GhostyGoo wrote:If this is the path you choose Sir i would recommend a "steel umbrella" as standard - to deny some of what is representational of these symbols, especially the etymology of the word holocaust, is social suicide in most intellectual circles. That said, you are perfectly at liberty to see a nice lady on a cow where i see the anthropomorphism of the "antichrist".
-Goo™
As I said, there is some facts, and people build around those facts to come to their conclusions. They do links between facts. Sometimes proven wrong, or proven right.
Now, sir, you did a great mistake in your previous posts. You forgot that history is also based on interpretations taking into account a context, social, economical, cultural, religious.
Not doing so, is leading to anachronism, and thus, inaccurate conclusion. You CANNOT compare EU to Holy Roman Empire or Third Reich for real. If I did so at uni, my history teachers would roll eyes and remind me the exact thing I mentionned earlier in my post.
Finding similarities, yes. Linking them AND mentionning you realize the differences of contexts and therefore aren't linking them both completly by considering similarities/differences of concerned contextes, yes.
Edit:
I remember my president said once "We will clean chavs with karcher" (approximate translation) before being president. From that, many interpretations can be done. Yes, it was wrong to say that for a candidate to presidency, but still...
It can be considered as hidden racism and xenophobia, or, considered as provocative way of saying "we will strongly deal with chavs".
Also, Tintin in Congo for example, I am debating about it in a political forum. I among others remind that there was a different context back when it was written, and anyway the most unacceptable & controversial parts were removed (I agree thos parts were racist). Why did we discuss this book? It's because some belgian dude did twice a request in justice/court to cancel edition and sale of this book for racism motives.
I have this book btw...I am aware of it being controversial, I also remember it's over 60 years old, and that Tintin is not really serious and often a satire/comical about societies.
Taken those into account, what would be wrong, would be to believe picturing in Tintin and take it as true facts, more than owning it/reading it. Given the fact it's not undoubtful ode to racism, considering wrong parts were removed since, and considering humour oftenly depicted in Tintin albums.
Anyway, you surely are mistaken. You forget that the ones who are guilty of conspirating are usually USA or Russia.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
:
