Was the dog's name for real? - The Dam Busters (1955) Discussion

[–] TopGunSGA 15 years ago

The N word is Latin for Black and as the dog was black Gibson called him N igger. It probably had nothing to do with the racist term

As for renaming it in a remake, why? The name is a historical fact and is part of the Dambusters story

-- COOOBRAAAA! --

reply

[–] screenman 15 years ago

Yes, the remake will feature a racially-inclusive dog like a dalmation. And the movie isn't going to be called `The Dam Busters' as that may cause offence. It's going to be called `The Darn Busters. Or in case that might upset the knitting-circles, there's also a provisional title of `The Oh-Dear Busters'. Meanwhile, the bombers are going to be renamed `Counties', in case `Lancaster' offends those stubborn Yorkshire folk, whilst the `Water-Containment Structures' will simply be in `enemy' territory rather than Germany, just to keep our post-fascist European friends happy.

reply

[–] wideeye101 15 years ago

That's brilliant. Especially 'racially-inclusive dog'.

reply

[–] Myliecad_the_apotropaic 15 years ago

The N word is not Latin for black .

Nothing but light! . . . Nothing but light!

Charlie (Requiescit in) Pace

reply

[–] TopGunSGA 15 years ago

The N word is not Latin for black [] .

Really?

I have a Latin dictionary that says it is, although the Latin world has only 1 g

---We will rule over all this land and we will call it... This Land.---

reply

[–] Myliecad_the_apotropaic 15 years ago

Yeah, that's what I meant, that it has only one "G." I have two Latin dictionaries (and I took Latin for a while), because I'm ridiculous .

And the pronunciation, depending on, I'd think, if you were doing Catholic or Classical pronunciation, would be different.

Nothing but light! . . . Nothing but light!

Charlie (Requiescit in) Pace

reply

[–] pierre-albertini3 15 years ago

As a French viewer, I feel boundless admiration and gratitude for the RAF pilots of WWII and I love this film which is a tribute to all of them. In the 1940s, the dog's name was not as offensive as it would be today. Above all, it must not make us forget what the Brits did against racism in those years : they fought it victoriously !

reply

[–] ibmoperations 9 years ago

A a German viewer I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise for my countries behaviour during the war....

reply

[–] jrcanary-1 13 years ago

Uh...yes it is.

Niger - Black

Try looking it up in a dictionary you political correct zealot

reply

[–] jonahfalcon1970 12 years ago

Yeah. There was no racism in 1955.

reply

[–] steve-657-396598 11 years ago

I do take your point Jon, but the "n" word never had the same meaning in the UK as it did in the US, and has only recently (since the early 1990s) been regarded as a true and insulting swear word. Up until the 1970s the word was in quite common usage in a number of contexts, and was a popular name for a black dog. When I was young (born early 1950s) my mother used to use a shoe dye for our school shoes, and yes, it was called *beep* brown". By the mid-seventies it had changed to "Congo brown" which is perhaps, not a great improvement! Incidentally, the use of the word, "black" to describe a black person was once widely regarded as insulting, and our parents were careful to tell us that we should refer to such people as "coloured" lest we offend them.

reply

[–] fitzvizion 11 years ago

Geez, you guys, I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place.

reply

[–] Jacqui-Armitage 11 years ago

Also, the dog was a black labrador, and in those days many colours were named after things, such as ivory white, and... in this cas.... n----- black. That was an approved name for a version of black on colour pencils and the like. Honest!!

reply

[–] britmoviejunkie 9 years ago

N igger was a common name in the UK for black Labrador dogs until at least the late 1960s.

reply

[–] danielassao 8 years ago

There was no racism in 1955.

You mean there was no shame in racism in 1955. IT wasn't invented recently, you know.

reply

[–] joystar5879 8 years ago

No...but the word "NIGER", is

I do hope he won't upset Henry...

reply

[–] Hungerhill 15 years ago

You can't rewrite history!

reply

[–] highflight41 15 years ago

My father was in the RAF during world war 2 and I asked him about this. The "N" word was considered naughty but nowhere near as offensive as it is today.

reply

[–] monkeymcbain 15 years ago

they dogs going to be called Nigsy in the remake as that what the dog was sometimes called... at least according to wiki

reply

[–] david_colbourne 15 years ago

And is 'Nigsy' going to be the code word for breaching the Moehne Dam?

reply

[–] screenman 15 years ago

What's really bonkers about the whole thing, is that in a movie entailing black culture - particularly black criminal culture, like `Trespass' or `Deep Cover', you hear negroes referring to each other by the `N' word time and time again. In fact, I saw a black-American comedian (name escapes me) who made up a whole series of gags that defined the difference betweem a black man and a `N-ethnic'. His comparisons weren't flattering, but they were hilarious. It seems there's one code of conduct for one race and one code for another. Which is surely what racism is all about.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenman 15 years ago

Err...yes. Well, thank you for sharing that with us.

reply

[–] marktayloruk 11 years ago

That was his name.And,as someone who loves dogs in general and labradors in particular,I wish I'd known him.I'd have been tempted to let him into the briefing-after all,he was hardly likely to divulge information.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 11 years ago

As a perjorative back then in the UK it was about as insulting as Yank, *beep* Jerry, Frog, Eyetie, etc- ie not very.

