civilized society civilized.

Returning the soapbox to FLYBOY J.

Highest Regards,

Kim

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2020)

Just a bit of a reminder of U.S. history:
Between 1871 and 1865, the soverign nation of the United States engaged in the slave trade, both in slave ownership and slave-trading between Africa and the Caribbean via Yankee slave ships.
While Confederate monuments may be seen as "intimidation aimed at African Americans", it was more aimed at a nostalgic time when passionate men invoked their constitutional right to challenge the abuses of the US Senate.

If one takes the time to read the emancipation proclamation, it only freed slaves in the states of the rebellion, not slaves in Union territories.

So in the end, we should abolish all Union soldiers statues, all Revolutionary war statues, hide the American flag and erase everything that happened before 2020 in the desperate hope that no one is offended.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jul 18, 2020)

It’s going well guys, I am proud of you, but be careful. As this is a very sensitive subject, we’re as the forum team will keep a close eye on this thread and will close it at the slightest provocation.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 18, 2020)

Hey GrauGeist,

re: "1871"

Do you mean 1671?


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 18, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Just a bit of a reminder of U.S. history:
> Between 1871 and 1865, the soverign nation of the United States engaged in the slave trade, both in slave ownership and slave-trading between Africa and the Caribbean via Yankee slave ships.
> While Confederate monuments may be seen as "intimidation aimed at African Americans", it was more aimed at a nostalgic time when passionate men invoked their constitutional right to challenge the abuses of the US Senate.
> 
> ...


So as long as the entire country participated in slavery that makes it acceptable? What if the United States had just accepted the Confederacy and let those states go their own way? No Civil War, and slavery still exists in the Confederacy until what changes? In that scenario I guess it still exists in the United States too. At what point do we start trying to live up to the ideals contained in the Constitution?

I wasn't there, but I'm guessing it was not so nostalgic for the slaves or for that matter their descendants.

My reading of the Emancipation Proclamation is different than yours as it seems to include all States in the second paragraph. In the end the United States passed the 13th Amendment and won the war. I have always thought that was the end of slavery in this country, but it was clearly not the end of racism and prejudice.

No, we don't need to erase the entire history of this country but we do need to acknowledge our flaws and mistakes along with our strengths. The idea of our Founding Fathers that all Men are created equal is a great concept, but it is only truly great if it is actually practiced throughout our country, without exception. I do not seek to have a society where no one is offended. But in the case of slavery and the African American community, the offense is so egregious that it merits special consideration. And not to beat a dead horse, the Confederacy lost the War.

Respectfully,

Kim


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 18, 2020)

Marcel said:


> It’s going well guys, I am proud of you, but be careful. As this is a very sensitive subject, we’re as the forum team will keep a close eye on this thread and will close it at the slightest provocation.


Perhaps in stead of closing whenever a reply goes over the limit, why not delete just that reply, i have full trust in the mods that only those that polute etc. the o.p. shall be deleted.
But it will keep a civil discussion possible.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 18, 2020)

The Confederacy was created to continue and expand slavery, which was under political and moral attack from the drafting of the Constitution. Indeed, the only way to have avoided secession would have been for all the states to have abolished slavery to have reinstate it and to suppress the First Amendment rights of abolitionists.

After losing the War to Continue Slavery, the very first thing many of those memorialized confederates did was to start and support terrorist campaigns to ensure Black citizens were denied the rights that came with emancipation. Those statues were largely erected to memorialize those generals post-war work to maintain white supremacy, not their actions in the Civil War.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 18, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I am probably a descendant of Christopher Columbus, not very popular to admit these days but I cannot deny who I am.


Yeah, we don't choose who we're born to.



CORSNING said:


> In the attempt to remove the past by some, that will provides us with a path which may allow us to forget and then repeat.


Of course. I think they're oblivious to this.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 18, 2020)

CORSNING said:


> In the attempt to remove the past by some, that will provides us with a path
> which may allow us to forget and then repeat.



Removing the statues isn’t intended to “remove the past” as those statues weren’t put up to preserve the past, but to erase it and to remind everybody in those states that the local governments would continue to be damned sure that the Blacks remained in second-class status. People remember the past quite well without statues. There aren’t any of Benedict Arnold in front of courthouses or on town greens and I’ve never heard of a statue to Judas Iscariot in a church, yet everyone can tell at least as much about their history as they can of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The Confederacy was created to continue and expand slavery, which was under political and moral attack from the drafting of the Constitution. Indeed, the only way to have avoided secession would have been for all the states to have abolished slavery to have reinstate it and to suppress the First Amendment rights of abolitionists.
> 
> After losing the War to Continue Slavery, the very first thing many of those memorialized confederates did was to start and support terrorist campaigns to ensure Black citizens were denied the rights that came with emancipation. Those statues were largely erected to memorialize those generals post-war work to maintain white supremacy, not their actions in the Civil War.



You are absolutely correct. I always hear the argument from confederate apologists and revisionists that the war was fought over state rights. Yet, the state right that was being fought over was the right to own slaves. If that were not the case, then every single state declaration of succession would not have specifically mentioned the right to own slaves as a reason for separation. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you go to the state archives, and read them for yourself.

In the context of statues, if the statues had been erected during the confederacy, I think there may have been a small argument to have. When they were erected in the 1950’s as a big F U, then not so much. To remove them is not being PC, its subjecting a portion of the population to something that was clearly meant for political/racial reasons.

On the topic of PC, sure there are moments of things being overly PC, but I have found that often people who complain about the PC culture are only trying to justify their own questionable beliefs or behavior.

In the context of the dog, I think a sign would have been enough...

As a mod I will step off my soap box and watch the thread now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2020)

CORSNING said:


> In the attempt to remove the past by some, that will provides us with a path
> which may allow us to forget and then repeat.



Yes, and no. When monuments such as confederate statues are created decades after the war it is not the “past”. That would be like Germany erecting up a statue of Hitler in front of the Bundestag in 2020.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 18, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Hey GrauGeist,
> 
> re: "1871"
> 
> Do you mean 1671?



