Ship of Fools: Not Doing the Research

Thread: Not Doing the Research Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027404

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.

Not a bad or totally outrageous sentiment to express when advertising a religiously-themed child care service. A little awkwardly phrased perhaps, but why were people so upset?

quote:
- Adolf Hitler

Oh. Right. THAT guy.

As far as anybody can tell Life Savers Ministries is not secretly some White Supremacist organization masquerading as a mainstream religious group. And yet someone came up with this billboard and someone else presumably approved it without anyone, anywhere along the line, saying "'Adolf Hitler' . . . that sounds familiar. What's he famous for again?" In other words, a pretty astonishing case of critical research failure.

So this suggests two questions to me.

The first: Are we so removed from the Second World War that someone looking for a generic quote on the importance of children doesn't realize "Hey, isn't the guy I'm quoting considered a serious contender for the title 'Most Evil Person Who Ever Lived'?"

The second: Does anyone else have anecdotes about similar critical research failures?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Usually when people quote Hitler, the underlying message seems to be that he was onto something, but he was a bad guy, and the quote is meant to illustrate how he would apply the principles to his own evil advantage. And then we're supposed to transfer that lesson to the "Hitlers" of today.

So, for example, if someone quotes Goebbels(close enough) as saying "If you get people to believe many small lies, it is easy to get them to believe a Big Lie", the idea is that Goebbels was bragging about his own lying(which is not true, see below), and isn't that just indicative of how policians(or at least the ones the writer doesn't like) operate.

(Actually, Goebbels was talking about Communist liars in that quote, but people always assume he was talking about himself.)

So, when I first read your post about the billboard, I assumed the intended message was something like "If you don't let good people like us raise your kids, they'll be raised by the modern-day Hitlers." However, reading the article, that's not entirely clear, and it does seem possible that they just googled "quotes about youth and education" and went with the first one that came up.

[ 07. June 2014, 04:35: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
The second: Does anyone else have anecdotes about similar critical research failures?

Yeah, back in the 90s, there was a right-wing Canadian MP who quoted Hitler in his newsletter, with the same intention that I referenced above, ie. to show how the supposed Hitlers of today(ie. his opponents) think.

But, probably because the guy's party had a reputation for pandering to racists, and he himself had a German surnmame, it blew up in his face like the Hindenburg and he had to apologize.

Basic rules of political speechmaking: Always assume the mike is on, and don't mention Hitler.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I always wondered about the Egyptian staircase in Harrod's. The then-owner, Mohammed Al Fayed, had the faces of the sphinxes in his likeness with the quote from Ozymandias 'Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair'. You do wonder if he had read the poem all the way through.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think the concept behind the billboard was to compare this quote with a Bible quote Prov 22:6. The idea is that someone will train the youth.

The concept may have been fine, but the implementation of it was appalling. Nobody looked at the final design and thought "that is not the message we want to give". Which they most certainly should have done if you are going to quote from Hitler.

So I don;t know if it was lack of research (although that is possible), but it was failure of the process somewhere.

And somewhere I suspect that someone read the Hitler quote, thought that this sounded good, and decided that someone who supported the Christian faith that much could probably have been forgiven for a few minor issues.

At least he wasn't gay.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

How do you know that either the person who put the quote on the billboard or Hitler weren't gay?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

There was one occasion where I wish I hadn't told someone where a quotation was from, just so that he might later be fabulously embarrassed by using it.

I was being given a lift to a diocesan 'do' by an archdeacon, who was well known for his very Tory sympathies, and who was angst-ing over the diocesan funding campaign. The conversation went -

Adcn: "We need a slogan. Something that's really going to make people think. Something that's going to get the money in."
Me: "How about, 'From each according to their ability; to each according to their need'?"
Adcn: "That's brilliant! Totally brilliant. I love it. It'll look great - I can see it, a poster in every church.... [Pause] ... Who said it?"
Me: "Karl Marx*."
Adcn: [Very nearly drives car into hedge.]

