When I was a little boy the first verses I ever memorized were: “They’re changing guard at Buckingham Palace/Christopher Robin went down with Alice.” My mother used to read A. A. Milne to me at bedtime. I guess that began a life of anglophilia. Even though I was a little Jewish boy, I had no idea of the anti-Semitic history of the British ruling class so darkly and elegantly portrayed in The Remains of the Day. It took many years until I learned about that. My first trip to London at age sixteen I had no real consciousness of it. I was too busy watching Olivier and Gielgud do A School for Scandal and, yes, seeing the changing of the guard. Later when I came to live in London, I was in Belsize Park, not far from heavily-Jewish Hampstead. It seemed like a good life to me.
I think, until quite recently, I was one of those Jews who leaned to not making a fuss when young idiots like Prince Harry displayed an insensitivity (putting it mildly) to my co-religionists. No more. The epidemic is spreading again and I can only nod my head when tabloids like the Daily News refer to him as “Heil Harry.” It’s time for the Royal Family, everyone’s favorite tourist attraction, to go.
SECOND THOUGHTS: Ultimately, I agree with Lem below. This is not a time to defenestrate the Royal Family — although they are rather vestigial, wouldn’t you say?–but to educate. But how many chances do they get? I don’t want to count how many we’ve given them.
I can’t see how there is this outrage over the Nazi get up, yet at the same time the polls showing that there is this ignorance about the comparing the murder of the Jews during WWII to how the Israelis are treating the Palestinians.
The Royal family sent their kids to schools which fill their heads with left-wing political nonsense while ignoring historical facts.
I think Harry is an ignorant ass, but he is just one of many that exist in the world. He is just more public about his stupidity.
Having seen the photo and read the story of the regal prince’s antics, all I can say is that words fail me. I don’t expect much from royalty other than taste and decorum. Young Harry can’t even deliver this. Pathetic.
Roger,
You have to remember that you are looking at a generation not that has not merely forgotten but which never knew.This Hooray Harry is basically a twenty year old prat,and this if it had been the son of anyone else it would have passed off unnoticed.
As it is the young twerp will have got a “right royal bollocking” probably from his father and his grandmother,Prince Charles remember is Defender of Faiths,not just The Faith.I also wonder what the people who look after protocol were doing,at one time it was someones job to make sure princes did not offend.
As for the Monarchy going that is exactly what
the Blair government want,assauge the republican urges in the Labour party and remove an obstacle to integration with Europe.The republican wing of our MSM has been instrumental in blowing up a lot of scandals about the Royal family,there are reporters following them day and night in the hopes of a story.
Destroying the Monarchy over this issue would inflame anti-semitism not reduce it and what would we get in its place,the grinning Tony Blair as provincial governor under an EU President.As you know from the Kennedy’s having a President does not guarantee good behaviour.
We are about to have our unwritten constitution trashed,our common law overridden and our laws made in Brussels,much better Rabbi Sacks takes him on one side and and puts him straight and the young fool be allowed to atone for his crass stupidity.
I truly admire Britania in many ways, but I always scratch my head over this worship of (and reluctance to rid itself of) this rotting relic known as the Roral Family. Far be it from a yank like myself to tell them what to do, since I was mightily indignant when the Guardian inserted itself into the US elections. But these Royals seem like nothing but royal f*ck ups. Surely, Britain would still retain its joys if it were to dump these losers. It ought to be beneath a parlimentary system to continue to induldge such stuff. The desire of the part of the public to adore/hate such types can certainly find sanctuary in the form of pop stars and other celebrities. And plenty of them are already fascists. At least it would be a representative of the state decked out in a Nazi uniform.
if it had been the son of anyone else it would have passed off unnoticed.
Point well taken, but Harry bloody well knows who he is and that the press and interested parties are after him, for good or ill. Can anyone imagine the reaction were the Bush twins to attend a fancy dress party dressed in white robes and pointy cap/masks? At least they could try to pretend they were ghosts, but Harry’s swastika leaves little room for interpretation. (Still, Corey Pein could have a go at it.)
By that logic, we should say that Hollywood should get rid of its stars. After all, they support many heinous causes (although they know better than to touch the Nazi 3rd rail, instead referring to Bush as one).
I don’t like the idea of getting rid of traditions. The Royal Family is entertainment and perhaps a very visible indicator, a canary in the coal min, of the decay of British values.
You’re giving Harry way too much credit. I doubt he’s smart enough to be even aware of anti-Semitism.
No doubt someone who wanted to make a lot of mischief told him he would make his family very angry by wearing that armband and he had no idea what it represented.
His punishment should be to be taken to the camps and forced to look at what what was done by those who wore that insignia.
It might be the making of him as an adult.
Getting rid of the Monarchy is no guarantee of respectable behaviour,when the princes of the new elite can deliver a Chappaquiddick what system can be instituted that ensures the ruling elite behave themselves.
No system can prevent the gormless scions of the ruling class from making idiots of themselves and it has to be realised that Harry inherited dimness from his mothers side.
On the positive side this crass episode has caused a scandal whereas some systems allow the miscreant to evade any odium.Under some systems it wouldn’t have even been published.
There is film footage, if you can stand to watch it, from one of the camps, of the Nazis using bulldozers to shovel Jewish corposes into mass graves.
This overtitled little twit should be set down and made to watch it.
For a long time.
PeterUK:
Yes, I think the best punishment would be a few respectful hours personally apologizing to surviving WW2 veterans. I wonder what the Queen must have thought at the sight of that uniform on her grandson. A teenager’s memories of adult fear and grief and courage. The little boats and Dunkirk. Evacuated children and Dad’s Army. The Few. The air raid shelters and endless fires. The plaques naming the countless dead in every village church. Many Americans of our host’s and my age grew up with an Anglophilia born in reading A.A. Milne and Kenneth Grahame. The American Reader’s Digest magazine had in the 50′s and 60′s (and perhaps later) a column with entertaining (and endearing) stories of English customs and eccentricities called “There’ll always be an England.” Alas, that apparently was not to be. So much done so well. Things great and small imbued with a meaning and elegance so impressive to an American. I’m sad now whenever I think of England, where I long ago lived for a time on Hinksey Hill outside Oxford, with the view of Arnold’s Scholar Gypsy.
Roger:
Your outrage is justified. As a American I have never understood the retention of the Royals but then I am not British. This in no way lessens the stupidity and lack of humanity that the young fool showed by wearing that heinous symbol but I am more afraid of the sincere anti-semitism showed by the left wing of the Labour party and the bulk of the EU then I am of the UK version of Paris Hilton. Hopefully his older brother stays alive and Harry will get his allowance cut and do severe penance at various Holacaust museums but getting rid of the Royals is a side issue and actually allows the Islamo fascist loving wing of the British left a sideshow to distract attention from there more dangerous attitudes towards Jews and Israel.
Barry Dauphin,
Our Constitutional Monarchy developed through much bloodshed and conflict from the end of the English Civil War 1625-49( Of which your Revolutionary War was an extension) http://www.open2.net/civilwar/.The primacy of Parliament was established over the power of the Monarch,whether or not the system is ideal it served to prevent the revolutions which wracked Europe into the 20th century.
The Crown is a symbolic entity which Parliament in theory is subject to,the Prime Minister is in fact First Lord of the Treasury.This means that the Military for example owe their allegiance to the Crown not the Prime Minister,note the Crown not the Queen.The Crown represents Britain and the British people.The Crown is not responsible for policy.
This separation of powers kept politicians from using Crown servants,Civil Service,Army etc to their own ends.Tony Blair is breaking this down much to the detriment of public service.
The existance of the Crown keeps politicians from aspiring to this position.
But neither is the presidential system ideal,think of Jacques or if JF Kerry had been elected.
At any rate, whether the monarchy in itself is worth keeping, in its present form it isn’t exactly doing much for the character of the royals. Previous royals at least had matters of state to keep them busy – present royals seem to get lots of money and fame but no real responsibility whatsoever, which is a good formula for encouraging people to get themselves into trouble and make utter fools of themselves.
Not that I have any idea from way over here what the best thing to do about it is…
This has been blown way out of proportion. Even those condemning Harry don’t believe he was making a political statement. I see people all the time wearing Che Guevara and CCCP with hammer and sickle t-shirts all the time and unlike Harry they may very well be serious about supporting a political ideology that killed 100 million people last century. This is just more selective moralism from the Left. Hey people, it was a party! Some might have been dressed as priests, pirates, or Saddam Hussein. It doesn’t mean anything. This is just more PC madness and phoney righteousness from the usual suspects.
PeterUK
Thanks for your input on the historical roots of the Constitutional Monarchy, about which I am admittedly not well enough informed. In expressing my sentiments, I wasn’t suggesting that the US system would not produce a Kennedy or whatnot, nor that it is ideal, nor that our politicians and their relatives refrain from embarassing themselves and us (e.g., Billy Carter). My sentiments are probably a product of not living under a Constituional Monarchy. I can understand how it might have averted the kinds of revolutions that occurred on the Continent. But might it have outlived its usefulness? Is it still necessary?