The United States did not exist as a sovereign nation until 1783. The slave trade to what became the United States started by 1619.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 18, 2020)

I want to make a point about the Confederate States of America (CSA) that most Americans, who have not studied Constitutional history, do not know, so let put my history-dork-hat on and please indulge me. The CSA was not a separate country and southerns remained US citizens during the war. Let me explain. In 1869, the Supreme Court decided a case titled _Texas v. White. _The particulars of the case dealt with the validity of US treasury bond sales by the Texas government during the war. While this part is pretty mundane, the implications of their decision are profound. The Court decided that the southern states never seceded from the Union because they did not have the power to do so. The majority opinion argued that the Constitution uses the word "perpetual" to describe the Union, and, since it is never-ending, the Union cannot be broken, i,e, a state cannot leave the Union. Even though the southern states declared their independence and formed a new government, they were still only states in rebellion, and not an independent, foreign nation. Therefore, southerns remained American citizens as well, in rebellion albeit, but still Americans. This sentiment and decision mirrored Abraham Lincoln's own thinking and statements he made in the 1864 presidential election campaign to counteract the Democrat Party's platform of a negotiated peace to end the war and a recognition of the CSA as a separate nation. 

The purpose of the post is not to justify or defend any statues, but to just clarify a point of history.

Thank you for your indulgence. 
Pete

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The Confederacy was created to continue and expand slavery, which was under political and moral attack from the drafting of the Constitution. Indeed, the only way to have avoided secession would have been for all the states to have abolished slavery to have reinstate it and to suppress the First Amendment rights of abolitionists.
> 
> After losing the War to Continue Slavery, the very first thing many of those memorialized confederates did was to start and support terrorist campaigns to ensure Black citizens were denied the rights that came with emancipation. *Those statues were largely erected to memorialize those generals post-war work to maintain white supremacy, not their actions in the Civil War.*



And a great many of those statues were put up during the 1950s. Just ask yourself why?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2020)

I worked with a Welding engineer in Scotland who had two cats called "weekdays" and "weekends" as a joke about his physical relationship with them. Thank god he wasn't a war hero and one got run over on his most famous mission.


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 18, 2020)

I remember seeing the movie (_The Dam Busters_) about Gibson and his mission as a little kid, and me and my brother giggling when they mentioned the dog's name. I also remember that Roger Waters included audio from the film in the background of the_ The Wall_, specifically the part where a character uses the dog's name to explain that the dog was run over by a car. I guess Roger Waters now has to denounce himself and his music as racist. After all, it was in 1980. and not 1955 when the movie was made.


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 18, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I worked with a Welding engineer in Scotland who had two cats called "weekdays" and "weekends" as a joke about his physical relationship with them. Thank god he wasn't a war hero and one got run over on his most famous mission.


I'm not sure I understand the linkage to this issue...


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 18, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I'm not sure I understand the linkage to this issue...



Neither do I.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I'm not sure I understand the linkage to this issue...


Well then allow me to explain. Guy Gibson was a young man, in a war. before the dambusters raid he will have lost many friends during training and operations. On operation Chastise there were 53 people that he knew personally that died. He died himself on operations in September 1944 at the age of 26 (16 months later). I doubt he thought much more of life than living the next day and yet people are looking for all sorts of meanings and symbolism for the name of his dog. IT WAS A DOG, a black dog. I call my daughters dog all sorts of names, it is a stupid dog that only cares about food, it isn't some great sermon or touchstone for society. He was a young man facing death almost daily, not a writer of opinion columns in the woke press. A few years ago the only people known from the dambusters raid were Barnes Wallace, Guy Gibson and the dog. In 50 years time the only thing known about the mission will be the dogs name.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 18, 2020)

pgeno71 said:


> I remember seeing the movie (_The Dam Busters_) about Gibson and his mission as a little kid, and me and my brother giggling when they mentioned the dog's name. I also remember that Roger Waters included audio from the film in the background of the_ The Wall_, specifically the part where a character uses the dog's name to explain that the dog was run over by a car. I guess Roger Waters now has to denounce himself and his music as racist. After all, it was in 1980. and not 1955 when the movie was made.


First, I am curious as to why you would giggle when they mentioned the dog's name in the movie. Was the mention of the name, in the context of the scene in the movie, intended to be comedic? Or were you giggling at hearing a bad word out loud? I know that made me giggle when I was young.

Second, I wonder if Roger Waters would make the same decision to include that audio today?

I don't think that Guy Gibson, the filmmakers of _The Dam Busters_ or Roger Waters are racist. But I think the choice of the dog's name was inappropriate even though it was societally acceptable at the time. And it was more acceptable in the 1980's than it is now, but no less inappropriate.

Also, I note that nowhere in your text do you use the actual name of the dog...

Regards,

Kim


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 18, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> My reading of the Emancipation Proclamation is different than yours as it seems to include all States in the second paragraph.



I have to agree with GrauGeist, the text of paragraph two specifically identified states, parts of states and people "in rebellion against the United States." The fact that he did not abolish the institution everywhere was a source of criticism from the abolitionist wing of the Republican Party.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I don't think that Guy Gibson, the filmmakers of _The Dam Busters_ or Roger Waters are racist. But I think the choice of the dog's name was inappropriate even though it was societally acceptable at the time. And it was more acceptable in the 1980's than it is now, but no less inappropriate.


It was always vital to establish whether the people who we sent out in aeroplanes to drop high explosives on German, French and Italian citizens were "racist" by some daft 2020 concept. Burning people alive in a firestorm is OK as a military tactic but lets have a really thorough check on the names of the pilots pets in case any offense is triggered? A dogs name is now more important than human life. I hope it was a male dog (that is a dog) otherwise we are really going to upset sex workers who self identify as female.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 18, 2020)

pbehn said:


> It was always vital to establish whether the people who we sent out in aeroplanes to drop high explosives on German, French and Italian citizens were "racist" by some daft 2020 concept. Burning people alive in a firestorm is OK as a military tactic but lets have a really thorough check on the names of the pilots pets in case any offense is triggered? A dogs name is now more important than human life. I hope it was a male dog (that is a dog) otherwise we are really going to upset sex workers who self identify as female.