*(I've since discovered it wasn't. But Marx stole it and made it famous.)

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I always wondered about the Egyptian staircase in Harrod's. The then-owner, Mohammed Al Fayed, had the faces of the sphinxes in his likeness with the quote from Ozymandias 'Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair'. You do wonder if he had read the poem all the way through.

I once had a cheap paperback edition of essays by William F. Buckley. On the back, was a quote from Evelyn Waugh, saying of Buckley "At his best, he reminds me of Belloc. At his second best, of Randolph Churchill."

I'm not 100% certain as to who Randolph Churchill was(I'm assuming Winston's son), nor what his overall reputation was, but I am pretty sure that the comparison was not meant as a compliment. The editor seeemed to have an inlking of that, since the quote was followed by a blurb saying "In this book, Buckley is clearly at his best."

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I'm not sure being compared to Belloc is being crowned with laurels either.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Randolph was also the name of Churchill's father.

And what's so wrong about that Marxian idea? Apart from it being him who said it.

I once went on a young Congregationalists weekend, with talks by our minister (the one who blighted my life and my mother's, but that was later). He issued us with Gestetnered handouts, which I have lost, on the subject of different interpretations of how we should live, telling us what was wrong with the ones which weren't Christianity.

There were three. One was that quote. I cannot for the life of me recall what was supposed to be wrong with it.

One was "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Now he could have attributed this to Lenin, and blackened socialism with it, but it seems to be St Paul as well. And the current government. (Finding that Lenin used it makes much more sense of the weekend.)

I am completely stuck as to what he thought the Christian basis for society should be. Loving your neighbour doesn't quite follow logically. The St Paul version wouldn't have exactly won converts. (And wasn't it about leaders who had no productive job but expected their churches to buy them posh manses? Not the church in general.)

And what he was doing teaching politics on a religious weekend, I don't know. But it does explain why he didn't get on with Mum, who had learned left wing stuff at church in her youth.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Randolph was also the name of Churchill's father.

Yeah, but going by his wikipedia entry, it seems more likely that Waugh was talking about Churchill's son. They were friends, but Waugh had a fairly low opinion of him.

Anyway, speaking of Buckley and his circle, I once read an aritcle in National Review that purported to defend heterosexual monogamy as the most advantageous form of family life. The writer of the article strove for a detached, scholarly tone, presumably to distinguish himself from more typical Dead Horse ranters.

At one point, the writer tried to refute the notion that ancient Greeks were tolerant of homosexuality, by pointing out that Socrates was put on trial for corrupting the young males of Athens by seducing them into sex.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Back to Nazis for a sec...

In my hometown, for awhile there were neo-nazis putting up white supremacist posters around town. One of them featured the cliched political cartoon of a "John Q. Public" type guy, supposed to represent the average citizen, being mugged, whacked on the head, run over with a vehicle, or otherwise abused by the powers-that-be(in this case, immigration supporters).

Thing was, though, the downtrodden taxpayer was labelled "Typical Canadian schumck". Okay, I don't expect everyone to be able to identify Yiddish words, but when even NEO-NAZIS can't keep their language unsullied, well, you pretty much know the battle's been lost.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
At one point, the writer tried to refute the notion that ancient Greeks were tolerant of homosexuality, by pointing out that Socrates was put on trial for corrupting the young males of Athens by seducing them into sex.

Which isn't what "corrupting the youth" meant in the Apology. It's kind of shorthand for espousing a philosophy that produced people like Critias, Charmides, and Alkibiades, but under the terms of the amnesty that followed the fall of the Thirty Tyrants he couldn't be directly charged with that offense. Hence the vagueness of the charges in Plato's account of the trial.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'm not sure being compared to Belloc is being crowned with laurels either.

I once read "The Cruise of the Nona" - wonderful book, very dippable-into, marvellous prose style, and full of deep and clearly expressed truths - mostly but not entirely about sailing.

