Social Historical Documentaries From The Opposition?

Tools    





matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Every documentary I have seen are all from the "winning" side and it seems like every WWII documentary is the same.. I'm not really interested in history that has no film, no archives. I actually like to see "everyday" life in even the most catastrophic circumstances, because most of us know the horrific events.

I'd love to see documentaries from Germany, Japan, Italy and see their reasons, motives, whatever.



That's hard to find I'd say. Herzog documentaries always show the both sides of the same coin, never forgetting to mention in what side the director is.

To find the German side you'd have to see their propaganda during the war, or to read the books they wrote (theirs many). To find their point of view after the war, I'm afraid you would only find people saying they were following orders, like it's shown in the documentary Einsatzgruppen: The Nazi Death Squads , one of the most complete documentaries of WW2, beware it has shocking scenes.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
That's hard to find I'd say. Herzog documentaries always show the both sides of the same coin, never forgetting to mention in what side the director is.

To find the German side you'd have to see their propaganda during the war, or to read the books they wrote (theirs many). To find their point of view after the war, I'm afraid you would only find people saying they were following orders, like it's shown in the documentary Einsatzgruppen: The Nazi Death Squads , one of the most complete documentaries of WW2, beware it has shocking scenes.

I'm not averse to shocking scenes, but to just see war footage is of no interest to me. I want to catch the zeitgeist; to be a fly on the wall. I like the everyday person talking, or even higher level bureaucrats, especially during the war, because once the war was over, it seemed like German (scientists, especially) were changing their tune to find asylum, employment, and many of them were accepted to the US, USSR to learn, to make "the bomb".


Another thing I can never find (even e-mail guys like Chomsky) on the transition between revolutions. What happens when the revolution is over, that transition between two economic systems for example - that whole process, and again, fresh interviews from people who had to endure so much change.



"How tall is King Kong ?"
Not certain I get what you mean. Scientific documentaries are fairly recent, and often deliberately boring (to eschew disruptive artsy bias and temptations). Even Flaherty's oft-cited Nanook is largely staged and artificial. Journalistic documentaries are often more propaganda than documents (well, propaganda is an object of information in itself, at a certain degree). If that's what you are after, there's a lot. Think of all the newsreels that were showed in cinemas during WW2, in particular in occupied France. Or all the propaganda films of USSR or Nazi Germany (Riefenstahl's work on Olympic games, etc).

There's also many ethnographic films that -as per ethnographic tradition- take the perspective of the dominated classes. I forgot its title, and it will be quite some work to find it again, but I remember a great documentary about Cuba, following and contrasting the parallel lives and perspectives of a privileged Castro supporter and of a struggling opponent (who, if I remember well, meet at the end). And of course, you have many "documentaries" on or by the "opposition" in the USA (opposition to the-secret-communist-anti-white-deep-state or whatever).

For the rest, I think it would be more productive to turn to academic literature, in ethnology or in history. There are many ways to grasp the popular perception of cultural moments if you're not contrived by audiovisual tools. There's interviews, letters, administrative documents. It ranges from the study of dreams during the nazi dictatorship (Beradt), to the oral folklore that reflect the cultural trauma of the conquista in South America (Wachtel), and many other forms of testimonies. Including about the post-USSR changes in East Europe. I mean, that's the very point of the anthropological discipline, grasping and reporting the collective worldviews of people from different places and time, seen as much "through their eyes" as possible. But visual anthropology is the tip of the iceberg, and not everything can be technically put in images. Especially when it comes to the past.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Not certain I get what you mean. Scientific documentaries are fairly recent, and often deliberately boring (to eschew disruptive artsy bias and temptations). Even Flaherty's oft-cited Nanook is largely staged and artificial. Journalistic documentaries are often more propaganda than documents (well, propaganda is an object of information in itself, at a certain degree). If that's what you are after, there's a lot. Think of all the newsreels that were showed in cinemas during WW2, in particular in occupied France. Or all the propaganda films of USSR or Nazi Germany (Riefenstahl's work on Olympic games, etc).