Strawman!

What is and is not offensive changes with time. As a non-political example, Shakespeare's plays, and those of many of his contemporaries, were frequently quite heavily edited -- "bowdlerized" -- to remove content offensive to the mores of the time (Bowdler published is version of Shakespeare in 1818). The dog's name is not, by the way "more important than human life"; nobody is claiming that it is.

Also, it would probably be very hard to find someone who was not racist in WW2 Germany. Finding a non-racist person in Italy or France would probably be a trifle easier, but still difficult.


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 18, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> First, I am curious as to why you would giggle when they mentioned the dog's name in the movie. Was the mention of the name, in the context of the scene in the movie, intended to be comedic? Or were you giggling at hearing a bad word out loud? I know that made me giggle when I was young.
> 
> Second, I wonder if Roger Waters would make the same decision to include that audio today?
> 
> ...



Well, I giggled because I was seven or eight years old and thought it funny that they used a bad word on TV. As for Waters, I guess I don't know which usage is racist and which is just inappropriate because a professor was fired from his job for discussing the term in an academic setting. So, I don't get it. I guess I'm not good material for the culture police, and that's fine with me. As for not using the word in my posts, I usually do not intend to offend initially, until someone says something that I think deserves it. I don't like to start the fight..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2020)

Easy gentlemen...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 18, 2020)

pgeno71 said:


> I have to agree with GrauGeist, the text of paragraph two specifically identified states, parts of states and people "in rebellion against the United States." The fact that he did not abolish the institution everywhere was a source of criticism from the abolitionist wing of the Republican Party.


GrauGeist and pgeno71,

Having researched this a little more I will concede that my interpretation of the language was wrong.

I stand corrected.

Respectfully,

Kim

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 18, 2020)

pgeno71 said:


> Well, I giggled because I was seven or eight years old and thought it funny that they used a bad word on TV. As for Waters, I guess I don't know which usage is racist and which is just inappropriate because a professor was fired from his job for discussing the term in an academic setting. So, I don't get it. I guess I'm not good material for the culture police, and that's fine with me. As for not using the word in my posts, I usually do not intend to offend initially, until someone says something that I think deserves it. I don't like to start the fight..


pgeno71,

As I said, I don't think the usage was racist. However, the name in 2020 is inappropriate and offensive to some. I don't think that removing the dog's headstone reflects on the owner or the dog. It is just a recognition that in this day and age some people find the word offensive and hurtful.

As for the professor, I can't speak to that as I don't know the circumstances. However, I do think that there has to been some latitude in an academic setting. The ideas of safe zones on campuses is ridiculous.

I wonder if Guy Gibson would choose the same name for his dog in 2020?

Not an emoji guy, but .

Regards,

Kim


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 18, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I wonder if Guy Gibson would choose the same name for his dog in 2020?
> 
> 
> Kim



Likely not, as he would be 102. Guy Gibson didn't live long enough to write his autobiography, so his racial beliefs are largely unknown, although his choice of the dog's name would tend to indicate they were not particularly enlightened, even by the norms of the era. I suspect, though, that it was more cluelessness than malice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Jul 19, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> pgeno71,
> 
> I wonder if Guy Gibson would choose the same name for his dog in 2020?
> 
> ...



He probably would have taken a line from The Jerk and called him
*Shit Head!*


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 19, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> pgeno71,
> 
> As I said, I don't think the usage was racist. However, the name in 2020 is inappropriate and offensive to some. I don't think that removing the dog's headstone reflects on the owner or the dog. It is just a recognition that in this day and age some people find the word offensive and hurtful.
> 
> ...



I totally agree and he probably would not give his dog the same because the word's usage has changed. The problem I have with removing things is that it does not allow for adult, intellectual conversations about an issue. Let's take the dog's headstone for example. If some one learns a little about Gibson and that he named his dog a certain name, without knowing the context of the naming or the word at the time, they might conclude that, "he was so racist he named his dog that word and equated black people to animals." We both agree that would be unfair to Gibson. Adding a sign or plaque to explain the context of the naming and the word's usage at the time is more educational than removing it. I think taking away the headstone is intellectual laziness. By removing it, we are not erasing history or "fixing" it, were are losing it. We are losing the opportunity to understand and explain the past and present in all its complexity. 

Take care,

Pete

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 19, 2020)

pgeno71 said:


> I totally agree and he probably would not give his dog the same because the word's usage has changed. The problem I have with removing things is that it does not allow for adult, intellectual conversations about an issue. Let's take the dog's headstone for example. If some one learns a little about Gibson and that he named his dog a certain name, without knowing the context of the naming or the word at the time, they might conclude that, "he was so racist he named his dog that word and equated black people to animals." We both agree that would be unfair to Gibson. Adding a sign or plaque to explain the context of the naming and the word's usage at the time is more educational than removing it. I think taking away the headstone is intellectual laziness. By removing it, we are not erasing history or "fixing" it, were are losing it. We are losing the opportunity to understand and explain the past and present in all its complexity.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Pete


Pete,

The usage of the word has not changed, its acceptance by the majority of people in our society(s) has.

I had heard about Guy Gibson before this thread started, but I knew nothing of his dog. It was the use of the dog's name in the title of the thread that drew me in. So I hate to disagree a little, but our adult, intellectual conversation about this issue actually sprang from the removal of the headstone. If the headstone remains, frankly I think it would be more likely to cause the uninformed to draw negative conclusions about Guy Gibson.

