Sir David Frost now owns the film rights to "The Dambusters" about 617 Squadron's (RAF) raid on the Mohne, Eder and Sorpe dams in 1943. The original film was made in the 1950s and a re-make is being considered. One problem has arisen however. The Squadron Commander Guy Gibson had a Labrador named 'Nigger' which was sadly run over just before the mission and it's name was subsequently used as the code word for the successful breach of the dams. When the film is shown on TV the word is often blanked out.
Now as it is a matter of history should this be so and more to the point should the remake include what is now seen as a very offensive word?
Also did the word have such a pejorative meaning in England in the 1930s/1940s? It seems a little odd to use an offensive term for a family pet. I possess a book printed in the 1930s 'The World in Pictures' which includes the caption "Happy Sambos enjoying some music", which certainly suggests a different mindset.

This has been discussed previously and there seems little doubt that the word "nigger" is far more upsetting in the USA than it is in the UK. And in both countries it is far more upsetting now than it was half a century ago.

I remember going to a haberdhasher's with my mother and getting some "nigger brown" thread. It was a perfectly common colour description back then.

Indeed, as a corruption of the perfectly good and inoffensive word "negro", I find it hard to understand why the word has become so pejorative.

I have to say, also, that whenever I have seen the film in the UK the word nigger is always used - though I can't speak for what happens in the USA, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I have to say, also, that whenever I have seen the film in the UK the word nigger is always used - though I can't speak for what happens in the USA, of course.

It has in fact been shown in the UK on TV with the "offending" word edited out. I remember seeing it and remarking on it at the time.

Quite frankly I think that in a historical film, which this of course is now, it's wrong to alter the language and attitudes of the time to fit in with modern sensibilities. Taken to its logical end it would mean that all old westerns were banned because of their portrayal of the Indians... oops sorry Native Americans, pretty much any film made prior to about nineteen eighty would need to be scrutinised in case anyone used any term no considered beyond the pale and the recent gloriously un-PC portrayal of the seventies in "Life On Mars" (which no-one in the US is ever likely to see) couldn't have been made.

Times have changed. what might once have been a less offensive word is now seriously offensive, and there is no need to use it in any remake of the film.

I loved Life on Mars, but found its portrayal of the 70s unconvincing. Surely any police force then was screamingly racist all the time. We never saw any of that.

The OED1 doesn't give a quotation before 1786, and its first meaning is given as "A negro. (Colloq. and usu. contemptuous)". I really have never understood why somebody would want to use these terms—or pine after the days when it was common—even if the people who might be offended are not around. Perhaps it was just the way I was raised. I'm not so sure about the word negro either. In the States it has dropped out of use, except in an historical context.

One occasionally hears "negro" and "nigger" in films and TV, but used by black actors in reference to another black. If 617 Squadron's commander had a dog so named, it should be so named in the movie without apology. It's not too likely to cause a stir nowadays unless used as obvious pejorative. Also keep in mind that there's a country named Niger, and one named Nigeria, and nobody fusses about those names. It's all about context.

As for "happy Sambos," Kipling's Sambo was Indian, not African.

Niger

Currently given its French pronunciation on the radio and TV: /niZe/. In my youth, the American pronuciation was /najdZ@r/.

As for "happy Sambos," Kipling's Sambo was Indian, not African.

The word under consideration was used in reference to other "dark-skinned races" according to the OED1 entry. In books and films, I've heard it applied by the British to Indians (usually South Indians), Egyptians (and other Middle Easterners), etc. In the States, it tends to be confined to people of African descent.

I personally think as it's a name of a dog, not a term of abuse for a black person, it should be used, especially as it is in a historical context. After all if a Western is made we'd hardly expect the characters to refer to the 'Indians' as 'Native Americans' in the modern manner. I really can't see how an honest portrayal of an event should be affected by political correctness and history modified to suit, and thus offering a falsehood.
Incidentally, Richard, apparently 'Trigger' is usually dubbed over when the film is shown in the USA- apparently it was Roy Roger's horse that was run over instead!
Also is it true that 'nigger' is merely the Spanish pronunciation of 'negro'- black?

In the book I possess, the 'Sambos' it refers to are definately Africans. It's a book published in Britain, and it certainly doesn't give the impression that it's meant to be derogative.
Zmj- I don't pine after the days when it was common to use such words, what I was asking was whether we should 'edit' the past to fit in with modern day sensiblities.