I would have been unhappy with Kerry but I could go to the polls four years hence and try to throw him out and work locally to elect a House representative and/or Senator who could help block his policies, and a president still needs a level of public approval to do a lot of things. I suspect that the Royals are now facing some of the same forces, namely having to keep their eyes on the polls. Again, I’m speaking from one man’s perspective on this side of the pond. I like to know that I at least have a chance to throw the bums out.
I see people all the time wearing Che Guevara and CCCP with hammer and sickle t-shirts all the time…
But, he isn’t just any Tom, Dick or Harry wearing some fad-offensive shirt at a college party- he’s a prince of England, born into privilege and responsibility. Poor kid, sure, but them’s the breaks.
Yes, any outrage on the Left is ludicrous. All decent outrage isn’t.
It’s also sickening to see The Independent all outraged about a swastika. That paper prints Robert Fisk articles and operates like a PR firm for Hamas.
Perhaps, but the House of Windsor isn’t exactly a brain trust.
As a Yank, I’m not especially concerned about the antics of the Royals. However, I am concerned about “…those Jews who leaned [sic?] to not mak[e] a fuss when young idiots like Prince Harry displayed an insensitivity (putting it mildly) to my co-religionists”. May they all experience an epiphany like Roger’s and likewise declare “No more”.
What disturbs me is that any teenager in Brittain (or any other European country, or even in the U.S.) could even concieve the notion of wearing a Nazi uniform without knowing deep in his bones that it was a violation of human behavior so appalling that he would be disgraced and outcast. How could the attrocities of Nazis and Fascists not be so deeply taught in our Western societies that something like this could never happen if it weren’t a deliberate, defiant statement against decency>
The fact that this could be done out of ignorance is more appalling to me than it could be done as a defiant statement.
Barry Dauphin,
Harry will not be King,the line of sccession is Charles then William,though I suspect that Charles will wait until William is old enough then bow out quietly.
None of the princess and princesses have any political power,they are no different from the offspring of any rich family.The Queen does not have any political power,only that of desolving Parliament.
Without this there is nothing to stop the Prime Minister selling us down the river to Europe.We too can remove our prime minister at elections but by then the deal will have been done.
I have to point out that the Prime Minister of Britain has more power than the President of the United States,we live under an elective dictatorship.
At this juncture of history it is not very wise to start to throw too many babies out with the bath water,not exactly this but, “always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse”
If Britain is part way through the process of getting rid of the Crown and therefore its constitution, well Canada has finished that process, so I know whereof I speak.
America put together a constitution with enough of the British unwritten empirical aspect to give it flexibility and a long life.
This is what happens when the Crown is thrown away (or shunted off to the side, a la Canada): ALL power devolves to the Prime Minister and his cronies. The House of Lords (which was effective when the Lords actually had local power a century ago) has become a joke (as is Canada’s Senate): yet another patronage plum rewarded by the Prime Minister to his cronies. The Judiciary is NOT elected, it is appointed – at the top by the PM, farther down by the PM’s Party hacks – and it is appointed for life.
Yep. Smiling Tony wants to be the President of the EU. He is completing the trashing of the British Constitution in the name of class warfare, and he is succeeding.
I think Australia has narrowly avoided this fate because its Senate has regional power, balancing the Executive. In Canada, regional power is devolving to the provinces, OUTSIDE the central government – which means that our country is inherently very unstable. However, so long as the USA protects us, we will continue on our feckless way.
Roger,
Harry’s idiocy should not be paid for with millions of deaths in the UK and tens of millions around the world. Send him to visit every concentration camp museaum in the world, and if he’s still an idiot after the tour, have him renounce his claim on the throne and become a noble instead of a royal. Dis-establishing the crown as a part of British government will destroy the legitimacy of the government and cause chaos. That chaos will ripple out through the entire world and kill tens of millions. The Royal Army is not strong enough to suppress a serious national uprising, even if your plan wasn’t essentially calculated to cause them to lead an uprising against any Parliament that tried to dis-establish the crown.
Punish Harry, not the world.
I wonder, how would the “recreational” wearing of swastikas fare under the proposed hate speech laws in the UK? Could one successfully argue that the symbol represents the oppression and murder of Jews and its display tantamount to expressing hatred toward Jews? Or, would a “just kidding around” suffice to avoid prosecution? Or, are those laws really intended to shield and protect Muslims only?
At least, Prince Harry was clever enough not to dress up as a Christian crusading knight– he would have been really reviled then, and without a wink and a nod from the Israel loathing Left, as he surely must be getting from them now.
You see, the Royal Family is much more than a tourist attraction. Symbols mean something in a state. When Trudeau was killing Canada, he went all out to erase any symbol that connected us to our past. And when objections were raised, there was that Trudeau-ian sneer – it is only a design, after all. So, thus, we rejoice in that nasty flag, featuring only the colours of the Liberal Party. And of course, getting rid of the uniforms of our armed forces (this was because it was more efficient.)
Another example: trashing “God” from the public forum in the USA. Newt Gingrich has a lot to say about this, lately.
The Royals are much more popular than you would think if you only read their media. For example, when the Queen Mother died, there was a huge outpouring of respect, long lines, etc – to the silent amazement of the Brit Media Elite.
Harry had a serious lapse in judgment. What 20 year old hasn’t? Of course, his Royal trappings place much greater weight on him than on you and me. And so we should probably conclude that he screwed up, Royally.
But what else can we fairly conclude. That he’s stupid? I can’t say. That he’s historically illiterate? Again, I can’t say. That he’s been insufficiently raised to his Royal responsibilities? I don’t know that either. What I can reasonably conclude is that a foolish 20 year old made a foolish mistake.
What to do? Dissolve the Monarchy? That’s none of my business. I’ll leave that for the Brits.
Punish him? Certainly some consequences is required. If I were Prince Charles, I’d certainly insist on a carefully wordsmithed apology, and a visit to Normandy and Auschwitz might be a very good thing, for Harry (and all 20 year olds) need to understand that Springtime for Hitler was a world catastrophe, and that the Nazis and the SS were monsters deserving of nothing but opprobrium.
I had a very worthwhile debate with a close Jewish friend about the potential antisemitism of Mel Gibson’s Passion. While we didn’t agree–he arguing that the movie was antisemitic–he convinced me that danger of even the appearance of antisemitism is so great as to give us pause. There was much that Gibson could have done to alleviate Jewish concerns, things that in my opinion would have done nothing to damage the film.
My bottom line–the kid behave boorishly and needs to make amends, and we all must never forget the horrors of Hitler. My dad patrolled the Atlantic in a submarine during WWII. He came home. Many didn’t. In the inimitiable words of General George S. Patton, there were many who would have liked to shoot that paper hanging son of a bitch themselves, not the least of which, the Jews.
Well, if the Royals were to prove inherently antisemitic, they’d have to go. What else do we know about this? But I’m wondering if the first comment by Hermie is not onto something. If this kid were given a high PC education, then this is just the kind of thoughtless rebellion one would expect, not unlike any youthful trashing of the authority system.
But there would be great problems in getting rid of the Royals. However, I imagine it actually would be easier for the UK to become a republic than for my own country, Canada (especially with the EU void into which to fall). The UK already has a unitary, centralized government and a culture significantly centred on London. None of this is true for federal Canada where one of our defining characteristics is the relative lack of a centre.
The Royals provide us an enormous service by in good part removing from our shores the question of how to symbolize the head of state. The Canadian Prime Minister and the Provincial Premiers are, in their domains, practically dictators, though circumscribed by constitution and courts, but they have none of the aura of dictators; they can’t claim the charisma and are subject to dismissal every 4-5 years if they get too grandiose in their thinking.
One of the good and bad things about Canada is that people who strive too hard to stand out, to achieve excellence and distinction, can be begrudged and pulled down. The very idea of a Canadian presuming to symbolize Canada as a Presidential figure is unCanadian. I can’t imagine anyone running for election as “Pres.” For better or worse, a conservative has to respect that. With no Canadian being able to claim the sacredness of the crown that the Queen represents for us, we end up a more decentralized culture which is generally a good thing for democracy. Our bigger problem is how to erode the PM’s powers, not get rid of the monarchy.
It has long been recognized that the Windsor family does not come fully charged in the head
but doesn’t the queen and her brain dead son send these young royal twits off to a top high school someplace?
Or is this the case of this 20 year idiot, “brave son of the dead princess,” (enough to make one retch!!) not being mothered sufficiently?
I understand your drift, but I don’t think Jews should make this a Jew/Holocaust against Harry issue. This is about Hitler who killed thousands, hundreds of thousands of Brits during WW II. He almost overran the Island. I think WW II veterans should speak out too about what they went through, how many friends they lost and how they feel about this punk’s actions.
The New Democrat
truepeers,
didn’t you notice that Canada did not back the US in Iraq because of Prime Minister Chretien’s close and extremely lucrative ties with Power Corp and therefore TotalElfFina??? didn’t you notice that aside from a few stories in the Financial Pages (Diane Frances) and of course, by Mark Steyn, most people in Canada have no idea about this??? I have a relative who works in a University who thought we didn’t join the US because of “ideals”. Chretien. Ideals. Somehow…
Our country functions because (a) sitting beside the USA means we will not be attacked by any other country; (b) we have a business class which has successfully integrated the processes and ideas developed (first) by Britain; (c) we are therefore wealthy enough to support the kleptocrats that run our country (d) with only a 20% surcharge on our tax burden.
Next time you hear about Global Warming, watch Maurice Strong – and ask yourself how exactly that pile of corruption became so rich (hint: National Energy Policy).
Canada is like a car made of balsa wood, held together with dried masking tape. All will be well so long as there is not big pothole on the road…
Coisty stole some of my thunder.
If there wasn’t a growing anti-Semitism in Europe including Britain, I would consider the fuss overblown also. But there is, and Harry symbolizes it, probably out of idiocy but perhaps out of the kind of tripe he learned in school.
But…, to add pictures to Coisty’s comments – how much fuss was made about this common practice? One would probably be accused of red-baiting for going after this fool who glorifies an ideology that killed far more human beings than Hitler.
Or these useful idiots who probably didn’t even know that Che Guevarra, M.D. had a unique interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath: kill often and brutally.
Or a Nazi salute and a Palestinian flag – when we know the Palestinians would finish the holocaust if they had the power.
(pictures from a Phoenix “anti-war” demonstation.)
I think that anti semitism has been trivialized to the point that the swastika means nothing to young people.
I am with Coisty on one thing, to see the Independent carry on about this is absurd. In this day when Bush is Bushitler and the occupied territories are a “death camp” it should not surprise people that silly young men do not get the significance of the crooked cross.
I’d argue that this episode is a good thing if it forces the 50% or so of Britons who’ve never heard of the Holocaust to take a history lesson.
IMHO that benefit would far outweigh whatever comfort is granted to fascists and anti-semites by the revelation that yet another Windsor is as morally clueless as he is brain-damaged.
“Well, if the Royals were to prove inherently antisemitic, they’d have to go.”
The Queen has Jewish blood,but the above is a dangerous and somewhat totalitarian concept,if one is said to be such and such one has to go.Been there before ,didn’t like it.
This isn’t any old Tom,Dick or Harry,this is Harry and he’s a Dick,just look at the picture http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4170083.stm and he is only third in line to the throne,never going to get there. It is also worth noting that the picture is from the Sun newspaper owned by that well known off shore republican Rupert Murdoch.This paper has a track record of Royal Scandals.
Thanks for your input Heather,the situation is far more dangerous than our American cousins know,it won’t just mean losing a friend it will mean gaining another France.
Terrye,
Prince Henry (Harry) was born in 1984,he doesn’t even remember the Beatles.He is from a generation that doesn’t even know that there was a Soviet Union,a Vietnam war let alone a Second World War.
As we get further away from events and the survivors die it will get harder to impress the significance of past event on new generations.The slaughter of WWI means little to those whose grandparents did not witness it.
It is the tragedy of our shortlived species that four generations will erase most existing memories,all that will be left will be someones interpretation of the surviving documents
PeterUK
I think the USA should take a good look at smiling Tony Blair – yes, he has been a great ally in this Iraq issue. But he has said (if I recall) that by doing so, he can ‘control’ the USA, that without allies like him, who knows what the cowboy will do… And he has done so – to the US’s detriment. Remember that that last trip to the UN was made because smiling Tony had to be supported against his backbenchers in London.
Remember my friends: socialist like Tony, and their allies in the MSM had nothing but disdain for the symbols and ideals of the ‘common folk.’ A flag is merely a design on a piece of cloth; the 10 commandments are words on a plaque that can be taken out of the courtroom within minutes.
The Americans have no idea really what we say when we talk about being a ‘dictatorship between elections’. Just one example: when Bush wants to appoint a new judge, that appointee has to be OK’d by a Senate Committee. In Canada, there is no such roadblock: a judge is named and that is it. When Bush appoints a new Homeland Security Leader, that appointee must be OK’ed – again by the Senate (and for all I know, some House committee.) I watch CSpan a lot, and all those boring committee hearings?? We have nothing like that in Canada. ALL POWER AND PATRONAGE LIES IN THE HANDS OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND HIS CRONIES IN CANADA. In Great Britain, the Monarchy is, I would guess, the only real moral balance against the PM. And therefore, that is why Smiling Tony and the BBC and the rest of the Media and the Socialists are “Republicans.” They will rid themselves of the only bulwark against absolute power.
And I am tired of hearing about how ‘dim’ the Royals are. Their job does not lie in being smart – the Queen is a symbol, and represents the People and their History as a Whole. She is an Icon. Her grandson Harry is third in line to the throne; attacking him is an easy mark – a 20 year old rich young ignoramus. William is much more discrete, and looks like he will carry the scepter well.
Also: it has been pointed out that, at the end of WWII, it was relatively easy to shove Mussolini aside – BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE LEADER: THE KING OF ITALY. In Germany, Hitler was the only leader, and until he was gone, the edifice had no alternative but to stand with him.
Peter:
I agree. And the Royals are a tradition and I don’t like to just trash a tradition.
We have had enough of that. I think this is up to the Brits to deal with, but young harry is not so different and if he does not understand what the seatika means then the grown ups bear some of the blame for that.
Peter, your remark, “It is the tragedy of our shortlived species that four generations will erase most existing memories,all that will be left will be someones interpretation of the surviving documents”
it is because of this reality that symbols are so important to a country/group/nation. Without them, a people are changed completely, and never in a good way (cf, France, Russia…). This was Britain’s genius, by the way – to change gradually, retaining its age old symbols, and at the same time grasping the future. Socialism killed that ability, of course.
Erasing our symbols (which tell us of our roots and our past) has gutted Canada.
Perhaps Prince Harry’s attitude has something to do with ignorance coupled with the loose way we play with certain words these days(think of Seinfeld and the ‘soup nazi’). Or the fact that the word nazi is so easily thrown around in discussions these days.
Today, I saw a group of kids and adults protesting President Bush’s attempts to privatize social security with a sign that read: Stop Pres Bush’s Nazi plans….I can’t remember the rest of it, I was just so shocked to see that word. We gets lots of protestors in our little suburb of Boston, but what made it especially disturbing is that this is a traditionally Jewish neighborhood. One man passing by with his family stopped, stared hard at the sign, and said loudly, “That’s just terrible. That is a terrible sign,” and dragged his wife and children off, glaring. The kid manning the table with the sign and a bunch of books looked really startled, like he had no idea why anyone would be offended. Sigh.
Heather,
I should be pointed out to everyone that the Queen is probably the longest serving Monarch in the World,who probably has more statecraft experiance than anyone,and she doesn’t need the money,if anything she could make more money by abdicating,retiring to “Dunreigning” and writing her memoirs.
She’s had a private conversation with every Prime Minister since 1952,met every US president, most of the Worlds leaders and just about everyone else worth meeting.Would I swap her for grinning Tony,a man who never had a proper job before becoming Prime Minister?
Terrye
The word ignorance doesn’t really encompass the void that exists in the knowledge and experience of some of the young.Information alone is not enough to impress the significance of past events on the young.In our multi-culti morally equivalent world how do we impart the reality of evil to those whose only concept of evil is a horror movie? A world where there is no good, bad,right or wrong, only choices?
The generational disconnect has rendered the values and experience old older people redundant,the young are not interested.
Peter
the Royals have been surprising in their ability to ‘feel’ and represent the basic values of Britain. And this is why such as Tony and Antonia Fraser and the rest are so happy to see them go. They have no respect for those basic values, they want to make a New Society, with none of that old fashioned dull morality to slow things down.
Harry will be soundly smacked for his costume. But Jack Straw and Chris Patton, busily attacking Israel (and the Jooooozzzz) by supporting the Palestinians are smart enough not to wear a swastika. Whatever Roger may think, Britain under Smiling Tony has been a consistent supporter of the PLO and Arafat and the Intifada. Keep that in mind, my friends.
heather makes a point I would like to expand on – the value of symbolsn.
I would put it differently – the value of tradition, represented by symbols. The left in this country have long understood that destroying traditions and their related symbols is a way to destroy collective memory of ideas they dseek to extirpate.
Many among the anti-religious (who are not synonymous with the left) do the same thing (ironically, in the process driving many “moderate” Christians into evangelical and Catholic ranks). The latter, I think, don’t appreciate the danger they run and the immorality of their actions, while the former are well aware of the effects, and hope for them.
As an example, the last 30 years has seen an incredible change in sexual mores, as a result of effective birth control, abortion, and most importantly the rejection of traditional values. That change is not totally bad (at least it isn’t okay to beat up homosexuals any more) but has had a large number of highly negative results – the primary being the huge increase in the percentage of children not living with their biological fathers, and the extremely well documented negative outcomes of such trends. In fact, divorce of parents of adults increases the risks of psychopathology in the adults! I raise this particular case because it is well known to everyone, and is a clear rejection of traditional values. My generation, which wsa the first to really adopt this change, was in my experience remarkably anti-tradition – we knew better.
An important and idiotic idea of those who would destroy traditions and their symbols is their imagined right to not be exposed to what they consider offensive material. This is anti-tolerant but comes from those who consider themselves on the forefront of the fight for tolerance. In reality, this idea is used as a club to achieve ends far beyond avoiding offense, and in fact those who are “offended” are rarely actually offended unless they choose to be.
Irony is God’s way of helping us tolerate small evils.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has lost its own respect for tradition (especially as exemplified by the intent and original wording of the constitution and its amendments).
Traditions are a way of stabilizing society. Our checks and balances system is another – the possibility of prime-minister dominated parliamentary dominated systems suddenly and irreversibly becoming dictatorial does not exist here (except in very extreme circumstances such as nuclear attack).
The constant attacks upon existing Christian symbols and organizations is just as offensive to me as the use of Nazi symbolism, at least to those who understand the value of religion in our society [note that this applies to existing symbols, not the creation of new]. The attacks on the Boy Scouts for the sin (in the religion of the anti-religious) of requiring a belief in a supreme being, and to a large extend covertly fueled by homosexuals who want to end the Scout’s reasonable precautions about homosexuals in the organization (I don’t mean to offend here, but would be willing to go into the reasoning if someone wants me to – it has NOTHING to do with religious values).
There is no doubt that the Nazi symbolism is especially bad because it brings to mind or is insensitive to the holocaust. But there are anti-Christian offensives (especially in Southern Sudan – now settled) that are almost as evil as the holocaust (chattel slavery and genocide) and very little has been said about them – and this is now, not 60 years ago! There are a large number of places in the world where Christians are persecuted for their religion. We are inured to discovering, every two or three years, a genocidal event where the number killed is a large proportion of the Jews killed in the holocaust.
So when we remember the horrors of the holocaust, let us keep in mind that in a way, that allows us to not feel guilty about ignoring the current holocausts.
What would we hear if Jewish symbols were being removed (there are two reasons they are not: (1) they aren’t already there in most casts, and (2) influential Jews tend to be secular and leftist, and thus convenient allies of the anti-religious.
Finally, I want to comment on holocaust exceptionalism. The holocaust was apparently exceptional, and for that reason the Jewish people are in an exceptional position. The Nazi’s managed to concentrate evil in such a remarkable way that I’m not sure if it has been repeated in style (certainly it has been repeated in numbers, and worse). One wonders about Pol Pot’s activities or China’s Cultural Revolution – were they also such a remarkable combination of death, intentionally and casually inflicted suffering, total dehumanization of an ethnic group, and attempted genocide?
Finally, what a long thread among a group of pretty sophisticated and smart commentators, for an action of the third to the thrown of another country. The power of symbols and celebrity!
thrown? sigh.
I wish you’d gone to see Much Ado About Nothing instead of A School for Scandal.
I think you should have some chicken soup and see if you can coax that knee of yours to stay down and stop jerking up to hit yourself in the chin.
John Moore,
Heir to the Overthrown?
in discussing symbols and tradition, we are digging into some extremely important items, we are looking at the basis of civilization, of the glue that holds us together in comity. Civilization includes ‘city’ and law and family and history and expectations about tomorrow. And now I am out of my depth.
However, as a student of Hitler, I have noted that he was an artist… he was a theatrical impresario of genius. He knew about symbols, and he replaced the older German ones – and religious ones – with his own. He THOUGHT about his shows – he knew about darkness and fire and drums and marching, and columns of light, and how they all together produced exhilaration, binding a People together. Auschwitz was an artistic creation, of a literal Hell on Earth. And that is why all of Hitler’s world still attracts our attention and memory in a way that Joe Stalin’s does not.
Communists are people who like meetings, and their killing fields were dull grey affairs, held in the snow, with no Goebbels around with the latest in cameras.
Note the difference between the uniform of the SS, with its silver and glitter – and the dull forgettable uniform of the Commissar.
Note that icon, Che. We have to explain to the young that he was a killer, a man who liked to personally shoot prisoners in their brains. There is a movie now, about this beautiful young man, who will be killed in a romantic gunfight, and his face is plastered over Tshirts throughout the world.
It is only because of the competing unforgettable movies of piles of bodies bulldozed into the ground in 1945 and 46 that prevents the same millions of young people from emblazoning the SS death’s head on their Tshirts.
And that is the power of the Symbol. It is nothing to play with, it has the power to create and to destroy.
Poor Harry. He played with one of them.
Heather’s comment about symbols calls to mind the following quote from Aldous Huxley:
In the field of politics the equivalent of a theorem is a perfectly disciplined army; of a sonnet or picture, a police state under a dictatorship. The Marxist calls himself scientific and to this claim the Fascist adds another: he is the poet–the scientific poet–of a new mythology. Both are justified in their pretensions; for each applies to human situations the procedures which have proved effective in the laboratory and the ivory tower. They simplify, they abstract, they eliminate all that, for their purposes, is irrelevant and ignore whatever they choose to regard an inessential; they impose a style, they compel the facts to verify a favorite hypothesis, they consign to the waste paper basket all that, to their mind, falls short of perfection…the dream of Order begets tyranny, the dream of Beauty, monsters and violence.
(from his strange novel “Ape and Essence”)
The above logic would put today’s “progressives” far closer to the Fascist side than to the Marxist side.
Earlier, PeterUK noted that the Queen has spoken with many more world leaders, over a longer period of time, than has any other political leader.
Also, there is another way to see this: those leaders, including every British Prime Minister (including Maggie Thatcher) has had to go to Buckingham Palace and explain his actions to that woman, who sits there with a (figurative) crown on her head. That is one way to force the Prime Minister to understand his responsibility to Great Britain’s people.
This isn’t “Much Ado About Nothing” this is to do with the potency of symbolism,its uses and misuses.
Gramsci knew about the manipulation of symbols,much of the devaluation of which can be laid at the door of his heirs,MD above.
The potency of Nazi symbols has a pernicious attraction for some,there are re-enactment groups who meet in the Czech Republic to wear SS uniforms and man a mock concentration camp.These are young people not the remnants of the Tottenkopf SS who still meet at Oberamagau every year.
Nazi regalia of all kinds are still being manufactured,Harry’s armband was probably new,who makes them,imports them and sells them? Who thinks it is decent?
photoncourier:
I’ve increasingly felt that exploring these relationships could result in a groundbreaking book yet to be written. Somebody ought to do it.
Roger:
I have no sympathy for Harry and I am not trying to make excuses for his outrageous behavior but from the little I know of royal history the spares to the heirs are often flakey and have been prone to scandal. Slap Harry as much as you like but his wearing of a swastika is small potatoes compared to the activities of Red Ken of London and the fact that much of the EU views the US and Israel as the two most dangerous countries in the world. The British’s lefts ability to rationalize the actual murder of Jews is far more scary then a swastika on a tabloid cover. And as Peter has so wisely pointed out the absorbtion of the UK into the EU is also a dangerous sign. Why a country with such a proud history would trade sovereignty for the opportunity to become the Vermont of a franco-german dominated EU is mindboggling.
And when we play with symbols, we play with fire. Humans exist in a symbolic world, or we die.
And so, when our elites sneer at our symbols, the ones that represent (and in a weird way, ‘are’) our past, and when they erase them from the public forum – into the vacuum sweep new symbols: symbols that are the core of a new and improved society, one without the dead hand of the past. Well. The twentieth century should have taught us that these “new” and “improved” symbols are evil and destructive.
The Cross, the Crown, the Lion and the Unicorn, the Constitution of the US, the Stars and Stripes – in objective fact – represent good and life affirming ideals.
That is interesting about the goings on in the Czech Republic, is it not? Harry and his cohort (I include my nieces and nephews in the same age group) are quite ready to carry on into the sort of new and improved society represented by an up to date swastika. They have no religion (the Cross as we know causes only War and Evil Crusades); the Crown is old hat; the Lion and the Unicorn colonized and enslaved the non-West; the Stars and Stripes is an Imperialist bully, with Israel its little Satan puppet in the Middle East, intent on stealing the world’s Oil.
There is hope, though: George Bush is still the President of the US.
But the UK wouldn’t be the Vermont of the EU – the core of Vermont’s history is too much like the core founding principles of the the US for the analogy to hold. The closest analogy I can think of is Texas. The UK would be the Texas of the EU. That’s a hopeful thought.
I’ve always been puzzled by the ability of people to attach meaning and, especially, emotion to physical symbols. I don’t deny that it happens – it happens in spades, which is what I find so puzzling. Old Glory means many things to me – no doubt somewhat idiosyncratic things, but nevertheless it strongly stirs patriotic feelings centered around what I think the country has been, is, and ought to be. Those who subvert that symbol – burning the flag, flying it upside-down (“that’s just a symbol of distress”, they say) – appear to me to be denying – rooting against – everything I think is good, everything I believe, everything I hope for in the future. It makes me angry, and I am not fooled. They hate my country, and if they knew me, they would hate me too. To subvert my symbols is to declare yourself my enemy. And I’m a rational person.
