Good and Evil?

[Rogie]

Are You Good or Evil? That was the title of a recent Horizon programme aired on British TV.

 

Scientists have discovered two ways of identifying people who may be at risk of developing into psychopaths. Neuroscientists studying brain scans have picked up clear differences in two distinct parts of the brain that characterises known psychopaths. Geneticists have discovered a gene, known as the MAO-A gene that is common in psychopaths. This gene has been nicknamed the 'warrior gene', leading to impulsive behaviour in those carrying it. Known psychopaths have been shown to have both the MAO-A gene and the characteristic brain scan, so clearly people born with both these traits are at risk.

 

To simply describe somebody as being a psychopath, without any further elaboration, is probably unhelpful. The term covers a very wide spectrum of behaviours from notorious serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, to people who are well integrated into their families and society, leading normal lives.

 

In a bizarre twist, it turns out that the neuroscientist featured in the programme, Jim Fallon, is himself a 'psychopath' in that he carries the gene and has the distinctive brain scan. Not surprisingly, he was shocked and perplexed. Why wasn't he in prison? It looks like he may have been lucky to get away with it - when he discussed this with members of his family a few skeletons came out of the cupboard - several of his relatives had been murderers!

 

As you may have guessed by now, the explanation of why Fallon is still at liberty boils down to environmental factors. Your childhood experiences are critical to the way you develop, that's well-known of course. He had a very happy childhood and grew up well-adjusted, got a good education and landed a job he loved doing. That didn't mean though that he'd been completely immunised by that. His family pointed out his many character flaws, which he had been largely unaware of.

 

So the equation looks a bit like this:

 

unlucky gene + good formative environment = turn out ok

unlucky gene + bad formative environment = bad apple

 

So we have genes, and we have environment. Nature and nurture.

 

Those people with the gene could be argued to have a diminished 'free will'. This argument was tested in the American courts where a man who'd killed his wife in a very savage attack was given a manslaughter verdict rather than being sentenced to death which would have been his likely fate otherwise. He had the 'warrior gene' and expert scientific evidence in court was enough to persuade the jury.

[Guest thaiworthy]

I'm not sure we can always "blame the brain" in all instances of antisocial behavior. For example, if you don't have the "unlucky gene" but do have a bad formative environment, isn't it still possible to become one of those "behaving badly?" Whenever there's a black and white scenario offered of it being this way or another, I am always suspicious. There is always a sea of gray areas and it seems to make us very comfortable indeed when we can think of things in terms of it being much simpler than it really is. People are complex beings, and many things contribute to whether they become good or bad.

 

We love comparing things to the most notorious among us, like Dahmer and Bundy because they are famous and they just happen to fall neatly into our theory. But what about the millions of people with all sorts of other switches turned on the wrong way-- they seem to survive without murdering people, why don't we give them brain scans as well? Well, that might be too tedious nor practical, but I think it is more often the actual reality.

 

Of course, that wouldn't make good television. We want to experience the more palatable "feel good" factor whilst sitting in our living rooms, because after all that is what television is all about, and you can't sell many commercials to advertisers without some juicy theory to dangle in explanation to Adolph Hitler or Stalin. So as long as we're comparing people to the most notorious, here's another noodle to toss in the alphabet soup:

 

I would love to admit, that yes, a bad brain is what killed 6 million Jews. Hitler convinced his whole country that his manner of hate was healthy for the country. Does that imply that a whole population had bad brains as well? Yet, they hated and killed and became a race of murderers. Not all of them could have possessed the "unlucky gene," and/or "bad formative environment."

 

Here's a special case to consider when the actions of a whole group of people become neurotic:

 

No unlucky gene + no bad formative environment = bad apple

 

So as far as I'm concerned, this is too wrapped up in pretty pink ribbons, so mebbe it's back to the drawing board for the neuroscientists. It seems to me they need to account for the historical implications of what they claim. And perhaps too-- they may have been watching too many remade versions of Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein."

[Rogie]

Of course, that wouldn't make good television.

