PDA

View Full Version : A matter of taste



Occam
06-08-2011, 08:15 PM
Why hello there, Internets!

One of the fellas at my local game store claims that he has been de facto banned from another store in the area supposedly because of the conversions of one or two of his armies. Namely, nasi Space Marines and/or nasi Imperial Guard. Now, I haven't gone out of my way to confirm the story yet but it does raise an interesting point nonetheless, which is, are there some army ideas or conversions that are too far or simply "off-limits" in terms of taste? How "far" is "too far"? Could I make a Mormon-themed Ork army? Or a mexi-ork army? Why not, the heads were featured here on Bols not that long ago. What if I made them all gingers? Has anyone else experienced this kind of thing before? Is there such a thing as an "offensive" army?

Now before anyone jumps up, let's remember our setting for mankind: 40,000 years in the future, where life, according to the big rule book, is cheap, the empire's "holy warriors" (grey knights) issue orders to exterminate hole planets seemingly with the same level of thought as say, ordering thai food. Genocide is a mass occurrence and the standing strategy of the army is to drown the enemy in bodies via attrition.

Post questions, comments and tomatoes below. Just not the face, NOT THE FACE!

BrokenWing
06-08-2011, 08:19 PM
Of course there is such a thing as an offensive army. Look, the setting may be grim and dark, but you aren't making an army that will be seen by people in that setting, you're making an army that will be seen by people in real life. In real life, people can be offended by things.

Occam
06-08-2011, 09:08 PM
Of course there is such a thing as an offensive army. Look, the setting may be grim and dark, but you aren't making an army that will be seen by people in that setting, you're making an army that will be seen by people in real life. In real life, people can be offended by things.

Thank you for commenting. Would you be willing to give an example of an offensive army? I found the above story from this fellow to be odd as in the same store, they play Axis & Allies and FOW, with a fair number of Axis/German players.

BrokenWing
06-08-2011, 09:18 PM
Basically, if you have to ask if your army is offensive, it probably is to someone and it only takes one or two people to get you removed from a store. If you want an army that looks like that, you should be playing a historical wargame, where no one will find it offensive.

Hive Mind
06-08-2011, 09:25 PM
I assume you mean ****? Space Marines already pretty much are ****s, as that word is used today. They're the SS, eagle-emblazoned elite troops of a fascist regime.

Anyway, if this guy has painted swastikas all over his models then I can see why he might have been banned from using them there, though not why he'd be banned outright.

EDIT - I see why you wrote nasi now. Damn filter.

wkz
06-08-2011, 09:27 PM
Thank you for commenting. Would you be willing to give an example of an offensive army? I found the above story from this fellow to be odd as in the same store, they play Axis & Allies and FOW, with a fair number of Axis/German players.
That's acceptable only because of the context: the setting is World War 2, and in world war 2 you just cannot escape the fact there's German people in there, and for the most part those Germans are controlled by a government/military that's heavily Na*i. Fighting Na*is in World War 2 wargames is alright in this case as it is part of the setting: they're the bad guys in the world setting. (They're in fact the primary antagonist fer goodness sake... well, at least of the WAR. We can discuss "causes of war" in another thread)

However, the 40k universe is HEAVILY disconnected from the current world. To bring in an army with themes connected to the current day will be to heavily clash with the fluff of that universe... ... and this clash of uniqueness will usually be seen as making a statement/declaring your love of something outright (after all, why give fluff the middle finger if you're not liking the theme?). For examples:

- a "General" Rhino (pic of the day a few days back) will automatically have the audience assume you love the show the Dukes of Hazard

- a friend of mine is generally accepted as being crazy about Starcraft simply because his Tyranid army is heavily converted that way (with Queens, Zerglings, Ultralisks and even Kerrigan in there)

- Slannesh rock bands, anyone? ... .... nah, that's fluffy. However, Ork Heavy Metal conversions will automatically make first impressions of the owner = a heavy metal fan...
etc...

And now think of someone who brings a Na*i-themed army into this context. "oh wow. this guy's making a statement/loves something... ... and his statement/preference is the Na*i Party?!??"

At least, the above is one way of seeing things.

Brass Scorpion
06-08-2011, 09:41 PM
It's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of a complete lack of taste. I had this very conversation with one of my local store operators recently and he said he'd kick someone like that out as well. 40K is a fantasy game. It may be about a dark future, but it's supposed to be light fantasy fun for those engaging in it. Iconography of that kind has no place in it and you'd have to wonder what someone is flogging if they do their army up like that. Besides it is also incredibly insensitive, thoughtless and is for obvious reasons a good way to drive away potential new customers who come in the store. Some things are not to be taken lightly. Warhammer IS to be taken lightly, it's fantasy fun. I can think of several different motifs and bits of iconography that have no place on fantasy miniatures, but the example here is probably the most obvious. The lesson here for people who do things like that, assuming they don't have a hateful agenda and are just thoughtless, is don't be a callous idiot.

s_harrington
06-08-2011, 10:00 PM
I wonder if any non Catholics get offended when I plop down my Codex: Grey Knights army all flying Inquisition banners, pennants, and iconography?

Seriously though; I would first look at the maturity level of the store before forcing non-standard thematic elements upon the general populace that visits it.

I know of a few stores in Northern California and Arkansas where showing up with the Rainbow Marines will likely get you tied to a tree, Deliverance style.

Image
06-08-2011, 10:19 PM
A friend of mine at the FLGS told me about an individual who had what sounds to be an identical army. By the sounds of it, the individual I heard of created an army with the purpose of being offensive, not because of some martyred artistic value. Simply put, he just wanted to piss some people off.

If that kind of attitude matches the individual's in the OP, then I don't think a banning would be inappropriate, depending on how far it was taken. I expect a warning was issued first.

EDIT: To actually answer the question in the OP, yes I think it's possible to create an army that goes too far. This is a game that relies on visualization and creativity, but actually playing often occurs in very public places. For me, I think one that uses racist or sexist themes are ones that go too far. I recognize that the fluff enables some of that, but I certainly think you can tell when it goes too far.

Hive Mind
06-08-2011, 10:26 PM
How was the army made to look like National Socialists though? If it was just swastikas, then you have to remember that the swastika has an existence completely independent of National Socialism. The (now defunct) Windsor Swastika hockey team, Hindu iconography and Native American iconography for example.

Swastika doesn't always mean National Socialist.

If the guy just did it to, in effect, 'troll' his LGS then fine, ban his army.

BrokenWing
06-08-2011, 10:46 PM
Everyone knows that the swastica exists in other cultures. No one cares though.

Emerald Rose Widow
06-08-2011, 10:55 PM
Everyone knows that the swastica exists in other cultures. No one cares though.

actually the vast majority of people have no idea that the swastika even existed before Hitler, much less know what it really meant. People are really bad with their history because most dont care, its sad really if you think about it.

BrokenWing
06-08-2011, 10:57 PM
Well ok admittedly not everyone does know. But I can tell you that most people wouldn't care if they did and saw your army all painted up with the icons. Their first thought would be WW2, their second thought would be you're a fascist. "But other people used it first" is a really thin argument I've seen people use for having that particular icon on something they own and you can almost see bullcrap in their eyes.

Hive Mind
06-08-2011, 10:57 PM
Everyone knows that the swastica exists in other cultures. No one cares though.

Methinks you give people too much credit.

http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/funny-facebook-fails-ro-what-ia.jpg

Now granted, that's extreme stupidity (or perhaps even completely set-up or faked) but I think it's impossible to argue that there aren't more people falling into the 'dumb' end of the scale than the 'smart' end.

Anyway, back on-topic if it's an 'innocent' use of the swastika, if it even is an issue with the swastika, then I don't think he should be banned. If his HQ's are called Eichmann and Speer then he probably should be.

BrokenWing
06-08-2011, 11:00 PM
Like I said above (which you probably didn't see until you posted) I was over generalizing. My main point is very few people would care about that argument.

Hive Mind
06-08-2011, 11:04 PM
I guess, though it's pretty easy to visually distinguish between the National Socialist swastika and, say, the Hindu one.

BrokenWing
06-08-2011, 11:06 PM
Yeah, but now you're the one giving people too much credit =).

Occam
06-08-2011, 11:44 PM
Wow! These are some truly great answers. And I liked how responsible and mature and deep people are getting here though. I'm surprised that no one jumped on the Mormon/Ork army theme needing a bunch of magnets. :)

But dropping swastika's, mel brooks musicals and brown shirts for a while, let's take a step back and try some of my sillier suggestions: The Ork Bandidos. The quasi mexican-themed bandit heads, which I thought were well sculpted, by the way...are they offensive, or do they add flavor? Or does the innate cartoonists of the Orks make is permissible?

And in case anybody is wondering, I play Necrons. And in my background, we're in search of the Anti-Life Equation.

shadosun
06-08-2011, 11:57 PM
But dropping swastika's, mel brooks musicals and brown shirts for a while, let's take a step back and try some of my sillier suggestions: The Ork Bandidos. The quasi mexican-themed bandit heads, which I thought were well sculpted, by the way...are they offensive, or do they add flavor? Or does the innate cartoonists of the Orks make is permissible?

That is a bit of a tricky question. I would have to say its going to depend on the venue you are playing at most of the time, and its customers. People these days get offended a lot more than they used to, no offense (heh, lame joke). In our world of political correctness having a little tougher skin is being passed up in favor of pretty much banning anything that offends you. So yes, someone could see the face and declare they are offended and the store would most likely have to oblige. Everyone else may find it neat, or even humorous, but that person is a potential customer and most owners will not tell a customer to stfu and accept the models.

EDIT: I apologize for the long winded response, I am very tired. I do have good basis for the argument though. I am in the military and that is one of the most politically correct places a person can be. We have an entire section dedicated to being treated equally, and while I applaud the fact its mostly used for good things such as unfair treatment and sexism (all the isms really). It can also be used to complain that you feel offended. And it can be about very stupid things too, but if you act offended enough, others can get in trouble, and rules will be made/trained so your little feelings never get hurt again.

Deadlift
06-09-2011, 12:15 AM
I would think that anyone who was painting an army up to resemble the **** army would be asking for trouble. Mexican orks, that's funny because Mexicans in sombreros aren't genrally assumed to have a history of
Genocide. But ****s well I guess that players looking for trouble. As we know from these very forums people love to bait, flame and antagonise people to the extreme and I would suggest this player is someone of that calibre. Someone I wouldn't even entertain speaking to let alone playing a game against.

But then again look at those imperial guard army's with the pith helmets who resemble Britains old imperialist army. If you know your history you will know that Britain back then wasn't beyond mass murder either.

However the **** genocide thing is so widely known that I would find that very poor taste. I visited Prague a few years ago and whilst there looked around the old Jewish ghetto museum. Horrific to say the least. So no **** space marine armies aren't artistic or funny at all

Emerald Rose Widow
06-09-2011, 12:28 AM
Well ok admittedly not everyone does know. But I can tell you that most people wouldn't care if they did and saw your army all painted up with the icons. Their first thought would be WW2, their second thought would be you're a fascist. "But other people used it first" is a really thin argument I've seen people use for having that particular icon on something they own and you can almost see bullcrap in their eyes.

oh most definitely, its just in bad taste, if you want to do that sort of thing to make a point, about fluff or about social things, bringing them as your army is not a good idea in a shop. I mean your asking for trouble in a society that gets offended at every little thing, i mean i have had my own cases of being offended, but I have fairly thick skin and have a tenancy to take things with a grain of salt.

Cherub
06-09-2011, 12:34 AM
Mormen orks? I dont get it.

I did see a salamander army that a kid did up in gw all with bare heads.....that he green stuffed afros onto.

I will admit that my krieg are done up in black and red. Because black and red looks good together, but ill be damned if i painted any "national socialst emblams" on them. Thats probally the one emblam that has no place in warhammer. There isnt any argument you could use that would make using an emblam that represented such suffering, hate and death acceptable. Im sorry that a madman stole it from the hindo religion and that is parts of asia it means something totally different. But here in north america as am Im it is in europe, it stands for what is probally the greatest tragity in modern history.
/gets off my high horse

Im sorry Im normally pretty laid back about what people do with thier armies but something about people painting that emblam on warhammer figures gets my blood boiling.

Hive Mind
06-09-2011, 12:45 AM
I think the Mormon/Orks thing was just a joke about magnets. I don't think there was any higher meaning than that.

Wishing
06-09-2011, 12:58 AM
I think that generally speaking, lots of people like doing 40k armies that are based on some kind of real-world phenomenon, either history or media or whatnot. Imperial Guard are especially suited to historical army themes, like Vietnam or Napoleonic or whatever, and mexican or mormon themed orks would be the same - nobody would have a problem with this I reckon, unless you happened to have mexicans or mormons in your store that felt you were taking the piss out of them. (How exactly you would accomplish mormon orks is beyond me though.)

