|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: British Royal Family and Nazism
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yep. Much worse than those old bounders in Saudi Arabia, who are just loveable rascals really.
That there are worse is not in question. But of the European monarchies offered, they're the worst.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
No, no, in fairness to mr cheesy, he night be close to correct. Technically. If you peruse this this list of moarchies, you will see HRM is most of them. So by sheer numbers, she is both among the best and worst.
ETA: x-post with a shift in the goal posts.
[ 23. July 2015, 16:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yep. Much worse than those old bounders in Saudi Arabia, who are just loveable rascals really.
That there are worse is not in question. But of the European monarchies offered, they're the worst.
Your post said: 'Of all the monarchies that exist ...'
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I would be very hapy to have a simpler and less bloated monarchy, along the lines of the countries I've mentioned. My point, really, is that what really makes a difference is whether or not a nation consciously pursues equality, rather than the particular arrangement of the twiddly bits at the top. Getting rid of the monarchy in the UK, on its own, would have as little effect on equality as getting rid of almost all the political power of the hereditary peers has done. OTOH, doing big things about the distribution of wealth and land- which is what the Allies did in Japan in 1945, AIUI- could be done without abolishing the monarchy.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That doesn't alter the points I've raised about context and so on with the 1930s thing -- I'm not giving the royal family a get out of jail free card - I'm simply putting some context behind what remains a pretty embarrassing piece of footage - however we cut it.
I agree with you but there's sufficient post 1930's evidence for most reasonable people to be concerned. But as it involves the Windsors then it gets excused.
Some things are binary you know: it's either ok or it isn't. To apply anything unevenly doesn't especially follow the gospel mandate or narrative even if there's judgement (appropriate or not) involved.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I would agree that some things are binary - if something is wrong then it is wrong, however we cut it.
I'm not sure how much post-1930s evidence there is to connect the Windsors with Nazism. Not a great deal it seems to me.
Princess Margaret's potty-mouth has nothing to do with her political sympathies ... and heck both mr cheesy and myself have been known to use what the BBC euphemistically calls 'very strong language' in Hell. I've done so in Purgatory too, at times.
If I act like a prat on these boards or elsewhere, does that somehow invalidate whatever institutions , political party or faith-group I happen to be involved with?
Equally, if you were to act like prawn, does that mean that all Baptist ministers are somehow implicated in your behaviour?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
To my mind, it's equally as daft to come over all morally indignant about the royal family simply because they ARE the royal family, as it is to white-wash and exonerate them for the same reason.
Yes - they can act badly at times - and the Duke of Edinburgh's racist remarks are unacceptable - as was Harry's sick stunt with the Nazi uniform ...
That doesn't make Harry a Nazi though nor the royal family Nazi sympathisers. Yes, he should have got great big boot up the arse for his behaviour ...
But can you not see why I'm rather squeamish about the tone and tenor of some of the posts here?
In expressing that it doesn't mean that there's 'guilt by association' and I'm somehow a friend to Nazism does it?
I'm not suggesting anyone here believes I am - but the kind of binary thinking on display here leads in that kind of direction. 'You're defending the royal family, therefore you must be some kind of fascist ...'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
So we've got some footage from 1933 or 1934 involving the Duke of Windsor (whose sympathies have been known for decades), the Queen Mother, and the infant princesses Elizabeth and Margaret with, presumably George VI behind the camera.
Excepting the Duke of Windsor (see above), about which of the other four persons can we say about the allegations of Nazi sympathies "there's sufficient post 1930's evidence for most reasonable people to be concerned"? And in what sense does this footage add anything to the knowledge about the persons involved that it might be genuinely be in the "public interest" interest to publish it, rather than merely being pruriently interesting to the public, and a means of putting more money into the Murdoch coffers.
Getting away from the Windsors for a moment, and looking at the context of the times, in the early 1930s Christians could have views about Hitler's Germany which we'd find surprising, even in Germany, where the evidence was starkest, and even visitors from England found little to worry them.
How different things looked to everyone, only a very few years later!
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I wouldn't say that there is much evidence of Nazi sympathies since WW2 in the British royals or aristocracy. I've certainly never claimed this - just that for a period the aristocracy was intoxicated by the idea of fascism.