You're right, it has to be in nice palatable bite-size chunks for TV! And I suppose the vast majority of those watching indeed felt a strong feel-good factor they themselves couldn't be one of those nasty psychopaths . . . could they?

 

Your dissection was a fair one - you'd have made a good surgeon Thaiworthy.

 

It is much too complicated to compartmentalise each person's entire life into little boxes that neatly say 'he was a real bad guy because of x,y,and z'. More likely the label on the box would say 'He was a bad guy for reasons known only unto himself'.

 

But I am persuaded that as far as a very specific condition such as psychopathy is concerned, some sort of scientific explanation does make some sense. Undoubtedly there's a lot of fine tuning to do but the foundations have been laid.

 

That's a real challenge to try and account for all those bad, nay rotten, apples that fell from the trees in the 1930's. I agree science cannot readily explain that. Maybe an expert in crowd behaviour (e.g. mass hysteria, that kind of phenomenon) might attempt it. I'll have a go, with the aid of some other scientific studies, in a future post.

[Guest fountainhall]

I am persuaded that as far as a very specific condition such as psychopathy is concerned, some sort of scientific explanation does make some sense. Undoubtedly there's a lot of fine tuning to do but the foundations have been laid.

In the TV programme, was any indication given of the number of people who might be carrying this gene? Are we talking about tens of thousands? Millions? Tens of millions?

 

I would love to admit, that yes, a bad brain is what killed 6 million Jews. Hitler convinced his whole country that his manner of hate was healthy for the country. Does that imply that a whole population had bad brains as well? Yet, they hated and killed and became a race of murderers. Not all of them could have possessed the "unlucky gene," and/or "bad formative environment."

Here I agree – and disagree! The reason for the rise of Hitler is extremely well documented – and surely it has little to do with genes? Does it not all boil down to a host of adverse economic and social conditions wrapped up in a blanket of historical forces and animosities stretching back many generations?

 

Under Kaiser Wilhelm, the young Germany was intent on expanding its Empire. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, for long a declining force, was facing its death throes. The Russian revolution had raised desperate fears of the spread of communist contagion into the rest of what was then regarded as the ‘civilised’ world.

 

Add into that toxic mix the most destructive war the world had ever seen, a peace treaty which forced huge and humiliating reparations on the defeated Germany, economic devastation which not only led to massive hyperinflation, it completely undermined the democratic leadership of the Weimar Republic, and a countrywide desire for strong authoritative leadership. So, the stage was well and truly set for the curtain to rise on a right-wing dictatorship. Hitler himself had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of all that mess. All he did, in my view, was grab an opportunity that had been thrown down in front if him!

 

I really do suspect that if most of us had been Germans living in Germany around that time, we would, like the vast majority of the country, simply have followed the “fuhrer” who promised a restoration of order and normalcy. Surely few, apart from some of the leadership of the Nazi party, realized that behind that charisma and rhetoric was a monster in the making?

 

I therefore do not agree that the German people became a race of “murderers”. I do not believe that the vast majority of ordinary Germans, including those in the army, were aware of much of what was going on in the concentration camps. I think I can understand why the nation blindly followed Hitler and his thugs into a new, more massive global conflict. Europe, after all, had been a battleground for centuries. I think I can also understand why, once started, so few attempts were made to stop it. Right-wing totalitarian dictators are the same the world over and use the same methods of to control populations. So, as far as Hitler is concerned – along with others in that ghastly 20th century rogues’ gallery including Stalin, Mussolini, Mao and Pol Pot - I’m with Rogie in thinking that science is not the answer, and that we have instead to look at the many factors behind the creation and nurturing of mass hysteria.

[Guest thaiworthy]

Yet, they hated and killed and became a race of murderers.

Fountainhall, you are right. Poor choice of words on my part. But whenever I see newsreels of Jews being beaten in the streets, I see people blindly walking by, ignoring the predicament. In my mind, and probably only in my mind, this is murder by omission of action. No one stops to help. No one thinks. There was almost a universal feeling of apathy toward the plight of the Jew and others-- that enabled this to escalate to such terror. This was an emotional statement prompted by a manner of thinking on my own part, in which I usually put myself in the eyes of the victim.

