Forum menu
Did they have gay dog's in the 1940's? Or was that still quite taboo?
No Gay dogs in the 1940s in fact, gayness was invented many years earlier by the Greeks. However, many of their discoveries were forgotten until the Renaissance, but the technology for gayness was only stumbled upon again in the late sixties
probably depends if you're a moral relativist or not
Seeing as I don't know what one is, I am not sure if I am one or not.
Was this a gay Muslim dog? Did it know any swans?
The folk repainting a historical portrait to cover over the inconvenient unsightly bits
And that's pretending that racism never happened? Really?
Oh and Jesus, not the Huck Finn thing again...
I need to get a copy of blazing saddles quick.
Thinking about it, it couldn't have been racist could it?
They loved the dog - it was the common bond between all the men. So why would they give it a derogatory name normally used to insult black people?
Thinking about it, it couldn't have been racist could it?They loved the dog - it was the common bond between all the men. So why would they give it a derogatory name normally used to insult black people?
You're right those boys were al[s]w[/s]right.
Mastiles. Are you implying 'the love that dare not speak its name'?
That between a black lab and a gay muslim swan?
I personally disagree that history should be re-written because it upsets those that think a word might offend others. I had this discussion with a black friend of mine when the Huck Finn story came out and he said it was ridiculous that people find the need to get upset over what happend in the past and that we know better now and that was enough for him to not have to re-write something in order to please the minority.
[img] 
[/img]
This guy named his black dog after the latin word for black...the racist.
if the name was not intended to be racist is it not [i]more[/i] historically accurate to give it an inoffensive name in the remake?
And that's pretending that racism never happened? Really?
Yep. It certainly is.
Watching the original film these days you are struck and shocked by the very casual and socially acceptable use of a word that is now pretty taboo.
It tells you something interesting and relevant about where we were as a society at that time and where we are now. That's a good thing IMO.
Copping out and pretending our boys were perfectly modern PC is (excuse the pun) whitewashing.
This is where the racist dog is buried...
[img] 
[/img]
Shame he died before the dog could be tried at the Hague for war crimes.
No good coming here with a sensible answer McHamish 🙂
I personally disagree that history should be re-written because it upsets those that think a word might offend others.
It's not really history though is it. History is more than just the retelling of stories isn't it. The question about whether or not it was racist to call a dog **** in 1940, is intersting, especailly as the dog who played him in the film was actually called **** as well! Perhaps it was a common name for black dogs, the way Jet was a while back.
No doubt the original film had a number of other factual inaccuracies, but no one seems particularly bothered about them. So why so bothered about the dog?
This guy named his black dog after the latin word for black...the racist.
in fairness, we don't know what he named it after do we. It just so happens that the name is a bit like the Latin name for black
in fairness, we don't know what he named it after do we. It just so happens that the name is a bit like the Latin name for black
True, but if he was a racist. why would he name his dog after people he didn't like.
I don't particularly like sex offenders, and I'm certainly not going to name my next pet 'Paedo'.
[b]Historical inaccuracies[/b]
The film is accurate historically with only a few minor exceptions, mostly derived from Paul Brickhill's book, which itself was written when much detail about the raid was not yet in the public domain:
Barnes Wallis said that he never encountered any opposition from bureaucracy. In the film, when a reticent official asks what he can possibly say to the RAF to persuade them to lend a Vickers Wellington bomber for flight testing the bomb, Wallis suggests: "Well, if you told them that I designed it, do you think that might help?" Barnes Wallis was heavily involved with the design of the Wellington, as it used his geodesic construction method, but he was not the chief designer.
Instead of all of Gibson's tour-expired crew at 106 Squadron volunteering to follow him to his new command, only his wireless operator, Hutchinson, went with him to 617 Squadron.
Crews for the operation were not all highly decorated and personally selected by Gibson; some crews were simply posted straight in.
Rather than the purpose as well as the method of the raid being Wallis' sole idea, the dams had already been identified as an important target by the Air Ministry before the war.
Gibson did not devise the "spotlights altimeter" after visiting a theatre; it was suggested by Benjamin Lockspeiser of the Ministry of Aircraft Production after Gibson requested they solve the problem. It was a proven method used by RAF Coastal Command aircraft for some time.
The wooden "coat hanger" bomb sight intended to enable crews to release the weapon at the right distance from the target was not wholly successful; some crews used it, but others came up with their solutions, such as pieces of string in the bomb-aimer's position and/or markings on the blister.
No bomber flew into a hillside near a target on the actual raid. This scene, which is not in the original version, was included in the copy released on the North American market (see above). (One bomber did crash near a target after being hit by the blast, and two or more may have crashed due to hitting power lines in the valleys.)