WW2 Germans are a special case though, at least in Europe and Western culture generally. WW2 is still a big trauma here, since there are still people around who lived through it. Since Hitler and the German WW2 army is considered in the public eye to be the bad guys behind it all and something akin to ultimate evil, and since the wounds are still semi-fresh, it's just not OK to show up in public with any kind of statement that makes it seem like you are on their side or think they are cool. I seem to remember a scandal of Prince Harry dressing up as a "nasi" for a colonial costume party and everyone in the tabloids being offended, Lars von Trier at the recent Cannes festival said something about "understanding Hitler" and got hugely criticised for being a giant douchebag in the media, and the singer from Kula Shaker said something in the 90's about how the German uniforms were stylish (in seriousness, not humour). All of these were forced to issue public apologies afterwards as I recall. These are just examples to show that, in public, if you say or do anything that makes it seem like you have any sympathy at all towards national socialism, people are going to take offense and give you a hard time.

Give it a 100 years and things will probably be different, but for now, that's what we're stuck with.

fade_74
06-09-2011, 01:27 AM
I would probably ask the person who did the army if they were into Hitler, fascism, etc. Then I would make my judgement.

I also wonder if this weren't about the Nasi's, per se, would it be an issue. Would someone ban you for having your valks painted up like japanese zeros? Probably not. Would someone be banned for having their vampire counts army all impaled on stakes? probably not. Would you be banned for painting your guard up in desert camo, and have some of them standing near dead bodies with cameras get you banned? What if they were holding dismembered heads? probably not. It is just something about the Nasi's that still pisses people off in a big way, in a way that no other war atrocity has.

I would also ask, is the person with mexican orks a mexican? lol Cause that would make a big difference.

And finally, to tell on myself.....
I have about 60 catachans...45 or so are dark skinned with african or native american skin tones...the rest are white. I painted them all in a bunch and just picked the squads at random. One day my cousin laughed across the table at me. I have a squad with all black dudes...with a white Sarge. I never noticed lol.

condottiere
06-09-2011, 01:53 AM
Context being everything. Dark Eldar probably do a lot more nastier things, but since they're not part of our history and are in fact fictitious, no one's sensitivities are hurt when you turn up with those models.

Lane
06-09-2011, 02:52 AM
One of the fellas at my local game store claims that he has been de facto banned from another store in the area supposedly because of the conversions of one or two of his armies. Namely, nasi Space Marines and/or nasi Imperial Guard. Now,

I've heard of people with WWII German themed armies being banned even if they did not use Swastikas. One used the + shaped cross and another the Maltese/ Templar cross. Some people consider anything German from that era offensive.



it does raise an interesting point nonetheless, which is, are there some army ideas or conversions that are too far or simply "off-limits" in terms of taste? How "far" is "too far"? Could I make a Mormon-themed Ork army? Or a mexi-ork army?

Mormon Orks? you mean all wearing a shirt and tie riding bicycles.

Mexi-Orks could be fun. You could make a Taco stand battlewagon. They could only deploy behind a building if it has a Home Depot sign.

Necron2.0
06-09-2011, 03:04 AM
[Rant On]

Mostly, I think it's a case of people needing to pull their heads out of their butts, come down off their high horses and lightening the fudge up. So someone has a National Socialist I-guard army ... BFD. What's more offensive is people trying to white-wash society because it might "offend" some random clueless moron or special interest group somewhere.

Here's my favorite example of real-world "white guilt" stupidity. I'm 1/4 native American (what used to be called "American Indian"). My grandfather on my mom's side is Tewa. The Tewa are Pueblo Indians, like the Anasazi. Back in the 80's and 90's, clear evidence of cannibalism was found in some Anasazi ruins. To this day, white archeologists are falling all over themselves coming up with theories to explain away the indications of cannibalism as bizarre rituals no native American has ever heard of - this despite the fact that cannibalism in the New World has been well established for centuries. When you ask a native American archeologist what he thinks of the evidence, "Cannibalism," is the only response. Hell, my mom told me of rumors of cannibalism as recently as the early 1900's, in her father's generation. Of course, today it's not politically correct to point to the elephant in the room.

Back to 40K, should I (being 1/4 Spanish as well) be offended that the I-Guard codex refers to penal conscripts as "desperadoes." Maybe they should be called Australians instead, or Sinn Fein, or even "West Ham United."

A friend of mine wanted to paint up his Ork horde to be Sombrero wearing vatos, cruising around in low riders complete with lift kits and dingle balls. I thought it was funny as hell, but I'm sure he's avoiding doing it because some jackhole would throw a snot-flinging hissy fit ... never mind that my friend's wife is Mexican. Would someone get offended with an Ork horde done up as rednecks in monster trucks? Probably not, even though that is as much a stereotype as the banditos.

Another friend, after seeing the South Park movie, wanted to do up a bunch of penal conscripts as African-Americans, so he could call out "Operation Get-Behind-Darky," but again ....

Would people be angry if someone did up their I-Guard army as the Red Army, circa 1945? No? Well then, what if they made objective markers for them to resemble a German Schoolgirl and her 80 year old grandmother? If that wouldn't offend you, then you need to be killed (and eaten).

As a final question, do you find this offensive:
>>Dark Eldar Prisoners<< (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1460354a_99060112055_DEPrisoners_445x319.jpg)

If not that, then what about this:
>>Eldar about to be violated<< (http://www.coolminiornot.com/266436)

In terms of ideals and aesthetics, what is the difference between these two?

[Rant Off]

wkz
06-09-2011, 03:10 AM
.... Would someone ban you for having your valks painted up like japanese zeros? Probably not. ...Just a note: here in Asia (South-East Asia to be exact), some of the more closed-minded folks will take one look at the Zero fighters, models with the rising sun bandanas and such... and proceed to try and stomp them into dust (South-East Asia was occupied by the Japanese, you see... ... and they were not exactly "kind"...)

Edit @ Necron2.0: Whitewashing is one thing, but note that there IS a basis behind the so-called "guilt stupidity". Calling African Americans "blacks" or "negros" to their face is technically NOT wrong... Technically... It is the years of history behind the word that had made it a slur and an insult.

Painting out such things will automatically bring out such history, and bring out such history ON PURPOSE means you're bring out the insults ON PURPOSE. And when you're bring out the insults right in the vicinity of the guy it applies to ON PURPOSE, what else is he supposed to think? "Wow, this black dude hanging off a noose IS an excellently done objective marker"?

The same applies for other sorts of insults, slurs, support of generally accepted "very very evil ideology", etc.

At the end of the day, certain things can be done tastefully, and certain people can stand to become better persons by growing a thicker skin... but certain other things would be better not being brought up at all. It all depends on the context and how it is carried out.

For example: A Muslim warrior with authentic period armor as part of the Tallarn Desert Raiders? Perhaps, and that ultra-extremist anti-Muslim can cool his *** off. But a "Middle East Oil Shek Guy", turbans and all, riding pigs and using buckets of blood in place of weapons as a count-as Rough Riders? Its funny, granted... but You're insensitive as all heck too.

Or: Just as above, if you come over to South East Asia... ... don't bring models of samurai dudes in WW2 battlegear skewering unarmed chinese dudes. It may mean nothing to you, being buddies with Japan on the current day and all... but that's not nice to us at all...


Also note: Of the pictures you've linked, you'll have to note the MAJOR difference between the two: one is passive and the other is active. Meaning one is suggesting prisoner against will, lost of rights as a sentient being, downgraded to sex objects, rape, other bad stuff and all, but it is doing so sorta like some variant of background noise; all we have to go on is the girls with chains, and we simply don't know what is going on, although we sorta can guess...

... but the other is actively forcing the user to think about what is going to happen in the next hour. A bunch of guys who just tore off "clothing" and exposed boobs on a female analog, and acting all horny? The event horizon moment/act that will change a "person" with possibly no trauma as of yet into one of those life-ruined chained slaves above, all happening at the coming hour? Oh.... boy....

This may seem like pots and kettles, but this forcing of thought is making a statement as of itself. It is as if the diorama creator is saying "Hey LOOK!! People at their absolute sexual WORST!! This is us, guys, this is how low we sink!!" instead of the more passive "These are victims... ... think what you will" of the first picture.

Not to mention the first case are the prisoners of "bad guys" to boot. We expect bad guys to be bad.

But when the supposedly GOOD guys do bad things... ... that's when we have movies such as "the Thin Red Line" and such tends to disgust us about the lost of morals of guys who are supposed to have such morals.

At the end of the day, both are offensive to some degree. The 2nd picture is more offensive only because it rubs the fact right onto people's minds, HARD.

Deadlift
06-09-2011, 04:08 AM
The thing is Necron 2, lightning up and getting off your high horse is all very easy to say but as has already been said the N*zi thing is a bit of a special case in my opion. Near where I live was a home for elderly polish people who where experimented on by the Germans. Try looking one of those poor chaps in the eye whilst holding a toy SS soldier that you painted, even just for kicks. No neither could I. Also as I already mentioned my trip to the Jewish ghetto in Prague. There they have a wall full of pictures done by children. Many of trains because they were told they should look forward to the wonderful trip they were going to make. I get your point Necron 2 that people shouldn't over react to certain things like painting an army in a certain way. But here it is, people are offended and anyone who thinks overwise and decides to paint the SS scheme is really asking for trouble and rightly so. Maybe I am wrong and of course disagree with me

eldargal
06-09-2011, 05:01 AM
I think you could have a National Socialist themed army without covering it in swastikas. If someone has to put swastikas and whatnot all over a 40k army I question their motives, it is in't a WWII period game so chances are they are doing it just to shock. If someone has a converted National Socialist themed IG army with appropriate colour scheme and whatnot, sans swastikas, that is a good, subtle nod to the fascist feudalism of the Imperium.

Space Marines, not so much, as they are more like Knights Templar than the SS.

People can be easily offended, and I'm not particularly fond of censoring things just because they are offensive to some. But the fact is National Socialism led to destruction on an unprecedented scale, the human, cultural, architectural and economic costs were immense. Ignoring that just to put swastikas on your plastic toy army smacks of immaturity more than anythign else.

chromedog
06-09-2011, 05:07 AM
I had a TO come over to me at my last 40k tourney because someone across the room had accused me of having swastikas on my vehicles. The accusation did not require proof - "it looked like a swastika" isn't proof.

It was a GK army and they were Inquisition crosses (Capital 'I' style). Ok, so the banners were red with a large white circle and the black =I= in the centre, and they could perhaps be confused from across the room - but a second, closer look would remove that assumption (I was going to go with a motif closer to the Tetragrammaton flags from "Equilibrium" but that would have blurred the boundaries a tad too much.).
The TO saw them, and that they weren't what they were declared to be, and cleared them.
They aren't supposed to be bearing hello kitty pennants (although HK does offend me).

daboarder
06-09-2011, 05:25 AM
I think you could have a National Socialist themed army without covering it in swastikas. If someone has to put swastikas and whatnot all over a 40k army I question their motives, it is in't a WWII period game so chances are they are doing it just to shock. If someone has a converted National Socialist themed IG army with appropriate colour scheme and whatnot, sans swastikas, that is a good, subtle nod to the fascist feudalism of the Imperium.



THIS^

you could easily get your point across without the swastika.

I'm not one for creating bogeymen out of the ****'s, they did terrible things to many people including attempted and successful genocide ie: gypsies. That being said we must always remember that they were humans and made the same mistakes and decisions that humans can still make. We should also remember that they weren't the first to attempt genocide of a minority in the 20th century, that dubious honor goes to Ataturk.

Anyway, I don't find the swastika offensive, but if you painted it all over a 40k army then you either sympathize with their ideals (not a good thing) OR you are going out of your way TOO offend people.

For an example on how to achieve a nod too that army look at the various forms of IG, many of them do take artistic styles from many German army uniforms.

Hells the Commissar is a half half of gestapo and Russian Commissariat.

fade_74
06-09-2011, 05:25 AM
Sorry WKZ, I didn't mean to neglect the Japanese occupation of southeast Asia during WW2. I know they were terrible to conquered peoples. Most of the WW2 vets from this area were in the pacific, including my grandfather, and a great uncle. Americans tend to forget about that and that was my point. We remember the nasi's though.

Necron 2.0, I worry sometimes. I have a family to protect, and if I saw a guy with an army painted up like nasi's I gotta wonder if that person is someone to have anywhere near myself or my family. I'm not a special interest group worried about being offended. I am also not a clueless moron. I don't have any white guilt. I do deal with racism on a daily basis at work though. I see the kind of hatred some people teach their children, and that makes me watchful.

Really, would you want your kid around someone you didn't know who thought that it was cool to paint up little nasi's?

Wishing
06-09-2011, 06:04 AM
Really, would you want your kid around someone you didn't know who thought that it was cool to paint up little nasi's?

Good points, fade 74. While in principle, there is little difference between choosing to decorate our plastic soldiers in swastikas or any other symbol of an aggressive military power that has committed atrocities throughout human history, different symbols have different social resonance at different points in time and place. Everyone knows that national socialist germany is a big trauma for Europe and the West at this point in time. As such, someone that chooses to flaunt their symbolism in an inappropriate setting clearly wants to send a signal, which is basically a big middle finger to those around them. You might compare it to wearing a swastika t-shirt. Imagine how many friends you'd make wearing that.

One of the reactions this kind of gesture can elicit, as fade and other recent posters point out, is to make people wonder about your character. Why do you think it is cool or funny to go out of your way to offend people? Are you just immature, or do you actually have a problem with your society's norms to an extent that you might be an extremist of some kind? If so, what are you capable of?

Maybe people should just lighten up, but if you are a mature adult, you should accept that there are some things that your society can take great offense at, and act accordingly.

Hive Mind
06-09-2011, 06:14 AM
You also have to consider that while duder with National Socialist army has the right to his freedom of expression, the store owner also has a right to restrict access to his store if he wants to. Unless you're a public authority there's no requirement to respect expression rights under the Charter, ECHR, First Amendment or whatever.

It's hard to be absolute about any of this really because we only have one side of the story and it's very sparse on details. Maybe the guy was actually kicked out for being a tool to other customers or trying to steal but he's passing it off as a censorship issue. Maybe the store has a lot of customers who might be sensitive to that sort of stuff or maybe the store owner had family affected by WWII. Maybe it didn't happen at all.

Wolf Brother Hellstrom
06-09-2011, 08:18 AM
The Unfortunate thing about this world is that somewhere somehow someone is going to be offended.

I have a friend whose parents are extremely religious and just to mention the word " wyches" or any curse word can get me kicked out of the house for the day.

I think the point is in the intention. If someone is purposelly trying to offend someone then he will most likely succeed.

When I was a GW employee we had a guy who wanted to theme his eldar army like the dukes of hazzard. for those not familiar it was a 80's TV show about two hilbilly heros from the deep south, running from the police in a suped up orange hotrod with a confederette flag painted on the car.

I thought it was a great idea even though in america the confederate flag is controversally rascist. but then he took it to far and painted white hoods on the army i.e. the klu klux klan. He had crossed that invisible line of controversal and plunged straight into offensive. he was asked not to bring in the army until it was repainted.

so like i said it is all about intent. if you theme your plastic soldiers like ****s, KKK, or something equally hateful you know it will offend someone. lets use some common sense

templarboy
06-09-2011, 08:34 AM
Back in the halcyon days of Adeptus Titanicus/Epic 40k, the younger brother of my gaming buddy showed up with his "secret" army. It was a beautifully painted and complete "Squatzi" force. Black, red and silver with swastikas everywhere. He had taken the better part of a month painting up this atrocity. Every piece was painted and the entire thing was grossly expensive.

I was thunderstuck. Both of my grandfathers fought in WW2. My mother's father died shortly after returning wounded from Europe. My best friend growing up had a grandmother with a curious tattoo on her arm from Auschwitz. I would have never even thought of doing an entire "Squatzi" army. Heck if I played FOW I probably wouldn't even paint a German army.

This kid that had this army was 16-17 yrs old. He thought he was very clever and that everyone would think his theme was funny. I climbed up on my high horse and offered to spray paint his stuff for him. I refused to have my stuff on the same table. He relented and repainted his stuff. I think he showed very poor judgement in the onset and good judgement in the final.

I felt very strongly about his painting scheme. I still do to this day nearly 20 years later. People need to remember that wargaming is a social interaction. Don't require me to be a part of your insensitivity and I will return the favor. He also had a batheing problem but that is an entirely different rant. Overall, folks just need to think about what they are doing and who will see it. Does the FLGS owner want his store associated with a possible idiot/racist? How about a KKK themed army? What about a topless all female Blood Bowl team? The line must be drawn somewhere and the FLGS owner is the ultimate arbitor of what happens in his store. His store his choice.

HsojVvad
06-09-2011, 08:35 AM
I don't think he should have been banned right away. If the owner of the store said it was offensive, it is his right to say so, so he should have been given a chance to use another army. Now if this person refused to use another army then yes he should have been banned.

How Ironic though that the 40K univers is even worse than the nasi and SS 1000 X worse.

It all depends on what people find offensive. How about if someone made a Taliban army? How many Americans would be upset? Espically if the iconography was 2 towers crumbling down? Would that be offensive?

Yes there are limits what should be done espically if you plan on meeting the public and strangers for games. If it just sits in your house, then you can do what ever you want, but bringing it out in public, then care should be taken in consideration.

eldargal
06-09-2011, 08:44 AM
Yes but 40k is fiction. No one has had grandparents were murdered by the Inquisition for blaspheming the Emperor. The people the National Socialists killed were real and for all you know your opponents grandfather could have fought them and take it quite seriously.

A Taliban army would be offensive, however how many people even know Taliban iconpgraphy? Given they don't have much of a uniform far easier to just call it a desert world army if anyone questions it. they certainly don't use two crumbling towers as a sign given that they were not responsible for that. Nor do Al-Qaeda who were, come to think of it.

BrokenWing
06-09-2011, 12:40 PM
Remember, if you have to ask, it's probably going to be offensive. Just make an army where you don't have to ask.

Nabterayl
06-09-2011, 01:44 PM
This seems to me like less a matter of taste and more a matter of knowing your play fellows. There aren't many atrocities, either of action or of philosophy, that have no place in a war-time setting. There are probably none that have no place in 40K. A space marine chapter (or heck, even a Guard regiment) that rapes its victims to death, eats their flesh, and sews their skins into their clothing isn't at all out of place in 40K. The question that people seem to have is why a person would bring it up.

I can imagine such a thing being done in a tasteful way. But doing so would depend heavily upon the pre-existing dialogue with the folks that would be seeing it. I think the question is not so much, "Is this symbol offensive?" but rather, "Will the people who see this know what I am trying to say?" If you play in a venue where there are lots of strangers coming by, the odds of them knowing what you are trying to say just by looking at your models decrease.

Emerald Rose Widow
06-09-2011, 01:48 PM
Yknow I fully expected this thread to denigrate into yelling, shouting, insults, and basically calling some people racist. My faith in humanity is slightly elevated now knowing that we can at least have an intelligent and adult conversation. Love it.

But I totally understand the needing thick skin, and most of the time I usually just shrug things off for the most part. I will agree though that there are certain subjects that due to either their recent history, or ongoing violence it is in pretty bad taste to offend people with.

I wouldn't use N*zi (seriously, that that word is censored is kinda stupid) symbols obviously, even though I know what they originally meant and that it wasn't a bad symbol originally. Sure I know the proper history behind these things, but very few people do, in fact history and geography are the worst subjects in most public schools here in the United States, which is pathetic. I may know these things but others dont, and to use that iconography is just immature and hurtful, especially considering the people who went through that are still alive.

I wouldn't use KKK symbols and lynching of those of African ancestry, why, because that violence still happens today. Sure it doesn't happen as often as it used to, but it happens and there are people who are victims of that, some who have survived and have to live with that fear.

I wouldn't use symbols showing gaybashing/transbashing, because that personally affects me and the fear of abuse/violence is a tangible one for me. Its an ongoing problem, and it is appalling that things like this still exist, and to make light of it like such is appalling as well.

For the same reason I wouldn't do any art or something depicting rape, why? This is because its a tangible problem and people's lives are ruined by this, people who cannot leave their house for fear of being raped again. Sure people who have never been through that can make light of it or make a point with it, but you have no idea how this can affect victims of such crimes. And as well painted and modeled as that one depicting the rape of that eldar was, and i can appreciate the artistry of it, the imagery is disgusting and hurtful..... deliberately.

I am all for the support of art, and I would never personally censor people who want to make hurtful art because I believe in freedom of expression and I believe in freedom of speech, and I find censoring to be a horrible act perpetrated by those with limited morals. Still, I urge people to think before they paint, or any other form of art, of the effect your art will have on those who have been victims of such horrible atrocities. Think of the effect you are having on other human beings before you commit to such projects, I will never try to stop you due to the firmness of my beliefs against artistic censorship and the like, but please think.

Do people need to thicken their skin on the little issues, yes, I will argue that to my dying day, but on the big things like N*zi iconography, as well as those depicting violence towards minorities, that isn't a little thing, that is pretty damned major. Those victims still exist and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask those who wish to cause emotional harm to said victims to kindly get the frak out of civilized society. We are civilized human beings, and civilized human beings shouldn't deliberately take such atrocities lightly.

Nabterayl
06-09-2011, 01:58 PM
Those victims still exist and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask those who wish to cause emotional harm to said victims to kindly get the frak out of civilized society. We are civilized human beings, and civilized human beings shouldn't deliberately take such atrocities lightly.
This is why I think it's important to know your audience. The depiction of Na*i iconograph in a 40K army isn't necessarily condoning National Socialism or the atrocities of the Third Reich. Indeed, it might be the very opposite. But it's reasonable to expect at least some strangers will assume such an army is condoning such things.

BrokenWing
06-09-2011, 01:58 PM
We can have an adult conversation because it's not about GW prices ;).


Personally, if someone is making an army like that, I think they have issues, major ones. That's not art, and most people know it.

DarkLink
06-09-2011, 02:40 PM
Reminds me of how some people from the deep south still wave confederate flags. To them, they see it as their cultural history. Everyone else in America just sees slavers and kkk members.

Emerald Rose Widow
06-09-2011, 02:48 PM
This is why I think it's important to know your audience. The depiction of Na*i iconograph in a 40K army isn't necessarily condoning National Socialism or the atrocities of the Third Reich. Indeed, it might be the very opposite. But it's reasonable to expect at least some strangers will assume such an army is condoning such things.

well yes exactly, but many people have the inability to even try and see things from another's perspective

Nabterayl
06-09-2011, 03:03 PM
Yeah ... I think it's important to remember there's a difference between what it's reasonable for people to be offended by and what it's likely that people will be offended by. I think it's perfectly fair for a store owner to ban armies that it's likely, though unreasonable, that people will be offended by. After all, a thin-skinned customer's money is just as good as a thick-skinned customer's.

Among friends or a fairly close-knit gaming club, on the other hand, I think it's fair to expect people to take the time to know the difference between, "I painted my Guard like Na*is because I hate Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies" and "I painted my Guard like Na*is because they're the villains of our campaign" or "I painted my Guard like Na*is because we agree it's a witty commentary on how the good guys of the 40K universe are abominable people."

Emerald Rose Widow
06-09-2011, 03:09 PM
Yeah ... I think it's important to remember there's a difference between what it's reasonable for people to be offended by and what it's likely that people will be offended by. I think it's perfectly fair for a store owner to ban armies that it's likely, though unreasonable, that people will be offended by. After all, a thin-skinned customer's money is just as good as a thick-skinned customer's.

Among friends or a fairly close-knit gaming club, on the other hand, I think it's fair to expect people to take the time to know the difference between, "I painted my Guard like Na*is because I hate Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies" and "I painted my Guard like Na*is because they're the villains of our campaign" or "I painted my Guard like Na*is because we agree it's a witty commentary on how the good guys of the 40K universe are abominable people."

very well said, I can totally get behind grey areas and different things applying in different situations, but so many people just treat private and public as the same things. Its like wtf?

MarneusCalgar
06-09-2011, 04:19 PM
Well, I agree with the rest of the people... That army was offensive!!

Itīs true that if you collect an army you can paint it as you want, **** like, taliban like, etc... But ALWAYS do that if youīre not using that army on tournaments... Itīs a matter of common sense!!

In Spain, here, I would act equal if someone paints his IG army like any of the two sides our Civil War had fighting between them about 70 years ago... I had family who fought on each side, like rest of my comrades, and I would find it a little bad tasty.

Nabterayl
06-09-2011, 04:27 PM
That's a good point - there are regional considerations too. Out here in San Francisco, California, I have enormous respect for Hitler's Wehrmacht - the virtues and vices of the '30s and '40s Wehrmacht are very distinct, for me, from the virtues and vices of the '30s and '40s National Socialist party. But I would certainly understand if somebody in Poland didn't feel that way. I also have enormous respect for the Army of the Confederate States of America, whose virtues and vices are very distinct, for me, from the virtues and vices of the Confederate States of America itself. But I would certainly understand if somebody in Kentucky didn't feel that way.

mikethefish
06-09-2011, 06:47 PM
Yes but 40k is fiction. No one has had grandparents were murdered by the Inquisition for blaspheming the Emperor. The people the National Socialists killed were real and for all you know your opponents grandfather could have fought them and take it quite seriously.

A Taliban army would be offensive, however how many people even know Taliban iconpgraphy? Given they don't have much of a uniform far easier to just call it a desert world army if anyone questions it. they certainly don't use two crumbling towers as a sign given that they were not responsible for that. Nor do Al-Qaeda who were, come to think of it.

Ridiculous. If this was true, then ALL historical wargaming should be censored or abolished. There is no difference between someone playing a **** Ork army and someone playing an actual **** army in a historical wargame. Or even an alternate history historical wargame like Gear Krieg or something - someone is always going to have to buy and paint up the models, spending time to make them look like ****s. If someone who either fought against or was a victim of the ****s cared enough about your miniatures army to be offended, they probably wouldn't give two craps if it was from a historical game or a fantasy game like 40k. At some point you just have to realize that this is fiction - even if it uses familiar iconography and uniforms.

Oh by the way, there are a reasonable amount of companies making Taliban miniatures right now. Modern Wargaming is a niche that's found in some places.

On another note, wouldn't a truly accurate **** themed army NOT feature lots of swastikas? I am fairly sure their main emblem used on vehicles and such was their familar black and white cross.

wkz
06-09-2011, 08:28 PM
...Out here in San Francisco, California, I have enormous respect for Hitler's Wehrmacht - the virtues and vices of the '30s and '40s Wehrmacht are very distinct, for me, from the virtues and vices of the '30s and '40s National Socialist party. ....
Pray tell, how are they different?




Ridiculous. If this was true, then ALL historical wargaming should be censored or abolished. There is no difference between someone playing a **** Ork army and someone playing an actual **** army in a historical wargame. Or even an alternate history historical wargame like Gear Krieg or something - someone is always going to have to buy and paint up the models, spending time to make them look like ****s. If someone who either fought against or was a victim of the ****s cared enough about your miniatures army to be offended, they probably wouldn't give two craps if it was from a historical game or a fantasy game like 40k. At some point you just have to realize that this is fiction - even if it uses familiar iconography and uniforms.
Here's the thing: HISTORICAL wargaming's "fluff" = the real world. The N*zis DID appear in the past, so did the Americans, the British, French, etc in World War 2. Also, Ghengis Khan DID appear in the past. Vikings, Spartans, the English, the armies of the Calith (spelling?), the Crusaders, Romans, etc... they all did.

And as much as we would like to bury our heads in the sand... they did do bad things. Its war fer goodness sake, people DO bad things (tm).

And the whole idea of historical wargaming is to recreate such armies of the era. Don't mind how EVIL they were (relative to the point of view of course: the Crusaders of Richard the Lionheart may or may not have done "really bad stuff" against the much more honorable Islamic armies in the past... but that's another thread), but a good recreation should end with an army who'd properly represent that piece of history. That's the whole idea of historical wargaming in the first place.


But for Fantasy Wargaming, it is a slightly different story... precisely because it is supposed to be a story different from "the real world".

There may be a Viking analog in the fluff of the Fantasy world, but ultimately, there are constraints on how similar it is to real Viking (or actually the current day's perspective to Vikings, but that's another thread). A well written game's universe may have the Viking analog as rough and gruff superhuman protectors of humanity, or instead it may have them as rape and pillage pirates of infamous renown. This constraint will be there, and to deviate is to bring the "real world", or "real world ideology" into the game.

Are they Tallibans in the fluff? ...as a matter of fact, they do, they're called Tallaran Desert Raiders. But do the Tallaran Desert Raiders run around with huge banners of Osama Bin Ladan and other pictures of two hives collapsing? No.

Are the Death Korps of Kreg an analog of N*zi Germany? You bet your *** they are. But do they have a Swastika as their symbol? No.

And any deviance from the game universe's fluff, such as the above, is what I believe what we all mean when we say "making a statement". And once you made a statement... well, I believe you know what we all feel about negative statements from this thread.



Oh by the way, there are a reasonable amount of companies making Taliban miniatures right now. Modern Wargaming is a niche that's found in some places.See above.



On another note, wouldn't a truly accurate **** themed army NOT feature lots of swastikas? I am fairly sure their main emblem used on vehicles and such was their familar black and white cross.Another point in the favor of the "that guy is out to make a (offensive?) point" I guess...

Morgan Darkstar
06-09-2011, 08:36 PM
OT but i always thought of the tallarn desert raiders to be based off lawrence of arabia rather than the taliban.

wkz
06-09-2011, 08:41 PM
OT but i always thought of the tallarn desert raiders to be based off lawrence of arabia rather than the taliban.Hmmm... true dat. Then again, I've always grouped those guys together with Afganistan Freedom Fighters, from which the Taliban is a branch of ("Nationalist" Anti-Soviets turned Anti-USA).

But the point still stands I guess. Painting the sickle and hammer on the Voystrans is still making a statement by the fact it is a deviance from the original fluff. (although Cold War-era USSR is a bit tame when put beside the N*zi party, to be honest)

Sister Rosette Soulknyt
06-09-2011, 09:41 PM
Its a funny subject that GW have already crossed. I mean if everyone is going to be upset at the site of a themed army well whats the point of the whole game?
Tallarn= dessert (taliban)
Salamanders=african american
Ultramarines=greek
IG Praetorians=English
IG Cadians=American
IG Mordians=French
IG Death Corps=guess who??

Seriously if you label your army with such iconography and going around chanting crap well maybe they did deserve to get banned, but if i play Death Corps of Krieg am i going to get banned by stores because they were modeled after germans in WW1?? If thats the case well i wouldn't want to go to that politically corrected store ever again.

There is enought moral misconseption in the world already, do we have to bring it into a hobby??
As for, my daddy's daddy died in WW2 and i hate germans/japanese or anyone else..all i have to say is that was 65 years ago. We were not even born then, let it go already.
Lets not turn this hobby into a racial vilification game

BrokenWing
06-09-2011, 09:48 PM
Just don't bring the real world into the game. When I'm in a gaming store I have a very important rule. No politics, ever. Someone starts to talk politics, I walk away and find something else to do. I'm there to relax and get away from things, not wallow in the real world and bring external stress into my hobby.

This applies to painting themes. While I wouldn't care if someone made a themed army, I would care if someone made an army that seemed to be broadcasting a specific political message. As for the Tallarans being Taliban, they aren't, that's silly. They're Arabs/Turks/Persians from the Crusades. The Taliban is a specific political/terrorist organization native to Afghanistan, which isn't exactly the world capitol when it comes to horse mounted desert raiders.

Necron2.0
06-09-2011, 10:16 PM
Pray tell, how are they different?

The Wehrmacht was just the regular German Army. They predated Hitler and largely weren't rabid Na(z)is. The Waffen SS were slightly more ardent National Socialists than the Wehrmacht, but except for a few "special" units were generally just elite troops. The real Na(z)is were the core SS and the German political leadership.


But for Fantasy Wargaming, it is a slightly different story... precisely because it is supposed to be a story different from "the real world".

One word: "Exterminatus." How isn't that genocide? Seriously, how is the Imperium not 1000 times worse than Hitler's Germany? What happens if you replace the word "Psyker" with the word "Jew" in all the 40K fluff?

I am also slightly curious why people aren't up in arms about a Soviet style army, or a Chinese. Do people not know the history? Do they not know that in the ranking of all time mass murderers, Hitler comes in a distant third? Hitler has 12 million dead lying at his feet. Stalin comes in second with 23 million, out killing Hitler two to one. The all time homicidal champion is China's own Mao Ze-Dong, with an estimated kill tally between 48 and 78 million people. Do you know what Hitler's real crime is? He lost. That's it.

As for out and out brutality, the Red Army has the Wehrmacht beaten hands down. When the Reds occupied German, a Soviet war correspondent (Natalya Gesse) commented that the army raped every woman between the ages of 8 and 80. The problem is, she wasn't exaggerating. In Prussia and Berlin alone, it is estimated that 7 million women were raped by the Reds - that's more than the total number of Jews killed.

DarkLink
06-09-2011, 11:05 PM
Though unlike the "threat" that Jews supposedly posed, at least psykers possessed by daemons can genuinely destroy planets or worse. It was exactly that that caused humanity to collapse into the dark ages before the Emperor went public, after all. The holocaust, on the other hand, was the result of pure bigotry and racism.

eldargal
06-09-2011, 11:40 PM
Don't be idiotic. Historical wargaming has reason to have swastikas and such on a National Socialist army, on account of it being historical. That iconography has no place in 40k, using it in that context is unnecessary and thus probably offensive. An Ork army has no reason to have a swastika on it, nor does an IG army. There are many peopel who do find even historical wargaming or reenactment offensive, without reason. But there is a difference between keeping history fresh in our minds so it is not forgotten (and thus repeated) and throwing some swastikas on your Ork army just to shock people.


Ridiculous. If this was true, then ALL historical wargaming should be censored or abolished. There is no difference between someone playing a **** Ork army and someone playing an actual **** army in a historical wargame. Or even an alternate history historical wargame like Gear Krieg or something - someone is always going to have to buy and paint up the models, spending time to make them look like ****s. If someone who either fought against or was a victim of the ****s cared enough about your miniatures army to be offended, they probably wouldn't give two craps if it was from a historical game or a fantasy game like 40k. At some point you just have to realize that this is fiction - even if it uses familiar iconography and uniforms.

Oh by the way, there are a reasonable amount of companies making Taliban miniatures right now. Modern Wargaming is a niche that's found in some places.

On another note, wouldn't a truly accurate **** themed army NOT feature lots of swastikas? I am fairly sure their main emblem used on vehicles and such was their familar black and white cross.

I would personally find a Soviet army offensive, on account of them raping and/or murdering most of my mothers side of the family back in the Red Terror. If I saw an IG army in Red Army colours with hammer and sickle insignia I would deem that insensitive and offensive. Same colours, different insignia, no. As I said it is about context, I can cope with an army inspired by the real Red Army, not one copying it.

Lerra
06-09-2011, 11:42 PM
To me, the big difference between a Na.zi theme and a Gengis Khan/Russian/other-historically-dark themed army is that Neo-na.zism is still alive and well, and neo-na.zism is associated with hatred, violence, and crime. People are unlikely to assume you are a supporter of Gengis Khan's politics if you have an ancient Mongol themed army.

It's not na.zis that are offensive; it's their politics.

daboarder
06-09-2011, 11:49 PM
One word: "Exterminatus." How isn't that genocide? Seriously, how is the Imperium not 1000 times worse than Hitler's Germany? What happens if you replace the word "Psyker" with the word "Jew" in all the 40K fluff?



fact and fiction mate, fact and fiction!
seriously necron if you can't tell the difference your in the wrong game mate.

As for your other points I in fact did raise them, that many armies are themed on military organisations from the past, many of whom did horrible things. I tell you honestly I'd be just as offended by a n*zi army as I would about an army depicting the japanese of the same period. I raised this point before, artistic inspiration is fine, copying the swastika to me would be as bad as to me as an army bearing the symbol of the red army during the invasion of poland or germany, Or the japanese during the rape of nan'king, north vietnamese at the massacre of hue, americans during hiroshima and nagasaki.

Everyone has skeletons under the bed, these don't belong in a game.

Nabterayl
06-10-2011, 12:13 AM
Pray tell, how are they different?
As far as I'm concerned, soldiers are soldiers regardless of nationality, and soldiering is a profession worthy of my respect - especially in the case of the Wehrmacht of the '30s and '40s, which I think was one of the great soldiering bodies of history. I don't believe in politically motivated soldiers, whether we're talking about the Third Reich's Heer, the Waffen SS, Sherman's armies, Lee's, Washington's, or anybody else's. As far as I'm concerned all soldiers fight for the same reason, and I consider it an honorable one. I don't think the same is true for the political objectives that soldiering is used to achieve.

wkz
06-10-2011, 12:26 AM
One word: "Exterminatus." How isn't that genocide? Seriously, how is the Imperium not 1000 times worse than Hitler's Germany? What happens if you replace the word "Psyker" with the word "Jew" in all the 40K fluff?Simple: its not actual world fact. There is a reason why it is called "fiction"

Star Wars have planet destroying super-lasers owned by an Na(z)i analog. Shall we boycott and lynch all the Storm Trooper cosplayers in every single sci-fiction convention from now on?

As long as all the people involved knows it stays in the realm of imagination, you can kill off entire UNIVERSES (and yes, it has been done, as early as the "Lensmen" series) and no one will bat an eye, because it isn't real and shouldn't be treated as such.


...
I am also slightly curious why people aren't up in arms about a Soviet style army, or a Chinese. Do people not know the history? Do they not know that in the ranking of all time mass murderers, Hitler comes in a distant third? Hitler has 12 million dead lying at his feet. Stalin comes in second with 23 million, out killing Hitler two to one. The all time homicidal champion is China's own Mao Ze-Dong, with an estimated kill tally between 48 and 78 million people. Do you know what Hitler's real crime is? He lost. That's it.
...