OK, so he had a few Deeply Weird ideas, mostly about politics. Who will cast the first stone?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
At one point, the writer tried to refute the notion that ancient Greeks were tolerant of homosexuality, by pointing out that Socrates was put on trial for corrupting the young males of Athens by seducing them into sex.
Which isn't what "corrupting the youth" meant in the Apology. It's kind of shorthand for espousing a philosophy that produced people like Critias, Charmides, and Alkibiades, but under the terms of the amnesty that followed the fall of the Thirty Tyrants he couldn't be directly charged with that offense. Hence the vagueness of the charges in Plato's account of the trial.

Yeah, I know. I could forgive someone for thinking that the precise charge against Socrates was "opposing democracy" or "siding with the Spartans", since those were some of the background issues, even if not the exact charges.

But to think that homosexuality is anywhere mentioned as a charge, well, that's kinda like writing an essay on American literature, and saying that Hester Prynne had to wear the scarlet letter as punishment for arson.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

While it can't be used as an excuse, there is an element of geography in this.

In some areas, the history of WW2 just isn't in the local narrative, or on the school syllabus.Sure, in any Allied country that should be an outrage, but I know adults in England who know nothing about the slave trade or its impact, and while it is true that the slave trade wasn't caused by one person, many historians argue that its affect was far worse. I wonder what ignorance of slavery would be greeted with in Alabama...?

So this leads us to an interesting question: should people inform themselves of this sort of thing when it isn't a part of their own narrative? Should people be informed, for example, of the implications of admiring the architecture in Bristol?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
So this leads us to an interesting question: should people inform themselves of this sort of thing when it isn't a part of their own narrative? Should people be informed, for example, of the implications of admiring the architecture in Bristol?

If you're going to use that knowledge as part of a marketing campaign, yeah, you should inform yourself. Imagine trying to sell a tour of Bristol that includes a view of the Eiffel Tower (built in 1066 by Nicolaus Copernicus).

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
One was "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Now he could have attributed this to Lenin, and blackened socialism with it, but it seems to be St Paul as well. And the current government. (Finding that Lenin used it makes much more sense of the weekend.)

I am completely stuck as to what he thought the Christian basis for society should be. Loving your neighbour doesn't quite follow logically. The St Paul version wouldn't have exactly won converts.

The verse is from 2 Thessalonians 3:10-11

quote:
For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work.

Paul was talking about people who chose not to work, not those who were unable, or who couldn't find jobs.

Moo

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
So this leads us to an interesting question: should people inform themselves of this sort of thing when it isn't a part of their own narrative? Should people be informed, for example, of the implications of admiring the architecture in Bristol?
If you're going to use that knowledge as part of a marketing campaign, yeah, you should inform yourself. Imagine trying to sell a tour of Bristol that includes a view of the Eiffel Tower (built in 1066 by Nicolaus Copernicus).

Plus, according to this LRB piece by Norman Finkestein(who has studied public perception of the Holocaust), more Amercians can identify the Holocaust than can identify Pearl Harbour or Hiroshima.

So, at least as far as Hitler goes, I don't think residency in America would be much of a factor in determining ignorance. I'm Canadian, but can say with some assurance that the Nazis, World War II, and related topics are ubiquitous in North American popular culture. Even people who don't really understand the historical and ideological background would know that "Nazis equal Hitler and Hitler equals bad."

I'm still thinking that the intended message of the billboard was "If you don't let Christians raise your kids, they'll be raised by the modern-day Hitlers". One clue is that the text quotes Hitler as saying that he wants to "own" children, whereas I'm speculating that those Christians are the type who are very hostile to the alleged goal of the state to take control of family life.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Gareth wrote:

quote:
but I know adults in England who know nothing about the slave trade or its impact

Really? So you're saying that if I were to ask one of these adults "How did the ancestors of most African-Americans get to North America?", they would be at a total loss as to the explanation?

Gotta say, I would find that a little surprising, if true. In Korea, almost everyone seems to have been taught in school the hagiographic view of Abraham Lincoln, ie. he was a good guy, because he was all about freeing the slaves.

