How many people here at Hatrack think what Prince Harry did was totaly out of hand? What the hell was he thinking? "well im going to a party." Yea, mabye i should dress up as Hitler this year for halloween and were a big ass swatzika on my arm. I think what ever comes out of this, loss of pride, humilation on his part, he damn well deserves it.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Umm... No offense, but I really don't care about Prince what-ever-his-name-is in the least. Or any of the other various left over European royalty either. They can do whatever they want, whatever makes them happy. What they do, is none of mine, nor anyone elses business. Poor guy deserves some bloody privacy.
Posted by ScyllaTheRock (Member # 7255) on :
O, i just heard about this on the news, and i thought it was repulsive. I really don't like the Europeans that much anyway.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Oye... the fact that you heard about that on the news makes me sick (not at you, at the news). They should stop wasting their time invading these poor peoples privacy and go find something better to write a report on, like perhaps this BS the Bush administration pulled with the DoEd and paying off people to essentially market 'No Child Left Behind'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Honestly, I didn't mind what Harry did at all, and I think the British tabloids need to cut that poor kid some slack before they completely ruin his life. It's hard enough growing up in Will's shadow, but it's got to be awful to be stereotyped early as the less handsome, less talented, less intelligent, less tasteful, and ultimately useless one.
He dressed up as a Nazi for a costume party. This is like dressing up like a vampire, a zombie, or Freddy Krueger. If I got upset every time someone came to a Halloween party dressed as the undead because I objected to brain-eating....
His mistake, if he made one at all, was to assume that everyone is "over" the Nazi menace. But let's not pillory the guy for it.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:This is like dressing up like a vampire, a zombie, or Freddy Krueger. If I got upset every time someone came to a Halloween party dressed as the undead because I objected to brain-eating....
Weeell . . . I could argue that that's different. Vampires and zombies and so on don't actually exist, and never have. They're purely folklore and fiction, and no real person has ever been killed by a zombie. The same cannot be said of Nazis.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Did anyone else get confused and think that the actor who played Harry Potter showed up at a party as a nazi. Because I could have sworn that's what the AIM headlines said...
Or maybe I've been reading a tad too much Harry Potter fanfic recently.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Harry/Adolph?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tom, I think you underestimate the horror Europeans still feel at that episode. Also, remember that there are still some highly nasty organisations around holding to that ideology, who would like nothing better than to claim the support of the british Royal Family. Like it or not, and I'm not saying he should like it, comrade Harry is in the public eye.
The King of Norway is sixtieth in line to the British throne, apparently. I wonder how much you'd have to spend on assassins to bring that about? Comrade Crown Prince Håkon has never been the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least he's not an actual spoon like some people we could mention.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
It's a hard choice, but if I have to choose, I would pick Dagonee! Oh wait...
quote:His mistake, if he made one at all, was to assume that everyone is "over" the Nazi menace.
I think it means more to the British, given that they were bombed by the Nazis and were close to being invaded.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Does a sick feeling come over people when they see someone dressed up as Count Dracula? No. Does a sick feeling come over the victims of Nazi tyranny when they see someone dressed up as a Nazi? Yes.
Dressing up to a costume party like Nazi is like telling incredibly offensive racist or sexist jokes in jest. The person telling them might not actually be racist or sexist, but people are certainly offended as well they should be.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I just wonder what costume shop was selling his outfit...Unless he got some designer to make his shirt (Not much of a costume, really. Basically looked like one of those stupid tuxedo t-shirts. Personally, I really don't care what he did. I think it was a move of stupidity on his part, but jeez. I do not care what some teenager (He's still a teenager, right? Or am I going to have to freak out that he's over 20?) in England did (And honestly, he is just some teenager because I really don't care about the British royal family in the least.).
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Also, remember that there are still some highly nasty organisations around holding to that ideology, who would like nothing better than to claim the support of the british Royal Family.
quote:Does a sick feeling come over people when they see someone dressed up as Count Dracula? No. Does a sick feeling come over the victims of Nazi tyranny when they see someone dressed up as a Nazi? Yes.
Exactly. I know people who lived through the Nazi era and remember very vividly what things were like. Nazis are more than just "bad taste". The negative reaction to them is visceral and absolute.
How many people can you name who have had personal dealings with vampires? Even the real life man Dracula was based on has been dead long enough that no one alive today has ever been affected by all his impalings. He's a historical figure, no more "real" to us today than Superman or Ender. But even though Hitler has been dead more than half a century, there are still plenty of people who remember him, and plenty of people who still love what he stood for and would do anything to see it revived.
So yes, I think dressing up as a Nazi for a Halloween party is more than just bad taste. I think it's incredibly stupid, insensitive, and more than a little sinister. It's not the same as vampires at all.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
here is my question, If i went to the party as a nazi, would the world be criticizing me? NO. I would be with people whom I'm well aquatinted with and who's tastes I have felt out. I'm willing to bet not a single person at the party even gave Prince Harry's costume a second thought, well maybe they wondered who screwed it up, but thats probably about it. The only people who are making a big deal out of this are moronic fools who are holding him to much higher standards than you'd hold even your own children (I apologize to those of you who this apply's to). Prince Harry has suffered more than enough for his faults, and also for the genes that make him up.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Unfortunately, the Prince is not just a teenager, even though I wouldn't address him as "your highness" nor would I bow to him he is a representative of the British government. If he doesn't want that responsibility than he could abdicate and be rid of all the public scrutiny.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: The only people who are making a big deal out of this are moronic fools who are holding him to much higher standards than you'd hold even your own children (I apologize to those of you who this apply's to).
I hardly think its moronic to expect your children to not emulate Nazis and use cannabis.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I hardly think its moronic to expect your children to not emulate Nazis and use cannabis.
Dressing up as a Nazi is not emulating one.
quote:Unfortunately, the Prince is not just a teenager
He is to me.
[ January 13, 2005, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
nfl, that can be read as "Do not emulate Nazis, but smoke cannabis."
I honestly don't care. The Nazi uniform debacle is exactly the same over there as the Janet Jackson nipple is over here. When that happened, the Brits just pointed and laughed, calling us uptight puritains. The Economist went so far as to post the image of Jackson's nipple in it.
I think I can return fire and say, Ha ha ha, those Brits are such uptight... uhhh... historians? Posted by Jestak (Member # 5952) on :
Wow, what a waste of brainpower...I'm sorry, did I actually write that?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
nfl and/or someone with knowledge of the UK legal system- Really? Is there some British law that lets the son of the Crown Prince abdicate and have true privacy? Also, emulating is a bit too strong a word just for dressing up in a Hitler costume at a costume party. Openly expressing a sincere opinion in line with Nazism is pretty much the lower limit.
Offensive, but I hope he does not suffer any legal consequences. I suppose in some abstract sense he is as entitled to privacy as any other UK citizen, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for him. He knew or should have known what he would be getting into.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Dressing up as a Nazi is not emulating one.
Tell that to a Holocaust survivor.
quote: I think I can return fire and say, Ha ha ha, those Brits are such uptight... uhhh... historians?
I guess its time to dismiss September 11 as just history right?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: nfl and/or someone with knowledge of the UK legal system- Really? Is there some British law that lets the son of the Crown Prince abdicate and have true privacy?
Depends what you call "true privacy." The Prince would certainly no longer be an official member of the British government, but I don't suppose when he does something outrageous that the tabloids won't report on it.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
OK, what if the Bush twins dressed up as Osama Bin Laden for Halloween?
quote:Dressing up as a Nazi is not emulating one.
But it certainly is a step towards that direction.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Honestly, I didn't mind what Harry did at all
quote:He dressed up as a Nazi for a costume party. This is like dressing up like a vampire, a zombie, or Freddy Krueger. If I got upset every time someone came to a Halloween party dressed as the undead because I objected to brain-eating....
quote:The only people who are making a big deal out of this are moronic fools who are holding him to much higher standards than you'd hold even your own children (I apologize to those of you who this apply's to). Prince Harry has suffered more than enough for his faults
Frankly, I am shocked and appalled at these reactions. I find them almost as offensive as the act itself.
Tom, my husband's family was not destroyed by vampires, zombies, or Freddy Krueger - they were killed by the Nazis. Not only that, but every part of their family was destroyed. Andrew's grandfather went back to Germany to visit his town. Maybe if you saw pictures of him weeping on his father's broken headstone, you wouldn't be so quick to trivialize this.
Well, Stryker, considering that I'm Jewish and my husband is the grandchild of the sole survivors of the Nazi murder of their families, we would expect our children not to dress up as a Nazi for any reason ever. And we would immediately cut all ties to someone who did.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm. WWII killed 50 million people and was 60 years ago, giving roughly one million people per year ago. 9/11 killed 3000 people and was three years ago, so one thousand people / year. That makes it three orders of magnitude less important than WWII. Yep, time to get over that one.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If Bush's daughters did that it still wouldn't be even nearly as bad because although they are directly related to the President, they themselves are not members of the American government.
This has gotten special attention obviously because it is a member of the British royal family, but I think its something that should be condemned no matter who does it.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:I really don't like the Europeans that much anyway.
Way to generalise much. You spent much time there?
Besides, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't think that highly of you.
No.... wait.... neither do I.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
quote:Tell that to a Holocaust survivor.
If one brings the topic up in front of me, I will.
quote:Depends what you call "true privacy." The Prince would certainly no longer be an official member of the British government, but I don't suppose when he does something outrageous that the tabloids won't report on it.
Then why should he abdicate? Seems to have a potentially high cost for little or no benefit. People have the right to be offensive morons.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote: Dressing up as a Nazi is not emulating one.
Tell that to a Holocaust survivor.
I would have no problems doing that.
quote:OK, what if the Bush twins dressed up as Osama Bin Laden for Halloween?
First of all, there were a *lot* of people that dressed up as him this last halloween. Second of all, the Bush twins are connected to an acutal leader. I don't understand why people even care what the queen does.
[ January 13, 2005, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
There has been a lot of talk about how he is getting a harder rap because he is a prince. I think that is untrue. True, more people know about it because he is a prince and a representative of the British government, but wearing that uniform was beyond being insensitive. I would be very upset if someone I knew were to wear a Nazi uniform to a party, and when I have children someday, I would never let them out of the house dressed like that.
I really don't understand why people don't think this is a big deal. Wouldn't you be shocked if a member of the American government went to a party dressed like they were in the KKK?
We should never let ourselves get desensitized to hate to the degree that the symbols of hate become funny or somehow acceptable.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Would you be upset if the Bush twins dressed up as Osama Bin Laden?
By the way, was the prince dressed up as a Nazi or simply as the Duke of Windsor?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Putting aside the rightness or wrongness of wearing the costume for a minute, the reactions were absolutely predictable. This kid is what, third in line for the throne? There had to be a lot of points in the chain from his first getting the idea to putting it on where the thought, "Maybe this isn't such a good idea?" crossed his mind.
It makes me wonder if this outcry wasn't the intended result. And if it was, then it's hideously wrong, because he knew he would be causing great pain to people.
He's a very troubled guy. He needs to grow up.
Dagonee
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Higher standards than our children?
Two things.
First of all, he should absolutely be held to high standards. He is royalty. Whether he likes it or not, he is in the public eye, and his actions reflect on his entire nation on the world stage. It may be foolish that the world stage cares what some kid does, and it may be a throwback to an obsolete era when there would have been a chance he'd one day come into real power. But that doesn't change the fact. He is the son of the heir to the throne of one of the more powerful countries of the world. That makes him a public figure, and a highly visible one at that. A private person's indiscretions may be their own business, but Prince Henry of Wales by definition is not a private person.
