Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Madonna and W.E., what a strange, ill-fated project

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
I'm a huge Madonna fan. She become famous in '83. I graduated high school in '85.

I'm in a position of being shocked by something Madonna has done, something I didn't expect.

I think it's passing strange that Madonna would attempt to rehabilitate the image of Wallis Simpson. Both Wallis Simpson and her husband had Nazi associations.

Why would you choose such people to glorify in a movie?

Moreover, Madonna thanked Leni Riefenstahl

Propaganda/documentaries
Leni Riefenstahl with Heinrich Himmler at Nuremberg in 1934

Riefenstahl heard candidate Adolf Hitler speak at a rally in 1932 and was mesmerized by his talent as a public speaker. Describing the experience in her memoir, Riefenstahl wrote: "I had an almost apocalyptic vision that I was never able to forget. It seemed as if the Earth's surface were spreading out in front of me, like a hemisphere that suddenly splits apart in the middle, spewing out an enormous jet of water, so powerful that it touched the sky and shook the earth". According to the Daily Express of April 24, 1934, Leni Riefenstahl had read Mein Kampf during the making of her film The Blue Light. This newspaper article quotes her as having commented, "The book made a tremendous impression on me. I became a confirmed National Socialist after reading the first page.

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

and John Galliano

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

in her credits.

I was brought up to believe that you don't lie about the Holocaust. Madonna's new movie is much too close to not being anything other than a Nazi propaganda film itself. Just what is the excuse for acting like this whether a person is an artist or not?

Yes, I know I am going to get a lot of the "Madonna is a talentless slut" stuff but I'm focused myself on the fact that Madonna, even though she's made a habit of shocking people, has spoken out very clearly against what she called fascism and the imposition of what she called a fascistic life. Oh, one more thing. I saw a BBC interview where she said that Wallis Simpson was "misaligned in the history books." The word could have been "maligned." Either way, not good.

What do you think?
 

jewelerman

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,101
interesting...she has always done something to get people talking about her and many of her projects have been controversial.I was just re-reading in Elizabeth Taylor's jewelry book about how highly she thought of Wallis Simpson.I have never thought much of Simpson because i think she was nothing more then a women who used men to climb the social ladder and wanted to be the queen of England and was pro-Nazi.I really don't get what men saw in her ?
 

jewelerman

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,101
Imdanny,
I thought you were one of the young ones on the site!We graduated about the same time! I was an early Madonna fan back when she first started out back in 83 with Holiday and have seen Desperately seeking Susan a few times(don't tell anyone)and even though i haven't agreed with all of her projects i do think she has talent and has been a force to be reckoned with in the day.
 

arjunajane

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
9,758
Danny, not to take your thread off-course I hope, but I was also quite disappointed to read recently of the total mess that Madonna has made of her supposed charitable involvement in Malawi, SE Africa.
I will not pretend to be a big fan of Madge - sure, I grew up dancing to some of her 80's music as a little kid - but I find the promise and hope and then bitter disappointment that she delivered to the people of Malawi - not to mention the misrepresentation of her charities actual accomplishments inn the region :nono:
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
I had an interesting conversation with my neighbor a couple weeks ago about east germany and the nazis. Apparently it is difficult for the germans to ONLY see Hitler as a bad person. They acknowledge that he was bad but defend the good things he did to help the german infrastructure, the roads, etc. It was like being a modern non-racist person and knowing that your great grandparents owned slaves. Most people do good things and bad things and while some bad things are absolutely unforgivable, it isn't the whole picture. I think a lot of people were entranced by Hitler in the early days. I'm not speaking of wallis per se, just musing on a recent conversation.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
centralsquare|1315704963|3014746 said:
Interesting. What do you make of her movie on Eva Peron?
She's done a few good movies, Evita, Desperately Seeking Susan, A League of their Own, Dick Tracy, and I think of it as one of the movies I think of when I hear people complaining that she never did any movie acting worth one piece of dirt under a shoe.

