RAF changed Dog grave wording

[Tooks]

Well of course it can, at the very least it can be discussed in a way that doesn’t require the use of obsolete racist language. More straw man arguments.

Look, this is about far more than TV programmes that can’t be shown any more as times have moved on, it’s about respecting people who are negatively impacted by racist language.

The world changes, language changes, we can talk about people like Colston and his positive impact on Bristol and his negative impact on black people without there being a statue on display to celebrate him.

Let’s face it, nobody would even remember Guy Gibson’s dog if he hadn’t have been given that name.

My final point on this, I did say I wasn’t going down a rabbit hole, is that RAF command have made the changes to the dogs grave. If, as so many people on here do, you purport to support the armed forces and the difficult things they have to do everyday, then you should respect their leadership on things like this as well.

People are quick enough to write ‘blue skies’ when somebody loses their life in the line of duty, and express religious sentiment in support of people going through difficult times, but it seems a little too much is being asked if we are to accept that certain elements of history are best forgotten. Bits that have no bearing whatsoever on the story, and that repeating does nothing more than offend, as well as cause a few guffaws and sniggers from people who for some reason seem to look back on it as some kind of golden era.

[plmc135]

Hmm "sniggers" a somewhat unfortunate choice of word

[Tooks]

Hmm "sniggers" a somewhat unfortunate choice of word

Given the definition is ‘the act of laughing at somebody in a half-suppressed typically scornful way’, I’d say it’s pretty apt.

[plmc135]

And the definition of Lincolnshireville is .... it does not exist so please do not insult the county, use its proper name.

[Tooks]

And the definition of Lincolnshireville is .... it does not exist so please do not insult the county, use its proper name.

Stepping over the ad-hominem attack, it’s where I live and work so I’ll call it what I like.

But for information, ‘ville’ is an old word, and in this case simply means village...

[DAVEBRAD]

Well, my head might be in the clouds, but I'm afraid that the debate around enlightenment very much does need to be had, on here as much as anywhere else.

I'm open to having my beliefs challenged, that's healthy, but everybody seems scared to try and enlighten me?

What do people want to say, that they don't feel they can say?

the name of Gibsons bl*** Labrador, has its relevant to the history of the dams raid...

So, you want to say the name of Guy Gibson's dog?

Is it not possible to tell the story of the Möhne dam raid without reference to the dog?

I've just googled the raid, and the first hits all manage to tell the story without mentioning an offensive word.

I've no intention of going down a rabbit hole with this one, but wondered if there was something I was missing, is all.

Surely its the context to which the word was used, it was chosen by Gibson not as a word of offense but it was his dog's name a "not white" Labrador. As to telling the story without reference to the dog, how do you get round "what the dams breached code word was"?
Also as for the removal of the dogs name from his marker, Conservative former minister Sir Edward Leigh, whose constituency includes Scampton, wrote to the RAF station commander saying: “Undoubtedly we are both more sensitive and more sensible today when it comes to the delicateness of racialist and derogatory terminology which had been used with unfortunate informality in the past
“I am, however, very fearful of our ability today to erase or re-write history,”The past needs to be explained, taught about, and learned from – not re-written"

It is a offensive word in todays world, but back then it was not, also if we examine history with todays values, its akin to censorship of our history...and history should be told "warts and all"...

[Tooks]

the name of Gibsons bl*** Labrador, has its relevant to the history of the dams raid...

So, you want to say the name of Guy Gibson's dog?

Is it not possible to tell the story of the Möhne dam raid without reference to the dog?

I've just googled the raid, and the first hits all manage to tell the story without mentioning an offensive word.

I've no intention of going down a rabbit hole with this one, but wondered if there was something I was missing, is all.

Surely its the context to which the word was used, it was chosen by Gibson not as a word of offense but it was his dog's name a "not white" Labrador. As to telling the story without reference to the dog, how do you get round "what the dams breached code word was"?
Also as for the removal of the dogs name from his marker, Conservative former minister Sir Edward Leigh, whose constituency includes Scampton, wrote to the RAF station commander saying: “Undoubtedly we are both more sensitive and more sensible today when it comes to the delicateness of racialist and derogatory terminology which had been used with unfortunate informality in the past
“I am, however, very fearful of our ability today to erase or re-write history,”The past needs to be explained, taught about, and learned from – not re-written"

It is a offensive word in todays world, but back then it was not, also if we examine history with todays values, its akin to censorship of our history...and history should be told "warts and all"...

Yes, I agree that context is important, but it’s interesting that very few mainstream media outlets (and indeed posts on here) have felt it necessary to use the word in its entirety. That says a lot about how it’s almost universally regarded as a racial slur that we really don’t need to read in any context.

Sir Edward Leigh’s letter does try to walk that very fine line, and as I’ve already said it’s good to challenge ourselves around what is and isn’t acceptable now. But if we aren’t happy to use that word now, then perhaps we shouldn’t be happy to see it written anywhere either.

There can’t be anybody alive who doesn’t understand that the word is offensive, and I’m still not convinced that knowing it’s name adds to the historical context of this particular wartime story, particularly given its negative meaning to many black men and women currently serving in the Royal Air Force, some of them alongside me. I wouldn’t be comfortable them walking past such a memorial every day, and the RAF command said similar.

