# Australian school apologises for Hitler costume prize



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 27, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11111456



> A Catholic school in Australia has apologised to parents after teachers awarded a costume prize to a child dressed as Adolf Hitler.
> The class of nine- and 10-year-olds had been asked to dress up as famous people at the school in Western Australia.
> Teachers declared the winner to be a boy who dressed as the Nazi leader, who was wearing an outfit featuring the swastika.
> *The principal said in hindsight the school would have done it differently.*



Gee, ya think?


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 27, 2010)

Yeah they would of let him dress as Osama Bin Laden instead.

Come on we're allowed to have our fair share of dickheads just like everybody else.


----------



## crushing (Aug 27, 2010)

What if it really was the best costume?  People that dress up as famous people we like need to step it up!


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 27, 2010)

Did he do something wacky with it, like the ol' arrow through the head prop?  Because otherwise it's just cliche.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 27, 2010)

But at some point, ya gotta think What the hell were the kids PARENTS thinking as well.


----------



## crushing (Aug 27, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Did he do something wacky with it, like the ol' arrow through the head prop? Because otherwise it's just cliche.


 
I was thinking more along the lines of a song and dance routine from The Producers.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 27, 2010)

What I find funny is that the article talks about teaching the KIDS about the sensitivities surrounding certain historical figures.  What about the idiot parent that ALLOWED their kid to dress up like that.  I mean, the kid didn't do it himself.


----------



## 72ronin (Aug 27, 2010)

Poor kid,
Not only are his parents morons, but the school are just as blind LOL

Guess History isnt any of their strong points!!


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 27, 2010)

Devil's Advocate:  Is Hitler a bad subject because he's a relatively recent historical figure?  Would it be OK to dress up as Mao or Stalin, 2 men who caused ever more deaths than Hitler did?   How about Julius Caesar or Napoleon?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Devil's Advocate: Is Hitler a bad subject because he's a relatively recent historical figure? Would it be OK to dress up as Mao or Stalin, 2 men who caused ever more deaths than Hitler did? How about Julius Caesar or Napoleon?


 
Damn, I was going to say the same thing.

Im sure my grandfathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew I practiced Japanese MA with a Japanese sword. 

Emperor Hirohito and the Kaiser Im sure fit into the category of historical figures that at one time were viewed with absolute hatred. What about the devil? Or an angel? Or mohammad?


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Devil's Advocate:  Is Hitler a bad subject because he's a relatively recent historical figure?  Would it be OK to dress up as Mao or Stalin, 2 men who caused ever more deaths than Hitler did?   How about Julius Caesar or Napoleon?



at my university few years ago an acquaintance of mine came to university dressed up as napoleon. He even went downtown St. John's to our annual halloween mardi gras as napoleon. no one cared. They thought he had a great looking costume.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 27, 2010)

For some reason this makes me think of Fascist Superman







Of Nazi Superman






But really, a catholic school, and the parents let their kid dress as one of great mass murderers in history?  Nutjobs.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 27, 2010)

I am clearly some evil person who secretly regrets that we won the Second World War as I don't see that there is anything gained from suppressing the memory of one of the fascist tyrants of the era.

Glorifying is a whole other thing of course, as is turning into a light hearted figure of fun (which, to me, is worse still)  but not forgetting is essential.

Yes it's in poor taste but, for once, I am on the side of 'villain' of the piece it seems i.e. the school was right not to forbid it and wrong if they do other than apologise to those souls who were really offended (rather than just 'acting out' to show how lovely they are).


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 27, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I am clearly some evil person who secretly regrets that we won the Second World War as I don't see that there is anything gained from suppressing the memory of one of the fascist tyrants of the era.
> 
> Glorifying is a whole other thing of course, as is turning into a light hearted figure of fun (which, to me, is worse still) but not forgetting is essential.
> 
> Yes it's in poor taste but, for once, I am on the side of 'villain' of the piece it seems i.e. the school was right not to forbid it and wrong if they do other than apologise to those souls who were really offended (*rather than just 'acting out' to show how lovely they are*).


 
I suspect this is the case in the large majority of these stories.  "Come see how wonderfully sensitive I am to the plight of others."


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 28, 2010)

I can't see Napoleon in the same light as Hitler at all. Napoleon wasn't evil and was his country's leader, sure he took his country to war and invaded a couple of other countries but that was common practice at the time, he was no different than the rest of his contemporaries. He gets a bad press because he lost.
You should only dress up as Julius Caesar in hot countries, not a good look in the UK, even he wore trousers when he was here!