I'm not aware of Eva Peron's real history, so I don't have anything to say about it. I grew up with the same mythical Eva Peron persona presented in the movie. It wasn't a surprise. Like I said, I thought she did a good job with it. I didn't actually enjoy seeing the movie because the sound was too loud. I could barely hear myself think. I believe this kind of noise level is damaging to high frequency hearing and so this is a type of situation I try to avoid.
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Imdanny|1315742298|3014935 said:
jewelerman|1315709418|3014790 said:
Imdanny,
I thought you were one of the young ones on the site!
I'm 43. Get off my lawn! :bigsmile:
I didn't think you were a young one, but I thought you were younger than me (I thought about 34). I'm 41. Woot.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,828
Imdanny|1315742618|3014939 said:
I'm not aware of Eva Peron's real history, so I don't have anything to say about it. I grew up with the same mythical Eva Peron persona presented in the movie.
She was not a nice person, but Madonna did not make the movie about her, all she did was to play the role of Evita! The movie was based on a play which had been a major hit on Broadway and, before that, had been performed on the stage in the UK! When I was living in Paris (in 1977), "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" was always on the radio and I made my husband buy me a 45 RPM record of it because I liked it so much. It hadn't yet hit the airwaves in the United States. I had no idea where it came from. Although we bought it in Paris, I think it was probably being played on the BBC Two Radio station!

Deb/AGBF
:read:
 

Haven

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
13,166
Deb--You are so interesting. Every time you share something about your history it makes me want to learn more about you.

Danny--Anti-semitism is still very strong in this country. I'm not shocked by this at all.
 

centralsquare

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,201
Imdanny|1315742618|3014939 said:
centralsquare|1315704963|3014746 said:
Interesting. What do you make of her movie on Eva Peron?
She's done a few good movies, Evita, Desperately Seeking Susan, A League of their Own, Dick Tracy, and I think of it as one of the movies I think of when I hear people complaining that she never did any movie acting worth one piece of dirt under a shoe.

I'm not aware of Eva Peron's real history, so I don't have anything to say about it. I grew up with the same mythical Eva Peron persona presented in the movie. It wasn't a surprise. Like I said, I thought she did a good job with it. I didn't actually enjoy seeing the movie because the sound was too loud. I could barely hear myself think. I believe this kind of noise level is damaging to high frequency hearing and so this is a type of situation I try to avoid.
The only reason I brought it up is because Juan Peron (at I believe Evita as well) were accused of being fascists and Nazis (according to some, they essentially protected Nazis). To your point, seems to be a pattern for Madonna.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,828
centralsquare|1315761524|3015098 said:
The only reason I brought it up is because Juan Peron (at I believe Evita as well) were accused of being fascists and Nazis (according to some, they essentially protected Nazis). To your point, seems to be a pattern for Madonna.
Yes, but let's keep straight that the actor is not the character he plays! That is why I pointed out in my posting (above) that "Evita" (the movie) was not written, directed, or produced by Madonna and was based on a play that was also not of her doing! She had no hand in the movie, "Evita" except to act the part of Eva Peron, and for that one cannot fault an actress. At least I do not feel one should fault an actress for playing a role well!

The Peronistas were opportunists and looked at where they thought they would have better buttered bread. I do not believe they had any real principles at all. Eva Duarte was the darling or the masses, of the poor, but had no real feeling for them. She was out for herself. Juan Peron wanted power and money although he was an early admirer of Mussolini.

Deb/AGBF
:read:
 

Circe

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
8,087
Heh - I think I mentioned this in your Lady Gaga thread, and it was taken as LG doing the movie, to further criticism - but, alas, 'tis Madge.

I'm also puzzled by the personality cults that have arisen around some abominable figures from that period - Wallis Simpson is one, Coco Chanel is another. I mean - really? Their aesthetics don't make up for their philosophies, people. Sincerely wish today's celebs would demonstrate the ability to distinguish between style and quality ....
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
Wallis Simpson was not very intelligent about anything except fashion and jewelry. The Duke of Windsor was also a highly stupid individual (with no sense of duty and responsibility, but that's another story). Yes, they did go and visit Hitler. This was pre-WWII and you would be astonished how many people were Hitler admirers back then. There WAS information out there(Hitler stated his intentions very clearly if you bothered to read Mein Kampf) but a lot of people (and not all of them were fascists) werenot paying attention. I don't know that I would call the Windsors fascists because of the Hitler visit. They were a couple on the make looking for someone to pay them attention after the abdication and Hitler was ready and willing to do so--treated Wallis like a queen at a time when the British had refused her the Royal Highness title and the two idiots couldn't see further than that.

Why we would need another movie about them, I do not know.

I also don't know why Imdanny is surprised that Madonna would make a movie rehabilating them--or why he is shocked that a Hollywood person would admire the (extremely heinous) Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl is big in Holllywood. She undoubtedly had a lot of talent and they can't see further than that. She was given some major award a couple of years before her death at age 102. And yes, it is entirely correct that Evita Peron was a monster, which you wouldn't know from the movie, catchy song and all and that anyone who is shocked that someone is making a movie about Wallis Simpson SHOULD be even more shocked that that such a person would portray 'Evita' in what was, after all, a movie glorifying her, not just any 'role'. But a lot of people in Hollywood admire some horrible individuals, I don't know if because they are uninformed or just stupid--Che Guevara and people of that ilk. What about Hollywood (mostly) all standing behind Roman Polanski not so long ago? Is that just as shocking?
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
Also, we don't know if the project is ill-fated yet or not. I certainly would hope that it will be, though.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,828
Black Jade|1316040313|3017760 said:
And yes, it is entirely correct that Evita Peron was a monster, which you wouldn't know from the movie, catchy song and all and that anyone who is shocked that someone is making a movie about Wallis Simpson SHOULD be even more shocked that that such a person would portray 'Evita' in what was, after all, a movie glorifying her, not just any 'role'.
Wow. I couldn't disagree with you more. I don't see the role as glorifying Eva Peron at all! On the contrary, although it does show her as beautiful and somewhat tragic, it clearly portrays her as vulgar; corrupt; obsessed with money and material goods; and willing to use the poor to help her to obtain the things that will help her, personally. At least, I may be mixing up the play and movie, but I believe the movie was faithful to the play.

Black Jade|1316040313|3017760 said:
But a lot of people in Hollywood admire some horrible individuals, I don't know if because they are uninformed or just stupid--Che Guevara and people of that ilk. What about Hollywood (mostly) all standing behind Roman Polanski not so long ago? Is that just as shocking?

Again, I couldn't differ with you more. Che Guevara, in my opinion, was not someone of any "ilk". I am sorry you did not admire him. I did. I do not say that I found him a perfect individual. When I read his Memoirs of the Cuban Revolutionary War (I believe that is the title; I am going on memory), I found him sanctimonious at times. Nonetheless, he was a man of principle. He was a man, trained as a dentist, who could have had a comfortable middle class life, but it gave it up because he truly believed in equality and ending the the brutal poverty he had seen. I see him as far more sinned against than sinner.

Deb/AGBF
:read:
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Black Jade|1316040313|3017760 said:
What about Hollywood (mostly) all standing behind Roman Polanski not so long ago? Is that just as shocking?
You know, that's a tangent that has nothing to do with the subject of my thread.

Also, I don't see what it is to you if I care to be shocked by any of this.

Wallis and Edward are glorified all the time, in the mythical story that it was "the greatest love affair of the 20th century," in The King's Speech, in the sycophantic language carefully chosen by Sotheby's when it held its sales of Wallis Simpson's jewels.

None of this is news to me.

I'm shocked by someone whose career I have followed and admire being involved in it. That's whats shocks me. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that some people in Hollywood do bad things. I'm shocked because someone specific did something I don't approve of. I trust you understand the difference.
 

OUpearlgirl

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
3,081
Imdanny|1316070040|3018041 said:
Black Jade|1316040313|3017760 said:
What about Hollywood (mostly) all standing behind Roman Polanski not so long ago? Is that just as shocking?
You know, that's a tangent that has nothing to do with the subject of my thread.

Also, I don't see what it is to you if I care to be shocked by any of this.

Wallis and Edward are glorified all the time, in the mythical story that it was "the greatest love affair of the 20th century," in The King's Speech, in the sycophantic language carefully chosen by Sotheby's when it held its sales of Wallis Simpson's jewels.

None of this is news to me.

I'm shocked by someone whose career I have followed and admire being involved in it. That's whats shocks me. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that some people in Hollywood do bad things. I'm shocked because someone specific did something I don't approve of. I trust you understand the difference.
I didn't think The King's Speech portrayed either of them in a favorable light.