"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"

reply

[–] garyahampton 15 years ago

Surely the issue with this word is in the context in which it is used rather than the word itself. In the UK the word is perceived as no less offensive than it is in the US, but seventy years ago, although its meaning as a derogatory term was known, it was generally not seen in quite the same way. In the film, its meaning reflected the colour of the dog in fact, and the viewer should not see it as meaning anything else. Of course, Britain has changed completely since World War II, both it terms of the ethnic demographic of our population and in our understanding of the world, and the word has no place in general conversation. It should be observed, however, that the word is used amongst black youth as a term of unity, the same way as brother or blood is used. Equally, it should be pointed out that this splits the black community as to whether it can or should be used, regardless of the colour of the speaker's skin.

I think we can consider ourselves fairly intelligent and reasonably well-informed, and can understand that there's little point in censoring the word out of this film. The real issue, surely, is producing generations of kids who can put it into perspective, and who have no truck with racism in today's world. The only people who utilise its more pernicious meaning are the half-witted morons who vote for the British National Party.

"Do you want to go to the toilet, Albert?"

reply

[–] Xikar 15 years ago

This was a fantastic comment, until you took a stab at politics in the end. You then unveiled yourself and your true colors came out.:(

reply

[–] garyahampton 15 years ago

I'm not sure if you've understood my comments or not, and am a little concerned about you identifying my true colors (I'm guessing from the American spelling you're from the US). If I've made what appears to be a political comment, then let me assure you it's neither partisan or affiliated with any particular political party or ideology, either here in the UK or with any similar Western nation.

With respect, the BNP, to ensure you understand exactly what the British National Party is and stands for, is an ultra-right political organisation whose claim not to be neo-Nazi is at worst merely a smokescreen that prevents them being banned under English law, and at best cosmetic posturing to secure some votes from people who simply want, rather naively, to give the main established political parties (Labour, Conservative and Liberal) a short-sharp-shock. I, and the vast majority of the British public of all political persuasions and ethnic backgrounds, regard the BNP as having no legitimate political credentials whatsoever; they are nothing more than racist, ignorant, malicious bullies who offer only the poorest excuses and hatred of other people for their own shortcomings and life-failures, as well as for those who would vote for them.

If I've shown my true colors (sic) by referring to the BNP as nothing more than racist thugs, then I share those true colours with most of my fellow Brits who, to quote a truly great American (I'm sure I don't need to tell you who), judge somebody by their character and not by the colour of their skin.

I trust I've made where I stand perfectly clear.

"Do you want to go to the toilet, Albert?"

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kyruis 15 years ago

Exactly.

It's ridiculous what people claim is racist and what isn't.
It's usually only racist when it suits the individual.

reply

[–] GarryMMM 15 years ago

yeah I also hope they rename the nazi's, I mean is there anything more offensive than been called a nazi?

reply

[–] NebLWeffah 15 years ago

Seeing as how we're trying so hard to think that we need to be politically correct for this movie, here's my 'top ten' things that I propose for the remake:

1. No real flyng Lacasters to be used - the Greens will be up in arms about the harmful exhaust and it's impact on the environment, not to mention the noise. No, we will use small, unmanned aerial vehicles instead that are much more energy and emissions efficient. Instead of calling them Lancasters we'll call them Predacasters and paint them with non-toxic lead-free paints to appear like WWII camouflage. Although in a completely non-threatening and less scary way. Those big scary bombers were just too scary.

2. No dogs at all in the film. We cannot guarantee their safety around working aircraft (tiny aircraft, but working aircraft nonetheless) so therefore no dogs. There...N-word problem solved.

3. No flying the Predacasters aircraft over lakes, dams, forests, towns, cities or seas. To much risk of environmental impact if pieces should fall off (see note about the Greens above...). Regarding the bouncing bombs, nix them. We certainly will not be dropping anything into any pristine lakes.

4. No spotlights in the nose and tail of the 'stunt' aircraft will be used as the risk of nightime light pollution is too great and we wouldn't want to tick-off the astronomy buffs.

5. Someone already mentioned to change the name from Dambusters to Darnbusters. That's a good one, we hadn't thought of that....

