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

[FLYBOYJ]

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?

 

[pbehn]

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]

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]

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]

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

Neither do I.

 

[pbehn]

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.

 

[Dash119]

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]

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]

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.

 

[swampyankee]

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]

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

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..

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Easy gentlemen...

 

[Dash119]

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

 

[Dash119]

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]

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.

 

[N4521U]

pgeno71,

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

Regards,
Kim

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

 

[pgeno71]

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

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

 

[Dash119]

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

 

[Dash119]

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

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]

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.