I don't know about a Sambo by Kipling, but Helen Bannerman's Little Black Sambo was definitely set in India.

quote:

Originally posted by Graham Nice:
Times have changed. what might once have been a less offensive word is now seriously offensive, and there is no need to use it in any remake of the film.

You mean no need apart from the fact that in real life it was called "nigger"?

Should it be changed in the history books too?

Do schoolchildren in the USA play "Cowboy's and Indians" as do schoolboys in England? And do they call the natives Indians or native Americans?

I don't pine after the days when it was common to use such words, what I was asking was whether we should 'edit' the past to fit in with modern day sensiblities.

Well, I didn't say that history should be edited. I just suggested a different reason for finding some common blasons populaires (derogatory ethnic designations) to be more or less upsetting now than then. Speaking of historical situations, the use of bloody in Pygmalion by an actress was considered shocking in the teens, but hardly anybody bats an eye now. So it's more than just spellings and meanings of words that change.

I don't think the story of the Dambusters would suffer one iota from having one of its codewords changed to something else. Those in the know could node their heads and raise their eyebrows in disbelief (in such PCese), while most of the audience wouldn't be affected by it, and neither would the story. I just find it strange that folks would want to use terms which upset some people a whole lot. (Here's an experiment for the Brits onboard: take the Tube to Finsbury Park station or some other suitable spot in London, and walk into a pub and ask a black person how they feel about the word being used to describe an historically accurante dog.) No, I don't think so.

The Spanish pronunciation of negro is not anything like the pronunciation of the word we're discussing. It's pronounced /nEgro/.

[Fixed typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Perhaps one could weave a statement into the movie that the squadron leader whose task it was to lead a group of severely overladen Lancasters into enemy territory in near total darkness at an altitude so low they collected tree branches in the undercarriage, then guide the planes to a precise distance from a dam before dropping their newfangled skipping bombs might be excused for his "eccentricities."

Interesting discussion. I can really see both points here and haven't decided which is right. It is history, after all. Yet, I can see zmj's point. The word offends a lot of people, myself included.

I am wondering if those of you in England have a similar offensive word or subject...something to do with the Irish maybe? Or maybe not. Is it okay in England to walk up to someone and say, "There's a nigger over there."? If not, I am wondering how England is different from the U.S. with that.

quote:

Do schoolchildren in the USA play "Cowboy's and Indians" as do schoolboys in England? And do they call the natives Indians or native Americans?

Kids do play cowboys and Indians here, and they call them that. I am surprised they play cowboys and Indians in England. Am I naive...England didn't have cowboys and Indians, did it? If not, why do they play it?

So much on which to comment in this thread! Sorry I'm behind.

Firstly, people DO name their dogs purposely offensive words sometimes. My own husband (back before I knew him) had a dog named "Little Fart". The children in his neighborhood used to get great joy from asking him what the dog's name was so that they could hear a grown-up saying "fart". Sigh.

"Nigger" has a different slant, though, since it isn't simply a rude word but something that actually has been used as a derogatory for other people.

True Story:
There is a book called _Nigger: the strange career of a troublesome word_ by Randall Kennedy, published in 2002, right around the time I started working in a predominantly African-American neighborhood. I skimmed the book as soon as I noticed it, being interested in words and such. About a year or so later, a customer (an African-American man) came in and asked if we had the book. I knew the customer from having helped him several times before and thought I'd tease him a bit. Our transaction went something like this:
Him: Do you have the book "Nigger"?
Me: What did you call me?
(slightly uncomfortable pause for effect)
Me, laughing: Gotcha!

He was shocked at first, until I smiled and laughed and he realized that I was just messing with him. I found a copy on the shelf, and have had a loyal supporter in him ever since.

quote:

Am I naive...England didn't have cowboys and Indians, did it? If not, why do they play it?

Don't forget we get American films and TV programmes. And cowboy films are still a very popular genus.

Of course, when I was at school I had to be different - and I played spacemen and martians!

And cowboy films are still a very popular genus.

Weird. Why would you use genus, when genre seems the correct word. They are, of course, both cognates, but genus seems slightly wrong in this context, and genre is firmly established. Personally quiek, I assume.

I played spacemen and martians!

I played The Perils of Penelope Pitstop with all the boys at infant school .

