[QUOTE=Valteron]
I think you may have put your finger on it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, even a blind pig, and all that…but seriously, I was just relaying a vague remembrance. All credit goes to, um, somebody else. 
[QUOTE=Valteron]
If you go to the Wikipedia article I cite in the OP, you will see that Napoleon did indeed surround himself with imposing, tall companions. But since there is NO evidence that he was in any way bothered about his height, why wouldn’t he?
Interstingly, Peter the Great, who was extremely tall (I have no exact figures at hand) loved the company of dwarves and had many in his court. Go figure.
The British, of course, have always used derision of their enemies’ real or alleged physical limitations in wartime as a means of bolstering their own troop morale. Much of it centered on the idea that the British were well-fed eaters of what were supposed to be healthy foods, such as beer and beef, wheras their enemies were portrayed as weak, starving, undergrown wretches who could be easily defeated.
As early as the 100 Years’ War English texts would point out that the English soldier had far more stength because he consumed meat at supper, while the Frencman consumed a weak vegetable broth.
By the time of the Seven Years’ war in the late 18th century, there is a delightful series of war propaganda drawings by Gainsborough. It shows the pathetic French roasting whole frogs over a fire (the French were called frog-eaters) and the caption under the drawing says:
“But we’ll soon teach these strutting foes,
That beer and beef give stronger blows
Than soup and roasted frogs.”
Obviously, Napoleon became a lot less frightening if he could be portrayed as a Tiddy Doll.
[/QUOTE]
Quoted in its entirety.
You obviously know little about the British.
You also know little about the psychology of the tall man
- it is a pain giving short guys space, but they like an ‘enforcer’
Small people are worried about it, take it from me, I have been a minder.
Mostly it is just clocking other people in the same role, and conducting crowd control - maybe not, maybe it is just pretending to be a smart wolf.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
You also know little about the psychology of the tall man
- it is a pain giving short guys space, but they like an ‘enforcer’
Small people are worried about it, take it from me, I have been a minder.
/QUOTE]
First, I have not generalized about ALL tall men or short men.
But I have met some tall men who mention their height as if it were an accomplishment on their part. I feel like saying “Was it very difficult to grow tall, did it hurt, did you consult many people in making your decision to grow to your present height?”
I have met many Brits who have odd illusions, such as the idea that Scotsmen are particularly short. They would tell me these stories about the sterotypical little Scotsman named “Jimmy” and part of the story almost always involves their holding out their hand about 5’ off the ground.
Yes, I think SOME short men have a so-called “Napoleon” complex even if it is very unlikely that Napoleon had one. But if you had to live in a world that irrationally worships tallness and promotes people who are oten less talented and able than you because they are real “leadership material” (read: their legs are longer) maybe you would be a little agressive too, after a while.
WhyNot writes:
> Because whether or not Napoleon himself had a Napoleon complex is irrelevant
> to whether or not such a complex exists. There’s an Oedipal stage of
> development named after an entirely ficticious character in a Greek play. Is it
> sensible to dismiss the concept out of hand because Oedipus (being
> nonexistant) didn’t really suffer from the Oedipal complex? Even if the story
> were true, it does not really describe the Oedipal stage Freud elucidates, as
> Oedipus didn’t KNOW that he was killing his father, nor marrying his mother. But
> the name is good, and describes an interesting phenomonon, regardless of
> whether Oedipus was, indeed, Oedipal.
At the moment, the absolute most that one can say about the Napoleonic complex is “Completely Unproved.” As has been pointed out, Napoleon wasn’t even particularly short. He was around medium height or perhaps a bit less for his time. It doesn’t appear that there is any tendency for dictators to be shorter than average. (No one has done a complete survey, but no one has found very many examples of short dictators.) Incidentally, the Oedipus complex is a bad comparison, since increasingly psychologists don’t think any such thing exists. To prove the existence of a Napoleonic complex, you would have to do the following:
-
Define a small set of psychological characteristics which are typical of this supposed complex.
-
Survey a sufficiently large random set of men.
-
Show that these psychological characteristics are more common in short men than in tall men in this group, using the standard tests of statistical significance.
I don’t believe anyone has even attempted to do such a thing. Furthermore, consider how the term “Napoleonic complex” is actually used. It’s not much used as a category by which psychologists can analyze their patients. It used as a pop psychological term for amateurs to put down short men who show any tendency toward leadership in order to ridicule their attempts to be anything other than a follower.
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
Furthermore, consider how the term “Napoleonic complex” is actually used. It’s not much used as a category by which psychologists can analyze their patients. It used as a pop psychological term for amateurs to put down short men who show any tendency toward leadership in order to ridicule their attempts to be anything other than a follower.
[/QUOTE]
Precisely. Just a “diesel-dyke” and “ball-busting bitch” are used to keep down women who are not completely submissive.
One might just as easily say (and this would be an equally unfair generalization) that tall men have a “Peter the Great” complex that tells them that the fact that their legs are longer somehow is something to their credit and makes them more deserving and better.
