In who's world?
How Evil Is Too Evil: Collectibles and Nazis
- Thread starter Broccoli Shrapnel
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Status
In who's world?
devilof76
Super Freak
There is only one world, and the things in it exist independently of any observer.
Is this world also void of answers?
This is similar to my perspective. What Hitler did was so abhorrent, and almost incomprehensibly evil, that I can't imagine owning a figure or statue representation of him unless he is, say, having a Nazi flag pole being shoved up his ass by Captain America or something. All the horrible things some of these people did, they shouldn't be on my shelf to be admired for whatever reason. They should be in a history book to be loathed and so that we can prevent future "evil-doers" from doing the horrible things that these others have done, but being a statue or figure that we enjoy looking at and posing? I don't understand that.
I wouldn't really want to judge people for wanting to own that, or John Wayne Gacy, or Saddam Hussein, or whatever, but I probably would, because I just can't understand why anyone would want to. Obviously, fictional characters are just fun and fantasy. Joker isn't real, and hasn't actually killed anyone. Neither has Jack Torrence or the Predator, etc. These are characters who exist to entertain in dramatic media.
I guess one exception would be people who like to collect military figures and re-enact battles or political/military conferences or something. That could be akin to painting a portrait of such an event I suppose. But I don't collect figures for those purposes. I like to look at and enjoy all the wacky characters on my shelves, be it Indiana Jones, Jason Voorhees, or whomever. For that purpose, having a three dimensional representation of a real murderer or rapist would seem to be in bad taste and to enjoy them would be a bit disturbing.
Regarding Vlad, I think a lot of people don't know who he actually was or what he did to the Turks and others, and treat him as a pseudo-fictional character who inspired Dracula (heck, he's got fangs on the PF I think). To some extent, it seems that after a few hundred years have passed, it becomes more acceptable not to abhor people who killed hundreds or thousands. Though it shouldn't, IMO.
Just to play devil's advocate. What about the crime committed that was inspired by fictional characters. Does that close the gap between fiction and reality at all?
devilof76
Super Freak
No, but I thought the underlying premise was more important to address than the question it gave rise to. If the premise is false, where does that leave the question based on it?
Kibishii
Super Freak
The thing with historical collectibles is that they have a real story to go along with it. If someone had a collection of only Dragon WWII Nazis with Himmler & Hitler with them and a collection of swastikas, that would be one thing. However, if a collection had 1/6th of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and a variety of other historical 'villains,' that would make sense and wouldn't be glorifying them.
There are so many "evil characters" that have toys/dolls made of them that I think an evil historical figure is the least offensive. I have to rush my kid through the Star Wars isle at Toys R Us to avoid the Freddy Kruegger and Friday 13th toys. To me, I can't understand why someone would want to put up collectibles of fictional serial killers from horror movies. Yet they have a HUGE following. Look at the popularity of Darkness from Legend; that is basically a statue of Satan or the Antichrist. Cool movie, but I wouldn't want a statue of Darkness.
To be fair, I come from a parent perspective that I don't want to have something up that is going to scare my kids everytime they see it, horror/slasher movies disturb me, AND I don't want certain...topics invited into my home.
There are so many "evil characters" that have toys/dolls made of them that I think an evil historical figure is the least offensive. I have to rush my kid through the Star Wars isle at Toys R Us to avoid the Freddy Kruegger and Friday 13th toys. To me, I can't understand why someone would want to put up collectibles of fictional serial killers from horror movies. Yet they have a HUGE following. Look at the popularity of Darkness from Legend; that is basically a statue of Satan or the Antichrist. Cool movie, but I wouldn't want a statue of Darkness.
To be fair, I come from a parent perspective that I don't want to have something up that is going to scare my kids everytime they see it, horror/slasher movies disturb me, AND I don't want certain...topics invited into my home.
The premise was not addressed and is still the question.
TheObsoleteMan
Super Freak
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 9,951
- Reaction score
- 12
You mean like if someone puts on a hockey mask and chops up a bunch of people like Jason Voorhees? That's not the same thing imo. You can't blame a fictional character because some nut decides to go on a rampage.
devilof76
Super Freak
I don't understand it either, and I can see your point about the difference. Art based on evil serves a purpose that evil itself does not.
This question gets more complicated when you look at a figure of Hitler, et al. as art. Why wouldn't it serve the same purpose as a figure representing Darth Vader or Freddie Krueger? The realities they symbolize are the same.
devilof76
Super Freak
It was. The idea that in one individual's world, Washington could be a hero, and in another individual's world, a villain, is false. Either he was a hero, or he was a villain. It's not a distinction that is made by popular vote. Other people's perspectives on a man's actions are not what define the moral status of those actions.
That wasn't my premise, but to address it and I'll see if I understand you correctly. You're saying that it's implausible for a white man to praise Washington, while a black man he owned to villify him? Man defines morality.