I don't suppose that at that age Penelope WAS the pit stop.

As well as "Cowboys'n'Indians" it was "Japs'n'Commandoes" with us- played in a large bush filled field which doubled as the jungles of Burma.
As to the topic I started- I feel as it would be a film based on historic events it should be kept to the truth of those events. As I'm not black myself I don't know how my reaction would be to it's use in the film but as it's hardly a reference to a black person (don't assume, as many would, that I couldn't necessarily be black because of my Norwegian name- my cousin is married to a black Norwegian- the stereotype of blonde haired Viking doesn't always apply) I would hope that it would be seen in the context of it's times, like any film based on historic facts.The US film industry has I think a deserved reputation for distorting history- 'U571', 'The Patriot'and 'Saving Private Ryan'come to mind, the British generally have tried to stay truer to the facts.
I think has that in the 1940s and 1950s 'Nigger' (in England anyway) was probably no worse than 'Frog' or 'Jerry' in the way that it applied to a group of people. Of course since then it has become very abusive, particularly in the USA.
Graham, were the Police more racist in the Seventies?- sure, as it consisted of primarily white people. However people tend to be split into racists or non-racists even then and as the Police consisted of people I don't think it was inherently worse, it was hardly on the job application after all. Being suddenly a Policeman doesn't suddenly make you a racist. As ever it's a generalisation about a body of people who will be good, bad and indifferent or racist or not as people tend to be.
Finally, Bill Bryson mentioned the Spanish pronunciation (Made in America?), and as I have little knowledge of Spanish (apart from being able to order a large beer, which curiously I can manage in several more languages!) I wasn't sure if it was correct or not.

The OED suggests that it was contemptuous from the beginning. I found enough inaccuracies in Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue—which it had been suggested that I read by members of this board—to stop reading it. Hollywood, or the American film industry, does change both fiction and non-fiction works around for reasons of its own which have little to do with accuracy or history. They make "entertainment". And they hope that that product returns profit on their investment. If I want history, I'd watch a documentary or read a book. I wouldn't go to the cinema, in any country. Whether or not the word was offensive back during the Second World War, (and I still believe it was), it is offensive now, and people are offended when the older film is shown. Why concentrate on historical accuracy which is basically limited to one code word? It seems to me to be able to offend people using historical accuracy as an excuse. That is the only reason I can see. Why even remake the film at all? Most historians seem to agree it had very little impact on the German war effort / factories in the area, and that the highest number of people killed were Allied POWs. Bit of a boondoggle, if you ask me. Was that shown in the film? Will it be? Also, I didn't assume you were white from your surname, but from your line of reasoning.

quote:

I played The Perils of Penelope Pitstop with all the boys at infant school Wink.

Sigh...and I wasn't there.

Cat, you must make it up to me next October ;-)

Zmj, I didn't say that it wasn't meant to be derogratory but that it was at one time no worse than the mild insults given to other peoples, but I accept it has no place now in civilised discourse- except of course in discussion on this site! I asked really whether we should be prepared to change the past in order to fit in with modern sensibilities.
Hollywood's "entertainment" has already led to problems. "Braveheart" for example- which had the Battle of Stirling Bridge'and managed to omit the bridge,um- has led to the more moronic Scots to use it as reason to harrass English people living in in Scotland for example, hardly condusive to the good. Too many people think what they are seeing is fact if it's based on real events! I do see your point but if you to remove everything that may offend somebody there wouldn't be much left! The English are often either the villains or portrayed as buffoons so even we have room to complain!
Finally, bigotry's best friend I think is generalising. The times I've heard people say "I hate the French, the Yanks,etc. etc."always makes me retort "So you've met all of them then, have you?"whilst pointing out that in the USA for example there's 280 million individuals with all their own opinions on everything from the War in Iraq, cars, movies, beers and so on! The basis of prejudice is hating people as a group which always seems ludicrous to me- by all means dislike people on an individual basis, though, if you have good reason to! After all that's just normal!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Erik Johansen,

I would argue the toss whether the raid itself had any great effect- I think it did- but this probably isn't the place for it.
I do apologise if I have offended anyone on this site- that was not my intention,I was merely curious as to other peoples thoughts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Erik Johansen,

Erik, I think we agree on Hollywood movies, but I think the audience bears some responsibility, too. For those folks who are willing to believe that Braveheart or Gladiator were historical reconstructions might not be sophisticated enough to figure out whether they oughtn't to use racial slurs facilely.

As for historical accuracy, the old film used some Lancasters as did Operation Chastise, but there were also some other planes used, including some US flying fortresses. Was this worse than the choice of codewords? By the way, the codeword for failed attempt was Dinghy because one of the pilots had bailed out of a downed plane and had been picked up in a dinghy.

I can't really say how derogatory the word was in the UK, but in the States you always have to factor in the institutionalized chattel slavery which existed from its days as a British colony until after the Civil War. And what might be a mild term to use by those in the superior position mightn't be the same as how the term is taken by the people it was directed at.

I took a quick look at Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of the Narcissus to get a feel for how the word is used in at least one late 19th century novel, but I decided that skimming for quotes wouldn't do either side much good. Rather a close reading and some research into Conrad's life. Though considered a British author he was a Polish emigre who came late to English and the UK.

In the end, I think I'll just let it drop. I did not mean to tar the whole of the UK with being racist, just because I've disagreed with a couple of you on how derogatory a term was earlier in the last century.

quote:

Most historians seem to agree it had very little impact on the German war effort / factories in the area, and that the highest number of people killed were Allied POWs. Bit of a boondoggle, if you ask me. Was that shown in the film? Will it be?

Its psychological impact was probably much more important than its military impact, as was Doolittle's strategically absurd raid on Japan.

As for the word in question, as a small child in the deep south (South Carolina) I heard "nigger" used in a matter-of-fact way by my parents and other adult whites, but "jigaboo" used as an insult. How non-whites viewed it never entered my mind at that age. After moving to the racially integrated California, I learned it was indeed a pejorative word. Again, I say it's context and audience, not the word in and of itself.

I is always rather pointless, to my mind, to try to apply modern standards to the standards that prevailed in history.

The word, "nigger" was not, as I have said, especially derogatory in the 1940s - although it wouldn't have usually been used politely of a person. However, as a name for a black dog or cat it would have been quite in order in those days.

The question was, though, should we censor the word in a modern remake?

I have a question, then. In Tom Sawyer the word "nigger" is used as it was, I assume, a common enough slang expression in those days. What do modern editions of this classic use? And if Mark Twain is to be censored, what do we do about other classical authors who use words that are now considered "bad"?

Actually, Zmj, they used some footage of Fortesses (in the US edit) as apparently they didn't think there was enough crashes!The British version exclusively uses Lancasters. As Asa says an impressive operation probably more due to it's propaganda value (the most precise targeting of a weapon until the 1st Gulf War, according to one source) than it's real effect. As a piece of flying it WAS something. As a piece of technology and the scientific mind behind it, it was an insight- the old story of scientists not realising what their ideas lead to-as in the atom bomb-solving the problem becomes the point, the human element forgotten.

A page detailing the inaccuracies in the 1954 film of The Dam Busters.

By that was quick, Zmj! You're obviously on here at the same time! I'll have a quick look- back in a tick!

Interesting site- a few things I didn't know! I'm aware that Gibson was a bit of a bastard-as was Douglas Bader- but like Bader had undoubted courage. It often seems to me that people with arrogant or unpleasant personalities- on the US side perhaps Patton and McArthur among others- excell at warfare. I was aware of other things about the movie but it is generally a reasonably truthful record of events, probably the only film memorial to the men of Bomber Command who did their duty- some 55,000 died- whilst being vilified after the war for the tactic of area bombing- the usual problem with historical re-appraisal.

Well, after all that, the answer isn't easy, but perhaps the real question isn't about language but whether we send more young men- and they were young- to war in the future.
I do believe that by looking to the past we hopefully don't repeat the same mistakes again. I doubt the re-make will happen anyway, WW2 is fast becoming as much history as Waterloo or he American Civil War, an abstract thing that we can no longer relate to. (apart from Richard of course!)

quote:

I have a question, then. In Tom Sawyer the word "nigger" is used as it was, I assume, a common enough slang expression in those days. What do modern editions of this classic use? And if Mark Twain is to be censored, what do we do about other classical authors who use words that are now considered "bad"?

Things here aren't quite as bad as you think, Richard. Indeed, Mark Twain is not censored, and the word "nigger" still appears. Also, you can buy "Little Black Sambo" books in used book stores, though I don't think they print the story in new books anymore.

