News - Nazi Costume Nazis
Jan. 13th, 2005 03:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackBackground: http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1389624,00.html
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:
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.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 04:48 pm (UTC)Then I guess so, but all papers seem to do exactly the same, if with varying skews.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 04:51 pm (UTC)But this still stands; http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,1305528,00.html . Troll-tastic!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 05:16 pm (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 11:43 am (UTC)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.