1. #11
    raaaid's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    6,342
    words change meaning with time

    take it as a translation
    Share this post

  2. #12
    danjama's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,363
    Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
    Should the Works of William Shakespeare be edited to suit modern sensibilities? Would people like some of the words or meanings he used to diluted/sanitised? The past should never be changed, it should be embraced no matter how inconvenient or politically incorrect or how will we know about the real people no matter how ignorant they might seem.
    I agree (although your comparison to Shakespeare is an invalid one, seeing as his works were fictional to begin with). One day all historical/war films will be banned, because they will offend someone, somewhere.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    My point is that historical works either fact or fiction should not be changed to suit modern sensibilities.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    horseback's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,052
    I for one will not weep, wail or gnash my teeth over this one. The dog's name is a casual reference to the dispicable attitude held by most 'civilized' people at the time that some men are less worthy than others simply based on their skin color. At best, it is an illustration of the dangers of taking 'what everyone knows' for granted.

    While Gibson was a fine man and worthy of emulation in most respects, his knack for naming the family pet is not one of them. It is better that it should be ignored rather than forgotten.

    cheers

    horseback
    Share this post

  5. #15
    GoToAway's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,658
    Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
    Should the Works of William Shakespeare be edited to suit modern sensibilities? Would people like some of the words or meanings he used to diluted/sanitised?
    The interesting thing is that many of the words/meanings he used have been completely sanitized by the simple evolution of language. For example, even the title of "Much Ado About Nothing" is a (dirty) double entendre that is completely lost in modern English (look up what "nothing" was slang for in Shakespeare's time and then consider it in context of the play.)

    I see no problem changing the name of the dog in an entertainment film. Films play fast and loose with the facts all of the time. They are not scholarly works, nor are they primarily made for accuracy.

    If, however, history books start changing the dog's name in the interest of political correctness, then we have a problem.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    GoToAway's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,658
    I'd also like to point out something.

    Stephen ******* Fry is writing the script. It's in very good hands. He's quite bright and about as anal as they come.

    (Yes, that is a terrible pun, but I assure you that I did not intend it to be.)
    Share this post

  7. #17
    MB_Avro_UK's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,978
    The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.

    There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.

    But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.

    The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.

    And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.

    But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.

    Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.

    Amen.

    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    Bearcat99's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,969
    Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
    Should the Works of William Shakespeare be edited to suit modern sensibilities? Would people like some of the words or meanings he used to diluted/sanitised? The past should never be changed, it should be embraced no matter how inconvenient or politically incorrect or how will we know about the real people no matter how ignorant they might seem.
    A very bad comparison.. the works of Shakespeare compared to one minor non human character in a story about brave men and their deeds.. As I said.. I am all for historic accuracy.. but in this case i think they did the right thing..
    Share this post

  9. #19
    carts's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    833
    Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
    The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.

    There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.

    But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.

    The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.

    And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.

    But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.

    Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.

    Amen.

    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    Sorry to come across as the token "liberal" but i think you will find,that in the 1940's the word for Black was Black,****** had all sorts of conatations,even back then,a lot of them linked to the notion of the "British Empire" as a "civilizing" force for good.
    I would rather see a new film about the "Dambusters"(which,lets face it,was the template for Star Wars )Then get bogged down on "who called their dog what"
    Share this post

  10. #20
    GoToAway's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,658
    Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
    The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
    Err...
    You are a white guy from Britain from the year 2011.

    That's an awfully arrogant statement. Also untrue. Particularly considering that it was the word employed by groups like the KKK as they murdered people. "******" is not a word that suddenly gained a negative connotation recently. It was a word used to dehumanize people from the start.

    Though, as a Briton, you've clearly been insulated from this phenomenon--it all took place in your far-flung colonial possessions, after all.

    Just for your education, the preferred word during the '40s was actually "colored." Even "negro" was considered relatively unoffensive. "******," however, was a slur.

    There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.
    And what was the black population at the time, exactly?

    Last I checked, even today the UK has fewer blacks in aggregate than some of the smaller US states. The status quo of 1940s Britain hardly serves as a sounding board for racial tensions on the other side of the ocean, which is precisely what Fry is concerned about.

    But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.

    The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.

    And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.

    But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.

    Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.

    Amen.

    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    I'm sorry to say, but this is the sort of nonsense I've come to expect from you. Don't you claim to be a grown man? Are you seriously defending the legitimacy of including a racial slur in a mass-market movie because a couple of limies that were completely insulated from the word's power decided to name a black dog using the word 70 years ago?

    That's absurd.

    I don't think you understand the history of that word. I rather doubt British schools focus as much on that particular chapter of the Empire's history as American ones do.
    Share this post