Dude, technically Mao Ze-Dong slaughtered his own country's civilians. And by "slaughtered", I meant starved for the majority (as opposed to killing actively). Sorta like a reverse revolution.

And technically, just as every tyrant before him, he "LOST" when the people below him rebelled. Read up on Chinese History would ya? (Curiously enough, ever since China became one united country "rebelling against the man" is the usual way China politically refreshes itself...)

And as far as I know, the Chinese has never marched an army OUT to beat up people before (they did participate in wars, such as the East India Company's "I lost Hong Kong" Opium Wars, pre-WW2 Sino-Japan conflict... and they did fling missiles at Taiwan from time to time plus they hate on the USSR and have a tense border with them, but I really don't remember them STARTING a modern war, ever
Edit: Oh wait, there's Vietnam... opps...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of _China )

So are we going to place an incompetent power-hungry Tyrant who killed people through failed policies and internal political power struggles (aka: killing dudes in his own country, especially those that can take over his own position) on the same level as an incompetent power-hungry Tyrant who killed people through ACTIVE PURGING of an entire minority + starting the greatest war the world have ever known? Seriously?



To me, the big difference between a Na.zi theme and a Gengis Khan/Russian/other-historically-dark themed army is that Neo-na.zism is still alive and well, and neo-na.zism is associated with hatred, violence, and crime. People are unlikely to assume you are a supporter of Gengis Khan's politics if you have an ancient Mongol themed army.

It's not na.zis that are offensive; it's their politics.
You raise a good point....

Nabterayl
06-10-2011, 12:51 AM
There's plenty of IG regiments already that could be offensive. Praetorians are based on a conquering white supremacist army, and I imagine the Vietnamese don't exactly have fond memories of the army the Catachans are based on.

But you know, the truth is, there aren't any armies whose behavior is so pure that nobody could reasonably be offended by glorifying them, and no causus belli that is so pure that nobody could reasonably be offended by glorifying it. Romans (Ultramarines)? Mongols (White Scars)? Vikings (Space Wolves)? British (Praetorians)? Prussians (Iron Guard)? Soviets (Valhallans)? German Empire (Death Korps)? 1960s Americans (Catachans)? 1980s Americans (Cadians)? All of them engines of sorrow and misery, and the political motivations that sent them to war were about as pure as the driven ... asphalt.

It's not about whether it's reasonable to be offended by a given army. It's reasonable to be offended by any given army. The question is whether you have reason to know that people in your area will be offended by the particular army you've chosen.

eldargal
06-10-2011, 01:06 AM
Missing the point, IG regiments inspired by a real life example are not particularly offensive. Making IG armies that are copies of real life examples could be. A Catachan army with US flags etc could be offensive to the Vietnamese or anyone else who thinks the deaths of up to two million civilians for no reason is a morally repugnant crime. Praetorians with the Union Flag may be offensive to some (Guardian readers probably), but given most of the British Empire remained part of of it as it transformed to the Commonwealth (even India rejoined it) I think it is safe to say perhaps the British Empire isn't particularly offensive. Praetorians with Imperium insignia, not offensive.

Deadlift
06-10-2011, 01:09 AM
But its not just what the Swastika used to represent, Its what it STILL represents now. Neo Nasi are alive and well around the world, still actively spreading the ideals that Hitler believed in.

I have just had a look around a few neo nasi websites and what I read wasn't pretty

Native Americans, Anyone of African decent well just about anyone who isn't Aryan are savages :mad:

They describe America as being a mongrel country and they must fight to get it back for the white man from the savages just like their fore fathers did. I don't need to go on but were not just talking History here were talking the here and the now. Each of the websites used the swastika as its flag in one form or another.

I want to enjoy my gaming time and as one poster has already stated politics and extremism for me has no place at a 6 x 4 battle board.

The reality of where I live is that I am quite sure that I will never be confronted with that situation. Not sure how I would react if I were.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 01:29 AM
I find it interesting how we all realize where to draw the line.

For example I don't think many people would find it distasteful to have a german tank army inspired by the afrika corp or any german Tank regiment, even some of the SS ones (though the iconography would of course be a concern), or a particular ace inspired by Mike Whittman despite him being a fervent n*zi. After all he was still a military genius with a tank.

How about this. What would most of us say to an army bearing the totenkopf. Would you recognize it? It's not a modern symbol for extreme political so would you find it as offensive? Artistically speaking it is also quite striking would that be enough to give it a pass?

Nabterayl
06-10-2011, 01:30 AM
Missing the point, IG regiments inspired by a real life example are not particularly offensive. Making IG armies that are copies of real life examples could be. A Catachan army with US flags etc could be offensive to the Vietnamese or anyone else who thinks the deaths of up to two million civilians for no reason is a morally repugnant crime. Praetorians with the Union Flag may be offensive to some (Guardian readers probably)
Isn't that itself a subjective standard, though? I mean, to you, apparently it's standards that crosses the line from "inspired by" to "copy of," but for somebody else it might be tactics, or weaponry. Everybody's going to have their own standards for where the line is. If I saw a Guard army with swastikas and other SS iconography plastered all over it I wouldn't think it's a copy; it's not like the real Waffen SS paraded around with swastikas on their body armor (what body armor?) or carrying platoon and company standards.

I still think the point is for the modeler/painter to consider local sensibilities rather than look for a bright-line rule.

Deadlift
06-10-2011, 01:33 AM
I find it interesting how we all realize where to draw the line.

For example I don't think many people would find it distasteful to have a german tank army inspired by the afrika corp or any german Tank regiment, even some of the SS ones (though the iconography would of course be a concern), or a particular ace inspired by Mike Whittman despite him being a fervent n*zi. After all he was still a military genius with a tank.

How about this. What would most of us say to an army bearing the totenkopf. Would you recognize it? It's not a modern symbol for extreme political so would you find it as offensive? Artistically speaking it is also quite striking would that be enough to give it a pass?

The totenkopf (correct me if I am wrong) is a skull with 2 bones behind. I think theres enough skulls in 40k for that to not really stand out.

condottiere
06-10-2011, 01:33 AM
It's not that the Middle Kingdom wasn't belligerent or expansive, it's just that after a certain geographical boundary the bureaucracy could neither control nor defend the outlying regions, otherwise there would have been a natural expansion towards Persia along the Silk Road, besides bringing the rest of the Far East under direct rule. And armed conflicts in China tend to be bloody, because of the stakes involved.

The difference between the callous indifference between a dictator allowing his subjects to die like in North Korea and the genocidal policies of the Third Reich, is that one is based on a cold calculated logic (maintaining the political structure and military-industrial complex, and siphoning off foreign food aid), and the other is based on an irrational primal hatred of some specific ethnicities and races.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 01:37 AM
crossbones or a snake

condottiere, your argueing semantics, the n*zi's seriously believed they were a master race and the Jews inherently evil, much the same as modern governments usually seriously believe they are doing the right thing. NO ONE thinks of themselves or their actions as inherently evil.

I hate to raise the point here as political discussion always get heated but a textbook example of genocide by modern means is the current situation in Tibet.

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 01:45 AM
I'm a Guardian reader and I wouldn't be offended by Praetorians waving the Union Flag, though right now I'm mainly just impressed that you didn't call it the Union Jack. Not many people seem to know the difference.

Corvus-Master-of-The-4th
06-10-2011, 01:56 AM
I'm a Guardian reader and I wouldn't be offended by Praetorians waving the Union Flag, though right now I'm mainly just impressed that you didn't call it the Union Jack. Not many people seem to know the difference.

Embarrisingly (spelling?) Doctor Who taught me the diffrence (like 3 years ago... But I guess I am only 17)


The totenkopf (correct me if I am wrong) is a skull with 2 bones behind. I think theres enough skulls in 40k for that to not really stand out.

Well... Pirates? Red Corsairs? ;).

But seriously I think the cross bones iconagraphy is famously Space Marine in general (Well.. Imperial?)

daboarder
06-10-2011, 01:58 AM
do you mean the fact that the Jack is for warships?

or is there another difference I'm un-aware of

eldargal
06-10-2011, 02:00 AM
That was a joke anyway.:) I was taught the difference between Union Flag/Jack when I was at school. Maybe it is one of those things only public schools bother with?


I'm a Guardian reader and I wouldn't be offended by Praetorians waving the Union Flag, though right now I'm mainly just impressed that you didn't call it the Union Jack. Not many people seem to know the difference.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 02:02 AM
meh, I went to a catholic school so we weren't taught much about the heretical english. Being an Auzzie it was all about the repressed Irish, and the poor scots were just neglected really.

BrokenWing
06-10-2011, 02:07 AM
Living in the Tardis, I only spend a limited amount of time in England, and it's not always during the right time period ;). If I can find my way back to the swimming pool at least I could find the door again.

On a serious note, Doctor Who informed me as well, but since my *actual* location is in the United States, where we don't really get taught anything until College, it's not particularly surprising. Besides that, I'm fairly certain most countries don't explain the exacting specifics of every flag other countries choose to wave.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 02:10 AM
true the commonwealth is like on big family, that's one of the things that makes the commonwealth one of the strongest collective military forces in the world. ie: one is attacked the rest can usually be counted on to step in.

eldargal
06-10-2011, 02:15 AM
I rather hope our government here follows up on its promise to strengthen the Commonwealth, it sickens me that someone from a historically unrelated eastern European* country can enter Britain with more ease than our Commonwealth brothers/cousins.:(



*I don't have a problem with European migration, given that my own family is as much central/eastern European as it is British. Just saying the Commonwealth should be up there too.

Deadlift
06-10-2011, 02:17 AM
true the commonwealth is like on big family, that's one of the things that makes the commonwealth one of the strongest collective military forces in the world. ie: one is attacked the rest can usually be counted on to step in.

I thought it was just about the commonwealth games :D and Nato was all about the collective defence which of course includes countries not members of the commonwealth.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 02:20 AM
I rather hope our government here follows up on its promise to strengthen the Commonwealth, it sickens me that someone from a historically unrelated eastern European* country can enter Britain with more ease than our Commonwealth brothers/cousins.:(


GOD! Tell me about it. A mate of mine from England had to go through hell for a year an a half to get citizenship out here, hes a responsible family man with a job. Compare that to the bloke down the street who came out here as a student from china and now makes a living selling drugs and you can see why Auzzie's get riled by the idiocy that is our immigration scheme.

I'd like to add the same disclaimer as eldargirl but I know I'm not racist.....afterall I hate all races and creeds equally :p




I thought it was just about the commonwealth games :D and Nato was all about the collective defence which of course includes countries not members of the commonwealth.

Nah Nato's a load.

Of particular comedic value is the fact that America established it to protect against communist Russia but wouldn't reach an equivalent with Australia and New Zealand regarding China and now China is the most significant "threat" to america economically and militarily.


NB: the joke that is the anzus treaty does not count

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 02:21 AM
I'm not aware of collective self-defence being a principle of the Commonwealth of Nations...

BrokenWing
06-10-2011, 02:24 AM
Well this got weird.

Corvus-Master-of-The-4th
06-10-2011, 02:26 AM
Agreed... I have now realised JUST how British Eldargal is :L. When did we loose the plot of this post xD?

eldargal
06-10-2011, 02:29 AM
The British Empire has colonised this thread.
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/images/uk.jpg

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 02:31 AM
FWIW, I see no reason to 'strengthen' the Commonwealth for the purposes of entry into the UK eldargal. The Commonwealth is a relic of ages past with little relevance in the modern age. The European Union and the freedom of movement of people, goods and services attendant with it are reflective of a modern approach to a more unified Europe and in real terms benefit the UK far more than the Commonwealth ever will.

Too often this country focuses on looking backwards, not forwards.

eldargal
06-10-2011, 02:44 AM
Yep, definitely a Guardian reader.:p

It isn't true though, the Commonwealth is highly valued by all its members and has the potential to be an even larger free trade bloc than the EU. Besides, how is a concept of 'Europe' any less outmoded than the Commonwealth? Europe is a collection of disparate cultural entities united by common heritage and shared values. The Commonwealth is a collection of disparate cultural entities united by a common heritage and shared values. The difference is the Commonwealth is not bound by obsolete geographical borders and isn't limited to Christian nations.:rolleyes:

BrokenWing
06-10-2011, 02:45 AM
It's a well known fact that England is not part of Europe ;).

And since we're colonizing things...I see your big shiny flag and raise you a Doctor.

BrokenWing
06-10-2011, 02:48 AM
We are now completely off topic. I have made it official.

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 02:54 AM
Larger geographically perhaps, in terms of value of trade definitely not. Who do we do significant trade with in the Commonwealth? Nobody really besides Canada, Australia and India. Pakistan too, I guess. Consider problems of implementation that simply aren't factors to the EU too.

