PDA

View Full Version : New trading card game based on Adolf Hitler



the8thark
02-09-2011, 05:49 PM
New trading card game based on Adolf Hitler and other dictators.
German Card Game, Tyrants, Is Threatened With Legal Action For Its Use Of Swastika On Hitler Card | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/German-Card-Game-Tyrants-Is-Threatened-With-Legal-Action-For-Its-Use-Of-Swastika-On-Hitler-Card/Article/201102215925739?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_A rticle_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15925739_German_Card_Game%2C_Tyrants%2 C_Is_Threatened_With_Legal_Action_For_Its_Use_Of_S wastika_On_Hitler_Card)

The German makers of a card game based on history's worst dictators have been threatened with legal action over Adolf Hitler.

harryb2448
02-09-2011, 06:07 PM
That is surprising.

The swastika goes back to the ancient Egyptians and the Vikings used it as expression of Thor, legs of the swastika as his hammers. Chinese used it as an expression of good luck and happiness thousands of years ago, so do not see how anyone can 'claim' it.

Have also read native American Indians used it on the tepee, but that was believed to be copying Erik the Red's Viking logo on early settlement in The New World.

baggss
02-09-2011, 06:11 PM
That is surprising.

Not really. The National Socialist Party and their symbols are illegal in Germany and have been since about 1947. The use of images or symbols in any manner is against current German law, this includes for personal use. Anywhere else in the world it wouldn't be a big deal though.

the8thark
02-09-2011, 06:15 PM
I would ban the game. Not for the use of the swastika. But for the fact the game glorifies some of the most vicious and cruel dictators off all time. The are all evil evil people that don't deserve to be portrayed like this.

baggss
02-09-2011, 06:20 PM
I would ban the game. Not for the use of the swastika. But for the fact the game glorifies some of the most vicious and cruel dictators off all time. The are all evil evil people that don't deserve to be portrayed like this.

I think that's bit harsh. A free society should be able to express itself as it sees fit without being told what they can not play in a game. If you go that rout then lots of video games should be banned because the glorify violence and killing in much the same manner. It's a slippery slope.

I understand the German laws, I just don't agree with them.

ClockworkWorld
02-09-2011, 06:32 PM
I understand the German laws, I just don't agree with them.

My wife is from Germany, and it's given us some... interesting feelings about that topic. It's actually come up a lot since we married and she came here. Tragic really how the German people today have to deal with it now, decades removed from anything to do with those times. She hears remarks based on her accent quite regular here about how evil she is and that she should go back where she came from. Purely on her accent. We never imagined it to be honest when we got married. I hope that all gets out of people's system by the time our daughter is old enough to pick up on it. So I can understand fully the German people and government wanting to seperate themselves from those tragic times. It's a big problem for them even now.

That being said though, I do agree. You can't be a free society, and then ban this or that... I mean, I get the laws, and especially with her feelings and what we've dealt with since deciding to have our life here rather than there. But you do indeed move down a slippery slope when you start telling people in a free society what they can do as far as their own expression and passtimes with games and stuff :\

baggss
02-09-2011, 07:11 PM
My wife is from Germany, and it's given us some... interesting feelings about that topic. It's actually come up a lot since we married and she came here. Tragic really how the German people today have to deal with it now, decades removed from anything to do with those times. She hears remarks based on her accent quite regular here about how evil she is and that she should go back where she came from. Purely on her accent. We never imagined it to be honest when we got married. I hope that all gets out of people's system by the time our daughter is old enough to pick up on it. So I can understand fully the German people and government wanting to seperate themselves from those tragic times. It's a big problem for them even now.

That being said though, I do agree. You can't be a free society, and then ban this or that... I mean, I get the laws, and especially with her feelings and what we've dealt with since deciding to have our life here rather than there. But you do indeed move down a slippery slope when you start telling people in a free society what they can do as far as their own expression and passtimes with games and stuff :\

Very insightful! Thanks for sharing that. +1 Rep.

ClockworkWorld
02-09-2011, 07:29 PM
Thanks! :) And no problem!

She doesn't agree with me on this opinion, but I actually think that Germany should let up on those laws. I spent a lot of time there, and as a people they are very ashamed of that time. I understand it on one hand, but on the other... It's not the German people of today's fault, the blood isn't on their hands, and they should be very proud of the way they turned the place around! I think the laws give into the shame they feel. I wish they could just keep their heads up about it and not let these things get them down! Instead of looking at Hitler and that time as something to be shamed about, they should use it to say "look where we were, and look at where we are now!".

the8thark
02-09-2011, 07:32 PM
100% free speech does not work. Well in my country anyway. For example if you say something bad about someone, something really bad, they take you to court for slander and for soiling their reputation. Under a totally free speech society you could not do this cause anyone could say anything, even disrespecting things about others.

So I am of the view that too much of anything is bad. Too little of anything is bad too. That's why speech in my opinion needs to be slightly moderated. Being able to slander others at will is wrong. But not being able to speak your mind cause of censorship is bad too. It's all about the right balance.