So it doesn’t surprise me at all that many people react extremely strongly to the casual display of the swastika. It also doesn’t surprise me that Harry was ignorant of the reaction his wearing it would cause. I’m quite a bit older than he, but I don’t have the gut-level response that I rationally think I ought to. It just seems so distant.
I’m not excusing Harry, and certainly not saying that those who are angry should not be – that would be like telling me “it’s only a piece of cloth”. But it is easy to lose sight of the meaning of other people’s symbols to them, when you are not in the same cohort
This doesn’t have to be an either-or situation. In the spirit of trans-Atlantic Anglo solidarity, let’s say:
1) the man-child Prince Harry is properly chastened into learning that symbols ARE important, especially on a royal or national “icon”, and especially with the increased religious friction and anti-Semitism of today’s Europe. He also learns a little history that apparently didn’t connect with him during his public schooling- that Hitler also wreaked destruction and misery on his country.
2) anyone in the media or politics who has ever called Bush “Hitler”, Republicans “Nazis”, or Israel “that sh*tty little country” cannot remonstrate against Harry’s swastica. As if. They should beg forgiveness for their sins of trivializing unspeakable crimes against Jews and humanity for cheap partisan propaganda.
3) if the monarchy really is the only institutional bulwark protecting the UK from being cannibalized by the EU at Tony’s invitation, many of us Yanks will join you in saying, “Long may the royals prosper, live, learn and serve!”
Morgan, I know whereof you speak. Think of the upset over the Confederate flag – I cannot feel the same way about this as can a Southerner, Black or White.
And burning your flag, “Old Glory” is equivalent to Trudeau’s ridding Canada of the Red Ensign, and replacing it with the Designer Maple Leaf (did you know there are no Maple trees west of Ontario, by the way) – there was, during the debate over this, to maintain the red-white-BLUE motif of the Union Jack, but… no, the idea was to cut Canada off from its British roots, make a NEW country out of it, a “Modern” one…. Trudeaupia…. with a professional (French-like) bureaucracy, one ‘independant’ even of the USA!!! You know, I often wonder if Trudeau was clinically insane, along with the rest of his problems.
Have you noticed that Revolutionaries always claim to be focussed on the future? That the past is a dead hand?
heather is right.
Heather,
I didn’t even know that the Maple Leaf was a new and improved flag until I started reading your posts here, some time ago. I’ve since read the same in Mark Steyn’s columns, I think.
Revolutionaries have to be focused on the future, almost by definition. They see the future as a blank slate on which they can write their version of the perfect society. Strange that they always see themselves as the leaders of that perfect society.
I’m completely with PeterUK;
all–and I do mean all–of the British public is conveniently forgetting that King Edward VIII, the one who abdicated the throne for the “woman he loved,” met openly with Hitler as Prince of Wales and he wasn’t wearing any costume.
That’s historical fact…and Peter’s also right about Tony Blair’s ambition and plans.
More unacceptable and shocking than Prince Harry’s choice of costume is Tony (and Cherie’s) open and long-time advocacy of the “Palestinian” cause, which IMHO, is the modern-day version of Nazism.
How Tony can support us in the WOT and then turn around and support the “Palestinians” is beyond me–he seems like such a smart boy–but can he ever perceive that Israel faces the same enemy in the Palestinian areas as the U.S. and Britain do in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the GWOIT [Global War on IslamoFacist Terror]?
Heather,
Here is a link to the Neo Nazis,not the one I saw earlier which had pictures,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/09/wnazi09.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/09/ixworld.html
Tony Blair understood that when the WTC was attacked, the USA had to be controlled from doing who knows what if it faced the world alone. So, he has backed the US in the attack on Afghanistan and on Iraq. But have you noticed that – in order to support Tony against his own Socialist Labour backbenchers – the US went back to the UN “one last time” (that was Powell and the WMD speech) – and put off going after Iraq for months? In the meantime, the State Dept screwed up in dealing with Turkey, which was – arguably – a much more important issue for the success of that invasion.
I think it is time for the USA to look and see who its real friends are: Australia and India and Israel. Iraq may be one, in the future, too.
Morgan is right, that revolutionaries want to make a perfect future in which they rule. And socialists are revolutionaries. And Tony Blair is a socialist. At sea, with no symbol with any depth to speak of, such people are drawn to such violent symbols as projected by Arafat and the PLO. There is indeed a profound disconnect between their socialist intellect and their darkest impulses.
(And in writing that, I think I just figured out why Arafat was so embraced by Europe for so long. I mean, I saw only a nasty evil toad. Europeans like Chris Patton and Jack Straw and Tony Blair see… emotional depth???)
Heather makes many useful comments about the power of symbols. Hitler’s profession indeed was artist, although it is my understanding that he was mediocre or bad (I wouldn’t know the difference myself).
I don’t know where the genius came from that created the Nazi symbolism and pageantry, but evil genius it was. I would like to know how much was Hitler himself and how much was from others. Somebody understood that combining powerful visible symbols including marching people, crowds in appropriate configurations, fire, drum beats, and strangely hypnotic patterns of speech was an amazingly powerful tool, a multimedia, multisensorial event. Hitler clearly understood this – whether or not he created all of it.
The Nazi’s also used powerful techniques to create SS soldiers. They combined a form of Nordic Warrior religion (and its symbols) and childhood in SS camps under indoctrination to convince the SS that they were in fact the ubermensch and to dehumanize them. German women (with appropriate bloodlines and appearance) were urged to mate (not marry) with SS officers to create these children of the state.
The use of religion by the Nazis is not well known. They created a religion not just for the SS indoctrination but as a general tool for indoctrinating society. At the same time, high Nazi leaders held all sorts of strange “religious” views themselves – with astrology a popular one.
It is sad that such talent was used for evil, because the effect (on me, via film) is amazing. You do not have to understand German to listen to a Hitler speach in one of these spectacular events and recognize the emotional power of the rhythm and emphasis he used.
When one examines all the incredible grotesquery and evil of the Nazis, it is indeed scary. And it would be a terrible mistake to assume that only the Germans and only Nazi ideology can create something just as evil.
This might be getting a little closer to the truth,Mel Brookes “The Producers” is currently a smash hit in Drury Lane.http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/show/cm/content/78672
“Hitler was one of the first great rock stars,” the rock star David Bowie declared after he and Mick Jagger had seen Triumph of the Will….
This is a quote from an extremely interesting book by Frederic Spotts, entitled “Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics” (pub Sept 2004 in paperback).
In fact it WAS Hitler who chose – from the beginning – the icons used by the Nazis. He adopted the swastika as the Nazi emblem, “…determined that it turn to the right rather than left, and ordained its colours…. a hot line to instinct….” Hitler designed the party flag – to have the effect of a burning torch; and the party badge, stationery, masthead; and even the columns of light. He planned the huge spectacles of the Nazi Party celebrations – including the columns of light that Speer liked to take credit for. Auschwitz was PLANNED to replicate Hell.
It is because of Hitler’s aesthetic genius at expressing the darkest emotions – in their most sensuous form – that we will always remember Naziism – long after the cold ice and snow of the Communists have faded into history.
And this is why – after all this, Roger is quite correct to react angrily to silly Harry’s “edgy” costume.
heather
Thank you for the information.
And you are right, Naziism will be remembered because of its unique genius at symbolizing evil.
Contrast that to ‘socialist art’ – the dullest stuff on earth. If think there are two colors that define communist societies: red for the hidden bloodshed and suffering, and gray for all the rest. My visit to East Berlin showed me the gray, although I’ve never thought of it that way before.
In general, I am one who doesn’t give most art any credit at all – it’s just paint or whatever, not of any significance (I once had a great, if naughty time arguing this with self-important artists at the New York Arts magazine).
But sometimes it is powerful. Schindler’s list, Hitler’s pageantry, The Passion of the Christ (sorry, Roger, but I found it powerfully good), and I am sure many more.
Auschwitz was designed literally to be like [someone's vision of] hell? Fascinating and awful.
I think it is important for people to recognize Hitler’s genius. Not to emulate it, but as a warning. It is too common to denigrate the abilities of the evil ones, which leaves us somewhat disarmed.
Speaking of art*, check out this op ed from the Daily Telegraph about the formal alliance between the IRA/SinnFein and the Nazis and the unconscionable way that the British government turns a blind eye to this alliance and its resulting anti-Semetic ethos when negotiating with them:
There are real Nazi lovers here: the IRA
(*Apparently, the IRA blows up “Fascist” British statues like a Doric column crowned by Lord Nelson if they don’t “like it,” much the way Osama, AQ and the Taliban blew up the Buddhas in Afghanistan.)
From The Daily Telegraph column linked above:
Poor Prince Harry. How could he have foreseen that the kitsch Nazi imagery that has made The Producers such a smash-hit in the West End would cause such ructions when he playfully adopted it himself?