Anyway, the Windsors do not have to be Nazis to be exhibiting disgusting behaviours. Very largely these have nothing to do with fascism, and everything to do with inherited and unearned privilege.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wouldn't say that there is much evidence of Nazi sympathies since WW2 in the British royals or aristocracy. I've certainly never claimed this - just that for a period the aristocracy was intoxicated by the idea of fascism.
Anyway, the Windsors do not have to be Nazis to be exhibiting disgusting behaviours. Very largely these have nothing to do with fascism, and everything to do with inherited and unearned privilege.
Again, SOME British aristocrats were 'intoxicated' by fascism. Not ALL.
You have not proven that the British aristocracy as a whole were intoxicated by fascism. The fact is, they weren't. Some were. Others weren't.
Heck, we've tried to demonstrate time and time again that whilst one of the Mitford girls was a fascist, another was a communist ...
These things weren't monolithic and there were differences of view-points and opinions within individual aristocratic families.
You can no more make a broad-brush generalisation about the degree that the UK aristocracy were 'intoxicated' by fascism as you can about dock-workers, coal-miners, potters, bank-clerks, middle-managers, railway-workers, bus-drivers or anyone else ...
That's what's bugging me -- this kind of blanket generalisation based on a few examples - Sir Oswald Mosley, one of the Mitford sisters, Lord Rothermere and the Queen's 'Uncle David' ...
I'm not letting any of them off the hook, simply saying that they may have been no more of a proportional representation of the British aristocracy than those working-class Blackshirts who marched with Mosley were representative of the aggregate views of the industrial working-class at that time ...
As for the 'disgusting behaviours' of the Windsors - why should that be seen as any more part and parcel an intrinsic part of their inherited wealth and privilege as - say, than misbehaviour by someone who is unemployed or on a low-income is indicative of something intrinsically 'wrong' with them ... filthy, feckless, idle lay-about ... type of thing ...
No - of course social structures and levels of poverty and deprivation - and the reverse, levels of inherited wealth and privilege - are going to have a bearing on all of this. I wouldn't argue otherwise -- but it's the kind of Puritanical and selective one-sidedness that sticks in my craw.
It's the impression of smug self-righteousness and Pharisaisism that such a view can convey that bugs me.
'I thank God that I am not like those disgustingly behaved Windsor family over there ...'
Motes and beams.
Yes, if Prince Harry parades about in a Nazi uniform as some kind of sick joke then he should be 'called' on it ...
If the Duke of Edinburgh bad-mouths people then he should be called on it too ...
But I don't think some kind of resentful, 'the bastards are more privileged than the rest of us,' thing is particularly helpful.
That's not to argue for a, 'the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate / God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate' type of approach.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I never claimed they all were. I believe a significant number were.
There is no point me trying to respond to the rest of your waffle.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Why not? The rest of us are responding to your ill-though through assertions.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Prejudice is prejudice - whether it's directed at the royal family, the aristocracy, people on benefits, people of particular faith positions, colour or creed.
ExclamationMark is right. Some things are binary. And I recognise prejudice and selectivity when I see it. And I see it in your posts. In spades.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. Yes, I would agree that some things are binary - if something is wrong then it is wrong, however we cut it.
2. Equally, if you were to act like prawn, does that mean that all Baptist ministers are somehow implicated in your behaviour?
3. To my mind, it's equally as daft to come over all morally indignant about the royal family simply because they ARE the royal family, as it is to white-wash and exonerate them for the same reason.
4. But can you not see why I'm rather squeamish about the tone and tenor of some of the posts her?e
1. Then why do we permit a kind of schizophrenic approach depending on "who" you are?
2. When I do, I get called on it and rightly so. I don't expect to tar others in the same way and if you read my previous post you will see that I recognise the good character and work of some e.g The Queen. Equally, there's one or two whose behaviour is poor and in some cases downright wrong yet who are never called to account and are cut a great deal of slack.
3. So you see the point I'm making? I don't have a generic moral indignance, just specific concerns that raise a sign that in the UK we are still overly class conscious and status driven. It's injustice.