 

In am aware of the history that led to the rise of Hitler and his scapegoat Jews. But hate is hate, for whatever reason, no matter whether an individual's or an entire country. Every individual must take responsibility for himself before the country can. A country is a belief system, and when that belief system deprives its citizens of their rights, I can't help but feel that the population then becomes a branch of the army itself, if only merely by apathy. This is another emotional statement. When a tragedy of this proportion is presented, in that country or any other, I can't help but wonder what each and every citizen must be thinking when he sees his fellow man deprived of liberties (and ultimately life) on such an enormous scale.

 

There can never be justification for it, no matter what the economic climate may have been, not in years of studying it, not even in centuries.

 

In the context of the topic, bad genes do not apply here. The bad gene is actually the belief system, and the brain is the behavior of the country.

 

Bad belief system + widespread apathy = bad apple

 

Sadly, all this continues even today in Burtma, elsewhere, and will continue in the future until enough individuals start caring for one another.

 

In summary, you are indeed correct, the German people were not actually a "race of murderers." They were mostly a race that hated, I feel, which allowed a select few to murder. I'm glad you can understand how a nation so blindly followed Hitler or any other of these 20th century regimes. I still have difficulty understanding it. Perhaps that is caused by a defective gene in me, far too easily given to overly emotional despair when thinking about such atrocities. I think one day there will be hope for me. Or perhaps not.

[TotallyOz]

But whenever I see newsreels of Jews being beaten in the streets, I see people blindly walking by, ignoring the predicament. In my mind, and probably only in my mind, this is murder by omission of action.

 

I agree with you Sir! IMHO, it is murder by omission. I am also just sad to wonder that the future news reels of American's will look like with the stuff we have pulled in the last 10 years. It is not as massive as the Holocaust, but as Americans we too are guilty of turning a blind side to the horrors of what has happened to "suspects" and entire villages in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Guest fountainhall]

I agree with you Sir! IMHO, it is murder by omission.

I agree 100%. But the fact is we were not there! As independent, free-thinking individuals, we will find that a pretty lame excuse. But it’s far, far too easy to say what we might have done in any situation. Had we been Germans in Germany at that particular time (and the same goes for all peoples at all times living under totalitarian regimes), I suggest we would have found it far more difficult to take a moral high ground. After all, almost all those who passed by as the Nazi thugs hounded and then rounded up the Jewish population were, I believe, brainwashed by Goebbels and his propaganda department.

 

Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf: "Propaganda tries to force a doctrine on the whole people . . . Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea." Thus, the promise of stability, order and a new future for a devastated country became inextricably linked to racism, anti-semitism and anti-Bolshevism right from the start. I have no doubt the masses came to dislike the Jews. In some of the ordinary population, that certainly developed into hatred. But the vast majority felt and acted as they did only because they had little option but swallow Goebbels unremitting PR campaigns hook, line and sinker. And that propaganda identified the Jews as one of the key reasons for all of Germany's ills - a feeling that some intellectuals in other countries, not least Britain, actually agreed with!

 

Acting against a regime means risking family, children, friends, etc. Relatively few had the courage to do so – and most paid with their lives. Would you take that risk? If you’d lived in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe a decade ago, would you have had the courage to openly oppose him? Or Pol Pot’s Angka regime in Cambodia? Could you have stepped into the shoes of Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar? Of Andrei Sakharov in the old Soviet Union? Of Benigno Aquino in The Philippines under the Marcos dictatorhip?

 

When any action carries the risk of prolonged torture and ultimate death, not only of yourself but especially of those dearest to you, I fear it’s a sad fact that most abandon independent thinking. Fortunately for the world, a few hugely brave people did not succumb. Can we say in all honesty that we would really have joined them?

[Guest thaiworthy]

Fountainhall, I think we just had our first fight. Or first disagreement, anyway. I think it's actually just two points of view that are highly debatable. It has evolved from bad genes to bad behavior to a bad platitude on my part. Surely this is a subject that will be discussed among scholars for generations to come. There are no easy answers or explanations.