Secondly, why do you make assumptions about the standards we'd hold our own children to? How many people here would let their own children go to a Halloween party dressed as a Nazi? I'm sure some would, not because they're Nazi sympathizers but simply because they don't see why it matters. But I do see, and I sure as hell would not let my children.
(And yes, linguistically speaking, "emulate" is too strong a word. To emulate means to strive to be like, or more precisely, to attempt to surpass. Prince Harry was not emulating the Nazis, he was merely dressing up as one. A much lesser crime, surely, but still one for which he should have known better. His life is not his own, and as that has been the case his entire life, he should at least be used to it, even if he doesn't like it.)
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Then why should he abdicate? Seems to have a potentially high cost for little or no benefit. People have the right to be offensive morons.
The press can target anyone, you don't have to be a public figure to be targeted. Abdicating would make him less a public figure and therefore much more likely to be left alone in the long run if he wants to continue to do stupid things.
Having the right to does not equal shouldn't be condemned for it. I have the right to go outside and scream that I hate everyone who isn't white, but if I did so everyone would be very much justified in condemning me for it.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
If the Bush twins dressed up as bin Laden, I would laugh. That would be humorous in a way that some random person would not be. If their father (as well as the rest of our federal government) had not used 9/11 as a political tool, I could even see it being offensive. Now... if you are not offended by the big things, why worry about the small?
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Myeh, it still doesn't beat the kid who dressed up as a vagina for halloween.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I can be offended by both. I'm filled with venom and anger. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:First of all, he should absolutely be held to high standards. He is royalty.
I feel the opposite. Since he is royalty, he never has to actually accomplish anything. It wouldn't be fair to hold him up to the same standards we hold a normal college student.
quote:(And yes, linguistically speaking, "emulate" is too strong a word. To emulate means to strive to be like, or more precisely, to attempt to surpass. Prince Harry was not emulating the Nazis, he was merely dressing up as one. A much lesser crime, surely, but still one for which he should have known better. His life is not his own, and as that has been the case his entire life, he should at least be used to it, even if he doesn't like it.)
I can't disagree with that. (In this case, a double negative *does* make a positive -- I agree with you.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By the way, I don't think he's being held to a higher standard than any other children. Nazi apparel is shocking in Europe. My parents would certainly have grounded me if I'd tried anything of the sort.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Second of all, the Bush twins are connected to an acutal leader. I don't understand why people even care what the queen does.
****
I feel the opposite. Since he is royalty, he never has to actually accomplish anything. It wouldn't be fair to hold him up to the same standards we hold a normal college student.
Pirnce Harry lives a life of privilege. With that privilege comes responsibility. Granted he is not expected to lead a nation. He is however, expected to set an example for others.
Posted by ScyllaTheRock (Member # 7255) on :
It is just stupid, plain stupid. It is not the kind of stupid that is funny to watch like viva la bam and such shows, but stupid as in, wtf were you thinking. You dont just accidentally were that to a party. "Ooo looky here, this looks pretty, o no, its a what! o well."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Pirnce Harry lives a life of privilege. With that privilege comes responsibility.
Not really. What is he responsible for? Can that responsibility be taken away? If not, then it's not real.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
quote:Wouldn't you be shocked if a member of the American government went to a party dressed like they were in the KKK?
Only at their political ineptitude, assuming they were running for reelection.
quote:How many people here would let their own children go to a Halloween party dressed as a Nazi?
Under or over the age of majority? I have no right to force an adult to do or not do anything that is not blatantly... immoral is a poor word, but I cannot really think of the right one. It should certainly be legal, but I would personally condemn it as wrong, unless it was done as a statement promoting free speech.
quote:His life is not his own, and as that has been the case his entire life, he should at least be used to it, even if he doesn't like it.
The first part of that sentence is much more offensive than someone dressing up as a racist. The second is certainly true.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:I feel the opposite. Since he is royalty, he never has to actually accomplish anything. It wouldn't be fair to hold him up to the same standards we hold a normal college student.
I don't mean a higher standard of achievement. I mean a higher standard of behavior. Personally, I don't regard Prince Harry as very important. I don't regard anyone in a non-ruling royal family as very important. I think they're more like a hood ornament; they might look nice, sitting there on the car, but they don't actually do anything, and removing them wouldn't affect how the car runs.
(The same is obviously not true of monarchies where the monarch still rules rather than merely "reigns". So I'm not counting the Sultan of Brunei or the King of Saudi Arabia. But I am counting the British royal family, the Spanish king, the Dutch queen, the Japanese emperor, and any other royal figure with no actual power.)
But that doesn't change the fact that they are by definition in the public eye all the time. So it's not unreasonable to expect they watch their behavior a little more carefully than plain old John Q. Englishman the grocery store janitor.
(Of course, I think everyone ought to hold themselves to high standards. I'm not really a fan of debauchery, so people who go around living their lives like nothing they do matters don't really get much sympathy from me. But that's all beside the point.)
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Scylla, get over it. It was tasteless, but so is a lot of other stuff.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have no right to force an adult to do or not do anything that is not blatantly... immoral is a poor word, but I cannot really think of the right one.
For me, "tasteless" is a perfect word. So is "offensive".
quote:I don't mean a higher standard of achievement. I mean a higher standard of behavior.
I think it is unrealistic to expect somebody to behave better when they have never really had to face the natural consequences of their actions. I don't know him -- maybe he *has* had to face those consequences in his life, but I'm going from the assumption that he hasn't.
quote:But that doesn't change the fact that they are by definition in the public eye all the time.
By the definition of what?
[ January 13, 2005, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Prince Harry has both been raised in the public eye and has had to deal with running into trouble before. Among other problems he's already had drug abuse problems. He knows perfectly well the standards that he's held up to and the consequences for failing to live up to them.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:By the definition of what?
The fact that he's royalty. He's a potential heir to the throne. Like I said, I personally don't consider that as making him an important person. Even if something should happen to Prince William that puts Harry on the throne, he still wouldn't be an important person because the British monarch doesn't actually have any power. He could only become an important person if he actually accomplished something important. But important or not, he's still, even now, a potential king. That makes him an extraordinarily prominent public figure.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So not by definition, in other words. Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Not really. What is he responsible for? Can that responsibility be taken away? If not, then it's not real.
So the definition of responsibility is that it must be a burden that can be removed?
quote:responsibility: n 1: the social force that binds you to your obligations and the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr [syn: duty, obligation]
2: the proper sphere or extent of your activities; "it was his province to take care of himself" [syn: province]
3: a form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to someone for something or being responsible for one's conduct; "he holds a position of great responsibility" [syn: responsibleness] [ant: irresponsibility]
Prince Harry's responsibility is similar to the responsibility of someone who is expected to take over the family business. My college roommate, for example, is expected to take over the family auto part business. He is the only child and if he does not take over the business, the store will close and hundreds of people will be out of work. You can say he was born into this responsibility.
Prince Harry's family business requires him to be a symbol for his nation. It's a tough job (I'm not being sarcastic here) and I don't envy his life. But dressing up as a Nazi is not a simple teenage mistake like underage drinking or swearing in public. It is a shameful act that leaves a permanent black mark on the royal family.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:So not by definition, in other words.
Okay, fine, you caught me using a word rhetorically. Here I thought you were debating my thesis, and you were simply being pedantic.
"But Verily, you were being pedantic about the word 'emulate' earlier."
Only because the issue of whether it was too strong a word had already come up. I wouldn't have said anything otherwise, so there.
[ January 13, 2005, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Okay, fine, you caught me using a word rhetorically. Here I thought you were debating my thesis, and you were simply being pedantic.
Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that I had misunderstood you.
quote:"But Verily, you were being pedantic about the word 'emulate' earlier."
I started that as well.
[ January 13, 2005, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Tasteless is largely in the eye of the beholder, and not strong enough. Certainly not offensive; while this case was offensive and morally wrong, not all cases of someone getting offended are. Wrong (barring promotion of freedom of expression) but significantly more wrong to regulate.
"Drug abuse problems"? Unless I missed the latest bit of gossip, he smoked pot once or twice. It was a problem because of immoral (and thus largely irrelevant, especially to someone with his connections) laws. Besides, latest propaganda on this side of the ocean is that it is a disease, not a moral failing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:while this case was offensive and morally wrong
Those words are too strong for me to agree with.
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Is there some sort of government pre-approved costume list I can get so I can make sure that I never ever in any way offend anyone?
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Why, don't you have common sense to figure it out for you?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I'm just going to go nakked just to be safe.
I see our new game is "find the right word"...
I nominate:
"loathsome"
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I also jumped on emulate. Why would his actions be a black mark on the entire family? An adult is responsible for his own actions and to a much lesser extent those of any minor children. I could almost see blaming his father, but then it would seem to absolve him of at least some of the blame, which does not seem right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is there some sort of government pre-approved costume list I can get so I can make sure that I never ever in any way offend anyone?
Sure. For starters, the military uniform of a party which systematically attempted to wipe out an entire race of people is right out.
Dagonee
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: I don't understand why people even care what the queen does.
Perhaps because the British taxpayers pay her salary. Much like the British taxpayers paid for the Nazi costume.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Why too strong? I admit I am assigning a partial motive of shock for no reason, because I have a hard time believing he is that oblivious or concerned about the rights of every person he "represents".
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Plenty of common sense, verily, but its faith in the common sense of others that I fear I lack.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm a fan of "youthful stupidity".
It may have been some sort of rebelliousness, but at the very least it was youthful stupidity. Should he learn he shouldn't do it? Yes, though its not our job to teach him. Does it mean much, really? Nope. I'm far more worried about what some frats have their members do during initiation.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Why would his actions be a black mark on the entire family?
The whole idea of royalty is based on the superiority of royal bloodlines. So the stupid actions of one member of the family reflects badly on the entire house of Windsor.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Much like I pay part of Bush's salary, probably his inauguration party, and the salaries of local police, state police, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the ATF, and of course the DEA. All of them wanted their jobs, and they do not represent me any more than Harry does the British populace.
Edit: but that idea is silly, and while slightly better than advocating discrimination, seems pretty much the same as saying white people are naturally superior. Not that the prince deserves any credit for this, but anything that acts as an example of the idea's falsehood has done some good. Probably more good than bad, because I doubt the prince dressing up really convinced anyone that maybe that Hitler guy was right after all.
Edit the second, responding to the post below: So abolish involuntary taxation, or at least cut out needless expenses. If you want to pay someone to be offensive, support dung on the Virgin Mary which was arguably somewhat more worthwhile, because it is "art".
[ January 14, 2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
We pay Bush's salary for him to be our president. We do not pay an allowance for his daughters.
The entire house of Windsor is probably supported by taxpayer money as well as wealth accumulated by previous family members in their capacity as monarchs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The whole idea of royalty is based on the superiority of royal bloodlines.
Does anybody actually believe that anymore? I don't think so.
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Link Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Plenty of common sense, verily, but its faith in the common sense of others that I fear I lack.
Believe me, I sympathize. And it's basically true that everything offends somebody, so we shouldn't get all stressed out worrying about our every action and who may be offended. However, some actions are so abonimable, or so rebellious, or so whatever, that it's not a question of whether a few high-strung people will be offended.
That's why our own common sense must serve. There's nothing in the employee handbook of my company that specifically says that men can't dress up as Cleopatra to come to work. There shouldn't have to be. I know that if I dress as Cleopatra to go to work, that's too shocking and unprofessional to be permitted, and I would get in trouble for it. I don't need to ask my boss if it's okay to know that it's not. My common sense tells me that it's not, and so I don't do it.
