****** to be obliterated from our history!

[Tigercubrider]

It turns out that the dog's name was actually "Ginger" but the stonemason was dyslexic

 

[Diver Fred]

I really can't understand why people are getting so upset about a headstone for a dog, that died 80 odd years ago, being removed.

I can - the dog's name is a part of our recent history.

Or is that they really want to preserve a certain word in the vocabulary?

All my families Jack Russel's were called the by same name '******'.

What seems odd to me is that people of African origin who are complaining about the slave trade obviously forget is if where not for the trade transporting their forefathers they would not be in the UK. So by trying to re-write history by removing the statues and similar they are denying how they to the UK.

 

[Diver Fred]

I really can't understand why people are getting so upset about a headstone for a dog, that died 80 odd years ago, being removed.

I can - the dog's name is a part of our recent history.

Or is that they really want to preserve a certain word in the vocabulary?

All my families Jack Russel's were called the by same name '******'.

What seems odd to me is that people of African origin who are complaining about the slave trade obviously forget is if where not for the trade transporting their forefathers they would not be in the UK. So by trying to re-write history by removing the statues and similar they are denying how they to the UK.

 

[transam]

https://www.euronews.com/amp/2020/0...pervasive-it-can-no-longer-go-unchallenged-vi

How very topical you are, linking in rewriting history and monuments to scumbags. A building dedicated to a Genocidal war criminal. But the rewriting of the past that gets Conny's goat is removing a dog's name. God forbid that some time in the future that should be renamed. That'll really wind him up.

What u on about

 

[sodthisforfun]

It's slightly more significant to world events than the name of a pet dog of a particular person in WW2. Now if we were talking about the current attempts by the right in Serbia to deny that there was an attempted Genocide by the Serbs, then you'd have a point.

But who gets to decide over which bit of history gets blanked or rewritten and for what purpose?
Nope, all of it should be out there, warts and all imo.

 

[Trazor]

But who gets to decide over which bit of history gets blanked or rewritten and for what purpose?
Nope, all of it should be out there, warts and all imo.

Can't think of many countries that haven't been involved in inhumane treatment of its own people. or peoples of other countries.

Lewis Hamilton says he agrees with all statues linked with slavery, being pulled down, fair enough,
forgetting that his paymasters Mercedes used Jews during the 2nd World War to provide SLAVE labour for its factories.
Hugo Boss, by the way produced uniforms for the Nazis.

Once you start digging, you will have to tear down the whole World, and start again.

 

[IT Minion]

But who gets to decide over which bit of history gets blanked or rewritten and for what purpose?
Nope, all of it should be out there, warts and all imo.

What name a dog had is pretty trivial. What the contents of their headstone are is even less important. What they're called in a dramatisation of the events is even less important. Again we're back to the same old *******s about slavers statues being mistaken for History books.

 

[IT Minion]

What u on about

That you stumbled onto something that actually matters whilst posting about a dog you saw being portrayed in a film. Which is pretty impressive.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Can I respectfully suggest that late at night is not the best time to discuss such emotive subjects, when some may have been partaking of the alcoholic sort.
Let's park the subject for tonight and discuss it in the cold light of day. Hic.

Do the mods have the ability to lock the discussion temporarily?
And re-open it in the morning when all are (relatively) sober?

 

[sodthisforfun]

No you can't. It's fine.

 

[sodthisforfun]

What name a dog had is pretty trivial. What the contents of their headstone are is even less important. What they're called in a dramatisation of the events is even less important. Again we're back to the same old *******s about slavers statues being mistaken for History books.

Yes it is but I don't think you get what I meant. If some history is ok to be removed and never to be seen or heard of again, then we open a big can of worms.

 

[transam]

That you stumbled onto something that actually matters whilst posting about a dog you saw being portrayed in a film. Which is pretty impressive.

Stumbled my arris

U started it off when u mentioned concentration camps in. The Boer war

Yes they were Con centration camps

Those in the 2nd WW were death and extermination camps that was there sole purpose

Same as the Balkans

 

[transam]

Can I respectfully suggest that late at night is not the best time to discuss such emotive subjects, when some may have been partaking of the alcoholic sort.
Let's park the subject for tonight and discuss it in the cold light of day. Hic.

Do the mods have the ability to lock the discussion temporarily?
And re-open it in the morning when all are (relatively) sober?

You may well be boozed up
But don't judge every one by your own low standards

I don't drink so wind yer neck in and go to bed

 

[Brigadier]

No self control, no wonder they have been banned and reincarnated so many times

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

My stance is that his name should not be omitted for the reasons I have given. When you start changing historical facts, no matter how little or large they may be, then you are re-writing history. History should always be a TRUE account of what happened, complete with warts and all, otherwise it is not a true account. If you don't have a true account you cannot form a true opinion.
Should we alter the facts about the concentration camps because some people don't believe they existed and are offended by the mere mention of them?

No-one is wanting to alter facts. The 'facts' can remain, they don't need to have offensive words included in 'the facts' to still be facts.
Just like your title and subsequent comment, you didn't need to include the dog's actual name to make your point. You could have made your point, and started the discussion without using the dog's name. We all, (well most of us, except stivino, apparently) know what the dog's name was, we don't need it repeated each time we refer to it.
Certainly no-one is suggesting we deny the dog's existence, as in your analogy of the concentration camps.

Finally, we all accept that the name given to the dog was an acceptably used term in those days. In those days it was acceptable to use such derogatory words to describe and address black people. But it was racist then and it is racist now, to use such a term. The difference being is that it was acceptable then to be racist, it is not now.
The dog did not choose his name, it was given to him by his owner, Guy Gibson.
By that reasoning, one could argue that Guy Gibson was racist. It was acceptable in those days, so it wouldn't have mattered then. It does matter now.
In the light of my previous comment about eradicating racism in the military, removing the dog's name seems a reasonable place to start. It recognises that although racism might have been rampant and accepted, at one time, it is not now. If Guy Gibson was alive today, a) he would not name his dog, as he did, and b) if he insisted, he might find himself in a little trouble with his superiors.

So let's remove the dog's name, not his memory, nor recognition of him being a mascot, etc. I suspect Guy Gibson would have supported such a move, don't you?