jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
Background: http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1389624,00.html
The "native and colonial" themed party, held at the country mansion of the Olympic showjumper Richard Meade, who is the father of a friend of princes William and Harry, was attended by 250 people. Prince William dressed as a big cat in a leopardskin leotard with matching tail and paws.
I'm not sure that a "Natives and Colonials" party can be attended by a British Royal without being untactful. What the hell should he have worn?

What disturbs me most is that most people seem to ignore his intent in dressing like this. Was it:

1. "I'm a Nazi! I crush teh J3wlords! Now I can wear my ph34rSOME costume in public at last MWAHAHA!"?
2. "By dressing as a Nazi to a Colonials party I draw a parallel between the Nazi conquering of Europe and the British conquering of 1/4 of the globe."?
3. "I look cool in uniform. Woo!"
4. "I'm offensive. Don't send me to sandhurst"

I'd be inclined to guess (3). Note (2) has several potential facets. Is it saying that Nazism was good? That collonialism was bad? That imperfect analogies are too hasty? That the press are easy to troll?

But it seems worrisome that in the articles I've read, no-one cares which. I admit it was poorly thought out -- whether it SHOULD or not, it was GOING to cause this shitstorm. For which he deserves a smack, perhaps.

Some people do feel still, reasonably, very stongly about Nazis. And other still support them. (Free tip, people: if you want to shock, Nazis. If you want support, anything else.) Often people are offended on behalf of other people (eg. renaming an American Football team called 'Braves' -- no-one could find any local Native Americans who weren't pleased by the name, but they still changed to avoid offense.), which is the bug hallmark of manufactured crises -- this is genuine. It would have been tactful to avoid it.

BUT IT WAS A FANCY DRESS PARTY! YOU EXPECT BAD TASTE!

But:
"What Harry did was both stupid and evil. The time has come for him to make a public apology. It is about common decency, of respect to the people who fought the Nazis, to the families of those who were killed by the Nazis and to people who suffered during the Holocaust."
Evil? If he was deliberately aligning himself with the Nazis, yes. If he just --if recklessly-- wore a uniform, no. But no-one seems to care, let alone know, which it was.

Date: 2005-01-13 04:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] atreic.livejournal.com
Yes. I read that story and saw the point as "twenty years old do stupid and thoughtless things in the name of a laugh" Which is hardly news at 11...

Date: 2005-01-13 04:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com
Reading LJ I think I'm begining to understand why the Guardian always reports on the calls that exams are getting easier every year rather than the improved grades that cause such claims...

Date: 2005-01-13 04:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
LOL. Though the only posts I've seen are mine and AJ's...

Date: 2005-01-13 04:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] captain-aj.livejournal.com
I think he's suggesting that the Guardian engage in the pastime of being deliberately inflammatory for their own satisfaction. I obviously can't condone or support such behaviour!

Date: 2005-01-13 04:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Oh, I see. (Had the impression he meant the guardian agreed with Edith that teenagers were stupid. But your way makes more sense.)

Then I guess so, but all papers seem to do exactly the same, if with varying skews.

Date: 2005-01-13 04:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] captain-aj.livejournal.com
Oh, maybe he did mean that.
But this still stands; http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,1305528,00.html . Troll-tastic!

Date: 2005-01-13 05:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com
Actually I was commenting on the tendancy of people on my friends list to be more annoyed by other people's reactions to trivial events than the events themselves.

Likewise the Guardian finds it more important to report what other papers are saying about school results and declining standards than it does on the school results or the standards themselves. (This was brought to my attention by Tom who correctly predicted the headlines in the newspapers: Other Papers: GCSE Grades up! Standards falling!; The Guardian: Other papers report that GCSE grades are up and predict standards are falling!)

Maybe this has something to do with moralising about people being nicer than moralising about persons...

Date: 2005-01-14 11:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Yeah, very true. Though if other people's opinions do piss us off, what are we to do?

Compare a skeptic's belief in an afterlife. To them, there's probably no more significance to that lack of belief than any of the other things, but because everyone else disagrees they become known for that one.

Though I guess I'm not ADDING anything, I'm just venting.

Date: 2005-01-13 04:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] senji.livejournal.com
Of course if he'd dressed up as a 1630s catholic or a new model army soldier then noone would have cared...

Date: 2005-01-13 04:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
To be fair, we should pick an example some people alive remember. Time does blunt offense. But 'nazi' does seem to be synonymous with 'hot button' :)

Date: 2005-01-13 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beckyc.livejournal.com
I can't take seriously any comments that think that wearing any outfit is "evil". I think the word is abused by the media (and others) and is losing its value. Given the reaction, it does appear to have been an error of tact and diplomacy, and you have to wonder why nobody said "This is a really stupid idea".

Date: 2005-01-13 04:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Well, if he was truly expressing an endorsement of the Nazi philosophy I think 'evil' would be justified. I haven't seen any evidence that he *isn't*, just that I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

I think I don't read the news enough -- I still feel 'evil' is a big deal, and on a scale of 'wrong' to 'evil' something (1) unintentional and (2) harmless doesn't show...

Date: 2005-01-13 05:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beckyc.livejournal.com
Well, if he was truly expressing an endorsement of the Nazi philosophy I think 'evil' would be justified

I can't see myself thinking of him as evil even in those circumstances, though I agree it would be less of a total overreaction from people describing him as such. I try to see the good in people, and I don't really think of people as being evil no matter what they do, although I may consider an act evil.

That said, I do actively avoid being in one on one social situations with people who promote murdering because I find it upsetting (which makes me bigoted and intolerant apparently.)

Date: 2005-01-13 05:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Can anyone be described as evil? Well, we're quibling about words. I prefer to avoid it, but I wouldn't object if someone with a propensity to evil acts was so described, assuming that people wouldn't hence consider him irrideemable.

Would supporting Nazism qualify? Well, if he wholeheartedly embraced death camps...

That said, I do actively avoid being in one on one social situations with people who promote murdering because I find it upsetting (which makes me bigoted and intolerant apparently.)

Ack. What's that about?

Date: 2005-01-13 05:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beckyc.livejournal.com
Can anyone be described as evil?

Well, the newspapers seem to manage it on a regular basis with some person or another.

That said, I do actively avoid being in one on one social situations with people who promote murdering because I find it upsetting (which makes me bigoted and intolerant apparently.)

Ack. What's that about?


Oh, it's a bit long and complicated, but the short and anonymous version is that I am despised by someone for admitting that I'd really rather not be put into a situation of having someone try to convince me that bombing a shopping area full of children was A Good Thing (especially since it was near the anniversary at the time).

Date: 2005-01-13 05:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Eek. Fair enough.

Date: 2005-01-13 09:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nakedtoes.livejournal.com
Forget the Braves: what about Thanksgiving? Let's eat turkey to celebrate our big slaughter, everyone

Date: 2005-01-14 11:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
True. I've always thought that was weird. It's mainly amusing for anecdotes about americans who have said "Hey, [Indian Friend]! Why aren't you celebrating thanksgiving? Bit of a killjoy, eh? Oops."

Though at least most people treat it as just a holiday; there's not much chance anyone looking at Harry's uniform would think he was dressed as a non-nazi german soldier with a penchant for Egyptian astrology :)

Date: 2005-01-13 10:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sphyg.livejournal.com
I think I'm more disturbed about Will's costume ;)

Date: 2005-01-14 11:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
I'd have thought Prince William in a leotard would have excused anything :)