(Well, there's also the fact that I have no inclination to dress like Cleopatra for any reason. But that's beside the point.)
quote:The whole idea of royalty is based on the superiority of royal bloodlines. So the stupid actions of one member of the family reflects badly on the entire house of Windsor.
In that regard, it may be too late for the Windsors already. Harry isn't exactly the first bad apple to fall out of that barrel.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I believe they receive stipends, and have personal, family wealth that is not insignificant as well.
However, let's assume he purchased the coustume with his stipend.
After I pay my local policeman's wage, it is none of my business what he choses to do with it. If he wants to go out and buy porn videos, I do not consider that I paid for the porn videos. I paid for his services as a police officer. He paid for the porn.
I don't have to approve of the porn, and he doesn't have to ask me to. It's his money now.
Prince Harry is in a tough spot. He has amazing opportunities, but little to no privacy. He did not ask to be there, and has no real way out.
I think him wearing a nazi coustume to a party was stupid and offensive. He certainly had a right to do it. Doesn't make it any less stupid or offensive. Eventually, he'll probably get tired of the flak when he does something stupid and offensive and simmer down to a sullen but unobtrusive side-note to the royal family. Either that or burn out spectacularly. Regardless, all this crap wouldn't be news if people didn't watch and listen to it.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
It's like ElJay has a philotic link to my brain.
Okay... now what am I thinking about.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Me!
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Ooooh... I'm sorry. The answer was "chocolate".
Unless you're made of chocolate - then, you win! (And come over to my house, pronto.)
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:"The whole idea of royalty is based on the superiority of royal bloodlines."
Does anybody actually believe that anymore? I don't think so.
I'm sure most people do not believe the royals are somehow better people than the rest of us. However, that fiction has to be maintained in order for royalty to continue its ceremonial function. There's a reason why I cannot become the king of England. And of course, the world is poorer for it.
quote:After I pay my local policeman's wage, it is none of my business what he choses to do with it. If he wants to go out and buy porn videos, I do not consider that I paid for the porn videos. I paid for his services as a police officer. He paid for the porn.
The policeman's job is to serve and protect. Watching porn probably doesn't hinder that. The royals are paid to be figureheads. Their job is to represent England in the best light possible. When one of them insults the memory of the holocaust and the WWII veterans who died defending England, I'd say they are not doing their jobs.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
So that's what it takes to be invited over to Ralphie's...
vwiggen, yes, the policeman's job is less stringent. The policeman also chose his job and has the option of quitting.
Please note, I'm not saying what he did was not wrong, and did not run counter to the best interests of the royal family. I'm saying of all the reasons to get upset over it, I don't think that the "taxpayers bought the coustume" one is particularly valid.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
*chips off a piece of ElJay*
quote:The policeman also chose his job and has the option of quitting.
That's a good point. Having every aspect of your life examined by the tabloids must be very taxing. This is why I would never fault the prince for doing average stupid teenage things. But to select a Nazi costume, put it on, and wear it in public? That cannot be excused as a thoughtless teenage act.
Edited to add: Harry is 20. All this time I thought he was sixteen or something.
quote:Prince Harry apologized after he wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party two weeks before Queen Elizabeth is due to lead the country's holocaust memorial events.
[ January 14, 2005, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ouch!
And I would never "excuse" it, as a thoughtless teenage act or otherwise. You'll note I said it was stupid and offensive.
The sole argument that I am making in this thread is that once he is paid the money is his to do with as he wishes, and the taxpayers have no right to say what he can or cannot do with the stipend they choose to pay him. If they don't like it, they can pass a law that says the monarchy can't hire military coustumes, or be seen in public in anything but traditional English garb, or just abolish the entire silly thing. Until they do that, he can do what he wants with his money.
Edit for clarity: By "the entire silly thing" I mean "the monarchy." But then whatever would they do for entertainment?
[ January 14, 2005, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Verily - Invalid comparison. You chose to work for a company that very likely has a dress code. If there was no dress code at all, then they have the right to add a condition of employment but not to discipline you in any way. Besides, negative social feedback from your coworkers should be enough to convince you to change. Of course, in today's society you might just be able to sue for discrimination should they take any action, depending on your state, county, and city.
Personally I would find it mildly unappetizing to look at, but cross-dressing is a far cry from dressing up as mass murderer. If a coworker cross-dressed, I would make every effort to treat him or her with the same dignity and respect as anyone else. If a coworker dressed up as Hitler, I would express my disgust.
EIJay - You might be perfectly happy to fund all of the (legal) actions of the police. I am not, and would not pay that portion had I the option. I am forced into it. Harry was just offensive, but caused no measurable, tangible harm to anyone. This is absolutely not the case with the police; they ruin people's lives... and that is making the often (though far from completely) false assumption that they are operating entirely within the bounds of the law. Sure, I am just a selfish drug addict, but keep in mind the very real civil rights abuses that were legally sanctioned well into the latter half of the past century, and if you are for gay rights continue into this one.
A while back, my CD player was stolen from my truck. I went through the motions of filing a report. I have yet to recover it, and if the thief was caught he certainly was not prosecuted for mine, or more relevantly forced to provide compensation. Are the police really going to arrive in time to stop an assault, rape, or murder, even assuming the criminal was nice enough to let their victim(s) call 911? Sure, they might catch him afterwards... revenge is sweeter if it is personal, and can never really erase acts of violence anyway.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:That's a good point. Having every aspect of your life examined by the tabloids must be very taxing. This is why I would never fault the prince for doing average stupid teenage things. But to select a Nazi costume, put it on, and wear in public? That cannot be excused as a thoughtless teenage act.
Exactly. Smoking weed and punching out paparazzi (which he shouldn't do, but let's be honest, don't paparazzi all deserve a good whacking anyway?) is one thing. But this Nazi costume thing is a slap in the face to everyone who survived the Holocaust, a posthumous slap in the face to the millions upon millions of people who died in it, and a backward-V sign (the British equivalent of the middle finger) to his own countrymen who fought and died to stop the Nazis. I can't stress enough that he should know better than that.
quote:Verily - Invalid comparison[. . .]
I wasn't comparing dressing like Cleopatra to dressing like Hitler. I was responding to Anti-Chris's notion that we'd need some kind of list telling us exactly what we can and can't do to avoid offending people. I was asserting that common sense should be enough to help us avoid the more major blunders.
[ January 14, 2005, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I take it you haven't spent much time around college students, v.
While we're certainly not all like that, there are plenty of fairly intelligent people who have odd impulses they sometimes don't manage to control to do really stupid stuff in college.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Hey, I'm only three years out of grad school. I'm not old dang it!
quote:And I would never "excuse" it, as a thoughtless teenage act or otherwise. You'll note I said it was stupid and offensive.
I know. That sentence was a general statement and not directed at you.
[ January 14, 2005, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Danzig, I merely picked the police as an example of someone who's wages are paid by my taxes, not because I particularly approve of their actions. You must have missed my recent visit to the police station story. Call it the garbage man, if you prefer, if they are city-paid in your town. They are in mine.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Eljay-
It's not the most compelling reason. However, many people are asking why people care what anyone in the royal family does. The only function the royal family serves is to be cared about. The people of Britain pay them to be cared about. It seems silly to then turn around and blame the British people for caring.
I think this is probably one more step towards the abolishment of the royal family, myself. I can't see the British people allowing Prince Charles to ascend the throne. Though of course, I'm not actually in any position to judge.
[EDIT to add] He is not paid the money to do with as he wishes, he's paid the money to keep himself in a manner that befits his position and does credit to his country. The use of the word salary was not entirely accurate, but I couldn't come up with stipend at the time and it was as close as I could get.
[ January 14, 2005, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I am afraid I did. I got the (very possibly mistaken) impression from your post that you were not particularly upset at paying their salary, though. I am. The garbage collection provides a service I actually want, so I have no problem with funding that. If I found out they were racist in their hiring practices, I would be similarly angry at paying them were I forced to. If I learned that a large majority were using their disposable income to support racist schools of though, I would seriously consider switching if possible, although I would not feel nearly as obligated as I would were the institution itself racist.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmmmm. I agree with your first paragraph almost completely, blacwolve. I would expect the British people to care, and be shocked if they didn't. I would expect the uproar to possibly make him think twice next time.
I still don't agree, however, that there are conditions attached to the money.
As a side note, the second article linked to said that he rented the coustume... so while Europeans may still think it's a bigger deal than many of the people in this thread seem to, they still have nazi coustumes available for rent.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think we agree on the important thing, then. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Danzig, as the police for the most part do not affect my daily life, I care very little about them, actually. I don't particularly agree with some of our laws, including our drug laws, but since I don't personally break them I don't get too worked up about it. If I was going to get upset with where my tax dollars go, there are several other places I'd get upset about first.
But whether I would chose to fund a particular tax-payer supported service or not... if I want to, I can try to get it changed. But as long as it's there, once the money is paid to the person providing the service, I believe it is theirs to do with as they wish.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
blacwolve, good. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He went WAY over the line this time, and I OD think it is the peoples right to know what he is doing....the royal family has no job, othre than figureheads, and it seems like this idiot isn't even suited for that.
After all the suffereing his country sffered in WWII, this was way beyond crss and rude..it is unexcusible.
Kwea
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I totally agree with you, Kwea.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
EIJay, while I focus on drug laws the most, I am opposed to all laws that attempt to regulate private behavior, and/or force one to pay for services they do not desire. The anti-sodomy laws did not affect me directly, nor do the amendments banning gay marriage, but I am fairly vigorous in opposing them online as well, and more so in real life.
Taxation is not voluntary, so I feel I have much more of a right to oppose paying the salaries of anyone who chose their job and takes my money by force. I care quite a bit more about a policeman or even a garbageman purchasing content I find distasteful than I do my landlord. I would have less of a problem paying Harry than I would for the British services I do not use, because he was forced into it and has received negative consequences as well. Still he and the rest of the royals are useless, and UK citizens should ask themselves why they want to pay people who have no moral obligation to the citizens in their capacity as royals.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
BTW, I disagree with Danzig on the police issue...not big suprise there. I have had both good and bad things happen with police in my life, but all I have to hear is Ed Sauron telling me how the police act in his country, and I suddenly am SO glad I live in the USA.
My uncle lived in Costa Rica for 7 years, and the only reason he was OK was he use to find jobs for the locals in the hotels, so the locals watched out for hom.
But he still needed to carry a loaded M-16 everywhere, or he would have been dead meat.
I'll stay right here, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
(((Mrs M)))
Anyone who thinks dressing up as Nazi is funny, smart, clever or simply ok should go visit Checkpoint Charlie. Spend a few hours there and then wonder why people get upset at visual reminders of the atrocities that occured, and the people that comitted them.
For the record, I think Harry's actions were ill-conceived, thoughtless and dumb. As he is in the spotlight (however much he may not wish to be) he should have thought how his costume could offend. He didn't - a mistake. He has apologised though.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
It could be worse; I do not deny that. It is far from good enough. Morally, there is still plenty of corruption, and the fact that they get paid to enforce laws against consensual crimes. What fraction are corrupt? For "big" issues, such as accepting money from the mob or even non-aggressive dealers, probably less than most people involved in illegal activities think. 10%? 5%? Enough that it is not particularly surprising when you do not know them personally. For "little" issues, more than people who believe breaking any law is immoral would like to admit. Done it once or twice? 75%? 50%? Make a habit? 50%? 25%? Enough to make you hope to get out of a speeding ticket, or drive two blocks home if he knows you and you are only .01 over the limit, or be let off with a stern warning if she catches you smoking pot with her own child. I will not even try to weigh "big" issues against "little" ones, except to say that excusing non-consensual crimes is obviously worse.
