I detest the PC brigade and the minority groups who try to control how we live and speak, really do and I agree in that history should not be changed to fit in with today.

However, even I find the 'N' word offensive, even when black people say it, it's horrible, but why did the dog have to have a name change at all? His name wasn't Digger! Why could they have not worked around the script that when the dog was in a scene, they spoke to him with...... Here Boy! Good Boy! Good Dog! Come on Boy, That dogs a hero, Did you see what he did? etc..........

Surely that wouldn't have been too hard,  therefore causing no offense to anyone.

Surely, it could just have been that simple........

>Why could they have not worked around the script that when the dog was in a scene, they spoke to him with...... Here Boy! Good Boy! Good Dog! Come on Boy, That dogs a hero, Did you see what he did? etc..........

I couldn't agree more. Simply referring "Your dog", "My dog" etc and not using his name would have avoided any issues.

Simply referring "Your dog", "My dog" and not using his name would have avoided any issues.

I thought the problem arose because the dog's name was used as the code word? Still, I can see how that would work: "Oh my dog, they've dropped another (expletive deleted) bomb on those (expletive deleted) (substitute Germans for the offensive K word we don't use any more either) again."

Better still, why not find something else to film instead of glorifying war? I can see that might be a bit radical for  some though. I'm trying hard to think of a film that celebrates peace and equality, so I guess the money grubbers and imperialists set the agenda along with a helpfully non-discerning audience.

I detest the PC brigade and the minority groups who try to control how we live and speak

Wow...I was saving my disrespect for those who damage each other and the planet, but I can see I've been missing the target!

> Umm double standards, it's OK for US rappers to use the N word though isn't it???? 

Is it? 
I can't believe people are calling this PC gone mad as though it was a minor quibble.  It is a highly offensive term at the top end of PC incorrectness.
Sure, it was commonly used at one time but then prejudice was meeted out commonly at one time.
My Stepmother was born in 1931, has devoted her entire working career to caring for people in the NHS.  She didn't stop at that but has involved herself continually in politics and her community.  Still serving, in her 81st year, on various bodies monitoring and supporting health services locally, and yet despite this contribution, it is only really in a relatively small portion of her life that she has lived statutorily protected from verbal abuse.
I said before, the Dam Busters is a terrific story of ingenuity, persistance and heroism, where on earth is the need to resurrect again a totally irrelevent detail that may remind good, decent people like her of hard times.   
Would any of you who seem to feel it is some sort of insult NOT to be free to use the word have the courage to say it in my Stepmothers presence I wonder?  If not why do you think it would be fine to stick it in a film that may one day appear on her television set?
Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy about this but for goodness sake! :)

>If not why do you think it would be fine to stick it in a film that may one day appear on her television set?

The original film's already been on TV masses of times.

> The original film's already been on TV masses of times.

My Stepmother is not stupid.  She knows, how can she not, the context of what was acceptable previously but that would be completely different to learning that it was still acceptable.
I have to say this has upset me enormously. 
I really wish Admin had not decided this would be a good discussion. 
I really wish that a poster had not taken the, inexplicable, action of using the word when it was not at all necessary to the discussion and infact turned out to be wrong anyway.
I really wish Admin would have removed it when she did.
I really think I should not return to this.

I am considering calling my new pup..... Auschwitz.I feel that this would go down a storm in my local park as I practice recall.The fact that it is 'historically correct' is just the icing on the cake.I wonder if people would consider submitting equally inoffensive names to give me more options.Go on JG give it a whirl after all 'sticks and stones'.

CL, With respect, I think you are shifting the goalposts. If you know of a proposed film, based on a major slice of history that involved a dog called Auschwitz, then I think you might have a point, if not I cannot see the comparison.

The debate about inclusion of the name in the film is one thing- its current usage is another. My view is that anyone idiotic enough to name their dog by the n word would soon live to regret it, such would be the public scorn/backlash, unless they live in some extraordinarily isolated and insular community. In short, uttering such a word in front of any black person and seeing their reaction would probably give you all the feedback you'd ever need.

>My Stepmother is not stupid.  She knows, how can she not, the context of what was acceptable previously but that would be completely different to learning that it was still acceptable.

Nobody's said that she is stupid - I'm sure, like most people, she's well aware that many things that were said and done throughout history would not be acceptable nowadays, even though they were at the time. It doesn't mean they should be expunged from history though.

Hah, Winnie, we almost called ours the same.
It was out of devilment though and really if, in our culture something is unacceptable then so be it.
I wouldn't want to be in the position of offending people if it's not necessary.

Karen

Hi freelancerukuk I think you may be misinterpreting what I am trying to highlight....just follow the posts I have made.The use of the nigger word is abhorrent and the 'sticks and stones' argument nonsensical.Therapy may be needed for those who think otherwise.

