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

[Dash119]

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 disgusting 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.

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[buffnut453]

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]

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]

This thread is in the "Off Topic" section

 

[swampyankee]

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]

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.

 

[buffnut453]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

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]

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sigh...

 

[N4521U]

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]

Sigh...

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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.