And Pol Pot was responsible for a million much more recently than that. But Pol Pot is “not relevant”.
He said that comparisons to Jack the Ripper and Charles Manson were not relevant because nobody was supporting the unspeakable things they did. Jack the Ripper murdered prostitutes. Prostitutes are being murdered today, a lot more than Jews are being gassed. They are supported IOW, in the sense of imitating them.
The bottom line, I suspect, is merely that murderers like Pol Pot and Che Guevara are OK is because they are politically correct. Hitler isn’t, and so he scares grown-ups who ought to know better.
I’m not a fan of knee jerk PCness by any stretch but Dex’s argument was pretty spot on re the real world view on how a kid dressing as Hitler would be viewed in context. It might not be right or accurate that people think Hitler is much more evil than Pol Pot, but from a western perspective that’s the cultural lay of the land.
I’m Jewish, and I have no problems with dressing up as Hitler for halloween. I’d add a bullet hole between the eyes I think though …
For kids these days, he’s a historical figure. They have no living memory of him. I would not assume as a matter of course that a kid dressing up as a Hitler or Nazi was sympathizing with their goals - more likely imitating their use as the ultimate movie villians.
Dressing up as historical villians has a long and honourable history - in Judaism, on the holiday of Purim, one of the characters you can dress up as is - Haman. He is famous for wanting to hang all the Jews, a sort of proto-Hitler if you will. If you can dress up as Haman, why not Hitler?
More seriously, dressing up as famous villians removes their power by ridicule. Making someone “taboo” on the other hand re-enforces their power, makes them an attractive and subversive figure - in that they still, long after their powers are gone, they are dead and their cause discredited, have the power to move their enemies to over-reaction (a search warrant on their parents? Really?)
Pol Pot is politically correct? Are you shitting me?
And comparisons between Stalin and Che Guevara, Pol Pot and Che Guevara, Lenin and Che Guevara, Hitler and Che Guevara, etc. are completely batshit insane. Che Guevara was no saint, and I certainly don’t idolize him–but I think he was a lot less evil, a lot less of a mass-murderer, than, say, Bush the Elder, or Bill Clinton, or Tony Blair, or any of a number of other Western politicians whose military and political policies resulted in the deaths of civilians. Is “Che is a mass murderer” some new rightwing meme? Because it’s a moronic one. You want yer leftist mass murderers, go for Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, etc.
Look. I don’t excuse people for mass murder based on their political ideology. One of my favorite poems is as follows (I don’t know the poet): There was a great Marxist named Lenin
Who did two or three million men in.
That’s a lot to have done in,
But where he did one in,
That grand Marxist Stalin did ten in.
NONE of those figures (Pol Pot? Politically correct? Thanks for making it clear just how twisted your view is)–NONE of them is used as a widley recognized symbol for a currently active terrorist philosophy: NONE of those figures would be seen as an explicit threat of real, personal violence to a student at the school.
It has nothing to do with which was worst, which was righter or lefter, or anything like that. (Pol Pot? Are you serious?) It has nothing to do with Hitler as a literal historical figure, which is all you’re comparing him to those other figures on. It’s Hitler as a clear, unambiguous symbol of a present day terrorist philosophy. Period.
(And **Regards **[you don’t mind if I call you by your first name, Regards?], if you honestly think that people to the left of you regard Pol Pot as “politically correct,” nothing you ever say again on these boards will ever, ever have any credibility whatsoever.)
Sorry, there should have been a at the end of my last post!
But okay, I’ll admit Hitler has been satirized on many shows: cartoons as well as live action. But that is in that context! (Comedy)
If a kid has a schtick as the character and makes people laugh at it, okay, but he’d better be able to carry it through all day long, and he’d better (in this case maybe the parents) realize he might offend someone.
I’ll add one more caveat:
I’m a history teacher, okay?
And for Halloween my assignment is: you come dressed as the most despicable ruler/dictator you can think of. Study him, and then come in front of the class and be that person.
“Role-Playing”, IOW.
Then maybe it would be “appropriate”.
Even then, as a considerate teacher, I’d run it by the Principal first.
neo-stalinists: 0 hits
neo-stalinism: 3
neo-khmer rouge: 0
khmer rouge: 226 (a sampling were all historical, not current)
pol pot: 516 (mostly the same articles found under khmer rouge)
neo-nazi: 1,396
neo-nazis: 1,040
I think it is fine to go as Hitler… just as I do with regard to Osama bin Laden whose actions were much more recent… I don’t think I could name any historical figure who would be inappropriate.
Yeah… I dunno… I got what I asked for I guess, but…
lissener’s links are just (mostly) peaceful demonstrations, and silenus’ appears to be some 44 year old man-child who got busted making bombs in his parents’ basement. Not exactly wetting my pants here. If that’s the supposed to be the big thing that makes a Hitler costume a completely different beast than any other costume, I’m not really sold.
Peaceful demonstrations? Are you saying it only counts if the demonstrators get violent? They’re demonstrating for policies of violence against specific groups of people.
The goalpost that you moved was not that every single member of the movement was always beating someone up whenever they’re awake–I don’t know what else pointing out that those particular demonstrations hadn’t become violent (although some had, actually) proves. No, the goalpost was: is Hitler the symbol of a viable, politically active group that advocated racial policies? Those cites prove that pretty conclusively. Goalpost reached, and breached.
Now, do you want to begin a different discussion on how many of those demonstrations become violent? Fine, start that discussion. I’ll start a discussion about how the PR arms of these organizations strive to present a public face of non-violence, just so people like you can be fooled into thinking they mean no harm than a knitting club. Whatever; those are both different discussions. The point has been made, and backed up with cites, that Neo-Nazis are approximately one thousand times more active, currently, than Neo-Stalinists or Neo-Khmer Rougeists, if that’s a word. Which it’s not. BECAUSE THEY DON’T FREAKIN EXIST. But Nazis do.
Ok, I interpreted the phrase “currently active terrorist philosophy” to mean they were committing acts of terrorism, not politically advocating racial policies. I just don’t think that’s enough to make the costume taboo.
Nope. Not Lewinsky, not Khomeini, not Hitler, not Charles Manson, not Ted Kaczynski. I mean, it is just a costume. It’s not like the kid is going to lock the Jewish kids in the closet and gas them. :rolleyes:
Hitler was a pretty terrible guy, but he’s a legitimate historical figure - perhaps one of the most significant people of the 20th century.
The racial policies they promote advocate violence.
Hitler is a symbol of racist violence.
It’s not okay to cavalierly wave a symbol of racist violence in the face of a person–let alone a child, in middle school–who is a member of the targeted race.
By NOT doing anything about the costume the school administration is saying to the Jews, Blacks, whoever, who go to the school, “Suck it up, kids. Sucks to be you. Lighten up, genocide is funny!”
Personally I think nonPC humor can be very funny. But appropriate in a middle school setting? Categorically not.
When I was in high school a guy dressed as Monica Lewnisky for Halloween. Complete with a giant white stain on the front of his dress. It was hilarious and IIRC, he won one of the best costume prizes.
at the end of my last post!