"The Dam Busters' dog will be renamed for a new version of the classic war movie, it has emerged"

Name Change For Dam Busters Dog

yes dont think they would get away with his original name very well

typical pc gone mad :(

> typical pc gone mad

I don't think this is Sam, I think many people, including myself, would find it so offensive to keep hearing the other word that we wouldn't be concentrating on the film. It seems like a sensible change to me.

Some people are over-sensitive, and like to change historical facts when reality doesn't suit them. Very sad.

More to the point, why remake the film again anyway?

> typical pc gone mad :-(

Why not change it?   For millions of people who have lived with terrible prejudice, that it would be hard for others to even imagine, this is a very offensive term.
It's a good story anyway with no need to hold on to such a minor detail.

0ne of my labs is from the nigerbee Kennel,J,used to be in the RAF,so not to offend she combined her name with nigger.

Sheila

Sorry,Its Nigabee kennel.

Sheila

Oh well they had better change the film 'The Madness of King George' after all don't want to offend people with mental problems. (Wonder how they got away with making that film). I think we sometimes  think people are more sensitive than they actually are. I am in agreement. PC gone mad.

> Oh well they had better change the film 'The Madness of King George' after all don't want to offend people with mental problems.

But you can say madness on a bus without offending anyone, but not the other word - they're not the same at all. I often whinge about political correctness being taken too far - but I don't think this is the case here. To me the dogs name is a swear word, it would be like calling the dog the 4 letter C word - it would grate and be annoying and embarrassing.

But at the time the word wasn't offensive, and if you're doing a historical re-enactment you absolutely must stick to the facts, otherwise it's a farce.

Better not to have the dog in it at all than change the name like that.

> But at the time the word wasn't offensive

True, it's a difficult one, I agree about historical accuracy but to keep the dogs name would make the film a farce. It would be famous for the wrong reasons, it would offend a huge amount of people and worse still it may encourage the word to become more popular again, and yes it will fuel rasicm, neds will walk around shouting it and saying they're merely calling their dogs :-( 

So the film makers only really have 2 choices. Leave the dog out or change it's name. It's such a small change I really don't see the harm. We all know that amongst block busters there is no such thing as a historical film which is completely accurate.

>neds will walk around shouting it

So it's all right to use my husband's name in a derogatory way like that, but not have a dog's name in a film?

Rude words are something grown-ups have to deal with.

In reply to your question.......yes.

Then it's just as well that he's mature and sensible enough to know about 'sticks and stones'.

Then I am happy for him.

Good. It shows that getting offended at things that aren't meant personally is childish and pointless. If only more people were like that. :-)

I think it's wrong to change history like that. That is what the dog was called. As some have said it is PC gone mad, like asking a Christian to remove a cross because it may offend....Once upon a time it was just the name of a colour :-
Earlier variants (such as neger or negar) derive from the Spanish/Portuguese word negro, meaning "black", and probably also the French nègre, which has also been used pejoratively (but also positively as in Négritude), derived from negro (the ordinary French word for "black" being noir). Both negro and noir (and therefore also nègre and nigger) ultimately come from nigrum, the accusative form of the Latin adjective word niger, meaning "black".
American society turned it into a slang word for the slaves they brought from Africa. There are many slang/swear words that have been used with the meanings changed over years. I would list some but because of what society has done to them, I could be accused of using bad language if I were to say the name of a common sea bird for instance....incidently also the name of a type of carpet... It only becomes a "BAD" word when used in the wrong context. In the film it is the name of a black dog, named purely because he was black in colour. I cannot see that it should be so offensive. It was not then and will not now be used as a derogerative term.
We use many "BAD" words in our everyday language but people have become so used to them that it is considered acceptable almost anywhere to say the F word or the C word. Both in my opinion very vulgar and unnessesary in our language wheras a word that is  a description of a colour has become so very NON PC because of a very abhorent historical eara.
Madness...utter madness...I wonder if they re-make the film "Old Yella" would they have to change the dogs name (He was a Yellow dog) in case it offended the chinese people....PS or the older generation...like me!

Heartwarming to know that there are fully paid up members of the Jim Davidson Fan Club on this forum.

Our very first labrador was named after my father's Squadron Leader's dog - and at the time it was quite common for call names for dogs to utlise the initials of the dog's parents - so our dog (whose name I dare not write here now) was sired by Nero, out of Inky!

It causes quite a stir in the family among grandchildren when they look at the old photo albums - and photos of us with the said black labrador show Margot, S & S with puppy N!!!!!

