Australian school apologises for Hitler costume prize

[Cryozombie]

If that were me, I would never have allowed my kid to dress as Hitler.

I would have made him go as Jack the Ripper or Charles Manson.

Or did I miss the part where the assignment was "Dress as a Famous NON OFFENSIVE person?"

 

[Tez3]

If killing people or causing people to die is evil, then Napolean was definitely evil as was Caesar. I wouldn't white wash his deeds just because he lived a scant 120 or so years before Hitler did.

Hitler is rightfully reviled, but we definitely have a peculiar sense of good and evil if we don't consider Napoleon up there in the bloody hands index. I mean we have people calling Tony Blair and George Bush war criminals, right? I think some perspective is called for.

Who's whitewashing Napoleon? I was merely pointing out that Napoleon was of his time.

 

[Empty Hands]

Hitler is rightfully reviled, but we definitely have a peculiar sense of good and evil if we don't consider Napoleon up there in the bloody hands index.

Like it or not, people generally don't consider starting wars and killing the enemy in that war as terribly immoral. I disagree, but the thing is what it is. Napoleon caused a lot of deaths, but it was in the pursuit of generally accepted war tactics. Hitler on the other hand is not reviled for causing the deaths of soldiers in battle, but for rounding up civilians and exterminating them. If you want to consider them the same, then George Bush is indeed a war criminal for starting an unprovoked war and killing a lot of people in the process.

 

[dancingalone]

Like it or not, people generally don't consider starting wars and killing the enemy in that war as terribly immoral. I disagree, but the thing is what it is. Napoleon caused a lot of deaths, but it was in the pursuit of generally accepted war tactics. Hitler on the other hand is not reviled for causing the deaths of soldiers in battle, but for rounding up civilians and exterminating them. If you want to consider them the same, then George Bush is indeed a war criminal for starting an unprovoked war and killing a lot of people in the process.

I'm for consistency. Not too dramatic of a concept I hope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars_casualties

Civilian deaths are impossible to accurately estimate. Whilst military deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million, civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million. Thus estimates of total dead, both military and civilian, can reasonably range from 3,250,000 to 6,500,000.

 

[CanuckMA]

I'm for consistency. Not too dramatic of a concept I hope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars_casualties

Civilian deaths are impossible to accurately estimate. Whilst military deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million, civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million. Thus estimates of total dead, both military and civilian, can reasonably range from 3,250,000 to 6,500,000.

Do you grasp the fundamental difference between civilian deaths during a war with going from town to town to round up a specific segment of the population to exterminate them?

 

[dancingalone]

Do you grasp the fundamental difference between civilian deaths during a war with going from town to town to round up a specific segment of the population to exterminate them?

Death is death. Sure you could say intentional genocide is 'worse', but I would think the bystanders that suffered from the Napoleonic wars (or the US Iraqi invasion for that matter) wouldn't care about the distinction.

We admire conquerers like Napoleon or Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great because their actions are not visceral to us compared to people like Hitler or Pol Pot. We largely ignore the heinous actions of Hitler's close or near contemporaries like Stalin & Mao. Again, because no imagery survives to make the deaths they caused more 'real' to us.

It's an inconsistent perspective, compounded when we say their actions are just a reflection of their times in the cases of even 200 years ago.

 

[Senjojutsu]

Maybe the parents were big SOUTH PARK fans?

South Park - Season 1: “Pinkeye” - Aired on 10/29/1997
Cartmen dressed up as Hitler For Halloween
"The boys wait for the bus in their costumes on Halloween day.
Kenny shows up and they think he still alive."

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149895/?searchterm=Pinkeye

Well at least the Aussie kid wasn't dressed as Chewbacca or Raggedy Andy.
:uhyeah:

BTW, didn't British Prince Harry (a.k.a. Prince Henry of Wales) get a ration of criticism when he dressed as a Nazi costume a few years back?

Yes, here's the story from early 2005:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4170083.stm

 

[Tez3]

Death is death. Sure you could say intentional genocide is 'worse', but I would think the bystanders that suffered from the Napoleonic wars (or the US Iraqi invasion for that matter) wouldn't care about the distinction.

We admire conquerers like Napoleon or Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great because their actions are not visceral to us compared to people like Hitler or Pol Pot. We largely ignore the heinous actions of Hitler's close or near contemporaries like Stalin & Mao. Again, because no imagery survives to make the deaths they caused more 'real' to us.

It's an inconsistent perspective, compounded when we say their actions are just a reflection of their times in the cases of even 200 years ago.

Speak for yourself, I don't admire any of them in the least nor do most people I know. We don't ignore Stalin or Mao, far from it actually. I know quite a few people who suffered under both.
Napoleon was of his time, you can't say he wasn't. Empire building by many countries was rife, it wasn't confined to Napoleon. Little notice was taken of a smaller countries protests at being invaded by a larger or stronger country. 'Gunboat' diplomacy was the order of the day. There was no International Red Cross, no United Nations and attitudes were very different then. Thankfully, while we are making slow progress towards universal peace most of us do appreciate it's something to work towards.

