Posts by Chris Waugh
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Air pollution + rain = ?
-
If you wanna get down
Down on the ground... -
Muse: Guilt By Association Copy, in reply to ,
What is there to learn from Nazi memorabilia?
Well, see what Lucy wrote about
designed to explain exactly how the Nazis had become popular and widely-supported in Germany over the course of the 1930s
Hard to do that without presenting them as fully human. Memorabilia brings that humanity to life.
the stimulus for a philosophic discussion like we are having.
Is also a good and necessary thing.
So, Nazi memorabilia has real value.
-
Muse: Guilt By Association Copy, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
come to the universal agreement that the Nazis were not just bad humans but literally demonic in some way
And that I find far more troublesome than Kim Dotcom's ownership of a copy of any book. I suppose demonising of the Nazis and WW2 era Germans generally has been going on since the war, but the trend to literally demonise or dehumanise them by portraying them as non-human monsters is really worrying. Especially considering how portraying them as human are received. I think Nazi memorabilia rightly belongs in museums and libraries where it can be used for academic and educational purposes, rather than in the hands or vaults of private collectors, but I have no problem with private collectors owning Nazi memorabilia because at least that way it's still out there for people to learn from (and yes, even locked in a vault - see the current fuss and bother). But I can't help but feel this horror at the idea of Kim Dotcom owning a copy of Mein Kampf - yes, even if it is signed by Hitler - as part of this movement to present the Nazis as non-human Other. Portraying the Nazis as anything other than fully human seems to be an attempt to absolve ourselves of the possibility of such evil, and that, to me, is far more dangerous than any multimillionaire owning a book that creeps people out.
-
Muse: Guilt By Association Copy, in reply to linger,
So Mao can be “chic” for Europeans, no worries. But … are you also saying that Mao remains “chic” among Chinese,
For some, yes. For others, there's nostalgia value. For others, liberation and national identity. For others, all of the above. And for more than a few drivers who hang Mao medallions from their rearview mirrors, he's been elevated to some kind of patron saint (although that, somewhat ironically, falls perfectly into Chinese tradition of elevating historic heroes to god status - Guan Yu is another great example). It also helps that China has not made a clean break from the Mao era - the regime Mao set in place is still here, albeit somewhat evolved. There's more to explore there - like the lack of a clear distinction between Good and Bad in the Chinese civil wars, for example, but I must run.
-
Muse: Guilt By Association Copy, in reply to Keir Leslie,
And the autograph? Getting to the point of being pretty icky, really.
Yes, but icky enough to generate all this fuss?
-
Feed: My Life in Curry, in reply to Bart Janssen,
The recipe takes 3 full days of cooking
[...]
usually requires a trip to Sandringham.
Sounds like an epic recipe.
Time also seems to intensify the heat of spicy food - one point for those with a lower chilli tolerance to beware of.
-
Muse: Guilt By Association Copy, in reply to izogi,
Genghis Khan
is a poor example, having suffered a similar fate to the Vikings in having his popular historical memory reduced to a caricature.
I think a better East Asian example is Mao Zedong. Didn't set out to conquer the world like Genghis Khan, but then again, Mao didn't see himself as God's vengeance on a sinful world. He did rack up one hell of a bodycount, and there are plenty still alive with vivid memories of the horrors wrought in his name, but somehow there's a certain industry in Cultural Revolution chic. At least back in my first few years in China there were plenty of young expats running around with Mao memorabilia, tourist-oriented markets had stalls with large piles of the Little Red Book translated into several major European languages, and more than a few people of a similar age and skin colour to me had olive green satchels with 为人民服务 (wèi rénmín fúwù - serve the people) emblazoned on the side in Mao-style calligraphy*. Somehow I very much doubt any of the young Westerners stocking up on Mao memorabilia would've found similar stalls in German or Austrian markets selling Mein Kampf and Nazi memorabilia in anyway tasteful, or thought it cool to wander around Germany wearing Nazi regalia, even if the law allowed it. So I very much doubt the passage of time has much to do with how these things are perceived - especially considering that Mao died 31 years after Hitler and those who personally remember life under Mao are much younger and far more numerous than those who remember life in Nazi occupied Europe.
*it's a real thing, and still fairly commonly seen, calligraphy in the style of Mao's own handwriting. Personally I hate it - just an illegible scrawl to my eyes - but others consider it to be fine art when done well. No accounting for taste.
-
Well, Cameron Slater can hang a Mission Accomplished banner in his room.
Ok, fine, we can question Dotcom's taste in collectibles, memorabilia and investments. But the closest I saw to anybody actually finding a story in this non-issue is this bit from the Herald's article:
Jewish Federation of New Zealand president Stephen Goodman said Mr Dotcom's ownership of Nazi memorabilia was upsetting and could cost him support in New Zealand.
"We're always disappointed that anyone wants to make profit out of the suffering of others and making profit out of Nazi war memorabilia shows great disrespect to those who suffered."
Fair enough. And Dotcom wasn't helping himself by mentioning the likely future value of the book.
But the offending book has real historical value, even more so given that it was signed by Hitler and dedicated to his cellmate. It may also be worth noting that Mein Kampf is not illegal in Germany and there are plans to publish a new, annotated German edition (and on that note, this is a good, quick glance at the legal issues surrounding publication of Mein Kampf). But really, how are we supposed to teach kids about the evils of the Nazis if this is how we react to the news that somebody owns a copy of Mein Kampf signed by Hitler? Nobody's going to learn anything until they understand that the Nazis were real people just like us.
But hey, Cameron Slater must be dancing in glee, having just spun an issue of poor taste in collectibles into some major political scandal.
-
Hard News: Taking a very big gamble, in reply to william blake,
policy wise
Which of those position statements were you referring to? The statement on corruption defines corruption thusly:
Corruption may be defined as giving, obtaining or denying advantage through means which are illegitimate, immoral and/or inconsistent with one’s responsibility towards other people. Corruption is a global challenge, impacting to various degrees, and in various ways, societies around the world.[1]
Corruption is a generic term which includes such things as bribery, extortion, cronyism, and nepotism. It can also take the form of obstruction of justice. Corruption can take many forms that vary in degree from the minor use of influence to systemic, pervasive institutionalised bribery. ‘Agent fees’ can be a euphemism for another type of bribe, an amount that is paid above the normal fee to an agent who in turn uses it to bribe certain individuals or officials to facilitate the granting of a contract or other favours.
So it doesn't seem to be immediately relevant, unless somebody wants to allege they paid a bribe to secure this contract, which would be a surprise considering they apparently didn't even know about the contract until they picked up the newspaper. It does say:
The Salvation Army will not knowingly accept any donations coming from the proceeds of corruption.
It certainly does not define gambling as corruption.
The statement on gambling, which would seem most relevant to the issue at hand, doesn't seem to have anything to say about taking money from gambling, but given:
Governments are supposed to be God’s servants and seek the welfare of society as a whole. When the state uses gambling to collect revenue from a vulnerable population, it is not acting in good faith towards the citizens it is to serve.
and
Salvation Army soldiers commit to abstain from gambling in any form. In the context of fundraising for charities, Salvationists are encouraged to make donations rather than participate in gambling activities.
and
The Salvation Army engages in advocacy with governments, commercial entities and individuals concerning the inherent dangers of gambling and the suffering it inflicts on gamblers and their families.
"Salvation Army Gambling Addiction Services brought to you by Sky City" would seem to be very strange, indeed.
The money involved in this issue is supposed to be coming from the state, isn't it? In that case:
The Salvation Army will work with the State and its agencies to deliver and provide humanitarian and social services that benefit people without discrimination.