Why try and change history - I hesitate to use the term whitewash (especially in this context!)  but that basically is what people wish to do.   Of course in this so-called enlightened age, the word is offensive - although I do know people who are afro-american, afro-caribbean who do use it amongst themselves - to reclaim the word for themselves, it was explained to me, when I raised my eyebrows when I heard it being used!

>Heartwarming to know that there are fully paid up members of the Jim Davidson Fan Club on this forum.

And distressing to know that there are narrow-minded, blinkered dogmatists.

And self aware into the bargain... you really could not ask for more.

Heartwarming to know that there are fully paid up members of the Jim Davidson Fan Club on this forum

Saddening to know that people cannot give a reason for their comment or give a historic account as stated by Merlot.

Its historically correct and originally came from the colour so I have no problem with it - at the time it was the same as calling a white dog snowy. Don't see why they have to remake the film though the original is still great! It will probably be one of many things the new version changes I will not be surprised if they manage to change the story completely somehow!!

>I will not be surprised if they manage to change the story completely somehow!!

Judging on past experience (remember U-571?) the whole thing will have been done by Americans!

The only thing that could be improved on the original are the special effects of the dams being breached. The rest can't be bettered.

So True JG its a great film and is best left alone.
Aileen

OK im going to give another point of view here, me and my friends work and design for the film and television industry on various projects whether for the BBC, large blockbuster productions or small independent films. I think people forget that a film is a purely money making venture and as such has to appeal to the masses, absolutely no film is historically correct as there are always a certain amount of artistic license; some of the best Historical based films ever made are not historically correct sorry to say but that's the truth films are a means and way of telling a story.

As such certain changes rightly or wrongly have to be made, the film if done well and receives the backing and investment required will be shown all over the world and will have cost millions to make so it needs to make its money back and fast,  if it means a change of a dogs name so be it especially if it could potentially offend a section of their audience.

The film industry is in- fact younger than most of your breeds of dogs, it doesn't seem that young as its an ever evolving entity having to constantly re invent itself making sure that people still visit the cinema, this is the case here why alienate a section of your audience? 

> As such certain changes rightly or wrongly have to be made, the film if done well and receives the backing and investment required will be shown all over the world and will have cost millions to make so it needs to make its money back and fast,  if it means a change of a dogs name so be it especially if it could potentially offend a section of their audience.

I suppose it's easy to forget how much money and how many people it takes to make a film, and if one of the financial backers makes it a condition that something be changed (such as the dog's name) it could mean the difference between the film being made, or not.

I confess I was dismayed some years ago when an international pet cat forum I was on, the American owners banned the use of the word beginning with P and ending in Y, that has been used affectionately for cats in the UK for centuries, and also Australia (and I think in the Netherlands too where it is spelled Poesje).... because it is an offensive word in the USA. Mrs Slocombe would have had a hernia!

> because it is an offensive word in the USA.

Yet they call bum bags f@*ny packs !!!

> Yet they call bum bags f@*ny packs !!!

True.... though in americanese, a bum is a down-and-out (not a tramp because that is a slutty woman); a f*nny is just an ass (they don't seem to like it spelled a*se) and b*gger is an affectionate term for someone who 'bugs' you, or a little bug. And a s*d is a piece of earth. So I could have got my own back on the american forums (and have done) by freely using the words b*gger and s*d which they barely noticed.... I could have done the same with f*nny.... but that was far too close to p*ssy for my comfort.

However I wasn't allowed to use the word 'snigger' because their spell-check ignored the 's' and only saw the rest of the word, and banned it. That is why 'snicker' is used instead. Like it or not, the N-word is deeply offensive to many Americans, despite what people here feel about it, much the same as the P-word. I felt rather sad I couldn't refer to my cat as a pussycat, but could fully understand why the N-word was disallowed.

>> neds will walk around shouting it
> So it's all right to use my husband's name in a derogatory way like that

::::groan, I should have seen that one coming :-)

Presumably your husband chooses to call himself Ned, and his given name is actually Edward? Ned is a commonly used abbreviation now for non educated delinquent and that is the context I meant it in, so yes I think it probably is ok :-)

>Ned is a commonly used abbreviation now for non educated delinquent

I think it's used more north of the border than south, which is why it's more offensive here. :-) However you prove my point that, because you didn't use the word in as derogatory, personal insult then it shouldn't be taken like that. In just the same way the dog's name in the film was a commonly-used name for any black animal, just as 'Sooty' is now, and so should be taken in the spirit of the era. It wasn't meant to be offensive so it shouldn't offend.