I specifically exclude from corruption police who sincerely oppose a law, and make every reasonable effort to let any offenders they catch go free, but only from laws they sincerely oppose and without showing favoritism, and only from laws against consensual crimes. That is valid civil disobedience.
Even if the US is the best country in the world, a statement I neither agree nor disagree with, it can always get better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But this Nazi costume thing is a slap in the face to everyone who survived the Holocaust, a posthumous slap in the face to the millions upon millions of people who died in it, and a backward-V sign (the British equivalent of the middle finger) to his own countrymen who fought and died to stop the Nazis."
Why? Again, wearing a zombie outfit is not advocating zombie-hood. If I dress as a chainsaw murderer, I'm not advocating murdering people with a chainsaw.
It is, I'll freely admit, insensitive. However, I sincerely doubt that it was a deliberate "slap" in any way; Harry's young enough and spoiled enough that I'm fairly certain that the whole Nazi movement was a distant, semi-mythical abstraction for him.
After all, I'm from a generation that's most likely to run into Nazis as generic villains in computer games or adventure movies; they're practically synonymous with "interchangeable bad guy."
Now, if he dresses like a Nazi again, he's asking for it -- but the guy gets a free pass for offending people accidentally once. Frankly, I'm rather glad he obviously chose his costume himself, without an aide's input -- as opposed to the panel his meticulously sculpted older brother would convene on that topic.
[ January 14, 2005, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Stupid kid. That's all.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Halloween before last, I was still in high school, and one of my Mexican friends came to school as an Arab terrorist -- beard, stubble, "ayayayayay"ing, robes...
And it cracked everyone up.
Dressing as a terrorist or as a Nazi for, as Tom said, a costume party, doesn't imply support for their beliefs. If anything, it serves only as a reminder of how monstrous these people are that they can be dressed up as for Halloween (for example, another of my friends came as Anna Nicole Smith) -- and does nothing but further polarize Nazi ideology from contemporary society.
That said, Harry knew he'd be in the public eye, and he probably should've -- or did? -- seen this coming. Stupid kid, but that just means we have an excuse to throw in inbreeding jokes, nothing more.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote:Why? Again, wearing a zombie outfit is not advocating zombie-hood. If I dress as a chainsaw murderer, I'm not advocating murdering people with a chainsaw.
Again I don't know of anyone who was killed by a zombie, but there a re still plenty of people who are the victims of the Nazi regime.
quote: Halloween before last, I was still in high school, and one of my Mexican friends came to school as an Arab terrorist -- beard, stubble, "ayayayayay"ing, robes...
I find it less likely that people would be laughing if they lost a family member in the attacks. Your example is also doubly stupid because it presents a racist stereotype.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:My uncle lived in Costa Rica for 7 years, and the only reason he was OK was he use to find jobs for the locals in the hotels, so the locals watched out for hom.
But he still needed to carry a loaded M-16 everywhere, or he would have been dead meat.
Uh. Maybe I'm just a lot more charming than everyone says I am, but I had no problems being a gringo in Costa Rica -- if anything, they're a hot commodity. They're usually educated or well-trained, they're hot sexual prospects for Ticos, and often well-off, which means creating jobs for the locals, which means popularity.
Granted, I was deep inside Costa Rica, in a largely remote village, but...
Costa Rica, I consider safe. Other countries, not so much, especially if you're female -- I wouldn't want to drive through Mexico without reservations in hotels with guarded parking, and my white skin would make me a target for any desperate man out there. But the smaller, relatively affluent countries, especially those with intense tourism from white countries, I'd judge to be safe for honkies. I didn't have a problem in Costa Rica, and I have yet to know a gringo who did. Maybe if you live in the poorer part of San Jose, but poverty inspires crime everywhere -- including here, dude.
But that's just my experience. Your uncle's might be different, or maybe he's just paranoid, but I've walked through lit LA at midnight, and I've walked for miles during pitch-black lonely roads in Costa Rica much later than that, and I've felt completely secure only in one of those places.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Dressing as a terrorist or as a Nazi for, as Tom said, a costume party, doesn't imply support for their beliefs.
If anything, it serves only as a reminder of how monstrous these people are that they can be dressed up as for Halloween (for example, another of my friends came as Anna Nicole Smith) -- and does nothing but further polarize Nazi ideology from contemporary society.
Or maybe it trivializes the very real pain and suffering people have experienced. Would you go trick or treating at a New York fire station wearing a terrorist costume? Would you dress up as a KKK member in Compton?
Like blacwolve said, Harry's job is to be a figurehead. When he goes to a party he knows his actions will be broadcasted all over the world. His Nazi costume is a real slap to all the people who had lost loved ones during WWII.
[ January 14, 2005, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Would people stop feeling sorry for Prince Harry.
He has no responsibilities. He gets to screw around for his entire life and can have whatever he wants. In exchange, when he does something stupid, it get's in the papers and he has to pretend he gives a **** about his mistake.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
vwiggin: In my opinion Harry's job isn't to be a figurehead, it's something imposed on him whether he liked it or not. He might be so accustomed to it right now as to agree with that himself, but I still think it's wrong to expect anything else from him than from any other teenager. And I also wonder if the tabloids actually cared about what he did or just wanted another "breaking news"...
Anyway, let's try this:
- dressing as Santa - Christian stuff; do you know how much damage was done in the name of Christianity to the American Indians?! - dressing as zombie - people must respect the dead, that's sooo disrespectful! - going naked - how can you possibly show up like that, have you no shame?! - dressing as Dracula - do you know how often Romania is associated with it and almost nothing else? - dressing as an American - sheesh, those guys who nuked Japan, went in Irak when it wasn't their war, etc. - dressing as a Roman - what about all those cultures that were quasi-lost because of their conquests? - dressing as an ape - people shouldn't degrade themselves by associating with lesser anymals!
I actually think they're all stupid reasons for not wearing a costume at a party, but I can also see at least one person being insulted by whatever costume one would choose...
And going to a party in a certain costume is certainly NOT equivalent to "treating at a New York fire station wearing a terrorist costume", in my opinion!
Let's try something else: how appropriate is to have a movie as "Hot Shots"?! We have scenes with Saddam Hussein, who many people consider one of the worst dictators ever. Can't I enjoy the movie because of that?!? If I dress in Saddam would it be more appropriate than dressing in Hitler? Less?
[ January 14, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Again, wearing a zombie outfit is not advocating zombie-hood. If I dress as a chainsaw murderer, I'm not advocating murdering people with a chainsaw.
As I already said, no real people have ever been killed by a zombie. And while chainsaw murderers are possible, they have been rare enough that if you dress as one to a costume party, the chances that someone else there will have had a loved one killed by a chainsaw is small enough that you'd probably be safe. The Nazis were on a rather larger scale than that. And because he is royalty, Prince Harry is on a larger scale than you are. The eyes of the world--including millions of people whose lives have been affected by the Holocaust, either living through it themselves or having lost family members in it--are constantly upon him. He's not just some random person going to some random costume party, and does not have the freedom that you or I have to make these mistakes. Whether anyone thinks that's fair or not--and I'm not saying it's fair, I'm only saying it's true--he should have taken that into consideration.
quote:However, I sincerely doubt that it was a deliberate "slap" in any way;
I didn't say it was deliberate. I doubt his thought processes in choosing his costume were, "Now how can I offend millions of people by going to this party? I've got it! I'll dress as a Nazi!" I doubt he intended to offend anyone at all. Such an offense doesn't have to be deliberate to still be offensive, however. As I've said numerous times, he should have taken his status and high visibility into consideration beforehand and realized that it wasn't an acceptable thing to do. That he didn't is not a sign that he was trying to offend. Only that he wasn't trying very hard not to.
quote:I find it less likely that people would be laughing if they lost a family member in the attacks. Your example is also doubly stupid because it presents a racist stereotype.
Yep. So a bunch of stupid kids thought dressing as a terrorist, trivializing the attacks and all the people who lost their lives in it, plus presenting a racist stereotype against Arabs to boot, was funny. That doesn't make it acceptable in the real world. No matter how loathsome your action, you can always find some lackwit who will find it funny. Put enough such lackwits into the same room, and you can give the illusion that consensus has decreed your action is funny. But that doesn't mean the real world would think so.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote: No matter how loathsome your action, you can always find some lackwit who will find it funny.
I find that a very sad thing to say... Whatever happened to "Always look at the bright side of life"?! I remember Ph. K. Dick said something like when you can't laugh anymore you're as good as dead... It's probably not a given for anyone to find something funny in a bad situation, but condemning someone because he finds it funny seems petty to me...
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:- going naked - how can you possibly show up like that, have you no shame?!
Ha! You don't know me very well do you.
quote:vwiggin: In my opinion Harry's job isn't to be a figurehead, it's something imposed on him whether he liked it or not. He might be so accustomed to it right now as to agree with that himself,
Just because he was born into the position doesn't mean his responsibility is any less real. It may be less fair, but not less real.
When Harry turned 18 he could have renounced his royal status and ask to be taken off the line of succession. He could also stop spending taxpayer's money and stop taking advantage of opportunities available only to members of the royal family. As far as I know he didn't do any of those things.
quote:but I still think it's wrong to expect anything else from him than from any other teenager.
He's almost 20 and probably received the finest education money can buy.
quote:Let's try something else: how appropriate is to have a movie as "Hot Shots"?! We have scenes with Saddam Hussein, who many people consider one of the worst dictators ever. Can't I enjoy the movie because of that?!? If I dress in Saddam would it be more appropriate than dressing in Hitler? Less?
I never saw Hot Shots, but for pure Nazi entertainment, watch The Producers and bask in the comedy genius of Hitler on Ice.
edited: clarified line of succession comment.
[ January 14, 2005, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I don't much care what happened to "Always look at the bright side of life", because I never followed such rose-colored mush. Perhaps I'm just stodgy, but I believe there are things that should not be taken lightly. The Holocaust is one of them.
As for your absurd list of "offensive" costumes a moment ago, you'll forgive me for dismissing it with a wave of the hand. If you lack the common sense to distinguish between dressing "as an American" and dressing "as a Nazi", then I suggest you avoid going to costume parties for awhile.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The royals are paid to be figureheads. Their job is to represent England in the best light possible.
Where are you getting this from? Is this more than just your personal view? Do you think that *they* would agree as to what their job is. I am not convinced that they would.
quote:That's a good point. Having every aspect of your life examined by the tabloids must be very taxing. This is why I would never fault the prince for doing average stupid teenage things. But to select a Nazi costume, put it on, and wear it in public? That cannot be excused as a thoughtless teenage act.
He didn't wear it in public. He wore it to a private party. It's quite a different thing.
quote:However, many people are asking why people care what anyone in the royal family does. The only function the royal family serves is to be cared about. The people of Britain pay them to be cared about. It seems silly to then turn around and blame the British people for caring.
Is it OK if I blame them for paying them to be cared about in the first place? I guess I'm too much of a yank to understand, but that seems like on of the silliest things in the world.
quote:After all, I'm from a generation that's most likely to run into Nazis as generic villains in computer games or adventure movies; they're practically synonymous with "interchangeable bad guy."