How many people first learned of Guy Gibson by seeing the dog's headstone? Is that how you learned of him? I think most of us who know of Guy Gibson, became aware of him because of his exploits during the war. In 2019, if someone walk pasts the headstone does that word spark curiosity about Guy Gibson, or does it just unintentionally offend the viewer? Especially in the case of an African American(remember, U.S. perspective).

As for the context, even as a young boy you knew it was a bad word. If you were the same young boy in 1942, would the name have caused the same reaction? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but I think it would have been less likely to do so in 1942. What was acceptable in the past is not always acceptable today, that is progress. And I think most people can wrap their head around that concept. So like the Confederate statues in the southern United States, let us move the headstone to a museum where we can really put it in context with the man.

We are not erasing history or losing it, we are removing an offensive word from public view. The opportunity to understand and explain the past and present in all its complexity, does not just exist in a public cemetery at the foot of a dogs headstone. That would be intellectual laziness.

Highest Regards,

Kim

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 19, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I wonder if Guy Gibson would choose the same name for his dog in 2020?





swampyankee said:


> Likely not, as he would be 102. Guy Gibson didn't live long enough to write his autobiography, so his racial beliefs are largely unknown, although his choice of the dog's name would tend to indicate they were not particularly enlightened, even by the norms of the era. I suspect, though, that it was more cluelessness than malice.


I was thinking that Guy Gibson would be the same age in 2020 as he was when he actually named the dog...

I also don't think you will find many authors of autobiographies who would describe their subject as racist. Probably more likely in a biography...

Regards,

Kim


----------



## MiTasol (Jul 19, 2020)

In Australia we had a football stadium named after a *WHITE *footballer known as Nigger Brown. Naturally that had to go.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...sue-laid-to-rest-at-last-20090218-geau2p.html 
Edwin Brown - Wikipedia

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Airframes (Jul 19, 2020)

Just to clarify the question in Post #5, regarding the dog that died after hearing a whistle from its deceased owner.
This was Percy Pickards dog, an Old English Sheep Dog named Ming.
Pickard, of course, was shot down and killed during the Amiens prison attack, in February 1944.
His widow, moved to South Africa after the war and, some years later, I believe in the early 1950s, on the anniversary of Pickard's death, the dog was out on the stoop, when his widow distinctly heard a whistle. The dog, apparently, raised up, let out a howl, and dropped down dead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Well then allow me to explain. Guy Gibson was a young man, in a war. before the dambusters raid he will have lost many friends during training and operations. On operation Chastise there were 53 people that he knew personally that died. He died himself on operations in September 1944 at the age of 26 (16 months later). I doubt he thought much more of life than living the next day and yet people are looking for all sorts of meanings and symbolism for the name of his dog. IT WAS A DOG, a black dog. I call my daughters dog all sorts of names, it is a stupid dog that only cares about food, it isn't some great sermon or touchstone for society. He was a young man facing death almost daily, not a writer of opinion columns in the woke press. A few years ago the only people known from the dambusters raid were Barnes Wallace, Guy Gibson and the dog. In 50 years time the only thing known about the mission will be the dogs name.


pbehn,

I am not looking for the meaning or symbolism in the name of Guy Gibson's dog, I am fully aware of it. I'm pretty sure you are too. And yes, I get that it was a dog and a black one at that.

Do you use the same name for your daughter's dog that Guy Gibson did with his? What would your daughter think of that name if you did? No one said any dogs name was some great sermon or touchstone for society. I simply said that a word that was once acceptable in society no longer is.

I don't know when Guy Gibson got his dog, or when he named the dog but I doubt he choose the name because he faced death almost daily. The fact that young men go to war and face death daily, or almost daily, does not in itself excuse any behavior on their part.

Like you I lament the fact that history fades away, but I only became aware of Guy Gibson's dog through this thread. I knew of Barnes Wallace and Guy Gibson from reading books before the dawn of the internet. In fifty years I suspect that the knowledge of Guy Gibson, the events he participated in, the others involved in the event and even the dog's name will be limited to a small group of people, as is the case now.

Respectfully,

Kim


----------



## N4521U (Jul 19, 2020)

What a waste of time this thread is. 
But, I do have time to waste and need a good chuckle now and then.
However I am finding my head reeling round and round, swimming in what seems to be endless psychobabble and wondering how grown adults can endlessly go baaaack and foooorth and come to no conclusion.

S p when do we rename "Black Comedy"?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 19, 2020)

I'm inclined to agree with N4521U, we are reading too much into this and taking away too much from it. All that has happened is that an offensive word has been removed from a memorial. _History has not been changed_. In Max Hastings' recent biography on the Dambusters (Chastise; The Dambusters Story 1943, William Collins, 2019), he states that it would be wrong for a factual narrative to remove use of the dog's name, and I'm inclined to agree with him, but in this case, in a public setting, the omission of the word is appropriate - it has _always_, throughout history been a derogatory term.

Note that the word is being omitted from the dog's memorial, not erased from history or anything like that. While some of you might not accept that it is necessary, *do some research *into why the word is offensive.

You could equate it to the Germans not painting swastikas on their flying Bf 109s/Buchons in Germany today. You can go to a museum and see a swastika adorned banner, statue, aircraft etc, but does removing the swastika from public view erase history and change its meaning and context? No, it doesn't.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 20, 2020)

Since his name actually was "Nigger": He should be buried with his name, date of birth, and date of death. At least there are pictures of the tombstone before it was changed, so we have historical facts.

This whole matter of sanitizing everything isn't doing anybody any favors, as it's erasing history from existence, and that dishonors the truth, and makes it completely possible for it to happen all over again.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Jul 21, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Since his name actually was "Nigger": He should be buried with his name, date of birth, and date of death. At least there are pictures of the tombstone before it was changed, so we have historical facts.
> 
> This whole matter of sanitizing everything isn't doing anybody any favors, as it's erasing history from existence, and that dishonors the truth, and makes it completely possible for it to happen all over again.



