elephas
Senator
To be honest, I did not notice these symbols. I agree that it is best to avoid them in any context, with the exception of films with high artistic merit. Such as the TV series "The Man in the High Castle".
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Judicial Corporal Punishment Of Women: Illustrations
- Thread starter elephas
- Start date
M
montycrusto
Guest
Or “The Producers”...
John Delves Richardson
Governor
IDKNot bad I guess! I would not include Nazi symbols in my own work though
I have included those symbols in my renders a few times in the past and I'm still "not OK" with my own decision.
A famous film about the Austrian empire's brutal crack-down after the 1848 rebellion - it had obvious meaning to Hungarians under Soviet rule, although Miklós Jancsó had to pretend that wasn't his intention.
willowfall
Senator
Burying or ignoring our past is never a good thing because we then tend to forget (or pretend it never happened) to make ourselves feel better about "humanity". But by doing that we forget the lessons to be learned from our past,
And you do realize that almost any group anywhere can be viewed in a similar light as the Nazis. There are people today who view the American government (or any number of governments I can think of) that way. The British were the ones who invented the concentration camp (just ask the South Africans) and certainly the Israelis cling to their view of Roman occupation of Palestine in a very unfavorable light.
I think it is pretty well known my views on censorship, while this group as a private group has the right to post or deny the ability to post anything we want where do we stop? How many people have to be offended before it qualifies to be banned? 1, 10, a 100?
Censorship is a slippery slope that none of us want applied to ourselves but once we open the door to censor one group or one 'symbol' (which by the way in India has a completely different connotation than Nazism) then the door has been opened to be the ones being censored. So under the current conversation it would be ok for obviously German Wehrmacht soldiers to be whipping or raping some girl as long as they don't have a Nazi symbol in the picture? Or Soviet solders are ok and Nazis are not? Talk about deluding ourselves.
I am not against a ban against say images that are considered too vulgar, and certainly we want no images of children, but is based on something we consider inappropriate or illegal.
I believe that free speech means truly free speech not just speech we, as individuals, approve of. You counter bad ideas by confronting them not trying to bury them (which is patently impossible in today's electronic society).
So I would say to those who find the Nazi symbol inappropriate to either ignore those images or put a "sad" vote on them. Don't ask them to be banned because someone may turn around and ask images you like to be banned for the same reasons.
kisses
willowfall
And you do realize that almost any group anywhere can be viewed in a similar light as the Nazis. There are people today who view the American government (or any number of governments I can think of) that way. The British were the ones who invented the concentration camp (just ask the South Africans) and certainly the Israelis cling to their view of Roman occupation of Palestine in a very unfavorable light.
I think it is pretty well known my views on censorship, while this group as a private group has the right to post or deny the ability to post anything we want where do we stop? How many people have to be offended before it qualifies to be banned? 1, 10, a 100?
Censorship is a slippery slope that none of us want applied to ourselves but once we open the door to censor one group or one 'symbol' (which by the way in India has a completely different connotation than Nazism) then the door has been opened to be the ones being censored. So under the current conversation it would be ok for obviously German Wehrmacht soldiers to be whipping or raping some girl as long as they don't have a Nazi symbol in the picture? Or Soviet solders are ok and Nazis are not? Talk about deluding ourselves.
I am not against a ban against say images that are considered too vulgar, and certainly we want no images of children, but is based on something we consider inappropriate or illegal.
I believe that free speech means truly free speech not just speech we, as individuals, approve of. You counter bad ideas by confronting them not trying to bury them (which is patently impossible in today's electronic society).
So I would say to those who find the Nazi symbol inappropriate to either ignore those images or put a "sad" vote on them. Don't ask them to be banned because someone may turn around and ask images you like to be banned for the same reasons.
kisses
willowfall
M
montycrusto
Guest
I don’t see any need for its removal or for you to apologise.
There are plenty of images of Nazis on this site, nobody is asking for their removal or suppression.
I quite agree. Let’s get back now to regular scheduled programming,I don’t see any need for its removal or for you to apologise.
doe1971
Tribune
I'M OFFENDED!!!
windar
Teller of Tales
Seinfeld reruns?
Loxuru
Graf von Kreuzigung
Reruns of Ilsa, the She-Wolf of the SS?
That is incorrect. In the Spanish American War 1896-8, General Valeriano Weyler began a policy of 'reconcentration' moving Cuban civilians to central locations where they would be under the control of the Spanish army. The policy had disastrous consequences. Unlike many concentration camps in the twentieth century, the idea was to keep the Cuban civilians alive and protected until the Spanish were victorious. Unfortunately at least 30% perished from lack of proper food, sanitary conditions, and medicines. The policy generated severe anti-Spanish feeling in the United States which helped propel it into war in 1898. Finally, it did not benefit the Spanish in the war.
But General Kitchener was quick to pick up the idea, and implemented similar policies in the South African War from 1899 on. The use of the phrase 'concentration camp' in English obviously dates from then.
The U.S. was not far behind. Following the swift American victory in its 1898 war with Spain, the U.S. annexed Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and American officials turned to the policy of “reconcentration” in order to stamp out independence efforts among the newly-acquired territories. This was accomplished in part through the establishment of concentration camps. It’s unclear how many Filipinos the Americans forced into these camps, though estimates run into the hundreds of thousands. At the time, the policy appeared wildly popular among certain segments of the American public, in particular its overtly racial overtones. The “reconcentration” policy was, as one pro-U.S. newspaper enthused, “the most effective thing of its kind ever seen in these islands under any flag.”
Last edited:
So something bad that wasn't invented in Germany? I hadn't heard that before.
windar
Teller of Tales
It actually started before then, during the Ten Years War in Cuba, which began in 1868 and lasted, yes, 10 years.
Ten Years' War
The Ten Years' War (Spanish language: Guerra de los Diez Años ) (1683), also known as the Great War and the War of '68, began on October 10, 1868 when sugar mill owner Carlos Manuel de Céspedes and his followers proclaimed Cuba's independence from Spain. It was the first of three liberation wars...
I tried to acquire one, but there was too much competition.No one has a monopoly on evil
One should always be wary when told to strip naked and face the wall ... chances are, whatever is coming will not be pleasant.
twonines
LIMERICUS
The US Government`s policy of herding native Americans into "reservations" falls into the same category, and happened earlier than the South African War, or the annexation of the Philippines.
twonines
LIMERICUS
So true.No one has a monopoly on evil