There's also many ethnographic films that -as per ethnographic tradition- take the perspective of the dominated classes. I forgot its title, and it will be quite some work to find it again, but I remember a great documentary about Cuba, following and contrasting the parallel lives and perspectives of a privileged Castro supporter and of a struggling opponent (who, if I remember well, meet at the end). And of course, you have many "documentaries" on or by the "opposition" in the USA (opposition to the-secret-communist-anti-white-deep-state or whatever).

For the rest, I think it would be more productive to turn to academic literature, in ethnology or in history. There are many ways to grasp the popular perception of cultural moments if you're not contrived by audiovisual tools. There's interviews, letters, administrative documents. It ranges from the study of dreams during the nazi dictatorship (Beradt), to the oral folklore that reflect the cultural trauma of the conquista in South America (Wachtel), and many other forms of testimonies. Including about the post-USSR changes in East Europe. I mean, that's the very point of the anthropological discipline, grasping and reporting the collective worldviews of people from different places and time, seen as much "through their eyes" as possible. But visual anthropology is the tip of the iceberg, and not everything can be technically put in images. Especially when it comes to the past.

I've seen Leni's movie, but not looking for a feature film. Let's say she made a documentary that explained the Nazi point of view -- even if its full of crap, incorrect... I'm curious what the average German saw, and how the changes happened.. As I said, I'd like to be a "fly on the wall" and to use a German word - zeitgeist.



I don't mind literature (if you have a link, I'd appreciate it), but I'm guessing millions of Germans aren't going to read academic journals. But the academic stuff I've read seems detached and too focused on bragging to their colleagues (it seems to me, anyway), when I would rather know what the average man or woman thought, lived. I also don't know if the average anthropological academic left their nice office except to drink wine with their middle-class friends, thus probably not having their pulse on the people, but interestingly enough, their so-called expertise might influence people into thinking his/her reality in book format was what life was like.



"How tall is King Kong ?"
I don't mind literature (if you have a link, I'd appreciate it), but I'm guessing millions of Germans aren't going to read academic journals. But the academic stuff I've read seems detached and too focused on bragging to their colleagues (it seems to me, anyway), when I would rather know what the average man or woman thought, lived. I also don't know if the average anthropological academic left their nice office except to drink wine with their middle-class friends, thus probably not having their pulse on the people, but interestingly enough, their so-called expertise might influence people into thinking his/her reality in book format was what life was like.
Well, the average academic had a life, and a family, and a favorite bar. In fact, there's the journal of Agnčs Humbert that describes her everyday life under the Vichy regime. And of course, on the linguistic side, Victor Klemperer who was analyzing in real time the changes of German society under the dictatorship (there's a film on his work, actually, which I mentioned in the "documentaries" thread : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0897265/ ).

But, as I said, the principle of anthropology, since 1918, is immersion. That is, living with the people whose voice and vision you aim to report, and not with the superficiality of a journalist, but long term, through the mutual confidence and understanding that only time and emotional investment can build (at the risk of losing yourself and "going native", which isn't bad in itself, but becomes personal and ditches the intended work). So yes, anthropology is all about, and uniquely, explicitly, ferociously about, the "pulse of the people". Be those people your neighbors from whatever club or current or corporation, or be them faraway members of some remote tribe. In fact, it's about seeing things simultaneously from within, and with the distant curiosity of a child or an alien (I've already used in a classroom the toilet scene of John Carpenter's Starman to illustrate fieldwork, if it gives you an idea). In contrast, sociology is more about quantitative statistics, and broad pictures, but ethnology is more about qualitative studies, touching the meat of life (not sure how to phrase it). Not speculating about what people have in mind, but seeking it directly. Of course there are convergences (many sociologists would start shrieking in front of such a description of their work, some of them would be right, there's good "qualitative sociology").

