I would not say this thread has become heated at all. I think in general most of the posters agree that we don’t like PC, so would agree with your comments. But what is a bit of an issue is the suggestion that a certain thread shows examples of PC, but i certainly don’t see it.
Maybe you could point out which posts you think are being PC.
Now the accusation is denying history???
No, I get you. Keep scratching those matches and you’ll blow yourself up.
Are we really talking about political correctness, or is this really a social correctness issue? By this I mean that no government seems to be worried about it right now, no votes pending, few laws up in the air. Really, I see it more as a sensitivity to those who suffered harm by a group/movement. Some of those folks are still around, and I think we should be sensitive to them, both the folks directly affected and by their children.
That’s a good point, Don. Food for thought. I don’t set out to offend anyone; but I know that there are some people who derive great pleasure from others’ discomfort.
Problem there is Don, the list of people who mght take offense is never ending. I know here we are talking mainly about the Germans. But they were not the only nation to attempt genoicde and commt some pretty vile crimes.
Listen, we are being trolled.
But lets assume a happy moment where this guy exits stage left.
Ok- now the complaint was a response to a negative observation about the 13 SS, never mind that there was no evidence provided regarding either PC behavior or ridicule. Obviously this guy wanted to start a flame war defending the SS.
These guys were NOT Germans but Croatians, were NOT an organized unit in the sense that they were like an SS Panzer Division. In Himmlers words Muslim men would make perfect SS soldiers as Islam “promises them Heaven if they fight and are killed in action.” Whether or not he was right, it was an entirely cynical move to terrorize anyone sympathetic to Tito or the movement to overthrow the invaders, in this case the Bosnian Christians and Jews.
And, Model Maniac did not model them, as we know so therefore was not somehow entering into research of a subject in which he had any interest, for sure. They were a kit on the shelf, he hired “Jo” to build them so that they could be added to his website and museum, both commercial enterprises.
Having questioned whether that was so insensitive a subject that it didn’t belong here, I endured a fair amount of pummeling about these being little plastic toys and don’t be so thin skinned etc., but I have no problem speaking out against things I find so abhorent as to make me sick.
Denying history?
Look, there’s a too common playbook here being read by the troll. I’d like to see him come out and show why any criticism of the 13th SS is in turn worthy of condemnation.
Actually the 13th SS were what would today be known as Bosniaks- the Muslim population of that particular province. Croations are primarily Catholic, and during WWII were very much in league with The Germans in WWII. They had their own units equivalant to the Handschar troops, known as Ustaše. The Germans exploited the ethnic divisions of Yugoslavia and some of that exploitation and its’ living memories were contributing factors in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s once Tito died.
I suspect that our original poster has little to no knowledge of the history of either group, or WWII in Yugoslavia in general.
Bish is correct. Would a dio depicting the savage and inhumane deeds of the IJA draw the same negative reaction? I’m not giving Germany a free pass on this but Japan’s atrocities are overlooked or just forgotten.
Right Stik, got confused working from memory. They were Bosnians, whgich at the time was subsumed into the Croatian Republic. My relatives are Croat Catholics and they live in Italy, on account of persecution by the Ottomans back in the 16th.
It goes on and on.
Your presumption is a little rash considering I never defended any action of any branch or divison of the SS. I was simply stating that the upload of Model Maniac had a user belittling the work of the modeller due to the subject (aka lumps of plastic and paint).
The Nazis also make me sick ( especially certain foreign units and turn coats such as the French and english) not only the huge number of war crimes but also the dogma that still is perpetuated to this day. My point was to simply say that though we are disgusted by history, we shouldn’t shy away from it due to its offensive nature while also taking into account peoples sensitivities to the material
I put swastikas on german a/c for historical reasons not to glorify nazis in any way.
Point taken, but we are all free to express our opinions too. I probably would have liked MM to include some information about the 13th SS, it is indeed well worth knowing about. But to basically do what he always does, toss up bad models of subjects that he and his company of professional builders neither understand or care about, is bad for the hobby. And that’s not just my opinion. I think the “enjoy” at the end did it for me.
This “PC” thing is an excuse for bad behavior. Along the lines of “don’t crit it if you can’t do better” and “don’t look if you don’t like it”.
Would I jump on it again? Probably not, I too have learned something from this. Was my reaction “PC”. Nonsense.
Also re read the original thread. The whole crit of giant holes and blobs of paint was directed at the other model in the same post, an 88. I’ll give you credit there, that was ridicule. But, again, not “PC” just fairly rude comments about lousy modeling.
Hello!
I think we would all agree that there’s no downside to a good model or dio of even the most vicious war criminals, if it’s well researched and built well. Some info about who they were and what they did would probably also be most welcome.
But I have to defend the “If you don’t like it, don’t look” rule. Or maybe I should put it more precisely - I’m very interested in your moral judgment of the subject and I’d love to hear your opinion about what I modeled, just don’t tell me what I can model and what not. Building models doesn’t harm anyone, so it should be free. Showing pictures also doesn’t harm anyone, neither. But I’m for warnings in the thread title (for example) to let the people decide before viewing, if they might not like something. This is how I understand freedom and it is important to me.
Thanks for reading and have a nice day
Paweł
Actually, Wikipedia is considered by many to be one of the most accurate sites on the internet. It is constantly revised to contain the most current information and the information is peer-reviewed and corrected. You can’t just anonymously edit the text to alter facts; you must cite your sources, and attribute your email/identity to your additions and your information can be challenged and removed if found to be errant or propaganda.
Maybe there is more here than you realise. I know you have been a member for a few yeras, but i wounder if you really undertsand the relantionship between MM and many otehrs on the forum. I would suggest that the comments you are concerned about are not based on just the build in question but on MM’s posts in general.
As i mentioned before, i have never come across what you are claiming either on this site or any other. This is one of 2 SS diorama’s i did last year.
If any SS unit was going to draw condemnation from a largely American audiance, it would be this one. But i recieved nothing of what you are suggesting. So you might wnat to look a little further into the comments of MM’s post rather than make the assumption its about a PC brigade.
Beautiful dio
Doog:
Thanks for the vote of confidence in Wikipedia.
In that case, Wikipedia standards must have changed considerably since I first viewed a Wikipedia webpage perhaps ten years ago.
The historical accuracy of the page I viewed at the time was so obviously wrong that I shunned the website.
As for Wikipedia today:
I do note that comments are now being added to web pages such as the text at the top of this webpage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tootoosis
However, it would be helpful if whoever posted the notation:" This article needs additional citations for verification" had also noted those sections or statements which have not been verified. I do not see any obvious mention of what requires verification within such an article- or did I miss something in the references section?
Perhaps clicking on each hyperlink and sifting through every related web page is necessary in order to discover the reason why additional citations are needed?
.
In view of this thread’s title, I hope my post is suitably PC …[whstl]
Certainly a nice dio.
Pawel thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I should have added one more: “I’m sorry if this offended you”.
You probably aren’t, really.
Why should you be?
Good old Amazon is now bombarding me with offers for books about the SS.
Noooooooooooo!!! says Mr. Bill
I guess I must be the lucky one.
So far, no pop-ups about Oujé-Bougoumo or the Wapos Falcon.[^o)]