Some of the sequences showing the testing of Upkeep in the film are of Mosquito fighter-bombers dropping the naval version of the bouncing bomb, code-named "Highball", intended to be used against ships. This version of the weapon was never used operationally.
At the time the film was made, certain aspects of Upkeep were still held classified, so the actual test footage was censored to hide any details of the test bombs, and the dummy bombs carried by the Lancasters were spherical rather than the true cylindrical shape.
So yeah let's worry about the dog's name.
Perhaps it was a common name for black dogs, the way Jet was a while back.
[img] 
[/img]
Oi!
...History is more than just the retelling of stories isn't it....
yes, its about learning what happen then and what happens now. How else are people going to know little facts about stories like what the dog in the dambusters was called!
there will be a generation of people that will think it's something other than was it really was!
I reckon the main reason for changing it is classification:
Historical context is taken into account, so that a re-release of the British war film The Dambusters can still get away with a labrador called “****” because this was a common name for black dogs in 1955. A proposed remake of the film, however, has struggled to gain a consensus on the acceptability of the dog’s name.
[url] http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6565478.ece [/url]
True, but if he was a racist. why would he name his dog after people he didn't like.
Oh, I'm not saying he was a racist naming his dog ****.
I don't particularly like sex offenders, and I'm certainly not going to name my next pet 'Paedo'.
I agree, but when I was in the force I knew a lot of dog handlers who called their dogs Peter (Sutcliffe). They weren't fans of his.
I knew a lot of dog handlers who called their dogs Peter (Sutcliffe).
Was that because they carried hammers?
Mr Drac - Using your mod power you seem to have seriously knackered the forum page 😐
I think that ****** was quite a popular name for a dog in/with the military at the time. No idea why. I don't think the military are racist. IME, everyone gets treated equally badly.
Oops it's the list thing, I'll sort that now.
Perhaps it was a common name for black dogs, the way Jet was a while back.
it certainly was. my dad had a manchester terrier named **** during the war.
I don't think the military are racist.
No of course not, the military are not racist. If, for example, the army were institutionally racist, we'd have heard something about that by now!
my dad had a manchester terrier named **** during the war.
Was he black? ...
Charlie have you been in the military or are you just going by what the media tell you?
Charlie have you been in the military
No.
or are you just going by what the media tell you?
No
Are they the only two options?
Charlie have you been in the militaryNo.
Didn't think so.
Charlie have you been in the military
No.Didn't think so.
Wonderful! You demonstrably were in the army!
Wonderful! You demonstrably were in the army!
And you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about!
Hang on lads, let me get the popcorn.
I predict EPIC
Wonderful! You demonstrably were in the army!
And you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about!
Well, I'm happy to admit my mistake, I'll assume your wisdom on the topic and accept that I am wrong and that the army is indeed racist.
See, folks on can change their minds.
precise anyone too tired to read all that
Watching the original film these days you are struck and shocked by the very casual and socially acceptable use of a word that is now pretty taboo.
But in the 1940s calling a dog **** was not derogatory so of course it was socially acceptable - it was simply a popular name for dogs at the time.
If, in 70 years time, calling someone 'fido' becomes socially unacceptable it doesn't make people who call their dogs that now racist does it?
precise anyone too tired to read all that
Well the last bit..
CM: The army can't be institutionally racist
Backhander:You can't know you were never in it, ypou don't know what you are talking about
CM: Ok, you sound like you were in the army, I guess i must be wrong, the army [i]is[/i] racist.
the army is racist.
AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT.
Hang on.....
Surely the point is simply this, do we want this film to be a record and celebration of the efforts of Guy Gibson and his men, or, do we want the US blacks and the PC brigade to hijack this film for their own cause because it reminds them of the terrible racism that existed in the US during WWII? Don’t forget, when the US military were stationed in England, and much to the shock and horror of the English, the US black forces were segregated, banned from mixing with their non-coloured fellow serviceman.
🙁
It was all going so well...
It was all going so well...
Care to expand, or shall we just play guessing games?
But in the 1940s calling a dog **** was not derogatory so of course it was socially acceptable
Wasn't it?
Well [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****#British ]according to my good friend Wikipedia[/url]:
In A Dictionary of Modern English Usage ([b]1926[/b]), H. W. Fowler states that applying the word **** to "others than full or partial negroes" is "felt as an insult by the person described, & betrays in the speaker, if not deliberate insolence, at least a very arrogant inhumanity"
Moreover
The British Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was 1807
"Uncle Tom's Cabin" was published in 1852
"Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" was 1884
American Civil War was 1861–1865
So I [i]suspect[/i] that by the 1940s there was at least a slight knowing intention to it, even if it was perfectly socially acceptable at the time.
Did [i]you[/i] own a dog in the 1940s GrahamS?