Warning Touchy subject: Dambusters dog is now called Digger not Nigga

[Ducimus]

The frog just hates Americans and jumps at any opportunity to act on that hatred. I love the new anti American sig pic too. It is rather artistic, i'll give it that. Whatever floats your boat i guess. American hatred is nothing new to me, I've seen it first hand, in real life, in my face when i wore an uniform. It's just always interesting when people get (or get more) vocal with it, which is the only reason I point it out at all - i find it funny. I find it funny because its as pathetic and ignorant as they make us out to be in the first place.


Back on topic, Did i mention im a Carlin fan?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

Hey Alex, you do realize that the Dambusters were British right?

Really?

Originally Posted by MH

What you wrote still reads like sort typical french cliché....good they let de Gaulle march into Paris or is it?.

Yea him and a bunch of Spaniards.

Really?

Nice, but the thing is the actual "british" dambusters were from all over the place and only some of them were British

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

So we forgo history and favour RE-writing it, just to be politically correct?
Well, what's the point of having history at all then?
Historical accuracy? Nope.
But, it would just be easy meat for the media if it wasn't changed.
They better start remaking a ton of films then and re-writing history.
Burying or hiding or changing history is not being realistic.

Please tell me a time when history was not written/rewritten to serve some agenda?

This is why on most (all?) historical subjects there are multiple writings on the history from different viewpoints.

[joea]

Alex that's the biggest WTF post I've read so far this year? Nice way to spit on veteran's graves too.

Edit: To prove I am not anti-French here is a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...g_World_War_II

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Please tell me a time when history was not written/rewritten to serve some agenda?

I agree and that is my point.
On a side note: written and RE-written are 2 different things i would have thought.

This is why on most (all?) historical subjects there are multiple writings on the history from different viewpoints.

Yea, sure, but that flows into the same thing which you said previously.
And i agree again.
And i also state that writing history is one thing, re-writing is from another.
And ofc you will get many differing view points about the same topic in history.
Firstly that is because of the author trying to sell his/her book/film, secondly because they have unearthed details/facts about that topic that others haven't previously, which is nowadays highly unlikely because history has been written in different styles and view points so many times.
And thirdly, history has been written pointing out so many differing views because, well, it's human, everyone has differing views and it's all about how it is presented, be it a book or film.
Different views on the same topic?
That's fine with me.
Historical accuracy suffering because you need to be politically correct so that you can make more money out of your publication? Wrong! Fail!