Gonna keep it rolling ay?
Just can't help yourself.
It's all been said mate.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2020)

The problem is, Grant, that the push (at least in the U.S.) is to remove anything that is deemed offensive.
This goes beyond statues, names and trademarks - they want buildings torn down that may have been built by slaves in the 1800's and so on.
The list is exhaustive, but if we were to use the example you used regarding the Luftwaffe aircraft, just removing the Hakenkreuz would not be enough, any aircraft that may have been built by slave labor would have to be removed as well.
Slavery in any form and from any time period in human history is a blackmark on our societal legacy, but selectively scrubbing it clean does not allow for learning - it creates a void that future generations cannot learn from.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 21, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Since his name actually was "Nigger": He should be buried with his name, date of birth, and date of death. At least there are pictures of the tombstone before it was changed, so we have historical facts.
> 
> This whole matter of sanitizing everything isn't doing anybody any favors, as it's erasing history from existence, and that dishonors the truth, and makes it completely possible for it to happen all over again.



It's not sanitising anything and its not erasing history; don't be so mellowdramatic. The term is offensive to people, it's that simple. Scenario: let's say you and your mates are eating in a restaurant and you decide to use the word and someone at the next table says "hey, I find your use of that offensive", what do you do? Do you say sorry and get back to your meal or do you tell them to eff off and continue?

Look up what the word means to people and its origins. Is it so hard for you to accept that it is offensive?



GrauGeist said:


> The problem is, Grant, that the push (at least in the U.S.) is to remove anything that is deemed offensive.
> This goes beyond statues, names and trademarks - they want buildings torn down that may have been built by slaves in the 1800's and so on.



Yeah, I get it. The American population has greater historic issues to deal with and that is frankly another matter entirely and left for a different discussion. This is recognising that in public, the use of the word should not be tolerated. It _is_ offensive and has _always_ been a perjorative. Why go out of our way to continue to not recognise and accept that? Have we forgotten basic human courtesy?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 21, 2020)

Hey GrauGeist and Zipper730

re: "...but selectively scrubbing it clean does not allow for learning - it creates a void that future generations cannot learn from."

I agree almost totally with this statement. The current problem revolves around who is is doing/has done the 'scrubbing'.

Going back to my example of John C. Calhoun, there is a statue of him in the National Statuary Hall at the Capital Campus in Washington D.C.
The purpose of the Statuary Hall was stated by federal law as:

"...the President is hereby authorized to invite each and all the States to provide and furnish statues, in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each State, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services such as each State may deem to be worthy of this national commemoration; and when so furnished the same shall be placed in the Old Hall of the House of Representatives, in the Capitol of the United States, which is set apart, or so much thereof as may be necessary, as a national statuary hall for the purpose herein indicated."

South Carolina gave the statue of John C. Calhoun to the Hall in 1910. This is what the Hall has to say of him:

"On a small plantation in Abbeville County, South Carolina, John Caldwell Calhoun was born on March 18, 1782. He studied at Waddel's Academy in Georgia, graduated with honors from Yale in 1804, studied at Tapping Reeve's Law School in Litchfield, Connecticut, and was admitted to the bar in 1807. He practiced briefly in Abbeville before pursuing a political career. After one year in the state House of Representatives, he served from
1811 to 1817 in the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming a leader of the "war hawks" and a staunch nationalist. Calhoun resigned to become President Monroe's secretary of war.
_He subsequently was elected to two successive terms as vice president, serving under Presidents John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Resigning in 1832 because of political differences with Jackson, Calhoun was elected to the U.S. Senate and served until 1843. Appointed President Tyler's secretary of state, he secured the annexation of Texas. Elected again to the U.S. Senate in 1845, he served until his death.
_A powerful orator, Calhoun became the leading spokesman for the South during attempts to resolve politically the conflict between the sections. Calhoun, a brilliant theoretician, advocated a fine balance of nullification and the use of "concurrent majorities" to prevent the dissolution of the Union. His political treatises, published posthumously, were influential in America and abroad. Calhoun died on March 31, 1850, in Washington, D.C., and is buried in Charleston, South Carolina."

Notice it says nothing of his owning of slaves and being ardently pro-slavery, or pro-genocide of the Native American. It also does not quote some of his more famous statements concerning slavery or inter-racial relations in general, such as:

1834: Slavery, Calhoun told the Senate, is “an inevitable law of society, that one portion of the community depended on the labor of another … when two races of men of different color, and a thousand other particulars, were placed in immediate juxtaposition. The existence of slavery was good to both.” — speech to U.S. Senate

1836: “The relation which now exists between the two races, has existed for two centuries. It has grown with our growth and strengthened with our strength. It has entered into and modified all our institutions, civil and political. None other can be substituted. We will not, cannot permit it to be destroyed … come what will, should it cost every drop of blood.” — speech to U.S. Senate

1837: “I hold that in the present state of civilization where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good — a positive good.” — speech to U.S. Senate

1844: Following the annexation of Texas Calhoun had this to say: “The number of deaf and dumb, blind, idiots and insane of the Negroes in the States that have changed the ancient relations between the races [and are no longer slaves] is one out of every ninety-six; while in the States adhering to it [slavery], it is one out of every six hundred and sixty-one; being nearly six to one against the free blacks in the same state.” — from a letter to Richard Pakenham, British ambassador to the United States, in an attempt to persuade the British to halt their attempt to end the slave trade

I wonder why none of his statements listed above was included? I submit that the predominately white ruling culture in the US has already selectively scrubbed history clean, in order to not allow for learning - in order to create a void that future generations cannot learn from, and dishonors the truth, and increases the possibility for it to happen all over again.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 21, 2020)

As much as I am naturally informed by this discussion and the baggage that the USA carries as a result of it, this is far simpler than all of that. An element of society doesn't like that word being used in public. Why can we not accept this and just let it go?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, I get it. The American population has greater historic issues to deal with and that is frankly another matter entirely and left for a different discussion. This is recognising that in public, the use of the word should not be tolerated. It is offensive and has always been a perjorative. Why go out of our way to continue to not recognise and accept that? Have we forgotten basic human courtesy?