 

[dancingalone]

Speak for yourself, I don't admire any of them in the least nor do most people I know. We don't ignore Stalin or Mao, far from it actually. I know quite a few people who suffered under both.
Napoleon was of his time, you can't say he wasn't. Empire building by many countries was rife, it wasn't confined to Napoleon. Little notice was taken of a smaller countries protests at being invaded by a larger or stronger country. 'Gunboat' diplomacy was the order of the day. There was no International Red Cross, no United Nations and attitudes were very different then. Thankfully, while we are making slow progress towards universal peace most of us do appreciate it's something to work towards.

The issue with you, Tez, is you really do personalize these discussions on the Study too frequently. When I say 'we' I don't necessarily mean YOU. Can you please get over this? It would make discussions in the Study a lot more harmonious as this is behavior you display with anyone you disagree with. Trust me, when I mean YOU, I will say so.

You're a good person and I generally like your posts, but please stop taking everything you read on the internet so personally.

Onto the meat of what you've said... I don't know what to tell you if you don't think that western culture in general is much more cognizant of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany than those in Red China or the Soviet Union. That's readily apparent by the number of movies covering Nazi Germany versus the others. And when people online want to call each some inflammatory, "nazi" seems to be the word of choice over Stalinist or Maoist. Your own circle might recognize the enormity of what Stalin and Mao did. However, I am making the point that not all do. Similar to Napoleon. Lots of people actually admire Napoleon, even if you do not personally. I hope I don't have to pull up citations to prove this for you...

As for Napoleon being a product of his times... well, it's not much of an argument when we are talking about lives are we? Else we could justify slavery and suppression of women along with other ills as also being a part of their times. Maybe global terrorism is just a part of our times now, no?

 

[Tez3]

The issue with you, Tez, is you really do personalize these discussions on the Study too frequently. When I say 'we' I don't necessarily mean YOU. Can you please get over this? It would make discussions in the Study a lot more harmonious as this is behavior you display with anyone you disagree with. Trust me, when I mean YOU, I will say so.

You're a good person and I generally like your posts, but please stop taking everything you read on the internet so personally.

Onto the meat of what you've said... I don't know what to tell you if you don't think that western culture in general is much more cognizant of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany than those in Red China or the Soviet Union. That's readily apparent by the number of movies covering Nazi Germany versus the others. And when people online want to call each some inflammatory, "nazi" seems to be the word of choice over Stalinist or Maoist. Your own circle might recognize the enormity of what Stalin and Mao did. However, I am making the point that not all do. Similar to Napoleon. Lots of people actually admire Napoleon, even if you do not personally. I hope I don't have to pull up citations to prove this for you...

As for Napoleon being a product of his times... well, it's not much of an argument when we are talking about lives are we? Else we could justify slavery and suppression of women along with other ills as also being a part of their times. Maybe global terrorism is just a part of our times now, no?

LOL, you do like to make your posts personal to me don't you, it's as if the very act of my posting really annoys you! Good.

Well, of course I speak for myself, who else can I speak for? I can't speak for everyone so I give my personal opinion, isn't that what we are supposed to do? Oh and trust me, I'm not in the least a good person.
I don't take posts personally in the least, I answer as I do because it's my opinion no one elses and I'm afraid you are misreading my posts badly and attributing emotions in there that simply aren't. It's not a personal thing, it's your bad English in writing 'we' when you mean 'some' or even 'a majority' of people. I'm not going to make the mistke of speaking for others, they can write their own posts. Don't patronise me when you have read it wrongly.

What if I started all my post 'well, we think', or 'we want to say', that would be ridiculous! It's about giving your own opinion not someones partyline.

When you say Western culture you mean American culture not European culture, don't forget half of Europe was under Soviet rule for a very long time and the other half was terrified of being invaded by their neighbours the Soviets so it's actually more in our minds than it is Americans. I think you'll find that in Europe Stalin is remembered every bit as much as Hitler.

 

[dancingalone]

LOL, you do like to make your posts personal to me don't you, it's as if the very act of my posting really annoys you! Good.

Your style of posting is annoying when you disagree with others, whether it be about politics or MMA. You makes things personal about yourself instead of talking about the points themselves. Then you accuse others of making it personal about you.

If it gives you personal satisfaction to annoy me with this posting style, I suppose at least MT is serving some good purpose.

Well, of course I speak for myself, who else can I speak for? I can't speak for everyone so I give my personal opinion, isn't that what we are supposed to do?

Discussions can be WITHOUT a personal dimension to them, you know. Do you truly have to have a dog in every fight to talk about it? In fact, you don't, since you didn't live during Napoleon's time.

Oh and trust me, I'm not in the least a good person.

OK.

I don't take posts personally in the least, I answer as I do because it's my opinion no one elses and I'm afraid you are misreading my posts badly and attributing emotions in there that simply aren't.

Perhaps. I try to be a reasonable person and I think I am being reasonable when I ask you NOT to take everything so personally. The group here on MT (or its moderators) will have to decide if I'm off-base or not. Let it be noted though that I am not the only person that seems to have communications issues with you.