It’s the kitsch Nazi imagery that has made The Producers such a hit. What was Mel Brooks thinking?
Poor Prince Harry? Forget the Jews and Tony Blair and Pierre Trudeau and a smash musical-comedy for a minute. The Nazis killed and scarred in countless ways millions of people for whom his great-grandfather was Head of State and for whose descendents he might someday be Head of State. It’s unlikely that a terrorist event might result in the deaths of both his father and his brother, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility. The Prince did an incredibly irresponsible thing and he’s paying the price for having done so.
History is replete with examples of powerful rulers who seize power, sometimes absolute power, “for the good of the people”; this pattern is not unique to or invented by Tony Blair. Julius Caesar is an early example, a member of the “people’s party” in the Roman Republic whose family ended up destroying that ancient institution. Cromwell and Napoleon are two other salient examples of the type who directly paved the way for Lenin, Hitler, Huey Long, Mao, and Khomeini. We ourselves have the Kennedys, the Clintons, and, some would argue, the Bushes.
This recurrent phenomenon, the powerful man who rises as the embodiment of the “Will of the People”, remains one of the conundrums of history, representing what is apparently an essential ambiguity in the human condition itself. The subject is one best treated by a Shakespeare or a Roger Simon, not by a mathematician such as myself. What was the “real” reality of these figures? Were they actually trying to help “the people” or were they only out for themselves? All of these personae are subject to both of these interpretations. There will never be a definitive answer. I just finished an authoritative biography of Cromwell by a noted scholar and both interpretations of his life are not only possible but are still argued hotly to this day. Likewise, there remain many right here in the US of A who lionize Fidel Castro as a true “man of the people”. Different opinions are entirely plausible although I have little difficulty in making up my own mind in most of these cases. Two cheers for Oliver, to h**l with Fidel.
Given the seemingly inevitable resurgence of such figures within every historical epoch, the only possible bulwark for human freedom seems to lie within a system designed from the ground up to eschew direct democracy, a system which imposes checks and balances on all would-be tyrants–no matter how popular or “for the people” they may be or proclaim themselves to be. The wise designers of the Roman Republic were able to recognize this problem some 2500 years ago and to produce a system which was so laden with checks and balances (dual Proconsuls of highly limited terms, Senate approval, Tribunes of the people, etc.) as to manage to survive a good 500 years, significantly longer than our own New Republic has managed so far.
I agree with PeterUK that our Constitution is a direct product of the British Civil War/Revolution of the 17th century. But our two systems bifurcated. The American founding fathers believed the significant lessons to be learned were: separation of church and state, imposition of massive checks and balances, differential levels of government, and the assertion of fundamental rights for the individual. Our British and Canadian comrades seem to have drawn a rather different lesson from the English Revolution, to wit, that increasingly more power should be handed to the House of Commons. In my view that is the path of dictatorship, which is practically what the situations in the UK and Canada have become, however benign those elected dictatorships may remain at the present. In my humble opinion British government has gone off the rails by not producing enough checks and balances, by not containing enough local government, by not requiring enough accountability of one branch to another, nor even enough branches, and finally by not maintaining enough protection for the rights of the individual. The British subject is no longer the sovereign of his or her own home. British government is in need of massive reform; but the reforms generally touted by Mr. Blair are (surprise!) largely such as to increase his own grip on power (regional parliaments seem to be an exception, indeed a step in the right direction).
I’m no fan of the monarchy and would fain see it removed. Yes, I’d be overjoyed to get rid of the “stars” as well. Watching people turn other people into gods sickens me in the pit of my stomach. Something there is which loves not royalty. So my heart is with Roger, but my head is with PeterUK: until there is significant reform of the British constitution such an action holds enormous peril.
However, my greatest fear is that the increasingly certain absorption of Perfidious Albion into Eurabia will soon render all these issues moot anyway. Sadly, the UK is well on its way to being Finlandized into Greater France.
I am conservative and a monarchist but after reflecting on the posts, I think I stick to my original posting where I suggested ñ though my poor wording unfortunately offended PeterUK ñ that if the Royals were to prove themselves consistently anti-Semitic, I could no longer support them, keeping in mind that this would cause a real crisis for my country (Canada, but also for the UK) which I think benefits greatly from having a distant head of state and is not at all suited to republicanism. We no longer live in an age when genteel racism is permissible, and the symbols of equality under the law are paramount. The crown is but one, though important (I would like to say essential, but Iím not sure) way of symbolizing our inclusion and equality. In a nation of immigrants, the Queen represents all of us, much better than any president could. But if this truth is eroded by the Royals, then we would be betrayed and that would be tough but we’d have to find new symbols.
This leads me to the conclusion that whatever the value of symbols, we cannot forever defend them if they consistently attract more resentment than love. It is true that Canada gave up the old Red Ensign (which featured a Union Jack) for the liberal partyís Maple Leaf (though this was shortly before Trudeau, indeed one of worst PMs, became PM), primarily because at that time almost one-third of Canada was francophone and there was a growing Quebecois nationalism fueled, in part, by a sense of their being an oppressed and colonized people. I think that that idea was in good part a load of leftist bs, fueled by the white guilt of the post-Holocaust era of decolonization, though if you had gone to Ottawa in the early 1960s you would have found very few French Canadians in important positions. Nonetheless, if enough people feel a symbol excludes them, then perhaps the symbol (and I am not of course suggesting regicide with my choice of words) ìhas to goî, especially if the rest are willing to give it up in a nonviolent spirit of accommodation.
One thing I find interesting about Heatherís posts is a certain creative contradiction (we all should have them and pointing this out is not criticism but a request for further comment). On the one hand, certain symbols of nationhood are, for her, clearly sacred and essential to peace, order, and good government. On the other hand, she rages, as I do, against the excess of power in the Prime Ministerís Office. But the power of the PMO is not a recent corruption of the system, but something essential to Westminster parliamentary government, where the government assumes all power and responsibility (unlike in the US where the division of powers, and the lack of party discipline in voting, often obscures where responsibility lies for certain legislation), and the rest of the parliamentarians are there, not to govern, but to criticize and request amended legislation, and to bring down the government when a majority in parliament sees fit to do so.
There are definite benefits to the Westminster system, though I see some also in the American system. Without going into details, this leads me to think Canada needs to strip certain powers from the PMO, but without radically changing the system. So, some symbols need to be compromised. There is always a tension between the symbol and the values for which it stands, and we should not have a knee-jerk reaction that favours one over the other.
Finally, a short answer in response to Heather, and I can go into this more later if you like, but no, I donít think Canada is a flimsy balsa wood and masking tape construction. Considering its regionalism, and the great number of immigrants each year, as a proportion of present population, that we peacefully take in, I find it quite stable, sometimes infuriatingly stable ñ I sometimes wish there was less acceptance and conformity in the system (and here I am thinking largely of how the professional and ìintellectualî classes behave), and more of a spirit of democratic reform. But to get more democracy we have to question certain sacred cows.
WichitaBoy,
The regionalisation under the guise of greater accountablity is just part of the overall Europe of the Regions,designed to break down national identity.
Whilst Scotland and Wales remain entities,our Deputy Prime Minister “Pooter” Prescott is busy trying to break England up into separate regions with regional assemblies.England no longer appears on the map.
What Napoleon,the Kaiser and Hitler could not do,a grinning pantaloon will do at the stroke of a pen.The Palestinians are entitled to a homeland but not the English.
Since we already have county councils, city councils,town councils and even parish councils,this extra layer of administration is being rejected for what it is,a mechanism to hollow out national government.
Each region was to have its own office in Brussels,these are being closed down,by the county councils who had to fund them.
Wales is basically apathetic towards its regional Parliament,whilst Scotland is spending our money,like it was,well our money.The West Lothian problem whereby Scottish MPs can vote on English issues but English MPs cannot vote on Scottish issues whilst the whole is funded by the English taxpayer is going to be a bitter bone of contention.
Because of gerrymandering it takes more voters to elect an English MP than a Scottish MP,thus Scotland is over represented,hence the Blair government.
But the whole is a facade,Brussels is still boss.
I’ve been err … following Prince Harry’s shenanigans on a gossip posting board I read sometimes for awhile, and let’s just say that, before this event transpired, I was already well aware that Harry is an idiot. I think he’ll be a chronic family problem frankly.
In many ways I am a very hard man, uninclined to harbor foolishness, much less give it a nod, but all considerations of what England ought to do with royalty aside, I’ll insist that young Harry was foolish beyond his aspirations. I don’t give up on youth at the first great sign of it being stupid. He’s got to learn better than what he’s shown, but that’s been the story of most of us. If he gets a good knock to the head from this, well, maybe that will be of value some other day. Harry’s a boy. He isn’t dead yet. I’m not going to write his epitaph just now.
He should see first-hand some evidence of the horror the Nazi’s brought to this world. However that happens and how soon it happens is now a matter for his family to weigh and act upon. If they don’t do that? That’s quite another matter — they aren’t youngsters. The grace I’ve offered to Harry isn’t something I’d care to spread around should the family be unresponsive.