But yes, the reports are then pretty often dry, technical and jargon-filled. Because indeed monographs are usually written for the peer (who else has the patience and curiosity to grasp another culture's outlook ? it's "work" after all), and because trying to sound objective and detached (not emotionally biased, and very cautious and self-aware by these biases) is the point. Style doesn't make it less informative, only less directly entertaining. It's only a matter of language, the described facts are just as fun and interesting whichever the words (sometimes, the detached scientific language makes it even funnier - I mean, try reading some of Erving Goffman's work on our public behaviors and keep a straight face, his professional clinical tone only makes us look more ridiculous in our everyday lives). And of course, some researchers (such as Nigel Barley) fully embrace the comedic aspects, and as such become more broadly readable. But usually, serious scientific questions (about human societies just as anything) get answered in a serious tone. And that's what science is : trying to be as objective and accurate as possible in a description.

Also, it's a jungle (of books, articles, etc). I haven't directly studied the matters that interest you, so, I don't have many sources at hand. I mentioned Victor Klemperer (a hero of mine, but he's very focused on language, that's the angle through which he describes his society), and Charlotte Beradt who risked her life to collect testimonies about dreams (what Germans were dreaming at night is a terrible window on their mental state during nazism). There's also Christopher Browning's work on the "ordinary men" that constituted nazi death squads in 1942. There's collections of letters, written by members of the Wehrmacht (I have a book of them collected by a certain Marie Moutier, but it's all in french, I suppose equivalent works exist in English). And I just found a copy of Timothy Mulligan's "Neither Sharks nor Wolves", a study of nazi submariners. I found Daniel Schneidermann's extraordinary "Berlin 1933" quite enlightening about the general climate of the era, but its angle is the study of newspaper articles worldwide (it still tells a lot about how the rise of Hitler was perceived abroad), but it hasn't been translated to english as far as I know. Another fascinating book, in french, was Pascal Ory's study on nazi comic books, which also indirectly hints at the cultural common sense of the era. And there's Rudolph Herzog's studies about humor in Nazi Germany, which jokes were circulating, what the cabarets dared laughing about and how, etc.

It's all quite indirect, because we cannot send field anthropologists back in time. We do with what we have. But we also have a lot of direct biographical testimonies. For instance, Karl Kraus had written a lot about his experience in Germany's nazi society, that's first hand testimony on people's discourses and behaviors. This may be more specifically what you're after. But it's one man's voice, you'll have to combine it with others.

Anyway, understanding the subjectivity of cultures and cultural moments is not an orphan endeavor. There's a whole science of people sharing this precise curiosity. And all the people who tried to grasp the mentalities and mindsets of totalitarian societies, a lot of whom have understood that the only valid approach is down-top, starting with the subjectivities of the involved individuals. There's nothing worse than speculating from outside, and just projecting what one would deem "logical" for another person to feel. Anthropology breaks this. But it's tough work, and can't be improvised, it's not about tourism, journalism or vox-pops.

My advice would be to... start with some of these sources ? Then dig into their own bibliographies at the end of the books ? Maybe explore a bit of "sociology of nazism" and see if you find there something with the relevant approach ? It depends on how deep and far you mean to go. I tend to get a bit obsessive when an aspect of human life puzzles me too much.

Failing that, there's always fiction, even if it's a bit more dangerous, as it embraces imagination and invention. You never know what is well researched or what is pure speculation. Philip Kerr's novels, for instance, take place in nazi germany, so, it does display a bit of its atmosphere. I wouldn't rely too much on that, but it's still considered quality. So, there's that.



Every documentary I have seen are all from the "winning" side and it seems like every WWII documentary is the same.. I'm not really interested in history that has no film, no archives. I actually like to see "everyday" life in even the most catastrophic circumstances, because most of us know the horrific events.

I'd love to see documentaries from Germany, Japan, Italy and see their reasons, motives, whatever.
“History is written by the victors”

I would say it’s hard to find many Ww2 docs from the German perspective, as nowadays Germans are taught in the school curriculum how terrible the Nazis were. I doubt there’s a lot of German filmmakers who want to focus on how “evil” their ancestors were.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Well, the average academic had a life, and a family, and a favorite bar. In fact, there's the journal of Agnčs Humbert that describes her everyday life under the Vichy regime. And of course, on the linguistic side, Victor Klemperer who was analyzing in real time the changes of German society under the dictatorship (there's a film on his work, actually, which I mentioned in the "documentaries" thread : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0897265/ ).