> The use of the [deleted by chaumsong] word is abhorrent

I agree, so why did you type it!

> Umm double standards, it's OK for US rappers to use the N word though isn't it

No, it absolutely is not ok and I would never buy a song that included that word or allow it to played in my presence, not in my home, car or at work.

Because closing your eyes or covering your ears on this issue won't suddenly make it go away.

> Because closing your eyes or covering your ears on this issue won't suddenly make it go away.

I'm doing neither, we're discussing it, hearing everyones views and trying to understand why some would complain about such an offensive word having a teeny change to make it more acceptable. There is no need to type the word out, we all know what we're discussing. You have agreed that the word is offensive, so please don't use it :-)

Whilst I find all of the issues surrounding the word abhorrent it does not mean that I can't bring myself to type it out.Lets hope that the 'teeny changes' make such a difference....I think not.

> Lets hope that the 'teeny changes' make such a difference....I think not.

Just to be clear, the teeny change I meant was changing the first letter to D, I think it makes a huge difference to the acceptability of the film :-)

>I really wish Admin had not decided this would be a good discussion.

I am sorry that you feel that the topic of the Dam Busters Dog 'name change' should not be debated on a canine forum. It was not added with the intention of causing offence. It was added because it was canine related and consequently, worthy of debate.

> It was added because it was canine related

Personally, I think that is stretching it a bit. It is not the animal that is relevent to the discussion but simply the name. It could have a been a cat, a rabbit, anything.  But I appreciate you did not intend to cause offence. 
I should add you have not infact caused offence I just regret you raising the subject because other people have seen fit to repeat the word or that people think it such a small matter to peoples lives that for the sake of some trivial accuracy that we might continue to use the same name in the film.

> It was added because it was canine related and consequently, worthy of debate.

Topics like this are always worthy of debate if only to consider how the world moves on:  I've recently read and re read a number of books dealing with civil rights issues and it struck me how little this subject was covered when I was at school.  One or two older relatives sometimes use terms I'd consider derogatory and this provides a good opportunity to discuss these topics with my own children.

Preserving the name simply because it is a real name depends on whether you consider a film as 'historical document'.

Historical documents can be assessed within the bounds of their time, regardless of when they are read.  A modern reader will look at information or documents about slavery for instance and realise the terms used are inappropriate today but were the norm at the time.  Authors of educational text books and factual documentaries are generally pretty good as positioning facts within the language, politics and norms of the day but we would still recognise a text book written in 1920 to another written in 1970 for example.

Scriptwriters and story authors aim simply to entertain us.  However most fictional worlds reflect the period in which they are written, not the date in which they are set, which is why we can view films made in the 1950's and 60's and learn that women had different roles then, or that homosexuality, or race, was treated very differently in those times.  Authors today use the language of today and book rewrites or film remakes will of necessity be shaped by our time and to deny the changes that have occurred in the intervening years does the viewer or reader a disservice.

As a society we do have a duty to remember our past and preserve the facts but Peter Jackson is not proposing to rewrite history.  He is not editing a text book, making a documentary or educating our children.  He is remaking a film and one that was itself a fictional account, albeit one based on fact.

Incidentally has anyone read Case Histories by Kate Atkinson? I'm pretty sure the neighbours black cat is also called the same name as the one we are debating.  I haven't read the book but I watched the tv programme last weekend I and it seemed pretty clear from the way it was handled that the detective considered it an offensive word but the lady from South Africa did not.  I plan to get the book as I'm intrigued about that...

Would Blackie or Darkie be offensive?

Speaking for myself if I had a black dog, I wouldn't have a problem calling out the name Blackie across a field at all, I don't find that offensive myself, but Darkie I would, because it was used to describe black people in a derogatory way. I think when we all grew up we remember words used by bullies and bigots etc and those are the words that we often wouldn't use again.

> Incidentally has anyone read Case Histories by Kate Atkinson?

Yes, we have it on our bookshelves. It's true about the cat's name and this is discussed in the book. I liked the book so much that I went and got the sequel out of the library - just recently too. It's well worth a read. It's spoilt the TV programme a bit to be honest, but never mind. I think the programme's good too.

I don't think it's acceptable in this day & age to use the name any more. OK, in a book, it's possible through dialogue between the characters to defuse it a bit, but not in a film if it is to be historically accurate. I don't know why anyone should want to do a remake. I think the original film is very good for what it is.

Anyway, just off to watch the next episode of Case Histories.

> Would Blackie or Darkie be offensive?

Yes. When I first visited Thailand in the early 90's there was a long-established brand of toothpaste there called Darkie, complete with drawing of a smiling "Al Jolson" character on the box. Three years later it was withdrawn from sale, packaging redesigned, and the name changed to Darlie.