RavingMac
02-09-2011, 07:37 PM
She hears remarks based on her accent quite regular here about how evil she is and that she should go back where she came from. Purely on her accent. We never imagined it to be honest when we got married. I hope that all gets out of people's system by the time our daughter is old enough to pick up on it. . . ..:\
That I find very interesting . . . It almost has to be regional. My wife is third generation German on both sides of her family (from St Louis) and I have never heard anything negative anywhere regarding her ancestry, her parents, or her grand parents. In fact, I've never heard anything directly negative about german's in general (other than they tend to be hard headed--I've been married too long to give my opinion on that one). :)
So, based on my experience I would have to say there is hope.

baggss
02-09-2011, 07:44 PM
100% free speech does not work. Well in my country anyway. For example if you say something bad about someone, something really bad, they take you to court for slander and for soiling their reputation. Under a totally free speech society you could not do this cause anyone could say anything, even disrespecting things about others.

So I am of the view that too much of anything is bad. Too little of anything is bad too. That's why speech in my opinion needs to be slightly moderated. Being able to slander others at will is wrong. But not being able to speak your mind cause of censorship is bad too. It's all about the right balance.

Personal slander is a different story. A better example would be to tell Ausies that they can't speak about their beginings as penal colony and that they should be ashamed of it. Telling them that any mention of it, any use of the history in any manner would get them stiff jail time. Now that's not really a fair comparison from a historical perspective, but I think it illustrates the point.

ClockworkWorld
02-09-2011, 07:46 PM
That is interesting! It's happened in the three states we've lived in here (Washington, Arizona and Oklahoma.) Washington state is where it happened by far the least. I take it by third generation you mean she was born/raised in the U.S.? Perhaps it's the accent then? Though when I say regularly, I don't necessarily mean daily by any means. It actually has made her quite shy, often I'll be the one making calls for our home business. Typically it starts with her accent and a question about where she came from. Then a joke about understanding her and so on.

I'm glad to hear there is hope! :)

the8thark
02-09-2011, 07:51 PM
Personal slander is a different story. A better example would be to tell Ausies that they can't speak about their beginings as penal colony and that they should be ashamed of it. Telling them that any mention of it, any use of the history in any manner would get them stiff jail time. Now that's not really a fair comparison from a historical perspective, but I think it illustrates the point.

Not really. Free speech is free speech. No matter what you say. I get your point totally. And I agree with the historical comparisons. But we don't go and make up trading card games to glamourise the people who slaughtered the aboriginals. If anyone did that here in Australia I'm sure many black people and quite a few whites would be outraged.

Many people still call Australia day, invasion day instead. And that happened over 200 years ago now. We all can't be like Steve Jobs and forget the past totally and move on :).

XJ-linux
02-09-2011, 08:31 PM
Much ado about nothing. Hitler and most of the Nazis are dead, and the rest are growing old in Argentina or at their secret base in Antarctica, or wherever... I can see how it's offensive, but I can see how it's history as well. You can't erase history until at least 1 or 2 generations have grown up without knowing it. Give it 75 or 100 years and 9/11 will seem as real as "Remember the Maine!" and people will be in awe as to how we saw the Patriot Act as reasonable. Nazis will seem about as scary as the Huns.

I think everyone has their own personal lines as far as what is useful free speech and what is destructive. We don't get much say in what's permitted and what's restricted for the most part. Free speech is important though, and I don't know quite why some free speech seems to be OK and other free speech is verboten. For example, in the US, we actually spend government money (or more accurately taxpayer money) to publicly display "art" depicting Jesus in various compromising sexual positions. Yet, if you talk of burning a Koran or that Mohammed was a pedophile (by today's standards) you get a call from the POTUS telling you to stop. It's all very confusing to me. It would seem favoring one over the other breeds division, entitlement, disenfranchisement and animosity - the opposite of what it's theoretically trying to protect.

From what I've read in the Federalist Papers, the concept of free speech (in the USA) was originally conceived as relating to having the freedom to say unflattering things about the government. It didn't have anything to do with expressing your originality, feelings, or musings on subjects outside of governance or law. In the case of slander, common law of the day allowed a person to legally settle defamation, rumor and false testament in a field by blade or by bullet if desired. That is to say, the government let people settle their personal issues with free speech between individuals outside the judicial system. It wasn't felt that the business of regulating personal free speech was a tenable arena for government to manage due to the fluid and malleable nature of personal free speech and opinion.

Were this the case today, perhaps there would be less of the vitriolic rhetoric we hear so much about lately in the news. At the very least, a good number of those with big mouths and no tail to back it up might be a bit less spontaneous in voicing their beliefs at every chance. Maybe we'd even have a more polite society, or a society that thought a bit more before it pumped out Nazi games, offensive art or malicious rumor.

baggss
02-09-2011, 09:26 PM
If anyone did that here in Australia I'm sure many black people and quite a few whites would be outraged.

They might be outraged, but it wouldn't be patently against the law. BIG difference there. I'm willing to bet that in the end the game wouldn't be outlawed and the makers jailed. Sure it might be considered bad taste, but it would probably still be legal.