Be careful with posts of that magnitude mate.


It wont be long before we're into a full blown Coventry versus Dresden debate.

Were I inferring such a point you'd have just underlined it. In chalk.

Whether that point were crass stupidity or racist undertones I'm not sure. It'd work well either way I guess.

Let's get this straight a white guy, from a white family, who lives in an almost exclusively white village, within a country where the vast majority are white feels its offensive to remove some otherwise irrelevent racist terminology because he feels perfectly placed to judge on whether members of non-white minorities might be offended by the term.

Yet he is offended that others might suspect otherwise and is happy to dismiss the notion that black people might be offended by the term anyway.

I'm offended by the term. Is racism only offensive if its directed at you personally now?

If its the principle of changing historical 'facts' why draw the line here? Would it be offensive for a right handed actor to play a left handed character or for language to be moderated or for other 'facts' irrelevent to the plot to be amended? Why do some people get specifically agitated by the removal of irreleventracist terminology but not other points?

Aaaahhh, but I don't see the Germans making self agrandising (Allied perspective) films about the bombing of Coventry. Seems to me that whilst the Axis powers are pretty ashamed of their parts in various incidents of mass loss of human life, the Allies see them as opportunites to slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on being masters of the universe.

I bet we don't see any epic films about the BEF scuttling out of France. Although a film of the workings of Fall Gelb and Fall Rot would be amazing, not least because they were actually born on Salisbury plain. Bet we never see any films about how a British Army officer invented "Blitzkrieg" but it was dismissed by High Command as "Fanciful", and of how Heinz Guderian came to England to see a live firing demonstration of this new style of warfare before taking it home.

Rant over.

Its a very wise point.

I guess there's an element of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, and to some extent history (and it's judgements of rights and wrongs) being written by the victors.

(Noting NSF's post) we think of the blitz in terms of the killing of civillians but the RAF and 8th Air Force raids in terms of the cost to the aircrews. Moreover, British war crimes are brushed under the carpet but German ones used to demonstrate the evil we were fighting.

Point taken to an extent.
As for films about the BEF making a swift exit from Dunkirk try watching 'The Forman went to france'. Not quite an epic but certainly an eye opener for the time it was made.

From a British perspective there was dear old Johnny Mills in 'Dunkirk'.

But again, its an example of film making and popular history being nationalistic - everything from the British perspectivebut [/i in the case of that film it was trying to show the events through the eyes of 2 main characters so can be excused a lack of balance.

Point out the bit where I said I was offended by the removal of the name of the dog, or retract your point.

It's interesting that you claim I feel perfectly positioned to comment on how others would feel about something being offensive. I suggested that I think it might not be as many as you imply, but I also clearly stated that those who are offended should say so themselves because I'm not in a position to comment on if anyone else is offended or not.

I believe that you think I am racist, inferred in your previous posts, and backed up in the one I am replying to by your use of the word Chalk, when we are both old enough to know what you mean there.

Either back up your claim that I am racist with specific factual evidence
(rather than the anecdotal white man in country village crap) or retract it.

Oh if you are offended by the use of the dogs name as a dogs name in the film then congratulations on taking the moral high ground. For me it makes no difference.

I shall say only two words, "concentration" and "camp"

Oh yes, another one, "Boer"

Concentration and camp? I know that one, was that where Julian Clary was on QI?

So what's the dog called then?

And another. Kefer. Good name for a car. Bad name for something else. My point is that (and it's not anything to do with racism) that with the exception of a film I saw in German years ago about the sinking of the Royal Oak i've not picked up on many films about German supremacy in the air, on land or at sea. And let's be true they had it over us for a long long time. Thing is it's only right that we learn from these things. But to bring the whole thing down to a PC debate is like asking Mrs Lincoln if, with the exception of the obvious, she enjoyed the show?

totally correct the offensive term is taken out of that film.
if you want to hear disgusting language like that then go see a black rap artist.apparently it's normal language for them.

racists

Offended by it is my inference from your clear objection to the changeIf you start changing some of the details then that is bordering on censorship, which IMHO is always a bad thing. The only time that events shouldn't be retold with exact detail is if that detail includes breaking the law.

I am pointing out how ridiculous it is to "change" historical fact...[/i

Specifically, your belief that this specific fact shouldn't be altered for the sake of sparing the feelings of others. Perhaps offended is too strong a term for something you find 'bad' and 'ridiculous'?



What the chuff are you on about? Have you re-read anything you or I have previously written? Go away and re-read the thread, then try and make your point again and I’ll be happy to agree or counter as required. As it stands it makes no sense at all.

Take your time though - I may not be online until the back end of the week. Plenty of opportunity to get a really good quality response sorted I should think.



First up, for the avoidance of any doubt yes I think you are racist. Explicit enough?

The Chalk comment wasn’t meant to be at all subtle or difficult to understand.

Now, lets talk about context. I find context quite useful. The first bit of context you embarrassingly dismiss as crap - not sure if this is because you don't understand or whether it simply doesn't fit your defence. Either way, the context is important because it forms your narrow start point for your cringe worthy comments that black people (or anyone else - another point that doesn‘t fit your defence?) probably wouldn’t be offended by a racist term against them.

Now for the wider context that links to my clarification that opened this little section. I think everyone is racist, myself included. Some of us can recognise this, others can't. Some revel in it, others don't feel able to admit it to themselves despite occasionally being slow witted enough to drop themselves in it from time to time. Specifically my impression is you'd be in that latter category.




You’re confused again. On the one hand your eager to tell the world how ambivalent you are, on the other to change the name would be ‘bad’ and ‘ridiculous’.

Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, I find the term offensive and believe its use within the film is unnecessary - a distraction to the message the film will be trying to give.

And finally, returning to the subject of the heinous crime of changing a detail in the remake here's a couple of Wiki bits on historical inaccuracies in the celebrated b/w film
The wooden "coat hanger" bomb sight intended to enable crews to release the weapon at the right distance from the target was not wholly successful; some crews used it, but others came up with their solutions, such as pieces of string in the bomb-aimer's position and/or markings on the blister.
Gibson's dog, Nigger, was not the victim of a hit-and-run; in fact, the driver and passenger in the car were themselves injured as the former tried to avoid the collision.
No bomber flew into a hillside near a target on the actual raid.
The film was made before some of the details about the bombs used in the attack were declassified (in 1962), and thus is somewhat inaccurate about some of the fine points of how the bombs were actually delivered.
Some of the sequences showing the testing of Upkeep in the film are actually of Mosquito fighter-bombers dropping the naval version of the bouncing bomb, code-named "Highball", intended to be used against ships. This version of the weapon was never used operationally.
At the time the film was made, certain aspects of Upkeep were still held classified, so the actual test footage was censored to hide any details of the test bombs, and the dummy bombs carried by the Lancasters were spherical rather than the true cylindrical shape.
There are continuity errors, notably around 38 minutes into the film during footage of initial "low-flying training," aircraft are clearly carrying the bombs, which were not yet available.


I assume those who celebrate this earlier version where the dog's original name was used would withdraw their support and sense of enjoyment on the basis of these changes. I mean, surely If you are making a film about a factual historical event, then you should make the film as close to the actual events as possible, or it's simply not retelling the details of that actual event, and shouldn't be advertised as such.

WHOOOSH.

BITEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE