some sort of conspiracy no doubt

what are you wittering on about ? conspiracy ?????? who said that ? just stating a fact about social darwinism and its effect on political and social attitudes. a reasonably well accepted theory of historians and halfwits alike.

keeping the dog’s name challenges the pc attitudes that you are defending and that merely help to hide the reality of our cultural legacy which make the job of fighting real racism harder. something that bothers me more than you obviously.

“some sort of conspiracy no doubt”

what are you wittering on about ? conspiracy ?????? who said that ?

Well me……..there was a clue with my name being at the top of the post.

oh right so you’re going to make up things yourself, pretend that i’ve said them and accuse me of being pc ❓

this stuff’s getting weird. 😯

pretend that i’ve said them

No, I didn’t pretend that you had said it. I threw in the “some sort of conspiracy no doubt” suggestion myself.

Of course it was absurd, as absurd as your suggestion that changing the dog’s name doesn’t show the “connection between the British and the Germans” and an attitude which in “no small way contributed to the racial policies of the nation being bombed”.

It was designed primarily to wind you up, and judging by the amount of question marks it received, I suspect it was fairly successful.

Can someone put a spoiler alert on this – knowing the dog dies ruins the film

The Germans lose too.

edit – yada yada yada

I think for greater authenticity the dog’s name should be changed to Digger.

or maybe a white lab called wigger

It dies? How does it die – I don’t remember that bit.

Why in these fighting films do people always pick on Germans – seems unfair to me.

Should have called it Rex or Rover, then no-one would have noticed.

or maybe a white lab called wigger

That’s it. Thread over. You win.

How does it die – I don’t remember that bit.

Hit by a racist driver in a car.

Don’t be daft, “Rover” wouldn’t have worked.

It was the codename for breaching the dam:

“Rover”
“You’re breaking up. Repeat please, over”
“Rover”
“No, sorry, we’re just getting ‘Rrr’, over”

Authenticity is very important, in the original film the trains were shown to be running on the wrong sides of the tracks, this gives completely the wrong impression about the German railways

it still altering history is it not?

No.

It. Is . A. Film.

And the previous film will still exist. No secret, no Stalinist rewriting of history. Just a newer version of a fictionalised film. Was history altered when the 2008 version of Funny Games was released, including some differences from the 1997 version?

No, because it is a film. The true story, of which each film is a fictionalised account, is still the true story. History has not altered.

History has not altered.

Umm, yes that is true. But when people talk about rewriting or altering history, they don’t literally mean building an operational time machine, going back to an event and altering the timeline to cause the present to move into an alternate universe.

Exactly! Like everyone now thinks that German trains ran on the left track during the war!

Some interesting debate on here, as ever.

It’s always amused / baffled me that any word can be “offensive” in and of itself. Words aren’t offensive, they’re just a collection of letters.

“****” isn’t offensive, in and of itself. It’s a contraction of “Pakistani.” It was used innocently, as an adjective, with no malice intended. When I was growing up, the local Asian-run corner shop was the “**** shop” to differentiate from the off-licence store which was the “offy” etc. It was, simply, a distinguishing characteristic of that shop. There was no racism implied any more than calling the fish & chip shop “the chippie” carried any malice towards potatoes.

At around the same time however, it was a word that was bandied about with hatred and prejudice by some people, often preceded in a sentence by ‘effing’ and followed by an accusation of illegitimacy. Fast forward ten years, this is now what everyone hears irrespective of context.

Just like “****,” it’s no longer a collection of words, it’s become a symbol. It now represents something specific, irrespective of actual intent. With apologies to Godwin, look at the swastika as an example of this sort of phenomenon; this is a symbol that’s several thousand years old (pre-Neolithic IIRC) and has had many positive meanings in various cultures (good luck, healing, etc) before the Nazi party adopted it. Today, it would be hard to display it as, say, a Buddhist symbol without getting an adverse reaction from people.

Today, it’s hard to see “****” as anything other than a racist slur, because that’s now what it symbolises. It’s still just a word though; if it was inherently racist, then black people wouldn’t be able to use it either. (I’d respectfully suggest that this isn’t ‘irony’ any more, incidentally, but simply ‘because they can’).

“****” isn’t offensive, in and of itself. It’s a contraction of “Pakistani.”

Perhaps so, but it’s not a term the Pakistani community used to refer to themselves. That indicates that it’s not really a term they were comfortable with

It. Is . A. Film

Personally, I was outraged when they renamed Bobby Bruce Banner to be David in the TV version of The Incredible Hulk.

Perhaps so, but it’s not a term the Pakistani community used to refer to themselves. That indicates that it’s not really a term they were comfortable with

Point the first, it doesn’t indicate anything of the sort. It may or may not be true (and to be honest, either of those states would be a rash generalisation anyway; all of them think the same thing, really?) but you can’t simply infer that based solely on their own usage of words. I don’t refer to myself as an Angle, but I wouldn’t give a tuppenny toss if anyone else did.