4. Yes and so should we all be concerned. WSe don't recognise the intrinsic value of everyone because we don't treat them all the same
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
hosting/
GAMALIEL
If you must get personal, take it to Hell
/hosting
[ 24. July 2015, 11:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Just out of interest, EM, in your original reference upthread to 'the Windsors', I'd understood you to be referring (there) specifically to the Nazi allegations and therefore to the Duke and Duchess of, rather than the wider family. Am I right? I know that you have wider issues about deference and so on.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
People keep quoting about harry and the nazi uniform – I’ve seen it described in various ways so here is the news story:-
"Prince Harry has apologised for wearing a swastika armband to a friend's fancy dress party."
Link to the whole story with a picture
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4170083.stm
So it seems that it was a fancy dress party and while not good judgement call on Harry’s behalf – but it raises the point that people are selling/hiring these things out because there must be a market for them – so where is the condemnation for the non-royal family members, who think it ok or fun to sell or wear a swastika?
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the Prince Harry and Nazi uniform incident is rather different than an 'ordinary' member of Joe Public hiring one to wear at a fancy-dress party, Zacchaeus -- which I would also consider to be a pretty sick and inappropriate thing to do.
Why?
Well, because of his high-profile and public position. It sends the wrong message. He ought to have known better even as a callow yoof ... he would have been fully aware that it was going to cause offence and provoke a shit-storm.
The same applies, I'd suggest to the Duke of Edinburgh's public pronouncements - and I'm with ExclamationMark on that - completely. It's easy to have a chuckle at them -- 'ha ha, silly old buffer ...' -- but some of his remarks have been well beyond the pale.
So, no, I'm not entirely on a different page to either ExclamationMark or mr cheesy -- it's all a question of degree, I think.
I certainly agree that British society is still far too class-conscious and driven by criteria of that kind. We are all culpable of that to a greater or lesser extent as we all contribute in some way to creating the tone and tenor or our societies ...
I s'pose it comes back to the 'punching up' or 'punching down' thing that has emerged from other threads. I'd like to think I'm arguing for a level playing field in how and where we punch.
I certainly believe that there is a Gospel imperative for a 'bias to the poor' ... but I've yet to be convinced that being selective in who we criticise or excuse - be it the Windsors or 'Wayne and Waynetta' is the way to go about it ...
Things are pretty messy all ways round.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Besides, I'm not sure what 'action' could or should be taken against the royal family on the basis on 10 seconds of home-movie footage from 1933/34 any more than could be taken of anyone else who had been filmed larking about with apparent Nazi salutes at that time.
So I don't see how the 'special treatment' thing applies in this instance.
I've yet to see anyone on this thread demonstrate significant causes for concern about alleged Nazi sympathies with any of the royals after that time - other than 'Uncle David' and we all know about him anyway ...
So, I'm still not sure what case there is to answer here.
The Duke of Edinburgh coming out with crass and racist remarks is another issue.
Whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' to have a heriditary monarchy and peerage is another issue again.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy keeps asserting that his non-defined aristocracy in the 1930's UK was either pro-Nazi or pro-fascist (confusing the two into one). Very few people were in fact interned during the war as being a security risk. The reason? Very few people at all, in any section of the UK community were in favour of either Nazism or fascism. What Mr Cheesy has not done is to understand that what he observes is not that people were in favour of either ideology but rather that they were opposed to the rise and spread of communism and that the actions of Mussolini and later later Hitler were perceived as quarantining the success of communism to the USSR.
I was away from the Ship (indeed internet life generally) for some time and did not respond to Mr Cheesy's answer to my last post. I do not do so now - it is one of the best and most illogical non-sequiturs I have seen for many a day.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What Mr Cheesy has not done is to understand that what he observes is not that people were in favour of either ideology but rather that they were opposed to the rise and spread of communism and that the actions of Mussolini and later later Hitler were perceived as quarantining the success of communism to the USSR.
However, it's equally true communism itself was seen as the endpoint of a number of tendencies, which started any attempt to change the social order (unions in all their forms, any sort of social democracy etc) all of which were seen as undesirable, which is exactly *why* fascism with its promise of a fixed order appealed so much.
It was fairly clear at the that Britain would not be subject to the kind of communist revolution that had been seen in Russia, yet when Rothermere described the BUF as:
"a well organised party of the right ready to take over responsibility for national affairs with the same directness of purpose and energy of method as Hitler and Mussolini have displayed".
The reason he could do so in a national newspaper is that a number of people in this country (many of them with influence at the time) thought that social change had already gone too far.