6. No beer or alcoholic beverages of any kind will be consumed, or appear to be consumed in this film. We wouldn't want to do anything that may be misunderstood as corrupting the kiddies. For that matter there will be no smoking nor sleeping past nine either.

7. There will not be any overt hatred shown to any group, especially the enemy. We will not refer to them as 'Jerry', The Hun, Krauts or Nazis (especially the last one, too political). We will only refer to them as 'those poor unfortunate and misguided persons who have yet to see the error of their ways'.

8. Peter Jackson's cameo will be restricted to being that of one of the bouncing bombs. Not one that actually drops mind you 'cause we're not doing that, remember? His new name is Peter 'Upkeep' Jackson.

9. The flak towers on the dams (darns?) will be replaced with giant rubber-band slingshots hurling leaflets at the aircraft that will emphatically state without being rude that 'war is bad'.

10. No one will crash, no one will die and 'the poor unfortunate persons who have yet to see the error of their ways' will realize that their approach is hopelessly unjust and abandon their cause before the dog dies. Oh, right, no dogs. Okay, then before the multi-lingual end credits roll.

I hope that you've enjoyed this light hearted satire as much as I have had writing it. I'm sure the remake will be stunning and be the blockbuster hit we Dambusters faithful all hope it will be.

cheers...

reply

[–] southwestern71 15 years ago

A possible solution without distorting historical facts is change the dogs name for the US market only. In the 1954 original the dog’s name was changed to Trigger for the US market though last summer I was on holiday in the States & saw the uncensored British version using the dogs real name on TCM USA. The Dam Busters story is well know in the Commonwealth Nations but generally unknown in the States even though the crews of 617 Squadron were a mixed bag consisting of Brits, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians & even a few Yanks. The film will probably be a flop in the States anyway as regardless of subject matter the Yanks can’t relate to a film unless it’s American themed. Though some crewmen were American the raid was planned & carried out by the Royal Air Force so unless Peter Jackson is going to bend the facts aside from changing the dogs name by making the remake more American themed it will flop in the States no matter what they call the dog.

From the Times 6/5/09: Dog's name in Dambusters remake causes headache for filmmakers http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film /article6230958.ece

reply

[–] libertarian45 15 years ago

Recipe for success of a remake?

Skip all the dog references or have the dog be an American Eskimo (snow white) and call him "Westerm Christian, imperialist oppressor..."

Change the story so all the Brit characters (except for one left in for comic relief)are now Americans played by Matthew NcConnechy and Jon Bon Jovi and set them in B 17s. Of course the crews will have to be a nice mix of various races although the US interred its citizens of Japanese decent and still had segregated units (black and white). Oh and let's not forget about a strong female heroine perhaps Angelina Jolie in shorts with a .45 strapped to each thigh? While you're at it (and since they'll be in B 17s), you can have that smug-faced idiot, Matthew Modine pilot one. While you're at it, maybe throw in a few B 25s so that commie loser Alec Baldwin can be in it. Oh and Ben Afleck and that other pretty boy from Pearl Harbour.

Speaking of Pearl Harbour, here's the real guarantee for success. Don't clutter up the flm with lots of historical fact or anything and spend less time on trying to win the war. Devote the bulk of the screen time to the romance aspect. Then it will become a date flic. That's how you make money.

Forgot to mention Leo Dicaprio, but, no one can afford him. Afleck is pretty cheap these days, I imagine...

reply

[–] dln1700 15 years ago

Why would Peter Jackson bend history for the sake of Americans?

Besides I'm sure Hollywood will make their own version where the idea for the raid was thought up by an American scientist and the bombs would be carried by B-17's and the dog's name would be called Trigger. The end of the movie would show the Americans celebrating such a wonderful raid and not concerned about the 55 lives lost in the raiding aircraft.

The dog's name is N igger so leave history the way it is.

Are we now going to complain about the name of a dog in a film based on fact when the N word is used quite freely in most movies featuring African/American actors? Why is no one up in arms about actors, both black and white, using the word themselves in their movies in the sense that is meant to be racially derogatory?

Talk about freakin' hypocracy

reply

[–] Rick-34 15 years ago

You _really_ don't understand that it's far more offensive for a white person to use the word than a black person to use the same word?

Oh well.

reply

[–] joystar5879 15 years ago

If I am not mistaken, wasn't the "n" word also used to refer to Indian and Pakistani people? In short, ALL people with dark skin? People are so D**mned thin skinned. The most important thing is that we continue to move forward, and continue to learn.

Do not condemn a work of art about a national hero, because he chose to name his dog with a questionable name.

As a Yank, I am appalled that America's "PC" squad has made this fine film all but unavailable in my country.