I don't believe any one person is or was all good or all bad. Most "evil" people have also been a victim, and most "good" people have done something bad. Real life isn't a Disney movie. As long as the movie is historically accurate and shows their major faults as well as their virtues, I don't have a problem with it.
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
It seems as if you are offended. I did not mean to offend. Of course you can be shocked at anything you want to be shocked at. I was simply expressing surprise at you being shocked, but clearly I phrased things badly and I do hope you accept my apology, which is sincere.

Imdanny|1316070040|3018041 said:
Black Jade|1316040313|3017760 said:
What about Hollywood (mostly) all standing behind Roman Polanski not so long ago? Is that just as shocking?
You know, that's a tangent that has nothing to do with the subject of my thread.

Also, I don't see what it is to you if I care to be shocked by any of this.

Wallis and Edward are glorified all the time, in the mythical story that it was "the greatest love affair of the 20th century," in The King's Speech, in the sycophantic language carefully chosen by Sotheby's when it held its sales of Wallis Simpson's jewels.

None of this is news to me.

I'm shocked by someone whose career I have followed and admire being involved in it. That's whats shocks me. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that some people in Hollywood do bad things. I'm shocked because someone specific did something I don't approve of. I trust you understand the difference.
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
I have not seen either Peron play or movie so defer to you, Deb about that. I have read the synopsis, which is not the same thing and it seems I missed some nuances in both play and movie.
However, re: Che Guevara, we must agree to disagree, though I would suggest that his autobiography is not the best place to get an unbiased opinion of his deeds (as opposed to his ideals). While I would agree with the ideals of wishing to promote equality and end 'brutal poverty' I don't think becoming a cruel murderer is the optimum way to go about this. To me, being a dentist who did something perhaps like help poorer people get teeth fixed for free, would have made him a more admirable individual. And many, many tyrants and mass murderers have had very high ideals. Just off the top of my head, I think of Mao Zedong and Pol Pot and Lenin, just to start.

But at this point this is a threadjack.

AGBF|1316055710|3017974 said:
Black Jade|1316040313|3017760 said:
And yes, it is entirely correct that Evita Peron was a monster, which you wouldn't know from the movie, catchy song and all and that anyone who is shocked that someone is making a movie about Wallis Simpson SHOULD be even more shocked that that such a person would portray 'Evita' in what was, after all, a movie glorifying her, not just any 'role'.
Wow. I couldn't disagree with you more. I don't see the role as glorifying Eva Peron at all! On the contrary, although it does show her as beautiful and somewhat tragic, it clearly portrays her as vulgar; corrupt; obsessed with money and material goods; and willing to use the poor to help her to obtain the things that will help her, personally. At least, I may be mixing up the play and movie, but I believe the movie was faithful to the play.

Black Jade|1316040313|3017760 said:
But a lot of people in Hollywood admire some horrible individuals, I don't know if because they are uninformed or just stupid--Che Guevara and people of that ilk. What about Hollywood (mostly) all standing behind Roman Polanski not so long ago? Is that just as shocking?

Again, I couldn't differ with you more. Che Guevara, in my opinion, was not someone of any "ilk". I am sorry you did not admire him. I did. I do not say that I found him a perfect individual. When I read his Memoirs of the Cuban Revolutionary War (I believe that is the title; I am going on memory), I found him sanctimonious at times. Nonetheless, he was a man of principle. He was a man, trained as a dentist, who could have had a comfortable middle class life, but it gave it up because he truly believed in equality and ending the the brutal poverty he had seen. I see him as far more sinned against than sinner.

Deb/AGBF
:read:
 

gardengloves

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
1,116
Great post Imdanny- very brave and courageous.

Confronting historical revisionism is not for the faint of heart.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,828
Black Jade|1316134884|3018573 said:
I have not seen either Peron play or movie so defer to you, Deb about that. I have read the synopsis, which is not the same thing and it seems I missed some nuances in both play and movie.
You are very gracious, Black Jade.


Black Jade|1316134884|3018573 said:
However, re: Che Guevara, we must agree to disagree...While I would agree with the ideals of wishing to promote equality and end 'brutal poverty' I don't think becoming a cruel murderer is the optimum way to go about this.
Ah. A problem of logic. If Che Guevara had become a cruel murderer, then would it be or would it not be the optimum way to promote equality and end brutal poverty? A portentous question indeed, one for the philosophers to study! But first we must decide whether Che Guevara did become a brutal murderer. I vote , "no". Now it's your turn to vote, Black Jade. But you only get one vote. And it isn't any stronger than mine. It cannot cancel mine out.


Black Jade|1316134884|3018573 said:
To me, being a dentist who did something perhaps like help poorer people get teeth fixed for free, would have made him a more admirable individual. And many, many tyrants and mass murderers have had very high ideals. Just off the top of my head, I think of Mao Zedong and Pol Pot and Lenin, just to start.
Again you appear to be struggling with logic. Many murderous tyrants may have had high ideals, but not all people with high ideals were murderous tyrants. Che Guevara never ruled a nation or put millions of people to death like Pol Pot. It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that political reform to end poverty could have been carried out by Che Guevara's opening dental clinics under the Batista régime.



Black Jade|1316134884|3018573 said:
But at this point this is a threadjack.
True, but Danny has borne with us thus far, why not stick it out?

Deb/AGBF
:read:
 

maplefemme

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
874
centralsquare|1315761524|3015098 said:
Imdanny|1315742618|3014939 said:
centralsquare|1315704963|3014746 said:
Interesting. What do you make of her movie on Eva Peron?
She's done a few good movies, Evita, Desperately Seeking Susan, A League of their Own, Dick Tracy, and I think of it as one of the movies I think of when I hear people complaining that she never did any movie acting worth one piece of dirt under a shoe.

I'm not aware of Eva Peron's real history, so I don't have anything to say about it. I grew up with the same mythical Eva Peron persona presented in the movie. It wasn't a surprise. Like I said, I thought she did a good job with it. I didn't actually enjoy seeing the movie because the sound was too loud. I could barely hear myself think. I believe this kind of noise level is damaging to high frequency hearing and so this is a type of situation I try to avoid.
The only reason I brought it up is because Juan Peron (at I believe Evita as well) were accused of being fascists and Nazis (according to some, they essentially protected Nazis). To your point, seems to be a pattern for Madonna.
Juan Peron did help Nazi war criminals, he went out of his way to give them easy access and refuge in Argentina.
Many, including Adolf Eichmann, came into Argentina on Red Cross passports.
Thankfully, Mossad Special Ops risked their lives to go into Argentina and bring Eichmann to Israel to stand trial.
 

makemepretty

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
987
I think your disappointment is because sometimes we admire talented people. When they have an opinion/or do something we don't agree with, it is shocking. We feel we know them because they've been our lives for so long. We don't know them, not at all.

When a celebrity does something I disagree with, it's not a big deal, I just no longer am a fan or seek out their projects. Mel Gibson is not an actor I watch anymore. Madonna lost my respect when her sex book came out. I do like her songs that pop up now and then on the radio but I wouldn't watch a movie with her in it nor pay for her songs. Morally she's not a person whose values I agree with. Woody Allen, talented person but I feel nothing but disgust when I see him in magazines or on t.v.

The best way to show your disappointment in what the celebrity in question is doing is to not support them with your money. After all, that's their main goal. Fan adoration and money.
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
[quote="AGBFAh. A problem of logic. If Che Guevara had become a cruel murderer, then would it be or would it not be the optimum way to promote equality and end brutal poverty? A portentous question indeed, one for the philosophers to study! But first we must decide whether Che Guevara did become a brutal murderer. I vote , "no". Now it's your turn to vote, Black Jade. But you only get one vote. And it isn't any stronger than mine. It cannot cancel mine out...Again you appear to be struggling with logic. Many murderous tyrants may have had high ideals, but not all people with high ideals were murderous tyrants. Che Guevara never ruled a nation or put millions of people to death like Pol Pot. It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that political reform to end poverty could have been carried out by Che Guevara's opening dental clinics under the Batista régime.
Deb/AGBF
:read:[/quote]
Well, Deb, I don't think it's very much to the point to 'vote' as to whether someone is a murderer or not. (I retract the word 'cruel' since it fuzzes the issue). This isn't a matter where your opinion or mine can 'cancel each other out'--its a matter of fact or fiction.