 

I don't know what I would do if I were in anyone's shoes at that time and place. It would depend on the circumstance I found myself in. Some people simply emigrated elsewhere. But then, who are the braver men, those that escape in times of peril, or those that remain to challenge the regime and probably perish in the process. I guess it depend on the individual's values and ability to engage change, however difficult or impossible.

 

As I said, all of my statements were based on passion, hardly an intellectual one at all. This comes from helplessness, as sometimes I identify with the underdogs of society merely because I am gay and know how it feels to be hated or persecuted. I know you identify with that also, but I just can't step out of myself long enough to see things that clearly from a historical perspective. My psyche is just not stable enough to view things as they actually were, but rather as how they should have been. Sometimes it's hard for me to separate the two. If I did, I fear I might lose that cohesion that allows empathy to happen in the first place.

 

I hope this makes sense. Thank you for an enlightening challenge and for giving me something to think about.

[TotallyOz]

Can we say in all honesty that we would really have joined them?

 

Well, I have joined protests in the past against the wars that the US has fought. I was willing to get arrested. I was hit by policemen at one in NYC. But, would I get more involved? I doubt it. I am not one of those unique people who will buck the system. I will bitch and moan and say it isn't right. I'll even protest or handcuff myself to something. But, more than that, I wish I could say yes.

[floridarob]

I watched a special on PBS and they were showing how the Jewish Military was pushing the people of Palestine to places they didn't want to go and among the Palestinians was a Jewish guy that spoke up and said to leave them alone. The Jewish soldiers said "we're just following orders" and the rebellious Jew said that's what the German soldiers said also, right?

 

I was very taken by that, someone has to speak up for what's right, mo?

[Rogie]

In the TV programme, was any indication given of the number of people who might be carrying this gene? Are we talking about tens of thousands? Millions? Tens of millions?

Whether or not they commit murder, psychopaths abound among the criminal population. Although psychopaths are estimated to represent only 1% of the total population, they make up approximately 25% of prison inmates

http://www.scinet.cc/articles/psychopathy/psychopath.html

 

This is just an estimate, it's not clear how it is made. Until a statistically significant number of people are tested for their genetic make-up and undergo a brain scan we'll never know for sure. It's all a bit unsavoury in any case. Quite possibly different sorts of psychopathy (there are 4 types apparently) have different clinical features.

 

If we take that figure of 1% then in a population of 50 million there would be half a million. That sounds a lot but of course only a fraction of those 1% are going to be the worst sort of pyschopaths, those who make the headlines. The vast majority will lead normal lives with a significant minority ending up in prison.

 

_______________________________________________________

 

In the context of the topic, bad genes do not apply here. The bad gene is actually the belief system, and the brain is the behavior of the country.

 

Bad belief system + widespread apathy = bad apple

 

After all, almost all those who passed by as the Nazi thugs hounded and then rounded up the Jewish population were, I believe, brainwashed by Goebbels and his propaganda department.

In his book Petain's Crime, published in 1990, Paul Webster wrote concerning the Unoccupied Zone of the south of France, a region administered by the French Government at Vichy, a spa town in the central Auvergne, near Clermont-Ferrand. The head of this government was Marshal Petain. It is now generally accepted that this administration behaved atrociously. It was a rotten apple all right.

 

To my mind what happened there was worse, it wasn't 'Nazi thugs' rounding up the Jews - it was their fellow Frenchmen.

 

"By July 1942 more than 20 camps held 1000's of Jews, and the number would be sharply increased by widespread arrests in areas of French administration. Conditions in some of the centres under French police guard were even worse than those of Noe, which caught my attention when I came across photos taken in January 1942 of Jewish detainees, stripped naked and showing the familiar emaciated images of survivors of Belsen. The town, named after Noah, whose Ark saved humanity, had turned out to be a bitter refuge for Jews who had put their faith in France's 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man.