Granted, that's a somewhat distorted view of the history, but it still strikes me as a little odd that the average Korean high school graduate would be more informed about American slavery than a resident of the country which was the one actually sending slaves to North America in the first place.

[ 07. June 2014, 21:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'm not 100% certain as to who Randolph Churchill was(I'm assuming Winston's son), nor what his overall reputation was, but I am pretty sure that the comparison was not meant as a compliment.

Waugh on hearing that Randolph Churchill had been successfully operated on to remove a non-malignant tumour:
"A typical triumph of modern science to find the only part of Randolph that was not malignant and remove it."

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
So this leads us to an interesting question: should people inform themselves of this sort of thing when it isn't a part of their own narrative? Should people be informed, for example, of the implications of admiring the architecture in Bristol?
If you're going to use that knowledge as part of a marketing campaign, yeah, you should inform yourself. Imagine trying to sell a tour of Bristol that includes a view of the Eiffel Tower (built in 1066 by Nicolaus Copernicus).

I suspect you've missed the point that Bristol, like Liverpool and the areas inland of both, was built on the proceeds of the slave trade.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

When I clicked onto this thread I thought those who put up the billboard may not have been aware of the source of the quote, but that they knowingly used a quote from Hitler [Eek!]

I wouldn't trust a child to their care especially if the quote was used in ignorance.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gareth wrote:

quote:
but I know adults in England who know nothing about the slave trade or its impact
Really? So you're saying that if I were to ask one of these adults "How did the ancestors of most African-Americans get to North America?", they would be at a total loss as to the explanation?

They assume economic migration - after all, that is the reason why so many ethnic groups come to England.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

There is an interesting discussion to be had about the knowledge, and perception of history, especially in relation to certain aspects.

It could be had on this thread, but it would need to move to Purgatory. (Given it kicked off with Adolf Hitler, its Heaven credentials have been a little shaky from the start).

Firenze
Heaven Host

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gareth wrote:

quote:
but I know adults in England who know nothing about the slave trade or its impact
Really? So you're saying that if I were to ask one of these adults "How did the ancestors of most African-Americans get to North America?", they would be at a total loss as to the explanation?
They assume economic migration - after all, that is the reason why so many ethnic groups come to England.

Are the people holding this misapprehension(ie. African Americans voluntarly moved to America for work) immigrants themselves, educated outside of the UK? Because if so, I can understand the reasons for their ignorance.

If we're talking about UK-educated people, well, I will keep that in mind next time I hear some Brit go off about "stupid Yanks who don't know anything about the world."

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I'm not sure where this one comes from, because the slave trade has been a topic of the compulsory history curriculum for the last 20 years, and the equally compulsory local history / geography units at KS2 and KS3 in many regions of the UK would cover slavery - my daughter did so in Sunderland. There are sites and sites of information and lots of museum exhibitions* across the UK to meet the teaching needs, so anyone who doesn't know about the slave trade in England and Wales is deliberately going around blindfold.

* I can link, but in London, I can think of rooms in the Museum of Docklands and the National Maritime Museum on the slave trade and as I've taught it, I can find you oodles of links to sites, some of the best coming from the Museums of Liverpool and Bristol.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Honestly, just because someone was an evil tyrant doesn't mean they didn't know anything. In fact, I'd say you usually have to be pretty smart to plot your rise to evil tyrant status.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Curiousity wrote:

quote:
I'm not sure where this one comes from, because the slave trade has been a topic of the compulsory history curriculum for the last 20 years, and the equally compulsory local history / geography units at KS2 and KS3 in many regions of the UK would cover slavery - my daughter did so in Sunderland. There are sites and sites of information and lots of museum exhibitions* across the UK to meet the teaching needs, so anyone who doesn't know about the slave trade in England and Wales is deliberately going around blindfold.