But, as I said, the principle of anthropology, since 1918, is immersion. That is, living with the people whose voice and vision you aim to report, and not with the superficiality of a journalist, but long term, through the mutual confidence and understanding that only time and emotional investment can build (at the risk of losing yourself and "going native", which isn't bad in itself, but becomes personal and ditches the intended work). So yes, anthropology is all about, and uniquely, explicitly, ferociously about, the "pulse of the people". Be those people your neighbors from whatever club or current or corporation, or be them faraway members of some remote tribe. In fact, it's about seeing things simultaneously from within, and with the distant curiosity of a child or an alien (I've already used in a classroom the toilet scene of John Carpenter's Starman to illustrate fieldwork, if it gives you an idea). In contrast, sociology is more about quantitative statistics, and broad pictures, but ethnology is more about qualitative studies, touching the meat of life (not sure how to phrase it). Not speculating about what people have in mind, but seeking it directly. Of course there are convergences (many sociologists would start shrieking in front of such a description of their work, some of them would be right, there's good "qualitative sociology").

But yes, the reports are then pretty often dry, technical and jargon-filled. Because indeed monographs are usually written for the peer (who else has the patience and curiosity to grasp another culture's outlook ? it's "work" after all), and because trying to sound objective and detached (not emotionally biased, and very cautious and self-aware by these biases) is the point. Style doesn't make it less informative, only less directly entertaining. It's only a matter of language, the described facts are just as fun and interesting whichever the words (sometimes, the detached scientific language makes it even funnier - I mean, try reading some of Erving Goffman's work on our public behaviors and keep a straight face, his professional clinical tone only makes us look more ridiculous in our everyday lives). And of course, some researchers (such as Nigel Barley) fully embrace the comedic aspects, and as such become more broadly readable. But usually, serious scientific questions (about human societies just as anything) get answered in a serious tone. And that's what science is : trying to be as objective and accurate as possible in a description.

Also, it's a jungle (of books, articles, etc). I haven't directly studied the matters that interest you, so, I don't have many sources at hand. I mentioned Victor Klemperer (a hero of mine, but he's very focused on language, that's the angle through which he describes his society), and Charlotte Beradt who risked her life to collect testimonies about dreams (what Germans were dreaming at night is a terrible window on their mental state during nazism). There's also Christopher Browning's work on the "ordinary men" that constituted nazi death squads in 1942. There's collections of letters, written by members of the Wehrmacht (I have a book of them collected by a certain Marie Moutier, but it's all in french, I suppose equivalent works exist in English). And I just found a copy of Timothy Mulligan's "Neither Sharks nor Wolves", a study of nazi submariners. I found Daniel Schneidermann's extraordinary "Berlin 1933" quite enlightening about the general climate of the era, but its angle is the study of newspaper articles worldwide (it still tells a lot about how the rise of Hitler was perceived abroad), but it hasn't been translated to english as far as I know. Another fascinating book, in french, was Pascal Ory's study on nazi comic books, which also indirectly hints at the cultural common sense of the era. And there's Rudolph Herzog's studies about humor in Nazi Germany, which jokes were circulating, what the cabarets dared laughing about and how, etc.

It's all quite indirect, because we cannot send field anthropologists back in time. We do with what we have. But we also have a lot of direct biographical testimonies. For instance, Karl Kraus had written a lot about his experience in Germany's nazi society, that's first hand testimony on people's discourses and behaviors. This may be more specifically what you're after. But it's one man's voice, you'll have to combine it with others.

Anyway, understanding the subjectivity of cultures and cultural moments is not an orphan endeavor. There's a whole science of people sharing this precise curiosity. And all the people who tried to grasp the mentalities and mindsets of totalitarian societies, a lot of whom have understood that the only valid approach is down-top, starting with the subjectivities of the involved individuals. There's nothing worse than speculating from outside, and just projecting what one would deem "logical" for another person to feel. Anthropology breaks this. But it's tough work, and can't be improvised, it's not about tourism, journalism or vox-pops.