The concept of 'Europe' and of the Commonwealth may both be outmoded but the concept of the European Union is not.

Again, EU membership brings significant tangible benefits to the UK, I'm struggling to see any benefit at all of entering into a similar relationship with the Commonwealth.

BrokenWing
06-10-2011, 03:05 AM
So...I think I will leave this to the British to hash out.

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 03:06 AM
Probably best just to let the subject drop and get back on-topic, eh?

-------------------------------------------------------

How about Zulus as counts-as Kroot?

BrokenWing
06-10-2011, 03:17 AM
My entire loyalist army is black (I don't play Salamanders) and sometimes, I get some really odd looks. Sort of a "you're not black, why are your guys?" look. Well for that particular army I decided to do something different. They're black for the same sort of reason Salamanders are, and because it was different.

My entire Chaos army is pasty white. Well...all 5 models I still own.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 03:24 AM
Hive mind you keep stating that the commonwealth is non-existant as a military entity yet there are many examples throughout the later half of last century and the last decade that show commonwealth nations have repeatedly sent military aid to other commonwealth nations in times of need.

For example, both canada and Australia were preparing to send troops to the Falklands in response to argentinian aggression.Commonwealth troops also supported the french and english during their attempted re-possession on the suez canal. Australia sent troops into Malaysia during the malayian incident, hell they even went so far as to risk an all out war with indonesia to support malaysia, by initiating cross-border raids and campaigns. (things that are still highly classified but everyone knows about really)

In a sense the ties of commonwealth are STRONGER than the ties that bind nations to NATO, as public opinion in many cases forces politicians to act with greater haste and force than treaties made by opposion governments when they were in power.

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 03:34 AM
I've mentioned the Commonwealth in a military context once.

The Commonwealth as a military entity is largely non-existent and my original point, that collective self-defence is not a principle of the Commonwealth, is correct as far as I can tell.

That does not however preclude a Commonwealth nation from militarily aiding another Commonwealth nation, subject to articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter and whatever customary rules of international law might apply. Canada or Australia aiding the UK militarily (or vice-versa) does not, at law, establish a collective self-defence principle where one does not exist in treaty.

So you're right in that in practice Commonwealth nations do and have aided each other militarily but you're wrong to imply that this means there is a principle of collective self-defence in play or that it establishes a Commonwealth military capable of legal personality. There are only the militaries of Commonwealth nations who derive their personality from the nations in question.

BrokenWing
06-10-2011, 03:41 AM
Thread topic vs current line of commentary. 5 Points if you guess which is which ;).

wkz
06-10-2011, 03:48 AM
...

I hate to raise the point here as political discussion always get heated but a textbook example of genocide by modern means is the current situation in Tibet.

Huh? Tibet is trying to cede from China and obtain self-rule.

Have you ever heard of a country that willingly allowed a significant chunk of territory to cede from itself without bloodshed, Or massive concessions one way or another? Same thing's happening here.


But note: I do understand that China has always reacted VERY, VERY poorly to religious and political difference amongst its ranks, especially when it challenges the status quo. See Tiananmen Square for example (pseudo-Dictator/Socialist/Republic vs pure provocative Democracy). And Tibet IS religiously different, AND challenging enough to cause it problems.

I also do understand China has a ridiculously bloated bureaucratic incompetence that rivals on the Administratum at times. Yes, I just compared China bureaucrats to a fictional body who'd lose planets at a drop of the hat... that's how bad it is. Social position-based promotions, too much power in the hands of what is "regional managers", an upper management who rarely access/audit the lower ranks, an upper management who just simply cannot cope with the sheer size of China itself, etc

BUT I think part of the problem is that on top of the above, the Tibetians are actively challenging China's bureaucrats instead of seeking dialog. China does have the irritating tendency to shut you out and ignore you if you bark at them a few times... but I believe the Tibetians barked first.

And now both sides are too pig-headed to compromise. Such is the sad way the world turns.


Edit: So the British Empire is a Reaver Titan? Explains so much, actually :D

Edit #2:
...
How about Zulus as counts-as Kroot?
The Zulus are KICKASS. See the ***-kicking they gave the British, for example (the British got the idea of Commandos FROM FIGHTING the Zulus, look it up, you'd be surprised. Not bad for a bunch of guys with spears and looted firearms).

They so DO count-as Kroot :D

Unzuul the Lascivious
06-10-2011, 03:55 AM
Related points but bit off topic.

Salamanders are literally black, i.e. jet black. They have never been described as having 20th Century black features or skin colour. Other than their skin colour, they don't look or act in any way that relates them toblack people of today. I must confess, I don't really understand why afro-caribbean people decided to keep calling themselves 'black'. They're brown. Odd. Guess there's lots of reasons why.

Games Workshop artwork and indeed most of the 'Eavy Metal miniatures are usually caucasian. I think I made this point before once. So what happened to the different races of Old Ursh? Is there hints at a genocidal war, whole races wiped out?

Just to add my ten pence worth, Na.zi models as a theme for 40K is not acceptable, and to trivialise such an abhorrent symbol of evil is idiotic in the extreme.

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 03:57 AM
Huh? Tibet is trying to cede from China and obtain self-rule.

Have you ever heard of a country that willingly allowed a significant chunk of territory to cede from itself without bloodshed, Or massive concessions one way or another? Same thing's happening here.


Montenegro's independence from Serbia? The independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana from South Africa? While it's true that neither were recognised as states by the international community, South Africa recognised both.

----------------------------------------------

Caucasians aren't white either Unzuul.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 04:09 AM
I've mentioned the Commonwealth in a military context once.

The Commonwealth as a military entity is largely non-existent and my original point, that collective self-defence is not a principle of the Commonwealth, is correct as far as I can tell.

That does not however preclude a Commonwealth nation from militarily aiding another Commonwealth nation, subject to articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter and whatever customary rules of international law might apply. Canada or Australia aiding the UK militarily (or vice-versa) does not, at law, establish a collective self-defence principle where one does not exist in treaty.

So you're right in that in practice Commonwealth nations do and have aided each other militarily but you're wrong to imply that this means there is a principle of collective self-defence in play or that it establishes a Commonwealth military capable of legal personality. There are only the militaries of Commonwealth nations who derive their personality from the nations in question.

I'll pay that.

Note rest is not adressed at hive mind

As to the tibetan issue, that's why I didn't really want to raise it too much. Without knowing your background a lot of the information regarding tibet that was just raised is the typical censored "crap" the chinese government feeds to people. Of course tibet is trying to secede from china, they have the right to they are also having genocide by immigration and "breeding" committed against them, its subtle which is why China is "getting away" with it as it were but its happening.

edit: re-read post and removed irrelevant question

wkz
06-10-2011, 04:11 AM
Montenegro's independence from Serbia? The independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana from South Africa? While it's true that neither were recognised as states by the international community, South Africa recognised both.Hmmm... true dat. Then again we have (and this is not to belittle, but rather to raise examples) the Irish "problem", Italy's problems? The continuous tug of war that is Israel and the whole of the Middle East?

Isreal's problems is especially interesting because (a) it is quite religious in nature, (b) it is technically a territorial dispute that is so old, it is written in the Bible, and (c) both sides hate the CRAP out of each other's guts.


Caucasians aren't white either Unzuul.... ... is there a race more fair?

Then again, that applies to the "brown" statement you're refuting, so I guess that works.


Edit: opps


I'll pay that.

Note rest is not adressed at hive mind

As to the tibetan issue, that's why I didn't really want to raise it too much. Without knowing your background a lot of the information regarding tibet that was just raised is the typical censored "crap" the chinese government feeds to people. Of course tibet is trying to secede from china, they have the right to they are also having genocide by immigration and "breeding" committed against them, its subtle which is why China is "getting away" with it as it were but its happening.

edit: re-read post and removed irrelevant question
South East Asian is my background. We tend to get the best of both China propaganda and Western propaganda at the same time over here, since we're like kinda sandwiched between the above two (within striking range, economically, socially and militarily, of both China and the western world)

And have you even considered that Western news is "propagandic" crap too? Do you even know how BIG China is, and how difficult to administrate China can be? I've heard 2nd-party sources of how powerful a simple Mayor of a distant-from-Bejing area of China is (he can basically subvert local law, serious) too, have you?

Just insert one callus, too-powerful major in a major US state, and you immediately get the Federal something or other breathing fire down his neck and democratic protesters stabbing him from below, correct? Take a guess what China lacks, making the situation in Tibet even worse?

Perhaps you might want to view the news from more than one angle, more than one viewpoint. Just saying.
(and yes, I've already mentioned Tiananmen. The Western media ALWAYS harps on Tiananmen. It is as if the entire world history of China is a few days long or something....)

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 04:18 AM
I'll pay that.


Is that an Australian thing? Can't say I know what that means.


Hmmm... true dat. Then again we have (and this is not to belittle, but rather to raise examples) the Irish "problem", Italy's problems? The continuous tug of war that is Israel and the whole of the Middle East?


Of course most secession/self-determination issues aren't peacefully decided or instituted and I don't mean to suggest that they are.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 04:20 AM
means fair call, you've got a point, well said, I'll pay that......hard to translate really, comes from losing a bet but not being bitter about it....

wkz
06-10-2011, 04:20 AM
...
Of course most secession/self-determination issues aren't peacefully decided or instituted and I don't mean to suggest that they are.
Ah. You're just responding to the challenge to raise peaceful ceding of land. Thanks for the examples by the way...

condottiere
06-10-2011, 04:35 AM
condottiere, your argueing semantics, the n*zi's seriously believed they were a master race and the Jews inherently evil, much the same as modern governments usually seriously believe they are doing the right thing. NO ONE thinks of themselves or their actions as inherently evil.

I hate to raise the point here as political discussion always get heated but a textbook example of genocide by modern means is the current situation in Tibet.

If you really believe you're a superior race, you'd be confident in your institutions and culture just burying everyone else, like the Romans.

The Tibetan issue might be comparable to England declaring itself the successor state to the Celtic tribes that used to roam Europe, and basing it's right to rule those geographical areas and their descendants based on that tenuous link (the exception being that some form of regime (or culturally similar regimes) weren't actually administrating those areas for the past three thousand years), and Tibet being Ireland, whose inhabitants would be quite happy with Home Rule, and wish London would stop sending in settlers to rearrange the demographic balance to make any form of independence impossible in the future, even under a more liberal regime.

wkz
06-10-2011, 04:38 AM
...

The Tibetan issue might be comparable to England declaring itself the successor state to the Celtic tribes that used to roam Europe, and basing it's right to rule those geographical areas and their descendants based on that tenuous link (the exception being that some form of regime (or culturally similar regimes) weren't actually administrating those areas for the past three thousand years), and Tibet being Ireland, whose inhabitants would be quite happy with Home Rule, and wish London would stop sending in settlers to rearrange the demographic balance to make any form of independence impossible in the future, even under a more liberal regime.

By the way, you've just described quite a few places in current day China. Tibet stands out only because they have a religious-head-in-exile for western media to hook onto, while the other territories just grumbled but accepted their way into the "People's Union Republic of Republic China" after the civil war which basically created Taiwan (there IS a reason why China keeps lobbing missiles over Taiwan...).

(this is also an interesting read: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlein6pxzsy4jta )

daboarder
06-10-2011, 04:43 AM
And have you even considered that Western news is "propagandic" crap too? Do you even know how BIG China is, and how difficult to administrate China can be? I've heard 2nd-party sources of how powerful a simple Mayor of a distant-from-Bejing area of China is (he can basically subvert local law, serious) too, have you?

Just insert one callus, too-powerful major in a major US state, and you immediately get the Federal something or other breathing fire down his neck and democratic protesters stabbing him from below, correct? Take a guess what China lacks, making the situation in Tibet even worse?

Perhaps you might want to view the news from more than one angle, more than one viewpoint. Just saying.
(and yes, I've already mentioned Tiananmen. The Western media ALWAYS harps on Tiananmen. It is as if the entire world history of China is a few days long or something....)

Oh Australian news is HUGELY censored, just not by the government, it's used by media moguls to push their own agendas into the public spotlight, that being said we also have access to uncensored information from the internet which unlike the internet in china doesn't undergo massive regulation/government censorship.

As for management, I'd say that Australia also has draw backs that rival those of china.(excluding the mongol occupation of course) Firstly we have a far smaller population spread out over an area even larger than china ever has been. We also suffer from internal isolation due to thinly spread infrastructure.

I understand that China Doesn't want to let Tibet go but considering they annexed them in the first place and threatened to wipe them out if they didn't agree to sign the seventeen point agreement my sympathies lie soundly with the Tibetan people. The monstrosities systematically conducted by the Chinese government since 1950 particularly the current means of genocide (restriction on Tibetan childbirth, marriage and employment) provide further damning evidence.