In Canada, I don't recall slavery being an explicit part of the curriculum, but it's just something that most people(I think) would know about as a result of exposure to American media. Alex Haley's Roots, innumerable documentaries about the Civil War, quips on Norman Lear sitcoms etc.

Ironically, despite Canada remaining a constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth country, I think there is considerably less awareness of Britain's involvement with slavery. Ocassionally, you do hear someone mention, often as a counterpoint to sanctimonious anti-Amercianism, that there were at one time slaves in Canada, but the overall British slave trade is not something that seems to have pierced the consciousness of most people.

There are likely exceptions, of course. I've heard that in Nova Scotia, Wilberforce Day was at one time celebrated among blacks, many of whom are descended from British colonies.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gareth wrote:

quote:
but I know adults in England who know nothing about the slave trade or its impact
Really? So you're saying that if I were to ask one of these adults "How did the ancestors of most African-Americans get to North America?", they would be at a total loss as to the explanation?
They assume economic migration - after all, that is the reason why so many ethnic groups come to England.
Are the people holding this misapprehension(ie. African Americans voluntarly moved to America for work) immigrants themselves, educated outside of the UK? Because if so, I can understand the reasons for their ignorance.

If we're talking about UK-educated people, well, I will keep that in mind next time I hear some Brit go off about "stupid Yanks who don't know anything about the world."

There are people who fall into both categories: UK educated immigrants.

In all seriousness, why should any of us be surprised when we encounter ignorance? Ignorance suits many people very well - from harmless examples (such as my wilful ignorance of the world of football) to ignorance that allows real harm to occur (our Secretary of State for Education has achieved that special level of ignorance at which a delusional conviction of superior insight takes hold).

If this level of ignorance can be achieved with stuff that is all around you, every day of your life, then how much easier is it to be ignorant of stuff that doesn't feature in your life?

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I'm not sure where this one comes from, because the slave trade has been a topic of the compulsory history curriculum for the last 20 years

I know - I taught for twenty years. And some of the children I taught remembered stuff long enough to pass their exams.

Seriously, can you remember everything you studied at school? Brighter students may be able to - but I've just had a chat with my wife about it and I can't remember any maths beyond arithmetic and she can hardly remember any physics - and we both have MAs.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Gareth wrote:

quote:
In all seriousness, why should any of us be surprised when we encounter ignorance? Ignorance suits many people very well - from harmless examples (such as my wilful ignorance of the world of football) to ignorance that allows real harm to occur (our Secretary of State for Education has achieved that special level of ignorance at which a delusional conviction of superior insight takes hold).

If this level of ignorance can be achieved with stuff that is all around you, every day of your life, then how much easier is it to be ignorant of stuff that doesn't feature in your life?

Oh, I know. People can't be expected to remember everything.

But I still woulda thought that American slavery is one of those things that almost everyone in the Anglosphere, either through education, media, or a combination of both, would know about. Again, though, this might reflect my bias as a Canadian raised in close proximity to the American cultural behemoth.

Assuming that the USA really is as blighted by insularity and miseducation as the steretype holds, I suppose it's likely that there would be Amercians who would not know, for example, that there is fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, because it wasn't covered in school and they never watched a newscast or opened a newspaper in their lives. So, I guess it's not TOO tall an order to imagine that there might be equal levels of ignorance elsewhere in the western world.

(Note: In the above, I am using the word "igorance" as a descriptive, simply to mean a lack of knowledge about something. Not as a judegment call, or a synonym for "stupid".)

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

That's my basic point: some people keep hold of the stuff that is important to them - and ignore the rest.

There are some people who like to be kept informed and actively seek reliable sources of information about the world; others who are concerned when you get their attention and tell them about it; and even more who aren't interested, don't want to know, and instantly forget about it even if you do tell them.

And then there are my favourite group of people: those who have suddenly became interested after a lifetime of ignorance, and bypassed the entire process of finding reliable sources and informing themselves before proclaiming themselves to be experts and advocates. Maybe I should start a thread about them in Hell...

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Meanwhile, this can go to Purgatory.