By the way, a few more tall tales, just for the record.
-
J. Edgar Hoover was a relatively short man, about 5’7" or so. But his biographical notes published by the FBI used to say that he was “just under 6 feet.” Yeah, just 5 inches under!
-
A nun once told me that Jesus was the only man who was EXACTLY 6’ tall. First of all, he could not have been divine unless he was tall, now could he? And equally amazing is the fact that, unlike other people, his human body did not vary slightly in height between morning and night. But the most mazing fact of all is that God chose to create his only begotten son so that his body would correspond exactly to 6 feet in the imperial system, a measurement that would not exist until the English Kings established it centuries later.
-
A made-for-TV bio of Alexander the Great aired on PBS in the 1980s had, as one of its selling features, the fact that the actor in the title role was “a strapping, muscular six-footer.” Ummmm. . . . .okay, but wasn’t Alexander actually a small man?
-
Finally, lest you think I hate tall people (I do not) rather than society’s idiotic worship of tallness, let me end with an anecdote by a tall man, Abe Lincoln, who when asked how long a man’s legs should be, replied “Just long enough to reach the ground.”
[QUOTE=Valteron]
Now compare these terms, which most decent people have banned from their vocabulary, to the ingrained size discrimination in the following expressions:
He stands head and shoulders above the rest.
He is a mere pygmy
He is a mental midget/dwarf
He is a giant in his field
I would never stoop so low
He is a person of high morals (or low morals)
I’m walking tall
No man stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child
You’re being petty
I thought you were bigger than that
Try to rise above such petty concerns
I wouldn’t lower myself to your level
I’m feeling low
[/QUOTE]
Seriously? As far as I can tell these expressions are still in very common use. And being the same height as the OP, I certainly don’t find them offensive, except maybe the second and third ones.
Thing is, since the bias against the short exists, Napoleon complex – I prefer “Short Man Syndrome” – kind of does exist. Some short guys just have a chip on their shoulder that isn’t unrelated to their size, and I’m speaking as one. Would anyone who knows me from the Pit be surprised to find out I’m 5’5"? No, because SMS is real. Look at Harlan Ellison. Ounce for ounce, he is the angriest man alive.
I’m only partly joking. Just as I believe in the Gentle Giant Syndrome, I believe in SMS – as, if nothing else, a somewhat self-fulfilled prophecy bolstered by cultural disdain for the short, and particularly by the way this clashes with male privilege.
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
Seriously? As far as I can tell these expressions are still in very common use. And being the same height as the OP, I certainly don’t find them offensive, except maybe the second and third ones.
[/QUOTE]
When I said “these” terms in the OP, I meant “the foregoing”, namely, the racial slurs that I was discussing in the previous sentence. I was not referring to the “following” expressions which are expressions of our absurd worship of tallness. Sorry if I was unclear.
[QUOTE=Fish]
I’m not about to blame women for the social desireability of height = power, but many women do, in fact, wish to date someone taller and stronger than themselves. I hear from many women that they like looking up to a man, because it makes them feel protected, safe, secure. (I also hear that women like dating someone at least 4-5" taller than themselves so they can wear their tallest set of high heels. That’s probably a more modern variant, so go figure.)
If women mostly wish to date taller men, for whatever reason, then shorter men feel less desireable, and possibly more insecure. In other words, I believe heightism is probably bound up into sexual behavior.
[/QUOTE]
I recall an interesting study a few years ago that showed that even women who say they don’t care about height in a man, tend to prefer taller men and look at them as better people. To me, this implies that many of those women were either lying ( to look more enlightened, no doubt ), or that the height = good prejudice is so strong that even women who disapproved of it followed it without realizing it.
Ensign Edison writes:
> Look at Harlan Ellison. Ounce for ounce, he is the angriest man alive.
Oh, come on. I know you’re exaggerating for effect here, but that’s an absurd claim. There are a vast number of men in the world who are more angry than Ellison. Granted, many of them are in prison at the moment, but Ellison isn’t in the same league as the truly destructive, violent men in the world who simply don’t care about who they hurt. Ellison’s anger has always had a theatrical edge to it. Ellison wants people to admire him as a crusader against injustice. He wants the sympathy of the crowd. That’s why he has a tendency toward pathological lying. The angriest sorts of men don’t care whether anyone likes them or not. I’m not even sure if Ellison is the angriest famous writer. I suspect there are examples of writers who beat their wives, smash their furniture, kick puppies, and otherwise destroy everything in their paths when they get angry, and Ellison doesn’t do that sort of thing.
I wasn’t exaggerating for effect; I was just kidding, Wendell. Though I’m not sure the anger of Short Man Syndrome implies violence so much as it does bitterness…
Speaking as borderline short myself, I think there could definitely be an issue with regard to clothes. IMO it’s tough for men under 5-10, if not 6-0, to find decently fitting dress clothes. So many of us have to go around in suits that look like they are just hemmed up cast-offs from our big brothers, and that can’t be a confidence booster in the business world.