I get it, honestly I do.
I'm of the school of thought that context is everything and as such, yes, Gibson's dog had a name that in this day and age is deemed offensive.
Changing the name on the dog's headstone won't erase a dark chapter in human history, but it will allow (or encourage) a precedent.
The sad fact of all of this, is that the dog's name is still widely used between people of color in the U.S., but it is not allowed to be used outside of that community.

So I'll leave it at that with the understanding that I don't condone the word, never have, but I also am an ardent supporter of leaving history In Situ and learning the context as best as possible from my 20th/21st century point of view.


----------



## N4521U (Jul 21, 2020)



Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jul 21, 2020)

ian lanc said:


> Guys just thought I'd tell you lot if you don't already know this, but Niggers headstone has been changed and they've removed the name 'Nigger'
> 
> It's not Negro or Nigga and the dogs name was called Nigger and was not being racist, around the Bomber Command Community everyone is enraged over this.



I`m singularly unimpressed, if you want to go on a global quest to eliminate all offensive words on all public signage, I suppose its hard to say "where is the harm!".

However, I think this is only a tenable thing to propose if it is applied by one-and-all, otherwise its just a stick to bash your opponents with.

I should like to highlight (by way of an illustration) that the co-founder of a certain organization which is a present (claiming) to be about dealing with racism, said on camera quite plainly that her activism was highly idealogically based and that she and her colleage considered themselves "trained Marxists".

Personally although I think communism was stupid, thats hardly grounds for complaint - however, what IS grounds for complaint (given the level of detail we`re apparently all needed to comply with now, down to the retro-active renaming of dead-dogs), is what Marx thought about africans. Some quotes for you from letters Marx wrote to Engels:

(Lassal had written something moderately critical of Marx and Engels)

Marx, in a letter to Engels called Lassal:

"A Jewish n*****r !"

He then went on to write (and this again, is a quote):

"It is now perfectly clear to me by his cranial formation and hair growth, that he is decended from negroes... unless his gradmother was decended from a n*****er, well this combination of German stock with the negroid is bound to yield a strange product. The fellows importunity is also n*****er-like."

Engels wrote back, consoling Marx and said not to worry because Lassal was:

"A stupid yid"

Note that not only is he saying the word, but clearly ALSO believes the African peoples to be of undesirable and inferior genetic stock.

I could list a lot more. One could say in their defence, its a large organization and any such group will contain people with beliefs which dont necessarily align with the goals of the group. However, this isnt "a member" these are the beliefs of the co-founder. Organzations are top-down, so its very concerning.

So my view would be, once certain persons renounce their Marxism (because he was a ing anti-semitic racist and apparently a fan of eugenics), I`ll join them in chisseling off opressive language from memorials.

Nobody is perfect, but I think if you are going to campaign against all symbols of racism in history whilst also claiming to be an idealogical student of an anti-semitic racist, people are going to view that poorly.

Continuity of actions, thought and purpose is needed to be a vessel for social change, and I have no time for hypocrites who (apparently) dont even know the first thing about periods of history which they claim to be students of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jul 21, 2020)

N4521U said:


> Gonna keep it rolling ay?
> Just can't help yourself.
> It's all been said mate.



So lets do a hypothetical.

One of your names (first, middle or last) is Xxxxxxx.

In 75 years time Xxxxxxx is considered as offensive as Nigger is today.

Will you agree, right now, that in this scenario the correct action by the Thought Police of 2095 is to destroy your headstone, and any other memorials to you, and replace it/them with one(s) that is/are politically correct for that period?

And do not say that will never happen. Read the story on the celebrated white footballer Nigger Brown from Toowoomba, Qld, Australia as that is what this centuries Thought Police have already done to him. And, if one email I got recently is corect, to the Crusaders football team in Christchurch New Zealand.

*As a variation on Calum's excellent post above I quote a supposed letter to the editor of a major US newspaper that is doing the rounds as an email. *Too me it seems to equally put the whole renaming horses*** in perspective.

This is an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins

_Dear Mr. Page: I agree with our Native American population. I am highly jilted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward._

_Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we also need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns._

_The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk._

_The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives. I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres. _

_Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!_

_Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children._

_The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children. The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children._

_The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children._

_So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves._

_As a die-hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers (especially when they play Southern California. Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???_

_I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the "Foreskins" to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Washington DC._

*To quote Grau Geist*_ I also am an ardent supporter of leaving history In Situ *and learning the context* as best as possible from my 20th/21st century point of view. _

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2020)

The problem with many (I am not referring to any posters) who are advocating “leaving history in situ” is that they also want to maintain a specific version of history in place even though it had been specifically and deliberately tailored to exclude or demean a portion of the populace. 

This policy can have dire consequences: the “stab in the back,” a distortion of history deliberately promulgated by the German right post WW1, and its associated anti-semitism, led directly to murder of millions as German policy during WWII. In the case of the “lost cause” lie, it was part of a goal to enforce white supremacy and to bury the fact that states’ rights was being used as camouflage for destruction of Constitutional rights within those states on the basis of race. I’m quite sure that similar falsehoods can be found in many countries, especially those with significant minority populations.

In the case of the Confederate statues, do remember that they were not put in place to reveal history, but to hide it. The controversy over the marker for Guy Gibson’s dog’s is a result of the history being hidden by those statues and similar policies.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 21, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> It's not sanitising anything and its not erasing history; don't be so mellowdramatic.


Well, it's melodramatic...


> The term is offensive to people, it's that simple. Scenario: let's say you and your mates are eating in a restaurant and you decide to use the word and someone at the next table says "hey, I find your use of that offensive", what do you do? Do you say sorry and get back to your meal or do you tell them to eff off and continue?
> 
> Look up what the word means to people and its origins. Is it so hard for you to accept that it is offensive?