Firenze
Heaven Host

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
So, when I first read your post about the billboard, I assumed the intended message was something like "If you don't let good people like us raise your kids, they'll be raised by the modern-day Hitlers."

This does seem the most likely explanation to me. My vague impression from across the pond is that many US evangelicals would read it as a warning that the government is out to brainwash their children. The similarities between the Nazis and the current US government are obvious. It's a well-known fact that Hitler was a socialist and secretly a Kenyan Muslim.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The thing is, it is a good quote. The problem being that the context gives it a completely different perspective.

As with all of these sorts of quotes, to take them out of context is dangerous (including biblical quotes), because without a proper understanding of the context (because the context is also important in the meaning), you can take it wrongly.

That quote by Hitler is sinister. the same quote, if it had been by Jimmy Savile, is even more creepy. But if it was by a well known Christian leader with expertise in youth work would be completely different.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Cat wrote:

quote:
That quote by Hitler is sinister. the same quote, if it had been by Jimmy Savile, is even more creepy. But if it was by a well known Christian leader with expertise in youth work would be completely different.

I'm still not really comfortable with anyone, be it Hitler, Lenin, overzealous social workers, or for that matter the parents themselves, talking about how they "own" children.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Any time you say 'my' child, you're using a word that is also used to denote ownership. People don't usually take to mean something deeply sinister.

One could just as easily use words like 'control' or 'influence' or whatever to make the same point.

In any case, as Hitler didn't speak English I can guarantee that 'own' is merely a translation. How accurate that translation is I can't say without seeing what he actually said, auf Deutsch (and even then I wouldn't claim the expertise to decide whether 'own' is the best possible English equivalent).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I don't think this is an example of people failing to do their research. I think it rather is an example of how in many religious and political circles in the US Godwin's Law has become so true that comparisons of one's ideological opponents to Hitler (or Stalin, Mao, etc.) is basically the starting point rather than somewhere that a discussion is inevitably destined to degrade to.

We need more outreach to children.
You know who ELSE needed more outreach to children?

In the case of this billboard, it's more like:

You know who ELSE needed more outreach to children?
Well, we need more outreach to children too.

And this is a perfectly logical (and effective) argument among quite a few religious and political subcultures (of both the left and right, I would add). It doesn't play well, though among those people who are unchurched by religion, atheism, or the extremes of either political party, though, so this billboard didn't stay up for too long.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

orfeo, I was going to see if I could find out that quote in German, but my second try led me to a disgusting site, whose name I'm not even going to give any publicity by repeating. Major utter complete ick. I don't know if there's some more sanitized way to make this search (for the record, I tried googling "he alone who owns the youth gains the future in german" and "he alone who owns the youth gains the future auf deutsch").

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

A German TV website suggests it's a translation of "Wer die Jugend hat, hat die Zukunft".

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Bad translation, then. I'd translate it as "Whoever has the youth with them, has the future."

Maybe my translation isn't much better, but 'haben' is a multi-purpose verb similar (though not identical) to English 'have'; I think translating it into English as 'owns' is too strong. Any native German speakers wish to comment?

[ 09. June 2014, 09:03: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I would translate it, "He who has the youth has the future."

Moo

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yes, that's a word-for-word translation. I was trying to get something that expressed (what I think is) the semantic force of the verb and also sounded like something a politician might say. Because to me, 'having' the youth in this sense means 'getting them to support you'. Which is something all politicians hope for.

People who say 'that sounds reasonable, but it can't be because Hitler said it' are missing the point. Quite a lot of what Hitler said sounded reasonable to his contemporaries at first. The Lindberghs admired him, for example. It's hard to believe now...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I read it as a rough equivalent of "train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." If we give these kids a good grounding in Christianity, they will be model Christians for life. I don't read it as making any us-them distinctions and saying other people want to own our children. Just that if we want to see that they remain Christians, we need to give them a solid foundation.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
People who say 'that sounds reasonable, but it can't be because Hitler said it' are missing the point. Quite a lot of what Hitler said sounded reasonable to his contemporaries at first. The Lindberghs admired him, for example. It's hard to believe now...

