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

[skyskooter]

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.

 

[Snautzer01]

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)

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.

 

[stona]

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]

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.

 

[pgeno71]

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."

 

[swampyankee]

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.

 

[N4521U]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[Marcel]

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.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GrauGeist,

re: "1871"

Do you mean 1671?

 

[Dash119]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Zipper730]

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.

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]

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.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

 

[swampyankee]

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.

 

[pgeno71]

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