Political Correctness Wins Against Historical Accuracy: Dambusters Dog gets a name change.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ArbeitsSchu**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-13727908

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

Stephen Fry, who is writing the film's screenplay, said there was "no question in America that you could ever have a dog called the N-word".

In the remake, the dog will be called "Digger" instead of "[see forum posting rules]".

The black Labrador was the mascot for RAF 617 squadron, which during World War II destroyed dams in Germany with Barnes Wallis's famous bouncing bomb.

Owned by the squadron's wing commander, Guy Gibson, the animal was run over and killed during the planning of the Dambuster raids, and was buried at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire - from where the operation was launched.

Stephen Fry told BBC Radio 5 Live: "It's no good saying that it is the Latin word for black or that it didn't have the meaning that it does now - you just can't go back, which is unfortunate.

"You can go to RAF Scampton and see the dog's grave and there he is with his name, and it's an important part of the film.

"The name of the dog was a code word to show that the dam had been successfully breached.

"In the film, you're constantly hearing 'N-word, N-word, N-word, hurray' and Barnes Wallis is punching the air. But obviously that's not going to happen now.

"So Digger seems OK, I reckon."

Phil Bonner, from Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre, a privately run Bomber Command museum, said: "I think for the Second World War generation that word was acceptable - but with my daughters growing up in Lincolnshire - they have been taught that the word is unacceptable now.

"The film is not about the dog - my big concern would be if they watered down what the Dam Busters had achieved."

The 1955 film, which starred Sir Michael Redgrave and Richard Todd, told the story of Barnes Wallis' struggle to develop the bomb and the subsequent raids on Nazi Germany - codenamed Operation Chastise.

The remake is being produced by Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson.

I assume from this we should be seeing a remake of Mississippi Burning any time now, with all the "unacceptable words" removed, and bugger the truth of things?

So what do we think? Should history be tweaked so as not to offend? Is it an insult to Gibson's dog? Is it an insult to historical accuracy, or is it just more of the same "Hollywood History" that shouldn't ever be taken as a basis for actual historical learning, but will be anyway just like Saving Private Ryan or Pearl Harbour ?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe they should have gone with "See Forum Posting Rules" for the dogs name, instead of Digger.

**Doctadeth**

Digger sounds like they are cheering on Australians, especially given that point in World War 2 (El Alamein, and the rats of tobruk).

**Emperors Faithful**

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Maybe they should have gone with "See Forum Posting Rules" for the dogs name, instead of Digger.

I lol'ed.

**Ahtman**

Considering the original wasn't 100% accurate either I don't see what the fuss about purposely avoiding something that would create a great deal of trouble and generate very little in return. People looking to movies to inform them with absolutely accurate history have already failed the first step. Is the dog's name so important to the crux of the story that we would forget everything else that these men did if they change it? I would rather inform people as to what happened in a general sense and remind people then to throw a hissy fit because they changed one letter in the dogs name.

**Portugal Jones**

This has nothing to do with political correctness. Words change, their usage and meaning change, and what used to be acceptable, such as a British officer naming his dog [see forum posting rules], just doesn't fly anymore, especially to an international audience.

As well, in this case, who cares about something as historically irrelevant as what a dog was called?

The only thing you can say about the ops question

I assume from this we should be seeing a remake of Mississippi Burning any time now, with all the "unacceptable words" removed, and bugger the truth of things?

is that it's probably one of the silliest hypothetical to grace OT in quote some time. Either he didn't bother to read the article he posted

Phil Bonner, from Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre, a privately run Bomber Command museum, said: "I think for the Second World War generation that word was acceptable - but with my daughters growing up in Lincolnshire - they have been taught that the word is unacceptable now.

"The film is not about the dog -

or he fails to grasp just how the situations might be different. The dog's name is absolutely irrelevant to everything, whereas, as seems to have escaped the OP, in Mississippi Burning the way the races interacted, including the language, is absolutely vital to the history.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

I saw the original at a screening at the local cinema several years ago. Was taken aback when they called the dog by his name.
But the film is not about a black labrador as gorgeous as they are. The lab is barely in the 50's film and I doubt if he will be taking a co-starring role alongside whoever plays Guy Gibson.

It won't be worth all the recriminations if they adhere to the pooch's original moniker. Digger is fine.
Tell the story about the bravery of the aircrew and not get sidetracked over a dog's name.

Portugal Jones has called it well imho
N Brown was the name of the colour of a boot polish back in the last century and people thought nothing of the implications.
There was no deliberate racist intent in giving the dog that name in the 1930's/40's.

