The new Dam Busters movie......CGI heavy, politically correct, etc.
- Thread starter DPS
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, I know I said I'd shut up, but I thought I'd add my comments to David's post-scripts...
Every country, people and indeed person has something in their past that they'd rather not have done. In most personal cases, it may be an argument, or hitting something, or not returning something they "borrowed". In the cases of countries, it tends to be rather larger, from slave trading to genocide.
However how long do you allow guilt and focussing on it to continue? Northern Ireland are still fighting a minor skirmish on the fringe of European politics that happened hundreds of years ago. Absolutely no-one alive today, nor anyone they knew, was there. So what on Earth is the point of continuing that grudge? The Middle East and parts of South-Eastern Europe are still fighting battles that started millennia ago!
That's not quite the same as the situation here regarding connotations of a word which is still in use - in the same connotation - by some people in some areas. I, personally, can understand why an American audience would probably not want it used, yet I hear it used regularly in music and films that are massively popular in both the UK and US. What's acceptable and what isn't? My personal opinion is that it is far better used in a historical and accurate context than it is being used as an "edgy" phrase by a rapper who has never been near the Bronx or Southern States. As another example, would you cut that word out of a new version of To Kill a Mocking Bird? In that instance the way the word is used is the entire and whole point of the story.
"Political Correctness", in the context I believe most people would use it, is people banning words and phrases without even waiting for someone to be offended by it. I'm sure the US is the same as the UK in that we both have "professional offendees", who are offended by everything, regardless of context, and we also probably have the same group of people who will ban things/remove things because they "might" offend someone, rather than because it does. The latter is the most common cause of complaint in this country.
I work with a Muslim and a Sikh, both of whom celebrate Christmas as an excuse to party and give presents... My section also celebrated Diwali this year, but we didn't fast for Ramadan. Yet Birmingham City Council, two years ago, banned all reference to "Christmas", instead referring to "Winterval" and "Happy Holidays", just on the off chance that someone might complain. That's what people complain about. I don't think the use or otherwise of Guy Gibson's dog's name in a film is "political correctness", however trying to wipe it from history is both unnecessary and undesirable - however people also need to know and understand the context of why Gibson named his dog that.
We, as humanity, have an exceptionally bad habit of not learning from history because we twist it to be what we want rather than what it really was. That's what I, personally, object strongly to. Why should I, or anyone reading this, be blamed for something I or they neither had any part of, nor any control over?
Rant over.
Oi. SADT. Out of my Dark Corner. I need to do some maintenance on the site... :d
Ian P.
(http://www.ianpsdarkcorner.co.uk)
Every country, people and indeed person has something in their past that they'd rather not have done. In most personal cases, it may be an argument, or hitting something, or not returning something they "borrowed". In the cases of countries, it tends to be rather larger, from slave trading to genocide.
However how long do you allow guilt and focussing on it to continue? Northern Ireland are still fighting a minor skirmish on the fringe of European politics that happened hundreds of years ago. Absolutely no-one alive today, nor anyone they knew, was there. So what on Earth is the point of continuing that grudge? The Middle East and parts of South-Eastern Europe are still fighting battles that started millennia ago!
That's not quite the same as the situation here regarding connotations of a word which is still in use - in the same connotation - by some people in some areas. I, personally, can understand why an American audience would probably not want it used, yet I hear it used regularly in music and films that are massively popular in both the UK and US. What's acceptable and what isn't? My personal opinion is that it is far better used in a historical and accurate context than it is being used as an "edgy" phrase by a rapper who has never been near the Bronx or Southern States. As another example, would you cut that word out of a new version of To Kill a Mocking Bird? In that instance the way the word is used is the entire and whole point of the story.
"Political Correctness", in the context I believe most people would use it, is people banning words and phrases without even waiting for someone to be offended by it. I'm sure the US is the same as the UK in that we both have "professional offendees", who are offended by everything, regardless of context, and we also probably have the same group of people who will ban things/remove things because they "might" offend someone, rather than because it does. The latter is the most common cause of complaint in this country.
I work with a Muslim and a Sikh, both of whom celebrate Christmas as an excuse to party and give presents... My section also celebrated Diwali this year, but we didn't fast for Ramadan. Yet Birmingham City Council, two years ago, banned all reference to "Christmas", instead referring to "Winterval" and "Happy Holidays", just on the off chance that someone might complain. That's what people complain about. I don't think the use or otherwise of Guy Gibson's dog's name in a film is "political correctness", however trying to wipe it from history is both unnecessary and undesirable - however people also need to know and understand the context of why Gibson named his dog that.
We, as humanity, have an exceptionally bad habit of not learning from history because we twist it to be what we want rather than what it really was. That's what I, personally, object strongly to. Why should I, or anyone reading this, be blamed for something I or they neither had any part of, nor any control over?
Rant over.