 

Since visiting Noe, I have seen many other wartime photos underlining French complicity in the Holocaust. Contemporary documents have also revealed a relentless bureaucratic process that isolated and ground down Jews into a form of human detritus before being handed over to the Germans for the dumps of Auschwitz. In all, 75,721 Franch, foreign and stateless Jews passed through this ruthless machine and nearly all disappeared for ever into the night and fog of Nazi extermination.

 

Thousands died of starvation, disease and neglect in French camps even before they could be packed into death trains where many deportees were killed by suffocation, thirst and police violence. Others spent years in hiding, not from the Gestapo, but from French policemen hunting them with the aid of detailed racial censuses justified by anti-Jewish laws introduced within weeks of the Fall of France in June 1940. Treatment in the camps was often barbaric and was compared by survivors to the cruelty of the German SS."

Webster goes on to say this:

 

"If Petain had protected France's most vulnerable minority at the risk of his life and freedom, he would have been thought of today as an even greater hero than the soldier who triumphed at Verdun. Instead, in a country that revered its leader, millions were persuaded that Jews were a lesser species who merited the callous laws. From a soldier of such stature, a word of disapproval would have . . . "

 

But of course he didn't - he let himself down and he let his country down.

[Guest fountainhall]

Fountainhall, I think we just had our first fight. Or first disagreement, anyway. I think it's actually just two points of view that are highly debatable.

I have been travelling and not had time till now to answer thaiworthy

[Rogie]

. . . they are highly debateable, and no doubt will continue to be debated for many more decades to come.

As if to underline the importance of not stifling debate, Paul Webster, writing in the updated 2001 edition of Petain's Crime, said this:

 

"The eventual collapse of a quasi-benign view of Vichy, from the date of Chirac's condemnation to Papon's undignified flight and arrest in his hotel bedroom, covered the same period of time as the brief birth and death of Vichy itself. There had been no civil disorder, as Mitterrand predicted, only a sentiment of shame and sadness. Majority opinion in France, once it had been given proper access to the truth, now uses the word 'crime' in relation to Vichy refectively, although the description was considered provocative when this book was written in 1990. The impression has been left that half a century has been wasted in a sterile argument, contributing to a loss of faith in France's human rights commitment by all its minority religious and racial communities."

Footnote: Maurice Papon was appointed Secretary-General of the Bordeaux region in June 1942. In 1989, he was formally charged with Crimes against Humanity in connection with the deportation of Jews. Francois Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac are ex-Presidents of France. Chirac admitted his country's shortcomings, the 'faults of the past' as soon as he took office in 1995, whereas his predecessor, President between 1981 and 1995 had obstructed reparation for Vichy's anti-Semitic legislation.

_____________________________________________________________

 

My father was taken prisoner in the early days of the war and spent the next 5 years in several prisoner of war camps in Germany before being liberated by the Russians...

 

He never spoke much about his experiences and I know he would be the last person to consider he was brave. . .

As the medical officer in the camp, he could not attempt escape himself. He was responsible for the other servicemen in the camp and he believed completely in doing his ‘duty’.

 

In no way can I conceive what it must have been like to be deprived of liberty for five whole years in wartime, the more so when he had only just got married prior to the war starting.

That's a great 'story' Fountainhall. Like you , I could not conceive what it must have been like too - I could say something glib like a five-year nightmare - obviously the only person who could know is your father, and my impression is that many men (and women) who've lived through wars, like your dad, have a similar desire to 'not talk about it'. What a contrast with today's 'cult of the celebrity', kiss and tell stories, the sinister spectre of 'phone hacking' and the infatuation with complete and utter trivia.

[Guest fountainhall]

This discussion is clearly very timely. Today the BBC website runs a story about a Jewish man who fled to America in 1939, but then returned after the war and is the last survivor of the team which carried out psychological tests on leading Nazis. Whilst they gained some insights into their characters, they learned very little.

 

Says Howard Triest, now aged 88 –

 

"I'd seen these people in the time of their glory, when the Nazis were the rulers of the world," he says. "These rulers had killed most of my family, but now I was in control."