This is an excellent point. Somebody in the computer gaming industry said that there will allways be WWII games because Nazis make such good bad guys. Very much like zombies.
quote:Again I don't know of anyone who was killed by a zombie, but there a re still plenty of people who are the victims of the Nazi regime.
I personally know of as many people who have been killed by Nazis as zombies: none. It would not surprise me if it is the same for him.
quote:Would people stop feeling sorry for Prince Harry. He has no responsibilities. He gets to screw around for his entire life and can have whatever he wants.
This is exactly why I feel sorry for him.
quote:Just because he was born into the position doesn't mean his responsibility is any less real. It may be less fair, but not less real.
As I said before, I disagree with this. He has no real responsibilities.
[ January 14, 2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Look, Verily, I've said it in that same post, I don't equate those "reasons" with anything, some aren't reasons for not dressing for a party, some can't even be called "reasons" at all. BUT, I still can see people objecting to those outfits! And you haven't probably seen some of the older threads when Xaposert and others were talking about how Americans could be considered as terorists, or invaders. Strange as it might seem, I am in favor of the Irak war, and that it was time that someone got Saddam out of power. And I think he's a bad man and all. But I'd still laugh if I saw a friend of mine dressed in Saddam at a costume party.
quote: you'll forgive me for dismissing it with a wave of the hand
In all seriousness, no, I won't, unless you'll forgive me for "dismissing with a wave of the hand" the reason for which you think Harry's outfit wasn't suitable. Why deaths that happened a long time ago are less important than those that happened more recently?! How many killings it takes to be considered evil? How many "benefits" remove the "evil" tag? If Nazis won the war and afterward built a better society than this one due to the world being more united, what then? What if all the hate would have dissapeared in 10-15 generations? Would the war have been good or bad?!
And anyway I'm not in favor of considering entire people accountable for the wrongs done because of a dictatorship like Hitler's, Stalin's or Saddam's. I'm more enclined to Tolstoi view on history: a series of events that happened more because people aren't that concerned with the "big issues" or ready to take action to support what they think than viceversa.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think there are few things as offensive as dressing as a Nazi. If he wanted to be shocking, he could have gone as any number of things but a Nazi is one of the few things that is not acceptable. Treating him as a regular college student, this would be of very poor taste, treating him as a college student in the public eye it shows that he's merely out to shock, to prove that he is not going to toe anyone's line but his own. It's very stupid, but not surprising.
If my brother, son or something went to a party as a Nazi, I'd be absolutely furious. I hope he got a good a talking to (even as an adult, yes) because clearly he still only a kid.
EDIT: Going as a member of the KKK or a Suicide Bomber would be eqally poor choices. They're not funny whether you're famous or not.
[ January 14, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Is dressing as a Japanese one of them? Because, you know, they attacked the US at Pearl Harbour after all! Or it's not, because they didn't kill enough people, or because they killed not because they hated Americans, but just that they wanted to be able to conquer others without fearing that the Americans would intervene?!?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: I personally know of as many people who have been killed by Nazis as zombies: none. It would not surprise me if it is the same for him.
But there are people who you "know" on just this forum who have been affected personally by Nazis. When you're the Prince every action you take is representative of your entire country and whether or not you feel sorry for him haveing such a responsibility does change the fact that he has it.
Corwin, being objectionable to a small group of people is not the same as being extremely offensive to a large group of people who have personally suffered at the hands of the Nazis. It would be equally objectionable for a Kuwaiti official to dress up as Saddam when his country had been invaded and occupied by that man. In consideration of those feelings we should also abstain from actions that are that offensive.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I would say dressing up as a Japanese person, mocking Pearl Harbor, would be just as bad.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Personally, I find it most disturbing that this stupid action by a clearly immature and thoughtless young man is considered not only to be news (headline news at that - at a time when thousands of people are injured, missing, homeless or dead), but that even on Hatrack (the last bastion of civilisation) it is thought to be worth three pages of discussion.
People, chill. The kid is not a Nazi. He should have known better, and he's hurt a lot of feelings. I am not in anyway demeaning the suffering of millions before and during the Second World War. However, he is not, in fact a Nazi, and I am much more concerned about the people who practice bigotry and cruelty in their daily lives who do not mark themselves by the wearing of a uniform.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Some images merely have done "bad things". Some images actually represent hate, racism and cruelty; a Nazi is one of those.
EDIT: Bella, you are right. The only way to stop this kind of thing is to pretend it really isn't that big a deal. That, unfortunately, is something tabloids will never do.
[ January 14, 2005, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote: Corwin, being objectionable to a small group of people is not the same as being extremely offensive to a large group of people who have personally suffered at the hands of the Nazis.
Why? Because few is fewer than more? What action would the larger group of people entitled to in order to stop you from acting like that and it wouldn't be acceptable for the smaller group? I find things like patriotism and the likes being highly damaging, as they seem to "entitle" people to hate others just because some from that other country attacked yours 20, 100, 1000 years ago. As I said, I'm very skeptical about whether the "will of people" had much to say during history... Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Some things represent hate. Nazis are one of those things. They may not been any "worse" retrospectively in someone's view, but they do represent complete and utter hate in many places.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The point is that offensiveness is based completely upon the perception of the person you're offending. So, something may be worse than Nazis but if no one knows what it is or cares about it then you're not offending anyone. It may be stupid, but it seems fair to consider it when you are choosing a costume to wear while mingling among the people you may be offending.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:"The royals are paid to be figureheads. Their job is to represent England in the best light possible."
Where are you getting this from? Is this more than just your personal view? Do you think that *they* would agree as to what their job is. I am not convinced that they would.
If their job isn't to represent England as spokesperson/figurehead, then what is their job?
quote:The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State. As well as carrying out significant constitutional functions, The Queen also acts as a focus for national unity, presiding at ceremonial occasions, visiting local communities and representing Britain around the world.
quote:"Just because he was born into the position doesn't mean his responsibility is any less real. It may be less fair, but not less real."
As I said before, I disagree with this. He has no real responsibilities.
What did you think of my "family business" comparison? Harry is 20 and he continues to enjoy the benefits of being in the royal family. The family business is being figureheads and there are real responsibilities attached to that.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote: Hatrack (the last bastion of civilisation)
Anyway, I remember reading this: New column: Pay me if you've heard this one before , and thinking "No, it's not THAT bad! We still have things to make fun of!" But I think that next time I'll go to a costume party I'll wear a Smablurkian outfit... Thanks, Chris!
I just remembered the "Patch Adams" movie. How much does it take to offend doctors? "Hospitals are serious places, you can't laugh in here!" How about teachers? Policemen? Politicians? "They're all such liars, cannot trust any of them, they're only interested in their own profit!" I've even seen people labeling "Tom & Jerry" as racist. Or what about the "Worms" games: do you think that the "Kamikaze" worms were funny? How can you say that when all those people died in those wars? Do you think playing computer games in which you use nuclear devices should be banned?
Why do I feel like we're going towards the Fahrenheit 451 society, where you can't talk about any real issue and where we have to watch only brainwashing non-shows? Can't we say the "three blonds on an island" joke because of the tsunamis?!
Look, if you want to feel offended by those things, it's your problem. Some people are more easily offended than others. I'll still laugh about them [edit for clarification: them = the situations / the costumes and not the people] as I'm in no way required to live with your view of the world - nor are you with mine.
[ January 14, 2005, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If their job isn't to represent England as spokesperson/figurehead, then what is their job?
They don't have jobs.
BTW, those quotes of yours only seem to apply to the monarch, which he isn't.
quote:What did you think of my "family business" comparison?
You made a good point with that, but if fails (for me) for 2 reasons. One, just because somebody says that it's my responsibility to take over the family buisness doesn't mean it is so. I can refuse to do that. Just because my father owns a buisness is no reason that I can't become an engineer if I want to. Career choice is not one of those things, IMO, that is inherited.
It also fails because he is not going to inherit the crown anyway.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I find it very disturbing that so many thoughtful, kind people on this forum cannot seem to understand just how offensive dressing in a Nazi costume is to people who were affected by the Nazi regime, especially when it is done by a high profile person.
It is NOT just like dressing in any other costume that may be considered "poor taste."
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Ela, my life has been affected more or less by communism. Maybe not in an extremly dramatical way, but still I was born in a country under a comunist rule. Those rulers did their share of crimes in the almost 50 years that they ruled Romania. And what about the Hungarians some of which still want independence of certain territories IN THE HEART of Romania? What about Moldavia that has been taken by the Russians and nobody objected? I could give you tons of examples why I should be offended by someone dressing in a "Hungarian soldier", "Russian soldier", "red commie" or "Turk soldier" costume. But I choose not to be. It's THAT simple. All those, the Russians, the Turks, the Hungarians have done more bad to Romanians throughout history (and some still do) than the Nazis. What, should I hate the Americans too because they chose to let Eastern Europe under the influence of the Russians? The fact that Americans weren't "renamed" as Germans were renamed to Nazis during the second world war makes them unoffending? Or should I feel offended only by the "World War 2" American soldier uniform?!
quote: especially when it is done by a high profile person
The thing is that people like me or mph don't seem to consider that "high profile" thing to be very true or meaningful.
I remember a dialogue from one of the Dune books when a Jewish woman gains the ability to "see" her female ancestors. Her father tries to remind her of all the things that were done against the Jews. To that she replies that they too are a people that at one point were "the conquerers" and that even more attrocious things were done in their name. "History is written by the victorious."
So I say "forgive but don't forget". And have a laugh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It is NOT just like dressing in any other costume that may be considered 'poor taste.'"
Well, no. It IS just like dressing in any other costume that resembles something that actually hurt somebody else in living memory. The difference is merely one of scale; there was nothing intrinsically evil about National Socialism that made it a whole different class of evil from all the other human evils out there.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Sorry, Corwin, the holocaust is nothing to laugh at.
Tom, I have to respectfully disagree with the opinions you've expressed in this thread. I think dressing as a Nazi is worse than some of the other examples that have been mentioned as examples of "offensive" costumes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ela, you're Jewish. Of course Nazis are going to seem worse.
I'd imagine dressing as a Grand Dragon would seem worse to a black man.
And, yeah, both costumes are pretty darn tacky. But that's all they are: universally tacky costumes.
It's not a newsworthy mistake. It's something tasteless that a kid decided to wear to a costume party. He might have gone as a tumor, but I'd imagine the tumor costume was already rented.
[ January 14, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Nazis: you can mock the attitude, Hitler's mustache looks kind of stupid, I laughed a lot at the Robin Williams show when he made fun of Nazis. Guess I'll have to disagree with you on that one.
Edit: And I just told you about other things that one might say I'd have the right to feel offended by. And I said I don't.
[ January 14, 2005, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Ela, I agree with you. I used to work with a guy who collected Nazi medals. He was creepy, and his hobby only made him creepier.
I don't think the brouhaha over Harry's decision is in line with his actual influence over the world, but it was unquestionably in poor taste. For him or anyone else.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: They don't have jobs.
They don't have jobs, per say, but they do have things to do and places to be, and a busy, variable schedule.
I'm just saying .
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
MPH,
My mistake. "Job" is not the right word. How about what is their "function"?
When Prince Charles die, Harry will be the the next in line to the throne if his brother does not have any children. This makes Harry a potential Prince of Whales. The duties of that office includes:
quote:... supporting The Queen in her role as a focal point for national pride, unity and allegiance, bringing people together across all sections of society, representing stability and continuity, highlighting achievement, and emphasising the importance of service and the voluntary sector by encouragement and example....