But it is no longer acceptable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
" my big concern would be if they watered down what the Dam Busters had achieved."

Da-bum tssch!

**Mannahnin**

Portugal Jones wrote:This has nothing to do with political correctness. Words change, their usage and meaning change, and what used to be acceptable, such as a British officer naming his dog [see forum posting rules], just doesn't fly anymore, especially to an international audience.

As well, in this case, who cares about something as historically irrelevant as what a dog was called?

The only thing you can say about the ops question
I assume from this we should be seeing a remake of Mississippi Burning any time now, with all the "unacceptable words" removed, and bugger the truth of things?
is that it's probably one of the silliest hypothetical to grace OT in quote some time. Either he didn't bother to read the article he posted

Phil Bonner, from Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre, a privately run Bomber Command museum, said: "I think for the Second World War generation that word was acceptable - but with my daughters growing up in Lincolnshire - they have been taught that the word is unacceptable now.

"The film is not about the dog -
or he fails to grasp just how the situations might be different. The dog's name is absolutely irrelevant to everything, whereas, as seems to have escaped the OP, in Mississippi Burning the way the races interacted, including the language, is absolutely vital to the history.

/thread

**halonachos**

What about movies like Pulp Fiction?

**Mannahnin**

Relevant to the characters and setting, and not used as the name of an inferior, non-human creature.

**dogma**

I believe the term for naming the dog that particular word would be "egregious." The proper use of which can only be accomplished by shouting it as an incomplete sentence.

Egregious!

**Stella Cadente**

Expressions of racism are not acceptable on Dakka.

**Portugal Jones**

halonachos wrote:What about movies like Pulp Fiction?

It is all about the context. It's not that you're forbidden from ever using [see forum posting rules] ever, it's just that in the context it's used in The Dam Busters, it's no longer remotely appropriate.

**Monster Rain**

Considering that I see all of this as a marketing gimmick, the fact that they are making such a big deal out of not naming the dog "something offensive" is causing just as much controversy as if they had named it... that other thing.

It's being discussed, so mission accomplished. I hope the guy that had this idea gets a big fat raise.

Egregious!

**dogma**

Offending people is the new pleasing people.

**sebster**

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I assume from this we should be seeing a remake of Mississippi Burning any time now, with all the "unacceptable words" removed, and bugger the truth of things?

I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard, and you really need to spend some time thinking about what the truth of a story really is.

The oppression suffered by black people in Mississippi Burning was the central truth of the story, and that's perfectly captured in the use of the n-word. On the other hand, the Damnbusters is about a really crazy weapon being used in a really dangerous plan, in which the dog is just a dog, and whatever you call the dog doesn't really matter.

**mattyrm**

Mannahnin wrote:Relevant to the characters and setting, and not used as the name of an inferior, non-human creature.

Your flat out wrong there mate. Dogs are clearly superior to human beings.

**Matrim**

The dog, or it's name, played a major role in 'The Damnbusters'

the code-word used for a successful bombing raid was "n-word n-word n-word" - the name of the late dog of the captain.

Going "digger digger digger" sounds like you should be in Bob the Builder.

**ArbeitsSchu**

Seems that a lot of people don't read articles properly. The Dog itself is, at best a cameo in the great scheme of things. Its not about whether the original film was spot on accurate either.

The problem comes from the fact that the Dogs name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it. Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone. The used of [see forum posting rules] in Dambusters is not "inappropriate" even if it is now inappropriate to name your pets racial epithets because it is part of the story of the event. Nor was it introduced to cause publicity or a marketing stir..its there because its part of the historical event.

**purplefood**

Digger seems to be a more appropriate code-word for "dam gone" rather than the alternative...

**ArbeitsSchu**

There are a thousand and one words which would be more "appropriate", but none of them would be the one that was actually used.

**Kilkrazy**

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Seems that a lot of people don't read articles properly. The Dog itself is, at best a cameo in the great scheme of things. Its not about whether the original film was spot on accurate either.

The problem comes from the fact that the Dogs name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it. Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone. The used of [see forum posting rules] in Dambusters is not "inappropriate" even if it is now inappropriate to name your pets racial epithets because it is part of the story of the event. Nor was it introduced to cause publicity or a marketing stir..its there because its part of the historical event.

The crew went to the lavatory during the mission. It's outrageous that the crapping scenes are being cut from the film for no other reason than because some people might be offended. The gaks were part of the historical event.

Political Correctness gone mad!

**purplefood**

It's not a massive change...
Dozens of films 'adapted' from rea events or books change things...
This is a surprisingly small and IMO well thought out change.

**Mannahnin**

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Seems that a lot of people don't read articles properly. The Dog itself is, at best a cameo in the great scheme of things. Its not about whether the original film was spot on accurate either.

The problem comes from the fact that the Dogs name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it. Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone. The used of [see forum posting rules] in Dambusters is not "inappropriate" even if it is now inappropriate to name your pets racial epithets because it is part of the story of the event. Nor was it introduced to cause publicity or a marketing stir..its there because its part of the historical event.

As Kilkrazy pointed out with his usual understatement, a great number of historically-factual details are commonly left out, glossed over, distorted or outright changed in any movie based on any historic event. 100% historical fidelity doesn't necessarily make a movie better, or even good. While I would be strongly opposed to changing the dog's name in a history book or in a documentary, when we're talking about a movie made for entertainment, it's another matter. A remake of a fun war movie is primarily made for entertainment purposes, not educational. The word is presently inflammatory and offensive when used out of context, and using it in a fun movie like this would be the wrong context and likely cause unnecessary offense.

I'd like to think that there's an element of truth to Monster Rain's conspiracy theory, though. Stephen Fry is awesome, so I tend to trust him. I wonder if discussing the change is in part intended by him or others as a way to provide context for the original, and encourage people to see it. Often remakes are a good impetus for a revival of interest in the original film.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Seems that a lot of people don't read articles properly. The Dog itself is, at best a cameo in the great scheme of things. Its not about whether the original film was spot on accurate either.

The problem comes from the fact that the dog's name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it. Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone. The used of [see forum posting rules] in Dambusters is not "inappropriate" even if it is now inappropriate to name your pets racial epithets because it is part of the story of the event. Nor was it introduced to cause publicity or a marketing stir..its there because its part of the historical event.

If you read the article correctly this issue is raised and Stephen Fry I believe says that one can't really get away with it.
I appreciate your comment on this point tbh but it will be see by the general public and it won't really affect their overall understanding of the plot and they won't have a need to know the detail.
The historically minded will know or get to know the true code name regardless so it won't be a problem.

I am more concerned with psuedo historical true life stories that really bend the actuality of history, yes you Gibson!
No not you Guy, the mad mullet crazy eyed Gibson.

**halonachos**

Mannahnin wrote:Relevant to the characters and setting, and not used as the name of an inferior, non-human creature.

So its okay to refer to black people as the N-word but not a black lab that was actually called the n-word in real life?

**Mannahnin**

It's about context and story relevance.

It can be acceptable applied to people if relevant to the story, characters, and setting.

It can even be perfectly acceptable applied to a dog, in the right context. This isn't the right context. It'd just be an irrelevant distraction which would actually screw up the audience's focus and detract from the effectiveness of the storytelling. At least so (apparently) thinks Stephen Fry. If you fancy yourself a better writer than him, by all means, give him some competition.

**halonachos**

I'm sorry, but if I ever make a story about history I'll make sure to rename everything to be less offensive.

Nazis will be "Socially Misunderstood Persons" and their flag will just be a red flag with no symbols on it. Guns will shoot paintballs instead of bullets, I mean as long as the story of D-Day is told who cares if the "Socially Misunderstood Persons" riddle the attacking forces with paintballs?

**Ahtman**

halonachos wrote:Nazis will be "Socially Misunderstood Persons" and their flag will just be a red flag with no symbols on it. Guns will shoot paintballs instead of bullets, I mean as long as the story of D-Day is told who cares if the "Socially Misunderstood Persons" riddle the attacking forces with paintballs?

I don't honestly believe you are this naive.

**halonachos**

Just irate.

I like movies about historical events to be as close as possible. Would keeping the name of the dog the N-word really change the focus of the story?

"OMG the dog is named the N-Word! I completely forgot the premise of this movie because of it!"

I doubt that would happen, just as much as the N-word prevented people from enjoying Pulp Fiction.

**Mannahnin**

Halo, I suspect that you're a nice person, but that argument doesn't seem like a sincere attempt at dialogue or the exchange of ideas in pursuit of mutual understanding.

I agree that real historical facts are important, even if ugly and unpleasant. If this were a historical documentary, or a history text, I'd agree with you. But it's not. Yes, the name of the dog would be a substantial distraction to many people. The context of our lives and the acceptable applications for it are significantly different than they were when the real dog was named, or even when the original movie was released.