 

Among them were Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering, Hitler's former deputy Rudolf Hess, Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher and former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess, among others. "It's a very strange feeling, sitting in a cell with a man who you know killed your parents," he says, referring to Hoess.

 

"We treated them in a civil way, I kept my hate under control when I was working there. You couldn't betray how you really felt because you wouldn't get anything out of their questioning . . . “

 

One remarkable incident occurred with Julius Streicher, whose Der Stuermer newspaper had done much to whip up anti-Semitic hysteria among Germans.

 

"He was the biggest anti-Semite of all. I interviewed him with another psychiatrist, Maj Douglas Kelley.

 

"Streicher had some papers that he didn't want to give to Maj Kelley, or anyone else, because he said he didn't want them to fall into Jewish hands.

 

"Eventually he gave them to me - I was tall, blond and blue-eyed. He said 'I'll give them to your interpreter because I know he is a true Aryan. I can tell by the way he talks.

 

"Streicher talked to me for hours because of his idea I was a 'true Aryan'. I got a lot more out of him that way."

 

In fact, none of the Nazis who Howard translated for were ever aware he was Jewish.

And the result of all the interrogations?

 

"Did we learn anything from these psychiatric tests? No. We didn't find anything abnormal, nothing to indicate something that would make them the murderers they would become.

 

"In fact, they were all quite normal. Evil and extreme cruelty can go with normality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14706309

[Guest thaiworthy]

"Did we learn anything from these psychiatric tests? No. We didn't find anything abnormal, nothing to indicate something that would make them the murderers they would become.

 

"In fact, they were all quite normal. Evil and extreme cruelty can go with normality."

 

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

[Guest fountainhall]

As a postscript on this thread, it’s perhaps worth remembering what those in Germany no doubt remembered as Hitler increased his power. Germany’s defeat in World War I had not just been humiliating, the tactics of its army were widely blamed. (The same was true, incidentally, of the British). The outmoded trench warfare in northern France had wiped out huge numbers of soldiers, for no significant gain on either side. In the five months of the Battle of the Somme alone, the Germans lost 500,000 men. The British lost almost as many - 420,000, whilst the French lost nearly 200,000.

 

Add to that the toxic mix of chemicals used by both sides - mustard gas and lethal agents like phosgene and chlorine. Trench warfare must truly have been hell on earth.

 

I don't know the full effect on Germany. I do know, however, that it altered the political and social landscape of Britain forever. It became common to speak of the “lost generation”, the nearly 88,000 Allied troops who were killed for every one mile gained.

 

I am sure the Germans, as well as the British, were determined to ensure such disasters never occurred again. But in Britain, there was a cadre of pacifists. In Germany, Hitler ensured that the war machine was rebuilt under the guise of pacifism.

[Rogie]

Fuhrer furore! Thai student Nazi dress-up day causes outrage

They had been meticulously planning their costumes for quite some time.

 

The annual summer sports day had a long tradition of fancy dress and, eager to impress, the pupils of Sacred Heart Catholic School kept their outfits under wraps for weeks.

 

They wanted to surprise their parents and teachers as they made their entrance at the school in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand.

 

And surprise them they did. With a flourish and a fanfare, they revealed their costumes - to outraged gasps from the crowd . . .

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042097/Student-Nazi-dress-day-causes-outrage-Thailand.html#ixzz1ZAp4ywkF

[Guest fountainhall]

I can well understand the outrage. On the other hand, we perhaps should remember that Thai students' knowledge of 20th century European history may be pretty barren. The Thai educational system is not known for its quality, alas. Also, the past generations of their families only experienced World War II at second hand when Thailand was technically not a combatant, although it was for much of the time a virtual ally of the Japanese. Then there is the fact that what we know as the swastika is originally an Asian symbol closely associated with Buddhism.