My advice would be to... start with some of these sources ? Then dig into their own bibliographies at the end of the books ? Maybe explore a bit of "sociology of nazism" and see if you find there something with the relevant approach ? It depends on how deep and far you mean to go. I tend to get a bit obsessive when an aspect of human life puzzles me too much.

Failing that, there's always fiction, even if it's a bit more dangerous, as it embraces imagination and invention. You never know what is well researched or what is pure speculation. Philip Kerr's novels, for instance, take place in nazi germany, so, it does display a bit of its atmosphere. I wouldn't rely too much on that, but it's still considered quality. So, there's that.

Thanks for the response and all sources. I love reading bibliographies just for the sources. I didn't want to belittle academics, I just like random stratification. I've been to Germany a handful of times, but that's a topic too sensitive to talk about, and friends of mine would joke about it. I also would guess I would be receiving the standard line.


I love to discover the gulf between perception and reality. For example, I read an interview of Jimmy Hoffa in Playboy. I went searching for the origin and for $5 was able to hear this amazing and candid (and one of his last) interviews, and I love to see what the authors leaves in, and what he includes - what's important to him, and then asking myself why (besides commercial reasons). I read somewhere "Autobiography is history" and kinda agree. The news of the day might dominate, but there's also the other things that might be a by-product.


Or using a source like newspapers.com, finding someone to study, and going chronologically to see how someone changes, and how someone describes a past event for the third time. It usually changes a bit, and I try to find out why.



I'm very interested in linguistics, and curious how its used for propaganda (but I'm generally more interested in the origins of words).. I'll have to translate this piecemeal, but I did find some e-books by Agnčs Humbert and Maria Moutier and noticed the name Hannah Arendt on the first page of "Lettres de la Wehrmacht". I'll post a link of "Language Does Not Lie" below for you or anyone else who might be interested.


I'm surprised I didn't think of this, but I have found humor (stand-up comedy in particular) to be a great time capsule (and have spent every remaining monies purchasing old audio from Pacifica Archives and 3rd parties).



You mentioned not being able to send anthropologists back in time, which is why I emphasize the work that was published or written at the time of the events, before one could contemplate future events and then revisit with changes, as opposed to unvarnished history, even if opinions change over time, which is normal in a period of change. That change of just one person is fascinating to me.






Every documentary I have seen are all from the "winning" side and it seems like every WWII documentary is the same.. I'm not really interested in history that has no film, no archives. I actually like to see "everyday" life in even the most catastrophic circumstances, because most of us know the horrific events.

I'd love to see documentaries from Germany, Japan, Italy and see their reasons, motives, whatever.
I'm sure you've seen the work of the great documentarian, Leni Riefenstahl, who produced stunning films of The Third Reich. Her most famous is Triumph of the Will. She did many others including her coverage of the 1936 Olympics in Berlin: Olympia - Festival of Nations.

Full films of "Triumph" are available. On YouTube, most are junked up by commentary. Here is a 3 minute clip:



"How tall is King Kong ?"
I didn't want to belittle academics,
Well, some criticism and suspicion is fair. It just happen that the perspective that interests you is precisely the focus of that scientific discipline. But there's also been times where life was made to fit theories more that theories were made to fit life, and it may still be the case in bad science (the fun of ethnology is that humans are always too complex to fit in theoretical molds, but sometimes theorists get too proud and too attached to theirs). And there's often this stupid wall between scientific corpus and common knowledge, due to the "talking to each other" aspect that you pointed out. Fortunately, there are also currents, in academia, trying to bridge different modes of knowledge diffusion and construction, through art, open publishing, etc. We'll see how it'll evolve.

