Forum menu
Very thoughtful post Kryts well done. There are, of course, a few accounts that Gibson was a thoroughly unpleasant character, so maybe this was an extension of that, though I suspect most people at the time wouldn’t have batted an eyelid at the name.
Just had a conversation with my Black British wife. Her conclusion is that changing and taking statues/plaques away just creates a focal point of deniers and protesters. There has to be a conversation to show how things have moved on. If things are left standing alone they will just remain symbols. We finally came to a point where all controversial statues ought to be twined to show a journey. Next to N----r's memorial have a similar one recognising the service of black/empire/foreign airmen. Perhaps next to a restored Colston put up the protestors statue with information outlining how unacceptable the way he amassed his fortune but that some of it was used positively to create the university next to the black protester's one with some narrative to show that we shouldn't be complacent. Next to Churchill acknowledge his war leadership but voting against the creation of the NHS and discrimination against India by balancing with Atlee or Gandi etc. Basically add positivity and reflection to the conversation rather than ignoring or division.
I think you're missing my point Kryton, but meh...
Wingnuts, your post has me very confused. Is it for example acknowledging slavery happened but thats OK because we've got some brilliant rums and nice Caribbean holidays out of it?
I need to think more about what you posted as I'm not sure I understand your sentiment, and I don't mean that in a negative way toward you.
AA/MSP, if there was a dogs gravestone or sign on your regular walk to work, home or whatever with the name/words (sorry for the swear but I need to get the sentiment across) "white ****" etched on it, would you feel not a tiny bit offended, and should it get removed, pleased and more comfortable? Would you be more offended if BAME people then campaigned to have it restored and it was brought back and remained? It doesn't compare the full depth of the "N" word at all, but its as offensive as I can think of at the moment to get my point across.
The actual dambusters raid is more offensive than what a dog was called in the 40's when it was a common name for dogs.
I don't see any issue removing the name from the base but if you were to remake the movie or write a book I would expect to see the dog called **** as that is its actual name. if you don't like it then down read or watch the movie.
if you don’t like it then (sic) down read or watch the movie.
Spoiler alert?
At the cinema. Curtains open. Projector begins. Cautionary message flickers onto the screen
*Please note that denigrating racial epithets are used in this movie. If you are a black person then please feel free to leave the cinema now if you are likely to be offended by the word ****. Please know that although it was offensive to blacks then as now - white British people of the time used the word as a sign of cuddly regard for the colour ‘brown’. Probably. *
*The movie is about to start in 2 minutes. Final warning. If you do feel the need to leave just remember that you are probably over-reacting, as good people were killed in the raid depicted in the film and you don’t see white people up in arms about that. They just watch the movie and behave themselves. And besides, since when was the word ‘****’ ever used to kill someone?*
Do you honestly think people wouldn't know before hand?
Dambuster was actually on tv a few weeks ago and it did say it contained language some viewers may find racially offensive but it also stated it was factually accurate at the time.
Do you honestly think people wouldn’t know before hand?
Yes as not everyone knows everything.
Yes as not everyone knows everything.
Come on Drac you should know better than most on here, some think they know everything, whether its right or wrong.
AA/MSP, if there was a dogs gravestone or sign on your regular walk to work, home or whatever with the name/words (sorry for the swear but I need to get the sentiment across) “white ****” etched on it, would you feel not a tiny bit offended, and should it get removed, pleased and more comfortable? Would you be more offended if BAME people then campaigned to have it restored and it was brought back and remained? It doesn’t compare the full depth of the “N” word at all, but its as offensive as I can think of at the moment to get my point across.
I probably wouldn't notice and if I did I doubt it would bother me, but then I haven't been subject to racism in my life so it's not really relevant.
My point was that in an ideal world keeping these statues and having education about what they represent and info alongside them would be best. But we don't live in an ideal world and my fear is racists can't be educated out of racism and nor do they want to be, so maybe removal is best, but then the racists get a lightening rod and get all upity. I don't know the answer.
the majority feeling was that it wasn’t racist to call a dog that then
Then the majority (as in many things) are ignorant (not in the pejorative sense) There were aircrew drawn form all over the world to serve in 617sqn, and several of them found the name pretty bloody offensive and said so at the time.
Kryton - Perhaps I was lazy and tired in the way I expressed things this morning and I'm still knackered from clearing the garage so will probably do no better now. So here is a breakdown of the points me and the Mrs discussed.
Racism is never acceptable but we can't rewrite history however much we would like to.
If we pull things down or obscure them it will distort learning for the future and antagonise those looking for a cause.
We need to encourage a sense of how far ideas have travelled and that they aren't at the expense of any group.
By erecting new positive things we keep acknowledging change isn't always damaging to pride and identity.
It's always going to be easy to find an example that will play havoc with the principle but we need to find actions that generally don't enflame but show recognition, reflection and a way forward that isn't antagonistic.
I'm as white liberal middle class as you could imagine and come from a mesmerisingly stable family. Mrs W comes from a immigrant, fractured illiterate family and as driven herself to be a national recognised figure in her field as a social worker/educator. We both see everyday racism personally and institutionally,and with unintentional bias. What we don't see is people trying to get beyond tokenism and offence. At a course some blue rinse, who no doubt trying her best asked Mrs W what she wanted to drink - "Black please" to be told "We don't say that, its coffee or coffee with milk" Mrs W almost pissed herself and pointed out she didn't ever associate herself with a hot beverage.
What we were trying to get to was yes it wasn't ok but it was the past, here are positive examples we can use as a way to move forward.
Bet that's no less confusing is it.
Bet that’s no less confusing is it.
No. Yes. 😉. FWIW I reckon that’s ^ the best comment I’ve yet read regarding the matter.
Nicely worded. 🙂
Yes as not everyone knows everything.
well that would be tuff then if they couldn't handle it.
bloody obvious to me. Cultural appropriation innit; trendy middle-aged white guys like to pick and choose certain aspects because they think they sound cool without giving the slightest thought to the bigger picture. I’m fully in favour of Yeti owners being allowed to refer to themselves as a “tribe”, however they must agree to 99% of their number being slaughtered first and the rest have all their possessions and property taken 😀 suspect they wouldn’t regard that as particularly “cool” though 😂
Really? So perhaps you could explain the cultural connection between Native North American Indian tribes and a mythical creature said to inhabit the mountain ranges of the Himalayas, about five or six thousand miles away on a different continent.
‘Cos I’m not seeing it.
Now, if it was Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Urayuli, Dewayyo or the Wendigo, then the point might be valid, but Yeti? That displays wilful ignorance on the part of those whining about the use of the word ‘tribe’ in connection with Yeti.
No. Yes. 😉. FWIW I reckon that’s ^ the best comment I’ve yet read regarding the matter.
And I wholeheartedly agree with that, returning to the original point of the thread. I read the book about the Dambusters many years ago, and even then I felt discomfort at the use of the name, but as someone once said, ‘the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.’
Not having N*****'s name on the stone in no way demeans or denies his canine existence, those desperate to find out what he waa called can still do so. What's the problem?
BTW, I say that as a massive 617 fanboi.