Vader or Freddy symbolize fictional characters who have killed fictional characters. Hitler symbolizes an actual human who killed actual humans. One symbolizes real suffering, the other symbolizes fictional suffering. That's the difference as I see it, and I don't see how they reflect the same "reality" unless one can't distinguish fiction from non-fiction. The spirit of killing in a dramatic context for the purposes of moving a story forward or creating conflict only creates nominal levels of psychological trauma on the reader/perceiver in most instances. It could provide a vicarious thrill where there are no real threats or consequences, similar to the way that riding a roller coaster provides a thrill of potential death that we enjoy for some irrational reason, even though the actual potential for death is extremely low. Does that make it immoral to ride a roller coaster, because it is akin to jumping off a mountain except that it isn't? Fictional murder could provide the purpose of exploring the dark side of humanity without actually harming any real person. It could serve the purpose of a morality play, of educating the reader in some way, etc. These things are not concerned with the reality of human suffering.
Regarding slavery, heck, find me any real life person that doesn't have skeletons in their closet of some kind. Who hasn't taken advantage of poor or weak, or who have committed adultery, or who have stolen, etc.? But murder is in a class by itself. Owning slaves was horrible of course, but ultimately Washington accomplished a lot more good than bad. Hitler was solely concerned with murder, destruction, and glorification of his nation and race of preference. He essentially had no redeeming qualities and caused an incalculable amount of suffering. He symbolizes something much more disturbing than anything a purely fictional character (or a real person whose worst sin was owning slaves) ever could.
I'm sure more than one slave was murdered in their day.
edit: I'd also like to add that, of course "time heals all wounds," but I'm sure Washington in the eyes of the British wasn't a revered figure, but that is why they say history is written by the victors.
By Washington??
I'm speaking in generalities, but I'm sure it is completely plausible that death came to a slave under Washington. It doesn't have to be at his hand for it to be evil.
I said a murderer was worse than someone whose worst sin was having slaves. Murdering slaves is, of course, murder. If a slave died under Washington's employ, it isn't murder unless it was intentional, and from what I know and have read of Washington, he would never have killed anyone unless it was on the battlefield (which still isn't murder, because it isn't unlawful to kill in war unless you kill prisoners or non-combatants) or maybe in a duel or similar type of dispute. Even then, slavery was an "evil" but not by any means an evil on the level of murder.
If a slave was beaten to death by someone under the employ of Washington the blood would be on his hands. A quick google search brings up nothing by his own hands, but he did provide direct support to the French in the form of money and 1000 weapons to supress a slave uprising in what is now Haiti.
Every U.S. President has blood on his hands in some manner, in that innocents who shouldn't die do die because of their actions. As do a good percentage of world leaders over time. Forgetting the narrow slave issue, there are tricky questions of what is acceptable in pursuit of the "national interest," but none of that is comparable to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or others who engaged in mass, systematic killings for the purpose of political control and/or genocide, in my opinion. Leaders send soldiers to kill and die in order to maintain and promote the standards of living of their constituents. If you think that is wrong, then do you feel that you have the right to enjoy the fruits of those behaviors, which includes the ability to live in a nation free from tyranny by foreign actors because the nation you live in provides that security, which was won by the shedding of blood?
I don't know of this slave uprising, but using that as a decision to or not to have a toy of Washington because of that can vary depending on the subjective views of the person, and I think justifiably so, because of the considerations of context, motive, and interest in some objectively greater good. With Hitler, there is no greater good unless you believe that murder and genocide for its own sake is OK.
Slave ownership was the norm in Washington's time, and if he was evil for it, then so were a number of other founding fathers. And in 200 years, many of our generation may be seen as evil for eating meat, but in the contemporary context, it is not viewed as such.
So, I can respect someone not wanting a toy of Washington because of his slavery issue, or not wanting a John Edwards toy because he cheated on his wife, or a Rush Limbaugh toy because he's a drug addict and hate monger. But none of these people intentionally murdered people, so I think that owning these toys for the sake of focusing on their perceived positive aspects (such as Washington essentially forging our country) is justifiable.
I don't know of this slave uprising, but using that as a decision to or not to have a toy of Washington because of that can vary depending on the subjective views of the person, and I think justifiably so, because of the considerations of context, motive, and interest in some objectively greater good. With Hitler, there is no greater good unless you believe that murder and genocide for its own sake is OK.
Slave ownership was the norm in Washington's time, and if he was evil for it, then so were a number of other founding fathers. And in 200 years, many of our generation may be seen as evil for eating meat, but in the contemporary context, it is not viewed as such.
So, I can respect someone not wanting a toy of Washington because of his slavery issue, or not wanting a John Edwards toy because he cheated on his wife, or a Rush Limbaugh toy because he's a drug addict and hate monger. But none of these people intentionally murdered people, so I think that owning these toys for the sake of focusing on their perceived positive aspects (such as Washington essentially forging our country) is justifiable.
I don't think Hitler ever murdered anyone directly, so one could argue that if you were British (or black) living back in those days, Washington was probably no better and perhaps worse to them than Hitler is to us. He was either directly or indirectly involved in the deaths, some murder, some by war, of thousands of Brits. He was a traitorous villian that was turning his back against God and country and killing his/their own people.
Now I don't agree with anything that Hitler ever did, I'm just simply tossing out ideas, and perspectives for sake of discussion. In regards to figures I agree with you. You can make an arguement for just about anything for or against owning it and why.
Now I don't agree with anything that Hitler ever did, I'm just simply tossing out ideas, and perspectives for sake of discussion. In regards to figures I agree with you. You can make an arguement for just about anything for or against owning it and why.
- Status
Similar threads