So no, I don't think you can put down the support to fascism down to the 'he may be a bastard, but he's our bastard' school of thought that was prevalent after WWII.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Mr Cheesy keeps asserting that his non-defined aristocracy in the 1930's UK was either pro-Nazi or pro-fascist (confusing the two into one). Very few people were in fact interned during the war as being a security risk. The reason? Very few people at all, in any section of the UK community were in favour of either Nazism or fascism.
Well now, if you're happy to hear an unsubstantiated story, I'm happy to pass this one on.
Most people know about Hitler's Black Book, containing the names of those British establishment figures who would have been taken to concentration camps had Germany's invasion plans of the UK been successful. Less well known is that there was another book, containing the names of prominent people openly or secretly sympathetic to the Nazi cause.
A Famous Author™ was going write a book based on this second list, but my source suggests that this has never happened because it would upset too many powerful people - they're going to make further enquiries when they next bump into them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I thinks that's true -- although I would certainly consider it reprehensible to support fascism - however tacitly - as some kind of bulwark against communism.
At any rate, I don't think we have to get into futile debates as to whether one is as 'bad' as the other - ie. fascism is always bad but communism isn't necessarily - as it hasn't really been tried properly yadda yadda yadda ...
From what we've seen so far, judged on their individual merits, both fascism and communism seem equally unpalatable. I'd have no more wanted to live under Salazar in Portugal than Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam - or Castro in Cuba, come to that ... although all of these regimes fall somewhat short of the sheer horror of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia ...
It's all a question of degree.
So far as the British royal family are concerned - no-one has yet put forward any 'causes for concern' post-dating the 1930s in terms of their alleged sympathies with fascism.
All we've had is that Princess Margaret was a potty-mouthed boozer - tell us something we don't know - that the Queen Mother mightn't have been as loveable as she is usually portrayed and that the Duke of Edinburgh comes out with some pretty stupid statements at times ...
I'm not that bothered about all things royal - but I do admire the Queen and on balance I'd rather a honed-down and less bloated monarchy than none at all -- but then, if I lived somewhere which didn't have a monarchy I wouldn't be joining a secret cadre plotting for its restoration either.
The thing is, they are easy targets. If the monarchy ceased to exist tomorrow I don't see how that would automatically lead to some kind of more just and fair society -- we'd still have the corporate greed of the multinationals, we'd still have the celebrity culture, we'd still have our own individual as well as collective sins to contend with ...
If it's the case, that ExclamationMark suggests that people in the UK 'worship' the royal family (and I don't see a great deal of evidence for that save for one or two over-the-top monarchists) then perhaps we ought to look at this group here to put things in balance and some kind of context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gee D
quote:
Very few people at all, in any section of the UK community were in favour of either Nazism or fascism.
True in the sense that very few people would have countenanced a German/Italian/Spanish takeover of the UK. But in the sense that a lot of people held similar values (racism, anti-semitism, etc...) based on English/British nationalism ... that's a different matter. I recall some shock in the late 1960s when WWII hero Douglas Bader gave very emphatic support to the racist Southern Rhodesian government, and he was far from the only person with such opinions....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
It's worth pointing out then, SL, that the Queen was very definitely opposed to apartheid and was at odds with Thatcher over sanctions on SA - but could of course not interfere with government.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
OK mr cheesy, just to show you what a nice person I am, I'm going to hand you a quote on a plate.
This is a description of Hitler from Churchill's book Great Contemporaries, written in 1937, and I've just come across it in a new book I'm reviewing, Hollow Heroes: An Unvarnished Look At The Wartime Careers Of Churchil, Montgomery And Mountbatten:-
"The story of that struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate or overcome, all the authorities or resistance that barred his path. Those who have met Herr Hitler face-to-face in on public business
or on social terms have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism".
It doesn't prove your thesis, but I'm sure it will make your day.
You might like to file it alongside similar eulogies from the era to Stalin, some of whose encomiasts, like Churchill in the case of Hitler, came to their senses , and many of whom did not.
[ 27. July 2015, 03:49: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
OK mr cheesy, just to show you what a nice person I am, I'm going to hand you a quote on a plate.