Yes. For me the argument isn't "Hitler said it so it must be wrong." From a conservative Christian point of view (which in this instance is short-sighted and doesn't take into account the reality on the ground but oh well), it's absolutely spot-on. But quoting Hitler approvingly is public-relations suicide.

[ 09. June 2014, 14:23: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I agree with you mousethief, that I would have read the billboard as meant straightforwardly (raise Christians in a Christian school) rather than ironically (evade government attempts to raise your children).

Do we have any information about what the organization meant by it?

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, that's a word-for-word translation. I was trying to get something that expressed (what I think is) the semantic force of the verb and also sounded like something a politician might say. Because to me, 'having' the youth in this sense means 'getting them to support you'. Which is something all politicians hope for.

Does "hat" in German have more force than "have" in English? I would have thought that "have" in English is similarly multivalent, with forceful as well as mild interpretations. If the statement in German is open-ended, with the listener to provide the implications they think the politician might mean, then I think the translation in English should be similarly open-ended, and not add the interpretation as part of the translation.

I am only the most minimal speaker of German, so I don't know if "hat" is different in German than "has" is in English. But I think of the ditty "mein hut er hat drei ecke, drei ecke hat mein hut" (if I haven't mangled the German), which is not any deep or forceful invocation of the way in which my hat "has" three corners.

[ 09. June 2014, 15:56: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Forgot the translation:

quote:
the ditty "mein hut er hat drei ecke, drei ecke hat mein hut"

"My hat, it has three corners; three corners has my hat."

[ 09. June 2014, 15:58: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Whatever the precise wording used by Hitler, the thought is not original; it probably has its roots in his Roman Catholic upbringing, particularly his time at a school attached to a Benedictine monastery.

The original is the Jesuit motto Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man, usually attributed to St Francis Xavier.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whatever the precise wording used by Hitler, the thought is not original; it probably has its roots in his Roman Catholic upbringing, particularly his time at a school attached to a Benedictine monastery.

The original is the Jesuit motto Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man, usually attributed to St Francis Xavier.

That had occured to me, too, as I was catching up on this thread.

Richard Dawkins finds the sentiment sinister, and Christians find it sinister when ascribed to Hitler.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whatever the precise wording used by Hitler, the thought is not original; it probably has its roots in his Roman Catholic upbringing, particularly his time at a school attached to a Benedictine monastery.

The original is the Jesuit motto Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man, usually attributed to St Francis Xavier.
That had occured to me, too, as I was catching up on this thread.

Richard Dawkins finds the sentiment sinister, and Christians find it sinister when ascribed to Hitler.

It's one of those "Whose ox is being gored?" issues. Right-wingers who object to sex-ed classes that allegedly promote a tolerant view of homosexuality, on the grounds that schools shouldn't intrude on matters of sexual morality, likely weren't complaining when Health classes were showing Stay Away From Queers videos.

I do know of a few principled libertarians who objected to both, but they are few and far between.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Kind of, but it's not like the threads minded too much on the content of the quote. Indeed a lot of people have said it's actually good.
Note that the ox being gored is actually a Christian one.

The thing is a single quote thing like that suggests the (supposed) authority the person gives to the message is supposed to be significant.
Occasionally the quote is self-evidently amazing and the purpose is to reflect well on the author.

Occasionally in a twisted or negative way. Though that's hard to do unless they already agreed with the message anyway, and has the context.

And so while we wouldn't be surprised (but not convinced) by Dawkin's quoting Jung* and this nursary quoting Xaviar. And would be surprised (and probably flattered) the other way round.
Hitler is one of the chaps I generally assume we're united in thinking was (a not nice person and hence) a bad role model.

*who I think also said something similar.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't think this is an example of people failing to do their research. I think it rather is an example of how in many religious and political circles in the US Godwin's Law has become so true that comparisons of one's ideological opponents to Hitler (or Stalin, Mao, etc.) is basically the starting point rather than somewhere that a discussion is inevitably destined to degrade to.