Leaving totally aside the acts Che committed during the Cuban revolution (which was wartime and thus should not be counted, in my opinion, even if one is against Communist revolutions), even those who admire him admit that he had numerous prisoners in Cuba killed once the revolution was over without any semblance of a trial (much less a fair trial). This would make him a murderer, regardless of any voting that anyone would choose to do. I'm leaving aside some other undisputed facts, such as that he had homosexuals jailed simply because they were homosexuals (seems heinous to me, but this discussion is about murder so I guess that's OT). Che might not have been a murderous 'tyrant' but he managed to kill quite a few people, in spite of never having ruled a nation. His ideals ( you may call them 'high' if you wish, but there I do cast a vote to disagree) were exactly the same ideals as those of Pol Pot--and Stalin (who he, not coincidentally, greatly admired). Yes, I do think he would have served humanity better by being a dentist in Argentina (which would, sadly, be taken over by an incredibly murderous regime some years after his death, which they have still not come to terms with) than by committing reprehensible deeds because he hated Battista's reprehensible deeds, and then , having finished in Cuba, looking around for other places he could go to 'export revolution'--i.e., death.

Saying this is a matter for philosophers is not correct in my opinion. Basic morality would tell you that becoming a murderer is never a solution to anything--ask Charlotte Corday, Tsar Alexander III's assassins and many, many others.
 

iLander

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
6,731
Imdanny|1315742298|3014935 said:
jewelerman|1315709418|3014790 said:
Imdanny,
I thought you were one of the young ones on the site!
I'm 43. Get off my lawn! :bigsmile:
I can't! My walker is stuck in your grass!! :D

P.S. Line my hubby said the other day when the lack of nicotine was getting to him, "I quit smoking and I was able to save enough money to buy this AK47, Officer." :bigsmile:

How's things, Danny?

I'm having a root canal tomorrow. . . ::)
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Black Jade|1316205002|3019051 said:
Well, Deb, I don't think it's very much to the point to 'vote' as to whether someone is a murderer or not. (I retract the word 'cruel' since it fuzzes the issue). This isn't a matter where your opinion or mine can 'cancel each other out'--its a matter of fact or fiction.

Leaving totally aside the acts Che committed during the Cuban revolution (which was wartime and thus should not be counted, in my opinion, even if one is against Communist revolutions), even those who admire him admit that he had numerous prisoners in Cuba killed once the revolution was over without any semblance of a trial (much less a fair trial). This would make him a murderer, regardless of any voting that anyone would choose to do. I'm leaving aside some other undisputed facts, such as that he had homosexuals jailed simply because they were homosexuals (seems heinous to me, but this discussion is about murder so I guess that's OT). Che might not have been a murderous 'tyrant' but he managed to kill quite a few people, in spite of never having ruled a nation. His ideals ( you may call them 'high' if you wish, but there I do cast a vote to disagree) were exactly the same ideals as those of Pol Pot--and Stalin (who he, not coincidentally, greatly admired). Yes, I do think he would have served humanity better by being a dentist in Argentina (which would, sadly, be taken over by an incredibly murderous regime some years after his death, which they have still not come to terms with) than by committing reprehensible deeds because he hated Battista's reprehensible deeds, and then , having finished in Cuba, looking around for other places he could go to 'export revolution'--i.e., death.

Saying this is a matter for philosophers is not correct in my opinion. Basic morality would tell you that becoming a murderer is never a solution to anything--ask Charlotte Corday, Tsar Alexander III's assassins and many, many others.
Something else which is a matter of fact or fiction, and the fact is that the line from Madonna's movie that, 'Just because Edward and Wallis... blah, blah, doesn't mean they were Nazis, they were just "naive," i.e. not Nazi-sympathizers, is a fiction.

I don't believe in lying about the Holocaust, the Nazis, or Nazi-sympathizers, in life or in art.

Nothing you have said has changed my mind one iota and I humbly suggest you do some research on this subject before making any more pronouncements about the glorified Edward and Wallis and their supposed naiveté.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
iLander|1316485887|3021106 said:
Imdanny|1315742298|3014935 said:
jewelerman|1315709418|3014790 said:
Imdanny,
I thought you were one of the young ones on the site!
I'm 43. Get off my lawn! :bigsmile:
I can't! My walker is stuck in your grass!! :D

P.S. Line my hubby said the other day when the lack of nicotine was getting to him, "I quit smoking and I was able to save enough money to buy this AK47, Officer." :bigsmile:

How's things, Danny?