I think the fact that the kid dressed as Hitler shows more that the school is failing to teach history more than anything else. If all Hitler is to the children is a 'famous figure' I think the syllabus may bear looking at.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 28, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I can't see Napoleon in the same light as Hitler at all. Napoleon wasn't evil and was his country's leader, sure he took his country to war and invaded a couple of other countries but that was common practice at the time, he was no different than the rest of his contemporaries.



Compared to Robespierre and The Terror, and maybe even the Directory, Napoleon counts as a big improvement.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Compared to Robespierre and The Terror, and maybe even the Directory, Napoleon counts as a big improvement.


 
Well, it was par for the course in those days.


----------



## K-man (Aug 28, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Devil's Advocate:  Is Hitler a bad subject because he's a relatively recent historical figure?  Would it be OK to dress up as Mao or Stalin, 2 men who caused ever more deaths than Hitler did?   How about Julius Caesar or Napoleon?



Is it not a matter of degree? Not all Germans  were Nazis and very few of the German people were 'bad'. If the kid had dressed as Rommel, complete with swastika, would the reaction have been the same?  Rommel would not have been as recognisable that's all. What if the kid was dressed as Ghenhis Khan, or Idi Amin? They were as bad as Hitler, yet now Ghengis Khan is a respectable historical figure. The difference is, he won and the world moved on.
To my mind, poor taste and poor judgement but like it or not, Hitler is an historical figure.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 28, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I can't see Napoleon in the same light as Hitler at all. Napoleon wasn't evil and was his country's leader, sure he took his country to war and invaded a couple of other countries but that was common practice at the time, he was no different than the rest of his contemporaries. He gets a bad press because he lost.



If killing people or causing people to die is evil, then Napolean was definitely evil as was Caesar.  I wouldn't white wash his deeds just because he lived a scant 120 or so years before Hitler did.  

Hitler is rightfully reviled, but we definitely have a peculiar sense of good and evil if we don't consider Napoleon up there in the bloody hands index.  I mean we have people calling Tony Blair and George Bush war criminals, right?  I think some perspective is called for.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 28, 2010)

K-man said:


> Is it not a matter of degree? Not all Germans  were Nazis and very few of the German people were 'bad'. If the kid had dressed as Rommel, complete with swastika, would the reaction have been the same?  Rommel would not have been as recognisable that's all. What if the kid was dressed as Ghenhis Khan, or Idi Amin? They were as bad as Hitler, yet now Ghengis Khan is a respectable historical figure. The difference is, he won and the world moved on.
> To my mind, poor taste and poor judgement but like it or not, Hitler is an historical figure.



I think the Nazis are a sensitive topic thanks to the grim pictures of the Holocaust that we have all seen.  They are rightfully reviled.

Still if we are being consistent, people like Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great or Tokugawa Ieyasu should receive rather more condemnation than the usual admiration they draw.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 29, 2010)

If that were me, I would never have allowed my kid to dress as Hitler.

I would have made him go as Jack the Ripper or Charles Manson. 

Or did I miss the part where the assignment was "Dress as a Famous NON OFFENSIVE person?"


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> If killing people or causing people to die is evil, then Napolean was definitely evil as was Caesar. I wouldn't white wash his deeds just because he lived a scant 120 or so years before Hitler did.
> 
> Hitler is rightfully reviled, but we definitely have a peculiar sense of good and evil if we don't consider Napoleon up there in the bloody hands index. I mean we have people calling Tony Blair and George Bush war criminals, right? I think some perspective is called for.


 

Who's whitewashing Napoleon? I was merely pointing out that Napoleon was of his time.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Hitler is rightfully reviled, but we definitely have a peculiar sense of good and evil if we don't consider Napoleon up there in the bloody hands index.



Like it or not, people generally don't consider starting wars and killing the enemy in that war as terribly immoral.  I disagree, but the thing is what it is.  Napoleon caused a lot of deaths, but it was in the pursuit of generally accepted war tactics.  Hitler on the other hand is not reviled for causing the deaths of soldiers in battle, but for rounding up civilians and exterminating them.  If you want to consider them the same, then George Bush is indeed a war criminal for starting an unprovoked war and killing a lot of people in the process.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Like it or not, people generally don't consider starting wars and killing the enemy in that war as terribly immoral.  I disagree, but the thing is what it is.  Napoleon caused a lot of deaths, but it was in the pursuit of generally accepted war tactics.  Hitler on the other hand is not reviled for causing the deaths of soldiers in battle, but for rounding up civilians and exterminating them.  If you want to consider them the same, then George Bush is indeed a war criminal for starting an unprovoked war and killing a lot of people in the process.