Lindenen,
As Kevin P so aptly put it “spares to the heirs” have traditionally been a problem for the aristocracy,it is a tradition.
The problem is that the eldest son inherited and the next two went into the army and the church,what was left over they bunged off to the colonies.
Nowadays there isn’t much for the spares to do,whilst the eldest has the crushing responsiblity of remaining responsible.
The spares quite often do not relish the prospect of calling their elder brother “Your Majesty” and being a lifelong second fiddle,so invariably they kick over the traces.
Unfortunately the lad hasn’t got the brains of a hamster and is too young for opening public amenities so there is a problem of what to do with him.
Anyone thinking that a dressing down from his grandmother will be easy is forgetting that this was the woman Margaret Thatcher curtseyed to.
PeterUK, I think they are sending Harry to the military. I’m not sure I’d want to be in a foxhole with someone that dumb. He’s supposed to be going to Sandhurst. Of course, by the looks of things he just might fit in quite well there:
“The senior military chief who runs Sandhurst, Britain’s elite army officer training academy, has been forced to apologise after a photograph was published showing officer cadets dressed as Nazis.”
This article about Harry’s environment doesn’t leave me asking why:
“ìMy uncle died at Auschwitz,î said the young man, who was at Eton with Harry. He sounded sombre and the journalist offered his sympathies. Had his uncle really died at Auschwitz? ìYes, he slipped and fell off one of the watchtowers. Ho, ho, ho!î It was a bad joke ó but not as bad a joke as the royal family has become once again. The latest ineptitude of the house of Windsor is so astounding that it has an almost inspired idiocy.”
“To make matters more absurd, the event had nothing to do with Nazis but was billed as ìcolonials and nativesî, a theme cringeworthy enough in itself for a royal family trying to modernise.”
Ok, am I the only one who thinks this criticism is unfair and that the Nazis were clearly colonialists. How were they not?
There was another incident recently where one of Harry’s teachers claimed she helped him cheat on his art exam to get into Sandhurst. ART EXAM. The hell?! It’s art. How lazy is he?
Oh, you have to read the whole of the second article for the juicy bits:
“As a teenager he was sick across the bar at the Duke of Westminsterís home in Cheshire and was at the centre of allegations of underage drinking and ìlock-insî at the Rattlebone Inn near Highgrove. He was barred from the pub after calling a French barman ìa f****** frogî ó but he had already suffered greater embarrassment at Charlesís 50th birthday party. There Harry reportedly stripped naked, imitating The Full Monty routine, and careered drunkenly among the other guests.”
There’s more. He’s fun in a JLo traveling circus-type way.
Lindenen,I read that,for some reason,I was under the impression that the Times was unlinkable to the States.Never mind I’ll know next time.
The whole thing reads like the Rakes Progress or the antics of one of the more unruly Rock Bands.Five pages of vicarious embarrassment,truly cringe worthy.
I think Sandhurst will do him good the NCOs do not take any rubbish from the young officers.There’s many a wild young man turned into a good soldier.
I would share a foxhole with him,after all one needs someone to stick their head over the parapet from time to time.
According to a survey last month by the BBC, 45% of Britainís adult population have never heard of Auschwitz. Among people under 35, like the blasÈ youngsters in Harryís local in Gloucestershire, the level of ignorance is 60%.
I have to agree with Curtis.
Harry is young, no doubt time will cure that. Here in Maryland teachers are not allowed to mention religion when teaching students about our Thanksgiving Day, so I’m not prepared to assume Harry learned about the Nazis at Eton. No doubt he’ll learn now.
As for symbols, when I was a teen I bought an Iron Cross pendant because I liked the look of it, and to me it was simply a cross. When a neighbor saw it he asked if I knew what it was and proceeded to tell me why adults of his age (old enough to have been in WWII) would find the thing offensive. I’m a baby boomer and the neighbor could have assumed I should have known better. Thankfully he didn’t, and I probably took his explanation to heart because he didn’t belittle me for my ignorance. I never wore the thing again. Granted the swastika is more obviously a symbol of Hitler and the Nazis and Harry will be left in doubt about why people find his costume offensive.
My first reaction was to think of a member of Britain’s first family disparaging the memory of the Londoners roasted and the people of Coventry cremated by Hitler’s Luftwaffe and then I came across Melanie Phillips’ post
“The trouble with Harry”
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000987.html
In which she comments:
“That said, I find the outrage being expressed in Britain and Europe quite sickening in its hypocrisy. Anti-Jewish prejudice is rampant; newspaper columnists, MPs and TV presenters chatter about the global Jewish conspiracy; the Jewish state is defamed daily and Israelis compared to Nazis; anti-Israel boycotts are organised by academics; a lionised literary critic calls for Israeli settlers to be shot and writes about the ‘Zionist SS’; and yet all this passes virtually without comment, indeed is even endorsed by a large section of the population, but when silly, spoilt Prince Harry….”
Amazing how silly Harry did not to realise that as a Royal he is being watched every step and does not have the liberty of expression of Mel Brooks, but will be used as the butt in the interests of a good story.
And then there are some of his critics exhibiting high dudgeon in the MSM who are also not much more intelligent.
“It’s time for the Royal Family, everyone’s favorite tourist attraction, to go.”
I love you Roger, but if we are going to get upset when they make efforts to interfere in our elections, then I think we should abstain from telling them how they should govern themselves.
How about using this as an opportunity to educate and instruct.
It would simplest just to say that you can take the Windsors out of Germany but you can’t take the German out of the Windsors.
Perhaps it isn’t our place to tell the Brits how to conduct their internal politics. but dammit, that boy ain’t right…
I’m a recovering Anglophile myself. I’ve spent a lot of time in the UK, even during the down years of the ’70′s.
True, Blair is busily deconstructing the UK, but I think the Brits were pretty well advanced in the process all by themselves. The monarchy might have provided a signpost to the past, but no longer.
The Royals have only one function, which can be described as a form of PR. To represent stability, continuity, to demonstrate a kind of straight-arrow upper-class virtue for the emulous masses, and all the rest. If the reality of this bunch never aligned itself with the myth, today the reality completely obscures the myth.
The Royals have this one function and can’t even get it right. Charles tried to rationalize his role and failed. His kids have Spenser blood roiling their lives and they appear to be little more than idiot toffs that make Bertie Wooster seem like Churchill by comparison.
I’m surprised that I’m saying it, but they aren’t worth the subsidies or the attention, none of them, including the formers princesses and the Queen’s sisters as well. Roger’s right. It’s time to do away with this senescent and trivial institution. For God’s sake, go.
I find it terribly generous of some Americans to want to effect regime change in the UK,when can we expect the 102st Airborne?
Retread, Hi. I’m 26 years old and have no clue what an Iron Cross is. Is this a Nazi icon I’ve just never spotted? Is this something a Brit may have heard of and not an American? Kind of like how “Paki” is an ethnic slur over there, but for most Americans it’s just an abbreviation? Or at most a slang term we’ve just never heard?
when can we expect the 102st Airborne?
Can you wait until after the Iraqi elections? Negotiations are underway, and we are assured by both Brussels and Turtle Bay that we’ll have their full backing this time. The Grauniad is even on board. Finally, America’s image abroad will take a turn for the better.
Uh, we may need to borrow a few of your UK troops, again…
Cynic makes a good point:
Harry was not taught any better. He hears this stuff every day. The hypocrites can rant and rave all they want, but they helped create this situation.
He is like the child that repeats what he hears at an oppurtune moment.
He probably hears how Bush is a Nazi and so he thinks well how big a deal can it be?
Charlotte,
It is just an underhand way to get to the flesh pots of London,you’d never get them to Iraq once they had been stationed in “Babylon”.It would be off with the uniforms and on with the hawaiian shirts and shades,no use sending division after division if they disappear without trace and you know your boys are just waiting to claim asylum somewhere without dust.
“How you gonna’ keep ‘em down on the farm,After they’ve seen Paree?”
Lindenen,
The problem isn’t the Iron Cross per se but the version awarded by the Nazi Party which had a swastika in the centre.A good example of the control of symbols.
“The Iron Cross was originally established by King Friedrich Wilhelm III in March 1813. On 5th August 1914 Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany and the King of Prussia, reestablished the medal. The Iron Cross was awarded without regard for nationality or social class to combatants for acts of heroism, bravery or leadership skills. During the First World War Germany awarded over five million of these medals to members of the armed forces: Grand Cross (5), First Class (288,000) and Second Class (5,200,000).”
Although I do not depreciate the amount of anti-semitism in certain circles in the UK. I had read The Remains of the Day as being Kazuo Ishiguro’s critique of Pre WWII Japan transposed into an English setting, because a large number of his fellow countrymen still cannot accept the criticism.
Modern British anti-semitism is more a phenomenon of the chatering classes and establishment leftists than the old line aristocracy. It is the Euro left -Islamo-terrorist alliance that concerns me. It is not a recreation of the pre WWII facist scenario, it is a unique new phenomenon.