We need more outreach to children.
You know who ELSE needed more outreach to children?

In the case of this billboard, it's more like:

You know who ELSE needed more outreach to children?
Well, we need more outreach to children too.

And this is a perfectly logical (and effective) argument among quite a few religious and political subcultures (of both the left and right, I would add). It doesn't play well, though among those people who are unchurched by religion, atheism, or the extremes of either political party, though, so this billboard didn't stay up for too long.

There's no evidence to support this thinking, and some internal evidence from the article to dispute it.

quote:
"We are pulling the billboard and certainly never intended to cause confusion. ... Herbert Hoover would have been a far better one to quote when he said, 'Children are our most valuable resource,'" founder James Anderegg told the Ledger-Enquirer.

In other words, the organization was looking for a quote on how important children are and thought the Hitler quote qualified. Unless you think Life Savers is also worried about kids growing up to be Hooverites, advocating tight money and a return to the gold standard.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
People who say 'that sounds reasonable, but it can't be because Hitler said it' are missing the point. Quite a lot of what Hitler said sounded reasonable to his contemporaries at first. The Lindberghs admired him, for example. It's hard to believe now...
Yes. For me the argument isn't "Hitler said it so it must be wrong." From a conservative Christian point of view (which in this instance is short-sighted and doesn't take into account the reality on the ground but oh well), it's absolutely spot-on. But quoting Hitler approvingly is public-relations suicide.

More to the point, making the case that Hitler was spot-on with regards to how kids should be raised is considered prima facie evidence that someone shouldn't be trusted with kids.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

L'organist:

quote:
The original is the Jesuit motto Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man, usually attributed to St Francis Xavier.

Yes, that's what I thought as well when I saw the OP - only I couldn't remember which Jesuit had said it.

Of course in some circles, a quotation from a Jesuit would be very nearly as unacceptable as one from Hitler...

Richard Dawkins has some rather strange ideas about child-rearing himself - he has suggested that children should not be told fairy tales, for example.

Croesus:

quote:
...making the case that Hitler was spot-on with regards to how kids should be raised...

Not what I said, but let it pass. The point I was trying to make was that any politician will occasionally say things that I might find myself agreeing with. Theresa May on the subject of stopping the police abusing their powers, for example. But if they want my political support they are going to have to do better than that. They are going to have to show me that they are committed to building a fair, equal society and convince me that they are not going to turn into raving megalomaniacs the minute they get into power (yes, Michael Gove, I'm looking at you). So Hitler would fail on both counts, even if I was the kind of person who agreed that children should be regimented to the extent they were under the Third Reich (I already know about the Hitler Youth, thanks).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
More to the point, making the case that Hitler was spot-on with regards to how kids should be raised is considered prima facie evidence that someone shouldn't be trusted with kids.

More to some point. But not to the point I was making.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
More to the point, making the case that Hitler was spot-on with regards to how kids should be raised is considered prima facie evidence that someone shouldn't be trusted with kids.

As it stands that could be considered an argumentum ad Hitlerum.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Richard Dawkins has some rather strange ideas about child-rearing himself - he has suggested that children should not be told fairy tales, for example.

As is usual in these cases, Dawkins has maintained that he was misrepresented. Although I'm not sure that 'one might think fairy tales inculcate supernaturalism, but they have advantages too,' is actually an improvement over 'fairy tales inculcate supernaturalism.' For the same reason that it wouldn't be terribly reassuring should the Managing Director of a company to open a meeting by saying, I think we should rule out hiring hitmen to assassinate our competitors on grounds of morality.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Indeed.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
More to the point, making the case that Hitler was spot-on with regards to how kids should be raised is considered prima facie evidence that someone shouldn't be trusted with kids.
As it stands that could be considered an argumentum ad Hitlerum.

More of an argumentum ad Hitlerjugend.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0