3 ms·

> Lets not redact history for modern sensibilities, history is dirty and does not conform to our wishes, they were called ..., now continue reading the article.

> Lets not redact history for modern sensibilities, history is dirty and does not conform to our wishes, they were called ..., now continue reading the article. Like many similar statements, the real message of rurounijones' comment is about aggressiveness. By intentionally behaving badly (being offensive, smug, etc.) they hope to intimidate others who would disagree but don't want a fight, or to be modded down. It adds nothing to the discussion and does not belong on HN. Some situations in life can be complicated, but in this case it's simple to treat people with respect; the author did it and we should too.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rurounijones 12y ago
History is history, it is written fact (usually), if someone is going to write about historical record, like in this article, then they should report it accurately rather than through a "Modern sensibilty" filter. Feel free to clarify: For example "they were unfortunately called 'squaws' which is an offensive term" or something like that. It (A) educates (and means I don't have to go to wikipedia to find the missing information) and (B) educates about why it might be better not to use this word (I certainly didn't know it is considered offensive by some) instead of treating us like children. When old episodes of Tom and Jerry were released on DVD featuring a "stereotypical" black housewife they did not cut them or alter them. They simply put a message before the episodes explaining that they are not appropriate nowadays but the environment they were created in is not the same as it is today. Fun fact: When the Dambusters blew the Moehne Dam in WWII they transmitted "Nigger Nigger Nigger" on the radio to signal success. * Did they do it because they were racists? No (Name of the squadron mascot dog). * Would I recommend using this word in military operations now? Hell no. * Would I expect an article about the raid to change or omit the word? No. * Is the use of the dog's name causing controversy? Unfortunately yes.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  TBH I'm sure the military nowadays hasn't improved in that respect; "sand niggers" is a term I've heard a few times, and I'm sure there's more terms like that used to refer to 'enemy combatants'.
  - growupkids 12y ago
    What's your point? That anecdotally you've heard that someone in the military used a term that's offensive, and you then therefore conclude that the military is just as racist now as it was then? You're wrong. The US military used to be segregated back then, now it's not and actually desegregated before the rest of the country. As proof of a watershed change, the former chairman of the joint chiefs was African American, there are many minority generals and admirals in the US military, the military has a robust EEO program and outright quotas for leadership positions, including for officers. And much more. It's not helpful to assert nothing's changed based on an anecdote, clearly a lot has changed.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      "Military service" is correlated with "conservative politics" which is correlated with "racism".
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  If they weren't racists they would have given the dog a different name.
  - rurounijones 12y ago
    You are making assumptions of others motives based on your knowledge and emotions regarding the word which is different from people in the UK 60 odd years ago. "Nigger" was a reasonably common name for black dogs then. There are a few other notable examples on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_%28dog%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_%28dog%29
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      People in the UK were racist as fuck back in the 40s (not as much as, say, white US southerners, of course)
      - rurounijones 12y ago
        Ok, let me put it another way. Prove the dog was called "Nigger" because Guy Gibson was racist... and "He must be racist otherwise he wouldn't have called the dog that" does not count since that is circular reasoning. Unless the dog's name came from racist motivations the name itself (and the word) loses racial overtones UNLESS the listener decides to add them again in which case it is the listener who is at fault for assigning motivations the speaker (namer) in this case, didn't have.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rurounijones 12y ago

History is history, it is written fact (usually), if someone is going to write about historical record, like in this article, then they should report it accurately rather than through a "Modern sensibilty" filter. Feel free to clarify: For example "they were unfortunately called 'squaws' which is an offensive term" or something like that. It (A) educates (and means I don't have to go to wikipedia to find the missing information) and (B) educates about why it might be better not to use this word (I certainly didn't know it is considered offensive by some) instead of treating us like children. When old episodes of Tom and Jerry were released on DVD featuring a "stereotypical" black housewife they did not cut them or alter them. They simply put a message before the episodes explaining that they are not appropriate nowadays but the environment they were created in is not the same as it is today. Fun fact: When the Dambusters blew the Moehne Dam in WWII they transmitted "Nigger Nigger Nigger" on the radio to signal success. * Did they do it because they were racists? No (Name of the squadron mascot dog). * Would I recommend using this word in military operations now? Hell no. * Would I expect an article about the raid to change or omit the word? No. * Is the use of the dog's name causing controversy? Unfortunately yes.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
TBH I'm sure the military nowadays hasn't improved in that respect; "sand niggers" is a term I've heard a few times, and I'm sure there's more terms like that used to refer to 'enemy combatants'.
- growupkids 12y ago
  What's your point? That anecdotally you've heard that someone in the military used a term that's offensive, and you then therefore conclude that the military is just as racist now as it was then? You're wrong. The US military used to be segregated back then, now it's not and actually desegregated before the rest of the country. As proof of a watershed change, the former chairman of the joint chiefs was African American, there are many minority generals and admirals in the US military, the military has a robust EEO program and outright quotas for leadership positions, including for officers. And much more. It's not helpful to assert nothing's changed based on an anecdote, clearly a lot has changed.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    "Military service" is correlated with "conservative politics" which is correlated with "racism".
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
If they weren't racists they would have given the dog a different name.
- rurounijones 12y ago
  You are making assumptions of others motives based on your knowledge and emotions regarding the word which is different from people in the UK 60 odd years ago. "Nigger" was a reasonably common name for black dogs then. There are a few other notable examples on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_%28dog%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_%28dog%29
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    People in the UK were racist as fuck back in the 40s (not as much as, say, white US southerners, of course)
    - rurounijones 12y ago
      Ok, let me put it another way. Prove the dog was called "Nigger" because Guy Gibson was racist... and "He must be racist otherwise he wouldn't have called the dog that" does not count since that is circular reasoning. Unless the dog's name came from racist motivations the name itself (and the word) loses racial overtones UNLESS the listener decides to add them again in which case it is the listener who is at fault for assigning motivations the speaker (namer) in this case, didn't have.