I'm for consistency.  Not too dramatic of a concept I hope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars_casualties

Civilian deaths are impossible to accurately estimate. Whilst military  deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million, * civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million*. Thus estimates of  total dead, both military and civilian, can reasonably range from  3,250,000 to 6,500,000.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I'm for consistency. Not too dramatic of a concept I hope.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars_casualties
> 
> Civilian deaths are impossible to accurately estimate. Whilst military deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million, *civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million*. Thus estimates of total dead, both military and civilian, can reasonably range from 3,250,000 to 6,500,000.


 
Do you grasp the fundamental difference between civilian deaths during a war with going from town to town to round up a specific segment of the population to exterminate them?


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 29, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Do you grasp the fundamental difference between civilian deaths during a war with going from town to town to round up a specific segment of the population to exterminate them?



Death is death.  Sure you could say intentional genocide is 'worse', but I would think the bystanders that suffered from the Napoleonic wars (or the US Iraqi invasion for that matter) wouldn't care about the distinction.

We admire conquerers like Napoleon or Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great because their actions are not visceral to us compared to people like Hitler or Pol Pot.  We largely ignore the heinous actions of Hitler's close or near contemporaries like Stalin & Mao.  Again, because no imagery survives to make the deaths they caused more 'real' to us.  

It's an inconsistent perspective, compounded when we say their actions are just a reflection of their times in the cases of even 200 years ago.


----------



## Senjojutsu (Aug 29, 2010)

Maybe the parents were big *SOUTH PARK* fans?

South Park - Season 1: &#8220;Pinkeye&#8221; - Aired on 10/29/1997
Cartmen dressed up as Hitler For Halloween
_"The boys wait for the bus in their costumes on Halloween day. _
_Kenny shows up and they think he still alive."_

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149895/?searchterm=Pinkeye

Well at least the Aussie kid wasn't dressed as Chewbacca or Raggedy Andy.
:uhyeah:

BTW, didn't British Prince Harry (_a.k.a. Prince Henry of Wales_) get a ration of criticism when he dressed as a Nazi costume a few years back?

Yes, here's the story from early 2005: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4170083.stm


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Death is death. Sure you could say intentional genocide is 'worse', but I would think the bystanders that suffered from the Napoleonic wars (or the US Iraqi invasion for that matter) wouldn't care about the distinction.
> 
> *We admire conquerers like Napoleon or Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great* because their actions are not visceral to us compared to people like Hitler or Pol Pot. We largely ignore the heinous actions of Hitler's close or near contemporaries like Stalin & Mao. Again, because no imagery survives to make the deaths they caused more 'real' to us.
> 
> It's an inconsistent perspective, compounded when we say their actions are just a reflection of their times in the cases of even 200 years ago.


 


Speak for yourself, I don't admire any of them in the least nor do most people I know. We don't ignore Stalin or Mao, far from it actually. I know quite a few people who suffered under both.
Napoleon was of his time, you can't say he wasn't. Empire building by many countries was rife, it wasn't confined to Napoleon. Little notice was taken of a smaller countries protests at being invaded by a larger or stronger country. 'Gunboat' diplomacy was the order of the day. There was no International Red Cross, no United Nations and attitudes were very different then. Thankfully, while we are making slow progress towards universal peace most of us do appreciate it's something to work towards.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 29, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Speak for yourself, I don't admire any of them in the least nor do most people I know. We don't ignore Stalin or Mao, far from it actually. I know quite a few people who suffered under both.
> Napoleon was of his time, you can't say he wasn't. Empire building by many countries was rife, it wasn't confined to Napoleon. Little notice was taken of a smaller countries protests at being invaded by a larger or stronger country. 'Gunboat' diplomacy was the order of the day. There was no International Red Cross, no United Nations and attitudes were very different then. Thankfully, while we are making slow progress towards universal peace most of us do appreciate it's something to work towards.



The issue with you, Tez, is you really do personalize these discussions on the Study too frequently.  When I say 'we' I don't necessarily mean YOU.  Can you please get over this?  It would make discussions in the Study a lot more harmonious as this is behavior you display with anyone you disagree with.  Trust me, when I mean YOU, I will say so.

You're a good person and I generally like your posts, but please stop taking everything you read on the internet so personally.

Onto the meat of what you've said... I don't know what to tell you if you don't think that western culture in general is much more cognizant of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany than those in Red China or the Soviet Union.  That's readily apparent by the number of movies covering Nazi Germany versus the others.  And when people online want to call each some inflammatory, "nazi" seems to be the word of choice over Stalinist or Maoist.  Your own circle might recognize the enormity of what Stalin and Mao did.  However, I am making the point that not all do.  Similar to Napoleon.  Lots of people actually admire Napoleon, even if you do not personally.  I hope I don't have to pull up citations to prove this for you...  

As for Napoleon being a product of his times... well, it's not much of an argument when we are talking about lives are we?  Else we could justify slavery and suppression of women along with other ills as also being a part of their times.  Maybe global terrorism is just a part of our times now, no?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> The issue with you, Tez, is you really do personalize these discussions on the Study too frequently. When I say 'we' I don't necessarily mean YOU. Can you please get over this? It would make discussions in the Study a lot more harmonious as this is behavior you display with anyone you disagree with. Trust me, when I mean YOU, I will say so.
> 
> You're a good person and I generally like your posts, but please stop taking everything you read on the internet so personally.
> 
> ...


 


LOL, you do like to make your posts personal to me don't you, it's as if the very act of my posting really annoys you! Good.

Well, of course I speak for myself, who else can I speak for? I can't speak for everyone so I give my personal opinion, isn't that what we are supposed to do? Oh and trust me, I'm not in the least a good person.
 I don't take posts personally in the least, I answer as I do because it's my opinion no one elses and I'm afraid you are misreading my posts badly and attributing emotions in there that simply aren't. It's not a personal thing, it's your bad English in writing 'we' when you mean 'some' or even 'a majority' of people. I'm not going to make the mistke of speaking for others, they can write their own posts. Don't patronise me when you have read it wrongly.

What if I started all my post 'well, we think', or 'we want to say', that would be ridiculous! It's about giving your own opinion not someones partyline.

When you say Western culture you mean American culture not European culture, don't forget half of Europe was under Soviet rule for a very long time and the other half was terrified of being invaded by their neighbours the Soviets so it's actually more in our minds than it is Americans. I think you'll find that in Europe Stalin is remembered every bit as much as Hitler.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 29, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> LOL, you do like to make your posts personal to me don't you, it's as if the very act of my posting really annoys you! Good.



Your style of posting is annoying when you disagree with others, whether it be about politics or MMA.  You makes things personal about yourself instead of talking about the points themselves.  Then you accuse others of making it personal about you.  

If it gives you personal satisfaction to annoy me with this posting style, I suppose at least MT is serving some good purpose.     



> Well, of course I speak for myself, who else can I speak for? I can't speak for everyone so I give my personal opinion, isn't that what we are supposed to do?



Discussions can be WITHOUT a personal dimension to them, you know.  Do you truly have to have a dog in every fight to talk about it?  In fact, you don't, since you didn't live during Napoleon's time.    



Tez3 said:


> Oh and trust me, I'm not in the least a good person.



OK.  



Tez3 said:


> I don't take posts personally in the least, I answer as I do because it's my opinion no one elses and I'm afraid you are misreading my posts badly and attributing emotions in there that simply aren't.



Perhaps.  I try to be a reasonable person and I think I am being reasonable when I ask you NOT to take everything so personally.  The group here on MT (or its moderators) will have to decide if I'm off-base or not.  Let it be noted though that I am not the only person that seems to have communications issues with you.



Tez3 said:


> It's not a personal thing, it's your bad English in writing 'we' when you mean 'some' or even 'a majority' of people. I'm not going to make the mistke of speaking for others, they can write their own posts. Don't patronise me when you have read it wrongly.



Really?  I'll leave it at that.



Tez3 said:


> When you say Western culture you mean American culture not European culture, don't forget half of Europe was under Soviet rule for a very long time and the other half was terrified of being invaded by their neighbours the Soviets so it's actually more in our minds than it is Americans. I think you'll find that in Europe Stalin is remembered every bit as much as Hitler.



You're probably right to an extent about this about American culture vs. Western European.  I still think Nazi Germany is much bigger in Western European consciousness as a bogeyman than the Soviets ever were though.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2010)

So you have issues with me because I disagree with people and you think I shouldn't. 

