Pure EvilSlate has an article up by Richard Cohen in which the moral terror of the "U-Boat Watch" is examined. Little Earl and I have often discussed Slate's propensity for publishing articles that exaggerate the importance of their topic and this one in particular stands out as an excellent example. Cohen begins the article, "I confess to being in the market for an expensive watch. I say I confess because I know the watch I buy for a lot of money will not be more accurate than a watch I could have bought for a lot less, but there you have it." Ah yes, rich liberal guilt is a wonderful way to start a useless article. After a brief explanation of the U-Boat's history, complete with obligatory Churchill quote, Cohen tells us about other evil consumer goods. There's the "Hitler Car", KKK robes, and even Warhol's Mao paintings.
The problem here is that none of these things are actually evil, nor do they promote evil. The car and the robes could be considered genuine historical objects. They aren't very meaningful historical objects, but you can't be too picky now that we've dug up all the interesting stuff and put it in museums. As for the Warhol painting, I always assumed that the point of his colorful reproductions was to show the absurdity of pop imagery. You like bright colors? Here's Elvis, and evil Mao, and a car crash! I'm pretty sure the Hitler car doesn't have a mind of it's own, unerringly aiming for Jewish pedestrians as you tool on down the road. And I'm absolutely positive that Warhol's Mao paintings did not launch an international surge in the popularity of Chinese dictators.
The only thing this article accomplishes is creating a spurious moral hierarchy which justifies spending thousands of dollars on a watch which is no better than a $20 piece from Big 5. Cuz hey, at least you aren't buying the U-Boat Watch!
2 comments:
I actually found this article to be one of the more mixed ones. But oh yes, the bad parts are bad. Here's what I'd say:
Parts that were fine:
"Still, the fact that the D-Type has been called "Hitler's race car" is enough for me. I could not slip into the car without thinking of how it came about."
"You might think I am particularly sensitive to such matters since I am a Cohen of a certain age and therefore unable to look on the bright side of Nazism. Maybe so. I love my Wagner, but I cannot listen without also envisioning the guests at Hitler's mountain home, the Berghof, forced to listen to the Führer's beloved "Ring Cycle" yet again."
"There is no way I can look at Warhol's Mao and not think of these things and wonder if any of the people who own one are familiar with Mao's history."
"Clearly, I am some sort of fuddy-duddy."
Parts that were obnoxious:
"The despicable U-Boat watch."
"In other words, who could be so ahistorical, ignorant, or just plain tasteless to wear something on their wrist that immediately brings to mind, among other things, the ovens of Auschwitz?"
"That is the part that bothers me—they accept the watch on the same amoral terms as those who ran the U-boats themselves—self-described brave men working at the tough business of war and not, in their own turtle-necked-Das Boot way, complicit in the deaths of millions."
To say that YOU, THE WRITER are uncomfortable with these products is one thing, but to try to pass scathing moral judgement on other people just for the hell of it is another.
Bravo Yaggoth. I found your critique of this article very insightful and interesting (yes, that was two 'i' words in a row). I enjoyed your brief analysis on the difference between peoples perception of things and the things themselves. Objects are not evil, they are only used for evil. A swastika is only a pretty pinwheel until someone slaps it on a flag, and even then it doesn't continue to be evil outside of that moment.
I want to claim that Honda Civics and Priest's robes are now evil. Maybe I can get a better price for them on ebay now.
Post a Comment