I've been to Germany a handful of times, but that's a topic too sensitive to talk about, and friends of mine would joke about it. I also would guess I would be receiving the standard line.
"Don't mention the war". Yeah, I also noticed a generational difference with that. Kids joke more easily about this. It's still not easy to ask yourself what your grandparents were doing in WW2, when you're German. Arendt does speak of the post-war Germany, and the population's ambiguous feelings. There's also a documentary (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8242480/) about former SS, some of which show an icy lack of remorse (not too unexpected, on an investment level : you cannot commit such things and then allow your brain to look back and feel wrong about it). But again, this question is distinct from the feelings of ordinary, non-involved citizen.

I love to discover the gulf between perception and reality
That's always fun whatever the subject, especially with stuff that has been twisted by hollywoodian romanticism a lot. That's what makes, for instance, books about the Old West, or pirates, or the physical implications of micro-gravity, so amusing. The contrast with our movies and children books. And sometimes, on the opposite, the conformity.

I'm very interested in linguistics, and curious how its used for propaganda
That's my angle. That's why I could give you some references but not much. My interest in nazi Germany (as one example) is from the propaganda and mass manipulation perspective. So, it touches the matter of public perception and collective representations, but isn't directly focused on it. I know how the public used to "look elsewhere", to avoid asking themselves the awkward questions, to treat things as temporary, to view policies as "exaggerated" answers to a "real" problem, etc. But I mostly look at how it's articulated to political discourses, framing, metaphors, implicits, iconographies, etc.

And of course, we shouldn't essentialize. There's never been "the people", anywhere, ever. The reactions to the situation were diverse, with diverse levels of awareness, outrage, impotent rage, complicity, endorsement, resistance, etc. No population has ever been homogeneous in its attitudes and feelings.

I'm surprised I didn't think of this, but I have found humor (stand-up comedy in particular) to be a great time capsule
Then you might be interested in Werner Finck, a German stand-up comedian, partially protected by his popularity, but who was closely watched and had to get more and more subtle with his attacks against the nazi regime. But his position and the fact that he had a very supportive, complicit public, is also telling of a certain unpopularity of the nazi government in Germany.

That change of just one person is fascinating to me.
I'm a big fan of Tintin comics, and the evolution of their author is very interesting. He started his comics very young, with a very conservative, religious, rather pro-nazi Belgian nationalist background. And his first stories were very racist, antisemitic, colonialist. But he evolved with the years, and his later stories were deconstructing his earlier ones. His interviews (and letters) are fascinating, full of doubt and self-questioning. He ended up a great guy in my view (though some people who actually met him claim that he never overcame his antisemitism). Still, a witness saw him cry at a projection of a documentary on the Shoah, saying that "we didn't know", and adding in a whisper "we didn't want to know". Which is very consistent with studies of the German public. Denial is a fundamental component of genocide.

Still, yes, people change. Günter Grass had joined the hitlerjugend as a kid. Who cares ? We're not reading the kid Günter, we're reading the older one who opposes fascism. That kid had ceased to exist. And that's one issue that I have with today's trend, in pop culture, of defining and judging people on who they were or what they did forty years earlier. It's so often irrelevant to what someone is now, its like trying to punish a different person. If they're not the same, then the target is missed, no matter what. Whether it's unfair or not. People should be judged on who they are currently, they cannot morph back to the culprit.

But it's a frustrating thought. And again, there's a gulf between this reality and all the much more satisfactory fictions of revenge and justice that we're being fed by Hollywood. And I doubt we'll ever manage to perceive the world through other lenses than the fictions we're willingly overwhelmed with.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Well, some criticism and suspicion is fair. It just happen that the perspective that interests you is precisely the focus of that scientific discipline. But there's also been times where life was made to fit theories more that theories were made to fit life, and it may still be the case in bad science (the fun of ethnology is that humans are always too complex to fit in theoretical molds, but sometimes theorists get too proud and too attached to theirs). And there's often this stupid wall between scientific corpus and common knowledge, due to the "talking to each other" aspect that you pointed out. Fortunately, there are also currents, in academia, trying to bridge different modes of knowledge diffusion and construction, through art, open publishing, etc. We'll see how it'll evolve.