No, I understand it's offensive. Normally, I don't call people stuff like that. There's also quite a number of other words I generally refrain from as well. But if one day the name Peter (my name) becomes a slur after I'm long dead and buried, they have to remove my tombstone because of it?



ThomasP said:


> Hey GrauGeist and Zipper730
> 
> re: "...but selectively scrubbing it clean does not allow for learning - it creates a void that future generations cannot learn from."
> 
> I agree almost totally with this statement. The current problem revolves around who is is doing/has done the 'scrubbing'.


I definitely understand your point.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Normally, I don't call people stuff like that.



Normally? But sometimes you do?  



Zipper730 said:


> But if one day the name Peter (my name) becomes a slur after I'm long dead and buried, they have to remove my tombstone because of it?



Except that the word was already offensive back then. It’s not like it just became that way over the years.

I’m not advocating for or against the removal of the headstone, but lets be honest, the dog was most likely given that name because of its color, and it was not a word used positively back then either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 21, 2020)

N4521U said:


> View attachment 589119



Beating a dead horse? If you don't want to read the posts, ignore the thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2020)

Easy, leave the moderating to the staff.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 21, 2020)

Sorry N4521U, not meant in a malicious way. It's just that the broader issues surrounding the topic are important and go beyond the dog's name or its headstone.


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 21, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> I`m singularly unimpressed, if you want to go on a global quest to eliminate all offensive words on all public signage, I suppose its hard to say "where is the harm!".
> 
> However, I think this is only a tenable thing to propose if it is applied by one-and-all, otherwise its just a stick to bash your opponents with.
> 
> ...


Snowygrouch,

As I have stated before, I am a native born U.S. Citizen so that informs my experience with the use of the word. I have never traveled to Great Britain, nor have I educated myself on the history of the use of that word in that country, or most others for that matter. However, there seems to be pretty universal agreement here that the word is offensive to a significant segment of our societies. I note that even in your post you do not use the word. Here in the United States it is particularly offense to African Americans when used by other races. As I have pointed out previously, for historical reasons I am willing to grant them that offense.

During the course of this thread I have taken the position that the headstone should be placed in a museum where the history can be better explored in the proper context. I disagree with removing the name from the headstone and leaving it in place. This is the same solution I have proposed for the Confederate statues in my country. 

When it comes to organizations, I am of the Groucho Marx school of thought. To paraphrase, 'I have no interest in belonging to any organization which would accept me as a member.' The fact that some unknown woman, who heads some unknown organization might share a common belief with me does not mean we share each others beliefs in their entirety. I am neither a Marxist(except the aforementioned Groucho) nor an Anti-Semite despite my belief that the word should be removed from public common areas.

Respectfully,

Kim


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2020)

pgeno71 said:


> Sorry N4521U, not meant in a malicious way. It's just that the broader issues surrounding the topic are important and go beyond the dog's name or its headstone.



And we are allowing it to continue with hesitation as it has remained civil to this point. The forum still has a no politics rule that we are being lenient with at the moment.


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 21, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> So lets do a hypothetical.
> 
> One of your names (first, middle or last) is Xxxxxxx.
> 
> ...


MiTasol,

The critical difference is that Xxxxxxx is not a derogatory term today, that is not the case with Guy Gibson's dogs name. As has been pointed out before, the dogs name seems to have always been a slur, even if it use was acceptable in some parts of society during WWII. I can't speak to its historical use in Australia or Great Britain, but that is the case here in the United States.

Respectfully,

Kim

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 21, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Except that the word was already offensive back then. It’s not like it just became that way over the years.
> 
> I’m not advocating for or against the removal of the headstone, but lets be honest, the dog was most likely given that name because of its color, and it was not a word used positively back then either.



I think we need to be a little cautious of applying the American situation to the rest of the world. In many cases outside the US, it was likely not considered a pejorative term and more a case of ignorance that it might be offensive to people of colour. 

To give one example, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, an older family friend named his black labrador "Sobers" after the West Indian cricketer Garfield Sobers. This friend honestly felt he was honouring someone he respected as a great cricketer (for the uninitiated, Garfield Sobers is still known today as one of the best all-rounders in the game of cricket, and he was knighted in 1975 by Queen Elizabeth II for services to the sport). Clearly, by modern standards, our family friend was being racist and offensive but I'm sure such thoughts never crossed his mind at the time.


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 21, 2020)

Since this really is a forum revolving around WWII aircraft;

In July of 1942 six P-38's and two B-17's were forced to make emergency landings on an ice field in Greenland. All the crews survived and were rescued. Over the next 50 years the planes became buried under 270 feet of ice and snow. In 1992 the Greenland Expedition Society extracted one of the P-38's from the ice. It was restored and returned to flying status in 2002. It is now owed by Rod Lewis out of Texas, and before Covid-19 was seen by ten of thousands of people at airshows around the United States.

How does this episode jibe with support of leaving history In Situ?


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 21, 2020)

This thread is in the "Off Topic" section


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> Since this really is a forum revolving around WWII aircraft;
> 
> In July of 1942 six P-38's and two B-17's were forced to make emergency landings on an ice field in Greenland. All the crews survived and were rescued. Over the next 50 years the planes became buried under 270 feet of ice and snow. In 1992 the Greenland Expedition Society extracted one of the P-38's from the ice. It was restored and returned to flying status in 2002. It is now owed by Rod Lewis out of Texas, and before Covid-19 was seen by ten of thousands of people at airshows around the United States.
> 
> How does this episode jibe with support of leaving history In Situ?



It doesn’t. “Leaving history in situ” is usually more about keeping skeletons in closets than encouraging learning about the past; recovering and refurbishing those aircraft is a way of exposing them as historically important artifacts

By the logic of “leaving history in situ,” those US troops should have been guarding Saddam Hussein’s statue, not helping to tear it down.