BTW...George Washington owned SLAVES. I don't notice any "knickers in a twist" over that.

One final note: I spent $30.00 for a DVD-R copy from a vintage site. It was clear as crystal, and worth every cent!
JS

reply

[–] dln1700 15 years ago

One final note: I spent $30.00 for a DVD-R copy from a vintage site. It was clear as crystal, and worth every cent!

Why did you do that? I could have bought you a genuine R4 copy and mailed it to you for $10 AUD.

reply

[–] dln1700 15 years ago

If it is that offensive to African/Americans why is the word STILL being used in movies?

reply

[–] flyer333555 15 years ago

I really find it silly that it is regarded more offensive coming from a white man than from a brother...

reply

[–] whiteflood 15 years ago

One crewman, not some crewmen, was a Yank - Flt. Lt. Joe McCarthy, whose crew attacked the Sorpe dam.

I don't think my American friends are quite as shallow as you paint them, and there will be a market for a film such as this in USA, but not a massive one.

Finally, *beep* was the dog's name, why change it? However, if the politically correct fraternity want it changed, and to keep it in context, why not call him "African-American"?

reply

[–] whiteflood 15 years ago

Grow up Fitz. The dog was called *beep* He was a black labrador. That was his name, and it was no big deal to call a dog *beep* in 1941 when Gibson acquired him. Get over it, all of you.

reply

[–] whiteflood 15 years ago

Beep?? Beep?? What kind of idiot censorship is this? I wrote *beep* yes n igger, and it was censored by this site.
Beware the thought police, they get everywhere. Eric Arthur Blair would be both proud (at his predictions) and appalled in equal measure...

As the Yanks would say, Beep Beep yr'ass IMDB.

reply

[–] moonpuppy_ver1-1 14 years ago

Yes, the dog's name was N igger. Yes, it is offensive to call someone a N igger. If they do not change the name of the dog they will be calling the dog by his name, N igger. They are not calling anyone N igger so what is offensive?

Here's a solution. Have a Black Actor play the role of Guy Gibson and he can call the dog M#F% N igger and everyone will laugh.

BTW, As one American I would love to see Peter Jackson's remake of the story just as it happened. I'm sure he will be faithful to history.

reply

[–] keith-nield 14 years ago

Yes of course, N igger used to be a common name for a dog, we certainly had one by that name. It was not consider racial or rude in any sense at all.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] irishtom99 12 years ago

it was COMMON for people to own slaves in the 19th century..everyone stop being disingenuous..it was ALWAYS an insult,but up until the 1960s,racists got away with it..there were no consequences..if that WAS the dog's name,perhaps the film makers should have recognized that it wasnt necessary to have the actor call to the dog 875 times..the movie was made in 1955,not 1855,and it was rude and dereogatory to be so blase about it..

reply

[–] tswan1970 12 years ago

It's ironic that this movie may hold the record for the 'N' word.

reply

[–] mrxavia 10 years ago

COMMON in the USA maybe, NOT in the UK, in the 19th Century we had banned slavery in 1833, and even before that, in 1701 Lord Chief Justice ruled that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England (http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/PULA/pula003002/pula003002007.pdf)

The film is based on the TRUE account of what happened in WW2, that was the dogs name, it was also a critical code word... so NO it should not be changed in any remake... and it should not offend because it was not used offensively...

reply

[–] david_colbourne 10 years ago

Unfortunately, whether or not the name was not used offensively in that context, a great many people are going to be offended by its use in the film. Some people are quite incapable of viewing things in the context of their time and will only view it from todays point of view. They will undoubtedly go to see the film in the hope of being offended and give them the excuse for some righteous indignation.

reply

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 12 years ago

Haha, I was wondering if I heard it right the first few times myself. I found it to be pretty funny actually but these days, I'm sure most folks find it "offensive".

What are words for when no one listens anymore

reply

[–] brandon-caplan 12 years ago

Just saw Django Unchained. So, it's OK for that movie to use the N-word dozens upon dozens of times (to refer to black people, no less!), yet you can't use it as the name for a friggin' dog? WTF?

reply

[–] Frequency270 12 years ago

Tarantino has a waiver.

Damion Crowley
All complaints about my post go to Helen Waite.

reply

[–] david_colbourne 12 years ago

Tarantino couldn't make a good film at gunpoint!

reply

[–] irishtom99 12 years ago

hippie cant be THAT dumb..in django,the word was SUPPOSED to be indicative that the racists were evil..in dam busters it was ,"isnt that cute"..stop trying to be so hip and cool..this horrible word,when used by people in power was a tool to demean and oppress an entire race of people..i'm not a big fan of tarentino,but his characters use the word to depict their LACK of character..
spare us your WTF

reply