Maybe we should rewrite history and miss out all those nasty bits such as: slavery; hanging, drawing and quartering; child labour in factories; The Irish Famine; workhouses; deportation. I'm sure the PC Police can think of many more.

Let me guess -- you're white?

So if I correctly understand you:

They change the dog's name to ... Blackie. Movie-goers leave the cinema in shocked disbelief at this clear altering of historical fact. Reviews pull it up as a major flaw in an otherwise fine film. Black people protest the black dog not being called Nigger. The world is disappointed.

Or...

They leave it in and call the dog Nigger. The name of the bloody dog has absolutely nothing to do with the plot at all. It is less than nothing. The dog could be practically be called anything. But they leave it in because some nostalgia racist thinks it is important it is in. The casual racism of those times is shown to everyone. People leave ... happy.

How about you find a black person and explain to them why you think the dog should be called Nigger?

It's like the BBC with Dr Who and the new Merlin. Lots of ethnic groups living side by side in times when Britain wasn't like that (the coronation in Dr Who and the court of King Arthur in Merlin). Shall we put an Englishman in the next remake of Don Quixote, or a Scot working in the cottonfields of Roots? In films/TV programmes etc about today, show the wonderful multicultural society of Britain, but don't rewrite history otherwise we'll get the equivalent of Mussolini rewriting Italy's past to suit his own means all over again.

Saying that, I think they're right to change the dog's name. It would overshadow the truly wonderful story that is the Dambusters. The name is offensive and irrelevant to the story. If the main character was called that and then had his/her name changed, then yes, I would agree it was too much, but it's only a dog that didn't really do much to end the war, did it?

Anyway, saying that, why the hell are they bloody making a remake of an absolutely fabulous film in the first place ? Find out what life's really like in Spain. Please visit my blog: Tales from La Terraza

It's all a matter of risk assessment.

Those inane warnings on consumer products (like a coffee cup that says "Contents may be HOT!") are put there in order to cover the company's butt in case some idiot hurts himself with their product. They can point to the warning and say "We warned him!"

Here, we're weighing 'historical accuracy' against the offense caused by a dog with the N-word for a name. As someone else has said, the dog is a minor character at best, and it probably had little to no outcome on the war. The historical accuracy of a dog's name has about as much historical importance as the color of a general's shoes.

The N-word is one of those incendiary words that is always seen as inappropriate, and it would cause an unnecessary uproar that would overshadow the movie. Particularly since not only is the N-word being uttered, it's being affixed to a dog, a creature that is seen as beneath men.

Weighing a tiny historical nuance (which had no actual effect on history) against a public outcry, they made the intelligent choice which would make all their lives easier. I mean, which would you rather have angry at you, a huge ethnic group or a few anal-retentive historians? Besides, it's not like movies have always been bastions for historical accuracy (just watch any Mel Gibson movie.)

Look on the bright side. They could have kept it how it is deliberately not for accuracy, but in order to drum up a ton of negative publicity so people would pay attention to the release. Then they'd be exploiting this historical tidbit for their own gain, which would just be disgusting.
-Chro