PeterUK,
Gee, it has been a few years since I was last hit by a car in London. Honestly, I’d completely forgotten what a sunny resort the town is. My sneaky agenda was to have our boys ensure a good supply of cashmere and tweed for their women back home, It’s All About Fashion, you know, but now Rummy and I will have to rethink our neo-Cromwellian plans. Can’t afford to lose our troops to enticing climes and kidney pie cuisine. Perhaps we could go after the Thai royals, instead, for the silk and rubies.
PeterUK ó Ah, yes ó Brighton, or “Miami-on-the-Channel” to the cognoscenti… with their city motto: Grey! It’s the new Sunny!
My sympathies are with the Royal Family on this one. Harry seems to be none too bright as were his parents and he seems to be quite spoiled.
Further, 20 year olds can be impenetrably stupid, trust me on this one.
My vote would be to send him to tour Auschwitz and Yad Vashem before the starts Sandhurst. Once he has been commissioned and gone through basic training with his British army unit, he should be seconded to the IDF for a year or two.
Charlotte,
You were probably crossing the road,inadvisable,full of tourists and taxi drivers,if they don’t get you,the motorbike couriers will.
I never promissed good weather.
You can’t cancel now we’ve had the crown jewels crated up ready for dispatch to the Metropolitan Museum of Art,and weve turned down room bookings from a brigade of French backpackers.
Richard McEnroe,
Can’t speak ill of Miami, I do business with a chap there,well, inbetween him putting up and taking down the shutters,don’t know if it’s a fetish or what.
PeterUK,
(‘Twas a Brit who led me across the road under the Tower of London and who was hit first before I adorned the windshield.) Anyway, we’re still going to cancel our regime change in London this season because the specter of our warriors wearing Hawaiian shirts and sunglasses with their camo fatigues is simply too Aldaesque and Mashy to permit. Do please send on the crown jewels to the Met, and we’ll call it a loan until Harry grows up.
Charlotte
‘Twas a Brit who led me across the road under the Tower of London and who was hit first before I adorned the windshield’.
See,thats us, always polite and good mannered.
“Modern British anti-semitism is more a phenomenon of the chatering classes and establishment leftists than the old line aristocracy.”
So the elite back then was anti-Semitic and the elite right now is anti-Semitic? The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Lindenen,
There’s a picture here of the Iron Cross:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MEDiron.htm
As PeterUK points out, the Nazis didn’t invent either the cross or the swastika but they did use both so extensively that for many people they carry connotations of evil.
I’m on the side of it having been blown out of proportion. That a young fool can wear a swastika at a fancy dress party surely puts the damn swastika where it belongs. Imagine the outrage there would be among Nazis now had Hitler won the war. No, we won the war in order to be able to make fun of what was once a feared symbol of fascism.
If you want a real down to earth valuation of it go read Melanie Phillips. I wish she could be Prime Minister.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000987.html
PeterUK:
One of my sons is in the 101st Airborne and he’s an Anglophile. I’ll ask him to be be gentle with you folks, and I don’t think he’ll make any snide remarks about the 101st having been there before.
As for regime change in the UK, I wonder why it’s improper for us to comment on this issue. It wasn’t an American who disparagingly described England as a nation of Old Maids on Bicycles, and set about disassembling your culture. It was the same guy, I think, who patted Liz on the rump and tried to boogaloo with her at the dome.
And I think polls already show that most of your countrypersons are in favor of ending the monarchy.
Rhod,
We don’t point out that you sometimes have the regretable habit of assassinating your Presidents,a trait that having a neutral head of state tends to obviate.
Mr. Rabbit had a habit
he picked his nose and wriggled his toes
Mr. Rabbit had a habit
he passed on his carrots and ate the pet parrots
One day Mrs. Guy decided to have him fried
then Mr. Rabbit had a habit
of knowing that he died.
(by a seven year old who never heard of PETA)
About our “regrettable habit”- please don’t remind the kooks, PeterUK. Our assassinated Presidents have terrible Oliver Stone movies made about them and ridiculous questions brought up about their sexual identity.
We’ve had four Presidents assassinated. How many English Kings and/or Queens have been executed by their rivals/successors?
Patrick Tyson ó I’ve seen that “What was Mel Brooks thinking” meme over at Tim Blair’s, too.
In the Producers, Brooks gives us a desperate impresario who deliberately sets out to produce a musical celebration of Hitler as the most offensive story idea he could find, to deliberately lose money. Instead, the chic and sophisticated audience happily embraces Nazism, ruining the producer.
What was Mel Brooks thinking? That he saw Prince Harry’s generation coming….
“In the Producers, Brooks gives us a desperate impresario who deliberately sets out to produce a musical celebration of Hitler as the most offensive story idea he could find, to deliberately lose money. Instead, the chic and sophisticated audience happily embraces Nazism, ruining the producer.”
Um, I don’t remember it happening that way. At first they were appalled and disgusted, then (and I forget why or how) they figured that it was a joke. And it was funny. The idea that they were “embracing Nazism” strikes me as ludicrous. Certainly, no one would head down to their local recruitment office after seeing The Producers. Am I right or wrong?
“Harry was not taught any better.”
Do you suppose this can be true? I have no idea what sort of training young royals get, but at the very least they should get some serious after-school help if they are having serious problems with the concept of symbolism and the meaning of symbols. The royals are symbols themselves, and hold their positions only because of the potency of symbolism. I’ll bet somewhere along the line someone tried to drill this notion into Harry’s head. He’s clearly pretty dumb. Apparently nobody thought to say outright, “never wear swastikas in public, Harry.”
But I don’t think we can dismiss this hijink just because he is dumb. He isn’t just anyone; he’s not Mel Brooks, he is who he is. If Harry is too stupid to be trusted with the burden of royalty, he needs to be assigned a keeper.
Frankly I think he has the potential to put Fergie and Andrew and Charles and Diana and the rest of them in the shade, stupidity-wise (oh, excuse me, bad-choice-wise). Something to enliven my old age.
Oh, one other thing — lindenen, I remember the Producers very well, and your interpretation of the audience’s reaction was absolutely correct. There was no Nazi-embracing involved.
Lindenen ó Max Bialystok picked a musical about Hitler to shock, only to find his audience embracing Hitler and Goebbels as funny and entertaining. Forty years later, here’s Harry… I may have indulged in a skosh of hyperbole, but I have to think Brooks would be as flabbergasted by Harry and his set as Max was by his audience.
Charlotte,
I like the poem,may I pass it on? We are lucky, Blair has John “Pooter” Prescott to keep him safe,the thought of him taking over is to terrible for anyone to contemplate.
Richard,I think executing Charles the First settled things down a bit,not a bad run from 1649.French Revolution,Ptah!
As for the predecessors,it wasn’t personal it was business.
Mel Brookes is a comedic genious and Harry is just a dim little drunken dick,a Royal one but a dick none the less,but I don’t think he had a clue about the significance of what he was doing,actually I don’t think he has a clue about anything.
As for his family it is probably as much as the can do to keep him off the bottle.I should imagine his father’s main concern is keeping him away from drugs and making sure he doesn’t choke on his own vomit whilst he is unconscious.I’ve seen too many like him in recent years at this stage of alcohol abuse,the boy has a problem.
He needs hauling over the coals but he also needs help.
It’s yours, PeterUK. The kid had to read it at a big poetry reading just after a protest poem was recited about the state’s electrocution of a convicted killer. The silence was excruciating.
Good show standing up for your constitutional monarchy, btw. You’ve almost singlehandedly stopped us Yanks from intervening, using logic, the EU bogeyman, and terrific reverse psychology. The Royals owe you. Haven’t heard much about “Pooter” Prescott, but Bush’s best protection seems to be that our Lefties have scared themselves silly about a sinister Cheney. Is Prescott also spooky to some or just a lame prospect?
Charlotte,
Mr Pooter is the main character in George ans Weedon Grossmiths “Diary of a Nobody” a very funny gentle book.Enjoy http://www.pseudopodium.org/repress/DiaryOfANobody/
richard mcenroe—
A skosh of hyperbole?
Regarding the movie version of The Producers, you completely mischaracterize the movie audience reaction and, almost certainly, what Mel Brooks was thinking when he wrote and directed it.
My only claim regarding what audiences attending the stage version currently playing in London are reacting so positively to is that you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone(other than Kevin Myers of The Daily Telegraph) who says it’s the “kitsch Nazi imagery.”
Get thee to a place that rents DVDs.
I have no sympathy for Harry, but can see far worse things that seem to pass unnoticed. The “Israel loathing Left” are delighted to point the finger at his stupidity and insensitivity whilst unconcerned by blatant antisemitism which is constantly (it seems to me) on show in the Guardian, Independent, BBC. It makes it look like they give a toss about anti-Jewish prejudice when they are often the instigators of it.
A minor point, but isn’t Harry’s aunt Anne married to a man of Jewish background? (family name used to be Levy?)
Patrick Tyson ó “We forgot one important thing, Bloom. Adolf Hitler always drew a crowd.”