EDIT: Condot, you propose that the roman civilization dominated those around it, I agree but how do you think it achieved that domination? through virtue alone? No Rome rose by putting their rivals to the sword, enslaving "barbarian" races and committing genocide when they wanted too.

wkz
06-10-2011, 04:58 AM
...
I understand that China Doesn't want to let Tibet go but considering they annexed them in the first place and threatened to wipe them out if they didn't agree to sign the seventeen point agreement my sympathies lie soundly with the Tibetan people. The monstrosities systematically conducted by the Chinese government since 1950 particularly the current means of genocide (restriction on Tibetan childbirth, marriage and employment) provide further damning evidence.
...In a lot of ways, I agree with you on China, daboarder. But here are some disagreements:

- a) one of China's major, controversial policies is population control. I think you're mistaking this country-wide control as being forced onto only the Tibetians.... in actuality, they're being forced on all of China. Truth be told, the country's PACKED, they sorta have the reason to at least attempt this.

(curious note of the post: one of the very few exceptions to the "one child" rule is rural Chinese. Due to the very tremendous, very 'Chinese' tradition of wanting boys, and the tremendous, very 'Chinese' social outlook of wanting to become a "made man" thus causing rural to city exodus... if a rural family have a girl as their first child they're allowed a 2nd try. This may or may not "repopulate" the countryside, only time will tell...
... this is very second... third... erm... multiple-handed information thou, so I'm not sure if this is true.)

- b) This is not the first real time an area have been acquired by bloodshed... oh, as an Australian and a former English Colony, what do you feel about the USA's 'Red' Indians by the way?

Of course, 'them's the breaks' is a bit callous of me, but history IS filled with a superior force annexing a weaker country. Its how the superior country treatment of the lesser's people which would be interesting to watch. And unfortunately, they tend to go 'not well' for a few decades before the re-split, or both sides finally integrate and something good comes from the union... or the loser loses its identity... Them's the breaks I guess...

(edit: I need to consult the dictionary a bit more often. Apparently, 'genocide' can be peaceful...)
- c) Calling a peaceful, non-bloodshed inducing measures, even if it is insensitive as all heck as genocide is a bit much, isn't it? I'll agree Tiananmen IS bad, but integrating an ethnic group into "general rule", with no bias at all with any other ethnic group, through population control??

Note that China has 30+ different ethnic groups, of which quite a few that I know of at the least is living peacefully under the great, lumbering monster that is China.

You might have a much better case of using the word "genocide" on the MUSLIMS under China rule. I actually do believe China is genocidally eradicating the hell out of those guys...

eldargal
06-10-2011, 05:14 AM
The European Union and the Commonwealth are the same thing, an institution for increasing co-operation and unity for a disparate group of cultural entities linked by a common heritage and value system. The difference is the Commonwealth isn't a Christians only club. You also seem to be interpreting it as one or the other. That is stupid, Britain should be part of the EU AND maintain a strong presence in the Commonwealth.

Tangible benefits? Free trade with two billion people isn't benefit enough? Not to mention it isn't just about us, the Commonwealth benefits all its members. In particular a great many small companies view the Commonwealth as vital in supporting their needs against those of bigger rivals.


Larger geographically perhaps, in terms of value of trade definitely not. Who do we do significant trade with in the Commonwealth? Nobody really besides Canada, Australia and India. Pakistan too, I guess. Consider problems of implementation that simply aren't factors to the EU too.

The concept of 'Europe' and of the Commonwealth may both be outmoded but the concept of the European Union is not.

Again, EU membership brings significant tangible benefits to the UK, I'm struggling to see any benefit at all of entering into a similar relationship with the Commonwealth.

Denzark
06-10-2011, 05:18 AM
EDIT: I apologize for the long winded response, I am very tired. I do have good basis for the argument though. I am in the military and that is one of the most politically correct places a person can be. We have an entire section dedicated to being treated equally, and while I applaud the fact its mostly used for good things such as unfair treatment and sexism (all the isms really). It can also be used to complain that you feel offended. And it can be about very stupid things too, but if you act offended enough, others can get in trouble, and rules will be made/trained so your little feelings never get hurt again.

WTF? I regularly thank deities of a non-specific nature that the British military is one of the least politically correct places left in the country




But then again look at those imperial guard army's with the pith helmets who resemble Britains old imperialist army. If you know your history you will know that Britain back then wasn't beyond mass murder either.

However the **** genocide thing is so widely known that I would find that very poor taste. I visited Prague a few years ago and whilst there looked around the old Jewish ghetto museum. Horrific to say the least. So no **** space marine armies aren't artistic or funny at all

Technically speaking the Army wasn't Imperialist - the politicians whose orders they follow were. Not that there is anything bad about imperialism either.


That's a good point - there are regional considerations too. Out here in San Francisco, California, I have enormous respect for Hitler's Wehrmacht - the virtues and vices of the '30s and '40s Wehrmacht are very distinct, for me, from the virtues and vices of the '30s and '40s National Socialist party. But I would certainly understand if somebody in Poland didn't feel that way. I also have enormous respect for the Army of the Confederate States of America, whose virtues and vices are very distinct, for me, from the virtues and vices of the Confederate States of America itself. But I would certainly understand if somebody in Kentucky didn't feel that way.

Be clear, the armed forces of the Reich were the only group who could have stopped Hitler's rise to power. They acquiesced when they changed the oath of loyalty to swear directly to Adolf Hitler. Without the army it would never have happened. You can't say 'the only nazzi soldiers were the SS, the regular army were innocent' because that is tosh.


Hmmm... true dat. Then again, I've always grouped those guys together with Afganistan Freedom Fighters, from which the Taliban is a branch of ("Nationalist" Anti-Soviets turned Anti-USA).

But the point still stands I guess. Painting the sickle and hammer on the Voystrans is still making a statement by the fact it is a deviance from the original fluff. (although Cold War-era USSR is a bit tame when put beside the N*zi party, to be honest)

As mentioned, Stalin/USSR killed and oppressed far more than the nazzis ever did.


There's plenty of IG regiments already that could be offensive. Praetorians are based on a conquering white supremacist army, and I imagine the Vietnamese don't exactly have fond memories of the army the Catachans are based on.



The Praetorians are NOT based on a 'white supremacist army' that is complete cobblers. The Praetorians are based on the 24th of Foot, the South Wales Borderers. At their most famous battle there was colonial and native troops of all colours. Indeed people seem to conveniently forget that British Imperial forces made extensive use of troops of all colours and creeds, in policing the Empire and carving out new bits. Let's not pretend it was purely white Brits.

Some thoughts above on what, respectfully, are some inaccurate comments. When I am playing a game about legalised murder of your opponent's troops (ie war) where the background clearly states shooting of prisoners, even of your own side, use of WMD, mass genocide, slaaneshi orgies, Khorne murder, Do I therefore care desparately if someone tries to get shock value from putting the sigils of a real-world losing force on their tanks? No, I would play them

Do I repsect the right of the shop owner/manager to throw the grandstanding little pillock out? Yes.

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 05:24 AM
The European Union and the Commonwealth are the same thing, an institution for increasing co-operation and unity for a disparate group of cultural entities linked by a common heritage and value system. The difference is the Commonwealth isn't a Christians only club. You also seem to be interpreting it as one or the other. That is stupid, Britain should be part of the EU AND maintain a strong presence in the Commonwealth.

Tangible benefits? Free trade with two billion people isn't benefit enough? Not to mention it isn't just about us, the Commonwealth benefits all its members. In particular a great many small companies view the Commonwealth as vital in supporting their needs against those of bigger rivals.

Right, so free trade within the Commonwealth will magically mean that all of a sudden we actually start significant trade with Commonwealth countries even though we never have before.

The Commonwealth is fine as it is, a cultural entity celebrating the past with no real relevance to the present or future. Kind of like Britain really. The EU is the future. The EU also isn't a christians-only club, no matter how many times you repeat the claim. In fact, the Treaty of Lisbon provides for EU accession to the ECHR. What does article nine of the ECHR guarantee?

daboarder
06-10-2011, 05:28 AM
In a lot of ways, I agree with you on China, daboarder. But here are some disagreements:

- a) one of China's major, controversial policies is population control. I think you're mistaking this country-wide control as being forced onto only the Tibetians.... in actuality, they're being forced on all of China. Truth be told, the country's PACKED, they sorta have the reason to at least attempt this.

- b) This is not the first real time an area have been acquired by bloodshed... oh, as an Australian and a former English Colony, what do you feel about the USA's 'Red' Indians by the way?

Of course, 'them's the breaks' is a bit callous of me, but history IS filled with a superior force annexing a weaker country. Its how the superior country treatment of the lesser's people which would be interesting to watch. And unfortunately, they tend to go 'not well' for a few decades before the re-split, or both sides finally integrate and something good comes from the union... or the loser loses its identity... Them's the breaks I guess...

(edit: I need to consult the dictionary a bit more often. Apparently, 'genocide' can be peaceful...)
- c) Calling a peaceful, non-bloodshed inducing measures, even if it is insensitive as all heck as genocide is a bit much, isn't it? I'll agree Tiananmen IS bad, but integrating an ethnic group into "general rule", with no bias at all with any other ethnic group, through population control??

Note that China has 30+ different ethnic groups, of which quite a few that I know of at the least is living peacefully under the great, lumbering monster that is China.

You might have a much better case of using the word "genocide" on the MUSLIMS under China rule. I actually do believe China is genocidally eradicating the hell out of those guys...


Good points all mate. Not sure why you bring up the red Indians though, at that time my ancestor was on a ship to Oz as an "indentured criminal" (slave). no hard feelings though.

just a point, genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

No where does it say that violence is essential. this is why China is getting away with it so to speak as they are doing it slowly and subtly. The population of Tibet is being forced and coerced by
1) the systematic destruction of their culture
2) Population control in Tibet means that they aren't even allowed 1 child without permission, which is rarely given.
3) With jobs in Tibet being controlled by the government most Tibetans are unable to find work as they are ignored in favor of chinese immigrants.
4) migration of Tibetans and indeed most "cultural minorities" throughout china is highly restricted. In other words Tibetans starve if they stay and aren't allowed to leave. Its not integration or assimilation by any stretch of the imagination.

What this means is that if the Tibetan people cease to exist as a cultural people and entity, in this generation, or the next, due to government legislation then they are having genocide committed against them.




Right, so free trade within the Commonwealth will magically mean that all of a sudden we actually start significant trade with Commonwealth countries even though we never have before.


Actually Hive mind it probably would. after all its no more than what the EU is really, a broad basis for free trade over a large region.

out of curiosity hive mind what view are you argueing from, a member nation or someone who has split from the commonwealth just curious.

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 05:39 AM
Except that there already was significant amounts of trade carried out between the UK and other European countires before the EU, or EEC if you like, was instituted. The EU, or EEC, was created to facilitate that trade, not create it.

daboarder
06-10-2011, 05:42 AM
But there is also significant ammounts of trade between the UK and other commonwealth nations as well, it has always been a trading entity as much as a military one, even when it was an empire. After all were not India and Singapore the jewels in the imperial crown due to there existence as major exotic trading points.

eldargal
06-10-2011, 06:05 AM
Turkey, formerly known as 'the sick man of Europe' (ie part of Europe) disagrees with you (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g2yMOna6gKwLYWkMUhP4gVQFnSuQ?docId=CNG.67623 850a684b3db3f7388147dd9cea7.d1). The fact is they are right. We let Cyprus join despite all kinds of problems going on there without a second thought. We let Romania in despite concerns over police brutality and freedom of the press. We let Bulgaria in despite human rights violation against the Roma, Macedonians, disabled and religious minorities.
But we make Turkey jump through hoops no other country has had to then stall the process completely to keep them out. We demand they increase religious freedoms then demand they crack down on religious extremists (but only the Muslims, god forbid they try and stop the Kurds blowing bits of the country up)
The EU is a secular institution, but it still only welcomes Christian nations. The irony is all the left wing, pro EU apologists are too blind to even see it because all they see in the EU is the idea, not the reality.

I'm not anti-EU, I just don't see why it should take precedence over the Commonwealth. Nor am I blind to the problems it has. Unfortunately the real problems tend to be glossed over in favour of idiotic, Daily Mail lies about stupid EU laws which don't even exist or are identical to our own laws we already had.:rolleyes:



Right, so free trade within the Commonwealth will magically mean that all of a sudden we actually start significant trade with Commonwealth countries even though we never have before.

The Commonwealth is fine as it is, a cultural entity celebrating the past with no real relevance to the present or future. Kind of like Britain really. The EU is the future. The EU also isn't a christians-only club, no matter how many times you repeat the claim. In fact, the Treaty of Lisbon provides for EU accession to the ECHR. What does article nine of the ECHR guarantee?