It's not a personal thing, it's your bad English in writing 'we' when you mean 'some' or even 'a majority' of people. I'm not going to make the mistke of speaking for others, they can write their own posts. Don't patronise me when you have read it wrongly.

Really? I'll leave it at that.

When you say Western culture you mean American culture not European culture, don't forget half of Europe was under Soviet rule for a very long time and the other half was terrified of being invaded by their neighbours the Soviets so it's actually more in our minds than it is Americans. I think you'll find that in Europe Stalin is remembered every bit as much as Hitler.

You're probably right to an extent about this about American culture vs. Western European. I still think Nazi Germany is much bigger in Western European consciousness as a bogeyman than the Soviets ever were though.

 

[Tez3]

So you have issues with me because I disagree with people and you think I shouldn't.

If you like your posts boring, and generic don't read mine. If you chose to misunderstand me or just plain can't, I'm sorry for it but can do little about it. If you don't like my style of writing and can't understand it, there's little I can do about that either. You are making too much of what is basically just the internet, you read too much into my posts and inferring things which aren't there. You generalise, I don't. I don't have a dog in every fight I'm just opinionated. You are only seeing what you want in my posts not what I write.

You made a statement..'thats why we admire.....' all I said was speak for yourself and you think that I'm taking it personally, you seem to think too I post with a stern expression and pursed lips instead of a light heart and eccentricity. Lighten up and take things easy, if you don't like my posting put me on ignore, it will save your blood pressure and the mods too.

As to whether the Nazis or the Soviets were the most recent bogeymen ask the Hungarians (Soviets invaded 1951), the Czechs (Soviets invaded 1968), the Finns, Germans etc etc. We constantly had the RAF scrambling for Soviets jets and bombers flying into UK airspace, our troops along with yours were stationed along the East German border and various skirmishes happened with Soviet troops. I believe there was also something about the Cuban Missile crisis with brought peoples minds to be concentrated on the Soviets so much so that doctors reported the sharp rise of people coming to see them with depression.

 

[Carol]

Do you grasp the fundamental difference between civilian deaths during a war with going from town to town to round up a specific segment of the population to exterminate them?

There is another factor too.

Unlike the other warlords of the past, the iconography of the Nazis remains in the present day, adopted by hate groups who need no further publicity.

 

[CanuckMA]

There is another factor too.

Unlike the other warlords of the past, the iconography of the Nazis remains in the present day, adopted by hate groups who need no further publicity.

And that those hate groups are still persuing the same victims.

 

[l_uk3y]

Hmm. Woohoo to be an Aussie here. Sadly not all parents are what they should be.

Although stereotypically Catholic schools here mean you come from a better off family. So im surprised that they thought it would be a good idea unless they don't keep any eyes on their kids. No excuses really. They should know better.

On the note of all the "warlords" of history. I don't agree with any of them. Although I do believe War as a means of making your country better/larger/wealthier etc, is a much better reason (just) then war to destroy other peoples ideals/religions/lifestyles because they are inferior etc

 

[K-man]

On the note of all the "warlords" of history. I don't agree with any of them. Although I do believe War as a means of making your country better/larger/wealthier etc, is a much better reason (just) then war to destroy other peoples ideals/religions/lifestyles because they are inferior etc

I hope you didn't mean what you have just posted. War as a means of making your country better/larger/wealthier etc. is just as bad as war to destroy other peoples ideals/religions/lifestyles because they are inferior etc. War may be justified to protect your country from an attack from an enemy, or to protect an innocent, powerless population from a tyrant such as Idi Amin or Pol Pot, but a war to make your country larger or wealthier is totally devoid of ethics and could not be morally justified under any circumstance that I could imagine.

Indonesia has millions of people in a small area and with a great deal of poverty. By your definition they could take over Australia, wipe us out, take our homes and possessions to make their country better ... and that would be just better than invading us because we are a secular state and as such infidels.

Sorry, can't agree with the statement at all.

In colonial history Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain took over countries for no other reason than to take their resources and increase their own wealth. (The Dutch perhaps were more into establishing trading posts than annexing vast dominions.) To the populations of those countries, who lost their lands and warriors to force, the leaders of the conquering nation were no better than Hitler or Stalin. History is written by the winners.

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

Now, back to the topic? At the very best ... incredibly bad taste.

 

[crushing]

Now, back to the topic? At the very best ... incredibly bad taste.

I thought the topic was hypersensitivity?

Wait, the "bad taste" people are winning this one, so I guess it is about bad taste.

 

[CanuckMA]

It may be bad taste, but is it more filling?

 

[Blade96]

I agree with both of you, tez and DA.

I studied russian/sov history and its true, people here think of hitler was the monster while stalin is more like meh.

But europeans may think of stalin as more of the monster then we do because their experience with the sovs was very different.

and as for Czech, Stalin was in power in 1948 for the first czech takeover, the second was when brezhnev was in power. 1968.

Hungary was invaded militarily in 1956. after Stalin had died.

Just for future reference