 

Yet, excuses apart, there is clearly something about a cowardly right-wing fascist dictator like Hitler and his Nazi thugs that seems to appeal to some modern youth. A few years back, Prince Harry in the UK was snapped by a paparazzo coming out of a fancy dress ball in a Nazi uniform. That rightly caused a furore. Why is it, though, that Hitler is the figure which many disaffected right-wing youths look to? In Asia, there have been plenty of dictators to serve as role models, if that's what these students want, with North Korea's Kim family way on top of the list. Why Hitler and not Kim Jong Il, or Pol Pot, or Marcos and others. Too close to home for comfort, perhaps? Or is there something about Hitler that has transcended the terrifying brutality of his regime and is starting to make him respectable to young people? Is he now regarded as an acceptable and, dare I say, glamorous 'defiance of authority' figure? If so, God help the world!

[Bob]

As I'm lazy, I'll just paste and repeat what I said about the topic elsewhere:

I'm absolutely certain that the students meant no harm and had no clue how the Nazi display might affect others (there most certainly wasn't any intended anti-semitism sentiment by these Thai students). But what I don't believe at all is the claims by the school administration and teachers that the students were in charge of this event and that they, the faculty, had no idea what the students were going to do. One of those adult faculty members should have stepped in and explained why this was inappropriate.

 

And, given the students indicate that this partial theme was chosen because of recent studies involving the history of World War II, I very doubtful that the teacher(s) involved did a very good job of adequately explaining the horrors of the Nazi regime and how those thugs put to death millions of people because of their ethnic and religious backgrounds. Had the students a real clue about those concepts, it's unfathomable to me that these kids would have selected these costumes for display.

 

I'm extremely doubtful that there's any fascination by the Sacred Heart kids with either Germany or Nazism. Just doesn't compute in my mind.

[Guest thaiworthy]

Is he now regarded as an acceptable and, dare I say, glamorous 'defiance of authority' figure? If so, God help the world!

 

I am not so sure that Hitler himself was considered so entirely glamorous. I would describe him more as charismatic. He was a great orator, and women swooned when he gave speeches, but that is only a part of the picture. When asked why the students dressed in such costumes, one remarked, "Fashion!" I think the mystique and glamour is the dress and regalia of the German regime throughout WW2 history.

 

But it gets worse.

 

Wanna buy a costume in time for Halloween? Better hurry, it's just around the corner, and you can get an authentic-looking German officer's uniform for only $315, discounted from $559. But wait, there's more! You can get all those medals and insignia at slightly extra cost. And if you act now, you might qualify for free shipping, anywhere in the world, even Chiang Mai! This is a site that sells military apparel, made in China. I can't imagine why any educated person would want this stuff, but here it is. Achtung! Talk about an outrage.

 

 

Buy Nazi Uniforms

 

The swastika itself is not that prominently displayed for obvious reasons. Because of its use by Nazi Germany, the swastika since the 1930s has been largely associated with Nazism and white supremacy in most of the Western countries. As a result, all of its use, or its use as a Nazi or hate symbol is prohibited in some jurisdictions.

 

Such attire will not get you a spot on the "Ten Best Dressed List."

 

Is it really fashion and glamour that enables this site to do business? Or for that matter, the Sacred Heart students as well? Why do people buy and wear this attire? Such a costume for any occasion, even for Halloween would surely be extremely bad taste. And there can't be that many theatrical vehicles that would warrant its existence for costumes. I don't get it. Mebbe I never will.

 

Trick or treat?

[Guest fountainhall]

I am not so sure that Hitler himself was considered so entirely glamorous. I would describe him more as charismatic.

I entirely agree. As I said in my post, "Is he now regarded as an acceptable and, dare I say, glamorous 'defiance of authority' figure?"

[Guest thaiworthy]

I entirely agree. As I said in my post, "Is he now regarded as an acceptable and, dare I say, glamorous 'defiance of authority' figure?"

 

Ahhh, correct! Over the years, hysteria and Hollywood have helped contribute to the image portrayed today.

[Rogie]

I entirely agree. As I said in my post, "Is he now regarded as an acceptable and, dare I say, glamorous 'defiance of authority' figure?"

 

I've tried to make sense of this but I have to admit I can't, I don't know enough about Thai society and the education system.