If you like your posts boring,  and generic don't read mine. If you chose to misunderstand me or just plain can't, I'm sorry for it but can do little about it. If you don't like my style of writing and can't understand it, there's little I can do about that either. You are making too much of what is basically just the internet, you read too much into my posts and inferring things which aren't there. You generalise, I don't. I don't have a dog in every fight I'm just opinionated. You are only seeing what you want in my posts not what I write.

You made a statement..'thats why we admire.....' all I said was speak for yourself and you think that I'm taking it personally, you seem to think too I post with a stern expression and pursed lips instead of a light heart and eccentricity. Lighten up and take things easy, if you don't like my posting put me on ignore, it will save your blood pressure and the mods too. 

As to whether the Nazis or the Soviets were the most recent bogeymen ask  the Hungarians (Soviets invaded 1951), the Czechs (Soviets invaded 1968), the Finns, Germans etc etc. We constantly had the RAF scrambling for Soviets jets and bombers flying into UK airspace, our troops along with yours were stationed along the East German border and various skirmishes happened with Soviet troops. I believe there was also something about the Cuban Missile crisis with brought peoples minds to be concentrated on the Soviets so much so that doctors reported the sharp rise of people coming to see them with depression.


----------



## Carol (Aug 29, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Do you grasp the fundamental difference between civilian deaths during a war with going from town to town to round up a specific segment of the population to exterminate them?



There is another factor too.   

Unlike the other warlords of the past, the iconography of the Nazis remains in the present day, adopted by hate groups who need no further publicity.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> There is another factor too.
> 
> Unlike the other warlords of the past, the iconography of the Nazis remains in the present day, adopted by hate groups who need no further publicity.


 
And that those hate groups are still persuing the same victims.


----------



## l_uk3y (Aug 30, 2010)

Hmm.  Woohoo to be an Aussie here.   Sadly not all parents are what they should be. 

Although stereotypically Catholic schools here mean you come from a better off family. So im surprised that they thought it would be a good idea unless they don't keep any eyes on their kids. No excuses really. They should know better.

On the note of all the "warlords" of history. I don't agree with any of them. Although I do believe War as a means of making your country better/larger/wealthier etc, is a much better reason *(just)* then war to destroy other peoples ideals/religions/lifestyles because they are inferior etc


----------



## K-man (Aug 30, 2010)

l_uk3y said:


> On the note of all the "warlords" of history. I don't agree with any of them. Although I do believe War as a means of making your country better/larger/wealthier etc, is a much better reason *(just)* then war to destroy other peoples ideals/religions/lifestyles because they are inferior etc


I hope you didn't mean what you have just posted. War as a means of making your country better/larger/wealthier etc. is *just as bad* as war to destroy other peoples ideals/religions/lifestyles because they are inferior etc. War may be justified to protect your country from an attack from an enemy, or to protect an innocent, powerless population from a tyrant such as Idi Amin or Pol Pot, but a war to make your country larger or wealthier is totally devoid of ethics and could not be morally justified under any circumstance that I could imagine. 

Indonesia has millions of people in a small area and with a great deal of poverty. By your definition they could take over Australia, wipe us out, take our homes and possessions to make their country better ... and that would be just better than invading us because we are a secular state and as such infidels.

Sorry, can't agree with the statement at all.

In colonial history Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain took over countries for no other reason than to take their resources and increase their own wealth. (The Dutch perhaps were more into establishing trading posts than annexing vast dominions.) To the populations of those countries, who lost their lands and warriors to force, the leaders of the conquering nation were no better than Hitler or Stalin. History is written by the winners.

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

Now, back to the topic? At the very best ... incredibly bad taste.


----------



## crushing (Aug 30, 2010)

K-man said:


> Now, back to the topic? At the very best ... incredibly bad taste.


 
I thought the topic was hypersensitivity?

Wait, the "bad taste" people are winning this one, so I guess it is about bad taste.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 30, 2010)

It may be bad taste, but is it more filling?


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 30, 2010)

I agree with both of you, tez and DA.

I studied russian/sov history and its true, people here think of hitler was the monster while stalin is more like meh.

But europeans may think of stalin as more of the monster then we do because their experience with the sovs was very different.

and as for Czech, Stalin was in power in 1948 for the first czech takeover, the second was when brezhnev was in power. 1968.

Hungary was invaded militarily in 1956. after Stalin had died.

Just for future reference


----------