"Don't mention the war". Yeah, I also noticed a generational difference with that. Kids joke more easily about this. It's still not easy to ask yourself what your grandparents were doing in WW2, when you're German. Arendt does speak of the post-war Germany, and the population's ambiguous feelings. There's also a documentary (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8242480/) about former SS, some of which show an icy lack of remorse (not too unexpected, on an investment level : you cannot commit such things and then allow your brain to look back and feel wrong about it). But again, this question is distinct from the feelings of ordinary, non-involved citizen.


That's always fun whatever the subject, especially with stuff that has been twisted by hollywoodian romanticism a lot. That's what makes, for instance, books about the Old West, or pirates, or the physical implications of micro-gravity, so amusing. The contrast with our movies and children books. And sometimes, on the opposite, the conformity.


That's my angle. That's why I could give you some references but not much. My interest in nazi Germany (as one example) is from the propaganda and mass manipulation perspective. So, it touches the matter of public perception and collective representations, but isn't directly focused on it. I know how the public used to "look elsewhere", to avoid asking themselves the awkward questions, to treat things as temporary, to view policies as "exaggerated" answers to a "real" problem, etc. But I mostly look at how it's articulated to political discourses, framing, metaphors, implicits, iconographies, etc.

And of course, we shouldn't essentialize. There's never been "the people", anywhere, ever. The reactions to the situation were diverse, with diverse levels of awareness, outrage, impotent rage, complicity, endorsement, resistance, etc. No population has ever been homogeneous in its attitudes and feelings.


Then you might be interested in Werner Finck, a German stand-up comedian, partially protected by his popularity, but who was closely watched and had to get more and more subtle with his attacks against the nazi regime. But his position and the fact that he had a very supportive, complicit public, is also telling of a certain unpopularity of the nazi government in Germany.


I'm a big fan of Tintin comics, and the evolution of their author is very interesting. He started his comics very young, with a very conservative, religious, rather pro-nazi Belgian nationalist background. And his first stories were very racist, antisemitic, colonialist. But he evolved with the years, and his later stories were deconstructing his earlier ones. His interviews (and letters) are fascinating, full of doubt and self-questioning. He ended up a great guy in my view (though some people who actually met him claim that he never overcame his antisemitism). Still, a witness saw him cry at a projection of a documentary on the Shoah, saying that "we didn't know", and adding in a whisper "we didn't want to know". Which is very consistent with studies of the German public. Denial is a fundamental component of genocide.

Still, yes, people change. Günter Grass had joined the hitlerjugend as a kid. Who cares ? We're not reading the kid Günter, we're reading the older one who opposes fascism. That kid had ceased to exist. And that's one issue that I have with today's trend, in pop culture, of defining and judging people on who they were or what they did forty years earlier. It's so often irrelevant to what someone is now, its like trying to punish a different person. If they're not the same, then the target is missed, no matter what. Whether it's unfair or not. People should be judged on who they are currently, they cannot morph back to the culprit.

But it's a frustrating thought. And again, there's a gulf between this reality and all the much more satisfactory fictions of revenge and justice that we're being fed by Hollywood. And I doubt we'll ever manage to perceive the world through other lenses than the fictions we're willingly overwhelmed with.

Since about 5am, I've been thinking about what to reply back with, but I also think it would be best for me to send it via private message, because I just had a thread that was closed, despite it not being political at all. It was a story about how the Chinese elite don't like the idea of young Chinese adults "laying flat" - where their job, money, status isn't revered by the young, especially the 12 hour work day for low money when they can avoid being blind consumers and take a less paying job that gives them more joy.


So, if you're interested, I can send you a PM.



"How tall is King Kong ?"
I just had a thread that was closed, despite it not being political at all. It was a story about how the Chinese elite don't like the idea of young Chinese adults "laying flat"
I remember that thread, I had participated in it. Of course it was going to be political, as it's about societal views on work and retribution, moral economy, and all that. Very left/right contentious matters. I think that interrupting it before it devolved into straightforward political arguments was a safe bet.

Anyway, I'm not adverse to PMs. But I'm not very sociable, and very unreliable in e-communication, so, don't necessarily expect extremely high reactivity.