Oi. SADT. Out of my Dark Corner. I need to do some maintenance on the site... :d
Ian P.
(http://www.ianpsdarkcorner.co.uk)
Ian Warren
Charter Member
Chuckle , Brian 'the life off' , as for the Jigger - throw a rope around it and pull it out the quick sand !
Ole Pete now 'Sir' was un-packiing his over sized plastic Lanc's at Hood aerodrome , the biggest problem in putting it together was picking up the tube of glue .
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Ole Pete now 'Sir' was un-packiing his over sized plastic Lanc's at Hood aerodrome , the biggest problem in putting it together was picking up the tube of glue .
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
tommieboy
SOH-CM-2025
Alan_A
Charter Member
I'm not sure the fact that the term is used in pop culture/music exactly lets everybody off the hook. It's one thing when the word is appropriated by those who have been victimized by it - in much the same way that gay activists adopted the word "queer" and used it defiantly. It's another when the term is used by those who are neutral to the original argument - or worse, are still trying to advance it.
Re: its use in film, context matters, too. If I'm writing historical characters and I want to show what their attitudes are, then yes, I think it ought to be used. But if its use is extraneous to the plot - a bit of local color, so to speak - then better to do without it. To me the dog's name falls into the latter category. I understand that those who are purely PC might object to its use in my first example - which is why Huckleberry Finn sometimes gets banned in U.S. school systems. So I suppose my position re: PC is more qualified or middle of the road.
I also don't buy the argument that because people fought for freedom, that lets them off the hook in all their attitudes. There was a lot of ugliness on the Allied side of the Second World War. The U.S. military was fully segregated. It's often forgotten that the original intent of the program that produced the Tuskeegee Airmen was to prove that blacks weren't capable of flying combat aircraft. Anti-semitism was rampant. My father, who served in the Coast Guard from '43-45, learned quickly not to tell people he was from New York City because that would type him as a Jew. He said instead he was from a small town on Long Island where he spent summers - that plus an ambiguous last name let him pass for Polish. He talked about a lot of barracks discussions where his fellow coasties said that they only thing they agreed with Hitler about was what he was doing to the g-dd-mned Jews. Now, none of that negates what the allies accomplished - but it does complicate the story a bit. I'm all in favor of complicated stories but not free passes.
One of the better effects of the war was that, because so many people from so many backgrounds were thrown together, all of those attitudes began to get blown up. My father was also involved in a lot of discussions where he got to explain what a Jew was to people who had never met one before. It's not an accident that the U.S. Civil Rights movement got underway in earnest almost immediately after the war.
I guess where I come out is I'm against reflexive PC, but I'd still like to hear people thinking about impact and context before they rush some of these terms back into circulation.
Re: its use in film, context matters, too. If I'm writing historical characters and I want to show what their attitudes are, then yes, I think it ought to be used. But if its use is extraneous to the plot - a bit of local color, so to speak - then better to do without it. To me the dog's name falls into the latter category. I understand that those who are purely PC might object to its use in my first example - which is why Huckleberry Finn sometimes gets banned in U.S. school systems. So I suppose my position re: PC is more qualified or middle of the road.
I also don't buy the argument that because people fought for freedom, that lets them off the hook in all their attitudes. There was a lot of ugliness on the Allied side of the Second World War. The U.S. military was fully segregated. It's often forgotten that the original intent of the program that produced the Tuskeegee Airmen was to prove that blacks weren't capable of flying combat aircraft. Anti-semitism was rampant. My father, who served in the Coast Guard from '43-45, learned quickly not to tell people he was from New York City because that would type him as a Jew. He said instead he was from a small town on Long Island where he spent summers - that plus an ambiguous last name let him pass for Polish. He talked about a lot of barracks discussions where his fellow coasties said that they only thing they agreed with Hitler about was what he was doing to the g-dd-mned Jews. Now, none of that negates what the allies accomplished - but it does complicate the story a bit. I'm all in favor of complicated stories but not free passes.
One of the better effects of the war was that, because so many people from so many backgrounds were thrown together, all of those attitudes began to get blown up. My father was also involved in a lot of discussions where he got to explain what a Jew was to people who had never met one before. It's not an accident that the U.S. Civil Rights movement got underway in earnest almost immediately after the war.
I guess where I come out is I'm against reflexive PC, but I'd still like to hear people thinking about impact and context before they rush some of these terms back into circulation.
kilo delta
Charter Member 2015
The issues with NI today stem from much more recent times,Ian, following partition in 1921. However this is neither the time nor the place for a political discussion...so I'll say no more on the matter.
ndicki
Charter Member 2016
Interesting to see that once again the attitudes are pretty well divided along national lines - the Brits think it's bloody silly to alter things, and the Americans largely think the name needs to be changed.
That alone should tell you something... Something which is potentially much more interesting than the original question of the dog's (or cat's) name.
