3 ms·

everyone was racist in 1890. A lot of people supported monarchy and opposed democracy - that was basically the right wing of the time. You really can't view peo

everyone was racist in 1890. A lot of people supported monarchy and opposed democracy - that was basically the right wing of the time. You really can't view people from 120 years ago through today's moral standards - you can only get a reasonable understanding of their position by viewing them relative to other groups from their era.

watwut 8y ago
But I should be able to characterize their behavior for christ sake or talk about it. It is descriptor. Also, Germany 1890 was less racist then Germany 1933. The original argument was "it is ok because 1890 Germany boys did something similar". Given who those boys were, why they did the same and how country developed later, it is absolutely relevant. Not everyone in 1890 Germany was racist. There were big political fights between anti-Jewish groups and those who wanted to keep Jewish emancipation and freedom alive. Seriously, in general, the worst person of period X is not typical representative of that period. Also, parent said that: "The Prussian junkers were really not too fond of the Nazis, and were behind several attempts to assassinate Hitler including the July 20 plot." Junkers description in around 1930, including racism, is absolutely relevant to that argument. In 1930, they were supporting monarchism, were anti-democratic, were largely racist even by contemporary standards. Manhood defined through eagerness to go to war, willingness to kill/hurt/be hurt and related manhood rites are not coincidental.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  of course you can talk about it. But using it to characterise them as an immoral group is a fallacy because it was not immoral at the time. You can't hold up any group more than a few decades old to be moral if you take that stance. The original argument was "male scarification is an old and well-recognised social phenomenon, that transcends social class". Not "those old German aristocrats sure were swell fellas".
  - watwut 8y ago
    1.) Some have seen it as immoral, some seen it as moral. 2.) My argument is that the ritual is related and caused by other cultural factors. In case of Junkers, male scarification is absolutely related to their military culture, overall violence, eagerness to go to war, authoritarianism and so on and so forth. It is not independent factor. Male scarification like that is what cultures about to turn violent do, like for example culture the parent has choosen as example.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      1) is weasel wording. The vast majority of people now see racism as morally wrong. Back in 1890? I don't know, but I doubt it was as clear-cut as today. Morality is personal but the moral average/norm of an era is societal. 2) Sure. Traditional masculinity is closely tied to strength, violence, authoritarianism and such. I bet there's plenty of that in Glasgow street gangs, much as there is in many working class cultures. 3) More like, male scarification is what traditional masculine cultures do, and thus is likely associated with militarism, warfare, subjugation and other such pursuits.
  - posting2fast 8y ago
    > old and well-recognised social phenomenon As is murder, so how is that not weasel wording? The person quoted in the article doesn't make the point that "this is entirely new and unique", so to bring up that it's not is kind of a strawman in the first place. If one wants to imply that something not being unique makes it okay, let them make the actual argument directly (and honestly instead of responding to something that nobody said), which I notice nobody even attempted. > militarism, warfare, subjugation Not to mention despair, nihilism, self-destruction, probably a whole metric ton of problems in bed, shitty music, and of course fried heroin.

watwut 8y ago

But I should be able to characterize their behavior for christ sake or talk about it. It is descriptor. Also, Germany 1890 was less racist then Germany 1933. The original argument was "it is ok because 1890 Germany boys did something similar". Given who those boys were, why they did the same and how country developed later, it is absolutely relevant. Not everyone in 1890 Germany was racist. There were big political fights between anti-Jewish groups and those who wanted to keep Jewish emancipation and freedom alive. Seriously, in general, the worst person of period X is not typical representative of that period. Also, parent said that: "The Prussian junkers were really not too fond of the Nazis, and were behind several attempts to assassinate Hitler including the July 20 plot." Junkers description in around 1930, including racism, is absolutely relevant to that argument. In 1930, they were supporting monarchism, were anti-democratic, were largely racist even by contemporary standards. Manhood defined through eagerness to go to war, willingness to kill/hurt/be hurt and related manhood rites are not coincidental.

beaconstudios 8y ago
of course you can talk about it. But using it to characterise them as an immoral group is a fallacy because it was not immoral at the time. You can't hold up any group more than a few decades old to be moral if you take that stance. The original argument was "male scarification is an old and well-recognised social phenomenon, that transcends social class". Not "those old German aristocrats sure were swell fellas".
- watwut 8y ago
  1.) Some have seen it as immoral, some seen it as moral. 2.) My argument is that the ritual is related and caused by other cultural factors. In case of Junkers, male scarification is absolutely related to their military culture, overall violence, eagerness to go to war, authoritarianism and so on and so forth. It is not independent factor. Male scarification like that is what cultures about to turn violent do, like for example culture the parent has choosen as example.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    1) is weasel wording. The vast majority of people now see racism as morally wrong. Back in 1890? I don't know, but I doubt it was as clear-cut as today. Morality is personal but the moral average/norm of an era is societal. 2) Sure. Traditional masculinity is closely tied to strength, violence, authoritarianism and such. I bet there's plenty of that in Glasgow street gangs, much as there is in many working class cultures. 3) More like, male scarification is what traditional masculine cultures do, and thus is likely associated with militarism, warfare, subjugation and other such pursuits.
- posting2fast 8y ago
  > old and well-recognised social phenomenon As is murder, so how is that not weasel wording? The person quoted in the article doesn't make the point that "this is entirely new and unique", so to bring up that it's not is kind of a strawman in the first place. If one wants to imply that something not being unique makes it okay, let them make the actual argument directly (and honestly instead of responding to something that nobody said), which I notice nobody even attempted. > militarism, warfare, subjugation Not to mention despair, nihilism, self-destruction, probably a whole metric ton of problems in bed, shitty music, and of course fried heroin.