....helping to ensure that views held by many people which otherwise might not be heard receive some exposure. His Royal Highness does this through letters to and meetings with Government Ministers and other people of influence, by giving speeches, writing articles and participating in television programmes. In doing so, he is always careful to avoid issues which are politically contentious.
Even before his father's death, in another few years Harry would be expected to act as a goodwill diplomat for England and the charity he represents wherever he travels. Those are important responsibilities which, as I have stated earlier, he was born into and has implicitly accepted when he did not renounce the title and benefits associated with his royal title.
quote:One, just because somebody says that it's my responsibility to take over the family buisness doesn't mean it is so. I can refuse to do that. Just because my father owns a buisness is no reason that I can't become an engineer if I want to. Career choice is not one of those things, IMO, that is inherited.
Good point. But Prince Harry has not refused the benefits of being a royal. In fact, he is the third richest teenager in England worth about £28 million (BBC). He got that money from his family, who in turn received that money partially because they are royalty.
I don't know if Prince Harry believes it is fair to inherit responsibilities by virtue of his birth, but his brother has stated that:
quote:"All these questions about do you want to be King? It's not a question of wanting to be, it's something I was born into and it's my duty," he said.
[ January 14, 2005, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
No h in "Wales" .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My mistake. "Job" is not the right word. How about what is their "function"?
Mostly, to be a useless leech on England.
I guess what it boils down to is that I don't take all these responsibilies seriously. But thank you for pointing out that Prince Charles at least appears to.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Thanks for your post, jeniwren. I appreciate it.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Or at least his publicist does. (edited: that was in response to MPH)
MPH, I agree with you that the whole monarchy thing is idiotic.
[ January 14, 2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*refuses to turn this thread into an argument over the monarchy*
Hee hee.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Ela, you're Jewish. Of course Nazis are going to seem worse.
You're really brainstorming hard on this one aren't you, Tom? Maybe you should try to step back and figure out why Jews are offended by Nazis.
quote: I'd imagine dressing as a Grand Dragon would seem worse to a black man.
I think if Prince Harry were to do to do that he would deserve an equal condemnation as he is now. Wow, I came up with that even though I'm not Black, amazing!
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:
quote: Ela, you're Jewish. Of course Nazis are going to seem worse.
You're really brainstorming hard on this one aren't you, Tom? Maybe you should try to step back and figure out why Jews are offended by Nazis.
Actually, Tom's response felt sort of like a put-down to me, or maybe a putting me in my place, but I wasn't sure I wanted to mention it till I saw that nfl had.
[ January 14, 2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:The theme of the party at Mr Meade’s equestrian centre in Wiltshire on Saturday night was Colonials and Natives.
The funny thing is, had Hitler succeeded, England would be a colony of Germany.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The attitude I'm reading is that since Jews are biased as to whether Nazis are offensive, our opinions are clearly devalued by our clouded judgement. The intelligent way to look at the situation is to figure out why the group is offended and then determine if their justification is valid. Stepping back from being a Jew, I would say that six million murdered is significant justification. Similarly, when I figure out why Blacks are offended by the Confederate flag and KKK symbols, I say hundreds of years of slavery and then another century without civil rights is plenty justification.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think Prince Harry had every right to dress up like a Nazi, or a Klansman, or whatever he likes.
I think he's an idiot for doing so.
I think a lot of other people think that as well.
I think they have every right to let him know this.
I think that Prince Charles has every right to yell at Prince Harry for his insensitivity, and to require Harry to examine why some people might consider such a costume choice offensive.
I don't demand that Harry avoid offending others, but I think he has to accept what happens as a result.
[ January 14, 2005, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote: quote:I find it less likely that people would be laughing if they lost a family member in the attacks. Your example is also doubly stupid because it presents a racist stereotype.
Yep. So a bunch of stupid kids thought dressing as a terrorist, trivializing the attacks and all the people who lost their lives in it, plus presenting a racist stereotype against Arabs to boot, was funny. That doesn't make it acceptable in the real world. No matter how loathsome your action, you can always find some lackwit who will find it funny. Put enough such lackwits into the same room, and you can give the illusion that consensus has decreed your action is funny. But that doesn't mean the real world would think so.
Heh, whoa, kid. There's no question that Mike's costume was in poor taste, but that's exactly my point. That he dressed up as a terrorist exhibits exactly poor taste, not support of terrorism -- his costume inspires polarization of terrorists, not sympathy for them. Similarly, Harry's costume was to play as something evil, not to inspire a following for Hitler. Is this so difficult to follow?
If I dress as Caligula this Halloween, you can complain I'm trivializing the deaths of all those who died under his rule -- but that doesn't make it true. Dressing as Caligula implies neither agreement with nor endorsement of his policies or crimes, no matter how outraged you may be at my costume. All it means is that Caligula's enough of a caricatured villain to parody at a costume party, as, by now, is Hitler. Get over it -- or are you seriously trying to believe Harry's in ANY way condoning or supporting the Holocaust?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I think this is a good summation of how I feel about the situation, from the article:
quote: Terry Burton, a spokesman for veterans of the Second World War, said the prince’s costume was an insult to soldiers who had faced German troops in battle and were still dealing with painful memories. “Maybe people think it’s funny to use inappropriate fancy dress like this, but I just find it disgusting,” he said.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
From the Slate summary of reaction to the event:
quote:An op-ed in the Guardian had a different take on the Royal blunder, suggesting that the swastika was not the most alarming thing about Harry's costume. Instead, the Guardian argued, we should be alarmed at Harry's determined pursuit of just the right Nazi uniform for the "Colonial and Native" theme.
quote:Harry's mistake was that he didn't do irony. He wore a costume but he didn't dress up. The truly frightening thing about this particular royal gaffe is not that the prince has a perverted sense of humour. It's when you look at his swaggering demeanour in the photographs in today's Sun that it hits you: Harry apparently thinks he looks damned fine in Nazi costume.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Terry Burton, a spokesman for veterans of the Second World War, said the prince’s costume was an insult to soldiers who had faced German troops in battle and were still dealing with painful memories.
Unless you believe that dressing up like a British soldier at a costume party in Italy thrown by a bunch of 20-somethings is similarly insulting, I'd say this comment misses the mark.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Tom, I've said something like that in my posts but apparently it hasn't been taken into account. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, for one thing you're talking about a couple of different things.
Was Prince Harry's costume inappropriate?
Are people right to be offended by it?
The first topic is up for grabs, and that's what I think you're arguing.
But you seem to be trying to convince offended people why they shouldn't be offended, and that ain't gonna work.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, I wonder if having the "right to be offended" by the costume beats the "right to wear" it... I think there's no "right to be offended", it's just a choice people make. I choose not to be offended by such things, others choose to be.
[ January 14, 2005, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He has the right to wear the costume.
He doesn't have the right to not be vehemently criticized for it.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:or are you seriously trying to believe Harry's in ANY way condoning or supporting the Holocaust?
I don't think that's why some of the people here are so upset.
quote:"Of course, the Holocaust is representative of man's greatest evil and collapse of morality in human civilization," Rozett told CNN, "so when Prince Harry wears it ... it indicates the lessons of the Holocaust have not entered into his understanding or consciousness.
Robert Rozett, director of the library at Jerusalem's Holocaust Museum
Not an either-or thing. Opinions differ, and likely always will.
In my post above, I stated that Harry could wear whatever costume he likes but he'll have to accept what happens as a result. I think that's true for any of the examples given so far.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Dagonee, ok, but that he also has the right to dismiss those comments by saying that what those people are saying was not his real intention. The fact that he said he was sorry looks more like he's trying to cover this up in order to escape all the bad publicity. As I've said before I doubt very strongly that the tabloid publishing this thought of how ethical an act it was (instead they were probably thinking how much this would increase their sales...) so he might have thought it's the Politicaly Correct thing to say. (or he was "instructed" to say it)
Edit:
quote: it indicates the lessons of the Holocaust have not entered into his understanding or consciousness.
Oh, sure... This is just the kind of talk I totally don't believe as truthful, but PC instead. I don't know, it might be just me not really trusting people to say what they really think these days...
[ January 14, 2005, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: "Of course, the Holocaust is representative of man's greatest evil and collapse of morality in human civilization," Rozett told CNN, "so when Prince Harry wears it ... it indicates the lessons of the Holocaust have not entered into his understanding or consciousness.
Out of interest, which lessons of the Holocaust would you have to not have learned in order to think dressing as a Nazi might be amusing? While there are several lessons to be learned from the Holocaust, sensitivity isn't one of them.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I always thought that a cool idea for an inflammatory halloween costume was to dress up as the Unabomber sketch, with a curly brown wig peeking out of the hood of a navy blue sweatshirt, and those cheap sunglasses to finish the image.
As far as the Prince dressing in a Nazi costume, it was in very bad taste at the very least, and anyone offended by his actions (I believe anyway) has a right to be.
Am I offended? I dunno. I don't know him and the exact context as to why he chose that costume. But I must say that a person of his position cannot afford to pull stunts like this without raising the ire of the press and public.
[ January 14, 2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Out of interest, which lessons of the Holocaust would you have to not have learned in order to think dressing as a Nazi might be amusing? While there are several lessons to be learned from the Holocaust, sensitivity isn't one of them.
The lesson that it is a sensitive subject for a lot of people. Not just Jewish people may I add.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I think Prince is a better person and Musician than any Nazi ever was or can be.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Of course, the Holocaust is representative of man's greatest evil and collapse of morality in human civilization," Rozett told CNN, "so when Prince Harry wears it ... it indicates the lessons of the Holocaust have not entered into his understanding or consciousness.
Uh-huh. So if I wear a Caligula outfit, the lessons of his evils haven't entered into my understanding or consciousness?
Hitler was a monstrous man, but he's not the boogeyman -- and it's an insult to my intelligence to say if I speak of him in anything but hushed tones, if I dare dress up as him for a costume party, I'm somehow insulting all those he killed. Giving him the respect and fear he worked so long to inspire is a tribute to him, not mocking him at a costume ball.
God, I can't believe there are actually some situations that I can accurately draw Harry Potter (ironically named as he is) analogies to.
Posted by -=Locke=- (Member # 7248) on :
I might want to remind some of you that in two weeks or so a memorial of the end of the holacuast will accur with the Queen and others, now what kind of example to the rest of the world, and victims of the nazis? I know i wouldn't wanna be hanging around Prince Harry if i was jewish.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know i wouldn't wanna be hanging around Prince Harry if i was jewish.
Most Jewish people I know, if Harry apologizes and acts respectfully at the ceremony, would be gracious, forgiving, and glad if they believe he learned something.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Lalo,
Not wearing the uniform of a mass-murdering facist organization is not showing respect to the organization. It is showing respect for its victims.
You are assuming Harry is wearing the costume to mock Hitler. I tend to agree with you, but for now, that cannot be proved. It is also possible that he thought a Nazi costume would be cool. Isn't there still a viable racist skinhead subculture in Europe? Are they considered cool the way Eminem's homophobia or certain rap artist's "cop killing" lyrics are considered cool? (Note: Not all skinheads are racist, I've met some really nice ones in fact. )
As a prince of England, Harry should never put himself in a position that would confuse people as to the royal's view of Nazis. (Let's not forget the Duke of Windsor.)
Edited to add:
It is ok to say the Dark Lord's name, but not so funny to dress up as Death Eaters and conjure up the Dark Mark.
[ January 14, 2005, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I know i wouldn't wanna be hanging around Prince Harry if i was jewish.