There has been censorshsip of Twain's books in the U.S. The text hasn't been bowdlerized, as far as I know, but his books have been challenged in court and sometimes removed from reading lists. Here is what BANNED BOOKS ONLINE, says about it:

quote:

In Mark Twain's lifetime, his books Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were excluded from the juvenile sections of the Brooklyn Public library (among other libraries), and banned from the library in Concord, MA, home of Henry Thoreau. In recent years, some high schools have dropped Huckleberry Finn from their reading lists, or have been sued by parents who want the book dropped. In Tempe, Arizona, a parent's lawsuit that attempted to get the local high school to remove the book from a required reading list went as far as a federal appeals court in 1998. (The court's decision in the case, which affirmed Tempe High's right to teach the book, has some interesting comments about education and racial tensions.) The Tempe suit, and other recent incidents, have often been concerned with the use of the word "nigger", a word that also got Uncle Tom's Cabin challenged in Waukegan, Illinois. For a comprehensive web site describing attempts to ban Huckleberry Finn and other Twain works, see the site Huckleberry Finn Debated, by Jim Zwick.

Other banned and censored books are discussed on that page, and there are numerous links. This page is part of The Online Books Page, which claims to have over 25,000 free books online.

Tinman

http://afgen.com/nigger.html has an interesting slant on the issue. The irony in Twain's writing is clear in this example. But why the apostrophe in "William's?" (Third paragraph)

quote:

There has been censorshsip of Twain's books in the U.S.

Surely not everywhere, Tinman...that has never even been brought up in the Chicago area, that I know of. Certainly our local libraries and schools have never discussed it while we've been here. Censorship is something we all must fight, though.

quote:

Censorship is something we all must fight, though.

Whereas I agree in principle that censorship is to be deplored, the right to free expression comes also with responsibilities - and it is because some people abuse that freedom that censorship is sadly necessary.

"Nigger" is now a "forbidden" word in the USA and, whereas it is probably silly to try to censor classics like Uncle Tom's Cabin and Tom Sawyer retrospectively, it would surely be wrong to publish a blantanly racist article in 2006, and it would be the duty of any publisher or editor to seek appropriate amendment - which is censorship by any other name.

Language Log has a post about a label on a couch. Linked to a post was on a blog called Chinese Stories.

Click for Dictionary.com Translator's translation of 深棕色 ...

"N-brown" was quite commonly used in England for a particular shade of dark brown until probably the 1970s.

It's an interesting label to give a color because it is totally unreliable. Since even Dictionary.com translates it that way, I suspect my Chinese friend will, too, but I will ask her.

New edition removes Mark Twain's 'offensive' words

A publisher is planning to publish The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, replacing "nigger" with "slave," "Injun Joe" with Indian Joe," and "half-breed" with "half-blood." What do you think?

I think it stinks. And it likely is a copyright infringement, though I am not sure about that. Still, you can't rewrite books so the outcome is different (such as Scarlett and Rhett get back together in "Gone with the Wind") so why should this be allowed?

And it likely is a copyright infringement, though I am not sure about that.

I'm pretty sure that Huckleberry Finn is long out of copyright and in the public domain. Bowdlerized versions of famous works abound.

While I was away I read again Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English. It was written around the time of the second world war although the 1965 edition I read showed that it had been extensively revised and expanded since then. Under nigger he said that the term only referred to people of African origin as it was a corruption of negro; to use it for others with dark skin (such as Indians) was an insult to them. No mention was made of the insult to those of African origin ...

quote:

I'm pretty sure that Huckleberry Finn is long out of copyright and in the public domain.

I know. That's why I said, "though I am not sure about that." However, I wondered about the family. For example, I can't imagine Disney ever being in the public domain. Heck, we are having a conference in Orlando and wanted a Disney character. We couldn't bring in our own. Take a guess on how much it would have cost us to use theirs (we decided not to).

I don't have a source but in stories about the expansion of copyright several years ago, mention was made that the increased time available to creators was fought for by Disney, to continue their profiteering on films and characters.

An interesting aside here: The University of Oregon uses Disney's Donald Duck as its mascot. It's the only school authorized to use a Disney character, and it was done by verbal agreement with Walt Disney himself. http://ezinearticles.com/?Univ...Explained&id=3659791

If you want to use Disney's....Drum Roll....It will cost you a whopping $15,000! Geez.