Point the second, that’s not true. I live in East Lancashire in an area which has an above average Asian population, and I hear the kids calling each other “****” on a daily basis. Presumably they’re being ironic.

Well, we’re not going to get anywhere but…
The Angle analogy doesn’t really work because it’s never used in a derogatory and offensive way. Maybe a closer analogy would be if very referred to you as a tw@. Would you be OK with that? Some kids outside call each other tw@ on a daily basis too.

Perhaps if you think that the term **** is harmless, you should join in with the kids outside and call them **** too.

Generalisation, yes, I don’t mean everyone in the Pakistani community. Rash, no. Why do you think it is rash?

Crikey … 🙄

There are four kinds of people (maggots) that relates to this sort of issue:

1. The one that want to be offended.

2. The one that offends.

3. The one that just see it as it is.

4. A mixture of all the above.

So let’s have a go at each of these maggots.

1. If they want to be offended they will seek a reason to be offended regardless. Might even go ape shite, so no matter what shite is being shown/said they will see/want a reason to be offended.

We can call them maggots that swim in shite but dream of being a butterfly.

2. These are the mirror image of no.1 but on the opposite end. They want to offend their counterpart because they cannot live without each other. In a way if no one take their bait they would be bored stiff and would even find other issues to bait.

We can call them maggots that eat shite but thought they are having 3 stars Michelin food.

3. These are the group that implicitly support either of the above two but could not be arsed to take part. So they just sit there to watch with encouragement. Either way it’s just entertainment.

We call them the maggots that is floating above the shite but could, at anytime, dive into the shite if they are pressed.

4. These are the ones that have the ability to morph according to self perceived importance. They like to swing but then when the shite become too pungent they jump out, leaving themselves clean to eat shite for another day.

We call them the maggots with multiple shite taste because they love all the shite yet cannot handle all the shite in one go. Because they fear drowning in shite.

Shite, the order of the day!

😆

It wasn’t an analogy that I’d particularly given a lot of thought to or intended to be nit-picked apart, so sure, bad example perhaps. It was solely to help demonstrate that the conclusion you were drawing was flawed.

Maybe a closer analogy would be if very referred to you as a tw@. Would you be OK with that?

We-ell. If someone called me a tw@, it would entirely depend on context; who said it and what their intent was. If I knocked a pint over my pint and a mate called me a daft tw@ then that’s an entirely different situation to a stranger wandering over and calling me one for no particular reason. Which I guess is what I was getting at. The word is a symbol but not offensive out of context, it’s just a word. I’ve called myself one on a fairly regular basis.

Perhaps if you think that the term **** is harmless, you should join in with the kids outside and call them **** too.

I think perhaps “harmless” is the wrong word here. It’s not harmful. It is however inappropriate, because irrespective of my meaning, one will be assumed. Such is the symbolism it represents. I could call an Asian gentleman a “****” without intending any racism or malice whatsoever, however I would never actually do so because I know that regardless of my actual intentions it will always be assumed that I intended it as a slur.

It’s a funny thing, is language.

We-ell. If someone called me a tw@, it would entirely depend on context; who said it and what their intent was. If I knocked a pint over my pint and a mate called me a daft tw@ then that’s an entirely different situation to a stranger wandering over and calling me one for no particular reason. Which I guess is what I was getting at. The word is a symbol but not offensive out of context, it’s just a word. I’ve called myself one on a fairly regular basis.

Then we are fairly close. Everyone using the term **** is much like the stranger walking over, but not quite. But just think about it in terms of everyone always referring to you as ‘that tw@’. You might get used to it and learn to tolerate it but i doubt you’d ever think it was OK. So whilst you and everyone else meant no harm, it was done anyway.

I think perhaps “harmless” is the wrong word here. It’s not harmful. It is however inappropriate, because irrespective of my meaning, one will be assumed. Such is the symbolism it represents. I could call an Asian gentleman a “****” without intending any racism or malice whatsoever, however I would never actually do so because I know that regardless of my actual intentions it will always be assumed that I intended it as a slur.

And it has always been thus

It’s a film. It’s not a film about racism. If it was a film about racism, or with something to say about racism, then altering this detail could be seen as wrong.

Like that one publisher who released one special edition of Huck Finn with the word **** changed. That changes the message of the book. (It is still being printed as originally written, so stop getting all up yourselves about that particular myth).

Really, they are changing the dog’s name because the word resonates with centuries of opression and discrimination (more so now than it did at the time of the original), and they don’t want that to overshadow a nice story which in no way related to racism. What would be the point?

It’s a film. It’s not a film about racism. If it was a film about racism, or with something to say about racism, then altering this detail could be seen as wrong.

Exactly. I honestly can’t believe people are whinging about this. Absolutely ridiculous.

See also Jock, Taffy, Paddy, Scouser, Gypsy, etc etc etc etc

Any slang word describing a group of people can be taken as a slur. Context is important.

