Nigger! or not...

takandjive said:
You know PRECISELY why it's racist. The word cunt comes from cune/queen, but it's sexist because it's used to degrade women, regardless of archaic meaning. If the dog's name was Cunt, I would object.
Click to expand...

Why in this particular case? The word has been used in countless mainstream films from 'The Green Mile' and 'Of Mice and Men' to 'American Gangster'. So much debate over the name of a dog?
 
Oli said:
I think one thing about it that the word never quite had the same connotations in the UK as it did in, say, the US.
I even remember my grandfather having a dog by that name.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it did! Always a 'loaded' term. You wouldn't use it unless you wanted to deliberately cause offence or cause a fight. Or couldn't care less either way.

If you were being 'polite' :rolleyes: you'd use 'coloured' but you would never use the 'n' word unless you were intentionally setting out to be derogatory or ignorant. Same goes for 'darkie' and similar that were commonly used at the time.
 
Stryder said:
You are talking about a period of time where peoples perceptions were somewhat different. I wouldn't suggest that everyone termed someone who was black as "Nigger", I'm pretty sure terms like "Darkies" or "Blackies" was used.

The reason for this was at that point of time the country was predominantly white and while there was indeed ethnic people living amongst Britons, the number was low enough to cause "Intrigue". (Back then they were more likely to ask where they were from and what that part of the world looked like etc)

Incidentally the racial terms that might of started to creep in during the late 1950's and early 1960's was due to the influx of Commonwealth citizens being invited over to England to help rebuilt from the war. At first they would be welcome as guests, but slowly as generations (of English) grew up not all of them would of known about the invitation or the reason the country was changing, they would of been racist/radicals.

It's possible that terms to reflect "intrigue" were replaced by hate towards someone they saw as being different and slowly taking over areas of their towns/cities.

Obviously in modern times it's been identified that such terms as "Nigger" are "Racist" and demeaning, however in historical plays and films it's understood that the terms from the day should indeed be used. (I mean imagine if Othello was reworked... It wouldn't be the same play.)
Click to expand...

Revisionist poppycock!!
 
Stryder said:
Not totally I'm assured. What's your thoughts on the topic however Sniffy?
Click to expand...

Oh my thoughts on this subject abound as well you know but as you asked:

British people were generally hostile to people from the 'commonwealth' ie former colonial countries settling here. In the two major world wars they were expected to fight for Britain or make some other contribution to the war effort but were generally kept apart from white British troops and given the shittiest roles. War verterans from former 'colonies' were and still are overlooked when it comes to acknowledging efforts and handing out medals. The track record is even worse when it comes to pensions but tht's another thread.

There was quite a recruitment drive in the former colonies after WW2 to fill skill gaps and shortages in Britain. Immigrants faced prejudice and racism in jobs, housing and education as well as day-to-day life. Shitty jobs, shitty housing in the shittiest parts of town despite many having professional qualifications.

'The Lonely Londoners' by Samuel Selvon is a good account of the period just after the war.....
 
Cellar_Door said:
Why in this particular case? The word has been used in countless mainstream films from 'The Green Mile' and 'Of Mice and Men' to 'American Gangster'. So much debate over the name of a dog?
Click to expand...

In two of those, I know it served a purpose other than just being vulgar.
 
sniffy said:
Oh yes it did! Always a 'loaded' term. You wouldn't use it unless you wanted to deliberately cause offence or cause a fight. Or couldn't care less either way.
Click to expand...
Not when applied to a dog.
The connection wasn't automatic.
Much like "gollywog".
 
Oli said:
Not when applied to a dog.
The connection wasn't automatic.
Much like "gollywog".
Click to expand...

Soooo...if your dear old grand pappy was walking his dog in the park one day and a war veteran from the Caribbean came up to him and said:

"Hey nice dog. What's his name....?"

He'd have just come right out with the dog's name, would he?

Or if he was being treated by an African medic and they got talking about their pet dogs....?