While the general public is doing a lot of talking past each other (I don’t think that’s happening here) there is _finally _some significant discussion about many countries’ historical racially motivated injustices. These are, like it or not, very real and pretending they didn’t exist or they’re all on the past is going to keep them very much alive.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I think we need to be a little cautious of applying the American situation to the rest of the world. In many cases outside the US, it was likely not considered a pejorative term and more a case of ignorance that it might be offensive to people of colour.
> 
> To give one example, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, an older family friend named his black labrador "Sobers" after the West Indian cricketer Garfield Sobers. This friend honestly felt he was honouring someone he respected as a great cricketer (for the uninitiated, Garfield Sobers is still known today as one of the best all-rounders in the game of cricket, and he was knighted in 1975 by Queen Elizabeth II for services to the sport). Clearly, by modern standards, our family friend was being racist and offensive but I'm sure such thoughts never crossed his mind at the time.



Accept I highly doubt using the term in question anywhere was meant to “honor” someone of color.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 21, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Accept I highly doubt using the term in question anywhere was meant to “honor” someone of color.



I'm not saying it was. Equally, I don't know many dog owners who give their pet a deliberately negative name. I'm simply observing that each country has its own issues regarding treatment of minority groups and we shouldn't assume any alignment between the American experience/norms across the generations and those in any other country (or vice versa, for that matter).


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm not saying it was. Equally, I don't know many dog owners who name their pet with a deliberately negative name. I'm simply observing that each country has its own issues regarding treatment of minority groups and we shouldn't assume any alignment between the American experience/norms across the generations and those in any other country (or vice versa, for that matter).



My parents had dog many years ago named, by my brother, after an uncle by marriage because the uncle talked a lot and said nothing; the dog was also very verbal but didn’t say much. It was, obviously, a mild dig.


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jul 21, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> Snowygrouch,
> 
> As I have stated before, I am a native born U.S. Citizen so that informs my experience with the use of the word. I have never traveled to Great Britain, nor have I educated myself on the history of the use of that word in that country, or most others for that matter. However, there seems to be pretty universal agreement here that the word is offensive to a significant segment of our societies.



I`d be shocked if a single person on this entire forum disagreed with that. I cant see any obvious reference to anything I actually said however, so I`m not sure what else to say.


----------



## MiTasol (Jul 21, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> MiTasol,
> 
> The critical difference is that Xxxxxxx is not a derogatory term today, that is not the case with Guy Gibson's dogs name. As has been pointed out before, the dogs name seems to have always been a slur, even if it use was acceptable in some parts of society during WWII. I can't speak to its historical use in Australia or Great Britain, but that is the case here in the United States.
> 
> ...



Sorry Kim but it was not a derogatory name *FOR A DOG* in those days. CONTEXT is everything in this case. I agree that it was, in certain circumstances, a derogatory name for a person but even then CONTEXT is important.

Then, and now, n----- was, and is, used by dark skinned persons in relation to themselves and often as a term of endearment. Under the context free _ban the word regardless of context_ Thought Police laws that is totally unacceptable.

I have dark skinned friends who regularly great each other with _hey you black b-------d, how're you going_. The Thought Police would make that a hanging offence. They also call me a white b-------d to my face occasionally but in the context it is used it is most definitely not an insult.

If you want to see real racial discrimination you need to spend time in Papua New Guinea. There are over 800 distinct languages, no not dialects - *distinct *languages, and each represents a different tribe/race and many of these groups can be instantly identified by physical characteristics and distinct skin colours. The century's old hatred between certain groups such as the Tari's and Goilala's routinely spills into bloodshed and death. Does this make them savages? No, not unless you are going to say all Irish are savages because of the "troubles" there. Again context, and recognizing history, is everything.

The Thought Polices _one size fits all, no exceptions _beliefs are worse than the _problem _they claim to be fixing

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2020)

Sigh...


----------



## N4521U (Jul 21, 2020)

pgeno71 said:


> Sorry N4521U, not meant in a malicious way. It's just that the broader issues surrounding the topic are important and go beyond the dog's name or its headstone.



Really?

_Is it a big deal sports teams use an Indians image, name, drums. Better than hiding them in the farthest regions of the USA! Excluding them from society. In fact, do the Redskins really Want to be included. Look what We have reduced ourselves to. Lying, cheating, violent WHITES. And some support a a lier and cheater as their leader. Another thread perhaps._

I'm part Scot, not offended to be called, WTF are Scots called, Leprechauns, alcoholics, Neds?
And so are any one of these going to incite me? I think not.
Thin skinned. Seems the longer the human race is on earth, the thinner the skin gets.
Everyone needs a F'n hobby. We have one, and it still seems to allow us to be incited by things that will not hurt us.

I've been chased, held at knife point and flogged by Black high school students in Berkeley 1957 because I was making friends with one of their Brothers! I was bullied by White guys in High School because my feet were Huge. We were blackballed in our neighborhood because my stepfather invited a Black family to our home for dinner, Bay Area, California 1955. Changing a dogs headstone is Not going to change things a whole lot.

The world is coming apart, we keep sending young men to do horrible things. They come back broken and irreparable. They see horrible things, things man does to their fellow man. Broken mentally, memories that don't go away, and we worry about a dogs gravestone. It's like changing the name of a street. There are far bigger things to right in this world. Let's work on them.

BTW, I have tried to IGNORE this thread, but it still keeps popping up in my face! Seems the Only way I can...... is t leave this Forum!


----------



## N4521U (Jul 21, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sigh...



So tell me,
how in the world can I NOT see this thread popup when I log on?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2020)

N4521U said:


> So tell me,
> how in the world can I NOT see this thread popup when I log on?



In this case simply scroll past it, don’t click on it, don’t open it, and don’t read it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2020)

Now having said that, I think this thread has run its course. It’s going too far into politics, and everyone has said their piece. No one is going to convince the other side of their “opinion”.

Opinions are like assholes, we all have one...

But when opinions start to become aggressive and antagonistic, it’s time to move on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