I'm not jewish, but I don't think he's the kind of person I really would enjoy having in my home.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Hitler was a monstrous man, but he's not the boogeyman -- and it's an insult to my intelligence to say if I speak of him in anything but hushed tones, if I dare dress up as him for a costume party, I'm somehow insulting all those he killed. Giving him the respect and fear he worked so long to inspire is a tribute to him, not mocking him at a costume ball.
"Boogeyman" actually isn't the most innaccurate term to describe the feelings Jews still have about him. While I personally know of no family members even in Europe during the Holocaust, even seeing a swatstika can make my blood boil. The Holocaust is something that will never leave the collective consciousness of Jews, so while we don't expect you to refer to Hitler as "he who must not be named," we do expect people to treat the Holocaust as a serious subject, not as a subject to mock by pretending to be a participant or making jokes about ovens and gas chambers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How do you feel about Jews who tell jokes about Hitler?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I haven't personally seen any Jews who do that, but I would still think it would be incredibly innappropriate. To an extent a group has the right to make jokes about itself that non-members don't, but the Holocaust should not, does not fall within that extent.
[ January 14, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Depends. Jokes that belittle Hitler, or jokes that justify him?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Even when you ridicule Hitler you still shouldn't do it. Its not offensive on nearly the same scale, but at least from my perspective when you belittle him, you undermine the seriousness of the entire event. If the gravity of the Holocaust passes us by, we are all the more likely to let history repeat itself.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:I think Prince is a better person and Musician than any Nazi ever was or can be.
*spits drink all over monitor*
My god, that was funny.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: It is ok to say the Dark Lord's name, but not so funny to dress up as Death Eaters and conjure up the Dark Mark.
Yes. We can clearly see it in Fiction; no one would question this logic. Impersonating the evil, whether for fun or for serious, is not funny.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Impersonating the evil, whether for fun or for serious, is not funny."
And yet I find Springtime for Hitler absolutely hilarious.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Impersonating the evil, whether for fun or for serious, is not funny.
I disagree. Sometimes mocking the evil can show it for the ridiculous lapse of humanity that it is.
I would not make jokes about those killed, but I have no problem with anyone who wants to poke fun at Hitler. For one thing, it makes it more difficult for people with similar views to gain power when everyone is laughing at them.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Got me. (curse you! EDIT: Both!)
But. I find Springtime For Hitler, although amusing, squirmyfying. There is a sort of comedy mixed with tragedy that makes it almost impossible for me to listen to that song. It's on my computer but I never play it.
I believe it's good, and in many ways necessary, to be able to laugh at the evil things that happen. Laughing destroys the boggart, to continue in a thread of Harry Potter metaphor.
But to laugh at the Boggart, at Hitler in Springtime for Hitler, at Hitler in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, we turn him into something rediculous.
Although it was bad taste for Harry (not Harry Potter this time) to dress up as Nazi, it was even more bad taste to do it in such a way that did not outwardly display his contempt. He's not acting to make us laugh (although he may have done to his friends) and he's not doing it for artistic purposes, he's wearing a swastika on his arm as if it belongs there. No silly moustache, no nothing, just plain Nazi.
(I understand that he may have been just caught at an inopportune moment. There's most definately a backstory I don't know.)
But doing it straight- That's not comedy to any one. There's no one laughing, because no one's sure if they're supposed to be laughing.
Harry Potter would never go to a party dressed as a Death Eater, Prince Harry should never go to a party dressed as a Nazi.
[ January 14, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A slightly-related opinion:
The discussion was why black people can use the n-word on each other but white people can't, even when they mean it the same way. One of the answers was that when other black people use it they know it's meant affectionately or casually or even in anger, but when white people use it there's no way to tell offhand whether the white person in question might be using it the same way or might really think black people are subhuman.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Because white people can't do anything race related without being criticized, and black people can. Here's where I would normally launch into my "white men are the most picked on people in America" rant, but I'll let it go for the moment.
As for the Prince Harry thing. Just let it go. Maybe he meant it as a joke, maybe he was trying to make a point. Perhaps he was just trying to prove a point about the Media and how worked up people get about silly things such as costumes. I think he made that point whether he intended to or not. Just let it go.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because white people can't do anything race related without being criticized, and black people can.
Wow, is that not what I meant. Didn't mean to start that particular argument, only that people in a class have liberties regarding that class that those outside do not.
If I went through a horrible life-threatening disaster and barely survived with a few others after terrible deprivation, I could see myself making sick jokes to those others for support and to take our minds off it, and afterwards because I know they'd take it in the spirit meant and because we were now a group with shared experiences. But if someone else made a joke that trivialized the disaster or the people lost in it, I'd consider them to be insensitive.
You can affectionately call your own kid an idiot and still get mad if someone else does.
A woman can call herself a bitch and mean it proudly, yet still get offended if someone else calls her that in anger or resentment.
Someone dying of a painful disease can joke about it all they want, but strangers making the same jokes would be insensitive.
I can make a wiseass comment about my wife acting slutty and she'll laugh and say something wiseass back because she knows I don't mean it. If a stranger in a grocery store made the same comment to her, I'd probably drag 'em outside.
When someone who has experienced pain jokes about it, those jokes can lessen the impact that the pain makes. When someone who has not experienced that pain makes the same jokes, those jokes can lessen the pain's validity and trivialize the people who have suffered it.
Maybe he meant it as a joke, maybe he was trying to make a point. Perhaps he was just trying to prove a point about the Media and how worked up people get about silly things such as costumes.
I doubt he put any thought into it at all, besides "hey, this'd be funny." I wasn't personally offended -- it takes a great deal to offend me -- I just thought he was a jerk. What I'm responding to in this thread are the people who seem to think no one should be offended by his actions and are explaining to the offended people why they're wrong. As I said above, he's free to do what he likes, they're free to get peeved and complain.
[ January 14, 2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
Ok.. some of you are going to jump my ship and slit my throat for this, but....
The world would be better off if we stop using our heritage/race/ethnic background as an excuse for being offended. Yes the Holocaust was a terrible thing that put a significant dent in the jewish population, but that isn't a reason to go condemning a kid who goes to a party as a nazi. I mean that is the same as me saying, "I'm a christian, and I'm insulted by your roman gladiator costume." I mean Harry should have known better, but if wearing a nazi outfit to a party is so bad, then why could he get one at a rental shop?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
1. I'm not Jewish.
2. He's not a kid. He's 20.
3. I won't go pirate on ya. Your opinion is valid, I just disagree that's all.
[ January 14, 2005, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: The world would be better off if we stop using our heritage/race/ethnic background as an excuse for being offended. Yes the Holocaust was a terrible thing that put a significant dent in the jewish population, but that isn't a reason to go condemning a kid who goes to a party as a nazi. I mean that is the same as me saying, "I'm a christian, and I'm insulted by your roman gladiator costume."
There are significant differences between the two examples. For example, very few Christians are actually in any way related to the Christians who were persecuted. Jews on the other hand largely belong to both the same ethnicity and religion. Furthermore, there definitely isn't anyone who is either a survivor of the Roman persecution or a recent relative of one. There are other differences as well and until you evaluate those and then determine from the perspective of those offended whether the reasons for being are valid, you cannot fairly say that what the prince did was not a big deal.
You also shouldn't use the word excuse. You make it sound like Jews desire for a reason to be offended and are looking for new ways to be. The Holocaust is a subject that is genuinely upsetting to a lot of people and should be dealt with complete seriousness.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The world would be better off if we stop using our heritage/race/ethnic background as an excuse for being offended.
A slight amendment, if I may.
The world would be better off if enough people stopped treating other heritages/races/ethnic backgrounds as inferior or ridiculous. When that happens, and probably not before, we can make any joke we like and be assured it will be taken in the spirit meant because no one really thinks that way.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I the only difference between my examples is about 2000 years. I apologize that no one has attacked Christians and given me a more recent (and relevant) example. I'm not saying that those who were directly effected shouldn't be offended, I'm just saying that Jewish people (and none jewish people) who weren't directly effected (I know, it's a shock, a whole jewish family or farm boy survived untouched) shouldn't go throwing a fit over a tasteless joke.
Ok, I'm sorry, he's not a kid, he's a college age young adult, I mean college students have so much better better judgment than a five year old.
Would you prefer I use the word "reason"?
Edit: Yes Chris, your amendment is agreeable. My point however was that some people try to use they heritage for pity when they are in no way effected by the thing that gets their race pity.
[ January 14, 2005, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Two millenia is an enormous difference. The wounds of the Holocaust are still fresh. If the Romans were recent and primarly concerned with eliminating undesirable races than dressing up as one would be rightfully seen as offensive by those who suffered at Roman hands.
quote: I'm not saying that those who were directly effected shouldn't be offended, I'm just saying that Jewish people (and none jewish people) who weren't directly effected (I know, it's a shock, a whole jewish family or farm boy survived untouched) shouldn't go throwing a fit over a tasteless joke.
All of Europe suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Thousands of Americans lost their lives fighting in Europe. Somewhere between 2 and 8 million Gypsies, Homosexuals, and other groups languished in concentration camps. Just because I personally wasn't in a concentration camp, nor was I alive at the time of the Holocaust doesn't mean that today I am unaffected by it. It means something when a man in charge of a powerful and "civilized" nation wants to eliminate you personally from the face of the earth.
quote: Yes Chris, your amendment is agreeable. My point however was that some people try to use they heritage for pity when they are in no way effected by the thing that gets their race pity.
If, let's say, 9/11 had involved nuclear bombs killed one third of the American population, would you feel as though you didn't deserved pity because you were one the two thirds who survived the attacks?
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I wouldn't except pity... and I have a rather low opinion of those who actively hunt for it. In my opinion it is a sign of weakness to go looking for pity and I'd only except it if i had no other options. Hell I felt guilty about considering letting Stray take me up north to meet the madison clan, and to see my girlfriend.
But, I'm not trying to say that people should ignore or forget about the holocaust, I'm saying that wearing a nazi uniform to a costume party is in no way inappropriate.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:I'm saying that wearing a nazi uniform to a costume party is in no way inappropriate.
Tell that to the uncle I never got to meet, jerk.
You can find him in an unmarked grave somewhere in Normandy, where he was among the first to die trying to stop the very man Harry was impersonating.
As a joke.
Kwea
[ January 15, 2005, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm still of mixed opinion about this. I don't think Harry is callous, but I also don't think he is stupid. I don't know what he was thinking when he put that swastika on, but I don't really think it was wrong.
Both my grandfathers fought in World War Two, and thankfully they both survived, though I only got to meet one of them. Both my uncles were in the airforce during Vietnam, and my brother was in the Marines for the first year of the Iraq war. I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if one of the Bush daughters dressed up as say, Osama Bin Laden or the Viet Cong, but they are both established idiots anyway, so I don't know if that works. I think I would be offended, but not to the point of demanding some huge toll from the person who did it.
So I think Harry is guilty of a bad judgement call. I think he needs to learn from it, but he should also be forgiven. It's true that at 20 he is no longer a child, but he is also not a man. He lives in a strange world of press and royalty, his every move under scrutiny, I'm sure I don't understand what it's like, and doubt most here do either. Again, that doesn't excuse his actions, but he's not a bad person. Give him a break.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I'll tell him when I tell my three uncles who are buried in similar graves, one right nest to your uncle's. And I may be a jerk, but unlike a lot of people, I've made my peace with the past. It's a lesson we shouldn't forget, but It's not a lesson so sacred that we can't laugh about it to ease the pain.
I'm willing to bet your uncomfortable around germans. You know, the vast number of nazi's didn't know what the camps were.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:I'm saying that wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party is in no way inappropriate.