 

The following opinion piece in the Bangkok Post sheds some light on it, at least for me:

 

Here is part of it: The piece is entitled:

 

Nazism in our brainwashed upbringing

 

Who is not shocked to see teenage girl students happily dressing up in full Nazi regalia, outfitting themselves as Adolf Hitler and SS Guards to celebrate their Sports Day - totally unaware that they were also celebrating the world's murderers who killed six million Jews in a state-sponsored ethnic cleansing during World War Two?

__________________________________________________________________

 

The political indoctrination by the education system to foster ultra-nationalism based on the supremacy of the Thai race also does not help. It makes people believe that Thailand is a racially homogenous country of ethnic Thais, which is false. Meanwhile, the military is over-glorified as defender of the Thais. Any violence against "the other" is then justified.

(my italics)

 

This is why mainstream Buddhist Thai society cannot empathise with the suffering of the Malay Muslims in the deep South, even though nearly 5,000 people have been killed.

 

It is also why the systematic abuse of the highlanders and migrant workers has failed to stir public outrage against ethnic discrimination, thus allowing the wrongdoing to continue.

 

When we cannot feel the pain of the victims of ethnic violence close to home, how can we feel for people so far away in place and time?

 

Instead of blaming the Sacred Heart students and teachers, we should thank them for mirroring our society's deep militarism and lack of empathy.

 

If we do not like what we see, then we should do something to end the systematic brainwashing that fills us with heartlessness.

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/258781/nazism-in-our-brainwashed-upbringing

 

But I'm still confused, would Thai students see Hitler and his Nazis as 'defiance of authority' figures, or as a strong 'conventional' leader, the sort Thais are brought up to look up to?

[Guest fountainhall]

The political indoctrination by the education system to foster ultra-nationalism based on the supremacy of the Thai race also does not help. It makes people believe that Thailand is a racially homogenous country of ethnic Thais, which is false.

I hadn't really thought about this before, but the more I consider it, the more I believe it applies to a whole host of other countries as well - not least China.

 

I also find it confusing, to the say the least, that Thai Buddhism "cannot empathise with the suffering of the Malay Muslims in the deep South." Does that mean that the teachings of Thai Buddhism are radically different to the peaceful Buddhist principles practiced in other countries? I always thought nationalist feelings and religious feelings are more or less separate in this country.

 

would Thai students see Hitler and his Nazis as 'defiance of authority' figures, or as a strong 'conventional' leader, the sort Thais are brought up to look up to?

I find the latter suggestion much too hard to believe. As has been said earlier, it's unlikely many Thai students will have received sufficient education to understand what Hitler did and what he stands for.

 

Perhaps it was just a prank that fell flat. If that is so, then the Ministry of Education needs to look far more closely at what it is - and what it is not - teaching Thai youngsters.

[Rogie]

Perhaps it was just a prank that fell flat.

That is presumably the official line too.

 

I would agree with your comment Fountainhall that you find it "much too hard to believe" that Hitler is seen by Thai students as representing a strong 'conventional' leader.

 

I would think that although there was a girl dressed up as Hitler, the 'fancy dress' sports day parade was more to do with everyone having the chance to dress up and show off their costumes. As Thaiworthy has already said:

 

When asked why the students dressed in such costumes, one remarked, "Fashion!" I think the mystique and glamour is the dress and regalia of the German regime throughout WW2 history.

 

So I would argue it was less about Hitler and much more the military aspect which I am prepared to believe struck a chord with those students (and the teachers too assuming they must have had an inkling of what was going to happen). As that piece in the BP said, the "military is over-glorified as defender of the Thais". That is unfortunate of course. Although citizens of any country want to think their military can protect them from their enemies in times of crisis, in Thailand the military's influence in daily life has been enormous. Apart from their obvious involvement in Thai affairs since 1932 right up to the present day, the army loom large in Thailand in other ways. For example the Preah Vihear temple stand-off with Cambodia. Even politicians love to dress up! How often do we see them in their lovely white uniforms?