Deadlift
06-10-2011, 06:14 AM
Technically speaking the Army wasn't Imperialist - the politicians whose orders they follow were. Not that there is anything bad about imperialism either.


I know I am asking for trouble here *ducks behind the sofa* but I have always wondered and though that maybe parts of africa would have been better off still being under (some not all) european rule. I am not saying that the indigenous peoples were treated completely fairly but the vacuum that was left behind is still having repercussions today. What the Begiums left behind and the immediate blood shed and racial hatred between the peoples of the Congo was terrible.

However I am contributing to the steering off topic and I apologise.

I will finish by saying anyone who wishes to play against me with a Nasi 40k army is asking for the Wookie.

I quote Han Solo

"I'd let him have it, it's not wise to upset a Wookie."
"But sir, no one worries about upsetting a droid."
"That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookies are known to do that."
"I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookie win."

daboarder
06-10-2011, 06:43 AM
Technically speaking the Army wasn't Imperialist - the politicians whose orders they follow were. Not that there is anything bad about imperialism either.


I know I am asking for trouble here *ducks behind the sofa* but I have always wondered and though that maybe parts of africa would have been better off still being under (some not all) european rule. I am not saying that the indigenous peoples were treated completely fairly but the vacuum that was left behind is still having repercussions today. What the Begiums left behind and the immediate blood shed and racial hatred between the peoples of the Congo was terrible.


Personally I think humanity itself was better under the European empires. At the very least they were a unifying force that drove human development at an insane pace. They also provided stability (except for a minor hiccup in 1914) a stability that has been lost in the madness of the modern world. Say what you want about them but they were ultimately a good thing for humanity.

shadosun
06-10-2011, 07:34 AM
WTF? I regularly thank deities of a non-specific nature that the British military is one of the least politically correct places left in the country]

My apologies sir, I was tired and forgot to specify. I am in the US military. Maybe the British forces understand that you are a big boy or girl when you join and can take some off colour humor or whatnot.

Hive Mind
06-10-2011, 08:33 AM
But there is also significant ammounts of trade between the UK and other commonwealth nations as well, it has always been a trading entity as much as a military one, even when it was an empire. After all were not India and Singapore the jewels in the imperial crown due to there existence as major exotic trading points.

Overall, the trade between the UK and the Commonwealth is relatively miniscule and the few nations we do have significant trade links with (Canada, India, Australia et al) we already have treaties dictating largely free trade.


Turkey, formerly known as 'the sick man of Europe' (ie part of Europe) disagrees with you (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g2yMOna6gKwLYWkMUhP4gVQFnSuQ?docId=CNG.67623 850a684b3db3f7388147dd9cea7.d1). The fact is they are right. We let Cyprus join despite all kinds of problems going on there without a second thought. We let Romania in despite concerns over police brutality and freedom of the press. We let Bulgaria in despite human rights violation against the Roma, Macedonians, disabled and religious minorities.
But we make Turkey jump through hoops no other country has had to then stall the process completely to keep them out. We demand they increase religious freedoms then demand they crack down on religious extremists (but only the Muslims, god forbid they try and stop the Kurds blowing bits of the country up)
The EU is a secular institution, but it still only welcomes Christian nations. The irony is all the left wing, pro EU apologists are too blind to even see it because all they see in the EU is the idea, not the reality.

I'm not anti-EU, I just don't see why it should take precedence over the Commonwealth. Nor am I blind to the problems it has. Unfortunately the real problems tend to be glossed over in favour of idiotic, Daily Mail lies about stupid EU laws which don't even exist or are identical to our own laws we already had.:rolleyes:

I'm going to discontinue this line of conversation. Not only is it massively off-topic but it's clear to me that we'll never see eye-to-eye as mine are looking forward and yours are, like most of the British, looking backwards to a time when Britain mattered. Also, you don't seem to actually know that much about how the EU works.

FWIW, there a quite a few non-christian member states of the EU. In fact there are more secular member states than there are member states with state religions. Oh, and Turkey is a secular state.

Turkey's problems in entering have nothing to do with religious discrimination and everything to do with meeting the minimum legal standards in various areas as, by the way, all the countries you list did. It is not necessary to have a perfect human rights record to join and never has been. Let's not forget that the UK has an appalling human rights record internationally. We're members.

Deadlift
06-10-2011, 09:06 AM
Actually many Turks feel that one reason they have not gained entry into the EU yet is because of their geographical position and what they have to offer if and when Syria is dealt with by the west. Turkey is ideally placed to be major contributor if that happens. Turks feel that EU membership is being held back to be used as a reward for mucking in as it were. I say this confidently as having a Turkish father and listening to him and our friends debate this very subject on out backgammon evenings. It gets repetitive :). Other reasons talked about are cypress and the untalked about islamaphobe thing going on in Europe. France has flatly said it will not accept Turkey into the EU. The fact the during the current economic state of Europe and the fact that Turkey largely wasn't effected by a recession could be seen
As a threat to some members. Also it's sheer size of population is a worry and if Turkey joins the
EU it will have the second largest population of any member.

Although this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent I have to admit it's been a very interesting read.

HsojVvad
06-10-2011, 09:37 AM
Huh? Tibet is trying to cede from China and obtain self-rule.

Have you ever heard of a country that willingly allowed a significant chunk of territory to cede from itself without bloodshed, Or massive concessions one way or another? Same thing's happening here.


How about Quebec succeding from Canada? Well now it looks like it's dead since the seperatist Federal party is dead for now.

I guess we really have gone off track now from the original post eh? :D

I guess another thing to be considered racist or offensive is time. It seems alot of people don't have a problem with Attlia the Hun but they do with Hittler and his regiem. As someone else has said, the problem with Hitler and his regiem being offensive is because it is still alive and well. Same for prejudeces againts Africans in the US south, it is still alive and well, so people can be easily offened while what happened 200 or 1000 years ago, would seem ok then, but because there are people who glorify in what Hitler and company did, it still causes the wounds to be fresh and unacceptable for most.

MuGGzy
06-10-2011, 12:29 PM
So I wonder if the people that kicked a nasi themed army player out would like a TRUE Crusade or Inquisition themed IG army, complete with modeled examples of what those time periods did to innocents, maybe "Iron Maidens" and "Racks" as objectives? Model the Comissars shooting or pushing "heretics" that won't join the "Imperial Faith" into the path of Chimeras or off cliffs? Wouldn't THAT be just AWESOME?!?

Yes I KNOW I am being a jack@$$, but I do so for the sake of debate...

If one was well versed in ALL history, and not just the last 100 years of it, why would it be more acceptable to use the crosses like on Black Templars, than "the jewish symbol for luck that was co-opted by a particular nut case in the 1940s"? If one reads The Old Testament, and takes it as factual history, then there are examples of genocide, rape, and murder in there considerably more, if not equally as, offensive as anything done in WW2. Just saying.


Commence Flaming....

BrokenWing
06-10-2011, 12:48 PM
Alot of people on here pretending to be historians.

I'll just say this:

It offends people, because it happened within recent memory. Consider also that Black Templars are based more on a romanticized ideal than actual history and yes, it probably would be offensive if you started putting victims into the army. I don't understand why we have to constantly rehash the exact same conversation over and over again, asked in slightly different ways. Especially since at this point people seem to just be trying to get people upset because they 'brought up something that is generally considered acceptable vs something that is not.

The Crusades were horrible, incidentally, they were horrible on both sides, I'm not sure where this idea that the Muslim side of the conflict was any better comes from. It's not like the Crusaders even focused their efforts at being horrible on Muslims anyway, just ask the Byzantines, or Jewish population centers in Europe. However, the Crusades are in the distant past as opposed to the nasi extermination campaign. People are still alive who lived though that, there are still strong connections to it. I'd be willing to bet that in another 70 years it won't be as offensive...but I'd also bet it still will be offensive. The other major difference is that there is something truly appalling about industrial genocide. The acts of horror done during the Inquisition or the Crusades were not done in death factories and they weren't targeted at entire races of people. Sure the Jews bared a larger brunt of the Inquisition than other races, but that was because of religious paranoia, not someone targeting the Jews for eradication.

What happened during the Crusades was largely random acts by horrible individuals, driven by, or covered by, religions zeal. If you send a bunch of murders and criminals into an area and then tell them "it's ok if yo rape someone, because the Church will clear you of your sins." not only do you have a recipe for disaster, you also have a pre-made excuse. However, it's going to be random.

Random is always less horrifying than someone building factories designed to slaughter people in the most efficient way possible. When a government sits down and *organizes* genocide and continuously improves upon the means of killing, there is something much, much more disturbing and offensive about that, than a bunch of self absorbed, criminals running around killing people.

Denzark
06-10-2011, 12:53 PM
My apologies sir, I was tired and forgot to specify. I am in the US military. Maybe the British forces understand that you are a big boy or girl when you join and can take some off colour humor or whatnot.

My respects to you sir.

condottiere
06-10-2011, 02:00 PM
The Nelson Gambit: selective blindness.

Most people tend to focus on the parts of history, personal or otherwise, that's most in line with their political agenda, glossing or ignoring over the rest.

As regards certain aspects of the Third Reich, especially the uniforms, the combat records and the mass psychology behind their control of the general population, there's a certain coolness factor involved that's attractive in it's own right. As long as you're aware of the uglier side of the coin, it should keep your personal viewpoints and believes balanced.

Necron2.0
06-10-2011, 02:00 PM
Simple: its not actual world fact. There is a reason why it is called "fiction"

Star Wars have planet destroying super-lasers owned by an Na(z)i analog. Shall we boycott and lynch all the Storm Trooper cosplayers in every single sci-fiction convention from now on?

Certainly not, which is the point. Nobody should be banned, boycotted or lynched for having a Na(z)i analog in a fictional universe, be it Star Wars or 40K.


Dude, technically Mao Ze-Dong slaughtered his own country's civilians. And by "slaughtered", I meant starved for the majority (as opposed to killing actively). Sorta like a reverse revolution.

A corpse is a corpse, regardless of race or nationality, and none ever quibbled over how it got so cold.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

Ok, so how about this. What if someone created a National Socialist themed Necron army? They could have the C'tan as Goebbels, Himmler or Goering, and a Monolith might resemble "Die Glocke." Nobody could claim that an army of mindless automatons being lead by soulless star vampires is somehow a glorification of the Reich. In fact, it could only be seen as the exact opposite. Would this, then, be offensive?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

For the record, I'm no fan of Hitler or his regime, especially given my racial background. However, my main issue with this over emphasis on "the Evils of the Third Reich" is it hides a bigger, much scarier reality. The truth is, Hitler wasn't unique. He wasn't even the worst of the worst. Regimes like Hitler's Germany can, have and will continue to rise again and again and again where ever people willfully ignore the warning signs. The real danger behind Na(z)i hysteria is it blinds people to real threats closer to home. For me, that'd be La Raza, or Louis Farrakhan's hate mongering Nation of Islam. Neo-Na(z)is in contrast do not even show up on the radar as a threat, largely because they seem to do everything in their power to marginalize themselves. Case in point, how hard do you think it'd be to spot this guy as a possible subversive and contain him:

http://www.dailymugshots.com/uploads/2/1/7/7/2177444/500659.jpg

Drunkencorgimaster
06-10-2011, 06:55 PM
Alot of people on here pretending to be historians.


I'm a historian:D Honestly!

What a great thread! I wish my students were as well-informed as you folks are. I should make them read this...

You've clearly shown that historical offensiveness is a relative concept. I'm all in favor of free expression but obviously context is a huge issue. It sounds like most of you find the National Socialist army offensive, which is certainly understandable. It is also likely that my Valhallans might get me banned in Finland.

In the end though, the store owner presumably is a private individual and the store is his/her property. I expect that he or she is the ultimate judge of what comes through the door.

It is nice to see such a civil, intelligent discussion.

PS. I am also not sure I understand why the correct spelling of N*zi is verbotten...

daboarder
06-10-2011, 07:06 PM
It's a stopgap taken by forum's. Ostensibly its to prevent heated discussions on the topic but its also because in the media driven world of today its not a very good idea to Have N*ZI plastered all over your forums, raises all kinds of red flags and garners unwanted attention.

Drunkencorgimaster
06-10-2011, 07:13 PM
It's a stopgap taken by forum's. Ostensibly its to prevent heated discussions on the topic but its also because in the media driven world of today its not a very good idea to Have N*ZI plastered all over your forums, raises all kinds of red flags and garners unwanted attention.

Ok, that makes sense.

Duke
06-11-2011, 01:36 PM
As this has gotten into a more "Oubliette," discussion...It is moving there. Enjoy.

Duke

wkz
06-12-2011, 11:15 PM
*a sudden influx of crickets*