In no way?
You presume a lot, thinking you know me so well.
I AM German, as was my uncle.
And if you wore that costume to their graves, what do you think your uncles would think of it if they were alive?
I doubt they would even want to acknowledge you.
Not even close.
There is a difference between making peace with the past and forgetting what the past has to teach us.
I have served in the Army....have you?
So I am entitled to my own opinion on this matter, and I think it was crass, crude, and idiotic. He lives off the public, and is no more than a parasite of the British taxpayers, so they have every right to critique his public behavior...and he wore the costume in public, even if it was a private party.
If you wore that costume I would think you were an idiot, and I would be glad that I don't really know you.....but if a Presidential candidate wore it, he would not even be elected to the local PTA. And rightly so.
He is a figurehead, and is payed more than well for it...and even with the best education money can buy he is still a boor. I expect better from world leaders, and that is what he is being groomed for, make no doubt.
It turns out that he shouldn't even be in charge of his own costuming.
And he deserves all the crap he is getting, and more. He is callow, ignorant, selfish, and unrepentant....and those are his good traits.
Kwea
[ January 15, 2005, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:You know, the vast number of nazi's didn't know what the camps were.
Revisionist history strikes again!
If that is true, it was only because they didn't want to know. And I doubt that, I really do, despite claims to that made after the war. There is just too much evidence that that wasn't the case.
But Harry knew, didn't he? He just thought that his "prank" was so clever that it was worth it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure how much I like you calling him a parasite. But you certainly make a good point. As a member of the royal family he should be up to a level of public scrutiny, and should act as a representative of the British royal family should act.
I doubt he will ever be king though, his brother is far too popular, not to mention next in line after Charles. He'll be pushed to the side as some Duke or Lord, never really to be heard from again. I don't think he's as bad as you make him out to be. He has done a lot of charitable things if you look at his history. For a while there I thought he would be a good person to carry on his mother's legacy, and he could still be that person. Don't ignore some of the good things he has done.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Kids.
What did his brother dress up as?
A Lion.
Polar, harry is trying to be, because he knows he cannot top his brother. At the end of the Day, Nazis killed jews and humans of many color, Harry wore a Nazi symbol.
An insecure dumbass who needed global attention? maybe. A guy who killed people? no.
He will never live this down, and that shall be his lesson.
oy vay
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Polar, harry is trying to be, because he knows he cannot top his brother."
This is actually a very cogent and perceptive point.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Kids.
What did his brother dress up as?
A Lion.
Yes, I totally agree. How many times do you read about "Bad Harry" in a tabloid, and half way through there's a quote from his brother:
"Well yes, we are very upset about..."
And then his brohter goes as a Lion. Could you get any more regal. I understand why he did it, but that still doesn't make it right.
Basically, I agree with Thor.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Harry made a very foolish desicion, and I think that he simply did it for drawing attention to himself, after being shadowed by William all the time. He apologized in public, and there's no reason to get upset.
Other Hatrackers, however, are very upsetting:
quote:You know, the vast number of nazi's didn't know what the camps were.
Nonsense. The barbarians sent off to fight in the name of Hitler (not only SS, all soldiers) were given strict orders to treat the Jews like dirt's saliva, and concentrate them(the ones who the Nazis didn't decide to kill because they didn't take their hat off when they saw an SS soldier) in places near railways so they'll be ready to be transferred.
By 42-43, even the Jews in the most remote and secluded ghettos knew what's going on, and any Nazi with a brain larger than the size of a pea (well, clearly there weren't many of them) understood and knew, despite the existence of the concentration camps being "classified".
Besides, even without the camps, if the Nazis would've held for a couple years longer, six million Jews would be dead anyway. Look at Bergen Belzen: foreign Jews were concentrated there. The Germans didn't want any trouble with foreign countries, so they didn't start up gas chambers. However, thousands of Jews died there from hunger and diseases.
My gradfather's grandad was as rich as is gets, ran power plants, had relatives all around Poland, from Warsaw to Krakow, through Poltusk and Raddom and any town in the country. He liked to have his family near him, so he bought a whole street and they lived together, side by side. My gradfather moved to Israel with his brother and parents in 1933.
Twelve years later, Grandpa, then a soldier in the British army, searched in vain for any surviving relatives.
All of them were wiped out. No one survived.
So don't you barge in here and babble about things you don't know.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
If I start comparing the people who disagree with me to Godwin, will this thread finally die?
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
hmmm that may help kill this headache of a thread. I think this one just hits too close to home for a lot of people to reason it out.
I for one don't plan on opening this thread again.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'm coming in on this conversation pretty late, and it might be my only contribution. But I wanted to elaborate on a point Chris made that I agree with:
quote: The discussion was why black people can use the n-word on each other but white people can't, even when they mean it the same way. One of the answers was that when other black people use it they know it's meant affectionately or casually or even in anger, but when white people use it there's no way to tell offhand whether the white person in question might be using it the same way or might really think black people are subhuman.
What Chris describes is not a new dynamic, and it's not limited to blacks and Jews.
My ex-wife's family was Sicilian. Her dad and his family sometimes called each other "wops" and "dagos." It wasn't hard to figure out that it was nonoffensive and maybe even affectionate when they used it with each other.
I never needed anyone to tell me it wouldn't be appropriate for me - English/Irish/Dutch hybrid that I am - to start using the same language. It seemed pretty obvious.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
If you get to use a word in my presence, I get to use it in yours. If it offends you, stop using it yourself.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Danzig,
but what exactly is the motivation for "I get to use it in yours"?
Using the example of the not-so-hypothetical Italian family (note, though: many, if not most, Italian-American families don't use this language at all, even in fun. It may be an urban thing.)
OK, using the Italian American family,
you would want to use these words - and I'm assuming your background teaches you they are offensive - because:
a. you always wanted to pretend you were an Italian-American.
b. you always wanted to use these words you were taught were offensive and now someone has given you a good excuse to do so.
Really, I don't get it. What's the motivation here?
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Right, I'm missing a few pages of this thread, but anyways:
I myself would not dress up as a Nazi. I do not find them to be objects of humor, and no one I know would be entertained to see me in that costume. So it's not a matter of being in the public eye. It would be atrocious for anyone, really. And because royal families are still incredibly influential groups, what one seems to endorse carries a lot of weight and responsibility.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
For the same reason it is fine for me to drink in front of my father if he is drinking too. Not that I necessarily would say the slur if a member of applicable group did, but I would have the right to. I get offended when people try to tell me it is fine for them to do something, but not for me. It does not make it okay to use the slur in front of members of your ethnic group, or drink in front of a non-drinker who asks me not to do it in front of them, but it makes it okay to use it or drink in front of someone who did the exact same thing.
Also, at least in the case of n-----, more than a few blacks object to its use even by other blacks, saying it still has a negative effect. I tend to agree, and perhaps a white guy pissing off blacks who use it because they are hypocrites might be able to teach them something.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: For the same reason it is fine for me to drink in front of my father if he is drinking too.
Not if you're under 21. Certain groups have privileges that other groups don't. This concept may seem unfair, but it is how we maintain a civil society.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I tend to agree, and perhaps a white guy pissing off blacks who use it because they are hypocrites might be able to teach them something.
Doubtful. White guys have pissed blacks off for years. I'm sure something has been taught in the process, but probably not what the white guys intended.
(And before you jump on me, I grew up watching black kids being spat on, fire hoses being turned on peaceful demonstrators - all by white guys. Seriously - this, along with various assassinations and the Vietnam war took up most of the evening news in the 1960s.)
What you're laying out sounds to me an awful lot like a "I'm going to shove it in their face" kinda thing.
I can see how useful that would be.
[ January 15, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I understand what he is saying, although I would go the other way with it...I don;t approve of it, and while I can't stop othrs from saying things like that I'll be dammed if I stoop to that level of discourse.
I never understood that whole thing myself anyway.
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would have the right to.
You have the right to. We have the right to think it's worse for you to use that word than it is for black people to.
If anyone remembers our discussion on hypocrisy v. inconsistency, this is a perfect example. Danzig sees it as inconsistent to think it OK for a black person to use the word than for white people. His standard of consistency is that what is good for X is good for Y.
sndrake's standard is different, because a black person will never be meaning the word in the racist, offensive manner, while a white person might.
Neither one is inconsistent; each is merely elevating a particular ethical principle above another.
My thought is that it is worse for a white person to use the word, but it's not good for black people to. And, from a practical standpoint, the continued use of the word by black people will provide comfort to whites who want to use the word, too.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:My thought is that it is worse for a white person to use the word, but it's not good for black people to. And, from a practical standpoint, the continued use of the word by black people will provide comfort to whites who want to use the word, too.
I pretty much agree with this, although I don't think the dynamics are different for each particular group of people. I have a friend who's about my age and grew up in the South. N____ is not part of his vocabulary.
Different for different groups though. I suspect the words used by my ex-wifes' family (the males on her father's side) were a product of being brought up poor in an ethnically segregated neighborhood. There was a whole shared history and context that was something I only knew a little of.
It never even dawned on me that I should lecture them on their use of those words. Or that I should use them myself. They were older than me. They didn't quite know what to make of me and vice-versa.
I don't think this ever happened, but it would have been in character for my ex-father-in-law to invite me to use the same language, since I was family. My response would have been pretty simple - "It's not me. Why would I want to?"
That's about as much of a language lesson as I'm willing to give when it comes to how people refer to themselves. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's about as much of a language lesson as I'm willing to give when it comes to how people refer to themselves.
I agree with this. I thought it fruitful to explain my full thinking on the dynamics in this situation, though.
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
nfl, if I am an adult I have that right. Rights are not defined by laws, no matter how much you wish they were. A civil society maintained by injustice is not worth maintaining. Just the opposite, in fact. I have no moral obligation to obey immoral laws.
quote:Certain groups have privileges that others don't.
It would be so easy to go somewhere with this.
sndrake, you may be right, and I am not saying I would, just that anyone using it has no rational reason to complain or take offense. I doubt that other blacks were using hoses on demonstrators, and that is a case of easily measurable harm anyway.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If individuals decide which laws they believe are worth following than what's the point of haveing laws at all. Without laws you have anarchy, and with anarchy you have widespread death and misery. If you think a law is unjust then you have every right to oppose it and to try to get it changed, you do not on the other hand have to right to decide whether or not it should be followed in the first place.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
It is very simple. If all participants (excluding the state, if you consider them a participant) consent, it should not be illegal. Initiation of force should always be illegal. An action is not wrong just because the men with guns say so. It is at most unhealthy.
I suppose in your world women and blacks should have just stayed in their proper places and petitioned their oppressors to change the laws. Hurry, find some way to backtrack!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Its disgusting that you would compare not being able to riddle your body with mind altering drugs to not being able to vote.
Since you don't exist in a vacuum, every action you take affects someone else. Whether your drug abuse leads you to crash your car killing someone or you require extra medical attention that costs taxpayers, all the "participants" aren't consenting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Individuals do decide what laws are worth following. This is not a statement of anarchic ideology, it's just a fact. Now, the state does do its best to raise the threshold for deciding 'that law is just too inconvenient', by making it unpleasant to get caught breaking laws. And we are trained to believe that the existence of a law makes it good in itself. Nevertheless, whether it's speeding just a little or downloading warez, everybody has some law that's just too stupid, immoral, or inconvenient.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Need we mention that individuals choose which laws to enforce: eg Dubya likes torturing people.
Course'n newfoundlogic doesn't see anything wrong with Dubya.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)