Use of the term "Nazi"

putrid,

First off, I respect your views, and I don’t think we need to agree, but I would like to understand your logic a bit better. FWIW, I don’t feel attacked or insulted by anything you said so far. I just don’t get it yet, but yeah, that could be me.

Sorry for the gratuitious quoting once more, but here goes:

" Do I really believe that a Netherlands with no royal history would look at Hitler differently than it does now? Yeah, I do. Of course I could never prove that, and of course such a country wouldn’t be the Netherlands. "

Well, it wouldn’t be a kingdom, but otherwise ? Really, by 1940 Europe (The Netherlands included) had already gotten used to monarchies that didn’t require their inhabitants to be submissive slaves (not that we ever really were, in NL), and that were fairly symbolic kingdoms, meaning the real power was in the house of commons and with the government. In the Netherlands, the 1848 constitution drastically restricted the powers of the King to a predominantly ceremonial role. Sure, formally the Queen can still stop every single bill that’s presented for her approval, but in reality, it rarely happened after 1848, and never happened in MY lifetime (I’m 26). Point being, we basically ARE a republic, albeit one with a symbolic monarchy (I know, it’s a bit of a contradiction, but bear with me). So in the end, I don’t think the pre-1848 (and in reality, our monarchy has always been very mild - this isn’t France or something :wink: ) Royal Power played any role in observing and judging dictators during WWII and afterwards. We are a very liberal country, as has the US always been. Therefore, I think the American reaction to terms like Hitler and Nazi would have been more or less the same today had the US been occupied by the liberty restricting Nazis.

" I guess another way of putting your question would be, “If the US had been invaded by Germany in WWII, would we look at Hitler the same way we do now or would we look at him the way the Dutch do?” (That of course requires you accept my premise that Americans do look at Hitler differently than Europeans and this isn’t all just me.) "

Premise accepted. Yes, I do think the perception is different. Fully agreed. I mean, you WEREN’T occupied by the Nazis, and I suppose that makes a HUGE difference. By no means does this mean I am dismissing the very important role the US played in ending WWII, something for which we’re eternally grateful over here.

" I do not see why my thinking a country’s fundamental past affects its outlook on dictators sounds stupid. "

Well, no, you seem much too intelligent to be called stupid. I just have problems following the logic of it all, so far. I hope the above helps to get the debate in the right direction a bit.

" No, I was not limiting my response to only Coldfire but, yes, I do consider warning against a term’s power and negative connotation to be ipso facto ascribing magical power (in a metaphorical sense) to it. "

This still escapes me. The disapproval of those terms is just historical concience, as far as the Dutch are concerned. No magic. Example: making the Hitler salute will get you arrested over here, whereas I see it on Jerry Springer all the time. Very disturbing to us, but obviously the impact of this gesture is less dramatic (albeit still pretty tasteless) in the US.

" I do not see anything weird about the Netherlands. I simply see thinking there I disagree with. "

A question that you probably are not able to answer is: would you feel the same if your own country WAS occupied during WWII ? I suppose it’s pretty hard imagining that hypothetically. Just as much as it is impossible for me to fully understand the grief the Vietnam War caused among US Soldiers and US citizens. I know the basic historic facts, I know the horrors these soldiers were put through from films and TV-series, but by no means could I ever fully understand the emotional impact of such a war if I or my ancestors hadn’t lived through it.
Mind you, I’m not blaming you or any other American for this. I’m also fine with the fact, that things like Hitler and Nazi aren’t regarded as negative to the same extend (although still negative !) as they are over here.

It’s just not always fully possible to walk in someone else’s shoes, that’s all.

Thanks for responding, putrid. FWIW, I am really enjoying our little debate here :wink:

How about you ?

Coldfire


“You know how complex women are”

  • Neil Peart, Rush (1993)

Uh, about that Jerry Springer thing: not that I really watch that crap, of course :wink:

Coldfire


“You know how complex women are”

  • Neil Peart, Rush (1993)

Coldfire,
This isn’t a complaint but it is aggravating that you catch every little thing which I try to slough over in my posts. Grr. Ok, <blink>warning</blink>, I am about to get way off the subject.

“such a country wouldn’t be the Netherlands,” was an (unexplained) reference to my long-standing (but off-line) contention that one cannot actually walk a mile in another man’s shoes in the way that concept is normally put forth. Here I simply meant (but did not say) that the Netherlands without its specific history would be so different as for it to be goofy for me to suggest that that theoretical construct would be and could be called the Netherlands. To explain myself more generally, it annoys me when someone asks (for example) what I would do in some situation if I was black instead of white. I can’t answer that, as I would be an entirely different person with a different history and outlook on things. The phraseology of my post was simply my way of avoiding commiting my own pet peeve.

Well, my knowledge of how things are in the Netherlands is way slighter than for the UK. I was assuming the two nations’ citizens had similar royal baggage. I do know that Americans and Britons look at royalty differently (sez me.)

I guess I should limit myself to one target at a time. My allusion to magic was basically a mocking of new age drivel. It’s just so confining to have to worry about clarity. Hey, I know what I’m talking about. Now I’m supposed to think of you readers, too?

I guess my second paragraph already says why I’m not going to try to answer your last (main) question. As to your very last one, yeah, that is why I post here. I enjoy debates with my girlfriend more but I figure that is perfectly understandable.

Mike King wrote:

There’s a Second Edition of this now? I want! I want! (I mean, how else am I going to cut out all the “Fun With Cthulu” accessories I need? :slight_smile: )

You can order the second edition at http://www.sjgames.com/murphys/ . It contains the complete contents of the first edition plus a bunch of new material done since 1988.