Thank you for your considered and courteous reply, it’s not my wish to fall out with anybody on this forum, merely to add some balance to what has already been posted.

[DAVEBRAD]

I do understand that recent events have made or brought the issue to the frount, but I honestly believe we cannot sanitize history. The case of statues, our history and economy was built on slavery, so most businesses today go back to that as do prominent people who are memorialized. We as a nation have apologised, for our history, but we can't deny it or forget it...

stay safe, and regards...

[Tooks]

I do understand that recent events have made or brought the issue to the frount, but I honestly believe we cannot sanitize history. The case of statues, our history and economy was built on slavery, so most businesses today go back to that as do prominent people who are memorialized. We as a nation have apologised, for our history, but we can't deny it or forget it...

stay safe, and regards...

Our history is our history, I agree, some of it glorious and some not so. I think we just need to be sensitive to how we play some of it back, and that includes on forums like this one. We don’t know who is reading and I’d hate for anybody to feel excluded by some of the posts that have gone before.

If that labels me an apologist by some, then I’m ok with that, far better than the opposite.

Stay safe and regards to you too.

[mustang5861]

[Bobcode]

Tooks, I don’t accept you honestly believe half of what you say, you either wish to appear in line with the snowflake generation for whatever reason, or you are just playing agent provocateur, keyboard warrior. The bottom line is Guy Gibson’s dog was called Nigger, it cannot be changed, fact. Appeasement to those that wake in the morning thinking, what shall I be offended by today, will come to nought, if they are offended, don’t look at the grave, simple.
There are things that offend me but I don’t expect them changed, eradicated or adjusted, if they have a place in history, they must remain.
The wimps, snowflakes and other assorted hand-wringing do-gooders should stop trying to impose their questionable ethics on everyone else.

[Tooks]

Tooks, I don’t accept you honestly believe half of what you say, you either wish to appear in line with the snowflake generation for whatever reason, or you are just playing agent provocateur, keyboard warrior. The bottom line is Guy Gibson’s dog was called Nigger, it cannot be changed, fact. Appeasement to those that wake in the morning thinking, what shall I be offended by today, will come to nought, if they are offended, don’t look at the grave, simple.
There are things that offend me but I don’t expect them changed, eradicated or adjusted, if they have a place in history, they must remain.
The wimps, snowflakes and other assorted hand-wringing do-gooders should stop trying to impose their questionable ethics on everyone else.

And there it is.

You don’t know me, so please don’t try to assert yourself and accuse me of being any of those things.

I’m merely offering my genuine opinions, in order to try and ensure a bit more balance to what was being written on this thread.

It’s disappointing that you’re choosing to play the man with your rant rather than stop and think about what has been said.

[Bobcode]

Not a rant Tooks, my opinion, just a valid as your slewed assertions, please be as disappointed as you wish, it will not exceed mine in you, end of.

[Blackcat1]

Well said Bobcode!!!

[Tooks]

Not a rant Tooks, my opinion, just a valid as your slewed assertions, please be as disappointed as you wish, it will not exceed mine in you, end of.

Yes, and despite disagreeing with it, it’s your right to hold it and I respect it, but it’s a shame you can’t return the courtesy though.

[EGDR]

I do understand that recent events have made or brought the issue to the frount, but I honestly believe we cannot sanitize history. The case of statues, our history and economy was built on slavery, so most businesses today go back to that as do prominent people who are memorialized. We as a nation have apologised, for our history, but we can't deny it or forget it...

stay safe, and regards...

It's not sanitizing history, it's being appropriate. The name is still in the history books and it won't be forgotten.

[ChrisCwmbran]

People seem to have progressed from telling us how to live our lives to what we should or shouldn't remember.

Personally I'm not ashamed of anything about the history of the UK and I am a 100% believer that All Lives Matter.

Who will be the next person they want to erase from history? Churchill perhaps?

[paddyboy]

Well said Chris

[mustang5861]

Who will be the next person they want to erase from history? Churchill perhaps?

Yes, it probably will be Churchill - a man who referred to bouts of manic-depression as his 'black dog'!

[Tooks]

What’s with the cheerleading?

You’re quite out of step with the organisations you train your cameras on, to be blunt.

Continuing with lines like ‘they’ll tell me what to think next’, and the new classic ‘all lives matter’ misses the point by some margin.

History is always re-written, it’s what historians do, it’s about being engaged in a process of re-evaluation and re-interpretation.

People seem suddenly very fearful that history is being erased or ‘whitewashed’, but that’s already happened. People who say they’re proud of our history quite frankly don’t know enough about it. The worst of it has already been erased.

How many people talk proudly about Britain’s role in the abolition of slavery, yet not of its role in enabling it?

It’s not an excuse to claim that it was a different time with different values, because we’re talking about how that sits with today and today’s values.

I think we should have a little more respect for those that took this decision, as can be seen just on here it must have been a difficult one. It’s to their credit that they can see more than just a name on a dogs gravestone and that quite rightly they see it as having no place in the modern RAF.

I guess those who oppose it will just have to deal with it, anything else is just being a ‘snowflake’, right?