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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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"?

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

N4521U said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

nuuumannn said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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'.

Click to expand...

I definitely understand your point.

Zipper730 said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

N4521U said:

View attachment 589119

Click to expand...

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

Easy, leave the moderating to the staff.

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.