"Oh yeah ha ha ha mine's called n***** hoo hoo hoo...."
 
sniffy said:
Soooo...if your dear old grand pappy was walking his dog in the park one day and a war veteran from the Caribbean came up to him and said:
"Hey nice dog. What's his name....?"
He'd have just come right out with the dog's name, would he?
Or if he was being treated by an African medic and they got talking about their pet dogs....?
"Oh yeah ha ha ha mine's called n***** hoo hoo hoo...."
Click to expand...
Good question - much like asking the *cough* coloured guy in the corner shop if he has any of the collectable Robinson's Golliwogs in stock, possibly.
I have no idea how he'd react.
 
Oli said:
Good question - much like asking the *cough* coloured guy in the corner shop if he has any of the collectable Robinson's Golliwogs in stock, possibly.
I have no idea how he'd react.
Click to expand...

I remember (oh god i'm so old) some comedian whose name escapes me but he would have be labelled 'half caste' in those days doing a piece about having a conversation with a pink-cheeked, blue-eyed, blonde:

"And she called me coloured..."
 
Charlie Williams?

He's the one that used to say "If you don't laugh I'll come and live next door to you".
 
Oli said:
I don't know how many of you have heard about Peter (Lord of the Rings) Jackson's proposed remake of The Dambusters film, but one point of contention is over one particular word: the name of Guy Gibson's dog (and also the code word used to indicate the bombs had been dropped).
Should political correctness outweigh historical accuracy (and "respect" - the dog's grave is actually a war memorial at RAF Scampton from where the mission flew)?

The latest I've heard on this that the RAF will refuse any cooperation with Jackson at all should he choose to re-name the dog for the film.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Screw political correctness.

As far as I'm concerned, if a guy is willing to climb into an airplane and risk his life to strike a blow against some bunch of tyrannical friggin' lunatics, he can call his dog any God damn thing he pleases, and if you're going to tell his story then tell it right - "warts " & all - or don't bother.

Fuck Peter Jackson in any event.
 
I find the term "nigger" to be offensive. But, it is a historical story. He called his dog "nigger" then he called his dog "nigger". It should be told as it happened and not changed to suit the PC crowd. He could very well be a racist arse, but you can't alter history. Tell it like it is or don't tell it at all. Let people make up their own minds from the true facts, not the altered story.

Fuck Peter Jackson in any event.
Click to expand...

Eww no thanks.
 
takandjive said:
You know PRECISELY why it's racist.
Click to expand...

In context, in the UK at the time, it wasn't.

Like I said, latterday uses don't mean the word gets vetoed for ever.

Here's an analogy, to explain it to you. I live in an area heavily populated by Indians. (in the UK). Indian women often draw patterns on their hands in Henna. One such lady who works at my local supermarket does this, and one of the shapes I have seen on her hand, is a Swastika. In her culture, it means something different, and is not an endorsement of Nazism. I understand the context.

Now, are white people not allowed a cultural heritage, where the word 'nigger' solely meant 'black', and was nothing to do with racism? I have nothing to apologise for, so do not feel any need to revise history.
 
phlogistician said:
In context, in the UK at the time, it wasn't.

Like I said, latterday uses don't mean the word gets vetoed for ever.

Here's an analogy, to explain it to you. I live in an area heavily populated by Indians. (in the UK). Indian women often draw patterns on their hands in Henna. One such lady who works at my local supermarket does this, and one of the shapes I have seen on her hand, is a Swastika. In her culture, it means something different, and is not an endorsement of Nazism. I understand the context.

Now, are white people not allowed a cultural heritage, where the word 'nigger' solely meant 'black', and was nothing to do with racism? I have nothing to apologise for, so do not feel any need to revise history.
Click to expand...

Actually, further more in complete agreement with you, the term's original US meaning is one of complete neutrality and simply a derrivitive of the Spanish word negro or black. The term has become one of those contextual reference pejorative thingamabobs that society these days associates with hate and demeaning someone according to race.

Originally, when someone referred to people as niggers, it just meant blacks. So if someone were to state that the niggers were holding a big fish fry at the Methodist church this Sunday, that would be absolutely no different than substituting "the black community" some 75 years later. Nowadays, via a slice of social evolutionary pie, it would just be stated that the Methodist church is having a fish fry this Sunday.

I love what someone said about "whitewashing history". We wouldn't want to blackwash it either. History is one of those things that we almost have to consider unoffensive on personal level if we are to accurately study it and learn from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top