I'm having a root canal tomorrow. . . ::)
Oh, I'm doing fine but I'm sorry to hear that you have to go through that! Big hugs to you! I won't be returning to this thread, but I'll catch you later! :wavey:
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
[Something else which is a matter of fact or fiction, and the fact is that the line from Madonna's movie that, 'Just because Edward and Wallis... blah, blah, doesn't mean they were Nazis, they were just "naive," i.e. not Nazi-sympathizers, is a fiction.

I don't believe in lying about the Holocaust, the Nazis, or Nazi-sympathizers, in life or in art.

Nothing you have said has changed my mind one iota and I humbly suggest you do some research on this subject before making any more pronouncements about the glorified Edward and Wallis and their supposed naiveté.[/quote]'

Well, I must be a more incoherent writer than I thought. I guess my opinions did not come through clearly. I don't 'glorify' Wallis and Edward--I despise them. I also don't believe in lying about the Holocaust, the Nazis or Nazi-sympathizers. In fact, I spend a lot of time driving a dear friend, a Holocaust survivor of 3 concentration camps and a death march to different schools so that she can speak to as many young people as possible about that horror and bring them face to face with it.

I also despise Leni Riefenstahl.

However, I don't see how you can put Wallis and Edward in the same category as L.F. Riefenstahl was a German who was close to Hitler, glorified his regime (brilliantly, but it was still wrong), was deeply involved in it and although she did not kill anyone personally so far as I know, has to be considered culpable as an accomplice.

Wallis and Edward were two of a large parade of people who visited Germany for a short time BEFORE the war, and even before Kristallnacht (a year later, in 1938 when Hitler's pogrom mentality became as clear in reality as it was in his writings), took a guided tour in which they were shown nothing but how clean Germany had become and how well the factories ran and how there was work there (quite a contrast to just 15 years ago when the German economy had been in the toilet with the hyperinflation), and came out as HItler admirers--because they were idiots. Yes, Hitler had written Mein Kampf some years earlier, but I would be surprised if either of them had read it. Yes, he was clearly an evil dictator and had already begun his career of conquest--but it was still so early in the game that there were many in Europe who thought he would be satisfied with the conquests he had. Many also admired him because he was anti-Communist and they didn't like what the Bolsheviks had done. I think you can say it was foolish to admire him, but not that it was evil to admire him. Not in 1937. That's using too much hindsight. Saying that the Duke and Wallis did not realize what Hitler was, when they made their visit is NOT tatamount to saying that Hitler was okay in any way. Yes, the Duke made the Nazi salute--it was not yet the symbol of evil it would become after Auschwitz and the other camps happened and people found out about them. he probably thought it was jsut a gesture of politeness towards a host. I think the Duke clearly showed durng his visit that it was a very good thing for England that he had abdicated, since he clearly had no political judgement (as well as no judgment in general)--but not that he was a Nazi sympathizer in the sense that one usually uses that term--not that he agreed with the extermination of millions of people for various inadequate reasons (not that any reason would ever be adequate)--that extermination hadn't happened yet.

That's what I meant.

I agree that Madonna is showing very poor judgment, to put it mildly, to make the movie NOW, with all the knowledge she has (or ought to have) and that adding Leni Riefenstahl to the mix is beyond poor judgment--it shows absolutely no moral sense.

I think that you, Imdanny, try hard to be a person with good moral judgment--I just read your post over in the Alzheimer's discussion and thought that was very eloquent. I admire many of the values that you have shown in this forum and I think you are upset about Madonna because you have high standards. I am honestly depressed to think that you have gotten the idea that I take a light view of supporting the Nazis. I just think it is important to think about exactly how culpable a person is and I think that calling the Duke a Nazi-sympathizer sort of cheapens the term and that it should be saved for people who were more knowledgeable and more culpable. Adn I do think sympathizing with these thugs after it was clear what they were doing was just as bad as being one of them, and that Holocaust deniers insult the mountain of dead.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Diamond Station Tennis Bracelet
    Diamond Station Tennis Bracelet
    What is PriceScope?
    What is PriceScope?
    What is Diamond Color?
    What is Diamond Color?

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top