And it has always been thus

Really? Were people from Pakistan always offended by having their origin shortened from Pakistani to ****? I don’t know but I doubt it.

To my mind “****” became unacceptable as people started using it in hate speech (and misusing it to mean anyone from Asia). Then suddenly we started getting told off for saying it by our parents (who had previously used it themselves).

In much the same way I don’t really mind folk calling me Jock, but if there was a suddenly a huge rise in anti-Scottish sentiment and it started getting used in sentences like “effing Jocks, why don’t they go back up north?” etc then I’d probably take exception to it.

think about it in terms of everyone always referring to you as ‘that tw@’. You might get used to it and learn to tolerate it but i doubt you’d ever think it was OK.

This may be true. However, if I were to assume that every time I heard it it was intended as an insult, that would be my failing.

There’s a lot of bigoted knuckle-draggers in this world, be they white, black, or green with purple stripes. Doesn’t make it right to assume that everyone is – you’re as bad as they are when you do.

Truth is, I’ve never cared what colour someone is. I don’t believe that having a bit of a tan means you should be treated any differently, be that negatively or positively. Even back at school in the mid 80s where racism was practically mandatory (on both sides), I never subscribed to that way of thinking.

People hear words rather than listening to meanings, and it makes the whole process of communication a bloody nightmare. I got chastised for using the term “coloured” the other day, apparently this now is in the list of ‘bad’ words. News to me, I was using it specifically because I thought it was an acceptable word. FFS. In an ideal world, it shouldn’t matter what term I use, what should be important is context and intent. That fact that it does causes more problems than it solves.

Really? Were people from Pakistan always offended by having their origin shortened from Pakistani to ****? I don’t know but I doubt it.

Why do you doubt it?

See also Jock, Taffy, Paddy, Scouser, Gypsy, etc etc etc etc

Quite. I know the etymology of a couple of those (the river Taff and Lobscouse stew) and they’re wholly innocent. Can’t comment on the others, but they’re seemingly largely acceptable in the right context; someone on here got called a Jock earlier today and the world didn’t end.

This may be true. However, if I were to assume that every time I heard it it was intended as an insult, that would be my failing.

Of course, you are right. But still it is not a name you would use to refer to yourself. And whilst you would be able to recognise that most often it was said without malice, you would still rather that they didn’t use the term. Honest.

There’s a lot of bigoted knuckle-draggers in this world, be they white, black, or green with purple stripes. Doesn’t make it right to assume that everyone is – you’re as bad as they are when you do.

Yes, I agree which makes it difficult when you see those who you know are not malicious behave in the same way as those who are and so validate their actions, in fact giving them licence for their malicious behaviour.

Why do you doubt it?

Common sense?

The first Pakistani guy comes over from Pakistan, learns English, integrates with the community. He meets Dave and says “hi, I’m Tahir, from Pakistan.” Dave introduces Tahir to his mate Brian, “hey, Brian, have you met Tahir, he’s a ****.” Tahir replies “what?! How dare you, you racist bastard!”

To suggest it’s inherently racist is nonsensical. It’s held as a racist term because we palefaces spent a decade or two cementing it as one.

FFS!

To my mind “****” became unacceptable as people started using it in hate speech (and misusing it to mean anyone from Asia).

People used to called Turkish people ****??? Wow, the more I know the more I realise how little I know.

Tahir replies “what?! No! it’s Pakistani”
Dave: Yeh, whatever, but I’m gonna call you ****, regardless of what you call yourself.
Brian:Yeah, ****, that’s what you are.
Tahir: No, but it’s not ****, it’s…
Brian & Dave: We don’t care
Tahir: You racist bastards

Why do you doubt it?

Okay let me put it another way, if anyone was offended just by having Pakistani shortened to **** then they were over-sensitive and should have had a word with the Scots, Turks, Poles, Brits, Aussies, Windies… etc etc 🙂

It’s not a film about racism.

Perhaps not. But the Nazis are generally considered racists. And the Brits the pure good guys. Watching the original raises a talking point about moral relativism and the changing face of racism. An interesting point that has been discussed at length here but that is lost by this change.

they don’t want that to overshadow a nice story

That’s the biggest irony. It’s a story about brave young men sacrificing their lives in a bombing raid which kills over 1,500 people, most of whom were POWs or civilians. It’s not really a nice story at all. 😕

People used to called Turkish people ****??? Wow, the more I know the more I realise how little I know.

Yes, soon you’ll catch up with the rest of us

But still it is not a name you would use to refer to yourself.

I thought we’d established that this wasn’t the case?

whilst you would be able to recognise that most often it was said without malice, you would still rather that they didn’t use the term. Honest.

Yep, fair comment. I think that’s a slightly different situation though.

…giving them licence for their malicious behaviour.

That’s an interesting point, actually. If we did theoretically manage to get away from this “automatic offence” situation, would that then give the intellectual proletariat something to hide behind? Hm.