So? Anybody want to take me up on it?
That alone should tell you something... Something which is potentially much more interesting than the original question of the dog's (or cat's) name.
So? Anybody want to take me up on it?
Alan_A
Charter Member
Probably not surprising given the different histories. Slavery and its aftermath is THE blot on American society, and the aftermath is still playing out. So feelings continue to be raw. (I'd add, by the way, that our treatment of the Native Americans rates, too - but sadly, there are so few left and so little left of their culture that the issue isn't a persistent "live" on in the way that the black/white faultline is).
It may be that the UK is more enlightened in this regard. Britain banned the African slave trade 55 years earlier than we did, so that has to count for something.
It may be, on the other hand, that in British society the fault lines lie elsewhere. What would immigrants from the subcontinent say about that?
It'd also be interesting to hear from members - American and British - of African descent, to find out whether they're offended or not. It's a little presumptious of us to speak for them.
Anyone?
The point you made is what you yanks are missing about this. It has absolutely nothing to do with US policies or segregations or attitudes so stop comparing them. This is about British attitudes and I can guarantee there was no racist aspect to it. Up until the 70's most black dogs in the country were called that. My grandad had a dog called that and used to shout that word at the top of his lungs to get the little scamp to come back into the house and nobody batted an eyelid regardless of creed or colour. If the dog doesn't matter as some of you Americans point out then why does everybody who knows about RAF history know about the dog. I've had enough of american film makers whitewashing my heritage to fit their own arrogant self important views. Everything I've heard in this thread so far has been American this US that. You guy's have got too much racial guilt because all that trouble was very recent in your history. The US and UK two countries divided by a common language don't forget that.
Ian P... Great post, I was going to enter into a massive torrent of words on the why's and wherefore's of that most inane of words beginning with an N.
Folks I say inane because it originated in the UK (we did have the slave trade waaaay before the US don't forget) as an innocent descriptive for a person or persons indigenous to Nigeria, where most of the slaves at that time were to be found. As you said Ian that word is most prolific these days coming from the mouths of those who claim to be most offended by it; in day to day parlance, in movies and in song. So why should we then be forced to be ashamed that the word was used as a callsign, nickname, name, codeword etc by our armed services during periods of OUR history.
End piece - At the risk of coming across something of a Nationalist Fanatic: I am proud of my nation, proud of my history and if a codeword was Ni... Then it was Ni... Bugger Hollywood's version of history, bugger the PC's version of history, history is how it was and Kids should learn history as it was no matter who wishes to perverse terminology / words and if those words offend in the present day then the correct and original meaning should be made clear whilst at the same time making sure that they understand in todays modern society it is not appropriate to use it.
Gibson's dog was a major part of the early squadron's history and the story of that dog is a major part of events which took place that fateful eve.
In my day I would have been thrashed to an inch of my life if I so much as uttered the F word. Now every rap song under the sun, every movie, every child etc banders it around with gay (oops!) abandon. I, and many other people, find that extremely offensive! Do I have the right now to go on a crusade to have modern history erased from memory for in every RAF, USAF, USN video of the first Gulf War the aircrews are throwing that F bomb every second... ?
Ian your well put together post stopped me from posting a much feircer opinion and I thank you sincerely for I would surely have caught an awful amount of flack compared to what I am going to get here now LOL!
Gent's Ni... is a word... Just a word, a very old word with a very mundane meaning.
Folks I say inane because it originated in the UK (we did have the slave trade waaaay before the US don't forget) as an innocent descriptive for a person or persons indigenous to Nigeria, where most of the slaves at that time were to be found. As you said Ian that word is most prolific these days coming from the mouths of those who claim to be most offended by it; in day to day parlance, in movies and in song. So why should we then be forced to be ashamed that the word was used as a callsign, nickname, name, codeword etc by our armed services during periods of OUR history.
End piece - At the risk of coming across something of a Nationalist Fanatic: I am proud of my nation, proud of my history and if a codeword was Ni... Then it was Ni... Bugger Hollywood's version of history, bugger the PC's version of history, history is how it was and Kids should learn history as it was no matter who wishes to perverse terminology / words and if those words offend in the present day then the correct and original meaning should be made clear whilst at the same time making sure that they understand in todays modern society it is not appropriate to use it.
Gibson's dog was a major part of the early squadron's history and the story of that dog is a major part of events which took place that fateful eve.
In my day I would have been thrashed to an inch of my life if I so much as uttered the F word. Now every rap song under the sun, every movie, every child etc banders it around with gay (oops!) abandon. I, and many other people, find that extremely offensive! Do I have the right now to go on a crusade to have modern history erased from memory for in every RAF, USAF, USN video of the first Gulf War the aircrews are throwing that F bomb every second... ?