This is a description of Hitler from Churchill's book Great Contemporaries, written in 1937, and I've just come across it in a new book I'm reviewing, Hollow Heroes: An Unvarnished Look At The Wartime Careers Of Churchil, Montgomery And Mountbatten:-
"The story of that struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate or overcome, all the authorities or resistance that barred his path. Those who have met Herr Hitler face-to-face in on public business
or on social terms have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism".
It doesn't prove your thesis, but I'm sure it will make your day.
You might like to file it alongside similar eulogies from the era to Stalin, some of whose encomiasts, like Churchill in the case of Hitler, came to their senses , and many of whom did not.
Nothing in this amounts to an endorsement of or support for Hitler. Read it carefully. better still, reads the whole essay, which IIRC adds some very significant 'BUT...'s to the passage you've quoted. Those chosen for inclusion in the collection Great Contemporaries, are not restricted to those whom Churchill admired. Trotsky, IIRC, is there, and Bernard Shaw who is given very faint and qualified praise indeed.
[ 27. July 2015, 07:20: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Pomona
quote:
It's worth pointing out then, SL, that the Queen was very definitely opposed to apartheid and was at odds with Thatcher over sanctions on SA - but could of course not interfere with government.
Although not a monarchist, and definitely opposed to the notion of a Christian monarch in a 'Christian country', I have considerable respect for the Queen personally. Whatever was going on in the film that started this business off, it would be wrong to hold a child of her then age responsible for it.
I was simply making the point that a lot of the opposition to German/Italian/Spanish and other fascistic ideas was based on, in effect, a pro-British version of the same ideas. And that many of those ruling parts of our old Empire were thoroughly racist and authoritarian themselves even if they fiercely fought Hitler.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Nice one, ExclamationMark ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
On a more serious note, with a South Pacific cult growing up around Prince Philip, it does illustrate the tendency that human beings in all sorts of societies seem to have - and that's to hero-worship or venerate particular individuals.
I can't think of a system or society where this doesn't happen - be it Saints or heroes of the faith - and every Christian tradition has those to some degree or other - even if it doesn't formally beatify or officially designate them as such -- be it sports, be it arts and culture, be it political systems of various kinds - including the hero-workers of various Communist systems ...
What do we do about that?
Do we appropriate these tendencies and try to Christianise them? Which, I suppose, is what happens within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?
Or do we tut and pout and get all Puritanical about the whole thing?
Or seek some kind of middle-ground between those extremes?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Steven Langton, I think back in the day, with the whole imperialist history of Western Europe we were going to end up with institutionalised racism and authoritarianism ...
The issue is that, given that background and trajectory, the degree to which these things were taken. One could certainly argue that Nazism represents a particularly virulent form of romanticised nationalism and anti-semitism that was already endemic in European culture and took it to a hideous extreme.
The same can be said about dialectical materialism being taken to an inhuman and hideous extreme in Stalinism and other forms of totalitarian communism.
So, yes, there is gradation along the spectrum from an unpleasant late 19th century jingoistic imperialism - common to the British, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Belgian, French and other empires at that time -- towards full-on fascism.
Just as there is a gradation on the opposite spectrum from milder forms of socialism towards more totalitarian forms of communism.
Of course, there were also contrary voices too - and that's as it should be - but both deifying or demonising particular groups or classes of people doesn't get us very far -- and I think that's been happening on this thread to a certain extent.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Those chosen for inclusion in the collection Great Contemporaries, are not restricted to those whom Churchill admired. Trotsky, IIRC, is there, and Bernard Shaw who is given very faint and qualified praise indeed.
Not to mention Kaiser Wilhelm II.
I'm just trying to wind up mr cheesy, and you are not helping.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Damn, sorry. Sensors need recalibrating. And such a good cause too.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday
Deliberate winding up - even when done with style - is not allowed in Purgatory. No more please.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Kaplan Corday
Deliberate winding up - even when done with style - is not allowed in Purgatory. No more please.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Style is my second name (my wife thinks it is Sty).
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which would make your first name 'Pig' right?
Or is that not Purgatorial?
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Gamaliel, you are in no position to play with the rules, even in jest and no matter how many smileys you add.
I think you've used up nearly all your final warnings.
Kaplan Corday, I advise you not to make posts that could be interpreted as disregarding a host ruling too.
/hosting
[ 28. July 2015, 15:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough. It was a joke but I can see that it crossed the line as far as Purgatory is concerned.
I apologise.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