ETA: His brother Richard suffers unintentional insults in a similar way!

And obviously, now that you know people with that name find its use as a casual insult offensive, you won't use it any more. Anything else could be construed as slightly hypocritical ... just something to consider, and no offence meant!

According to dictionary.com the name of that dog is probably the most offensive word in the english language, I don't think that compares to a name your husband chooses to call himself :-) :-)

Yes the slang term Ned can be used in a derogatory way, but again it doesn't compare to the history of black people and everything they have suffered while being called N......

You seem to be missing the principle. :-) If it's unacceptable to use a term that offends one group of people it's equally unacceptable to use a term that offends another group. You're either willing to offend or not.

No, I think you're trying to deviate away from the real argument. I didn't use ned in a derogatory way, rather in the descriptive sense.... the people who would walk around calling their dogs that, or pretending to, will most likely be non educated delinquents.

> I didn't use ned in a derogatory way

In just the same way that Guy Gibson didn't call his dog a derogatory name. Sauce for goose and gander.

I think that maintaining historical accuracy is a fair point, but as another poster argues no film is 100% accurate in this respect. If the dog is considered central to the plot keep it in, otherwise why bother unless to make a point and one wonders what that point might be other than to show that at a certain time, for myriad reasons, people chose to call their dog 'nigger'.

No, not at all, what you're suggesting really is PC gone mad. Absolutely any word could offend someone, somewhere and to change because of that is ridiculous. But where there is real, documented evidence that a term offends a whole race of people and was used almost to keep them down trodden and abused then I think it is perfectly fair to say we can't use that word again. Also I think the term was offensive even then, but they didn't care because it only offended the black people :-(

>I think it is perfectly fair to say we can't use that word again.

Even when that same word is being used by black people themselves? It can't be that offensive; and to suggest that it's only acceptable when used by one race and not another is in itself racist!

Ahah I was waiting for this one. Some black people may use the word in an attempt to reclaim it, but most find it highly offensive.

I suppose it's a bit like this march in London really, trying to take the 'power' out of an offensive word.

I think that if someone really wants to call their dog by this name who is to stop them. I suppose one might equally call a dog 'slut' or 'slag'; poofter or bumboy. I actually know of a person who called their dog 'the rapist'. These choices say so much more about the people that make them, why interfere.

Most people know perfectly well that naming their dog 'nigger' in this day and age would cause offence to many, however cleverly you try to argue otherwise. For me the acid test is that sitting in a room with black friends would I feel comfortable to call my dog to me: 'nigger, come boy'. I would want the ground to open and swallow me up.

Also I think the term was offensive even then, but they didn't care because it only offended the black people

Exactly--and thank you for putting the point across so succinctly, chaumsong. It would be good to think that the world has moved on from those times but clearly there is a long way to go.

On reflection, maybe this thread should be moved to "Controversial Stuff"

>Most people know perfectly well that naming their dog 'nigger' in this day and age would cause offence to many, however cleverly you try to argue otherwise.

Nowadays, yes. But the film isn't contemporary, so that issue doesn't apply. What they're actually doing is drawing attention to it - emphasising it - and thus advertising the film.

It's interesting that people become more het up over a long-dead dog's name than the bombing of civilians.

> It's interesting that people become more het up over a long-dead dog's name than the bombing of civilians

What people? Not me and not anyone on here I'm sure, it's just that we're discussing the dog - this post is about the dogs name.

We were having a discussion about jelly beans in work last night, when people are being killed in other parts of the world, it doesn't mean that anyone thought the jelly beans were more important - it's just that's what we were talking about at the time :-)

lol all this reminds me of a friend who came back from SA with a black standard poodle called Winnie....when i asked how she got the name i was told she was "an ugly black bitch" as a puppy!

It seems to me we are addressing two issues that overlap. The first is should the name be used in the film- to be historically accurate one might argue yes, but as you point out, that inclusion will also cause a furore because the word is no longer 'acceptable' (the second issue) and is likely to detract from the rest of the film.

I feel the producers are in a Catch 22, damned if they do and damned if they don't (forgive the pun). As I said before, if the dog is absolutely central to the plot and in some way sheds light on the protagonist then leave him in, name and all- because that is what happened. If the dog is peripheral then its inclusion seems pointless. Of course, as you point out, it may all be a carefully construed storm in a teacup to raise the profile of the remake- any PR as they say.

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'.

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