Ian your well put together post stopped me from posting a much feircer opinion and I thank you sincerely for I would surely have caught an awful amount of flack compared to what I am going to get here now LOL!
Gent's Ni... is a word... Just a word, a very old word with a very mundane meaning.
I don't have any guilt about slavery at all. Thats becuase my family were slaves to your "empire" in Northern Ireland. We didn't come here until we were forced to by your empire!
Please I don't want to offend anyone, my point is that there are always multiple points to EVERY historical event. It was my intent to show that. I love my British brothers just as much as anyone else.
But it isn't a very mundane meaning, on either side of the Atlantic. It's also worth remembering that the slave trade existed in Africa and Asia while Europe was still trying to work out what a sheep was, let alone what to do with it(*). There's no written history for what the native peoples were doing in North America at the time that I know of, so I can't comment about that.
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that it cuts a lot more raw nerves in the US or South Africa, for instance, than it does in Europe - at least partially because it is within a lot of peoples' living memory.
What is critically important though is that the part of the story remains told in the full story. Historians, film makers and book writers always chop and choose what goes into the story they are telling, but the word, its connotations and meanings (both in the US and UK) and the contexts it was used in should never be lost or overwritten because people object to it in the current climate. Use it carefully, use it in context, explain the context, learn from it. Don't pretend it never happened.
The "current" trouble in Northern Ireland gs back well before partitioning, kilo delta. "Remember the Battle of the Boyne" is still a battle cry on both sides of recreational rioters. If you want to argue that out with my wife's family, who have to deal with NI politics constantly, working for the NHS and in education, then feel free, but believe me, it did not start in 1921. Heck, I was accused of being "to blame" for the Potato Famine a while ago because I come from England... Excuse me, I'm 36, not a couple of hundred years old. I may be good at killing plants, but I'm not that good!
I get very, very, fed up with countries on all sides trying to rewrite history to make their country sound better than it is. Hollywood and WW2 is particularly bad for this.
Right. Off to Merry Hell to look at buggies for upcoming small person (it appears to be female, in case anyone is vaguely interested in these things...) and then back to texturing buildings in Gmax.
Toodle pip, what!?
Ian P.
(* - The Welsh are still inventing new uses every week... :d)
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that it cuts a lot more raw nerves in the US or South Africa, for instance, than it does in Europe - at least partially because it is within a lot of peoples' living memory.
What is critically important though is that the part of the story remains told in the full story. Historians, film makers and book writers always chop and choose what goes into the story they are telling, but the word, its connotations and meanings (both in the US and UK) and the contexts it was used in should never be lost or overwritten because people object to it in the current climate. Use it carefully, use it in context, explain the context, learn from it. Don't pretend it never happened.
The "current" trouble in Northern Ireland gs back well before partitioning, kilo delta. "Remember the Battle of the Boyne" is still a battle cry on both sides of recreational rioters. If you want to argue that out with my wife's family, who have to deal with NI politics constantly, working for the NHS and in education, then feel free, but believe me, it did not start in 1921. Heck, I was accused of being "to blame" for the Potato Famine a while ago because I come from England... Excuse me, I'm 36, not a couple of hundred years old. I may be good at killing plants, but I'm not that good!
I get very, very, fed up with countries on all sides trying to rewrite history to make their country sound better than it is. Hollywood and WW2 is particularly bad for this.
Right. Off to Merry Hell to look at buggies for upcoming small person (it appears to be female, in case anyone is vaguely interested in these things...) and then back to texturing buildings in Gmax.
Toodle pip, what!?
Ian P.
(* - The Welsh are still inventing new uses every week... :d)
Who said anything about slavery? I'm talking about the race riots in the sixties. The most vehement responses over this and any racial issues always come from white guys. Besides that, context mate, what the hell has the troubles got to do with anything. Oh and by the way I've got strong Irish roots as well so don't try that with me. Multiple points yes but all of them agree the damn dog was called what it was called. End of.
extrudinator
Charter Member
Political Correctness is bad when it's a substitute for real change. It can actually strengthen evil when it's used to make racists and bigots feel that the problem is in the magic word or symbol, and not the attitude, philosophy and ideology behind the words. What good does it do to ban the swastika and then build a corporatist state, complete with mind control and eugenics? What good is it to ban the dog's name, then continue to hold the opinion that "some people" are somehow inferior and need "special help" all the time?
I've got an idea. Read a book! Since when is anybody ever happy about anything Hollywood does when it comes to events of history? I understand the sentiment, but if you're getting your history from movies, you've got other issues! The things that are wrong with the way Hollywood treats history are beyond counting, but we have to get “target-fixation” on this. I think the dog's name should be in the movie accurately. It won't be. It probably is in all the written accounts done since the event. This thread had been an interesting discussion, and I had hoped it wouldn't turn into another food fight between the US and Europe. In any case, we get the point.
- Status